Andrew Son Posted February 26 Posted February 26 45 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: Might as well kept Davis for 13 mil a year. LOL! You'll never give him up! 1 Quote
ColoradoBills Posted February 26 Posted February 26 1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said: He's getting Courtland Sutton money for far less than Sutton production. Might as well kept Davis for 13 mil a year. No one is telling you to like the signing. I think it's great news. 1 1 1 Quote
Mister Defense Posted February 26 Posted February 26 (edited) Great news, as Shakir will clearly be a cornerstone of this offense under Allen. He may become a perennial pro bowler once the Bills have a high level wideout or two on the boundaries--and throw the ball to the backs more. Seems like a bargain price, maybe a considerable one. Time will tell. Thanks, Beane! Now, show Cook some love..and lock up someone who is just as vital to this offense, and like Shakir, just getting started. Edited February 26 by Mister Defense Quote
BillsVet Posted February 26 Posted February 26 10 hours ago, GunnerBill said: It does, I think, kill off the prospect of the blockbuster vet receiver trade in 2025. That was always my take. Shakir I'd do if you could get him in at $15m AAV - so long as you have a plan for outside receiver that you think is cost effective in terms of vet FA or draft. You gotta give Josh one guy at least he knows he can trust and who is going to be here. I expect as well when we see the details the Bills are tied to him for 2025, 2026 and 2027, there is an expensive out that they could take but would rather not in 2028 and then a much cheaper out that they might take depending on performance in 2029. I really hope you're wrong, but it's a reasonable take primarily because I suspect their off-season review concluded the defense needs more personnel investment. Sure, that's not altogether wrong, but to add corners who can cover M2M, more stout DTs, another DE who can rush the passer, and another safety...well, it leaves less to make that big acquisition on offense even with freeing up more cap room. Still, something's truly lost on McBeane where they don't try to take an asset and maximize it. As in, you have a guy like Shakir who is a slot-only receiver running shallow patterns despite his RAC ability now being paid good money. Investing in a top-end boundary receiver or 2 undoubtedly opens him up and yet it's quite possible they trot out those replacement level (if that) boundary receivers. And that inhibits Josh as we saw in the Baltimore game when their passing game was easily disrupted. Quote
Mister Defense Posted February 26 Posted February 26 21 hours ago, ddaryl said: did you notice how Shakir didn't use social media demanding a new contract with a certain amount nor did he delete all references to the Bills.... He is not a running back, a group that has been notoriously underpaid for years now. He did not need to do that. Cook may have, to strengthen his hand. But I believe this is a sign that the Bills will very soon do the right thing and sign Cook to a similar contract, though maybe one more based on incentives. 1 Quote
ddaryl Posted February 26 Posted February 26 37 minutes ago, Mister Defense said: He is not a running back, a group that has been notoriously underpaid for years now. He did not need to do that. Cook may have, to strengthen his hand. But I believe this is a sign that the Bills will very soon do the right thing and sign Cook to a similar contract, though maybe one more based on incentives. Doesn't change the fact I lost respect for the player. Quote
Einstein's Dog Posted February 26 Posted February 26 10 hours ago, HappyDays said: I think it's very possible to have one mid-tier WR contract and one upper tier WR contract. If anything that should be the goal. Philly is doing that right now. $15M AAV (and by reports it will actually be less than that anyways) is just not that much under the modern salary cap, especially since the new cap hits won't kick in until 2026 when the cap will likely be around $300M. As recently as 2022 his contract would have been equivalent to a $10M AAV based on that year's salary cap. The cap is rising so rapidly I don't think fans are keeping up with it so we still get the sticker shock of the $15M number. And for the Bills especially it should be easy because we have no upper tier contracts to hand out. Allen will get extended but that will actually lower his cap hits. Benford I think will get $20M. Rousseau TBD. If we can't fit say a big DK Metcalf extension into that picture, Beane isn't doing his job well at all. I agree, I think/hope that the FO is trying to get back to the plan of paying franchise QB/LT/DE/WR1. They've got the QB+LT, now need to try again with DE and WR1. A stand out DE will take draft capital and money for a Garrett/Crosby so I don't think the FO would invest both draft + money for the WR also, which IMO makes DK a long shot (which is unfortunate IMO but understandable). With the overall offensive success with a mediocre A Cooper the FO may have revised and lowered their anticipated investment in a top WR. I'm hoping they don't go too cheap, I'd like to see D Adams or C Godwin at the $20M mark. Then there is the drop down to DHop, Slayton or Hollywood Brown. Quote
