Thurman#1

Of course it's an overpay ... an overpay for the draft slot. Desperate teams pay desperate prices. But if you make the right pick and get a good player, he's worth more than the draft spot. Get an unsuccessful one and he's worth less. For the slot, you overpay. If you make the right pick, the player can be worth much more than what you gave up.

Of course it's not fair. You're doing this for the good of the industry and the chance for parity so a larger group of players can at some point be on good teams.. The players union has signed on for it. It's not fair. Neither is the system that other people use, the job interviews and agreements system. Not everyone gets job offers at the good companies. Harvard grads have better chances, people with the gift of gab ... on and on. Life isn't fair.

Empathy has got nothing to do with it. He's simply trying to point out a bad rule change.

Sorry, man, this just doesn't any sense whatsoever when you're talking about a very good blocker who was top five in the league in YPC as a rookie, with 5.1 yards, a very solid 4.4 YPC last year, and who caught 76% of his targets last year and 71% as a rookie. There simply isn't a doubt that he's a starting quality NFL RB. Beyond that there are absolutely some quibbles with his game, particularly the fact that he's not a home run hitter. But he absolutely is starter quality.

Um, no, it's dead on-target. And I'm very interested to find out how 14-2 equals 15-1. Could you explain what way the Chiefs went 15-1 last year while losing two games? They picked Edwards-Helaire, and didn't get a lot out of him for a first round pick. He played In 2019 the team managed 1569 yards on the ground , while with Edwards-Helaire they vaulted all the way up to 1799 yards. Wow!!! That's 230 extra yards!! I mean, yeah, 80 of those extra yards came from Patrick Mahomes getting 80 more yards running, but still !! In 2019, the Chiefs threw for 626 yards to the RBs. In 2020, they improved that all the way up to 517!! Oh, wait, that's actually less. But still !!! Not being a good blocker makes you harder to put in when it's a passing situation. Edwards-Helaire is a fine player. But they didn't get much if anything extra in terms of RB production. They're a passing team, like us. If they had it to do over again, even though Edwards-Helaire is good, I think they'd choose someone at another position.

"While [Beane]'d like to find someone who can come in and start day one, that is not his main goal. " 'I do think there are some positions, that you could say this guy has a shot to start,' added Beane. 'There are some other guys on the board that we look at and go, "this guy is one heck of a player, but he's not going to start." ' "It's a luxury to be able to enter the draft in such a position and Beane had a similar approach last year. AJ Epenesa filled a 'need' for Buffalo on the defensive line but he was inactive for week one last season. He wasn't rushed instead was slowly brought along into the system instead of being thrown into the deep end of the pool. The same can be said for Gabriel Davis and Dane Jackson. Guys who played a good amount in 2020 but we're not asked to start immediately but will be given more responsibility in their second year. "Beane will look to do the same next weekend in Cleveland." https://13wham.com/buffalo-plus/bills-latest-news/beane-focused-on-finding-a-long-term-starter-in-round-one They're unlikely to get much immediate upgrade. With this strong lineup and not drafting till #30, it's almost certainly not going to happen. They can definitely make some impact, though, and fans can hope.

Really. That's the way it's always seemed. Losman started slow, with the injury and being behind Bledsoe. Then rather than let Bledsoe stay and making JP play his way into the lineup, they got rid of Bledsoe, which turned a lot of players and fans against Losman, who was correctly being perceived as being handed the job without earning it. But it wasn't Losman who got rid of Bledsoe, it was the coaches. Then he played really promisingly in 2006, improving a ton. He wasn't there yet, but he was really headed in the right direction. He had started developing a style, which was that he was a gunslinger, a guy who was really good at evading rushes, buying time and hitting guys off a scramble. He made too many mistakes, but had only thrown about 650 NFL passes. He was still young, learning and developing, and he'd always been a developmental prospect. More, they put him behind terrible lines. The best way to describe those lines was basically Jason Peters and four guys who weren't good enough to be journeymen (Mike Gandy, Melvin Fowler Chris Villarrial in the last year of his career as he fell apart, and Terrance Pennington were the most frequent starters, though Tutan Reyes got six starts, as did Duke Preston. He still improved and looked promising. So they fired the OC and brought in a guy who decided to go directly against Losman's abilities. He was a scrambler, a gunslinger and a risk taker with a monster arm and a good connection with the fleet Lee Evans. Instead of trying to smooth the rough edges off, they tried to turn him into a Brady-style, timing-route hitting guy throwing short passes. The new coaches, Fairchild in particular, made sure to avoid his strengths and get him to play as much as possible in his areas of weakness. He regressed and was never the same. He was handled really badly here. It's impossible to know whether or not he'd have succeeded if he'd been handled well. But he absolutely was handled badly. They minimized his chances.

