HardyBoy

Agree the analogy I used was flawed, but it highlights the larger point that my guess is a lot of people saying this is a companies right to do, would quickly change their tunes if it was something like a 2A issue...not saying you would at all, but it sort of reminds me of free speech should be protected at all costs...unless it's NWA putting out a rap album, then pearl clutching. The whole point of systemic racism is that institutions are taking advantage of once explicitly racist laws and policies in the past to save money. It's the fruit of the poisonous tree argument basically. If I buy stolen property from someone and have a reasonable expectation it is stolen ($100 PS5s aren't a thing), I don't get a pass because I was trying to save some money.

If it came out that people were charging more for health insurance for people who owned guns, because they could point to increased accidental death risk...Would that be an attack on gun rights or a company saving money?

Interesting, thought this interview would get more engagement. Someone like Norman coming to, and saying nice things about the culture within the Bills locker room is massive in my opinion. If he thought it was a negative place he would have said so/or at least not said something positive. Dude is not a fluffer who just follows cliche talking points.

Probably part of a larger pr strategy if I had to guess. Give their network the ability to prime a story, maybe start working on some subtle change management, test out some different word combinations to see what drives engagement through some AB testing, etc. Actually, they're probably reading this right now...

Yup, even the time Superman went into Bizaro World...brady was still a dick

Josh Norman does not mince words, and he had some very positive things to say about the Bills and several Bills players.

You can hire for potential as well though, no? I know potential falls into best for the role, but is often discounted when talking about situations like this. When I hire people, I typically look for skills that the person has no business having given their previous experience and job titles. Shows they are curious and eager to grow, learn and expand their skill set with all the tools available in their sphere, not just what is handed to them. Also tells me they likely have a chip on their shoulder because most likely they had to ignore people saying "why can't you just do it the way you're told" and likely have been undervalued for promotions and such because they try to solve root cause problems, not just do the minimum. Nit involved in too many hires, but have helped hire several incredible people that way, where I had to fight to get their resume out of a garbage can and bring them in for an interview and they blew everyone away.

That's what I think too, he's trying to set up an american football program in the UK as a long term vision.

Mike Gordon does a lot, but he plays a bunch of different styles, depending on the song.

Oh no, not the pink hats!

Not just tipped balls, but since he's so tall, wonder if he'll be getting tips while he's still in the motion of getting his arm up, causing more tips to go up high in the air instead of just getting batted down.

The feeling I had reading this in the past tense...that said, I don't think that feeling really exists...everytime I think it does something like the Cards game happens!

Nice!

Safe to say the majority of your skills were gained through on the job training? That's not the case for nfl players. The skills that makes them able to join the league are developed prior to joining the league. Also, I do believe there is a difference between gov't jobs and jobs in the private sector. And yes, the military and the nfl both do a bad job preparing their employees for post career life.

There are viable alternatives for those career paths (private contractors, etc.). The nfl used non-competative means through anti-trust law exemptions to eliminate or aquire other competitive leagues...same with all the major sports in the USA.

Tannehil was on the verge of breaking out imo the year he tore his acl in training camp. He ended the season before super strong, he just should have gotten the knee repaired, and instead tried to rehab, and nope. https://dolphinstalk.com/2018/07/22/ryan-tannenhill-and-the-ghosts-of-acl-injuries-past/

I'm right around episode 18 of season 2 of DS9 and reason I'm watching is I heard it turns into some of the all time best sci fi starting in season 3 (and it already has been great). Very very very pumped (I started watching in early April too, so that's a lot of DS9...with a 16 month old and a just turned 4 year old, this is pretty much literally the first tv I've watched for myself in almost a year. Their stuff during the day if tv is on and catching up on work I put off watching them part of the day. DS9, at least so far, sneaky good show to watch with a 4 year old (only skipped a few episodes because of violence). Between watching DS9 and moving from South Florida to Raleigh last fall and experiencing a real spring for the first time in 8 years, I feel like a fog is coming off...so yeah, thinking the last year might have caused some lasting impacts... What's this thread about again?

I heard someone somewhere talking about how this is a super shallow DT draft and a deep draft at other positions, so we shouldn't take a DT, which I thought was opposite. You take the DT early, because there are only a few worth drafting and then you draft one of the depth positions later and you get a player who is taken much higher most drafts (Gabriel Davis is the perfect example). Like it's potentially ok to draft a guy a round or two early, so you don't have to trade back up, and use those other picks to draft the depth players. That said, position scarcity absolutely plays into the opportunity cost of drafting a player at a position with more depth early, and is part of the value calculation.

Is it possible the value of the sixth pick goes up on draft day though? Also, there is a benefit of knowing who is available at six, and then deciding to trade down, that opportunity to have that knowledge is valuable in itself.

I know this is shocking to some, but it's possible the dolphins view Tua as a better draft prospect with a higher ceiling than any of the qbs they could have had at #3. Like if they were all coming out this year, they would have Tua rated above the guys likely available.

Absolutely, and likely the best approach is the vary the strategy based on the maturity of your development pipeline. In my example I said it takes a player 3 years to be fully developed. If you draft three developmental players a year, you will have 9 at any given time. Actually, theoretically that would work with the practice squad and bottom of the roster (with my constraint that you have to keep a developmental player for at least three years), but that prevents you from signing any developmental players as FA. My thought it likely goes in waves. One year you largely restock developmental players, then the next year focus on trading up and getting top 100 picks...and you do that all within the same draft as things unfold, it's just you need to be mindful and have a plan for both buckets, and have full faith the Bills FO most certainly does.

Totally hear ya. Was planning on ending that with agree that Beane is a total wizard and has all that stuff built out for sure, and the model will continue getting better each year with more info. Ha, my phone was on the verge of running out of battery and I was about to lose everything I wrote if I tried to add another sentence (made it with literally 30 seconds to spare).

So I hear what you're saying, and especially in this draft there is a very good chance players are misscouted and legit talent drops a lot more than usual. That said, and let's say ceilings are all equal...say something like 50% of first round draft picks bust. Then let's say 5% of 5th or lower draft picks become starters, that's a 95% bust rate (let's exclude kickers and punters and such). Even if my numbers are off a bit, the point is, it takes a lot more late round picks to equal the value of a first round pick in terms of odds. Low in the first round, the cost in salary in my mind, where that player is real close to not being in the top 51 anyway would take a ton of later round picks to make me want to take the gamble. Also, you gotta think a lot of those players will need to develop, so even if you say something crazy like 50% of people taken in late rounds develop into a starter year 4 if you let them sit on your bench. You simply don't have enough roster spots to make it work. All that said, the answer really lies in between there, and includes factors such as specific position, upcoming years positional draft depths, free agent classes, salary value ranges by position, scheme both immediate and where you see the league evolvong, etc.

I dunno about the shouldn't get credit for losing piece in the bills case for the 2019 draft...agree 100% when it comes to teams perpetually drafting at the top, but they've drafted as a playoff team three times in four seasons, and put themselves in a position to draft in the top 10 to get Oliver in 2019 through a very shrewd rebuild. Also, the 2020 first rounder ended up perfectly valued to net Diggs...if that's a top 10 pick, they're likely not getting Diggs without a trade down, and Diggs wasn't going to be available long enough to wait until closer to the draft to find a trade down partner.

I think the bills had receivers who could do that last year (again, I think), they all just got injured at the wrong time. Really I think dressing Davis was the key mistake (hindsight for sure, and not ragging on the decision), but he just couldn't cut hard enough in that game. Really all they needed was one guy to be able to flash quickly for Allen a fee times and punish the chiefs for the bracket coverages and aggressive press, and I think it's a different game in a lot of ways.