Thurman#1

Six snaps on offense is "a lot of trust"? His 40 snaps on STs shows a bit more faith, but six snaps on offense shows all but nothing. I'm hopeful, but you can't say there's no need for anyone else based on six snaps, no rushes and no targets. Hardman played in all 16 games his rookie year and put up 538 yards. Their WR corps was also stacked, with Tyreek, Sammy Watkins, Demarcus Robinson, and Byron Pringle. I think it would indeed be a stretch to compare the two. Love his speed. If he figures out kick returns, I think he could be excellent, but so far he hasn't. Seems like a great guy, and sometimes players develop a lot. Maybe, but it just has not shown so far at the pro level.

I find that real hard to imagine. I suppose anything's possible. But before the draft a team whose modus operandi is filling all their holes before the draft is going to open up new holes? Yeah, I won't be holding my breath on that one.

A long snapper? In no way. Nobody thinks that, nobody. You know that for an unquestioned fact by comparing salaries for long-snappers to guards and by comparing where long-snappers get picked in the draft and comparing that as well. There's no comparison. A guard protects your QB on every single pass play and your RB on every single run play. It's a crucial piece (they all are) in making your offense work well. At #25, you aren't likely to fill any position with an all-star. Top twelve or so, your odds might be pretty decent. Around #25 you're successful if you get a long-time starter who plays well above-average These are the #25 picks back to 2000: Travis Etienne, Brandon Aiyuk, Marquise Brown, Hayden Hurst, Jabrill Peppers, Artie Burns, Shaq Thompson, Jason Verrett, Xavier Rhodes, Dont'a Hightower, James Carpenter, Tim Tebow, Vontae Davis, Mike Jenkins, Jon Beason, Santonio Holmes, Jason Campbell, Ahmad Carroll, William Joseph, Charles Grant, Freddie Mitchell, and Chris Hovan. That's the rough spectrum you're probably looking at. There are a few guys there who are/were really able to play. A bunch of good players, and some absolute dogs. If you compare your guard at #25 to an imaginary group of guys playing "like an All-Star," the guard looks terrible. But there aren't a whole lot of all-stars in that group up above. Comparing a guard playing very good ball and protecting Allen and allowing the run game to be better and to take pressure off Allen compared to those guys the comparison is actually pretty reasonable. The value a guy brings is how much better he helps the whole team, the whole system, to play. Guards can help a lot.

I love that they thought about it. I trust them to make good decisions at a high rate as they do.

I think Thuney's hit has a bit to do with their not having more under the cap next year. Not much, though. Next year he is going to be an $8.1M hit. There isn't the slightest doubt he's worth that. I also think Thuney also has a lot to do with Mahomes' being healthy right now. Mahomes' $35M cap hit had an awful lot more to do with Tyreek Hill not being there than Thuney's $8.1M. It's worth it for Thuney. And that the Chiefs probably just love Tyreek but had a max they wanted to give him, and Tyreek didn't want to give a discount for the hometown team. The reason they aren't bringing back their WR is likely that they didn't want to give him $120M over four years with $72.2M guaranteed. Think he'll have his usual massive impact in Miami with Tua throwing to him as he did last year with Mahomes? I don't. The Chiefs are playing moneyball. It's smart. And so was paying to keep Mahomes healthy and unpestered. And yes, you can find adequate guards for cheap. They won't play as well. You can find adequate guys for cheaper at every position. You will pay a price in efficiency. That's why you take the BPA at a position of need. (IMO in no order: WR, CB, IOL, DLk I'm NOT saying we should draft a guard. I absolutely AM saying that we should strongly consider doing so (and will strongly consider it) if he is the BPA on their board. Keeping Josh Allen unmolested is huge, as is helping keep a real run game going to take some of the pressure off Allen's shoulders.

Great interior linemen absolutely change games. Not least by not allowing your QB to be injured or consistently rushed. And plugging a single spot in a unit and moving it from below average to well above average ... that is game-changing. When people say game-changing, they typically mean people who make the play at the ball. And that's the easy to observe guy, said to have "made the play," but that's nonsense. The play is made by eleven guys. It would not have been made if an OL had let a rusher past who put Allen in the hospital. What people mean by game-changing plays is flashy plays, at the point of contact, generally on the ball. Those are cool plays. But anyone who thinks that one guy made any play whatsoever is missing the point. Those should be called something else, maybe splash plays or highlight reel plays. Game-changing plays are by no means limited to splash or highlight reel plays. The biggest game-changers for the Bills were probably Josh Allen, Ryan Bates (when he was plugged in, the increase in offensive efficiency was instantly noticeable, it was consistent and long-lasting. He was the biggest game-changer on the Bills last year, IMO), and whoever replaced him (guys like Dane Jackson did OK, but the defense simply wasn't the same. In a bad way, Jackson was a game-changer, particularly against teams with a number of quality receivers such as the Chiefs.) If we'd had a better CB3, that guy would have been a major game changer even though nobody would really have noticed him. A really good functional line has a massive impact on offensive function. And one guy can absolutely have an OL take a major leap, as we saw with Bates. And when you draft you don't get to choose who's available to you. You don't get to say, "OK, I'll take the Quenton Nelson calibre wide receiver / pass rusher / CB." If you did say that at #25, the answer is likely to be, "He's on the roster of the team that drafted 8th." You take the guy who's as close as you can find to Quenton Nelson calibre (BPA) at a position of need. And this year, IOL is absolutely a position of need.

I don't like what he said. He's certainly right that we have a right to be selfish or make unpopular stands about things. It's within our rights ... but that will carry consequences in how people think about you. But you don't hear people criticizing the other Bills who didn't get the shot much. They criticize two, Beasley for constantly going on about it even during the season, and Lotulelei who insisted on not getting vaccinated and then having Covid make him miss a couple of weeks and then drastically reduce his effectiveness the rest of the year. There were apparently five guys who were unvaccinated. Did any others get a ton of flack? Did the other people who caught Covid, vaxed or not, get flack? Beasley's insistence on bringing the focus back to Covid and his beliefs again and again was a huge majority of the reason he was caught in a bit of an SNS maelstrom.

You can believe it, but there's no evidence for it that I've seen. I might have missed it. Did anyone say this, on the player or the team side? That's an honest question. Can anyone link something?

Every team in the league used analytics. Some more than others, but most used them at least a fair amount. And nearly all used it on accept/defer decisions. How many teams deferred when they won the coin toss at the beginning of games? 251:25. That's analytics. And a lot of the 25 were because of the wind. It'll be the same here, IMO. We'll see the ratio tip quite a bit to one side or the other. IMO it'll be to deferring. Oh, and as for teams that use analytics a lot not making the playoffs, take a look at these articles about how the Rams use analytics a lot. https://ramblinfan.com/2021/04/08/la-rams-data-analytics-continues-to-advance-each-year/ https://sporttechie.com/its-the-rams-and-bengals-in-the-super-bowl-and-may-the-best-data-science-win https://www.pacific.edu/pacific-newsroom/alumnas-work-analytics-helps-rams-win-super-bowl#:~:text=Bailey serves as manager of,and game preparation and strategy. https://ramblinfan.com/2021/04/11/la-rams-statistician-sarah-bailey-views-data-analytics/ And I may be wrong, but I seem to remember the Rams making the playoffs last year.

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.