BarleyNY

Over a large sample size and/or in the long term, that is correct. Results of any small sample can vary widely from the expected result, however. For example, it's fair to judge a Hold 'Em player who calls 2-to-1 odds on an inside straight draw after the turn. Sure, it might happen to work out in that particular case, but that doesn't make it a good strategy. It's fair to judge it as a poor move even before the river card gets flipped over. In fact, the result of that one instance is meaningless with regard to judging the strategy. Sometimes the right move doesn't work out and sometimes the wrong one does.

http://overthecap.com/thoughts-fletcher-cox-contract-extension/#more-12093 Here's OTC's breakdown of the deal, including comparisons to other big contracts defensive players have signed. Dareus is mentioned. FWIW, they don't think it'll impact Von Miller's deal much because it is largely in line with similar deals, not an outlier.

No sense getting all worked up now. We're still in the foreplay stage - and thus far that foreplay has been, well, uneven. I'll wait for the serious action to get under way before I decide how excited I'm gonna get.

I can only call it like I see it. The general consensus in the scouting community was that there were still prospects on the board with grades similar to Lawson's. If I were to have taken a chance on a prospect with injury concerns at 19 it'd have been an elite prospect like Jack. I could certainly have seen the argument for him. He was universally considered a top 5 prospect. I never saw Lawson put nearly in that class. I get that Whaley is a professional GM, but thats a cop out. NFL GMs make mistakes every single year and some are easy to see when they are made. I don't buy the "Lawson was such a great value that he was worth pick 19 even though he would miss significant time his rookie season" arguement. Not at all. He was the best prospect at his position that I thought had a chance to make it to the Bills at 19. He was in a block of similarly rated prospects that wasn't likely to make it much beyond the early to mid 20s and he plays a premium position. I didn't think he'd make it to 19 due to expectation that most of the block of players he was rated in would be gone by 19. So I was very happy that he was one of the few that made it to 19 as he fills a huge need, but I didn't see him as a player that fell out of his range. Whaley's comments regarding the injury post selection and pre surgery are telling. It's clear that the team knew about the torn labrum, but hoped he could play with it in 2016. That points to the Bills talking themselves into selecting an injured player because he was a quality prospect who filled a gaping need. People - including Fortune 500 CEOs and NFL GMs - talk themselves into convenient, but risky solutions every single day. It's the only thing that makes all of the facts line up in this case.

That's a big overstatement. Yes, the overall production of a player rather than immediate production is far more important, but a pre-existing injury does have an effect on a player's value. Your statement also assumes that an equivalent talent wasn't available. I'd argue that there was so you misstated the actual choice the Bills had. It wasn't: lesser, uninjured player vs. Lawson. It was: effectively equivalent talent vs, Lawson. Whaley & Co. are going to be judged by how well Lawson and their other picks and FAs work out. But the reality is that no GM knows for certain which players will bust and which will be high performers. Every draft pick and every dollar spent is an odds based risk-reward gamble. A healthy Lawson at 19 would have been an excellent risk-reward proposition, but Lawson with a torn labrum at 19 wasn't nearly as good due to his pre-existing injury reducing his total expected production. If you view the situation as "Wait and see how Lawson works out in the long run." then it's easy to push the injury aside and push off making a judgement for a few years. But if the question is "Is it likely that the Bills maximized their draft capital with the Lawson pick?" then the answer is pretty clearly "No, they could've and should've done better." That's not a doom and gloom view. Nor does it mean that all is lost. It doesn't even mean that Lawson won't be a good or even great player. It just means that the Bills took a bigger chance on him than they should have. That opens up Whaley and the organization to some degree of criticism, which is fair. It doesn't paint an entire picture and shouldn't be used as such any more than it should be glossed over and explained away as insignificant. It is certainly a piece of the bigger picture though.

Apparently. I clicked on it looking for an update on Lawson, but, sadly, I'm drawn to continuing it myself. Trying to resist........ Aaarrrrgggghhhhh!

