Thurman#1

Sorry, I wasn't saying there was one and only one reason why teams prefer this year's pick to next year's. If I said or implied that, that's my bad. But yeah I'd argue that the difference between desperate and secure GMs is the most significant reason. By far. The academic studies (Massey and Thaler's famous article "The Loser's Curse: Overconfidence vs. Market Efficiency in the National Football League Draft" is the best-known but at this point there are dozens and they all say the same thing) show that if you want to increase your efficiency at drafting better players, you should trade back. It doesn't work that way every time, but far more than 50%. You shouldn't be giving up major assets trading up, with the exception of going for a franchise QB, and even that has a major risk of not working out well, but is worth taking the risk if you don't have a franchise guy. The teams trading up and giving up major assets are generally desperate, whether for a franchise QB or because the GM's seat is on fire or both. 1) They do have a decent idea most years how good the draft will be. Not precise but they have a general idea. This year less so. 2) Agreed, but these first two real risks are generally mitigated by receiving an extra pick 3) Yes, most NFL teams want to get better now. But that's precisely because GMs on the hot seat are forced to want to get better now. Secure GMs are in a position to prefer being a lot better two or three years down the road to being a bit better next year. Which is smart. 4) Yes, but what the relevant things the future holds for most GMs is mostly job security or a lack thereof. 5) Yes, the market says those picks are worth less, but again, most of the reason for that comes down to the very same thing. Teams trading up are more desperate. So you can ask them for more. The secure teams get a bad offer and can say "Thanks, but call us back when you get real." It's the team that needs a guy now that tries to overcome the other guy's reluctance by sweetening the pot. IMO you're very right, particularly on #1 and #2, but #3 - #5 are just different ways of looking at the same phenomenon, that teams that feel more pressure crack first and give up more. But it's worth noting also that sometimes next year's pick has a major advantage over this year's, namely that a young team knows more about their situation. For example, imagine if after Manuel's first year Whaley had instead of trading up for Watkins traded down, thinking, "Not sure about Manuel yet and I'll have a better idea next year, so why don't I trade the #9 for a 1st next year and a 3rd this year (for example)?" Then the next year he'd have had legit doubts about Manuel and could have angled for a QB a year or two or three down the line. Turned out a WR wasn't what that team most needed, but Whaley had no way of knowing that so early in Manuel's stay. That's only an example, of course, but tons of times a team uses a #1 at a position which turns out to not have been one they should have been prioritizing. But of course, that argument only works with GMs who are secure. The ones in hot seats can't worry about the future. Oh, right I'm not sure either, but I'd guess it's a decent chance. And if they don't, it might be worth their while instead if a team eyeing some particular player at #18 might offer maybe a 2nd this year and a 2nd next, and maybe a late pick beyond that. Another second next year would help them trade up for a QB and having two 2nds this year after they already get a guy they love and believe in at #6 might look great to them. If they're a bit less sure about Tua than maybe they're letting on.

Three first round picks over the next two years is indeed pretty nice. But they also have five first round picks over the next three years. Sick indeed. I wonder myself if they might possible trade back again with their second 1st rounder this year and build up yet more capital next year in case they decide Tua is not the guy. They now have #6 and #18. Might they try to trade back #18 for, say a 1st next year and 3rd this year? If they find a needy team, they could get that or close, though the other team would be giving up maybe 15 or 20% value according to the Johnson chart. But desperate teams do things like that sometimes.

Not really. With that $5 you can get interest on it for a year and have $5.05 on it next year. More if you bought a fraction of a share of Amazon near the bottom. But they don't give interest on draft picks ... draft picks don't have earning capacity like money does. The problem for GMs is that they, especially the ones on the hot seat and except for teams trading up for a franchise QB possibility, desperate GMs are nearly always the ones trading up, and in any negotiated transaction the more desperate guy generally loses. If you're a GM who's really secure in his job, you can make a trade back in years like this and get two or three guys for one and depending on who you're trading to you might even get damn good odds on a higher first rounder the next year. The desperate ones can't do that, though, this may be their last year. Belichick made a cottage industry out of doing this, because he was real secure in his job after that first Super Bowl win.

The Fins aren't giving up a 1st this year and not getting back a pick in the first this year. They went from 3rd down to 6th. And got a ton of value including a 1st rounder in 2023. If they aren't picking QB, and if the first four picks are QB, which is starting to seem decently likely with all the trading, and if Sewell goes at #5, the Fins could be looking at #6 right at the number one player on their board. If that's so, it's a terrific deal for them to get extra picks and they guy they would have taken at #3 anyway. If the Fins boards are angry, I'd argue it's because a lot of them don't think Tua is the answer and would rather they went QB this year. IMO that's a reasonable worry and could potentially make that FO look bad. But it would be the decision on Tua that will look bad, I think, not so much the trade.

