Toggle sidebar

Buffalo Bills The offseason begins

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
  • We are currently aware of "log in/security error" issues that are affecting some users. We apologize and ask for your patience as we try to get these issues fixed.
Really pleased with the Bernard extension. Great number. I know his health has been spotty at times, but he's a good player and the defense is worlds better when he's on the field. Happy to not have to worry about the position for awhile.
 
Ace said:
I’d get it…but I’m not all about it. Just because he’s our best pass rusher doesn’t mean he’s the best we can do.
Click to expand...
As RDE1, they could do a lot worse.

Even if they were to get Hendrickson or Garrett, they need someone to play on the other side.

Plus, an extension gives them cap space in 2025 and makes a big swing at DE more likely and not less.
 
Jim Bob said:
As RDE1, they could do a lot worse.

Even if they were to get Hendrickson or Garrett, they need someone to play on the other side.

Plus, an extension gives them cap space in 2025 and makes a big swing at DE more likely and not less.
Click to expand...

The guys on the WGR morning show were talking him about him today, basically saying they don't consider him elite, and therefore would prefer not to pay him that type of contract (more Joe than JW).

I honestly don't get it, yes he's not a top 5 DE in the league, but he's easily a top 15 guy, basically the equivalent what Dawkins is at the tackle position. If you have one of the top 15 guys at a premium position, you pay him. You don't hold back because he's not a candidate for DPOY.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim Bob and Sabreality
Fezzy126 said:
The guys on the WGR morning show were talking him about him today, basically saying they don't consider him elite, and therefore would prefer not to pay him that type of contract (more Joe than JW).

I honestly don't get it, yes he's not a top 5 DE in the league, but he's easily a top 15 guy, basically the equivalent what Dawkins is at the tackle position. If you have one of the top 15 guys at a premium position, you pay him. You don't hold back because he's not a candidate for DPOY.
Click to expand...
Joe Marino is all for extending Rousseau and getting the cap relief.

I'll take his opinion on moves the Bills should make over the WGR guys.
 
Zman5778 said:
Yeah, I think this is the key thing. If we give Groot an extension, we could easily save $5-7M on the cap. Extending Josh could also be a major source of savings (or another restructure)
Click to expand...
McGovern could give them some 2025 cap relief with an extension, as well.

That's why I think there is a really good chance that they are the next two extensions that get done as they need to be cap compliant soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zman5778
Fezzy126 said:
The guys on the WGR morning show were talking him about him today, basically saying they don't consider him elite, and therefore would prefer not to pay him that type of contract (more Joe than JW).

I honestly don't get it, yes he's not a top 5 DE in the league, but he's easily a top 15 guy, basically the equivalent what Dawkins is at the tackle position. If you have one of the top 15 guys at a premium position, you pay him. You don't hold back because he's not a candidate for DPOY.
Click to expand...
Well it all comes down to money, right? Do I like Rousseau, yes. Do I like Rousseau at 15-20 million per year? Probably. Do I like Rousseau at 25-30 million per year? Probably not. My guess is he slots somewhere between those two numbers.

FWIW, I do think Dawkins is a top 5 LT in the game.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: buffa dud, Dubi Doo, ValJamesDuex and 2 others
Husko said:
Well it all comes down to money, right? Do I like Rousseau, yes. Do I like Rousseau at 15-20 million per year? Probably. Do I like Rousseau at 25-30 million per year? Probably not. My guess is he slots somewhere between those two numbers.

FWIW, I do think Dawkins is a top 5 LT in the game.
Click to expand...

That's a much more reasoned take than I'm seeing online. Most more closely resemble Ricky Bobby - "If you aren't first your last" mentality.
 
Husko said:
Well it all comes down to money, right? Do I like Rousseau, yes. Do I like Rousseau at 15-20 million per year? Probably. Do I like Rousseau at 25-30 million per year? Probably not. My guess is he slots somewhere between those two numbers.

FWIW, I do think Dawkins is a top 5 LT in the game.
Click to expand...
Yup. Dawkins is a beast. I dont watch enough teams to say where he ranks, but he's clearly a more impactful player at his position than Rousseau is. Having Brown/Dawkins at tackle for the next 3 years is such a luxury. That's quite the duo. I cant remember the last time the Bills were so strong at RT and LT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: buffa dud and Husko
Husko said:
Well it all comes down to money, right? Do I like Rousseau, yes. Do I like Rousseau at 15-20 million per year? Probably. Do I like Rousseau at 25-30 million per year? Probably not. My guess is he slots somewhere between those two numbers.

FWIW, I do think Dawkins is a top 5 LT in the game.
Click to expand...
I'm offended by the idea that he's not. He's the closest thing to a lynchpin the blocking scheme has. And it's a great scheme.

Kind of agree on Rousseau but I'd be just fine with an extension that yields 25m "average", as it likely means team and player friendly terms for the latter years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: buffa dud and Husko
whiplash said:
I'm offended by the idea that he's not. He's the closest thing to a lynchpin the blocking scheme has. And it's a great scheme.

Kind of agree on Rousseau but I'd be just fine with an extension that yields 25m "average", as it likely means team and player friendly terms for the latter years.
Click to expand...
seeing 20-25M projection just about everywhere I looked.
 
Fezzy126 said:
The guys on the WGR morning show were talking him about him today, basically saying they don't consider him elite, and therefore would prefer not to pay him that type of contract (more Joe than JW).

I honestly don't get it, yes he's not a top 5 DE in the league, but he's easily a top 15 guy, basically the equivalent what Dawkins is at the tackle position. If you have one of the top 15 guys at a premium position, you pay him. You don't hold back because he's not a candidate for DPOY.
Click to expand...

I had a similar line of reasoning for holding out for Garrett.

