Rochesterfan

The problem with trying to decide a winner or loser in this trade is - I don’t think the player for player trade was the point. I think Miami recognized that the DE market was flooded with talent of guys similar or better than Shaq. Conversely the ILB FA market is very limited. Miami makes this trade to be able to go after a FA DE this year and gets an ILB that they could not find on the FA market. If Miami is able to get a top flight DE for a good contract - they win this trade. If they get shut out and get a mid tier out lower guy in the same vein as Shaq and have to over pay just like last year - then Houston did just fine. Miami paid most of the bonus money end you know what you are getting with Lawson.

I don’t think this means that at all. He missed the entire first part of the year and I don’t think he was ever 100% healthy. We will see - I think they trust him and feel the line they wanted to run with last year will hopefully be 100% and ready to start the season. The 5 starters never played 1 snap together last year and with no training camp - I think they did what they could in a bad situation.

Not surprised - he wanted to come back and the team loves him. Figured it was just a matter of time. Now we will see how they go about improving the team (draft or a few guys looking for a shot at a ring).

It is all postering - He has been going to be traded shortly now for weeks. I am not worried. Let it come to us. Do not give up picks and big salary for a guy that is not wanted on his current team. Let them cut him or let someone else take the trade - give us a better player at a lower salary.

Depends - they signed them as the best they could get last year. This year they could improve on both of them - so you move on. If it works their GM did fine - convert an over paid DE into an improved younger LB and have a ton of FA DEs to choose from on the market. Van Noy was brought in to set the attitude and knowledge - you move on once you think that is established.

I think that it signals Miami looking at FA DEs and a lack of good LBs made this deal to get a better LB now and go after DEs later.

I want no part of Carson unless you get him at vet min. Paying an oft injured RB 7-8 million is just stupid. He provides nothing extra that we do not have. If they are signing/drafting a RB (which I have my doubts based upon the roster) we need a speed back that can catch. Hunter Henry is the right age, but again I do not want to pay big for what has been barely above our current TE groups production. I just do not see the need to overpay for a TE producing 600 yards and 4 TDs on average - plus the injury as he has not played 16 games in 5 seasons. Again for a small price ok, but not above 3-4 million.

Why because Seattle and Houston do not want to trade the players and the one move guaranteed to push the button even more is to require them to pay back money. My guess is both teams are going to ride this out until the point one or both guys refuse to play and there is little other options. Then they will decide what to do about the money. For now the expectations are both teams still have their starting QBs.

Well to be fair - FA has not started yet - so he was still a Bill with an expiring contract. It is not a typical extension that adds on to the remaining years, but it was completed while still under contract and without the details maybe that’s the way they worded it. I agree the wording is sketchy, but I can understand the decision to call it an extension. I mean even the Bills Twitter calls it an extension.

I don’t think you are getting your wish with the report that Addison also restructured- ala Morse and Butler. I think they are setting the table for Mongo coming back and maybe McKittrick. That frees them up to go BPA in the draft and see what other nuggets you can find in the bargain bin looking to join a winner.

Not sure it matters much. The Bills rarely use 3 LBs on the field at one time. Predominantly they play a 4-2-5 - with one of the DBs being a bigger guy to act as a LB. They need to get better at their big safety role with a guy that can really cover, but still hit and support.

We all agree that you are - nice that you see it too. 😂

They were talking on moving the chains today on Sirius that as of right now there is no opt out. It would need to be agreed to and the league was more worried about salary cap first. Now that that is done they are working on FA and the draft. It may get discussed as they finalize those aspects, but it is not guaranteed especially as the vaccine becomes more available.

So what you are saying is that Star’s home is for sale? I have read through the thread and it seems you are the only one with that info. The other mention of a home for sale was referencing Lee Smith who put his home up and has talked about retirement in interviews. Now after several pages and a very poorly written initial post - you are saying that you believe that Star is getting cut because his house might be for sale? Maybe you need to gather some thoughts and present them in an organized manner to ensure they make sense.

There has been no indications that they will allow opt outs again this year. That was a one time agreed to thing and I do not believe the NFL/NFLPA have discussed it.

Serious question - Why? I mean last year as a rookie he replaced him fine. We have another red shirted rookie - so maybe the plan is less speed and better routes. A group with bigger bodies to fight through the type of coverage KC threw at them. I think they will miss his speed, but I think they will also get younger and different production from the position. Plus the last stat I read yesterday was that Davis was the only receiver in the entire NFL over the last 8 games to have 20+ catches and average over 19 yards per catch. He found ways to get deep even without Smoke’s blazing speed.

Except - if we cut him with the injuries and games he played - would they have signed someone else? AJ was not ready early in the season - so we needed additional DE depth. So maybe we get a small savings, but even if we bring up a guy from the PS we are talking minimal savings. Rather have the guys that got me to the AFC Championship game rather than save a couple of million and have missed the guy that helped in multiple games due to his experience.

