2020 Our Year For Sure

I don't want to keep going around in circles. The defensive line is just so important that if they saw a guy they really believed could be a great player and cause havoc in opposing backfields, I can't believe they'd pass on him for fear of mediocre players not having roster spots. If I'm GM, no 'numbers game' is going to stop me from looking at the dominant defense I can get from putting another stud DT next to Marcus Stroud, or another Pro Bowl speed rusher across from Schobel. With a roster that doesn't have many positions screaming for needs, I feel like the Bills are in a position to make those kind of luxury picks.

Different time... EDIT: I get it.

Just the same, if New England* wins, they will be all we'll hear about.

Honestly, I'm thinking $10-$12 million a year, with $30-$35 million in guarantees. Should he prove to be the franchise tackle Bill, Mickey and others have been writing about all this time, I think he's the one Buffalo Bill who is worth that contract. And I think we have the cap room. I don't know how that lines up with other linemen around the league, so forgive me if thats off the mark. EDIT: After looking it up, three years ago Walter Jones got 7 years, $50 million including over $20 million in bonuses. Before this season, Jake Long got 5 years, $57.75 million including $30 million guaranteed. When you consider the fact that Jones' deal was three years ago and salaries naturally go up a bit each year, and that he was 31 years old at the time while Peters is still only 26...and that Jake Long got that money before ever playing a down in this league...I think my estimation is pretty good. Again, thats assuming Peters has another outstanding year, which may be a big assumption.

How much lower does it get than not dressing in your 3rd season? He'll probably dress Sunday in Jacksonville because of the heat. Yet the fact remains that in three training camps and three preseasons, McCargo has failed to distinguish himself to the coaches who watch him in practice everyday. If he stood out to them, he would have been in uniform. If he's the next Marcus Stroud as you say, why is he deemed unworthy to wear a uniform in his 3rd season?

So if McCargo falls on his face, you'll agree that DT is just as much of a 'need' as TE is? Forgive me, but I really didn't think that was the crux of the debate. But fair enough, I can live with that, 'cause you're right in that I don't have a very high opinion of him anymore. Lets hope you're right.

To your first question, none of the above: we dress four, as we've done almost every week since Jauron took over. This team rotates linemen, and if we have 4 quality DTs, there is usually room for them on gameday. To your 2nd question, if he beats out McCargo, thats great. If McCargo beats him out...thats also great. Keep in mind I'm NOT trying to tell you DT is a need. I'm just saying if there's a real impact player on the board that they're in love with, they shouldn't close themselves off from going there. So if McCargo is beating out a true blue-chip 1st round DT to start on gameday, that means he has really lifted his game up from where it is now. In turn, the rook needs to bear down and pick his game up to take someone's spot on gamedays. That means your 1st round pick has lifted the overall performance of arguably the 2nd most vital position in football. And in 2-3 years when Stroud's contract is coming up and he's aging, we have a replacement for him who we believe can make a similar impact to Stroud at the position. Does that seem like such a bad scenario?

Like they did this year? And a 1st round DT could absolutely help us on gameday right away.

Good post. I was PRAYING for us to take Harvey. Guess we'll never know.

Again, the idea isn't to "upgrade the #5 DE position." Thats like saying that we don't need to draft a tight end because we "don't need to upgrade the #3 TE position." If you want to use what an incoming draftee would be on DAY ONE at DE, you have to do the same with TE. The idea no matter what position you draft in the first two rounds is that, within a few years, they'll represent an upgrade to the previous STARTER at that position. This is no more likely at tight end than it is at LDE, or 'DT2,' for lack of a better term. Kelsay and Denney can continue to offer locker room leadership and special teams play while filling only rotational roles on the defensive line. Thats already their role anyway.

He has had ONE Pro Bowl calibre season. He wants to be paid like a PERENNIAL Pro Bowler. That means he has to have MORE THAN ONE season playing at that level to have earned the extension he wants.

We can cut Copeland Bryan to make room for a new d-lineman. That really isn't an issue. I don't think his locker room presence is any greater than Schouman or Fine.

Saying we're okay with adequate play from one DT spot because Stroud is at the other spot, is the same as saying we're okay with adequate TE play because we already have Lee Evans. Still don't understand why TE is more of a need than defensive line.

Welcome back, Tip.

What am I missing? If Goodell said that off the record, how did it end up in an article?

See this is what I don't understand. You say tight end should be our number one priority, but we can't even think about defensive line. How is tight end a dire need, while defensive line can't even be considered? I'd label our play at TE, LDE, and every DT other than Stroud the same way: solid. Adequate. Passable. Royal really is a solid all-around player. We know he's a decent outlet/checkdown, he's an exceptional blocker in both the running and passing games, and - judging by the home game against Miami last year, this year's preseason, and week 1 - he's even become capable of stretching the field vertically. Robert Royal is every bit the adequate starter Chris Kelsay and Kyle Williams are. I still only see two spots (LB and C) that need to be addressed with quality players. After that, we have free reign to pick up whatever playmakers are available to us, almost regardless of position. Defensive line seems like as good a spot as any to look at.

I don't really disagree with alot of what you say here. I just think to myself, "Okay, after we replace Crowell and Fowler...then what?"

I'd say at the end of the year, yeah. If he plays as well as he did last year. If he wants an extension, he still needs to earn it.

I think you're sort of missing the point here. The idea is that the roster overall is strong enough that there aren't many positions that are screaming for attention anymore. Once center and outside 'backer are addressed, there's really no direction where we just have to go. That means there's two roster spots that we must fill, even though we (along with every other team) will be in a position to acquire far more than two new players over the course of the offseason. So what do we do with that surplus? This is still a team with plenty of cap room, and a full arsenal of draft picks. You say it doesn't make sense to look at Denney and McCargo's spots when they are "adequately filling their roles." And I ask you, why should we settle for adequacy? If there's a player who will be so good we'll have no choice but to dress him and play him on Sundays, unlike McCargo, why wouldn't we go after him? As it is, we get merely "adequate" play from the left end spot. If there's a player in the draft they feel has a real chance to give us outstanding play from that spot, I don't see anything that should stop us from pulling the trigger. When you have a solid base to work from, you can pick the best players out there almost regardless of position. Thats why I expect a bit of a change in philosophy. This offseason we'll be in a position this administration hasn't been in yet: a position of strength. We should use the fact that we don't have many positions we MUST fill to put the best possible team out there. That may mean upgrading spots filled by "adequate" players.

There isn't "fodder" to replace ANYWHERE on this roster. The reality is that management is going to add a playmaker wherever they can...if that means taking a DE or a DT, so be it. If thats whats available, thats fine. Its not like Ryan Denney and John McCargo are completely untouchable. Simply being under contract is not going to guarantee anyone a roster spot anymore. This team is too good, and too deep for that. We'll add a playmaker wherever we can, and let the incumbents fight to make the team. Competition and depth can only be a good thing.

Even with the tough matchups, I'm going with the workhorses here. Julius Jones is a constant underachiever and he's going against an underrated defense in their own right. Give me Lynch and TJ.

In my 10-teamer that starts 2 RBs and a flex, I was picking on the turn, and took Marshawn and Larry Johnson with my first two then came back with #85 and Turner with my next two. If Matt Ryan can continue to be the threat he was last week, I see no reason why Turner can't ultimately be a top-10 back. Definitely pumped to have him as an RB3.