Mister Defense

??? is this a revised deal from the one a few weeks ago? Why no clarification or explanation in the OP of what this is? Bad post, obviously.

Thanks for your over the top praise of my analysis abilities--but I believe it was more than just me who felt that way, though I did not care about that at the time. But great take on Josh. I did not know which QB we should draft, kept going back and forth. But at one point, I have to admit, I was thinking the other Josh was the guy, the one most ready to play. But I was operating out of ignorance, as I had not seen almost any games played by the quarterbacks available. I just listened to what others said. But the conventional wisdom, and take by the experts often is wrong. And like in this case, comically so, though I am sure the Cardinals did not find it very funny.

Hmmm, seem to not be reading my posts... I thought what I thought at the time of the Miller signing, all on my own, based on what I knew about Miller and football. I did not look for confirmation of my views by others, but arrived at that all by myself. I did not look to see if the majority felt the same, or if one doctor may have a different opinion, but all by myself. I took full responsibility for my opinion at the time of his signing, and until now, that the Miller signing was a bad move, a bad risk. I have supported most of the moves Beane has made, but not this awful one--and did so at the time it happened. Check my posts at the time.. It sure seems I was correct on that and that you were wrong. But get over it--I have likely been wrong just as much or more than I have been right when it comes to the NFL and the Bills. You will likely be right on something soon and I will be wrong. Not on this though, obviously.

After I responded to your post you added a bizarre over the top praise of Miller from a doctor who sounds very lacking in objectivity. He sounds like Dr. Nick on the Simpsons. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rnpy3cC673o Again, JF, you are doing just what you have done in this conversation--first, using the fact that the majority may have felt as you did, and then, quoting one 'doctor'. It is okay if you take your knowledge gained from watching a lot of football, and, I assume, reading about it as well, and come to an intelligent, original decision. Calling the crowds' or one doctor's opinion evidence does not make it so. But I assume you know that.

Well, I know for sure that I believed the combination of factors--his big recent injury, the fact that he missed games each year with other injuries, and the fact that the traits that best defined his success, his speed and athleticism, were the traits of a younger, healthier man --were enough to cause me to think it was an awful move when Miller was signed, a bad risk. I am proud that you think I am the only one who was accurate on this in the entire world! Likely not the case, but thanks anyway.

Well, it is not revisionist history, was how I saw it at the time of the Miller signing, and also true for others! it is fine if that is the way you see it now, but some saw it differently. Correctly. So what you say is the actual revisionist history, inaccurate. Stating it emphatically as you do does not make it real. Teams not concerned with the fact that Milller was older than almost all high level pass rushers when signed, at 32, and turning 33 soon,, and who would be 37 at the end of the contract, who had a major injury just two seasons prior causing him to miss most of the season, and was a player whose game was based on his high end speed and athleticism would be very negligent in my book. How could they not be concerned? What you say, that it is revisionist history, is like saying those believing the Russel Wilson trade to Denver, or the Rodgers trade to the Jets, were good things, significant positives for their new teams, was the definitive consensus. It was not. Just look on this forum for reactions at the time the trades happened. While those trades were, for some odd reasons, generally praised by the media overall, there were many who thought they would be disasters for both teams, with no hope of success.. Some of us saw beyond the 'consensus' and called those trades the team killing moves they were--at the time they happened. Sour grapes to call out those with the correct takes on such awful moves when they happened. They were right, saw them for what they were, just like the Miller signing. Going along with the crowd's views on everything is not a great way to make decisions.

I disagree obviously, and think it is a near certainty that the Barkley contract changed the game for Cook, the Bills, and the other elite running backs in the league. An historically big contract does that almost every time, wouldn't you agree? But, we will soon find out which is the right take, as the Bills should show their cards soon, and make their decision. Cook may get close to 12 for the first year, but then it is going higher each year, and likely tops off at 15 million soon. And hopefully with good incentives, like Barkley has.

Yes, all makes sense so far, to let our 2nd best offensive player, the only true game breaker, leave this year or next, as he enters his prime. And create another significant need when they do so. A 'bold' move... Instead, I say the Bills are actually smart and sign Cook to a good extension in the next two weeks. And Benford too, but the Bills do not break the bank to do so in my opinion. I believe that the Bills will not offer, and Cook would not accept, the 12 million a year contract proposed here, not after Barkley is making 20+ a year now. Not how it works in the NFL or life. And both Cook and the Bills know it.

He has to be coming, or makes no sense. Justin Fields is not the guy, but is a back up likely now and forever. Could change with some great coaching, but getting late in the game. Darnold is likely the one, maybe the only decent possibility right now. So he may sign soon.

They will not bring him back, I hope that they don't. If the Bills need the most help on the D-Line, and many think they do, they should bring in a younger player who can play well and not just a few snaps a game. Miller offered very little last year, likely in the way of some player who could have helped more. Great career, one of the most disruptive defensive players I have ever seen play. But even if the cost is very low, the Bills need to get better at that position.

Will go down as Beane's worst move ever, one that undermined the team's potential. One of the highest payed players at his position and for the Bills, contributing as much as mid/low round draft pick. Overall a fan of Beane's, but broke his own rules for a shot in the dark at a huge cost. Could have had AJ Brown previously for roughly the same amount of money, a true game changer on this offense. Not looking at these things in hindsight, but how I saw things at the time of the trade.

