RangerDave
-
Posts
320 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by RangerDave
-
-
2 minutes ago, Kelsayrundefense said:
You would think but some fans get funny about guys trying to maximize their money. The 2nd contract, is huge for these guys if they get a multi-year deal. Laurent Robinson lives in my neighborhood. He was a WR for the cowboys and Jags. He cashed in off a nice season with Dallas and the Jags gave him 14 million guaranteed. They released him a year later and he never played again. Anything can happen in the NFL.
I could live happily ever after with 14 million guaranteed dollars, even after NY taxes....
-
11 minutes ago, HOUSE said:
I left my wallet in the car
And which car is yours, exactly??? 🤑
-
7 minutes ago, mannc said:
The article offers zero evidence in support of its main premise—That Matt Stafford is a MUCH better QB than Jared Goff.
Lot of competition for that title...
Stafford has hardly been without weapons in his career in Detroit. The absence of a great running back is a weak excuse for his lack of success...
The lack of 100-yard rushers can be attributed to a terrible offensive line as well as a lack of a great running back. I think Stafford played behind poor protectors, if I recall correctly. That surely had to affect his play and success, or lack thereof, no?
-
1 hour ago, DCOrange said:
Those GMs should probably not be GMs. Goff is precisely the type of QB teams should constantly be trying to replace IMO. A talented passer but he just doesn’t have it between the ears at all. If a play doesn’t play out exactly as expected, he’s screwed.
What about the GM that gave Goff that horrendous contract? Should they not be a GM? I think part of the trade had to do with the Rams paying penance for giving that contract to Goff (who they obviously did not completely believe in) and trying to rid themselves of that awful sin and the taint that goes with it.
-
2
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Limeaid said:
Under current rules no but I could see NFL/NFLPA making that agreement but with a cap so team could not load up dead money on one player.
Part of reason for cap is to prevent football to become like baseball with teams with large resources in large population area and deals with local networks from dominating league. If football became like baseball I'd watch a lot less.
I assumed this was a one-time deal due to the COVID drop in revenue, as the OP was proposing.
-
35 minutes ago, Limeaid said:
You cannot force a player to do it but often it is in a player's best interest.
Sometimes a player has a bad year and the market value for the player on next contract is weak.
Sometimes a player will accept a pay cut for more money up front maybe with incentives.
Sometimes a player is near end of career and would rather take a pay cut rather than move and adjust to a new team.
There is not "only one way".
What if, instead of "buying out" a player's contract, whereby the player still gets a percentage of his contract money, the league changed the cap rules? Can they say that each team can cut one player, but that contract would not be included in the dead cap hit. That would amount the the same situation of ridding a team of one bad contract, like proposed by OP, but the player would only get whatever is left of his guaranteed contract. Would that be allowed under CBA rules? Would that be better or worse for the player than being "bought out" of his contract?
-
Who do you think the Bills would use this one-time buyout on? How would it help us?
What players do you think other teams would/should use it on?
-
4 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:
Why? Who cares?
Could those players be used to gain intel on the teams they played against (in this case, the Bills) and who their new team may play against in the Super Bowl? Intel could be from either from playing against the Bills, or from their former team who scouted the Bills extensively? I'm sure the Packers have analyzed the Bills already, but hearing what another team found couldn't hurt.
-
1 hour ago, Mickey said:
Forget counting the states for each team, imagine how lopsided it would be if we went by population with Texas, California and New York in the Bills column.
Man, the Bills would win the Electoral College in a "landslide"!! 😄
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:
That is some great next-level trash talking right there! Would this be called a "left handed assist"?
-
28 minutes ago, blackngolddigger said:
Damn, you need to work on some more positive thinking.
At the very least, why can't your team be like Manning's Colts, Brees' Saints, Rodgers' Packers(so far), or Wilson's Seahawks(so far)? Perennial contenders and 1 SB victory?
Even though the Bills aren't my favorite team, your lack of that 3rd option depresses me. 😆
I'm hoping you guys get at least 2 SB wins this decade. After those 4 nightmares in the 90s, I think the football gods owe Buffalo at least that much.
I think almost everyone would agree that having one Super Bowl win among several playoff years would be the best option. Giving that option would make the other two options certain losers in a poll and would make the question useless. (Some think it is already useless enough! 😁
My only point to asking the question was whether you think winning the big one once is better than having a long term success, albeit without a championship. There have been many good arguments on both sides, and I am still wavering on which side I fall on. I usually lean toward "Just one before I croak!", but then bend toward "But winning a lot over a period of years was a lot of happiness in that time!"
Since I posed the question, I will take a stand: Just win one, baby!
If I look at the question in the reverse, winning one now will make the previous drought tolerable. Therefore, winning one now would make a future down period just as tolerable. Here is to winning the championship now and multiple rings in the future!
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, NewEra said:
Luckily this is make believe. My vote is win the super bowl this year and dominate for the next 15
Maybe this is "make believe", but it has almost happened. We had a period where we had sustained dominance, and we had a period where we were wandering in the desert for a decade and a half. If we had won a ring in the '90's, would that have ameliorated the frustration of the 2000's?
-
28 minutes ago, SMAKCruiser said:
Do we get to at least get to go to the Super Bowl with Option 2? Or are we one and done like the Bengals were under Marvin Lewis.
Yes, I think we go to Super Bowls, we just never win them. Just like the '90's teams. So close, yet so far.
