Einstein's Dog

Saquan's season is light years ahead of what Cook did, not really a good comparison. Henry is already under contract for 2025, if they extend him it would be for future years. And yes, Cook should be interested in what Henry gets.

But don't you think you need to look at how the draft will play out as a whole? I think this exercise is showing the FO needs to do exactly that, look at the draft as a whole (or at least for the DL/CB portion) and not an isolated pick at a time. By not taking a CB in the first people are not even considering taking one in the second because it seems like a reach at this point. That's a bad position to be in.

Or maybe they double dip - didn't hurt last time.

Yes, you can call it drafting for need. The FO has intentionally left the CB2 spot able to be filled by a draft pick. This is a great way to manage the cap. The selections above for another rotational DL or a flyer on a WR don't offer the same odds of hitting on filling a costly position. There will always be second guessing. Always able to say "man that guy we passed on". But what looks to be the best 2025 draft for the Bills would be to say they got a DLman and a CB that worked into the starting rotation. With that in mind, you do not wait, the selections don't get any better for a CB.

The idea of reach is subjective. If you feel the Bills need a DL and CB above all else, getting a CB here is not unreasonable. The selections won't get any better obviously.

Where are the CB selections? Isn't this the draft where Grant is taken in the first? If so, there should be some CBs to choose from with the second pick - I don't care what any of the services say about where they should be taken. Your choices on CBs certainly won't get any better the longer you wait. Dorian Strong, Zy Alexander, Denzel Burke, someone.

I disagree with what you're saying. Henry did not play on a 1 year deal. Henry got a 2 year $16M deal according to Spotrac. Nothing really prove it about it, people here were talking about whether the Bills should make a bid. Similarly Saquon was not playing on a one year deal. He had signed a 3 year $37.75 contract.

I think Beane had a fair price offer to Cook that was flat out rejected - and was the impetus behind the $15M outburst. Yes, it would be a blow to the 2025 offense but it looks like people need to be aware of the possibility and realize what Beane is up against. There is a realistic way to look at the Cook social media crusade as right out of the Diggs textbook on how to get out of town. Why after the draft? I would hope if the decision has been made then moving Cook during the draft for improvements could be done.

You say Cook is not on the same level as D Henry. D Henry makes $8M/yr. What Cook did is like a poster going on LinkedIn and posting they want twice the going rate for their salary. What do you think his team expected by doing that? It's a shame to lose Cook early when if he played it would be at the bargain of $5M for the season for this exciting player. But Beane has a problem waiting, and giving Cook a raise without an extension would set a bad precedent. I can see Beane investigating all possibilities on how to move Cook.

The fans don't need to have any patience, it was Cook (and his team) that have gone down the social media path. And there could be a reason to trade him at this time and that is if Cook intends to not play for the first 11 games. Fans aren't making this call. Beane needs to evaluate the situation and determine the odds of a "hold-in". If Cook isn't going to play the first 11 games then moving Cook prior/during the draft is the preferred option. If you're missing Cook for over half the season I would like to see a decent rookie brought in as the third RB.

A backfield of just Ray Davis/Ty Johnson seems pretty thin. It's why I think the FO may want to get ahead of this problem and see if they can make something happen during/prior to the draft so that a rookie could be worked in.

How about 30 and J Cook to get J Barron? Like if J Barron slides into the 20s. Have this prearranged with Pitt (jump ahead of GB). Pitt could still get Dart at 30.

The Cook hate is getting ridiculous (and I'm as disappointed as anyone with Cook). Scoring inside the 10 is what most RB TD leaders do. Is D Henry's TD total also misleading? IMO if you wanted to call Cook's TD count misleading would be to say he had a lot that weren't inside the 10, meaning he is not as much of a short yardage specialist as the total would indicate. But then the recency bias of Cook's fourth down, will not be denied, effort against KC would erase a lot of those thoughts.

Yes, Cooper and Douglas' situations were different. Cook's situation is also unique. I don't think it is almost a guarantee that Cook would hold out on a new team. Part of the problem Cook could see with the Bills is his usage will remain the same. If a new team says they will use him as a 3 down, bellcow type RB both parties could be happy. Even without a new contract if Cook can come off another improved season - this time showing 3 down bellcow work - he would have positioned himself into the $12M - $15M big money contract range as he goes to FA. Another year doing what he does with the Bills doesn't move him out of the $9M range.

It's posts like these where I think the FO might consider Cook's social media $15M declaration as a blessing in disguise. I suspect the FO is nowhere near $12M (Barclay money) and was more in the $8M (D Henry money) range. Cook's post has made him the scapegoat in the negotiations.

Cook may prefer an extension but it doesn't have to be part of the deal. A Cooper didn't have an extension nor did R Douglas. True, it doesn't happen often. But the particulars of Cook's situation don't occur often. They have two plus weeks to shop him. The physical is a mere formality in this case.

I agree that if possible the best solution would be to extend Cook to a reasonable contract. But that looks unlikely at this point IMO. And I agree that the second best option would be to use Cook in 2025 at the bargain price of $5M and then let him leave. But if the FO has received threats of a "hold-in" of the first 11 games, along with a disgruntled player, then actively looking for a trading partner now makes sense.

I suggest that the acquiring team would want him as a bellcow because that would be a team where Cook would have the greatest perceived value. A team planning on using Cook in that manner would be willing to give up more to acquire him. Also, I believe that would please and motivate Cook, you wouldn't be trading a disgruntled player. Cook has improved each year - from a fumbler to great ball security, to getting tough yards. For an ascending RB it is not a stretch to think that he could improve his pass blocking, especially since pass blocking is dependent a lot upon desire. True, he is on the small size but he does appear to have gotten stronger each year. $5M is an excellent deal for Cook for a year as it is, but it is a great deal for a team that wants a bellcow RB (which doesn't seem to be Buff).

But Cook may not be disgruntled on another team. Cook would love getting paid of course, but secondarily he might want to go to a team that will use him as a 3 down bellcow RB. At $5M for the year Cook would be great value for the acquiring team (ie Dallas). A motivated upper tier RB that wants the big 3 down workload costing only $5M for the year. And the acquiring team would have first crack at doing a long term deal, and if not done might be able to get a comp pick.

Some possible trade scenarios could be contingency related and not done spontaneously. For instance Beane may be in discussions with Dallas. This would be in case a team before Dallas picks A Jeanty. The framework of a deal would be laid out prior to the draft.

Wasn't AJ Brown traded to Philly on draft day

That has been my fear. Going one step further it could mean that Cook's team (agent and brother) advised these actions as a plan to get him out of Buffalo. Unfortunately there could be logic behind that - one is Buffalo has a history of not paying RBs. Two, Buffalo looks to use Cook as a two down back which would limit his payday. And third, Cook's 2024 season seems like it might be hard to beat so 2025 may not be viewed as adding to Cook's value.

It's disappointing to see problems getting Cook a contract. Cook took a step forward as an exciting RB. The Bills in 2025, and beyond, would be a better team with Cook on it. But we know this won't be easy. I hope you're right and we at least get 2025 with him.

Yeah, could be, I remember being told this about my interpretation of Digg's tweets. Except Cook posted $15M, he's wrong.

It's my hope the Bills can come up with some formation of the CB room that does not bring back Douglas, something better.