Dolphins releasing Raheem Mostert

[White Linen]

31 minutes ago, Mister Defense said:

 

I had thought it was sarcasm, it's such a bizarre and ridiculous thing to say, an old worn out cliche that has no more legitimacy than if you added any other position to that phrase-see below. It is like people hear something and then just repeat it over and over and over, no matter how out of date it is and nonsensical it is. The facts be damned completely.

 

Don't pay wide receivers.

 

Don't pay cornerbacks.

 

Don't pay safeties.

 

Don't pay linebackers.

 

Don't pay defensive tackles.

 

Don't pay slot receivers.

 

Don't pay tight ends.

 

Don't pay kickers.

 

See how each phrase is as stupid as the others and without any merit?  That kind of stupidity has forced Cook and others to do extraordinary things to get payed what they deserve.  You would have thought the last few years would have put an end to the devaluation of running backs..

 

 

 

Take a breathe no need to get nuts and bold everything.  I just asked a simple question.  You were the one that was wrong.  You beer mugged a post that wasn't sarcasm.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

Had a pretty terrible year - and i remember his fumble against buffalo being pretty bad...  They were playing well and winning in buffalo.

 

He had less than 100 yards rushing from that game on.  I probably don't hold the 3.3 YPC average against him since he had so few carries but, he's likely a PS call-up from this point on in his career.  

[Mister Defense]

50 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

It seems like it has been something the FO has operated on - the don't pay RBs so they can allocate to other areas.  Paying for an RB deviates from what many of us considered to be a smart philosophy.

 

The allocation of funds could come down to something like which would you rather have -  D Adams + (R Davis/T Johnson/Rookie) or J Cook and some mid-level WR like D Brown or D Slayton

 

Hopefully the front office has learned its lesson, as the league is doing now overall. Just watch the Super Bowl again to see how detrimental a poor running attack can be, even to the best quarterbacks.

 

The best Josh Allen and best Bills are based on how good the running game is. We saw it several years ago, after they lost to Tampa and then started running and running, becoming the #1 running team in the NFL and looking unstoppable.  And ditto last year post dorsey, and this year, clearly much more focused on the run.

 

I think the front office will put their money where the logic is now, and not discount the value of a great running game to Allen and the Bills.

 

You would not consider getting rid of a great lineman and the same logic applies to a  great running back, both very difficult to find.

 

 

[FireChans]

1 hour ago, Mister Defense said:

Just watch the Super Bowl again to see how detrimental a poor running attack can be, even to the best quarterbacks.

See here I thought the SB was more of a referendum on OL play. 
 

Pacheco and Hunt couldn’t get back to the LOS without getting blown up.

 

Which is kind of the point. Saquon, Cook etc would have all had a bad day behind that OL.

Edited Wednesday at 05:02 PM by FireChans

[Mister Defense]

21 minutes ago, FireChans said:

See here I thought the SB was more of a referendum on OL play. 
 

Pacheco and Hunt couldn’t get back to the LOS without getting blown up.

 

Which is kind of the point. Saquon, Cook etc would have all had a bad day behind that OL.

 

Overall I agree with your last point here.

 

But the Bills have a very solid O Line, and a great trio of running backs, though under-utilized this year in both the rushing and passing game. As they did in the Championship game, of course.

 

The Bills, after searching for a difference maker at running back since McCoy left, have that player in James Cook.  I cannot imagine them now saying, "Let him go, let's roll the dice again--and again and again. Rather than paying the man a good, deserved salary.

 

It would be a huge step back for the Bills, as they add another significant need, weakening them, making it less likely they win it all next year.  IMO.

 

 

 

 

[JP51]

6 hours ago, Einstein's Dog said:

It seems like it has been something the FO has operated on - the don't pay RBs so they can allocate to other areas.  Paying for an RB deviates from what many of us considered to be a smart philosophy.

 

The allocation of funds could come down to something like which would you rather have -  D Adams + (R Davis/T Johnson/Rookie) or J Cook and some mid-level WR like D Brown or D Slayton

I think the broad brush approach doesnt work i.e . Dont pay kickers... dont pay RBs... ... we pay for production... or should... but that also entails resource allocation... so just because you let someone walk does not mean you dont get production...(See Tremaine Edmunds leaving...)  so you have to do the math... Do you pay cook 15mm for 1100 yards, 16 TDs and 200 receiving yards...  or Do you give Ty Johnson 4mm for 900 rushing yards, 10 tds and 400 receiving yards...  (just made up numbers for sake of argument) effectively is 11mm worth 200 rushing yards and 6 TDs...  ?  Then factor the production of who you add...  paying 11mm to (pick a person say a WR) and add in their expected production... finish the equation and determine if the money allocation makes sense... 

 

I am not claiming one way or the other... I am just saying these are how I am factoring in these asset allocation decisions....  With running backs... production seems to be easier to fill in than in other positions... thus their projected production differences will be relatively small in a lot of instances... so paying RBs seems to have more drag when it coms to asset allocation....  Where as you look at say LT, does paying 4mm for a left tackle and accepting 6 more sacks are year and increasing your risk of blowing up your QB work out, or do you drop the bag on the gatekeeper... 

Edited Wednesday at 08:32 PM by JP51