The Bills have a James Cook problem.
During the annual meetings in Orlando, G.M. Brandon Beane made it clear that Cook won’t be getting a new contract “anytime soon,” after initial talks went nowhere.
Cook has now made his next move in the eight-figure chess match. Via WIVB.com, Cook’s Orchard Park house is now on the market.
The home was purchased in 2022 by an LLC owned by Cook’s brother, Dalvin. Regardless, it’s where James lives. And it’s currently for sale.
Cook has a $5.3 million salary for 2025, the last year of his rookie deal. He has made it clear he’s looking for at least $15 million per year.
A holdout isn’t a viable option; the current labor deal would strip him instantly of a fourth year of service, making him not eligible for free agency in 2026. A hold-in becomes more plausible, with Cook showing up but not practicing until he gets a deal — or until the team tells him he need to get to work.
Next year, the Bills and Cook could end up playing the franchise-tag dance. Which could potentially further delay his second contract, as it did for Saquon Barkley.
Cook, 25, was a second-round pick in 2022. He’s a two-time Pro Bowler, and he scored 18 total regular-season touchdowns in 2024.
Bills cornerback Christian Benford’s new contract will change his life. But not his approach.
Benford said in announcing the deal that the money, about $70 million over the life of the contract, will make an enormous difference to his family.
“Let’s be for real – like, it’s a life-changing moment,” Benford said, via the Buffalo News. “Let’s just put all things to the side. Let’s clear the air. Let’s address the elephant in the room. Like, this is life changing – like, family, legacy, everything.”
But Benford said that on the field, he’ll be the same player he’s been since the Bills drafted him in 2022.
“My drive’s already still strong to be the best in the league,” Benford said. “It don’t change nothing. I don’t feel different. My mindset is still the same. Get to the Super Bowl, be the best in the league. But yeah, for the drive standpoint, it ain’t really touch that foundation.”
The Bills recently signed cornerback Christian Benford to a four-year extension. As always, the truth of the deal comes a few days later.
As to Benford, the full details have arrived. Here they are, per a source with knowledge of the terms.
1. Signing bonus: $7.5 million.
2. 2025 base salary: $1.1 million, fully guaranteed.
3. 2026 option bonus: $12 million (guarantee details below).
4. 2026 offseason workout bonus: $500,000.
5. 2026 base salary: $2.546 million (guarantee details below).
6. 2026 per-game active roster bonus: $510,000 total.
7. 2027 offseason workout bonus: $500,000.
8. 2027 base salary: $14.49 million, guaranteed for injury at signing with $2.5 million fully guaranteed on the day after Super Bowl LX and the remaining $11.99 million fully guaranteed on the fifth day of the 2026 league year.
9. 2027 per-game active roster bonus: $510,000 total.
10. 2028 offseason workout bonus: $500,000.
11. 2028 base salary: $15.24 million, $3.164 million of which is guaranteed for injury.
12. 2028 per-game active roster bonus: $510,000 total.
13. 2029 90-man offseason roster bonus: $3 million.
14. 2029 offseason workout bonus: $500,000.
15. 2029 base salary: $12.49 million.
16. 2029 per-game roster bonus: $510,000.
Of the 2026 option bonus and 2026 base salary, $10.25 million is fully guaranteed at signing. The remaining $4.296 million is guaranteed for injury at signing. It becomes fully guaranteed on the day after Super Bowl LX.
The deal also includes up to $5 million in incentives and up to $2 million in escalators. Benford can earn up to $1 million each year under this formula: $400,000 for four interceptions or $650,000 for five interceptions or $1 million for six interceptions. He’ll make an extra $500,000 in salary for 2026 through 2029 based on being named a first-team All-Pro in 2025 through 2028.
The four-year extension was initially reported as having a base value of $76 million. But that included the incentives and escalators. The true base value was and is $69 million. That equates to a new-money APY of $17.25 million.
The total value at signing is five years, $72.406 million. The average from signing is $14.4812 million.
The full guarantee at signing is $18.85 million, with a practical guarantee of $37.636 million.
The arguments have been made. The goalposts have moved. The question is whether the ongoing effort to get rid of the tush push is good for the game.
It’s not. And the entire effort is a bad look for the sport.
Yes, some want to get rid of it. And they’ve come up with flimsy, shifting arguments.
The discussion goes something like this.
“The play isn’t safe.”
“OK, where’s the injury data?”