True on the cap room thing. Lotta reasons negotiations can go smoothly, though. The big guaranteed dollars in recent, large contracts by the Bills probably helped a lot. Interestingly, the Broncos seem to have plenty of cap room. They don't have much right now (due in part to Von Miller's franchise tag), but at the moment they have the least committed cap space in the league for 2017. A worthwhile QB would eat up a lot of that and so would a long term Von Miller contract, but they've easily got room for both. I'd disagree regarding companies screwing top employees though. It is pretty common in my experience. Yup. You never know, but at this point there is no need to assume negotiations will get contentious - or that there'd be lasting issues even if they did. Taylor's agent is a concern in this regard, but it's a problem we'd be lucky to have because that would mean that Tyrod would have had a stellar 2016 season.

Thanks. I'll put one on my wish list. Once you get rolling let us know what you think of the whole sous vide thing. Good luck!

Some coaches are even crazy enough to put two or more TEs on the field at the same time.

Yes, but that's a misleading statement. They don't dispute that you should be able to get a better player at a higher pick. They're arguement is that when all factors are taken into account - expected production, rookie and future contracts, risk and trade values of picks - that there's more VALUE at the end of round 1 than at the beginning. In fact, the sweet spot for value seems to be in day 2 of the draft. However - and it's a very big however - they'll be the first people to tell you that you can't build a team with nothing but 2nd and 3rd round picks. You'd have a poor team and a ton of cap space left over (and be well below the league spending minimum) if you did. You still need to spend capital - draft picks and cap space - on difference makers. Analytics not only tries to determine who those difference makers are, but it also tries to show a team where it can free up money to afford those players.

It sure seemed like that's what was alluded to in the article. And that fits what I've seen from both of them. For example, analytics and metrics based sites have rated their drafts and other personnel moves a lot less favorably than more traditional/old school sites.

It's what I have too. I've been very happy with it. I would go with a whole unit system next time largely for convenience and because I already have the Anova for vessel flexibility. If prices were vastly different I'd just get another Anova. I don't have a good recommendation as I hate mine. I owned it prior to the Anova and didn't know what I needed. I'd Recommend getting one with a wet/liquids setting so it doesn't mash your more delicate foods. Mine just has one mode and it crushes delicate food so I have to use ziplocks for that stuff.

Great read. Thanks for linking it. It does seem as though Rex and Whaley are relying on a much more old school approach overall. I see a lot of HCs and GMs going with what they know and are comfortable with - especially where high draft picks and high priced free agents are concerned. That's where their focus is. In those cases the analytics guys and scouts often get more say in lower round picks and lower tier FAs. I saw that repeatedly with the Browns, until this offseason.

Good on you, eball. Enjoy! And don't hesitate to ask questions in either a thread or PM.

The climate and existing kicker are fair distinctions between Buffalo and TB. But Barth only got a one year, vet minimum deal from NO. If that's the going rate for good kickers I'd argue that a first or second round draft pick plus a kicker about equivalent to Barth far outweighs the value of a kicker like Aguayo - even in a cold, windy city like Buffalo. Throwing out names of 1st round busts is irrelevant as there are plenty of 1st round game changers as well. The Bills could use an upgrade at K, but there's a lot of inexpensive opportunity to do that. Using a high draft pick for a marginal to negligible upgrade over that just doesn't make sense to me. Funny thing about 1st round pick Sebastian Janikowski. He's 22nd on the list.

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2016/the-2nd-round-is-no-place-for-a-kicker This specifically addresses the impact of selecting Aguayo vs. sticking with Barth. For those who don't care to wade through it, the gist is that taking Aguayo in the second round was an awful use of the draft picks used to acquire him and that the difference between the performance of Barth and Aguayo is likely to be negligible.

I totally agree. I can't tell you how often I've been sitting around, having a few pre dinner drinks with friends and realize I forgot to do something. The sous vide takes the biggest issue of potentially screwing up the entree off the table. And it's hands off for the vast majority of time so I can do other stuff until I'm ready to sear and serve.

