Einstein's Dog

I think you need to give up the draft a WR early hope. The FO drafted Kincaid and Coleman with their first picks in the last two drafts. Don't you want a better WR room in '25 than '24? Another rookie doesn't do it, while a vet WR could. Such as wouldn't you rather have A Cooper than any rookie for 2025? A Cooper '25 > A Cooper '24 - he won't be acquired part way in, and more importantly will have healed wrist (vs being one year older). That right there would make for an improved WR room A Coop '25 > A Coop '24, Palmer> Hollins, Coleman '25 > Coleman '24, Shakir '25 = Shakir '24, C Samuel '25 > C Samuel '24. I'm with you in being disappointed in not getting DK, but it's not DK or nothing (rookie) for me. And if the FO can get Kupp or Coop for <$20M, the numbers start to make sense because there is a lot of work to be done on the defense. Who do you like better, C Kupp or A Cooper?

To me, you're advocating doing the equivalent of what would have been adding T Franklin last year instead of A Cooper. A mistake for that year. And for 2025 we need to field as good of a team as possible right from the start because the #1 seed is there for the taking. Receivers routinely play past 30, C Kupp played injured last year. Kupp is more than solid- great attitude, great culture fit and great backup insurance to Shakir. There are other veterans that are also better than rookies - DHop/A Cooper, but I'm hoping the FO takes a shot at Kupp. Lets not forgo "good" because we didn't get "great". Right now the WR room for 2025 is worse than 2024, and adding a rookie doesn't change that. We have the cap space - I know the defense needs work but lets try to continue taking steps forward with the offense. This shouldn't be another "retool" year.

I disagree. The point of adding a C Kupp is having a top tier WR in the room. Kupp would provide insurance at the slot and the boundary- I'm in the minority that feels our Shakir backup position is extremely weak. The Bills would be able to have Kupp do less snaps, decreasing his injury concerns. The idea of drafting someone for a significant role is foolhardy IMO. Seems like you couldn't expect anything more than Coleman level production out of the rookie, and that simply is not good enough. 2025 is a year when the #1 seed is within the grasp. You're thinking some Coleman-like rookie over C Kupp? C'mon. So a veteran it is. I prefer C Kupp over DHop or A Cooper. The overall 2025 WR room will be better on paper if they add a veteran WR (who is the equal of the 2024 A Cooper addition) to go along with the addition of Palmer. This would have fully onboarded vet WR > A Cooper, and Palmer > Hollins. The FO needs to get the veteran WR before the season this time. Should not wait until 5-6 weeks into the season, there is no Diggs debacle and the FO should know the Bills are fighting for the #1 seed right from the start. Get Kupp and I'll forgive them for the DK miss.

Maybe not. The Bills could have been looking all along to upgrade the WR room. Yes, Hollins exceeded expectations, but lets face it expectations were low. Shakir/Samuel/Coleman were already locked in. The addition of Palmer looks preplanned and helps with the role of boundary WR that can stretch the field. My hope is the remaining integral part of this group is significantly better than Hollins. This could be a veteran at a reasonable value - like C Kupp/DHop (Diggs?) or even A Coop back again. Then the overall WR room looks better on paper than the 2024 rendition.

I seem to go a little against the grain here and am a little excited to see him go. Not that Hollins was bad for us, but because it signals to me that the FO is not done with the WR room and they anticipate getting someone better than Hollins. This could be C Kupp or a draft pick.

Around $40M for the entire WR room and you think that's a lot? I would guess that's towards the bottom of the league. Some of the top WRs approach that figure by themselves. I think they could and should add C Kupp for a $15-20M deal. Provide needed depth for both the boundary and Shakir.

I think you can file the players responses about the cold being the reason right next to "They want to play for a Contender".

The DE market looks like it's dwindling fast - the Bills could really use one. As for WR one element you didn't include was cost - I think the budget is a huge factor. I don't think they need a 1200 guy and I don't think it necessarily has to be a stretch guy. I think they are looking for about a $15M budget fit. Guys with good hands and catch rates are important in the "everyone eats" world. That's why I think C Kupp is a possibility. A lot of people think he is redundant as primarily a slot which they think we are loaded at, but I disagree. If Shakir goes down, the Bills are in trouble IMO. The void is not covered by Kincaid (TE, not been used at slot) or Coleman (has not been used at slot).

I don't think anyone should hold missing out on Crosby or Garrett against Beane. Their respective teams were not letting them go. I don't think it's reasonable to think Hendrickson can come here either. DK is different, that was a possibility that was chosen not to take. The FO is going to allocate resources in a different manor, I can understand it, but would have been excited if it had happened. I agree with almost all of your assessments. My only issue would be if the FO tries to draft the WR instead of FA, that IMO would be a big mistake. The Bills have a solid opportunity to vie for the #1 seed and you don't do that by filling in a starting WR position with a rookie. We already have the Coleman/Hollins subpar grouping on one side, we need a starting caliber veteran WR on the other side. I hope Beane isn't doing too much value hunting and we get shut out. Get us a C Godwin/C Kupp/D Slayton or even maybe back to A Cooper.

