Rubes

To be completely fair, my question for my friend was, what did he think the main differences were between Manuel and Winston, and did he think Winston was truly that much better than Manuel. His response was that he felt they were pretty equivalent, but perhaps Winston was slightly better at some things. He felt the main thing was that Winston had a significantly improved team around him, with some better players and others that had an additional year under their belts. But in terms of quarterbacking and talent, he felt they were pretty close. His one comment about Manuel is that he had more of a tendency to make the occasional poor decision, the kind that made him go, "WTF?" I did not see Winston play at all this year, until the title game. So while I don't have much of a database to go on, my impression coming away from that game is that Winston has a bit more talent running with the ball, but I didn't see much difference in arm strength or accuracy. At the same time, however, the one thing that stood out to me is that it *appeared* as though he and Manuel have a very similar running style -- that is, Winston runs "too high" and doesn't do a lot to protect his body, especially his legs. He's a big boy, but the main takeaway for me is that Winston may very well have the same experience as Manuel when he gets to the NFL -- if he doesn't learn to slide or get out of bounds, he's going to get crunched and his knees may become a problem.

I never want other teams to win. I only want certain other teams to lose. The rest are just meh.

A good friend of mine who is a diehard FS fan said the same thing when I asked him about Winston vs. Manuel and what was different this year.

To be fair, this is (at least) the third Robey appreciation thread in the past couple of weeks. To be completely fair, all three of those threads don't add up to 50 pages, but still. Three threads. I would say strictly nickel/dime. He doesn't have the height to match up on the outside as a starter, as much as I think he has the talent.

Dude's a ball player. Great instincts, good tackler. Hopefully he just gets better with experience.

Do they show a list of free agent core special teamers we can grab?

Some might argue the loss of White was one of the reasons our special teams coverage was so lousy. But yeah, I think that was a good trade.

This is one of those things that makes me wish I had some insider information to understand. What makes top NFL personnel continue to think that Danny Crossman is a good choice for ST coach? I mean, seriously, finishing 29th or 30th, in the bottom 10%, for half of the ten years he's been a coach has to say something. Doesn't it? What's also interesting is looking at what happened to those teams' units once he left. Carolina in 2010 improved to 22nd. Detroit in 2013 improved to 20th. Not great, but improved once he left. Maybe nobody wants to coach special teams or something. I can't explain it.

I'm in the camp against drafting a QB int he first round again, but this is not my reasoning. My reasoning is that the Bills have too many holes to fill to spend another #1 pick on a QB. While it's true that you need a good QB to succeed in the NFL, we still don't know what we have with Manuel. It's also true that you need to hit on your #1 picks. And since only one QB can be on the field at a time, it makes more sense to me to spend the #1 pick on another position of need until we have a better sense of what we have with Manuel. I'd be okay with a #3 pick on a QB, but not a #1 or #2, at least not with all the needs this team still has.

That's actually not a bad idea, BB. Half the money for the Bills, but the NFL would probably like the idea.

Not in these parts. Let the rampant speculation and assumption drawing begin!

That's what I thought... I thought for sure the game against New Orleans in 1989 would be on that list. After looking it up, it was only 26 degrees, but the 13 mph winds made the wind chill 15. I was at that one, and it was frigging cold and snowy. And yet, somehow the southern team from the domed stadium came in and won, 22-19. The Saints rushed for 150 yards and passed for more than 300. That was just a couple of weeks before the Ronnie Harmon playoff game in Cleveland...

Well obviously I get that. What I wasn't expecting is that so many people here came down on the side of "pay him the top money", at least given what people thought of him last off season.

Not me. If they can re-sign Chandler, I'd be pretty comfortable with the quartet of Chandler-Moeaki-Smith-Gragg, at least under the assumption that Moeaki can come in and do some good things while staying healthy. I wouldn't mind seeing a top draft pick used on a beast of a TE, but if not, I wouldn't be upset.

Good to see you again. Really.

Interesting. A good 1/3 of voters believe Byrd should be the highest paid safety in the league. For some reason, I wasn't expecting that.

Perhaps, but maybe one reason the top teams don't bring in top FAs is because they don't need them. They already have a bunch of good players, and can't necessarily afford another one.

Funny you should ask...

That's a fair point, although you have to look at it from the standpoint of how much you value the player -- in Byrd's case, how much does he add to the defense? How many game-changing plays does he make that other players wouldn't be able to? If he's the kind of player that can make a difference in a game, how much of the cap is that worth, even if it's at the safety position?

In the discussion this year and this past year about Byrd, it got me wondering about how people perceive the idea of being the "highest paid" (or even a "top paid") player at a particular position. Obviously, this occurs in the context of a player becoming a free agent and testing the market (or perhaps a trade/renegotiation situation). Often we see players who we don't think are the best at a particular position being offered astronomical money, sometimes to be the highest paid player at their position. But it also applies to players who are very good, but are offered ridiculous money that would make them one of the top paid at their position. Many times, the reaction is that the player is "not worth it", because they are being paid as the "Top #X" at their position, but they are not perceived to be in the Top #X of their position. See: Levitre, Andy. But I wonder how many people out there, such as myself, believe that what a player is paid during a particular free agency year is not necessarily precisely reflective of their formal (or informal) ranking at the position. Rather, it is reflective of a few important factors: - which players are free agents that year - how much the cap went up that year - the cap space different teams have available - what new contracts were given to similar level players in the past year or two - what it would take to get the player to sign with your team In other words, just because a player is paid to become the highest paid at their position, doesn't necessarily mean he is the best (or even perceived to be the best) at his position. The amount a player is paid during one particular offseason is a product of the various factors that inflate values from one year to the next. Take Byrd, for instance (sorry for two Byrd-related threads in one day). The general thinking is that it's going to take paying him to be in the top 3 of all safeties to sign him, and probably the top safety overall. If the Bills don't do it, somebody likely will (see: Bears, Chicago). But a lot of the opposition to paying Byrd to be the top safety is because people don't think he's the top safety in the league and doesn't deserve to be paid as such. But is that necessarily the right way to think about it? My thinking is that this is not the way it works. Byrd receiving a contract that pays him the most of all safeties in the league just means this: at this point in time, this year, given who else is available in free agency and which safeties were given a new contract last year or the year before -- that is the amount dictated by the market. It doesn't mean the team paying him necessarily thinks he is the best safety in the league, better than Polamalu, or Berry, or Rolle. Another way to think about it: if all of those safeties were to become free agents this year at the same time, how would the salaries shake out? Would Byrd still be the highest paid? Probably not. But that doesn't mean he couldn't, or shouldn't, become the highest paid in the league this off season. What you pay for a player really comes down to how much you have, how much you value the player, how much you want to tie up at a particular position on your team, and how strongly the player wants to be on that team. Not quite so much how a team values a player against his peers -- at least, probably not as much as we think it does. At least, the amount given should not necessarily communicate this. Thoughts?

Good points. I think picking a good LB is harder than most people seem to think. Size and speed seem to be the most coveted qualities, but I agree that instincts, intelligence, and playmaking ability are probably more important. I think Kiko is a good example of this.

Well, franchise tag would be included in #2. Also, I wanted to know if we should keep Byrd, not necessarily trade him, which I guess would be included in #3.

What does everybody think? Time to put your opinion down. Just curious, but with the votes for #2, what would people say if Byrd would only stay if he is the highest paid safety in the league? Do it, or move on?

Man, too many to count. Besides Lori and The Dean, Mark VI always comes to mind right away.

I'm surprised the Pats* haven't figured out how to acquire favors from the gods, not just the refs.