BarleyNY

Wait a minute. BOTH units? Some times specials were to blame too.

lol. then why did you stray so far from that singular point? especially when the level of disagreement was so small on that point? the rest of us are discussing the whole situation.

SF’s play absolutely matters. In fact, it’s been the point of my conversation. Your point seems to be that since Aiyuk is under contract for this season then SF holds all the cards and nothing else matters. It is easy for me to see why 2025 and beyond matters. My take on that has been that, while it is obvious that SF can force Aiyuk to play under his 5th year option, that is SF’s worst long term option. They’d be better off either coming to an agreement or trading him for a player that can help them beyond this season plus draft capital. Since they probably can’t afford an Aiyuk extension, then a trade would be their best choice.

You still haven’t answered the main question: what’s SF’s play? Making him play out this season and getting a comp pick? Sure, they can do that, but that’s a poor outcome for the team unless they win the SB this season. I was gaming out what would be best for BOTH sides. You’re biased in favor of the team and that seems to be keeping you from seeing the larger picture. Making a deal would be in both of their best interests. But if they can’t come to an agreement, then getting some value in trade would be in SF’s best interest. And Aiyuk would still get his big contract.

That’s not remotely correct. Disputes between players and their teams often hurt the team. Though it wasn’t contract related, you don’t have to look any further than the dispute between Diggs and the Bills to see a team hurt. Unless you don’t think the $31M dead cap we got hit with this year is an issue. Lynch and the 49ers have screwed up similar situations multiple times over the last few seasons so I wouldn’t put too much stock in what they’re doing. As I explained, SF doesn’t really have a lot of good options. Be specific about what great option they have if you disagree. As for Aiyuk, he’s got generational wealth on the line. I do not blame him one bit for doing everything he can to get that before putting it at risk this season.

It’s possible that it moves the needle. It is a distraction during SF’s championship window. That’s not nothing. It ultimately may not help Aiyuk’s cause, but you’ve laid out why it can’t hurt either. So why not try? No downside, possible upside, good timing. Yes, picks (and/or players) plus a contract. That is common practice in situations like this. SF is in a bind with contracts they’ve given out and have on the horizon - including Purdy. Adding a market deal for Aiyuk to the mix may not be feasible for them. They’d have some real work to do to fit it. Your preferred path of making him play this season likely would result in him walking in FA next off-season and yielding them a comp pick in 2026. Whoop. Not exactly a great return for one of the best WRs in the game. Also, if his demands are so outlandish (I doubt they are), then why not call his bluff? If other teams won’t pay his asking price either, then he’d have to come off of it. Right?

The point of going public with a trade request is obviously to escalate the situation. It gets it into the public sphere again and could spur some trade talks prior to the start of training camps. It’s worth noting that SF’s GM, Lynch, has performed absolutely abysmally in similar situations. I expect that Aiyuk ends up playing in SF this year and then walks for a comp pick or gets tagged and traded for little next off-season. There are not many viable trade partners anyway. SF would need to get a quality WR to help them compete this year plus draft capital back. Not much out there right now. Cleveland would be the best option I can think of. Amari Cooper, who is currently holding out, plus a day 2 pick (or similar package of picks) makes sense. And Cleveland would pay him. But it’s unlikely.

He is certainly a very likable young man and is very easy to root for. I get what you’re saying about the 5th year option tho. He’s young so it does seem like it would be good to have in case he develops slowly. I’m not that worried about it though. We should know who he is in time to extend him or move on within the next 3 or 4 seasons. But if it was me and he was my guy, then I would have just picked him at 32 (or 28) and kept the 5th year option too.

Agreed. There’s no reason to rush Coleman onto the field. He’s young, having just turned 21. They should bring him along slowly and let him earn his way on the field. His emotion is such a great asset. Use it to build his confidence with success on the field as he’s ready.

Obviously you’re free to use those interchangeably, but it’ll cause unnecessary confusion since they are much more commonly used to mean different things. So it’s on you if people misunderstand you. As for the rest of your post, I was not arguing any of that. Just pointing out where a misunderstanding might have been. Since you’ve made a lot of incorrect assumptions about my opinions, I’ll put my take on Coleman here for the record. I was not impressed by his senior season’s tape and had a 3rd round grade on him. That was driven by potential and “wow” moments that made him intriguing. His performance was very inconsistent though and he did not impress on a play-by-play basis. Thus the 3rd round grade. In general, I very much dislike contested catch WRs as they rarely find success in the NFL. But here’s the thing - on the occasions that they do, they are often among the most elite. Coleman obviously has some special gifts and he is young and still developing. So he’s definitely got a shot at hitting and becoming one of the best WRs in the game. The Bills swung for the fences with him and while my brain tells me the odds favor a miss, it also knows there is the possibility they knocked it out of the park. My heart is certainly rooting hard for the home run.

