Rochesterfan

This exactly - there is no way to compare Diggs versus the field. There may be one or two guys we had no shot at that are better, but there is a real good chance that a couple of hard working 2nd rd picks or later - land in the right spot and have better careers. The issue is finding them and is Buffalo the right spot to develop them into that type of receiver. I am very happy with taking a young known receiver at this point to allow JA to grow and progress over a WR in the draft that might work out, but might not.

Well - it appears he has now been officially charged with assault on the truck driver. So for people wanting to sign him - the assault and battery charge costs him what a minimum of 4-6 games. The sexual assault charges run him what about 8 games on the commissioners list. The threats from a burner phone to another potential sexual assault victim- another potential couple of games. My guess is anyone that signs him (if anyone is dumb enough to sign him)- has a player that is suspended for the entire year. Does anyone take a risk on the potential backlash to get a guy in over a year? Can he keep a lid on the crazy for a year while suspended? I think this is fascinating- I wouldn’t want him, but does someone take a shot?

I just think some of your premise is way off base. The change you are talking about is minor for mid-level starters. Do you actually believe that 2% or about 4 million dollars is the difference for an average QB to suddenly win a SuperBowl? The difference is not a very low end starter at RB, or a #3 WR. The team doesn’t win a Super Bowl because they can afford a low end Guard or a back-up level tackle. The addition of a back-up at DT or DE or maybe a low end starter at LB (think Kiko Alonso) or even a low end #3 CB or safety does not drive the team to a super bowl. The fact that mid level starting QBs saw a 2% increase is not the reason. How much of an increase has mid level OT increased, or DEs, or even CBs. Many positions have seen similar increases compared to the cap for mid level players. Depth across the league is way down because the starter levels get paid many times more than they are worth. For example - Shaq Lawson. Many people wanted to give him the 5th year option at just over 10 million. That is over 2 million more than the Bills valued him at or 1% for a rotational DE. Now let’s say they had used the option - then his starting request after that as a FA is most likely an increase to 12 million - another 1% increase covering the same difference as your mid level QB. Now the difference between a QB on a Rookie Deal and the second deal. Now you are talking some money. The difference for Mahomes is going to be like 30-35 million dollars (15 - 18% of the cap) or essentially 2-3 all pro players at any other position. That is a huge difference. Once you start to lop off top end talent around your roster - the QB better be elite and make others better or you are going to struggle. The Rams tried to keep their elite talent and downgraded a huge percentage of their roster instead - enough that they took a huge step backwards. I think some of it was that teams started to figure McVay out and some was their talent especially on the O-line and LBs took big steps back.

Nope - he has not been good for years. I think even if they sign him at this point he is 4th or 5th on the depth chart. He is not better than Knox, Kroft, or Sweeney. He is on par with Smith (the veteran) and you still have Croom for speed and Becker who both are still around. If this was 2014/15 - then yes, but right now - I want him no where near this roster.

Once again - it was not the NFL doing anything wrong. The NFL did not try to pull a fast one. They were not trying to screw the players. This was all under negotiation and it sounds like the NFLPA came to an agreement and THEY cross referenced it incorrectly in their posted material. The NFL was not involved in the issue at all - it was strictly an issue with the NFLPA. The NFLPA came out and stated it was a cross reference issue - nothing major and because it is very minor they a have corrected this. Nothing to see here and it will not get a re-vote or anything.

As suspected NFLPA calls it a cross reference issue that was corrected. So it was not a nefarious plan by billionaire owners to sneak something by - just as was stated before - the NFL had nothing to do with this. This was an NFLPA issue. I think we need to loosen up a few tin foil hats around here.

Once again - why are you calling it a Shady move by the owners? The NFL and the NFLPA were in negotiations. The suit is against the NFLPA assuming they did not provide the info to the voters. The NFL did nothing wrong at all. Nothing at all suggests the NFL did anything at all. The suit alleges the NFLPA provided incorrect information to the players to vote - not the NFL. It should not invalidate the CBA if the NFL did nothing wrong. They negotiated in good faith and it is up to the NFLPA to provide the information for their members. If anything it should not impact the CBA, but it should create an opportunity for the players to remove the NFLPA executives and get a new negotiation team for 2030. Overall from what I have read - you are talking about a very minor point that impacts offsets against SSDI - this will be handled and if they re-vote - I can see the owners actually working to take back more funds and the players get an even worse deal that they will accept.