DCofNC Posted February 26 Posted February 26 2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said: Thanks. That’s an interesting way to look at it…and I honestly wish more people did. If you have essentially 50 players then each one represents 2% of the roster. So you’ve gotta think that starters are at 3% and subs are at 1%. Then figure in that you’ve got a few exceptional starters at 4% and a few special teamers and rookies at something lower than 1%. It’s quite a balancing act for sure. While we all take the occasional jab at Beane, it’s a really tricky job for sure. In reality, most starters are taking up more than 4% once they hit a second deal. The QB takes up a massive percentage. The balance is finding a way to pay about 8 guys a total of 50+% of the cap and fill the rest of the roster with good enough players to be competitive. This is why drafting is SO IMPORTANT and finding impact players is a HUGE deal. This is also the thing Beane has failed to do here. The talent on the roster is severely lower than the Chiefs, Eagles, Ravens, etc because the drafts have not yielded any impact players. His best pick outside of Allen, has been Benford, a 6th round pick. That’s flat out scary and explains the roster issues. Quote
Slippery Rubber Mats Posted February 26 Posted February 26 3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said: Might as well kept Davis for 13 mil a year. Oh so you are a joke poster, I like it. 1 Quote
SoCal Deek Posted February 26 Posted February 26 50 minutes ago, DCofNC said: In reality, most starters are taking up more than 4% once they hit a second deal. The QB takes up a massive percentage. The balance is finding a way to pay about 8 guys a total of 50+% of the cap and fill the rest of the roster with good enough players to be competitive. This is why drafting is SO IMPORTANT and finding impact players is a HUGE deal. This is also the thing Beane has failed to do here. The talent on the roster is severely lower than the Chiefs, Eagles, Ravens, etc because the drafts have not yielded any impact players. His best pick outside of Allen, has been Benford, a 6th round pick. That’s flat out scary and explains the roster issues. Yep....so all the more reason why paying Shakir something close to 4 or 5% of the roster seems like a REALLY good deal. Quote
Mr. WEO Posted February 26 Posted February 26 5 hours ago, GunnerBill said: Hmm. I think two things on this.... 1. Shakir's 2024 is about the median year for Courtland Sutton. Okay, at this stage that is a career year for Shakir and if it still looks that way halfway through this deal it will have been an overpay, but if he can consistently be in the 800 yard range (I think he can personally) it will look better. 2. Courtland Sutton signed his deal halfway through the 2021 season. It is three and a half years old. The salary cap has rocketed by over 50% in that period. The Broncos and Sutton are in talks currently about extending him again. It won't be for anything close to $15m, he will get way more. Cap is ever increasing--that's baked into all contract negotiations I would think. Would Sutton get, say, 20 million per on his next contract? I don't think so--it's still a ton for a WR2 type production. 4 hours ago, Andrew Son said: LOL! You'll never give him up! compare the 2, first 3 years. Quote
transplantbillsfan Posted February 26 Posted February 26 14 hours ago, BullBuchanan said: And I say you're settling for a roster building strategy that's proven to be unsuccessful. A DE whose specialty is stopping the run isn't worth $22M a year. That guy is your Phil Hansen, not your Bruce Smith. You want a run stopping DE? Go get a guy like Shaq Lawson for $1M a year like we did last season. The cheifs completely shut down Barkley and they got blown out. It does not matter in any way that is significant. Groot isn't a bum, but he's not a #1 DE on a championship team. You want to win a Super Bowl in today's NFL? Build a D line that can rush 4 and can't be stopped. That's how the Giants beat Brady and it's how the Eagles annihilated Mahomes. That means letting players like Groot go and bringing in guys like Crosby/Garret and pairing them with guys like Dexter Lawrence. In this case, good is the enemy of great. You seem to base all of your evaluation on Groot on the Chiefs game. If you want to do that we should probably cut most of the defense. He was really good throughout the entirety of the season. In terms of all edge rushers in the NFL throughout the year, according to PFF, he had the 3rd most Forced Fumbles, 10th most Stops, 19th most sacks, 18th most hurries, 2nd most QB hits, 3rd most QB pressures and 11th most batted passes all while ranking 25th among players at his position in total snaps. That type of production is the type of production that should earn a contract in the 10th-15th pass rusher range, which is exactly what we're talking about. And then just imagine what will happen for his production when we get someone better than what we had in 2024 on the opposite side of the line? 2 1 1 1 Quote
