colin

that's worth considering. i'm still down to trade for garrett, but add at least two more DL (we can get a DE if it allows us to cut AJ, and if von won't lower his contract he's gone too, so that's garrett's spot). if we only give up a 1 or a 2 in the 2025 draft, we can package picks and get at least a DT and a DE (if needed) and figure out S and CB between free agency and the rest of the draft. i'd also trade a pick for DK metcalf if he's there. we can restructure guys for cap, and let our LG walk and fill him in w a young and up and comer, that's like 4mm of cap there. once we are out of the knox, von/diggs shadow, and milano contracts (Taron is likely gonna be gone or on a lower contract in a couple years too) we have room to use to extend benford, groot, shakir, whoever we need.

we have that in dorian williams (bigger than our other guys, if not a big MLB, but he's super physical) mcd gets way too married to his system and his guys at times, the real problem is DE. we've dumped so much into DE that there just isn't much left at DT, and what we have done for DT have been more miss than hit (star, who had just ungodly talent and really prolly hated football, ed oliver has been too inconsistent, looks like tarzan some games, and jane in others, and DQ jones turned old overnight). our run isn't great, but for the end of 2023 and all 2024 it was meaningfully better than our pass D. our DL has always had strong pass rush win % and pressure numbers, but it simply hasn't been good enough to get the job done. a big part of it has been mentioned here by sojourner and others, we have a sort of very specific scheme and technique we have our guys play with. we don't have the guys to make it work. the upside, is one nasty game wrecker turns the whole thing on its head. if we can get some actual guys in the secondary (say one starting S, and CB2, hope it can be elam but it doesn't look likely) who can cover a bit, and trade for garrett, ed oliver and groots pressures turn into DE2 and DT 2 pressures, and those guys get even more impact. in allen's first year, edmunds was horribly out of position the first two games, or game and a half, and we had that CB literally retire on us at halftime. the d was shocking for the first 6 or 7 quarters. and after that, it was #2 or so the rest of the season. it's a bit of a finesse D, but when it works it's elite, teh problem is when it doesn't work it just falls into shambles (exhibit: our playoff D). in carolina, mcd had hardy, the kraken (goat nickname, not the nicest of men). he had short, those two sick LBs, and helped josh norman steal like 50mm dollars from snyder when DC signed him. solid safety play too. but when hardy got suspended for what was probably 5 felonies but the witnesses sort of recanted, that D went from dominant and most of all physical to like middle of the pack. they dominated peyton in the superbowl, but cam newton had his worst game as a pro and they lost. i really hope garrett can be our less criminally insane kraken and get the D to what the head clapper always envisioned.

if that's the case, i'd say not boozing and being grown up is 90% of it, 10% is the roids.

that's a good point. i'll back off on my prior statement -- given the bills 1sts are a 30 this year and a 32 next year, 2 firsts is not out of the question, and i'd do it!

sticks and stones will break my bones but words shall never hurt me. richie obviously is a huge jerk and a bully, but people saying mean or racist things isn't that big of a deal in places like an nfl locker room where it's the norm. particularly when fouls that may or not even get called and don't necessarily lead to a player being ejected are often a fully intentional attempt to basically maim someone. like, on any meaningful moral scale, what richie said is way way way less of any kind of sin or problem than when garrett tried to murder rudolph with a helmet to an uncovered head. we are all ready to forgive garrett (i'd love to trade a first and a 2nd for him!!) but in what universe can you be accept that and take a stand on richie bullying his pal (im certain richie thought they were pals), even if how he did it was pretty laughably over the top, but only just words?

