ctk232

Also per @Virgil - it's partly due to the roster and him being a third round rookie. But in the rotation he's been rotating in at one-tech for star, primarily on passing downs from what I've seen but it may not be based along those lines. He's been eating up the middle double teams and filling those roles well. Same reason you don't "notice" star making plays, but I can promise you he's out there making a difference. For a third round rookie DT, he's playing to his pick level at present - don't let our 5th round hits sway your assessment of roi pick investment, those have been unicorn finds. I haven't honestly seen him in the run game to say whether his role for now is fitting more toward pass rush, run stop, or both. He's been lining up at the one-tech right now, and I wonder if McD is looking to see him get more penetration in pass rush to assess where he'll fit in along the line.

I understand, but it will be decided on the manner in which we miss the playoffs. We need to be more like the 2017 Chargers than the 2017 Bills (if the Ravens won that game). Agreed - though another season like that will likely give this regime more time yet still under the Pegulas. Objectively, if that were to some how happen, it wouldn't be the worst thing for Allen to experience the post season in some regard. So there's the rub. All three of those contracts were justified. Dareus was coming off a season where he was a top 2 DT in football. The lack of morality/suspension clauses was dumb, but he earned that contract. And as much schitt as I give Whaley for the Clay contract, this team desperately needed TE help in a league where there are like 10 good ones. And unfortunately, for good players, you need to overpay in FA. It's the nature of the game. Clay is still something like the 12-14th best TE, and there are a handful of guys WAY worse than him making more or comparable. I saw/see it differently, just a bit (long-winded response forthcoming) - I feel like we were slightly duped on Dareus as he was coming off a season under Jim Schwartz, who by no argument, completely galvanized our front 7 scheme in which Dareus thrived. Even though his skills still fit within the one-tech role and his size as a NT in a 3-4 scheme, I think what earned him his contract was his play within the Schwartz defense. He was still a first round pick, but the writing was on the wall with the attitude and off-field issues, and extending him while hiring Rex Ryan - a notorious player friendly coach that seemed to encourage toxic behavior, paying him that much for that long of a term, seemed over the top, even for a player like him. I get the thought was that he'd anchor the line for the future, but we were all suspect on his ability to remain there long term given motivation issues - just seemed contradictory given the extension offer. The fact that we saved $10mil over 5 years by trading him tells you just how not worth his contract he was - and still isn't really for the Jags either. Clay I understand we needed a TE, and I'll be the first to admit I liked Clay coming out of Miami and was thrilled to have a real pass catching TE in our roster. The issue there were his known lingering injuries prior to offering the contract - a risk many FA signings negotiate, and I can't remember how the terms of that contract were decided, but I hope the appropriate clauses were used to save us there. Obviously we kept him as he is a serviceable option at TE. Unfortunately, he was under-utilized during his prime years under TT, and while he's still better than most, his cap hit is starting to outweigh his results. It's hard out there for a GM looking for a TE - but still think this position is almost always better addressed through the draft, unless it's Gronk or Kelce. TT...oh TT. This one I go back and forth and hindsight is a helluva drug. If I'm being honest, I liked the extension at the time. I initially bought into the TT train and thought there was more coming. At the time, we needed a stable, consistent QB as much as we needed a stable, consistent HC. TT did enough to prove that he wouldn't commit game changing mistakes, and keep our team in it. Coupled with our defense at the time, it seemed we could do plenty with that. We all know how the tape rolled on that one, but I would fault Whaley less so for extending TT. The problem was not preparing for his eventual departure which we all saw coming. It's why I don't believe that McD's "hands were tied" not drafting a QB in 2017. He KNEW TT was most likely gone. His contract was going to start negatively impacting the Bills and he had proved nothing. He punted, which resulted in him having to throw our new QB to the wolves. Again, it's easy to say this with hindsight. And despite all who thought Mahomes was, in fact, the player he now is - the vast majority believed 2017 to be a very weak QB class. Highlighted by Mahomes, Trubisky, Kizer and Watson. No one was saying this was the year for a QB, and many were already saying 2018 was "the year of the QB." I don't believe McD was the absolute final say in players drafted, but he certainly had a hand - but the entire FO, McD included, bought into this and didn't