Doc Brown

This is why Myles Garrett stayed. Future draft picks.

I said when the whole stupid tariff thing started and the markets freaked out the best case scenario was it was a trash and cash scheme. Nothing else made sense.

I said CB. Lol. In hindsight though, drafting three running backs in the first round pry was a major contributor to the drought. Where were you when we needed you analytics?

Can't believe the Bills took a CB at #30 coming off a torn ACL. Boom or bust I guess.

Mostly reactive although there's a lot of proactive regulations when it comes to climate change. We contribute to climate change but how much we do is overstated imo. There's a certain arrogance in thinking that we alone are the reason for climate change. Forcing car companies to rapidly curb the emissions of greenhouse gases, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides in gas powered vehicles by 2027 is an example of that. All that would do is make gas powered cars more expensive as I doubt the more expensive hybrid and electric vehicle prices going down. So basically it's similar to tariffs in that it's a tax on the consumer. The problem with reactive regulations is you're assuming they were written competently, based off sound research, and actually address the problem. If the regulation falls into that category it's unlikely to be eliminated because it might cost a few regulatory jobs and there's no incentive to do so.

Squeaky wheel gets the grease. Myles Garrett posted a thank you letter to Browns fans to convince the Browns to sign him for $40m/year. Cook doesn't have 34 years left on his playing career so the appropriate time for him to exert maximum pressure is right now. His next contract will likely be the only bite of the apple he can setting himself up financially the rest of his life. I t's likely the best season he'll ever have as a pro given his age, the quality of our o-line, and his efficiency numbers last year (especially his total TD's which will regress to the mean). You also now have fans who fell in love with him last year on Cook's side. It could force a trade to a team willing to pay him a massive RB extension if the Bills aren't going too. I don't like the strategy but I've seen a number of players get a contract extension done successfully using this strategy. At the very least it makes it more likely that you can add incentives to his contract this year like the Giants did with Barkley when they franchise tagged him.

Happy Gilmore style.

@HOUSEgot snubbed. The machine is flawed.

There's always a tug and poll from each party when it comes to regulations. There are absolutely unnecessary and/or redundant regulations. You're correct that to paraphrase we need regulations basically because of human nature. Banking especially (see subprime mortgage crisis). Obviously there's been many necessary federal regulations passed (especially during the first half of the 20th century) but you can't study every government regulation and not with a straight face come to the conclusion that regulators have run amok. There are plenty of regulations that have no usefulness that only make running a business more costly. Costs that are passed onto the taxpayer and study after study shows they hurt the lowest income people the most.

In his best year PFF gave him a 82.3 grade which was 12th among 47 qualifying RB's. He wants to be paid like a top three back despite only playing 46% of the snaps last year. What would make more sense to you? Giving him a four year $60m contract for a part time RB or let him play out the last year of his contract at $5.7m to see if he can repeat what he did last year? Then you have the option of re-signing him, applying the non-exclusive franchise tag (around $13m which still would be less than he'd get on a four year $60m) on him, and if some team offers him a contract you can either match it or get two first round picks. Or you let him walk and get a 3rd or 4th round comp pick (which I would do). The point is you still have a lot of options by letting him play out the last year of his contract. What's the rush?

Imagine saying four years ago that we signed Tre White in 2025 to a one year deal that carried a $2.88m cap hit and thinking that might be a little more than we hoped for. Life comes at you fast.

The price has apparently gone up for the Cowboys. My cousin's husband works on the Bills video crew for PSA and says that James Cook is maybe the most quiet and reserved person he's ever met to the point of socially awkward. This is 100% coming from his agent and brother.

I can't read @GunnerBill's posts anymore with that thick British accent in head. I really enjoyed the listen. You should get compensated for this somehow. Maybe sell your souls and get a draftkings or FanDuel sponsor.