“There is none.”
“So how do you know it’s not safe?”
“It might not be safe.”
“How do you know that?”
“It looks like it might not be safe. We need to be proactive.”
“But you’re never proactive. Why are you suddenly being proactive now?”
“Well, it doesn’t look like football.”
“Does it comply with the current rules of football?”
“Yes, but it doesn’t look like a football play.”
“To whom?”
It all feels like a way to take something away from the NFL’s best team. While some opponents of the play might genuinely believe the reasons that have been given, the circumstances justify the very real perception that it’s less about doing the right thing and more about sour grapes.
At a minimum, the debate gives the other 31 teams a way to explain away their failure to compete with the defending Super Bowl champions.
Remember when the Patriots were constantly accused of cheating? Yes, they were guilty of some cheating. But the accusations became ridiculous. Still, when owners demanded to know why their teams couldn’t compete with the Patriots, saying “they cheat” sounded a lot better than admitting they’re smarter, they work harder, they’re more innovative, and they’re just better than their competitors. (The Chiefs have been dealing with that recently, with their success being undermined by the misguided idea that the officials are trying to help the Chiefs win.)
The current tush push debate, regardless of its outcome, allows teams that can’t beat the Eagles to blame it on a play that isn’t a football play and that basically is cheating but for the fact that at least 24 teams haven’t decided to make it cheating.
It’s a dangerous precedent. If a team comes up with a consistently successful technique, the goal should be figuring out how to stop it and/or figuring out how to do it. The strategy should not be to hide behind safety or aesthetics or any other half-baked justification in an effort to come up with enough support to kill the play or, at a minimum, to create the perception that it’s unfair or wrong to use it.
The Eagles might be tempted to say, “Fine. Ban the tush push. We’ll still run the quarterback sneak in a way that no one can stop it.” Here’s hoping they don’t, for two reasons.
First, the next proposal could target the quarterback sneak. Second, surrendering would legitimize the effort to counter a play that works by getting rid of it. Or, at a minimum, by raising the idea that there’s something wrong with using it.
The second reason is the main reason for the Eagles to stand firm. Those who can’t compete with a successful play shouldn’t be able to collectively cook up pretextual reasons for removing from the game the thing they can’t handle.
For now, it’s the tush push. At some point, it’ll be something else. While it might not be good for the game to have one team dominate until other teams can come with an answer, it’s horrible for the game to let the answer be coming up with trumped-up reasons to remove a play that other teams don’t like.
The Packers made a flawed proposal aimed at neutralizing the tush push. It nevertheless won support of half of the league.
Kalyn Kahler of ESPN.com reports that 16 teams supported Green Bay’s submission, which would have banned players from “immediately” pushing the player who receives the snap. While that number fell eight votes short of the minimum needed to change the rules, the 50-50 split confirms that the debate is very real — and that, when the owners gather again in May, it could go either way.
Still, at least half of the teams that weren’t prepared to vote for the Packers’ proposal will need to change their minds for the status quo to be altered.
The problem could very well be the formulation of Green Bay’s proposal. That rule would have cracked open a separate can of worms for the league regarding the proper way to officiate the play, introducing subjectivity and potential inconsistency from crew to crew regarding whether a push was, or wasn’t, immediate.
And if, for instance, a flag is thrown to nullify a key tush push touchdown when the shove arguably wasn’t “immediate,” the league would have to deal with criticism of the officials that could morph into claims from the tinfoil-hat crowd that the fix is in.
The question becomes whether it makes sense to rewind the clock to 2005 and prohibit all pushing of a ballcarrier. The rule changed because downfield shoving of a player who was fighting for more yardage was never called. No one realized 19 year ago that this would eventually morph into the dilemma with which the stewards of the sport are now wrestling.
A complete ban on pushing the player with the ball would become much easier and cleaner to officiate. And while there could be instances where an offensive lineman rumbles to the pile and gives a healthy shove without a flag being thrown, it would eliminate the strategic use of pushing and shoving as an affirmative strategy at the line of scrimmage.
It all comes down to whether 24 owners will get behind the idea of keeping teammates from getting behind the quarterback and ramming him past the line to gain or the goal line. A complete ban on pushing would more directly and conclusively solve the problem, with no need for the officials to determine whether or not a shove was “immediate.”
An answer is coming before Memorial Day. Which, in the grand scheme of things, is about as immediate as it could happen.