draft a QB following our scouts and what the draft ended up providing us. I don't like the hindsight argument of passing on Mahomes as it happens almost every draft and you could point to any example, but none of it means it wouldn't have gone differently had we drafted him. What's more, Beane wasn't involved in that first draft. If we're to evaluate the "regime" of McDermott/Beane, it really started this season, and in Beane's first year and draft as GM, he went and got a QB, just like you said we should've done to not waste valuable years of veteran players. Speculation: I suspect they had identified 2018 as the year to get their QB when they hired a GM for the future, and use 2017 to fill out other player needs, which were there. Not taking a QB in 2017 will haunt the McBeane regime unless Allen is a hit, and even then may still loom large over them. I don't want to face an experienced vet in Mahomes 3 years from now in KC for the AFCCG. Or a veteran Watson in Houston for the divisional round. I mean, you can say that about any first round pick at anytime. We've had to face Brady twice a year the past 18 years and we're still here. I know the plan is to get better, but there will always be a "Brady," "Mahomes," or "Watson" in the conference every year to varying degrees. We drafted our guy and he'll either work out or he won't - I don't really see too much of the "one and only chance" that much of the tone of this board is taking. I get that in the context of the Beane/McDermott regime, but there's no reason why any of that is uncommon, just not preferable to us. McBeane gambled on "win now and win in the future" and it's going to cost them. They put too much on the bandaid in year one, and then tanked. Waste of resources, time, and years that our few remaining good players don't have. I agree the timing of it all has terrible optics. It caused an unnecessary media storm, and while our QB options were historically bad, there were and are plenty other teams with the same record as this historically bad offense...and I'd argue, much larger internal s***shows like the Giants and Raiders. But I digress, year one to me was a bit of a surprise for everyone. It was a year where league parity was at an all time high and 9-7 would likely land you a wildcard. Halfway through the season, the ball bouncing our way, we had a choice to make: 1. commit to the playoff run, get the largest monkey any franchise in any professional sport has ever seen off our backs, and go from there, or 2. middle our way through and likely end up 7-9 or 8-8. We simply played too well in the first year to "tank" for a top QB - we combatted this by accumulating draft picks to move up and take a guy anyway. The issue was we couldn't trade up highly enough in my opinion, but sounds like Allen was almost always going to be their guy. The vets on the roster then wouldn't have been on it when we would eventually be ready to compete anyway, and there wasn't enough of a foundation in place for us to have a year this year like the Chiefs or Rams. Just look at those rosters from 2017 going into 2018 - the Rams only question mark was how Goff would play. The Chiefs solidified an offense in the years leading up to 2017 and iced the cake in 2018 giving Mahomes his supporting cast. We didn't have those options on offense, and unexpectedly lost 2 OLmen from our offensive foundation. Not somewhere you want to build from. I might be misreading your points, but it's very difficult to say "extending Bortles wasn't so bad" and then say "not accounting for the QB position will haunt them." I might get what you're getting at here, and I agree that there wasn't much issue with the extension at that time as it was the simplest and seemingly most logical solution. The issue being I think we all saw who Bortles was going to be, and I do wonder if they tried to trade for Jimmy G or sign an FA - but given who they were already paying I think limited the resources they could use to bring anyone else in limited their options for competing "now." Again, hindsight comes into play a bit here, but I don't believe Bortles ever gave a consistently confident performance worthy of extension, but the jags thought this was the way to make the best of their situation and put them in the best place to win it all. And coming off of a conference finals appearance would only serve to support that thought. But I bet even Coughlin wasn't entirely confident in re-signing Bortles, but given the situation he entered, he figured this to be the best bet to give the franchise a winning culture while his defense was under contract. Really appreciate the discussion here - and thanks for putting up with my overly verbose thought trains

Thank you...exceptional success to be sure, but hardly a full league trend at this point. And to OP's point, both Goff and Mahomes didn't start playing this way til their second years, both for different reasons. While that's certainly a formula some teams are trying to follow, typically, when you draft a QB in the first round to try and be your guy for the long term, you follow that formula regardless. It's nothing new and something every team with a rookie QB will do.