If they are having games the border will be open. Canada is on the same timeline as most of the US. It is just like International Games - Europe is weeks ahead of us. Italy and France is what NYC and NO will look like in 2+ weeks with the deaths. If the US has cleared enough to have games and fans - then Canada, and Europe will be cleared also. Now the big question is does this make a fall/winter comeback with reinfection rates like normal corona viruses that cause the cold - that people get every year or is this more of a one time thing. That will be the NFLs full season deciding factor.

Maybe rather than complain the highly principled Reid should quit. You are not happy - there is nothing in the CBA saying you have to play. Quit or Shut-up

I agree as a % of the season it is less, but for years MLB starts the season with 2-4 teams playing 2 sets of 3 games in Asia - while other teams are finishing the preseason. The do it to peak fan interest and more importantly to get players interested in playing ball in the US to increase the talent. The fact that it also brings in nice money - even though few in the US see the games as they are played in the middle of the night. The NBA sent 4 teams to China several years ago to play regular season games at the start of the season and it had become a staple until the owners talked about Hong Kong freedoms and that little issue has cost the NBA billions. Just this year the NHL sent multiple teams to Europe and Scandinavia to play a bunch of regular season games. It increases European fan connection and helps a major drawing point for NHL players. The NFL is no different - they would love to get some European athletes to become future NFL players. They also know they have a healthy fan base in Europe to draw from and want to keep them engaged as that is a nice source of revenue. The biggest difference in the sports is that the NBA plays every other night - so it gets hard once the season is going to float a long trip to Asia - so you do it at the start. Baseball is the same way - once the regular season starts there are few breaks to have teams able to travel like they can at the start of the season. The NHL did that for years in Europe and this was the first time in a while they did it in the middle of the season. The NFL on the other hand has a huge amount of time between games - that makes it easier to move and less of an issue than other sports. I also get that you hate it, but as a fundamental issue facing the NFL - you need to continue to find new revenue streams and new fans and international games can provide that. I enjoy games at the stadium and love watching games on TV - so either way it is fine and I find I enjoy watching the pomp of the games in England. I hated the Toronto series because I hated losing the game every year, but once every couple of years doesn’t really bother me and the fact that the Bills are becoming a better team - I love the added exposure for our area.

The NFL does seem to care, but they are not going to fund things for former players solely out of their money and they shouldn’t. They expect the players to provide funds back also to keep the revenue split the same, but the NFLPA refused. The NFL even offered in the previous negotiations if they would remove the money from the shared revenue- they would fund most of the benefits, but the NFLPA did not want the overall revenue to shrink - which lessens the amount the players get.

Except they did play regular seasons games in China a few years ago. MLB starts the season in Japan and Korea and have it several times. The NHL played games in Europe several times. Why shouldn’t the NFL. For the NFL it is must less disruptive than other sports as they play once a week - so there is little difference between traveling to Europe and West Coast. The addition of fans and potential players is huge to the sport and the future of the NFL. As far as games for this year - Europe is weeks ahead of the US in terms of the virus. If it is ok to play in the US - it will be ok to play in most of Europe. If US games are delayed - then overseas games will be also.

I do not understand at all the blame to the NFL above. The NFLPA would of had to agree to the changes and they were a big part of cutting the benefits to get more money for active members. The NFL in the last agreement wanted to work with the players to set up a large fund for former players, but the NFLPA rejected the matching dollars - it was more important to DeMaurice Smith to increase the money to the individual players. My guess would be this is part of that again. More money away from non-due paying former players and more money to current members. The players and owners were still negotiating as the vote went on - I put a huge blame on the NFLPA for this and little blame on the NFL.