Yeah, the Bills have done what they needed to do to have room for a Gilmore extension now and TT next offseason. I won't start to worry about Gilmore's deal getting done until training camp starts. The Bills still have a lot of future cap space tied up in existing players. A Gilmore extension would move them into the top position in the league for future cap commitments. That means a lot of stability in the coming years as the current group of core players is going to stay largely intact. That's great from a growth and stability standpoint. It will, however, limit flexibility since cap dollars won't be available to do much in free agency. There's also some inherient risk in guaranteeing such a high percentage of many of the big contracts through front loading and guaranteed dollars. Those players have to stay relatively healthy and perform well because they aren't going anywhere anytime soon. The coming off-seasons will likely look a lot like this one, especially if Taylor is deemed worthy of a big contract in 2017. If not, they can use those dollars for a FA QB for the long or short term. They've also got all of their day 1 and 2 draft picks available if they want to make a move for one in the 2017 draft. The roster has been built, with the possible exception of the hedge at QB. Now it's up to the coaches to get the players over the top.

( It translates to "under vacuum". It's a method of cooking where the food is sealed in bags with no air and cooked in a water bath. The equipment is very precise - to a 1/10th of a degree - and once up to temp the variation is only a small fraction of a degree if you use a lid. Mine doesn't vary by more than 1/10th of a degree. Precision is one advantage of sous vide cooking, but the biggest is that the target you're hitting moves very slowly. It's tough to mess up. You have to "sear in the rear" with sous vide though. You'll lose the crust if you sear first. It's funny. I was in a similar spot as you. I started smoking meats and charcoal grilling and found that I was using slow cook methods that are designed to emulate sous vide cooking. Amazingribs.com has a lot of good info for techniques and recipes for grilling and smoking. They actually refer to one method as "redneck sous vide". After doing that a few times I finally decided to just get a real one, which is way easier. Some of the cookers are full units with a bin built in and some are immersion types that you can put in a variety of vessels. I have an immersion. If I ever get a second one it'll be a complete unit. The complete unit is nice for general use, but if you are limited by the bin size. For the immersion I found that a pot isn't great because lid coverage is important. Plus I want to see what's happening inside. I almost always use a cambro with a lid I notched. If I had to do a huge batch of something I'd probably sacrifice a big styrofoam or igloo beer cooler (I've seen several people say they've done this and it's worked well). The most I packed into my cambro was about 7 pounds of burgers. Space was more the issue than the machine. It did fine. Water circulation was good although I did have to use a rib rack to keep them separated. I've had no issue with a half dozen good sized steaks and it could easily handle twice that for a dinner party. I like the cambro because I can store the Anova, torch and my notes in it. It travels easily that way. Here's a link that I learned a lot from (and plagiarized a bit to answer the steak doneness question). Great site in general too: http://www.seriouseats.com/2015/06/food-lab-complete-guide-to-sous-vide-steak.html

When a steak cooks several things can happen. The muscle fibrils tighten up which expels liquid. Fat and other connective tissue can also break down. At rare there is no chance for any fat rendering and the muscle is nearly raw. The muscle fibrils haven't had a chance to tighten up and have almost all of their liquid. The result is that they'll give the steak a slippery, wet, chewy texture. If it's a fatty cut there'll also be a waxy texture. Tenderloin is really the only cut that can handle rare. At medium rare the steak will still be red, but there will be some tightening of the muscle fibrils and expulsion of some liquid. That allows the fibrils to be easily cut when bitten rather than slip and slosh past each other like with a rare steak. That result is a very tender texture. Pretty much any steak can turns out well cooked medium rare. Tougher, fattier steaks like hangar or skirt do well up to medium. The color goes to rosy pink, the fibrils tighten further and there is more liquid lost, but the fatty marbling breaks down more. That adds richness, flavor and liquid to the meat. At medium well pretty much any steak takes on a grainy or cottony texture. Some of the fattiest cuts can fair decently, but most will be pretty dried out and tough. At well done the steak is pretty much leather. Personally I can't eat a rare steak. The texture makes me retch. Due to the inconsistency in cooking at most places I would order medium for fear of an undercooked medium rare piece of meat. The best steakhouses are reliable, but I wasn't eating many meals at places like that. Now, medium rare is the only way I eat a steak - mostly at home. If I eat out and don't trust the place to nail the steak I'll get something else. Higher temps do have their place though. I cook my steaks at 130, but brisket is another story. I always smoke it for 2 hours first. I've done the point at 176 for 24-36 hours before searing. The result was some great pulled brisket tacos. Still very moist and not overcooked at all. I've done flats for 48 hours at 130 and 140. The 130 was pinkish red and cut with a butter knife. The 140 was very light pink/brownish and cut with the side of the fork. I actually liked that one better as it was incredibly tender. Thanks. We've been talking about getting a 1/4 or splitting a 1/2 with friends. I've been researching farms that do that.