I'm so glad we didn't overpay for him. I think he seemed a great option to us specifically more so due to TT being gun shy and our starvation for a productive, progressive offense. But I also think Cousins benefited from the timing of it all. He was evaluated well near the top of a league where the mark of QB talent is as polarized and binary as it's ever been (i.e. you're either a Brady/Rodgers franchise qb, or not worth a roster spot - an alex smith game manager being acceptable for a short period of time), and during a time when the QB talent had fairly high parity among those starting in the league outside the top 5-7. Especially given the context of the FA market, he was touted as the prized option. He played well enough to be included in the upper echelon and upside polarity of QBs, and many thought there was a higher ceiling that he could potentially grow into. I never really saw him take that step, nor did his play ever indicate that he would - but I'm no expert and that was just my eye test. There's always plenty more going on than that. To me, I was never really convinced by his play in Washington. You see the guy on ESPN and read articles and he knows the position and game well enough, but it's never really translated in full to the field in a consistent manner. Granted, I don't think the Vikings struggles are entirely attributable to Cousins either, but the Vikes got exactly what they overpaid for.

I totally forgot that happened - oy. Oh well, big nickel again it is......

I mean, Pettine's was the first defense I paid extra mind to given his "hybrid" approach and, at least to me, it seemed "revolutionary" enough at the time. But given the amount of coaching/coordinator turnover the past decade and a half, who can honestly remember what issues belonged where under what regime?

yep - it was part of that hybrid 3-4/4-3. Though I do remember our D markedly improving under Pettine from previous years under Gailey as HC. But it wasn't until Schwartz went back to a 4-3 that we saw more of the brick wall. Rex just came back and switched it again on them only to have it switched back again under McD.....

But actually - I'm not surprised it wasn't mentioned, but ESPN was touting the party line of the "modern" NFL being one in which offenses will score on every drive with a defensive play or two throwing a wrench in there to varying degrees. Whether or not you like it, that is where this is all headed without any changes on defensive scheme. Weirdly enough, I brought up this article with friends watching the game yesterday - and after about a half hour of silence all were saying the same thing: if this is the solution, why is no one doing anything about it?!? I had to agree, t'was mine as well. I don't believe McVay or Reid to be this shortsighted, but with both being offensive guys, they would at least have to realize that their offenses are more or less in a way paving the road for future NFL offenses. That being said, as HCs, wouldn't it behoove them to also have an equal revolution on defense to scheme and prepare for these offenses? The same goes for Payton and the Saints. I'm not trying to start a conspiracy based off of speculation, but the question that jumps to my mind is for everyone clamoring about an offensive minded coach, are these the issues that present themselves there? I get this is also about the guys on the roster, but each team has talent on defense that one would think capable of effectively using match coverage. If the same philosophy for drafting college guys to fit a scheme built to help the guys coming out of college to perform at a higher level, and adapt collegiate schemes to fit the NFL - why not then do the same thing on the other side of the ball? For those looking for new DCs - why not target the younger generation of coaches or those running some form of match coverage in college? Granted, I don't think implementing match coverage will completely halt the offensive wave, as every team will be able to do it to varying degrees of success, but it will keep the scoring down and will provide the perfect counter to create a truly enjoyable game (all of course imo).

1. Agreed - I want this all to work out, god knows we all do. But if we are competitive in two/three years, even if we only just miss the playoffs two years in a row, I say keep the train rolling and see what we can do starting with a foundation and not a rebuilding bottomless pit of turnover craze. Anything under .500 without just cause will be another nail in the coffin. 2. True, we'll most assuredly have some constraints, but I don't think they'll be hamstringing handicaps at that. Standard elite players being paid elite value, but within context and reason and not stupidly overbloated contracts to guys like Dareus, TT, or Clay, as exciting as they are at the time. I'm absolutely fine with not having the cap space if we also appropriately pay our elite talent. No need to have cap space if you already have all the guys you need on the roster. 3. I definitely see your point, but I'm also torn on the reality that a QB like Allen will more than likely have an 8-8 year next year at best, but I'd be more concerned with his actual play. A lot can go into being 8-8 that has nothing to do with Allen, and if that is the case, addressing roster needs is easier than trying to develop a player to x degree in a year. Reasons for why 8-8 is more likely next year are that he is still developing and will still be learning NFL defenses while mastering the playbook. We'll have new skill players next year that have to learn the book and how to receive throws from Allen. It's going to take longer than a year, maybe even two. But if we are in playoff competition well into December and dare I say November perennially, I'd call it progress. Once we establish that baseline of competency and competitiveness, I would just like to see us take that next step of getting double digit wins and have the sustainability to keep it going. And I guess it depends on your goal, if it's to win an SB with an already competitive team? Short term roster moves that line up a cap explosion in two to three years are made for if you are contending for a SB, and only if you are doing so. Whaley's mistake was thinking TT could get us there and that our team was that close to winning, just like I believe the Jags stretched too far thinking Bortles could do so as well, and committing to signing those players to make a push that really just wasn't there (I'd argue the jags were infinitely closer than we were in all aspects of the team). What we are seeing with the Rams and Chiefs are exceptional, and by definition cannot be the norm. Defenses will start to scheme more match coverage in the next few years to combat the spread and rpo packages now dominating the "modern" nfl. I'm more preferential to building longer term success where we may not make the playoffs every single year, but we are in contention through november and december and become a dominant factor in the AFC. Hopefully, that long term sustainability leads to a point in time where we can make those short term moves to get us over the hump and push for an SB, or two, or three, or eeeeven four. That to me should be the goal of all of this, not spending the bank and essentially committing to a future tank three years down the line all while missing the mark for that short term period AND the few years following. I agree extending Bortles was a terrible move and they should have addressed it - but looking at it with perspective: after reaching the conference finals, it's not easy to commit to a first round draft pick and start the whole thing over when your defense likely wouldn't be there in three years. The better scenario would have been signing a vet QB like Alex Smith to manage the game opposite the defense, and who knows, maybe they tried to and just didn't have the cap to offer the contract...

