Thurman#1

It'd defend on the game situation somewhat. Is your offense moving well right now? Is your defense exhausted? Is the wind much better in one direction than the other? But all things equal, I'd defer. IMO the computer simulations will show this to be the best tack and it'll be what we see.

I think you mis-state how the Ravens approached Jackson. There's no particular reason to think they weren't intending to run a traditional NFL offense with a bit more running. Not that year, of course, but they have moved in that general direction ever since, towards developing Lamar as a guy with more and more traditional pocket abilities and chances every year. Using a baby-friendly QB system the QB's rookie year and working him towards a full pocket system is nothing new. Balt and NE both are working their QBs towards a full traditional system with a few twists and bells and whistles. It's not all that new. More QB runs is a newer development, and we've done it ourselves, but it works incredibly well with a functional and dangerous pocket pass game but not quite so well without it. Lamar Jackson only had eleven more runs than Josh did last year. I don't think there's ever been a guy not using primarily a pocket passing system who's won a Super Bowl. Plenty have tried. A few have come pretty close, not least Jackson and the Ravens in 2019, but also Slash with the Steelers, Mike Vick, and I think a few others qualify depending on what you mean by "close". But none have managed it. We've seen some QBs who weren't very good win Lombardis. After Simms' injury, Hostetler managed to get the Giants a trophy. But Hostetler was working a traditional system. Same with guys like Doug Williams, Dilfer, etc. All were running from traditional systems. We'll see teams try alternative ways when they can't get a guy who can succeed in a pocket passing system. You can't just give up. But if those same teams get a chance to bring in a guy with the ability to operate from the pocket, IMO they'll do it in a second once they decide their athletic guy can't develop into efficient use of pocket passing.

Glad to hear Bates will be back. Somewhat surprised it will cost so little. Good news. As for the whole "It's down to CB" movement, there's lots of time left and lots of FAs available before the draft.

Oh, hey I certainly don't think they should have handled QB the way they did. But do you think that if they'd not done that with the linemen they'd instead have gotten a great team with the alternate picks? I mean, I don't. But if you don't think so, I guess we can just agree to disagree. Got no answer, hunh, bro? It's utterly irrelevant and I pointed it out.

Just not true. It's my fault that my original post didn't have the underlinings I mentioned. My fault. When I copied my document, the underlinings didn't make it over to the post. I've repaired that after seeing my original post, where I mentioned underlining the tackle/guard complications, but hadn't checked my copying. Again, my fault. But they're there now, and it's just not true that "very few players ever get selected strictly to play inside in round 1," as you said. In only two of the last ten years did it NOT happen. It happened 13 times (two of the college tackles I underlined, I believe, were selected to play guard in the NFL) in the last ten years, and at least once in eight of the last ten years. It happens consistently. And with pretty good results. Smart teams fill in their key positions in the draft. And on a team with Josh Allen, the OL is how best to keep him healthy. It's the opposite of unimportant. Nonsense. I'm not arguing this for RB. That's a different issue. When you look at my list of guards chosen in the 1st, you see a list of teams some of which are among the smartest in the league: Pittsburgh, Indy and the Titans for three, though teams like Dallas are also on there. Belichick is smart as hell and he drafted a guard once in the first and once in the second when he didn't have a 1st round pick, and that was in his first year with the Pats. Plenty of smart teams do this. Yes, it's a matchup league. Yes, QBs, CBs, WRs and pass rushers on the edge get most of the money. Great points, both completely irrelevant to our discussion. You don't pay a rookie first rounder all that much. And if he keeps Josh Allen healthy, he might easily be worth a 2nd contract. Everyone gets one-on-one opportunities to change games, and for guards that means the ability to keep Allen uninjured (or not) on every play. "Can't go broke making a profit" mindset in the draft isn't how teams get bad. Not going BPA at positions of need … that's how you screw up the draft and eventually your lineup. Reaching for glamour positions, that's the way to best maximize your mistakes. It's not a coincidence that pretty much all good teams are BPA at positions of need.