so, i'm going to differ from you on one thing (to a degree) roids don't change people, they just supercharge them. canseco was shy as a youth, and out of control as a big time pro, but he's an ego maniac even off the roids (i knew a neighbor of his, really rich area, the neighbor really got a kick out of jose but had stories which amused him about what a total over the top goof he was, and that's years after retiring and at the very least, doing way less roids). foster, canseco, and richie are all jerks/psychos, a holes, basically the stereo type of people who would be locked up if they weren't so good at sports. i also think these guys use a lot of other recreational drugs which do worse things to their minds than roids do, by a lot. now, anyone who is hip to doping, anti doping, and human performance will laugh out loud if you ask them about steroids and peds in the nfl. 1 -- the testing is lax. USADA, the IOC testing, and a couple others are the zenith of testing and they can be defeated and are (usually, the testing changes when a whistleblower comes out with how they were being cheated, they change the testing, and then the cheating happens again while being undetected until the next cycle). how can we know the highest level of testing is defeated? guys (tyson gay for example) get popped, come back, dont' get popped, and perform at the same insane level. anyhow, the NFL testing is way less invasive, they do it less, and the players have lots and lots of wiggle room to get out of being popped. also, certain compounds and low enough amounts of others simply will not be detected. 2 -- the athlete performance is so so high. not just the obvious, giant jacked guys running fast and jumping high, but the less obvious stuff. guys tearing a biceps and being close to world class athletes again in the 5 months at the age of 30+, being able to play that hard and recover and do it again 20 times in a season, the strange combo of endurance, speed, strength, and size. other athletes that can hit three of those can't touch the other (weightlifters, throwers etc, can be as big as nfl linemen, stronger, as fast or faster at least in their specific sport, but cannot handle the volume, the running, the contact, and the grind, and they aren't clean either!) 3 -- the money. i know you were a LEO, if there was a drug that you could take that had some mild to moderate health considerations which let you be way better at your job, get paid better, and more likely to last longer and make it home, would you have taken it? i think most would. that's what PEDs are for nfl athletes. they have such a huge incentive to be even slightly better, and all the money to make it happen, which will make more money. and their job is not for longevity, they get a few years only and want to win. the number of ex OL and DL i see post retirement who basically vanished in terms of muscle mass is crazy. the only one i've seen who is still big (but way leaner) is joe thomas, and that doesnt' mean he isnt' on now and wasn't then, but for example tyler lewan, who had a 100MM contract or close to at one point, top 10 pick and i think made all pro at LT (and he got popped for PEDs at at least one point) is 6'7" and like 245 pounds now. he played north of 300. he did a thing on his podcast benching dumbells (maybe 100s) and benching a 135 bar for reps, and it was good highschool level, not nfl level. he also did a thing throwing footballs in a competition, and you can see his natural athletic ability and football training aren't gone, so it's not like his shoulder is shot or something, he's just way way way less strong than before.

oh, i totally think he's better, and i legit think he's gonna have a chance to challenge bruce's record. garrett right now vs mack back then is trickier -- garrett is better but then you get into how excited about youth and potential GMs get

he's older and already on a second contract, he wants out, and the mack trade was a market resetting trade which is viewed as a mistake on the part of the bears. those three factors mean he should be available for less draft capital. i agree garrett is better than mack, and better now than mack was at the equivalent point of his career, I doubt you'd get much argument there. what has to be looked at though, is mack WHEN HE WAS TRADED and garrent either at that point (year 4) or now. at the point he was traded, mack was thought of by many as the best d lineman in the nfl, or close to, and on an unstoppable upward trajectory. people figured mack would be an all pro for the duration of his second contract. he was for some of it, but not all of it, injuries and being on an awful team certainly impacted that. it's possible that the browns just won't trade him, or will effectively sink it by asking too much, its also possible garrett wants to go to philly and they pony up. the point that i think the analysis shows is the actual market value for garrett given the current state of the world is that given he's gonna get a shocking extension, his situation, and who else is out there, is lower and perhaps meaningfully lower than what mack got traded for. i could see as low as no firsts (unlikely) or 2nd/3rds this year and a first next year (more likely), or a 1st this year and middling picks over the next two years (most likely). trading a 1 this year, and say a 2nd or 3rd next year for him would set the bills up very nicely. two 2nds and lots of late picks to package up to get impact guys at CB, possibly S (would blow given we dropped a 2 on bishop), wr, DT, and even DE could reset the roster bigly.

agree, but that's me having a bias as to where we have holes and what he can do for us. i still think his trade cost won't be as huge as some think.

i think cook gets 10-12 pretty easy. 15 is a big stretch, but not miles off. he's not an everydown player, marino points out he's 45% of snaps vs 75% that the top rbs are. if we lose johnson, he might be a 60% guy imo. if he could make his pass blocking very good to great instead of poor, he'd potentially be a near 70% of snaps guy. i think all of that caps his total value, which gets us right back to 10-12 IMO. if he holds out he's cooking (LOL, SO CLEVER) his own career, so i think he shows up at camp and they work something out. if he does hold out i'd be honestly shocked if mcbean played ball.