I hope so - I honestly don't know enough about the jags this year considering I avoided their noise once Jalen spoke up. But given their record, I think their defense is still deceptively good despite their offensive woes. My only concern with our defense is if Milano is still in protocol, who do we have to replace his skillset? Vallejo? Stanford? I would think Vallejo better fits the skillset but would really like to see Milano in there being able to cover RBs and TEs out of the backfield as well as contain Bortles on third down man coverages. I honestly think this game will be the opposite of the rams chiefs - an all out defensive showdown with the first offense to make a play or two winning it, but otherwise not being present. Thankfully it's at home though and we can get the crowd into our drives.

Scoreboard. Guy's team is 3-7, just like another team we know. Albeit, they are a slightly more competitive 3-7. I said it in the Barkley v. Allen threads, because that's what we talk about now, but I always wanted Allen to start this game and completely dominate the Jags. I couldn't care less what transpires the rest of the season so long as we come out with this W. In an ideal world, Allen goes for 300 yards and 3/4 TDs, signs the game ball and hands it to Ramsey saying "give this to your kids, remind them what an athlete does and doesn't need to say." Reality is Allen likely has an off week because he's coming off injury, and hasn't developed much because he was injured, and throws a couple picks and the Bills lose the game because he was injured and didn't really develop. Dareus comes back and has one of his rare "i'm motivated" moments because it's buffalo and his chip on the shoulder, and gets three sacks and reinjures Allen. This is so healthy...