I understand what you're saying. It's really not that complicated to me because like I said above I'm weary of players who ease up a little bit on their work ethic once they get the bag. If I was Beane, to avoid off-season headaches, I'd give Cook some incentives this year up to $3m or so and hope that combined with wanting to get paid the bag next off-season you'll have an ultra motivated RB that gives you a chance to win the Super Bowl this year. Edit: My plan completely changes if I'm Beane and Allen says "pay Cook or I demand a trade."

I'm just assuming they have a good agent. If they want to come back for half their market value than I'll throw a welcome back party for them. It's just not a good use of assets imo when you're paying a QB elite money. For this year to maybe avoid the headache of a hold out you can give him a few million if he meets certain incentives. We may get a great year if he's motivated to both reach those incentives and set himself up for a nice payday next off-season. A lot of times players that are contract motivated will drop off their work ethic once they're paid. His brother did that imo. It's either that or injuries that doom these 2nd contracts to RB's.

49ers WR Brandon Aiyuk not present at mandatory minicamp amid search for new contract You have to be ruthlessly pragmatic as a GM. It's why for at least the last ten years I've been a never draft a RB in the 1st round guy and never re-sign a RB to a top of the market 2nd contract guy. Fans get emotionally attached to players especially if they're a first round pick. Hell, owners can even get in the way (see Zeke Elliott). If I'm Beane, I have Cook play out his contract and hope he has a great year so you can get that 3rd or 4th round comp pick for him next draft.

If a team thinks Cook has the potential to be a workhouse back than I guess it would make sense to use your first round pick at a premium position and then give up a 3rd or 4th for Cook. The one positive with Cook is the lack of wear and tear on his body going all the way back to college as he's never been a high volume RB. It's doubtful any GM would do that though but it only takes one.

Hypothetically, how much would it take?

Similar quality prospects but I wouldn't want the headache of trying to find the right balance between playing WR and CB with Sanders. Plus, elite DE's have a longer shelf life than elite CB's/WR's.

You have other examples of like Todd Gurley, Chris Johnson, Nick Chubb, David Johnson, etc.. It's just the most injury prone position. Plus, a RB is so dependent and useless without a good offensive line. Barkley only averaged 3.9ypc in 2023 with the Giants because they're line was awful. I'd rather re-sign McGovern for $15m a year than Cook. Then Jerry Jones would have to be shipped to a mental institution for evaluation.

If the Raiders draft Jeanty at #6 it would be $6.5m/season. It would cost the Cowboys $4.1m per season at #12. Would you rather sign Cook for maybe double or triple that, save the pick, and give up say a 3rd? I wouldn't do it but they know they have a sure thing in Cook. Plus, to answer your questions it's the Raiders and the Cowboys.

Nobody will give up a 2nd round pick and then pay a RB way more than he's worth. Unless Al Davis is still alive.

What? If tariffs are even? What are you talking about? If you want to squeeze out China the goal should be to build a durable and dependable supply chain that reduces our reliance on China. A universal 10% tariff on other countries and for some reason a 35% tariff on Canadian lumber for example is antithetical to squeezing out China.

Auto groups lobby Trump administration against parts tariffs in rare unified message Six of the top policy groups representing the U.S. automotive industry are uncharacteristically joining forces to lobby the Trump administration against 25% tariffs on auto parts that are set to take effect by May 3. The group – representing franchised dealers, suppliers and nearly all major automakers – say in a letter to Trump administration officials that the upcoming levies could jeopardize U.S. automotive production. The letter notes many auto suppliers are already “in distress” and wouldn’t be able to afford the additional cost increases, leading to broader industry problems. “Most auto suppliers are not capitalized for an abrupt tariff induced disruption. Many are already in distress and will face production stoppages, layoffs and bankruptcy,” the letter reads. “It only takes the failure of one supplier to lead to a shutdown of an automaker’s production line. When this happens, as it did during the pandemic, all suppliers are impacted, and workers will lose their jobs.”