GunnerBill Posted February 26 Posted February 26 59 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: Cap is ever increasing--that's baked into all contract negotiations I would think. Would Sutton get, say, 20 million per on his next contract? I don't think so--it's still a ton for a WR2 type production. Exactly. Cap is ever increasing. $15m now isn't $15m three and a half years ago. And YES Sutton will get more than $20m AAV on his next deal. My guess is he will be closer to 25 than 20. 1 Quote
Magox Posted February 26 Posted February 26 19 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: You seem to base all of your evaluation on Groot on the Chiefs game. If you want to do that we should probably cut most of the defense. He was really good throughout the entirety of the season. In terms of all edge rushers in the NFL throughout the year, according to PFF, he had the 3rd most Forced Fumbles, 10th most Stops, 19th most sacks, 18th most hurries, 2nd most QB hits, 3rd most QB pressures and 11th most batted passes all while ranking 25th among players at his position in total snaps. That type of production is the type of production that should earn a contract in the 10th-15th pass rusher range, which is exactly what we're talking about. And then just imagine what will happen for his production when we get someone better than what we had in 2024 on the opposite side of the line? I have seen this argument made before. 1 Quote
colin Posted February 26 Posted February 26 7 hours ago, SoCal Deek said: Thanks. That’s an interesting way to look at it…and I honestly wish more people did. If you have essentially 50 players then each one represents 2% of the roster. So you’ve gotta think that starters are at 3% and subs are at 1%. Then figure in that you’ve got a few exceptional starters at 4% and a few special teamers and rookies at something lower than 1%. It’s quite a balancing act for sure. While we all take the occasional jab at Beane, it’s a really tricky job for sure. Lots of players get much more. groot will get like 8-9% of cap, 12+ for garrett, allen will re up for like 20% apy. the model that seems to make the best sense (aside from find a very good quarterback) is to get real game changing talent, particularly at impact positions, and to fill in as much as possible young and cheap w guys on rookie contracts, and use value/middle class free agency to fill in the rest. our real problem as a team (rosterwise) is two fold: one -- not enough game changers. we are good enough at qb and OL (as a group, not as much about individual super stars, but for me brown and dawkins are a top 3 or 4 tackle duo) and maybe at rb (i think it's more about qb and ol than rb talent, but cook is a legit top 5-10 rb IMO) to basically contend every year, but we don't have real big time impact guys in enough positions. a great wideout or TE might have caught an additional pass or broken a tackle leading to points to put us over vs kc, for example. two -- we are a heavily middle class team, but without the generally expected benefit of depth, specifically at the positions we tend to get injured at. our secondary and LBs get injured so much (only two starters on D didn't miss time in the season for injury), and what we end up putting in behind them is just cheeks. the fact that we have hamlin, douglas, and bernard and rapp (i like him, but he's a middle of the pack starting nfl off ball LB) as starters and the guys behind them are just so awful at times really shows how the roster has not been managed at a championship level (imo, draft picks have fallen short lately, but the real issue is the free agency and the contracts, hurting us in free agency). our DTs suck as a group, but it almost doesn't matter who we dress because they are at least comparable. our OL is our second best unit (next to allen obv) but they are deep too, and we could upgrade at LG or roll with what we have and be top 5-10 either way, we are 3 deep at RB, and our top 2 TEs are basically interchangeable, in that if one goes down, the other will roughly replace them. its silly that we have so much depth where we basically don't need it (OL, and we don't play to our strengths with multiple backs or pass catching TEs on the field) but a below replacement guy on d goes down and we all of a sudden fold like a tent. 1 Quote
DCofNC Posted February 26 Posted February 26 12 minutes ago, colin said: Lots of players get much more. groot will get like 8-9% of cap, 12+ for garrett, allen will re up for like 20% apy. the model that seems to make the best sense (aside from find a very good quarterback) is to get real game changing talent, particularly at impact positions, and to fill in as much as possible young and cheap w guys on rookie contracts, and use value/middle class free agency to fill in the rest. our real problem as a team (rosterwise) is two fold: one -- not enough game changers. we are good enough at qb and OL (as a group, not as much about individual super stars, but for me brown and dawkins are a top 3 or 4 tackle duo) and maybe at rb (i think it's more about qb and ol than rb talent, but cook is a legit top 5-10 rb IMO) to basically contend every year, but we don't have real big time impact guys in enough positions. a great wideout or TE might have caught an additional pass or broken a tackle leading to points to put us over vs kc, for example. two -- we are a heavily