-
1
-
-
I am so glad that the younger guys on this board are getting to feel what it is like to root for a good organization! Many here were too young to appreciate the '90's Bills. Those teams were so much fun to watch and root for. Then, we hit the drought years. Ugh!
My question is this. Would you rather:
- Win the Super Bowl this year, but in the next 10-15 years we enter a period of drought where we end up 7-9 or worse every year. Or,
- Enter a 10-15 year period where we routinely win double digit games, make the playoffs almost every year, but never win the big one.
On one hand, the '90's teams won a LOT of games. They also won a lot of playoff games. For that decade, I walked into work on Mondays in a good mood. It was a glorious period in Buffalo sports. But every season ended in "disappointment" as we did not get a ring.
On the other hand, the drought years were miserable. It was tough getting excited about each season. It was gloomy on Mondays. A demoralizing period in Buffalo sports. The Bills, and Buffalo, were irrelevant to the sports world.
It is a hard choice for me. I have longed to be on the winning side of a championship team my entire life. I was only 2-3 when the Bills won their AFL Championships, so I can't say a team I rooted for won it all. But, the '90s were so much fun. Winning 10 to 15 games every year was great. So what if we lost the one last game? The year overall was still great. And the drought years were so awful! Can't we win JUST one???
Which would you choose? Win big now but lose consistently later, or win consistently for a long period, but never a championship?
-
3
-
5 hours ago, Nihilarian said:
I never would have thought that the Buffalo Bills offense could be this good this quickly! Man, I was so wrong about Brian Daboll who has developed into a top NFL OC. Doubt the Bills can keep him in Buffalo after this season. Buffalo #2 in total offense.
I think Daboll has done a terrific job this year. It is much easier, however, to be a great coordinator, and draw up great plays, when you have the players who can execute them at a high level. Calling a Statue of Liberty play, or WR to QB touchdown passes, are much easier when you have supreme confidence in your players. And that confidence extends to them either successfully executing the play, or if the play fails, executing successful drives afterwards. I think it would be (or will be?) much more difficult for him if he takes over a lousy team which doesn't have the players who can execute what he draws up. Plus, being a head coach takes a much different set of management skills than being a coordinator.
That said, I hope Brian is happy and successful wherever his career takes him. Hopefully, he enjoys coaching for his hometown team a while longer!
-
2 hours ago, Ta111 said:
Come on Tua we know you can do it.
If I was Jordan, I would make a secret deal with Tua. I'd give him $50,000 (out of his $250K bonus) to throw it to him, with the promise that Jordan would "fumble" it back to him! I'm sure Tua wouldn't mind increasing his pick number go from 2 to 3, would he?? 😈 Any attorneys on here who could expound on the legality of such a deal? LOL...just kidding of course...
-
1 hour ago, jeremy2020 said:
They better stop practicing just to be safe
Maybe all games should be decided by playing Madden, so no one gets hurt during practice or a game?
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, bmur66 said:
Good write up. You know how a lion sinks it’s teeth into its preys neck. The prey squirms and wiggles but essentially it’s all over. That’s is how the Bills have been winning.
One thing that struck me toward the end of the game was how the Bills showed class by not running up the score. But more so than class, it seemed to me like they were saying, "Yeah, I could continue to beat you into submission, but you're just not worth my time. But if just try and get up, you will regret it!"
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Gene1973 said:
I guess I don't recall what was said way back then while he was playing, but I do remember when Elway finally got his ring(s) the talk was that QB's are not elite unless they get at least one ring. Not to say if a QB gets a ring they are elite, Rypien, Dilfer etc.
Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But, by that definition (at least one SB ring), the only difference between Jim Kelly being elite or being not elite is one missed 43-yard field goal? That seems a tough stance, in my opinion. Especially for a team game.
For my money, I'd take Kelly on those '90s teams over any of the quarterbacks you named as "elite". Not that Kelly was better than any of them, but he was the perfect QB for the Buffalo Bills at that time. Smart, talented, tough as nails, and competitive.
I also believe that if Kelly had been the QB on any of those SB winning teams led by those QBs you mentioned, he would have won just as they did. JUst my humble opinion.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Gene1973 said:
Allen will need playoff wins and a SB ring to be crowned as elite by many talking heads, and I can't disagree with that tbh. QB's more than any other position need rings to be universally viewd as great.
Jim Kelly says hi...
-
43 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said:
I never thought I'd feel sorry for the Jets and their fans, but I do tonight. Holy hell Adam Gase can't even ***** up correctly.
They're just spiraling now. How do you talk somebody like Daboll or Bienemi to take this job?
Of all the Charley Browns in the NFL, the Jets are the Charley Browniest....
-
1
-
-
The thought of sweeping the Cheatriots** (and even sweeping the AFC East the following week again the Fins) makes me gloriously happy!
-
3
-
-
I lean more toward getting a team win, rather than a good stat sheet for the QB. I believe the Bills have a better chance of winning at home versus on the road. To me, that's the only thing that matters.
-
2
-
-
I think a part of it is calculating how good your offense is versus the defense you are playing, how much confidence you have in your offense, how much you think not making the first down will affect your offense's confidence, how good your defense is playing, and how far the opposing team would have to drive to get points if you don't get the first down.
In other words, I think you should treat every situation differently, depending on circumstances.
But, who knows, maybe coaches are just going for it more in any situation because it seems to be working!
-
1
-
Carson Wentz on the move?
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
If we resigned Matt Barkley, what do you think we could get for HIM in these frothy times??