your comment doesn't match the tweet. chicago gave away 2 firsts plus some extra picks, and got back some picks the extra picks they gave 3rd 6th the picks they got back 2nd worth more than a 3rd conditional 5th worth less than a 5th, but more than a 6th (based on a comment i read about the conditions, but i don't have the total details) so mack went for less than two first picks. that deal was criticized upfront as being too expensive for the bears because they had to give mack a huge extension (they did get his 5th rookie year tho) and the view is that the cap value of the picks added to his contract exceeded realistic expectations of how much mack could produce. based on the fact that teams now think 2 1sts is too much for a top pass rusher, mack was seen as a rising star and a player his team really needed, and chicago had a lot of sacks but not a lot of pressures (meaning they actually needed pass rush, ironically given their sack numbers), chicago gave less than 2 1sts (as shown above) and that mack was younger with one "cheap" year left, in addition to the fact that the bills are a much much better team than chicago was back then (so the bills picks are expected to be of much less value) I think the bills will off the bat be in a better value position than the chicago trade. so, i think the bills get garrett for less than 2 firsts, less than what chicago paid at that (which was less than 2 firsts) and the bills firsts are worth less than the bears 1st picks, so it will be a much better value proposition. added to all of this, mack was not in his 2nd contract yet, and had no issues with his team. garrett has privately (badly kept secret) said he wants out, and now has said so publicly, he also kinda hates the gm, and clevland is in a terrible cap/roster position and needs to rebuild -- they can't get much value out of garrett if the goal is a shot at a chip. so draft picks are worth more to them than what picks were worth when the raiders traded mack. all of this is to say that the bills give up less than what the bears did, and garretts value is higher to the bills (as they are closer to a chip and he represents the maximal spot for value). rumors around crosby and parsons also increase the supply of tier 1 pass rushers available, both to teams (cowboys and raiders) with new coaches who will get some "free" years to not succeed as much now in order to build for the future. garrett also will make it hard to trade him to a team with lesser prospects than the bills. aside from phillly sliding in, i don't think the bills really have competition (bengals are cheap, kc has huge contracts coming up, maybe you could say greenbay might be in the hunt but i think the bills are much much closer to a chip). so you have 2 potential places, 3 pass rushers who might be out there, and the view that the mack trade was too expensive. i think the bills get garett for like a 1 and a 2, or there abouts, meaning prolly less.

Im wondering at what age will Josh allen not have the strongest arm in the NFL. then, i'm wondering at what age will he not have a top 4 arm. to me, that's going to have the biggest impact on his game. brett favre was good until new orleans and greg williams scrambled his brains a bit, that was a long career for a run and gun guy. also, this thread reminds me -- i think mahomes is declining and i wonder if he has some habits like his dad that don't support long term success.

that article was awful. so wordy, and like, what info did it give? that martin doesn't want people to think he was bullied, that he just made up stories? it seems like martin wants to get rich in crypto, and being looked at as an oversized wimp who got bullied doesn't work with that, but he's not like revealing meaningful info, incognito still looks like a bully and a total psycho (and he has a rap sheet that could fill a book just from what i've heard about him on podcasts spoken by people who actually like him!), and martin is what, admitting he was being conniving and lied and went along w the bully narrative when it happened? it seems martin and the writer are using corporate strategy to rebrand himself without providing any new information.

at this point i'm convinced they have their guys, and not their guys.

i was all about maxing out vertical wr, potentially LG upgrade, doing as much as we can to improve CB and overall coverage, and just figuring out the rest of the d before the parsons, garrett, and crosby rumors started swirling. i see garrett as the best d player in the nfl, and a shocking "scheme" fit. pass rush, physical presence, nasty nasty guy, high motor. he solves our stoutness, lack of size, lack of nasty, and pass rush issues all at once. as crap as our pass rush has been (along w our coverage) on 3rd downs, our pressure rate has been pretty solid the entire last like 5 seasons. one extra guy who can generate pressures and sacks on his own will help every single guy rushing the passer, that pressure rate will convert to sacks and qb hits which create bad throws. we need to improve the coverage, but if it goes from hot dog water to meh, if you super charge the pass rush then it's enough. from what i've seen, our 2025 and 2026 firsts might be enough for garrett. even with a huge contract (35 a year) we'd have room to make value moves at CB and possibly WR, and lots of picks to get players all over the place. remember how we used to move groot inside on some 3rd downs? garrett, oliver, groot, and AJ/anybody is a horrible horrible line to face on 3rd down. maybe the worst in the nfl.