So you think Morse that just restructured is a good candidate to restructure again? You think Dawkins - that signed his new contract last year and the Additional years haven’t even started yet is going to restructure? Makes no sense. Then let’s follow that up with signing Williams, Feliciano and Carson - which uses all the money we have, but now you have cut your back up LB along with losing your starting weak side LB and your #2 DE, but somehow you are going to 1-2 upgraded impact front 7 Defensive players. Wow - just wow - not sure this Lamp post was needed - let alone it could have been put in any number of similar threads.

Is he still about to be traded? Or is this the stadium naming rights thread all over again. I hope it is the latter with Ertz about to be traded for the next 6-9 months. That would be an LOL thread.

You are correct - except the NFLPA was all for borrowing against future cap - spreading it out over 10 years - the owners were not willing to do so. Basically the higher the cap and the more years it was spread out was money out of the owners pocket - interest free. The owners wanted the cap lower and any future cap impacts limited to 1-2 years. As it is - the cap at 182.5 rather than the 160 or so the NFL/NFLPA agreement calls for - is over half a billion dollars extra the players get now that is offset over the next 2 years. That is a lot of money the owners are putting out without the offset capital guaranteed to return. This is a ridiculous take as the cap really should be 20 million lower - it was a sound agreement between the parties.

The NFLPA was happy to spread the loss out over 10 years and have the cap normalized this year. The owners wanted it limited because many are struggling with cash on hand in their real life and losing money in 2020 and not regaining that money until 2030 was bad business. The owners were willing to forgo some money, but wanted to see it repaid within 2-3 years at most - otherwise they were basically giving the players about 1 billion dollars interest free over 10 years (~40 million expected salary cap drop and 32 teams - 1.2 Billion). The expected salary cap drop based on lost revenue was going to be 160-165 million. They agreed to mid 170’s and now about 183 million with that extra money being cut out the next 2 years.

I don’t know that it is Daboll not be interested in TE routes or if it is our QB - like point 2. Nothing wrong with Josh, but he is/has typically used WRs as his primary pass catching target since college. I think he is way more comfortable throwing to WRs than TEs. Once Josh learns how to control some of that and utilize RBs and TEs as safety valves - he will become a nearly unstoppable force. My issue with thinking Ertz will do anything if the Bills trade for him is targets/targets/targets. He has been the primary receiving target in Philadelphia for years and the WR room has been a shifting wasteland of injured garbage and guys past their prime. Coming to Buffalo, how many targets does he get? In 2020 if you merge all TE targets - he would have gotten 66 targets with a 75% catch rate you get 50 receptions instead of 43 and I think that is top end levels without using any other TEs. The other thing is that the Bills have lessened the usage of a traditional TE and gone to more of an HB role to increase blocking and give a safety valve - I am not sure that fits Ertz very well - so my guess is a more traditional pass catching TE that can’t block see the field less. I have no issue with a 7th round pick and trying it, but I do have an issue with an 8 million+ salary. He will never live up to that in this offense - he will just be a huge disappointment that everyone tries to rationalize.

I agree, but at the end of the game teams would already know who is getting the ball first in OT. If I knew the other team was getting the ball first and I am driving for a tying FG - does a team get more aggressive to try and score a TD? It also eliminates them having to do a second coin toss and make another random decision. It makes one coin toss per game and changes coaches current thinking process - which has been defer in the majority of cases. I am not saying it fixes many or all of the issues - I think it is just a change that should happen and is better than screwing with things like eliminating the kickoff and deciding a starting position or going to the college OT rules (even modified for the NFL - like starting at mid field or something). I have no issue with the current rules, but there is a lot of complaints about the arbitrary nature of the coin toss and that impacting the outcome. I think if you remove the coin toss in favor of the initial coin toss - now that becomes a part of team’s strategy from the beginning.

I agree and there is not much you can do. I think the NFL should tie the OT coin toss into the coin toss to start the game. The choices become: 1) Winning team can receive the 1st kick off in the game and in OT. 2) Winning team can defer and choose what they want after halftime, but then the other team gets to decide the opening kickoff and OT. 3) Winning team can choose a direction - allowing the other team to choose to receive or kickoff to start the game and in OT. I believe this would change many teams approach from deferring to receiving the kick off to start the game - so that in the event of OT - they get the ball. It would also then play into the end of game decisions to some degree as teams already know the kick off situation for OT.

To be fair - this is one of the most idiotic and mind bendingly stupid proposals ever made. A team gets to choose ball and the other team chooses the starting position. Why - to what end and why are we again screwing with kickoffs. Just absolutely mental. Their other rule change about an extra “sky official” is much more palatable. It sounds like what the NFL was planning before the preseason went away last year. To be fair - to all the “fans” that want to eliminate preseason- this is reason #1 to keep a minimum of 2 games - even as we add 17 and 18. You need a place to test rule changes in a live environment. The early season injuries is reason 2. The poor defensive play in the first 6-8 weeks is reason #3.