Josh (Allen) is a top-10 player in the league. I don't think that's debatable anymore. And I think we can all assume that this offense would be bottom-5 without him.

With Allen though, we're perennially in the top-5. That's the kind of transformative effect we're talking about it here. Only, Garrett will have a a proven supporting cast with a coaching staff that is experienced and respectable.

I think Myles makes this defense scary, and it's the one thing that has failed this team in the post-season.

I don't see how you don't go all-in here.
 
I'm a bit late to the party, and I hate to bring more negativity into the Sabres sub on HF (though, for obvious reasons, this thread isn't bad), but I really don't like that Bernard deal. It's just way too much money for a 224 pound linebacker who's nothing special in coverage. Frankly, I think they should bring in competition for him at the mike spot, not gift it to him.

Plus, LBs just aren't valued particularly highly around the league. You should really only give significant contracts to LBs who are difference makers at the position (e.g., prime Milano), and Bernard is certainly not that. If you don't have one of those guys, just roll with a combination of guys on rookie deals and journeyman veteran types.

At the end of the day, I get big Dawson Knox vibes from this one. Beane & Co. are a bit blinded because he's one of their guys and they want to reward him. But it's not actually what's best for the team, as we're using precious cap space inefficiently.
 
Krieger Bot said:
I'm a bit late to the party, and I hate to bring more negativity into the Sabres sub on HF (though, for obvious reasons, this thread isn't bad), but I really don't like that Bernard deal. It's just way too much money for a 224 pound linebacker who's nothing special in coverage. Frankly, I think they should bring in competition for him at the mike spot, not gift it to him.

Plus, LBs just aren't valued particularly highly around the league. You should really only give significant contracts to LBs who are difference makers at the position (e.g., prime Milano), and Bernard is certainly not that. If you don't have one of those guys, just roll with a combination of guys on rookie deals and journeyman veteran types.

At the end of the day, I get big Dawson Knox vibes from this one. Beane & Co. are a bit blinded because he's one of their guys and they want to reward him. But it's not actually what's best for the team, as we're using precious cap space inefficiently.
Click to expand...

I'm kind of in the same boat. I think you're investing market value in a player that may or may not be worth it, which isn't great for cap efficiency (like having Benford on his ELC.) If anything, I would have preferred to have paid Cook who is proving to be top-10 at his position, and that's really where I want this to start focusing - holding on to as much high-end talent as possible.

Dawkins, Brown, Allen, Benford, these are the guys you really want to build around because they are elite at their position, relatively speaking. And more times than not they're earning their cap space.

Knox, Shakir, Bernard, Morse, Rousseau, Oliver, Epenesa, Davis, as much as we love these players and want to see them rewarded, I think we've seen how it works or does not work within the context of the Salary Cap. Kincaid's going to be another one. He has to prove that he's an elite tight-end, or I think Beane needs to consider allowing him to move on, and taking whatever comp. pick comes his way.
 
Ace said:
This is true…but it’s also why he is doing it. His agent is smart enough to know where he ranks out of guys eligible for an extension. At the bottom. He wants to get paid off of a touchdown to yards ratio Cook will never repeat. If he plays another season without the extension…those numbers go down. And so does his dollar amount.

And he’s doing it publicly to a team he knows doesn’t want this drama shit and ate a giant contract to cut loose a better player at a more important position to avoid it. He might as well have asked for a trade…all that matters to their side is cashing in on the season he had…because it won’t happen again. And they know it probably won’t happen here given the line in front of him
Click to expand...
I get that RBs have fallen to the bottom of barrel in terms of positional value. But to be honest, I don't really understand why. Is a good RB like James Cook really less valuable than, say, an average tight end like Hunter Henry? I just don't see it.

As I see it, the positional value hierarchy is:

QB

Big Drop

Then, in no particular order:

OT
WR
DL
CB

In an ideal universe, you probably have 2 good/plus players at each of those positions.

Then, after that, I view all of the other positions about the same. For the most part, you should fill them with a combination of guys on rookie deals and inexpensive vets. But it's ok to pay big money to a guy at a lower value position if he's a difference maker there (e.g., prime Milano, Hyde/Poyer).

Which is the real question with Cook, at least in my eyes. It's not: "Is he an RB? Then don't pay him." The question is: "Do you see him as a difference maker at the position?" If so, he can be worthy of an extension.
 
Krieger Bot said:
I'm a bit late to the party, and I hate to bring more negativity into the Sabres sub on HF (though, for obvious reasons, this thread isn't bad), but I really don't like that Bernard deal. It's just way too much money for a 224 pound linebacker who's nothing special in coverage. Frankly, I think they should bring in competition for him at the mike spot, not gift it to him.

Plus, LBs just aren't valued particularly highly around the league. You should really only give significant contracts to LBs who are difference makers at the position (e.g., prime Milano), and Bernard is certainly not that. If you don't have one of those guys, just roll with a combination of guys on rookie deals and journeyman veteran types.

At the end of the day, I get big Dawson Knox vibes from this one. Beane & Co. are a bit blinded because he's one of their guys and they want to reward him. But it's not actually what's best for the team, as we're using precious cap space inefficiently.
Click to expand...
This is nonsense.

Bernard is very good in coverage. They didn't gift him that contract. Terrel earned every penny of it. My concerns with him are injury related. He made numerous significant splash plays the previous year being 1 of 3 players since 1982 to finish the season with 6+ sacks 3+ INT's and 3+ Fumble recoveries. It's not even that big of a contract. 4 year/50M with 25M guaranteed. For comparison, Tremaine signed a 4 year/72AM contract with 50M guaranteed. I'll take Bernard over Tremaine any day of the week.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willgamesh
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom