Cash

Counterpoint: Dunking on Pats fans is a lot of fun. I don’t ever want to stoop to their level and go around starting sh**. But when they try to talk smack, I think it’s very appropriate to point out how delusional they are.

I was pretty high on IH when we drafted him and again last preseason. After seeing him a bit more this year (mostly in preseason), my take is that he belongs in the NFL but doesn’t really move the needle. Good contested catch guy, but he has to be because he doesn’t get much separation. With the right opportunity, he could put together a pretty decent career, but I’ll be surprised if he’s ever a star. I definitely wish him well, and if he gets cut again I’d be happy to get him back.

It's an interesting idea. Not sure either side would want or go for it. But if they did, the appeal from the NFLPA side would be that the 5th year options are fully guaranteed. Obviously for a 2nd round pick who became a breakout star, that still represents a pay cut. But if a 5th-year option was added across the board, setting it to the 32nd pick at least makes it somewhat "fair" for the player. I think the problem is that most teams have a pretty good idea of a player's upcoming market value, and they would only pick up the 5th year option if it represented a pay cut. So like others have said, this would be something the NFLPA would fight against. Having said that: Sports unions are often willing to bargain away the rights of undrafted players (who aren't actually union members yet). So if the proposal didn't apply to guys currently on rookie contracts, but only future draft classes, it could potentially be on the table.

Great OP and great thread! The only thing I'll add is that I don't think it's as straightforward as Kumerow being the #3 outside WR. I think it's more likely that he's the primary backup for Davis, since he's the closest match on the roster to Davis' skillset. (Good blocker, tall, more about straight line speed than burst or wiggle, etc.) It also might be relevant that Davis was a late scratch. Kumerow could step in for Davis, and while it's a downgrade for the offense, Kumerow can at least fill the same gameplan roles Davis was meant to. If they'd known from the start that Davis wouldn't play, there's a chance they go in a different direction with the gameplan accordingly. But I'll go on record and say that if Diggs misses time, it won't result in Kumerow stepping in like he did last night.

Ah, Saint Doug! Fond memories. We put on a real clinic in poor leadership during those years. Some highlights from memory: EJ Manuel probably shouldn't have been a first-rounder, but St. Doug did him no favors. (Stark contrast to the current regime's handling & development of Josh Allen.) One example: I remember reading a breakdown of our 1st down run/pass % with EJ vs. with Orton. With EJ, we were running something like 80% of the time on first down, whereas with Orton it was closer to 50/50. There's a mountain of data suggesting that 1st and 10 is one of the best times to pass and lowest risk for a QB. God forbid we get the young guy some easy 5 yard completions on 1st down to build his confidence and set up manageable 3rd downs. When Marrone (an SU alum) was hired at Syracuse, he proclaimed it his "dream job". As an SU fan, I was excited! I figured that if he makes it, we'll have our football version of Jim Boeheim. Whoops! Turns out his dream was to work there for a few years, then get hired by the Bills. At his intro press conference, Marrone even had the audacity to declare that coaching the Bills was his "dream job". Marrone is a man of many dreams. Also at his intro press conference, Marrone made a big deal of saying he needed to hire experienced coordinators. That worked out fine on the defensive side, but didn't really line up with bringing his henchman Nate Hackett over from SU. Hackett only had something like 2 years of coordinator experience at the time, and only at the college level. And SU's offense was more sturdy than worldbeating - it's not like Hackett was a hot commodity at the time. Hackett's performance as a HC may change my mind on this. But for now, I still think that the offense might have been okay if Marrone had left Hackett alone. For example, in our first(?) preseason game under Marrone/Hackett, our O looked great. Bill Barnwell wrote an article breaking down our offense, and raved about a few of the innovative play designs. Did we run any of those plays ever again? Nope. Did we show any of that creativity or innovation in the regular season? Nope. We pretty much went with a bad run up the gut on first down, then a bad play on second down, then 4 verts on third down. Seriously, I think we called 4 verticals at least half of our pass plays. And finally, the infamous New Year's Eve opt-out. Marrone had a clause in his contract allowing him to opt out if ownership changed, and still collect his $4 million salary for the following year. (He had a good agent apparently!) The deadline was Dec 31, and the announcement came that night. I remember seeing the news while out at the bar. I announced it to my friend (also a Bills fan), and we both just shrugged and said ok. I hadn't been actively rooting for Marrone to opt out, but I didn't feel an iota of upset when the news broke. It worked out great for us! It didn't work quite as well for Saint Doug, though. I think Marrone thought he'd be a hot commodity on the coaching market - his agent kept planting stories alleging that the Jets would snap him up. Instead, Marrone had to settle for being O-line coach of the Jaguars. No word on whether that qualified as Marrone's "dream job" or not.

I also thought it was obvious. He looked noticeably slimmer to me (in a good way), and was significantly faster. His sack was a chase down of Stafford. Last year’s Boogie doesn’t have the wheels to make that play.

Not comparable at all IMO. Durant to the Warriors was the single biggest front runner move in the history of US sports. The NFL equivalent would be something more like Dwight Freeney signing with the Patriots after their 18-1 season. Even that doesn’t really compare, just because NFL superstars have less impact than NBA superstars. Being 1 out of 5 starters as opposed to 1 out of 22 makes a big difference.

Pass. Probably something safe & quick.

I’m not confident, but I didn’t vote because I object to the description “the Bills will lose”. I think they’ve got close to a 50/50 shot, give or take a few percentage points either way. That’s nowhere near enough for me to feel confident.

Even more so from my perspective, Tenuta was drafted in the 6th and the Bills still had a 7 coming later. Any “favor picks” would be with your last pick, right? I’ll probably be forever mystified by the Tenuta pick. I really don’t know what they saw in him. Felt that way as soon as I read up on him post-draft, and I haven’t seen anything to change my mind. But who cares now? I’m much happier about Van Demark being on the PS vs Tenuta. Much higher upside and seems like a better fit for our current OLine philosophy.

-Barkley: zero surprise; pretty sure he signed with us knowing that meant PS only (unless someone got hurt). -Mancz: glad to have him back. Camp reports seemed to think he was decent, and better than Van Roten. I think Mancz likely plays at some point. -Anderson: love having him back. Supposedly has good upside. I doubt they’d call him up unless they’re desperate tho. -Blackshear: I never got the hype on him. Guys, there are a LOT of talented backs in the NFL. Blackshear hasn’t struck me as anything special so far. Having said that, he showed some speed and elusiveness, and that’s always nice. Glad he’s here, but I don’t think he has a carry this year. -Johnson: not surprised, but happy to see him back! I thought he looked surprisingly good in preseason, even on kick returns. If any of our backs get hurt, Duke probably gets the call up. -Austin: now THIS one surprised me. I’m guessing they like his veteran presence in the locker room. As for on-field, maybe they think he can back up the McKenzie role on jet sweeps and whatnot. -Gentry: I really have no opinion on Tanner Gentry. -Hodgins: I expected him to clear waivers, but I wasn’t sure of it. I loved Hodgins in camp the last 2 years, and I was psyched he got some meaningful play this preseason. And now that I’ve seen a bit of what he can do, I’ve adjusted my hopes downward. I think he’s close to Duke Williams - big WR, can make contested catches, but can’t really get separation. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll take that over a LOT of the WRs out there. That’s an NFL player, just not one that moves the needle. -Love: Love it! I liked the comparison to a career minor leaguer earlier in the thread. I’m sure the Bills wanted Love and Kingsley, but at least we got 1 of ‘em. -Bryant: Love it! I thought he looked really good in preseason. Both him & Love are likely to play at some point due to injury. Nice to have guys who can come up and at least not be trainwrecks. -Brewer: see Gentry -Giles-Harris: see Brewer -Ingram: I thought camp reports said he sucked, but who knows? This probably was supposed to be McCloud’s spot. So that leaves 3 spots open, right? They might have their eyes on some players who were cut as part of waiver claims - keep an eye out tomorrow. Positionally, I’m guessing another D-back and probably an OT. And like others, I’m wondering if they’re reaching out to Davis Webb. Apparently he’s a QB coach in the locker room, and supposedly Josh Allen loves him. You don’t need 2 QBs on the practice squad, but the extra support for your star QB is probably worth a spot on its own merit.

I'm pretty much nitpicking, to be honest. My understanding is that hypothetically, the Browns could offer a contract to Raheem Blackshear or whomever, and Blackshear could technically turn it down and opt to stay on the Bills' practice squad. Now, this is an insane scenario, because Blackshear's agent would calmly explain to him just how dumb that would be, and also would leverage that offer to the Bills. So in reality, you'd either see the Bills sign Blackshear to the 53 to keep him, or the Bills would let him walk and Blackshear would sign with the Browns. Especially since PS poachers have to keep the player on their 53-man roster for I think 3 weeks. No one is going to turn down 3 game checks when the alternative is 3 PS checks.

Yeah. What's extra weird to me is that Mayock & Kiper's role on TV is most analogous to someone like a Head of Scouting rather than a GM. There's a lot more to the GM job than scouting & drafting. I think Mayock is mostly a good scout - certainly he's had some big misses, but that's unavoidable I think. But when he was hired, I wondered what possible qualifications or experience he could have at all the non-draft portions of the job? Turns out: probably not much.

Minor clarification: I don't believe there's any actual claim process for practice squads. Any player on a PS can sign with any team if offered a contract, but if a PS player didn't want to go to another team, they could turn down said contract. In practice, that only happens if the current team is willing to match the contract and sign the player to the 53-man roster, but theoretically if a guy REALLY didn't want to move he could opt to stay on the PS.

Here's my review of Diggs' outfit. Top half: Dressed to impress Bottom half: Dressed to work out Accessories: Don't impress me. But I doubt I'm the type of person he's trying to impress!

I tried to root for them, but they were just terrible. They were first out - twice! And both times were their own fault. I’m very intrigued to see how Rex Ryan is on the show. Will he be a total ass?

I tend to think it’ll vary somewhat depending on gameplan. But the combined number of active (RB + FB + TE + WR) will mostly stay the same.