Juuuuuuust trying to add in context...but either way 1. White will be the first to be paid/extended as his contract is up in two years. Allen and Edmunds are still under contract for three, but you also have to take into account the positions. If Allen pans out, his and White will be the most expensive as the QB and DB positions currently have high salary averages. LBs are not one of those positions - look at Keuchly's contract. Edmunds will likely be resigned for much less than it would take the Rams to resign Donald, or Jags to pay a Dareus. If your first round talent is concentrated on "glory" positions like WR, DB, QB, DL, OT then you likely will end up paying more. But with our current crop, we won't actually have to invest all that much to extend our current talent. 2. Which leads me into the second point. Having the cap space isn't just positive for what we can spend in 2019. You can't be so limited in your outlook. Having this much free cap also means not having as much dead cap in the years when we do have to extend these contracts. It's also part of the reason why Beane is approaching this judiciously and not overpaying middling/average talent when we'll need the money to extend in a couple years time. So yes, having a huge cap is a great benefit for the future, beyond 2019. Not to mention more money is ALWAYS better than having no money. Regardless of how much we spend, at least we have the resources to go after talent that we identify as an absolute need. Especially along the OL where I believe we should spend the majority of our FA money. But simply having that much cap is better and arguing that is just foolish. If Beane is planning on being judicious, that means we hopefully won't repeat the Whaley disaster of overspending on a team that wasn't anywhere near playoff/SB ready, and having stupid dead cap in later years that can hamstring a team trying to win/build/rebuild/anything... 3. They waited two years to draft Allen? I'm not sure about that. But hey, only time can tell here whether Allen develops enough to extend his contract - but I truly don't see enough to say the same thing will happen here that did in Jax. I get where you're coming from with how long it took them to address the back up position - that even raised eyebrows for me when Beane admitted he took too long to address this. HOWEVER, credit where credit is due, Peterman is gone now, and I do think they give Allen the benefit of the doubt considering he's their guy. But I also don't think Beane invests in a lost cause - especially not if he puts up Bortles numbers. I'll say this about the Bortles extension: the whole of the NFL thought Bortles was finally showing his developed form after reaching the conference finals. No GM would've been blamed for extending a QB that serviced them to the finals. However, even though Bortles doesn't pass the eye test of the most casual fan, I believe that Coughlin saw enough in him to say "if he helped get us to the conference finals, he's worth another three years." Which is essentially the extension term if you are looking to win an SB. Coughlin knew he only had about 2-3 more years before he lost players to other contracts and getting priced out, so he went all in on the guy that was on the roster that "proved" he could help them along to the conference finals. This was his hope. I don't think Coughlin believes Bortles is a true franchise guy, just a QB who can manage an offense to not lose games it's defense keeps them in. The issue is that Bortles isn't that guy and is now regressing like we all thought. Whether or not my assumptions are correct, don't look for the same thing to happen. We are not a team a game away from the SB like the jags were at the end of last year. Prior to that, they were a team that were becoming everyone's next top AFC competitor outside the Pats. Hopefully we have a competitive team in the 2-3 years before we extend Allen, but I don't see us contending for a SB in that time forcing an extension on a QB just because he's there. Lastly, don't underestimate our influence as a fan base either, Jags fans have been primarily passive compared to the mafia. We're the only fans that have created two gofundme pages to cut the same player, and that most certainly was heard. KB has been hearing us all season and is now a head case with weight issues - not addressing blame, but simply saying we're heard.

Nailed it - we won't land the WR talent we need in FA, and certainly not for the price we need, even with our cap space. We can address WR2 in FA no problem - ideally Funchess, or John Brown but likely neither signs here. Trade will yield us the closest we can get to a WR1, but Sanu thrives in a WR2 role behind stout receivers like AJ Green and Julio. He won't standout amongst the rest on our current corps. I'd rather they try and bring in Funchess and overpay him for WR2 than Sanu in all honesty. But Sanders trade would make an immediate impact on the corps at the WR2 position. He is the closest to a WR1 but doesn't quite demand the coverage. Add in one or two picks at WR and/or TE with McKenzie, Foster, and Thompson filling out the roster as long as we have them, and you'll see the formations of a corps here.

Still think Brown won't eat where he S*** at the beginning of the season. And Williams wouldn't be terrible, but I just don't see much upside with him for the cost, his biggest games were against the browns and titans this year, and haven't seen much from him in the past - if he isn't really producing much with Rivers, what will he do here? Don't get tempted by Humphries, even with fitz/winston out of the conversation, the kid doesn't get much separation and when he does his hands are suspect. He's not much different than T WIlliams to be honest. The only one currently worth paying IMO is Funchess. Which would obviously be ideal for many people. I get that we'll have to spend in FA to bring people in, that's how it goes - my concerns are that none of these guys (save John Brown, Funchess) are worth their extensions much less a new contract for what it would take to get an NFL wide out off the market. My hopes are some of these guys sign for reasonable amounts, but the guys we need are going to cost us. I don't believe that just by necessarily having the cap space to absorb a bad deal, doesn't make a bad deal okay. It's still bad at the end of the day and it's money wasted on a talent we likely could've used on one of our million other holes in the roster. I'd rather they spend that money on the OL in FA and address WR in the draft more so than FA.