middle class team, but without the generally expected benefit of depth, specifically at the positions we tend to get injured at. our secondary and LBs get injured so much (only two starters on D didn't miss time in the season for injury), and what we end up putting in behind them is just cheeks. the fact that we have hamlin, douglas, and bernard and rapp (i like him, but he's a middle of the pack starting nfl off ball LB) as starters and the guys behind them are just so awful at times really shows how the roster has not been managed at a championship level (imo, draft picks have fallen short lately, but the real issue is the free agency and the contracts, hurting us in free agency). our DTs suck as a group, but it almost doesn't matter who we dress because they are at least comparable. our OL is our second best unit (next to allen obv) but they are deep too, and we could upgrade at LG or roll with what we have and be top 5-10 either way, we are 3 deep at RB, and our top 2 TEs are basically interchangeable, in that if one goes down, the other will roughly replace them. its silly that we have so much depth where we basically don't need it (OL, and we don't play to our strengths with multiple backs or pass catching TEs on the field) but a below replacement guy on d goes down and we all of a sudden fold like a tent. mostly agree, but the drafting leads to the FA signings and that’s where the trouble comes. No cheap contributors means you have to fill holes with other cheap guys and your roster becomes mid. You MUST find impact players in the draft. The Beane strategy of drafting to fill holes leads to missing out on the best talent. Now you have a hole filled w mid talent and your competition gets the difference makers, maybe not a position of “need” but the team is better off for it. 1 Quote
EmotionallyUnstable Posted February 26 Posted February 26 1 hour ago, GunnerBill said: Exactly. Cap is ever increasing. $15m now isn't $15m three and a half years ago. And YES Sutton will get more than $20m AAV on his next deal. My guess is he will be closer to 25 than 20. Even though he will be 30 early next season? Surprises me to think someone would pay that much on the wrong side of 30 for a bigger bodied guy who isn’t exactly a burner: they have a history of not holding up well vs Father Time 1 Quote
strive_for_five_guy Posted February 26 Posted February 26 2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said: Cap is ever increasing--that's baked into all contract negotiations I would think. Would Sutton get, say, 20 million per on his next contract? I don't think so--it's still a ton for a WR2 type production. compare the 2, first 3 years. Coleman is the better comp to Gabe: https://stathead.com/football/versus-finder.cgi?request=1&seasons_type=perchoice&player_id1=ColeKe02&p1yrfrom=2024&p1yrto=2024&player_id2=DaviGa01&p2yrfrom=2020&p2yrto=2020 1 Quote
Alphadawg7 Posted February 26 Posted February 26 16 hours ago, GunnerBill said: It does, I think, kill off the prospect of the blockbuster vet receiver trade in 2025. That was always my take. Shakir I'd do if you could get him in at $15m AAV - so long as you have a plan for outside receiver that you think is cost effective in terms of vet FA or draft. You gotta give Josh one guy at least he knows he can trust and who is going to be here. I expect as well when we see the details the Bills are tied to him for 2025, 2026 and 2027, there is an expensive out that they could take but would rather not in 2028 and then a much cheaper out that they might take depending on performance in 2029. 2 reasons why I don't think the Shakir deal "killed off" any options or plans for them... It is very clear that extending Shakir was a high priority, and I said it would be during the season and I believe you did too. This extension was part of their plan from the get go, so getting it done isn't making them change direction in how they intended on addressing the WR group this offseason. What is really out there in the form of a blockbuster vet WR trade? The most wishful one has been DK, but he isn't even officially available, its just speculation that Seattle would trade him, and even if they did, its more guess work as to what they would want for him. So what else is there if not DK? Hill? Not going to likely be traded IMHO, but even if he was, they are not sending him to Buffalo and we aren't taking on his salary and baggage he brings. Adams? More likely to get cut than traded IMHO. Deebo? Not a fit at all for what we need here. I think the most realistic plan was either using FA to sign a vet, drafting help, or some combo of both. And I think their plan is to look at things like bringing back Cooper or signing a vet in FA like Hollywood, Slayton, or even Adams (if he is cut) if they go the vet route in any capacity. I am not saying they wouldn't have pulled the trigger on a blockbuster WR trade, but I just don't see such a trade out there unless DK is really made available. And dont get me wrong, would be great if they did land someone like DK, just don't think it was ever realistic. So for me, I don't think this extension "killed off" anything and was always part of their plan for the offseason. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.