You are being sarcastic. Unfortunately for your point, you're absolutely correct. Look, a shiny object!! And I've got a credit card right here in my pocket! What an amazing coincidence!

Not at all. IMO it was very unlikely before, and now that we signed Breida, nothing has changed about that. Around the 5th, 6th and 7th rounds I think the odds rise significantly.

" 'It helps you for your planning the sooner you can get that contract done,' Beane told NFL Media's Jim Trotter and Steve Wyche on the Huddle & Flow podcast, via NFL.com. 'Again, I hope that we can get him done, if not this year, next year. You don't want to get into the franchise (tag) and all that stuff. It's a tool that you use if you have to to keep a great player, but at the end of the day, we want Josh here for the long term.' " This is huge.

IMO he's a more natural fit as a 3-4 LB, a pass rusher, but might not fit this defense. I'm not at all sure he can hold the edge, which is what they want from their DEs on running plays.

Yeah, 26 is the new 87.

The more guys you draft the better your chances of finding an extra good one somewhere. Even if you don't end up keeping them all, you might find that you're cutting your 5th rounder but keeping the second 6th rounder - the one you thought about trading away - because he has surprised you. Again, there have been scholarly studies done on what trading up and trading down does to your odds of success. Massey and Thaler is the most famous, the Harvard Sports Collective is also well-known, but at this point there have been dozens and they all find the same thing. Worth noting that these guys aren't dummies. Thaler has won a Nobel prize. Ever study finds that when you give up valuable assets to move up (and you absolutely will have to give up a valuable asset to trade up to #18 or #20 as you're saying here) your odds of success drop. A lot. https://eml.berkeley.edu/~webfac/malmendier/e218_sp06/Thaler.pdf Trading away lower round guys isn't such a big deal, but giving up higher-round valuable picks is simply a bad idea. The idea is that GMs - being human - aren't as smart as they think they are and would do better to keep more picks, especially earlier ones, to give them more chances. The exception is trading up for a QB when you haven't got one. Those guys are so important, and generally unavailable except when picked early, that trading up for one makes sense. Otherwise, it doesn't.

There is no particular reason to think Star is playing his last season here, beyond the fact that a number of people on these boards don't like the guy. Now, of course if we see serious regression - for any player - that's different. But barring that, the Bills like him and if cut after this year they would save very little money. As long as he continues playing well, he could very very easily be here two or even three years. Having said that, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see them picking a 1-tech who's a space eater later. But even if they do they might easily keep Star for a while anyway. As far as Kawann Short, he was a good player and I liked him but ... $$$. Was never a real space eater, more athletic and less of an immoveable object.

And that's in 415 snaps, 39% of their total offensive snaps. Pretty nice. He's 28 and will be 29 in a few days, that's a bit older than you'd want, but this isn't a guy with a lot of miles on him. Really interesting signing. Good stuff. This is a long thread, don't know if anybody posted this but here are some details from a BBC story: "Born in Nigeria, Obada moved to the Netherlands to live with his mother when he was eight years old. Two years later, he and his sister were taken to London. "The details of how they came to arrive in England's capital are still unclear. The word "trafficked" has been used, but Obada has not exactly described it in those terms. "The most open he has been on the subject was in a blog on the Carolina Panthers website in August 2017. Writing there, he said he and his sister were brought over "by a stranger who was supposed to look after us - they did not". "Revisiting that time now, he is reluctant to share full details of the traumatic experience. But what is certain is that at the age of 10, he was abandoned with his sister on the streets of Hackney, east London. "They spent two nights sleeping rough before a security guard gave them shelter in the tower block he was working in. With his help, the children were eventually looked after temporarily by a friend of their mother. When that arrangement broke down, Obada spent the remainder of his childhood in more than 10 different foster homes." https://www.bbc.com/sport/american-football/47819317

It's spectacularly useful, Hap. More, they are useful strategies that Brandon Beane has made it abundantly clear that he himself uses. Most recently at the press conference about four days ago. Said many many many teams over the years: "Jeez we were so good a year or two ago, didn't quite have the hosses to win the championship, but even though we've had to cut many of our best players this year and absolutely sucked because we overspent and weren't sensible or sustainable financially, we feel good because yeah we totally went for it that one year even if it meant we were screwed this year. So, Mr. Owner, please don't fire us. And fans, please buy tickets even though we sucked again this year." They've made it abundantly clear that their goal is NOT to be good for one year. They have used the words "consistently competitive" over and over and over again. Consistently, really. And you achieve consistency by using sensible and sustainable financial strategies. And yeah, extending Allen is one of many very good reasons to be financially sensible and sustainable.

No, signing players at positions of need while being both sensible and sustainable financially is the goal. Agreed that's his M.O. about the draft.