Not a fan of this year being the year to address WR in FA/trade. Despite how much we need it addressed on our roster. Tate wouldn't be worth the price tag he comes with. Detroit was willing to part with him for a reason seeing more upside in Golladay and Jones Jr, and he's now MIA on a struggling Eagles offense. But even though Wentz is an INT machine this year, Tate just isn't getting separation in his roles, even behind Jeffrey and Agholor. I'd prefer not to pay him that salary. John Brown would likely be the best "speed guy" in FA - small and quick, but don't we already have that with Thompson, McKenzie, and Foster? Not to mention he turned down our offer last year for the Ravens, so I doubt he has a change of heart. Only wildcard there is the Flacco injury. As for OP and Sanu - I love Sanu and he was always a stout WR2 everywhere he went. But was got him notoriety was playing behind AJ Green and Julio Jones - he's talented enough to win 1v1 battles most times, but needs that WR1 to demand coverage away from him in order to be successful. Would love him, but he would be a no-name addition well into the middle of next year without a true WR1. Our best options honestly lie within a big trade to land our WR1, or by drafting WR late in the first or in the 2/3 rounds. Maybe even going crazy and drafting two or WR/TE within the first four rounds.

Agreed. This has to, and will be, addressed in the offseason if they hope to invest in their job security, and provide Allen the best opportunities to succeed. In all honesty, as with the OL, our receiver corps (including TE) would likely need two upgrades this offseason at least. Jones has been a highlight in an otherwise dismal corps - and hopefully Thompson, McKenzie, and Foster fill out our depth/speed needs throughout so we can go and address WR 1 and 2. As for OP - looking at the FA pool, depending on what you want to bring in determines what would be the more likely scenario. There isn't a WR1 in the FA pool, there just isn't. Sanu isn't a #1 and will be kept on in ATL as Ryan's favorite when Julio is double teamed. Funchess would be the only other option "worth" the money we'd likely have to dish out for him. Any true WR1 obtained would likely come via trade. While it would be good to have top experience in the receiver corps, I'm all for drafting a guy, or two - and let him develop along with Allen. My initial hopes are for Harry/Brown late in the first in a trade down scenario, or high in the 2nd if either is still there. We likely wouldn't do it, but I'd be okay going WR/WR or WR/TE with picks 2 and 3 and really building out a corps for the future. Outside of the ceiling that both Harry and Brown have, others like Collin Johnson would be great depth targets with size, hands, and great route running with a 3/4 pick if he's still there.

Yea, this isn't fully accurate... 1. What's a "high pick?" A lot of bottom feeder teams have a lot of "high picks" over the years and can certainly lead to cap hell, but there's no guarantee of that. The more pertinent point is the number of top 5-10 picks in that short of a time all demanding extension money, and then choosing to pay them. Bills don't have that kind of first round draft capital in terms of player results, yet. All depends on how contracts are managed, which get extended, and which are better off being cut. 2. Might not be as much of a spree as you think - we'll make moves, but I believe Beane mentioned in that recent presser that he wouldn't spend the bank in FA and still be judicious in finding the right guys... 3. We both drafted a QB high in the first and hope(d) he shows improvement. The difference? The Jags extended Bortles...LMAO. We have time before having to bite that bullet and can fully assess Allen - but don't look for him to get extended like they did Bortles if he doesn't pan out. The writing is on the wall, but no where near as similar as you think.

Here's the thing - while he was in Buffalo, I had the most confident hope I've had in awhile. And taking a retired QB like Orton and nearly make the playoffs, for what was then the first time in awhile, made me hopeful for what would happen the rest of his tenure. I didn't agree with all of his positions, but if I'm being honest, I was more hopeful than not during that time. Then this whole Jacksonville thing started and for anyone to say that Marrone is a great HC should just look at the team that has been built there, and how little has been done with it. Yes, I get that they made a deep run to the conference championship last year, but barely squeaked by a half-a$$ed Bills team in the wildcard game, where any other competent QB could've scored at least once. But big things were expected, and given the course of this season, looks like many will be let down...again. The one thing I'll never understand? Dougy was so adamant that EJ wasn't his guy that we went out and got Orton to come in midseason. Don't get me wrong, I was never really an EJ homer, but I don't understand how the same guy can make that kind of executive decision, yet roll with Blake Chortles for the past however many seasons...the Jags need a bit more help on offense, but with an average QB, they likely contend for the playoffs perennially and may have even routed Brady and crew last year. While he isn't the GM, why he hasn't made much more of a push for drafting a QB seems to me a crucial oversight of the FO and Dougy.

