BillsVet

Training camp has always been, as far back as I can remember, a time for people to: 1. Talk about how players who ultimately didn't make the roster. 2. Talk about how the pre-season game results don't matter because the schemes are vanilla 3. Talk about how unlucky this team is with injuries. (this is today's focus) Nothing's changed...there's just more people here doing it for a team that's much better than circa 2008-09.

Both elements seem to dovetail though. They don't take WRs because they're not confident in their evaluations now and that works because their strategy, at least with college players, doesn't require taking them high, Have to consider the amateur scouts know this and adjust their time/activities accordingly.

One of the last times this topic came up (and it's an off-season tradition now) @GunnerBill noted that Beane losing Schoen was a big blow. This may be true, but it's hard to believe that in the 4 off-seasons without Schoen, Beane hasn't changed his approach to include emphasizing drafting WRs in RD1/2/3. Points to trusting a strategy and not trusting evaluations/evaluators he's brought on at one of the high-positional value positions.

And this off-season we learned the GM sees WR as harder to scout which is why I contend he avoids the position in the top-100. He'd rather spend valuable cap dollars on low to moderate UFA WRs who he has more tape on than use a high pick on a WR that could bust. What's irritating is that this has been their MO for a few years now. 2022 going with little beyond Diggs. 2023 signing Harty and Sherfield. 2024 featuring that terrible group which got Josh beat up in Weeks 4 and 5. 2025 is perhaps a tick better, but Elijah Moore and Josh Palmer don't exactly move the needle. And in all that time only spending a RD2 pick he traded down twice for at the position. But it makes sense seeing the overall talent on the roster. After taking Josh, Beane's MO is to take the known entity, particularly on defense or other low-positional value positions than risk a pick at WR.

No need to explain that maintaining their elite team offensive performance is not sustainable, but some still can't grasp it. Sad. It'd be like my group at work all in lock-step delivering on-time every time. Never does happen even with elite talent because stuff...just happens. In this case, it's 8 total offensive turnovers out of 1,088 snaps in the regular season and 0 out of 210 in the playoffs. That performance is unheard of in the modern NFL. Anyone who expects this to continue is clearly a slow thinker and it's not debatable. They will regress for several reasons, namely...defenses will adapt after reviewing Buffalo's offense this past off-season, their receiving options are pedestrian types who aren't winning as easily 1 on 1, and the ball will literally bounce against them, and their offensive health (particularly at OL) has been remarkably fortunate. None of us want to see one guy go down long-term, but it will happen.

In the AFC CG.* *cue the "but we scored 29 points that game crowd"

Essentially my point and what I've observed elsewhere: those outside of the union's executive leadership are increasingly marginalized and treated like chaff. NBA franchises aren't going to be crippled by a contract like that, not when the team cap is 155M next year. You're advocating that, because risk comes when an athlete sustains an injury and/or production declines it's proof-positive that guaranteed contracts are bad. They're not. Risk cannot be totally eliminated and teams make decisions that go awry. It's part of life. Taking this back to the Bills, whenever Beane has wanted to cut someone's pay, the player wound up being cut not long after. NFL players have less leverage than their NBA, MLB, and NHL counterparts in many instances and this is exemplified with other franchises. What I'm seeing here is people claim that guaranteed contracts would prompt teams to be hesitant to spend. I disagree. Teams still are under pressure to win as evidenced by the yearly HC carousel and have their own guaranteed income from revenue sharing. Teams are required to spend a certain percentage and would acquiesce...which would demand being more careful particularly in UFA. It's funny to discuss this because I was once vehemently pro-management and viewed players as typically the problem.

People missing the point. There's always going to be more salary concentrated in the hands of the fewer players who have skill sets that are better particularly at positions of high positional value. No one is demanding that interior OL or backup safeties get paid like top QB or WR. Still, if you're a union member, be it NFLPA, AFL-CIO, CSEA, whatever and the executive is working with management or offering token resistance on issues...the likely outcomes are going to be bad. Conflict in labor relations can be a good thing if both sides are strong and have differing viewpoints. What isn't good is to avoid all conflict and collude so that negotiations are easy...that typically ends with rank and file getting a bad contract.

Those data points obscure what is the economic reality in the NFL: a higher share of the cap is going to fewer players. It's not unexpected because the supply of excellent QBs, WRs, and pass rushers will always be in demand. And the model the NFL employs will pay them accordingly. Conversely, you can see it with RB's...they're largely not being paid (cue the person who points to Saquon Barkley) because their skill-set isn't as valuable. Besides, highlighting the decreased 2021 cap fails to consider the aberration that the pandemic was.

It's a big picture issue, so I get that some will gloss over it for this reason. Whole point is...the league and union are working together and someone stands to lose. Especially when you consider there are player safety issues with going to 17 and likely to 18 games. Or, with the increased cap, which all too often is weighted for a more limited group of players. Something has to give at some point.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/45705432/nflpa-head-works-firm-approved-invest-nfl Imagine being represented by a union where your executive director: 1. Works with management to ensure your pay is made less guaranteed than it could be. Then, agrees with management to keep an arbitrator's findings from becoming known to members that specifies this happened. 2. Receives a multi-million dollar compensation package representing your union while simultaneously doing outside work. When asked to resign from one part-time position, he refuses. 3. That outside work includes working for a private equity firm, albeit in another sector, that is likely to invest in NFL franchises. And, serves on 3 other boards and is paid by those companies as well. The NFLPA has gradually, since the death of Gene Upshaw, become more of partners with the NFL than anything else. At the same time, the search committee recommended this guy and it's their funeral for hiring him. I only highlight this situation because, at some point, the players' relationship with both the league and their executive/leadership will sour if it hasn't already. And that means what has been labor peace since 2012 will likely end. The current CBA doesn't expire until 2030, but at some point I expect there will be problems.

If the GM and HC never had the DL with the investment they've made there since 2017-18...then they're the problem, not the talent. They've emphasized DL almost every off-season since 2018...stands to reason they'd have figured it out by now. Few teams have alignment in HC and GM on resourcing this group. They don't get it right this season or they never will...from roster philosophy to scheme to coaching and everything before you get to who the players are.

PFF grading on a curve...that reflects who invests the most into their DL?

Fair or not, McDermott's legacy is 13 seconds unless he wins it all with Josh. It remains one of the most epic collapses in recent NFL history. And I don't care if one of the assistants botched something...it's on the HC to be prepared and McD is maybe a hair faster on the trigger than Jauron in-game (RIP).

Least you could do is send a Christmas card, but no. I'd even settle for a birthday card, but nada there too. LOL.