My only nitpick with this idea is that PUP means he’s out 4 weeks. So even if they know he’ll miss weeks 1 and 2, they still might think it’s worth keeping him on the 53 if there’s any reasonable chance he plays in week 3 or even 4. He’s a captain and arguably their best defensive player when healthy. One week of Tre is probably worth more to the Bills than 4 weeks of Cam Lewis or whomever. But I agree with the broader point: if they knew Tre was probably going to miss 4 weeks or more no matter what, he’s already be on PUP. And Beane has generally been a straight shooter when he actually says something. They clearly don’t know for sure when he’ll be back, but they think September is realistic.

I’m not at all worried about Tre. I think the team agrees with me: we need him healthy and on his A game for the playoffs. We’ll be okay in the regular season with or without him.

Right. And by the same token, it’s a pretty safe bet to expect a pipeline from the Bills to the Giants, with both Daboll and Schoen in place there.

These Bills have IMO shown that they give at least a tiebreaker to players like Brown over players like Quessenberry. As long as Brown’s improving from the added game experience, it represents an investment in the future of the team.

Who to add from the 2011 team? There are only a few considerations IMO. Here's my breakdown, from least to most helpful for 2022: WR Roscoe Parrish Pro: Upgrade at PR over anyone we have now. Could back up the McKenzie role on offense. Con: On offense, he's just a worse version of McKenzie. DT Marcell Dareus Pro: Most natural talent on the team; before he got soured on the Bills, he was an absolute force. Versatile enough to play anywhere on the line if needed. Con: Already didn't get along with McDermott once. 2011 was Dareus' rookie year and he wasn't as good as he eventually got. RB CJ Spiller Pro: He's fast, and breakaway speed is something Beane has prioritized this offseason. Con: He started looking competent down the stretch of 2011, but it took like 12 games to get there. Wasn't ever all that good, even in 2012. FS Jairus Byrd Pro: Great player! (But not as good as Micah Hyde) Con: He would be higher, but we're loaded at safety and he'd strictly be insurance if Hyde gets hurt. WR Stevie Johnson Pro: Can play outside or inside; not the best WR in the league but was incapable of being locked down. Con: Would his unorthodox style fit into our scheme? QB Ryan Fitzpatrick Pro: Way overqualified backup who's also a great locker room presence. Might be able to hold down the fort even if Allen had to miss a lot of time. Con: Would the 2011 version of Fitz be super-cool about being a backup? Probably, but it's hard to say for sure. DT Kyle Williams Pro: Another big-time McDermott guy, and he could play either 1-tech or 3-tech. Con: Better at 3-tech than 1-tech, and we look to be pretty well set up at 3-tech this year. How big a marginal upgrade would he be at either position? RB Fred Jackson Pro: Freddie! Definitely a McDermott-type guy, and probably an upgrade at RB over anyone currently on the roster. 2011 was one of his best statistical seasons, even though he was already 30. Not spectacular at anything, but at least decent at everything. Con: I'm higher on our current backs than most, so I don't see him as the huge on-field upgrade that most others do. And finally, my choice: LG Andy Levitre Pro: I have concerns about our interior O-line. Levitre was an awesome LG who would probably be a significant upgrade over Saffold. Worst case, he'd be a massive, MASSIVE upgrade over Mancz or Hart or Ford when it comes to depth. Con: If Saffold isn't over the hill AND stays healthy, there's not a lot of bang for the buck here. Note - the following were DQ'd due to availability concerns: Eric Wood Terrence McGee Big Mike Jasper

There is real value in guys like Siran Neal, who can play at all the positions Gunner listed without completely killing the defense. Is he great at any of those spots? No. But he's a depth player, and that's what's available. The alternative is probably a specialist who's slightly better at 1 of the positions, but significantly worse at all the others.

Dude’s lead blocker was getting stood up in the backfield. Usually that results in a bad play for the offense. But Moss stayed composed, cut back, found a great running lane, and showed some good speed getting outside for a huge gain. You do you, but that is a Good Run for the RB in my book.

Can they, though? Serious question: How do you know? Tasker was such an interesting case. Only got a shot at WR late in his career due to injury, and was electric for like a season and a half. But he was pretty much a gadget player on an offense that didn’t have many great weapons at that point. Hard to say he would’ve made a bigger impact as a WR than as a Special Teamer. (And for the record, I haven’t ever seen anyone say that; just my own musings.) My own hot take: Certainly special teams have less impact now than they did in the 90s. But it’s still not zero. So there’s a balance to be struck - how bad does a gunner need to be before it’s a major liability to the team? Maybe with Araiza’s leg and aggressive 4th down strategy, the bar is extremely low. Or maybe Araiza will be inconsistent enough that the bar will be fairly high. The point is, there is a bar there. This coaching staff/FO have so far shown that they want a “core” group of special teamers - a leadership group of experts who can hold the less experienced players accountable. To this point, they’ve (IMO) shown that they want those to be “guys who can play in a pinch”, but not guys who are part of the offensive or defensive gameplans. I’m certain they’ve cut better pure RBs than Taiwan Jones. So I’m not sure who forms that core ST group, but I’m sure it’ll exist in some form.