It wasn'r picking OLs high that didn't get us anywhere. Picking other positions there wouldn't have gotten us anywhere without good GMs, good coaches an excellent QB and a good roster, most of which we never had or only very very briefly.

How they fit in the ranking of OLs is completely beside the point. Particularly whether any tackles and centers have gone or not. Even how well they fit in with the other OGs doesn't matter. How they fit in with BPA, as determined by the Bills, that's what matters. It's about all that matters. If there are a few extra really good guys picked high (theoretically) it doesn't matter. Only how much the Bills like the OG that's next on their list compared to the other guys at other positions left on their list.

s The 5th year extension is used irregularly, and for a good reason. For example, last year, 17 of the first 20 picks from 2017 got their option picked up. But of the last 12 picks of the round, only 5 did: Frank Ragnow (since extended), Isaiah Wynn, DJ Moore (since extended), Calvin Ridley and Lamar Jackson. Out of them, Calvin Ridley sticks out as a guy the tea must want more time to make a decision. But as for the four others, who else needs more time? Wynn, maybe? It's mostly a way to get a bit cheaper 5thyear. And that's nice, but not wildly important, especially at guard where you're not going to make a ton unless you're really good. This late in the round, it's much more important to get the BPA than to worry about how to situationally use the 5th year option.

I've seen this several times lately, stated as a certainty. And it's at best questionable. In the old days, when we were drafting around 10th year after year, I used to say that we shouldn't draft a guard there unless we were getting a Hutchinson or a Zack Martin. But drafting 25th, you don't need to be getting a Quentin Nelson. Though it wouldn't hurt. Here's a list of OGs drafted in the 1st in the last ten drafts. And there's at least one in 8 out of the last 10 years. I underlined the guys who were arguably drafted at OT but have since moved to OG. I included the draft slot. 2021 14 Vera-Tucker, 17 Alex Leatherwood 2020 none 2019 14 Chris Lindstrom, 23 Tytus Howard 2018 6 Quenton Nelson 2017 none 2016 28 Joshua Garnett 2015 5 Brandon Scherff, 9 Ereck Flowers, 13 Andrus Peat, 28 Laken Tomlinson 2014 16 Zack Martin 2013 7 Jonathan Cooper, 10 Chance Warmack, 11 DJ Fluker, 19 Justin Pugh, 20 Kyle Long 2012 24 David DeCastro, 27 Kevin Zeitler There are a few real washouts there. But I'd argue not many. A lot of solid to very good players there. Perhaps because DOGs don't generally get teams so hot and bothered this early that they reach. Lemme know if I missed any. I'd argue that this makes a pretty decent argument that you do pick an OG in the 1st if he's good enough. Every pick is affected by whether you do good job picking the right guy. Same at every position, though. These percentages don't make me pessimistic about DOGs in the 1st, though. Especially when Josh's health is affected, it's a priority. They should consider it. I'm sure they are. It's certainly a legit option, if there's a guy they like there and if things fall right.

They had a lot of competition for Bates, and while the Bears had to worry about whether the Bills would match, Bates probably gives zero poos about that. For him, he just wants to make this contract as financially remunerative and smart as possible for he and his family. That's how he would choose the contract. So I myself doubt whether the Bears would have been the highest bidder with that contract. IMO maybe $5 - 6.5M AAV., with the guarantees structured right.

Yup.

Agree with about all of this. Maybe all of it, because with two Phillipses, J. and H., all of this discussion has become more confusing. But I'm less hopeful about J. Phillips than many here. He had a ton of sacks that one year, more than he has had before or since. I tend towards thinking it's just statistical variance more than a perfect scheme fit. He had one and three-quarters years here. 2018 BUF 12 games 36% snaps 268 snaps ... 0 sacks 2019 16 games 52% snaps 543 snaps ... 9.5 sacks My best guess is/was statistical variance. Could be wrong, of course. I hope so. Sorry for the long delay on this reply. I had surgery for a smashed wrist bone. Just out of hosp, but looks good. Still typing one-handed. Just seeing this thread again.