After Crosby signed I was thinking I don't want Garrett anymore, not at 35+ million a year, which now appears to be 40. In free agency the Bills could maybe get 3/4 of the following for that kind of money: a high quality CB, end, D tackle, and wide receiver. Way too much money for a player who will be 30 years old next season. Seattle is clearing out its offense, and Metcalf may be the only game changer out there. Beane should get that done now, and forget what about I say in my second line. Or do that and get the top of the line free agents for those positions wherever possible.

Hah, what a shocker that the chiefs pick the bum and the Bills pass on him.. And it is likely that whatever happens going forward worthy's (worthless?) life will never be the same--you don't ever overcome the stigma of strangling someone.

Well, for Cook the 15 million was likely as you say, an opening shot in negotiations. But the Barkley signing changes things, as now a running back is finally making 20 million plus, and into the high 20s with incentives. I now think it is likely that Cook does receive 15 million a year, at least on the later years in his contract. Hard for the Bills to offer him, a superb runner and catcher, half than of what Barkley just signed for. 75% seems likely though. I was very happy it was you Thurman, who responded, one of my favorite players. Great to see you are on here and then can filter your ideas to One Bills Drive. Something to think about, Thurm: What if in the early 90s the Bills decided they were not going to pay you market rate for your 2nd contract and you left the Bills? Do you think that would have changed that team much, diminished it? I do.

Why would it be Benford next up and not Cook? Two of the top five players on the Bills. I don't think the Bills want to make Cook the one player not getting an early extension. That is not how they operate. If the Bills know what's good for them, they would sign both in the next few days, as the price will continue to go up.

This was the best offensive line Josh Allen's Bills have had. They protected Josh very well and consistently opened holes for the running backs. It is a rare thing to have an excellent offensive line that can run and pass block at such a high level. How many NFL teams have an O line like that? You don't roll the dice and hope the next in line is capable, you re-sign McGovern, a revelation last season at center.

When one door closes, another one opens. https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/dk-metcalf-requests-trade-seahawks-to-explore-dealing-two-time-pro-bowl-wideout-per-report/ Still my #1 choice. Now the Hawks officially 'exploring' it. Go Beane. If Miami was smart they would try to swap Hill for him, but they would need to add more. Hill is a 31 and his super power is speed.

Was thinking you can very likely be wrong, above. Oh well, one down..

Darn. One less option now And it likely means even more $ for Garrett Barkley signs for big bucks, now Crosby breaks the bank too. Teams need to stop this shi* until the Bills make their moves. No more.

Thanks a lot, I appreciate it. Have wanted to do some over the years, but too lazy to find out how. It seems pretty easy from your directions so now I can do one! But sometimes when there are polls people are less likely to explain their views. I kept thinking of different reasons, pro and con, for the high end free agent options. I wanted info and analysis that helped me make a more informed decision. Obviously Beane and the Bills' leaders get most of their ideas from this forum, so there's no room for error.

The highest salary often does set the bar, and in this case, resetting it to some degree, as that is a big leap, and big news. In the next two seasons. Barkley can earn $56 million with incentives, with about 40 guaranteed. I do not think players are going to leapfrog over that contract, or that there will be a stampede of running backs signing $20+ million soon. But likely to have a pretty big impact on the running back market in the next few years. Good for Barkley, but this could have waited at least a few more weeks.

A good explanation of an important aspect of complimentary football. Here, the offense feeds off the success of the defense. On the other side of the coin, the defense feeds off the offense.. So as Buffalo's offense gets better, and it will if Brady is the real deal, the defense will naturally get better. For example, they will be playing with a lead even more, which is very positive for a defense. So in the end if the Bills get one high impact player in the off season, I will be satisfied that the team itself is better overall. You make the point that a great player on one side of the ball makes the other side better, which is usually true. This should ease all of our minds if our guy is not the one. Any of the top three choices so far would do that for a team, in my estimation.

Was thinking of that, but did not want to narrow it down to the players only I thought would be suggested. For example, I definitely would not have put Jevon Holland on here. I wanted to see what the broad range of ideas, possibilities were. (Plus, I don't know how to do a poll!)

yes to all, and it is about time that Allen has the O-Line, running game and wide receivers, all at the same time, that a great quarterback and offense needs to rise to their ultimate potential. A great thing about Metcalf is that he would keep this young offense young, meaning they would get better and better as they progress. Right now I believe all of their offensive starters are 28 or younger, with the most 27 or younger. Dawkins is the only starter 30 years old. Now is the time to take the next step with this offense, and then focus like a laser on D-tackle, lineman, and defensive backs.

And both Coleman and Kincaid are big guys, like Metcalf. Not only would he open things up for them on the field, and for the other pass catchers, but would be able to mentor them as well, teach them how to be pro receivers, which is something both need in order to take the next steps in this league. Just go back and listen to what McDermott said about each player after the season. A coach can teach them, but a player like Metcalf can also show them. And the age thing is huge to me. Hated the Miller move because he was an old dude, especially for his position, and in obvious decline. Garrett likely has several good years left, but we don't know that is the case.