Hadn't noticed that new rule about the practice squad. Hunh.

Agreed we still have money, but "using up the money" isn't the goal. Not to mention that we'll have to pay our draftees and that they like to go into the season with $5 - $7M available in case they need to bring in injury replacements.

And I agree with most of your sentiment too, but not all of it. Yeah, he's renegotiated several contracts, and yeah, he is very prudent about it. But I don't think he'd tell you the money was minor. And I don't think he would suddenly increase the money he's eyeing freeing up this way depending on what's available. It's not the way he works. He methodically and thoughtfully figures out money issues beforehand. It's in the way he offers contracts ... he gives his offer and if they want more, he's fine with that and wishes them well. Seems likely that's what happened with Lawson, assuming they had interest ... they kicked the tires and said "Oh, hey, we really like you, but that doesn't fit the budget." The things he does must fit his budget. He's a planner. Dollars to donuts he figured out how much he wants to be available to him next year to sign Josh and Tremaine or any other moves he wants to make, and then he figures out how to maximize this year's team while still leaving him what he thinks he's going to need next year and beyond. I don't think this is clear yet. It certainly could be that he's already created space. Alternatively it could be that Spotrac doesn't have all the details yet on a bunch of things and the numbers aren't what we are guessing they are and they don't need the space we think they do, or that he's going to cut somebody before officially registering a contract ... we just don't yet know. You've got a very reasonable guess there, but I don't think it's the clear truth yet. We'll know when all the details finally come in. Fairburn just tweeted this 14 hours ago: "If my bookkeeping is correct, the Bills are under $1 million in cap space after re-signing Isaiah McKenzie." Who's right? I don't know, myself.

Loved Voyage. Richard Basehart. Pwee toot toot toot. Pwee toot toot toot. Always enjoyed that weird little series of noises you heard on the sub.

Not really. Opening cap space is - directly - doing harm to the future. Same as using your credit card when you're already scheduled to pay a lot next month. It's about finding a balance. And while there is certainly a lot still to be done, doing more than a bit of it is indeed going to make the future more difficult.

Well frankly, that's kind of wacky. Most of the best kickers in the league weren't drafted. Butker was a 7th. Tucker undrafted. Lambo undrafted. Gould undrafted. And while Bass is good, he's not a difference maker. He's a good kicker, and plenty of those other draft picks, Moss, Davis, Dane Jackson, Ed Oliver, Jaquan Johnson, Epenesa are good or even very good for their draft slot.

None of them are anything yet? Nothing? Well, your clear misjudgement about that explains why you think a kicker is the best pick we made. Not that Bass is a bad pick. He's not. Solid pick. So are they, and some are better than that.

Yeah, except probably Moss, Davis, Dane Jackson, Ed Oliver, Jaquan Johnson, Epenesa the second half of the year and maybe one or two others. I know. Guilty as charged, damn it.

No, thanks. All too expensive. A draftee, please, or a cheap signing that overperforms.

IMO, yeah, we got worse losing Bojorquez. They didn't sign him because they couldn't agree on a contract, not because they didn't want him. “We’re always trying to improve our roster,” McDermott said. “Corey was in a situation where he had a good year and we got to a situation where both sides were talking and we just felt we had an opportunity that’s best for our team. At the end of the day, we wish Corey the best.”“The one thing is, we’ve got a young kicker, we plan to have Reid (Ferguson) here as a long snapper – we were looking for someone who definitely wanted to be here for the long term,” Beane said. “We just weren’t on the same page (with Bojorquez), so we decided to look elsewhere and we’re very excited. https://buffalonews.com/sports/bills/five-takeaways-from-brandon-beanes-and-sean-mcdermotts-free-agency-news-conference/article_029d2958-883c-11eb-803d-1bfcaf5594c0.html Roberts too. That appears to also have been a money move. Roberts was absolutely one of the best KRs in the league. But you can't afford everything. Hopefully McKenzie can replace him without too much of a dropoff. But when they had the money last year they kept both guys and had Roberts return the kicks, though that McKenzie punt runback was really pretty. I like Haack as a replacement, but yeah I think it's fair to say there's a dropoff. Perhaps not a very large one, hopefully. They saved money on these moves, which may/should help elsewhere. But purely in terms of STs, yeah, I think it's fair to say they got a bit worse.

While I agree with your main idea, that nobody should be "sure" we'll repeat as division champs, saying that no level of our D was consistently good is overplaying your hand. The defensive backfield was excellent as usual. Also, we didn't step back. We brought back a group that is consistently improving the last couple of years. And we improved a bit at WR and a lot at backup QB, which could potentially be a major deal. Maybe even a bit at TE, though the proof will be in the pudding there. Cody Ford being healthy would likely be a real improvement. You're right that it'll be harder this year. No sure thing at all, but we'll be the favorites for good reason.