A very fair opinion. Probably true last year too, by the end of the year.

Teams do gameplan for Knox. It was clear against the Pats, second game, that they7d decided to take away away Diggs and Knox. No, they don't say, "Men, our first task is to eliminate Knox. If we don't manage that, we will lose this game." But yeah, they're game-planning against him. And, no, he's not elite, but he also does not have that far to go. No, he certainly isn't the one who makes teams most worried. But neither is Kelce. TEs generally aren't, even elite ones. And by the end of the year he was blocking really well. It was great to see. He has improved a ton there.

I see your point. But it's cherry-picking. Can people name the other two RBs picked before Taylor? Were they good picks? And it's fairly typical that CBs take 2 or 3 seasons before becoming great while RBs who become great become great earlier and also wear down earlier.

I hear you, and it's logical. But this FO has never been one that at CB2 plans either for a Gilmore - Bradberry type FA or a high draft pick. Just the opposite, You could certainly be right, but my bet is we see them continuing with SOP, bringing in a lowish level but solid, smart guy - a Wallaceish type - as the pressure on the FAs ratchets up as time passes. And then getting another somewhere in the early to mid rounds. With CB as one of the 3 - 5 positions they consider positions of need if BPA is there.

When the line became functional, Singletary was anything but inconsistent.

Going "all in" isn't what he does. It sounds macho and aggressive, so you hear it a lot on boards. The players and coaches should be all in for this year. Ever year. But the GM is the guy who has to balance long and short term interests. Beane has made his values and his main goal very clear right from his first P.C. He wants to be consistently competitive. Hewants to be there every year. He said it at his first P.C. and many many times since. He'll make moves to improve us this year, but he's not throwing away the future, and that's what letting go a bunch of picks from the first four or five rounds to trade up high does. Only time he's done that was to move up for a QB. Doing it for a QB is industry best practice. Doing it otherwise is not.

This is part of the value of the McDermott system. Look at the DBs drafted by McD in Carolina.Above the 4th round, only two, Bradberry (2nd) and Daryl Worley (3rd), in six years. Got Josh Norman in the 5th. Not saying they won't, but they don't have to go CB in the 1st. It's just what most are saying. Could be IOL (got to protect Allen), CB, WR, maybe even DL.

Tampa's drafting was consistent and fantastic. It's the reason Brady chose that team. They absolutely did not throw away high They built that team through the draft. They were one of the obvious choices for Brady because they were consistently very good drafters with the exception being QB. "Who is to say that Beane ... "? Oh, you're that guy.

That definition of being all in is nuts. You don't throw away the future to improve your shot this year. Especially with the future we have. You don't go all in. You go the smart amount of in.

Nah. $$. The big move was Miller. More smaller ones could happen.

Diggs will be here for a long long time.

The 10.8 months isn't about being ready to play. Read the actual study, found in the footnotes of your link there. It's about returning to game play. So if guys were ready in mid-July, they still didn't return until Week 1. Doesn't look to me like a coincidence that the off-season is just over 8 months. That puts the average time at about mid-season for those who could return by week one. How many guys get hurt in OTAs or camp, miss the whole season and then can't see game play till September even if healthy in June. Also, they weren't claiming great accuracy. They only studied 31 guys who came back. That's just not a big enough sample size to claim accuracy, nor do they. 31 guys and too many other factors. Their only claim that they make based on their own numbers is that people are recovering faster than genuinely believed.

We have the right to match but Beane doubtless has figure he won't go beyond. We could easily lose him if there is an offer. I'm hoping we don't, but the fact that most of us don't want to lose him could easily mean other teams might want him enough to give him a tough offer to match.