I get that you hate Murphy, but I do not understand the Lawson versus Shaq. First the 5th year option would have been 10 million plus for Shaq - a good size overpay for just the one year - plus that would have set his baseline meaning if they wanted to sign him further - you are looking at 12+ million going forward. The Bills saw him as about an 6/8 million dollar max guy before last year - so the 5th year option was already an overpay. 2nd - Shaq produced next to nothing when platooning with Murphy because he was not as good on the left side of the line. He was not quick enough to beat the RT and lacked strength and leverage to hold up. He was significantly better platooning with Hughes the last 2 years on the Right side - he did not get pressure against LTs, but strength wise - he seemed to hold up better. Based on what they did - Shaq and Murphy where not really equal the last 2 years - they essentially played different positions with very different responsibilities and if you replaced Murphy with Shaq - I think it would be a pretty big downgrade. I like what they brought in as replacements and like the price tags even more. I think in the short term they are just as good for less money and hungrier players. Shaq to me is a good role player and edge contain, but provides nothing in pass rush. Phillips provided a nice push a few times a game, but was never consistent enough or stout enough even with his size and both guys had 2nd tier price tags from the Bills. I won’t say Murphy is any better because he has flaws to, but I would not get rid of him unless you have an improvement. Right now there is no improvement - so Murphy should be here until they see where everything shakes out.

I agree with you first part, but I just do not get the bolder at all. I don’t get it - they moved on from all of those guys with little investment. Gore was a 1 year deal to help get Singletary ready and help him get through the year. That worked. KB - they recognized the issue - did not extend his contract - even though many talked about what that extension would look like. Then when he showed it couldn’t do it - they cut him. Sammy and Dareus showed they were me first players and Sammy has since admitted that many times - they tried to make changes and moved on as soon as they could. McDermott and Beane tend to bring in a lot of guys, but they have done a good job of recognizing pay versus results versus value and moved on. I understand you thought on Shaq versus Murphy, but Shaq was much better from the other side with Hughes as a player - so it really would not have made sense to sign him to a bigger contract than Murphy, plus absorb Murphy’s dead money, plus still need another DE, and finally get less out of Shaq on the wrong side.

This is about the dumbest thing I’ve heard. So BOB trades away Hopkins and in that vein ticked off Watson enough that Watson wants out. He trades Watson to NE for a song - which gets him fired. Then he gets a job in NE and now all of a sudden Watson is going to be fine with him. If Watson is traded to NE and BOB goes there - Watson is going to want to get away from NE. It just makes no sense at all.

Couldn’t this have gone in any of the other Perriman threads- not much to add that has not been said previously. Sorry.

Not only is it terrible, but it might be a rip off. Plus that awful Rams head - it looks like skull you would find in the desert. White head with gold horns - is this the long lost and dead Golden Fleece head from mythology. They need to step back admit their error and start over. They blew it.

Nope - you can already watch e-sports and few do. I wouldn’t watch the NFL that way.

I mean the Pegula’s followed the NFL established rules when purchasing the franchise. They were allowed based on a 1997 rule change to own an NFL franchise and an NHL franchise in the same city or another non-NFL market. He did not as was suggested - “pull a fast one” on the NFL. What I can’t tell is the entire post a joke and this discussion worthless or was it legitimate and uninformed. I am assuming the 2nd half is a joke about Tre’s contract, but you just never know with this board.

I hope they put it right on the helmet. What a terrible design.

Exactly!

The blame on this is a huge lack of leadership on the federal level over the last 2 months. Not blaming one party or the other as both have made mistakes, but the writing was on the wall for this as China and then Italy and others cracked down. Proper leadership would have provided better guidance to restaurant and hotel owners and provided a better guideline toward these layoffs/firings. As it is most restaurants and hotels are getting rid of all hourly employees at an alarming rate and for the employees - the safest thing is totally cut them off so unemployment is easier to obtain. Depending upon the organization- some are providing more benefits, but most seem to be doing the minimum in an effort to keep the business alive. No money/minimum money coming in - still have most of their expenses- rent, food costs, electricity, licenses, water, insurance, taxes, etc. They need a savings and the people are it.

I hope this is a joke - the rules were modified in 1997 to allow duel ownership - when the then Miami Dolphins owner - also owned the Marlins. He purchased the Dolphins in 1993 and waited 4 years to get full control. Since then multiple owners - have more than one team. The idea above works for the most crooked franchise in the NFL. I hope that team rots in a 25 year purgatory where they fail at everything they touch.

Good signing for Carolina. Played under Rhule. Good fit and no pressure.