Well, I'm in the bummed group of missing out on DK. I don't prescribe to the offense v defense battle and instead look at it from acquiring a top talent. DK was, IMO, the most doable get out of the top bunch (Garrett/Crosby/Hendrickson/DK). You would still do the D stuff, it was/is an allocation of resources. Speaking of allocation of resources, weren't you a big pay Cook proponent? I am now thinking Cooks importance has increased. Any WR that I hope the Bills get will be of a lower tier, more short term, and lower cost than DK - C Kupp, A Cooper, D Slayton. Beane needs to fix this Cook situation, the offense needs him (I would have preferred having DK and being cheap on RBs, but that ship has sailed).

Go from one pipe dream to another? I don't think so. DK Metcalf seems real - act quickly Beane.

But you seem to be thinking his motivation is to be with a good team over maximizing his paycheck. The Bills have a reputation of not paying big money to RBs. Cook may want to cash in on his outlier season and to do that he needs to be with a team that pays big money to RBs.

And I admire your deep dive into parsing out the movment of the miniscule odds of the adding Garrett or Hendrickson. The idea of keeping alive the long shot pipe dreams by passing out realistic transactions is not a solid philosophy.

You seem to be assuming his agent had nothing to do with the post. You also seem to think that being part of a trade is something Cook would not like. I'm not sure either of those are true.

Okay Beane - looks like sending a 1st and $30M can get this thing done. I'm on board. Do it. This sets the offense for 3-4 years (DK/Shakir/Kincaid/Coleman/Josh/R Davis). The other big needle movers are wishful thinking, Garrett might not even go until June and for multiple 1sts, and we might not even get a seat at the Hendrickson discussion table, being a competitor and all.

What did Cook think posting the $15M figure would do? What was Cook looking to accomplish by putting that figure out there? Without that figure out there, the fanbase would be getting antsy for Beane to get a deal done. The fanbase wouldn't be solidly on managements side. Most people would know that calling for $15M was out of line to comparable RBs. Why do you think Cook posted the high $15M figure?

Kind of, I thought the FO was going to make a move for a top tier WR last year. I thought it was the FO plan all along and thought/hoped they would do it when they got the June 1st money. They did eventually get Amari, I don't know if waiting until in-season was the plan all along or not. So yeah, my new thought/hope is the FO is intent on bringing a top quality talent (DL or WR). I hope they don't wait until the season begins to do it this time.

First off, you said the Bills were 1 for 3 on value of extensions to drafted players, which is what I was responding to. Josh was drafted and extended as were some others that you missed. If you were trying for some other more obscure point, doesn't matter with that type of ridiculously small sample size. I disagree with the main point about giving market value extensions to good players a year early. It is one of the great advantages of drafting decently. These type of contracts are cap manipulators which allow for future adjustments. Secure the somewhat newly drafted core and then add the jewel FA piece(s?). The big move hasn't been made yet.

And what about Josh? Remember when they extended him early and there was some backlash? And Tre? One huge advantage of drafting good players is the right to be able to negotiate early. Shakir/Bernard/Groot are being extended at market rates a year early. Hopefully Benford is next. Would have loved for Cook to follow suit but the indications point to Cook wanting above market rates.

Well, she also said she thinks Seattle is fine with Geno. I don't take what she says as gospel.

"Doesn't Care" and "prefer not to" are not the same thing. Beane when asked his opinion could have said "I don't care" but he did not say that. This conversation started by asking why was Cook the whipping boy. It's because he made public his outrageous salary request. It's frustrating to fans to have a good, exciting RB overvalue himself. It's a sign of trouble to come.

So Beane did care, but now you're saying it shouldn't affect negotiations - which I agree with. Now you're saying "both sides are guilty" but Cook started it. And when you say it doesn't really matter, it does to a lot of the fanbase. Cook has made himself out as an unreasonably high participant in the negotiation. If Cook hadn't posted on social media the fanbase would not have known who was at fault, whose side to take.

I don't agree with you on this Happy. I'm thinking we're going to see a lot of churn on parts of the defense (DL + S+ new CB) and Beane/McD want to lock up some of what they have now. I also think it is one of those deals where it will look even better in a year.

How can you say no one in the FO cares when Beane said he would prefer not to negotiate on social media? And Beane also said something to the effect of the $15M was nowhere near what he had in mind. So if Beane made his offer and we haven't heard anything and there is not a lot of back and forth - those are all indications of potential problems.

I don't even consider it swinging for the fences. A team can have a high priced QB/LT/WR/DE/CB. Adding a Garrett or Hendrickson on with DK might be pushing it although I would like to see it (even though that seems unlikely) - maybe add a K Mack or J Bosa.