Great points - and the parallels are certainly there for Carolina's progression. I think that the way the contracts and talent is trending for the next 2-3 years, barring any crazy FA signing that breaks the bank, Tre will likely be the first "elite talent" on the roster to come up for extension so I wonder if we have the added capital to argue paying him top dollar. But they've already demonstrated they're willing to pay their defensive line for players that fit a need (Star in the one-tech eating up millions and double teams). The culture point is a great one, too. I do think it's something that's been lacking from Buffalo, and honestly every team that turns over coaches every two to three years. But you're right, let's hope McD actually does instill a culture that makes the top guys want to come back, and additionally advertises for others to sign and stay as well. I have more hope for players drafted in that regard under McD. I've always wondered how much of GB's attrition rate for drafted players is due to the culture established by championship history, or just by having a great contemporary culture making players want to stay. But none of this really matters until we prove we can field a competitive offense.

Well good to know re: Cuomo. As for Amazon, how much time do you have? It's NYC and it's not Seattle; it's the second time around so it'll likely be a different approach; and yes, it is a massive financial injection that will provide some economic influx, that can't be argued. What is the cause of the debate is cost/benefit analysis - and the fact that Amazon has actually vastly increased costs more than benefits comparably. They made those same promises to Seattle as well when Amazon finally started to grow big, as a result of the local entrepreneurial economy already established here by multiple other tech and non-tech based companies. Promises never happened. Those 25,000 jobs making $125k will more than likely be filled by people from out of state and are already within the company. No money will flow locally until Amazon literally puts Queens under construction for the next 25 years and increases population density in one of the most densely populated areas in the country. And the cost of living in an already over-inflated area will only go up forcing people out. But the real fleecing doesn't come with the tax break as much as it does anyone believing their promises. Amazon has had a very poor track record of actually economically revitalizing an area - most of what you saw happen in Seattle since Amazon arrived was primarily due to Microsoft and the tech industry coming in beforehand (of which Amazon was a bandwagoner moving to the area in '94), UW tech-focused programs creating domestic human capital to fit the industry, and those other companies called Boeing, Nordstrom, Eddie Bauer, REI, and fricking Starbucks. So those "millions" getting pumped into the local economy and tax base in general? They won't be coming from Amazon. If you want what happened here you want Seattle, you don't want Amazon. Decent piece explaining exactly this, and sourcing some of my own opinions: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/19/amazon-headquarters-seattle-215725 - more of the economic conversation occurs at the end of the article, leading in with more of the social and cultural impacts

Which part? Outside of college I never lived in NY after I was 6, and outside of family being from there. I only remember from way back that Cuomo's administration was the one that would be in support of a new stadium project: http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/8247657/governor-andrew-cuomo-senator-charles-schumer-move-keep-buffalo-bills-town I know the renovations happened since, but no idea beyond that. Sadly also serious about amazon - been living in seattle for both the pre and post zon, and can tell you NY got fleeced by that tax break.

Isn't Cuomo the one who, reportedly, wanted to secure the Bills in WNY longterm? Depending on how this Amazon HQ2 deal pans out, feel like we should try and make this happen sooner than later. People aren't too happy about that tax break and he might not have much more support depending on how that process goes.

Zona and the Jets scare me for that reason - within the context of drafting a top OL guy that is. If Zona and/or Jersey end up winning the race to the bottom, it's likely one takes Jonah and the other Little. Which would make me more inclined for us to go BPA or trade down with the first overall. I agree, we'd have to pay two corners, but at least Greedy would be on contract for a few years before it has to happen, and hopefully we would make a few playoff runs during that time. We can also hope the contracts on the team look very different in the next 3-5 years, but Tre and likely Dawkins will demand the highest salary when the time comes - as will Edmunds and Allen depending on how they progress. With equal needs at WR and RB in the future, we'll need to start thinking where we want to spend the elite money, and where we can compete with roster guys on average contracts.

Quite the opposite, the OL saved TT more times than anyone can count. The whole reason people were able to complain about him holding onto the ball too long was due to the OL protection in the first place. Between Glenn, Richie, and Wood - TT had a lot of protection to work with and those three extended plays for him left and right, he just never threw the ball. Put him behind this line with these WRs and we fair no better.

I would actually like Little if he can be had with our first. Wouldn't mind Williams, but little more upside to Little. Given that the DL depth apparently will last until round 4 or 5, I'd rather we be the team that goes offense with our first two picks OL/WR, and fill out our dline and secondary with the later rounds. Wouldn't hurt to draft another LB if the value is there - I foresee more weeks without Edmunds or Milano due to concussions...