Mikie2times

I'm not the person who declared one side of evaluation to be meaningless. The eye test does matter, but I don't think any person is capable of using that alone to evaluate dozens of players and then forming a rational conclusion on who is the most impactful. Perhaps if that is all you do for a living but I assume you're not a NFL scout. If you aren't comparing him to his peers, than what are we talking about? We know he's good. This conversation is about if he's top 15-20 good? Is it not reasonable to assume his peers who are producing more havoc also do the same things you're calling out or do we have the only DE in the NFL capable of producing between the numbers? Better yet, the only one who is largely, ONLY capable of producing between the numbers.

You already formed your entire argument on what you see and invalidated any statistical measure at the position. Statistics that are meaningful, but you still dismiss the benefit of that knowledge all together. Such a view isn't capable of being applied to other players equally for context. It's has no real anchor in what a player like him should be doing relative to peers. When challenged you revert to "Other people just don't understand football". Somebody else called out "fantasy" mind set. I here similar arguments all the time for McD. It is our seething blind hate that clouds are ability to be rational therefor our opinion must not be relevant. Here, it's just are lack of football understanding. I played from 9 until 1/2 year in college, so your speculation, along with the other "fantasy" brain call outs is just off the mark. The players in his weight class of pay make a higher rate of negative plays. That can be sacks, TFLs, or even pressures. You don't care, I get it, but the history of the game does, the actual game does. Negative plays do matter. If you're basing your opinion on how good he's been with run fits, anchoring, double teams, helping others produce, things that don't get on a stat sheet, than great! But you still won't find any players in his weight class failing to get on a stat sheet at the rate he does. Which IS part of the conversation. Ultimately those measurements are how elite production is defined and paid out for at his position. Anchoring and run defense is not what gets a DE in the NFL upper money bands. He's a good player but overpaid relative to the skill set he is giving the Bills. Paid enough that further investment in players that can actually generate the negative outcomes at DE is greatly reduced. You clearly don't agree, but lets not pretend it's based on some higher level understanding of the game.

The moment you understand your thoughts aren't objective

Yards are math, points are math, sacks are math, tackles for a loss are math, hits are math, wins are math. All of which can be applied objectively against his peers. What goes on in your head can't be applied that way. If he's so good, the traces of that performance would carry over relative to his peers in the "math". He's performing like a 10-15 million dollar player. It's not anymore complicated than that.

You see the chart I posted over the whole season, relative to his pears. Sacks, TFLs, QB Hits. Underperforming on a per game basis relative to everybody in his pay range. It's not unreasonable to use objective tools in context over large samples vs your subjective view on how sneaky good he is.

According to DVOA they were the worst 10-2 team since 1978 (when they started measuring it). That is a fairly unbiased data point on who they actually are relative to record.

Here is a stack rank by average contract value. Then it shows the sacks, TFL, QB Hits, sum of all 3, then the sum of all 3 divided by games. Rousseau is the lowest in the per game count of any DE making what he makes, and you don't find anyone lower than him until you hit Hasson Reddick who is making 6 million less per year. His per game counts put him firmly in the 11-15 million dollar range.

Groot prevents further premium investment at DE. I would rather take my chances in Free Agency with a Bosa or a Floyd which still preserves the ability to go after a Miller type. I really like Shakir, but he has been a niche YAC player. He hasn’t even been able to fulfill the traditional slot route tree. Pure screen guy. When your entire WR room sucks having him as the gold piece isn’t exactly shiny. Shaq Thompson is outplaying Bernard. A street free agent nobody wanted. Who was going to come in an pay out 15 pound MLB prime dollars at the end of his contract? Beane jumped the gun like he did with Knox when he had no risk of waiting. At which point, if he did wait, he would have found out his market value is in the toilet. Palmer and Samuel are just brutal signings at this point. Somehow Beane thinks you can create a great WR in the slot aggregate with guys that have barely been able to stay healthy or reach high production levels in past lives. Benford was a good signing, but the concussion stuff will always be a risk with him. The Hoecht was also a good signing, but we did so knowing about the PED issues, guaranteed lost time, increased injury risks associated. At the end of the day it’s more of the same with Beane. Ever since Diggs and Von burned him he’s afraid to take any swings. He would rather invest in numbers with the hope a guy breaks thru or avoids injury despite being injured most his career. A whole lot of hope and wishing. Very little that can be counted on. He needs to go back to taking some swings and get out of his little baller ways.

-Darnold will Implode in the postseason -Jackson will implode in the postseason -Allen has no support So my guess is Baker

Rams are legit. I don’t see Darnold holding up in the playoffs. Eagles just aren’t there this year. In the AFC if you eliminate the big name teams like Buffalo, KC, and Baltimore, I sort of like what the Jaguars are doing but think it’s probably Houston. That game Houston lost to Denver was going to to be a blowout when Stroud got hurt. I just think they’re the most dangerous team in the AFC right now. Rams vs Texans, Rams win.

Fair, and I don’t disagree, he’s a good player and we aren’t exactly overpaying. I think that is the prevailing argument around here and it’s incorrect. Even a guy like Bernard I apply the same logic with. That could be a good deal so to speak, but from my view if that deal prevents more aggressive investment at MLB to try and upgrade it’s not a good way to build the roster. You obviously can’t have studs everywhere. I just think we tilt way too hard of late towards B players vs maybe some D/C filler types with some A players. Which really frustrates me because I believe Beane was more on the path if trying to get higher talent in the past. But the conclusion of the Diggs and Miller situations just left him burnt. But to me those were the correct moves even if they didn’t go how we wanted in full. The year Miller got hurt he very well could have been the piece we needed. It’s very hard to separate them, which is why I largely don’t try to do so.

We made the decision to block spending premium dollars on a premium position to “lock” in a run defender. It’s dumb roster building. You would be infinitely better off signing rotational pieces at DE to sub top 45 money and landing a premier player. Same story with how we treat WR. “Bargain” major air quotes with Samuel and Palmer amounting to almost nothing, vs just taking a shot at higher talent. If you want to focus on 16 money vs 15 vs top 20, none of it really matters. It’s enough to prevent future premium investment. That is the problem.

He will make top 15 money the next few years for his position. How many run defenders who can’t rush the passer are going to make that at DE? How many teams have a guy like that making top 15 money and then have another elite pass rusher (which requires top 15 money). It was a bad deal from a roster building standpoint. Classic Beane move. It virtually locks up a mediocre pass rush at DE because he has to be your primary DE from a payroll perspective. If he’s not we have too much $ allocated to the position. He's not a guy you pay if for a discount because he will block impact players in the future. Same with Bernard, same with a lot of these lil baller decisions.

I was sort of messing around with that comment because like most Bills fans he’s certainly a favorite of mine. The main point I was making is Phil was the do everything run defender of that era. To me he’s a very similar player to Greg. Which is why I would still contend that deal is/was a mistake. Phil was not a foundational piece nor is Greg, rather an absolute stud to partner with a premier pass rusher. Phil had Bruce, but Greg’s not going to get anybody. At that contract he’s going to make it very hard for us to sign an elite pass rusher even if we have the chance to do so. It will just be too much locked up at the position. He was the wrong centerpiece like Phil would have been in the same situation.

It’s like giving the bag to Phil Hansen.