Dude, go buy yourself a sous vide cooker. You'll be shocked at how great a cook you can be. Once you dial in what you like it's almost totally idiot proof. My wife was way skeptical, but she's totally hooked now. My Anova retails for $199, but goes on sale regularly. Use a cambro, pot or igloo cooler for a cooking vessel and a charcoal grill or CI pan for searing and you're off and running. Oh, and you'll need some freezer ziplocks or a vacuum sealer. You've probably got everything you need but the cooker right now. You will not regret it. I've been hunting for quality steaks and other cuts of meat. If you've got access to Kobe or Waygu then don't hesitate on this. That sounds awesome.

Just like with hot sauce, IPAs and so many other things sometimes people take things too far for the wrong reasons. Medium rare is generally considered the best way to eat a steak, especially the leaner cuts. Fattier steaks can be better at medium and extremely tough, fatty, collagen heavy cuts of beef can require even higher temperatures be broken down properly. A filet mignon and a brisket point might both be beef, but they are very different things and need to be handled very differently. Also with traditional cooking methods it's difficult to get a steak properly cooked throughout. That often leads to a "medium rare" steak being nearly raw in the middle or way overcooked except in a narrow center band. That's where the sous vide comes in. It'll cook the steak perfectly every time. I wasn't a medium rare fan until I started using one. Now I love it that way.

My only issue with ziplock bags is that a few have leaked after being frozen. I make my own sausage in fairly big batches and always need to freeze a bunch. I need a new vacuum sealer for this. Mine doesn't have a variable vacuum setting so sausage, scallops and other easily squished food has gotten smushed. The ziplock bags work fine unless I need to freeze. My work around for the sausage is to freeze them in ziplocks and transfer them to vacuum bags while frozen before I thaw them to sous vide. Incidentally I've had superb results with sausages at 140 for 2 hours, then a quick sear.

His ceiling is very, very high. How close he can get to it is the question.

I've had few steaks out that are as good as what I can make myself at home. The best steakhouse I've been to is St. Elmo's in Indianapolis. Great cuts of beef that are cooked beautifully. I've not been to Black & Blue, but would like to try it sometime. The wife and I used to hit Jo Jo's regularly for drinks and snacking before it closed, but never made it next door. So here's what I recommend for a perfect medium rare steak. Buy a sous vide set up. I have the Anova immersion device and cook in a cambro that I notched out a hole in the lid for the Anova. I usually make filet mignon or other tenderloin steaks. Thicker is better so I try to get pieces in the 1.5" range. I season, bag and cook for 1 hour at 130F. Meanwhile I get my charcoal grill as hot as it can go with the coals right up against the grate. When the steaks come out I pat them dry and put a little bit of fat (butter) on them and quickly sear them on the open grill. About 1-2 min per side. Keep them moving and flip as needed. The point here is to get a crust, but not cook them any more. The higher the heat the better. No need to rest with the sous vide so plate immediately on pre warmed dishes or serving dish. You can also use a blazing hot pan instead of a charcoal grill. I do that sometimes, but I'd warn against using a gas grill. Even the infrared things don't work. Gas grills just don't get hot enough so getting a decent crust takes too long and the steaks cook. I tried it once and they came out med/medwell. Never again. If you use a pan don't try to cheat by putting oil or butter in it instead of on the meat. At the high heat needed it'll jump and spatter out. Put it on the meat. And open your windows and turn on your vent full blast. I routinely set off my smoke detectors when I pan sear. You can speed up and dial in the crusting process with a Searzall topped torch, but it isn't necessary. I usually use one for the pan, but not the grill.