X refers to the outside WR who is lined up on the LOS. WR1 is more nebulous though. It typically refers to a team’s best/most productive WR. But sometimes it simply refers to a WR who is elite. In that cast a team can have more than one - like SF with Debo and Aiyuk. So a team’s WR1 can be their X, but a team’s X is not necessarily their WR1. For example, for the last several seasons the Bills WR1 was Diggs who was usually the Z (tho they moved him around). Gabe Davis was usually the X and he was definitely not WR1. The Bills have been clear that their plans is for Coleman to be the X. But he’s going to have to earn his stripes, be those WR1 or WR2 stripes - or whatever else anyone wants to call it.

Sure. That’s how the league valued MVS. The league also valued Claypool at minimum salary plus $25k and Hamler at minimum salary. That should tell you which WR the league consider the best of the three and is the most likely to make the team.

I think everyone realizes that it’s possible to win a championship while fielding a below average WR corps. But most also realize that betting big on exceptions is a poor strategy.

$7.5M is not adequate cap space to go through the season. OTC has it at $10M, which would be about the minimum the team would need. The Bills still have to move to a 53 man roster (~$2M), add a practice squad (~$4M) and make in-season moves ($4M-$5M minimum). There really isn’t any wiggle room unless they create some more space - and there are precious few ways for them to do that.

While $2.25M is no guarantee that MVS makes the roster, contracts do matter. They show that the Bills expect MVS to make the team and they’ll give him more opportunity to do so than they will Claypool or Hamler. He’ll also get the benefit of doubt if it’s close since the overall cost of keeping Claypool or Hamler over him would be higher by over $1M. Don’t get me wrong, I think that your argument that the Bills should not have given MVS those guarantees is reasonable. I also think that on a level playing field Claypool - if he’s really gotten himself together - might beat MVS for a roster spot. But it’s not a level playing field.

The contracts matter. Looking at them and their guarantees is telling when projecting cuts. Usually you just need to follow the money: MVS - 1 year, $2.25M, Fully guaranteed. Claypool - 1 year, $1.135M, only the $25k signing bonus is guaranteed. Hamler - 1 year, $1.055M, no guarantees. https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/cap/_/year/2024 Barring injury or complete disaster, MVS will make the 53 over Claypool and Hamler.

I think a lot of people will be surprised when Chase Claypool gets cut.

Marino is off-seasoning hard. TBF making lists like this is pretty much what every NFL podcaster is doing. Nothing happening this time of year - and that’s the best case scenario for any NFL team. No complaints from me.

Not sure why Torry Holt hasn’t made it yet. I’d put him in.

I looked at this again. The cap implications of a post 6/1 cut of Miller (which he’d obviously be at this point) are actually manageable. His 2024 cap hit would reduce by $280k. The full contract details have not worked their way out into the public so there might be some guarantees for him to be on the roster this year. But from what is known it looks like cutting him this season might actually be feasible.

I took this to be a challenge to correctly guess the most surprising cut that actually happens, or at least has a chance to happen. Von Miller realistically can’t be cut due to cap implications. If that weren’t the case, then the Bills would have already cut him. If he comes in lazy, lost, spent, then he’ll be inactive or, more likely, they’ll find an excuse to IR him as a face-saving measure for both sides. Edit: see update below

I can't see it from a cap perspective. His cap hit this season goes UP by over $8M if he's cut. Plus we'd have to roster a replacement which would add to the cap. Even if he isn't physically right to play, they can't cut him until next offseason without some offsetting cap moves.

As @NoSaint mentioned, Dorsey is the OC in Cleveland. Hines was brought in because he wanted him. It’ll be interesting to see if/how he’s utilized there. As for 2 TE sets, Dorsey doesn’t use them very often. Stefanski and the analytics crowd loves 12 personnel so the prevailing opinion in Cleveland is that Dorsey was selected as OC to help the Browns move to more 11. Njoku is pretty much the only TE of any note they have on the team so that fits the narrative. They’ve had a good TE2 and decent TE3 in the past. Not this year.

Vet minimum plus incentives.

Seems like something that the parents should be held responsible for.