It's an interesting point. Surely they can't say "Wear this or you're fired." But I wonder if they could say, "Hey, it's our building. If you want in, wear a mask while you're here." Probably something about that in some part of some agreement between management and the union. I bet it's perfectly OK to say that, though. They required masks on the sidelines, why not the buildings too. A smaller percentage of positives, maybe. Same number of positives, I'd guess, though maybe more tests would mean a few more false positives.

I doubt they would do that this year, not the guys we'd get at #30. But long term, yeah, iOL is a real need and would be a good pick even in the first couple of days.

Pass rusher. But nobody will make that much of a difference this year. As for how much of a difference Etienne would make, around 130 extra yards in his first year would be a solid guess, plus an extra ... what ... maybe 150 yards of difference in passing. Somewhere around there. As a rookie, Singletary had around 150 carries and Moss around 110. Split the diff, and say ETN had 130. Be wildly optimistic and say he'd average 5.3 YPC. That'd be around a yard per carry more than either of the other two, maybe. So maybe an extra 130 yards extra on the ground. Run the same type of replacement guesstimates on the pass game and maybe 150 yards in passing, though it's generous.

Ouch. Good point.

That's a dumb opinion that says more about your problems than anything about Star. He has a pre-existing heart condition. It makes complete medical sense for him to have opted out.

They do count. But what they show is that they were bad at the beginning. Then they improved a lot. Actions do indeed speak louder than words. They didn't "cut" his salary. They negotiated an agreement such that he was paid by $1.75M less in one year out of a $50M contract. And the Bills also guaranteed his contract for another year and then guaranteed his contract against injury for a second year. Kid yourself if you want, but both sides got a lot out of that deal. They could very easily keep Star till the end of that contract assuming he doesn't regress.

We platoon on the DL. Addison starts there most, I think, without looking at snaps or anything. But the platoon means I didn't want to put anybody from the DL as nominee here. Agreed we need a serious pass rusher on the other side, certainly.

It's true, I don't want to accept this, about Edmunds. I also don't want to accept that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, that the moon is made of green cheese, that the moon landing and 9/11 are hoaxes or that the Martians are coming. Sometimes there are really really really good reasons people don't want to accept things, and your view about Edmunds is one of those times. Anyway, as we know things to be now, Knox. He's young, though, and hopefully improving. Levi is my #2.

Haa!!

Nice summary. Thanks. You make him sound interesting.

If he falls to 23 or around there, and if they want him there, start offering more modestly. Again, Massey-Thaler. If the Thai food is anything like pad thai or tom yum goong, it is heaven on earth and should be brought in weekly.

No. Nor should it be considered.

You're confusing, as you have a history of doing, the results of a complete rebuild with an initial failure and then a success. Doing that is completely misunderstanding what happened. Of course they sucked for a while early. That's what happens with a rebuild. They didn't fail with the 2018 free agent class. They spent very little money and got what you would expect in that situation. They had a major success (Lotulelei, who has done just what they expected of him), a failure (Murphy), a bizarre and completely unpredictable roster void (Vontae David, who looked like a nice signing till he retired, costing us virtually nothing) and a bunch of absolute bargain basement vet min types who were needed to fill roster holes when we didn't have money to fill them otherwise. They may well have hoped to find a diamond or two there but they knew most if not all were only cheap stopgaps who were unlikely to make the roster the next year (McCarron, Gaines, Kerley, Bodine, Bush, Stanford, Clay, Odighizuwa, Fede, Palepoi, etc. etc.) A few of those five-and-dime types performed quite well for what they were paid, Derek Anderson, Levi Wallace, McKenzie, Foster, Croom, Barkley, Boettger, Marlowe, Ryan Lewis, Jordan Phillips and Sirles for example. Bargains for the price. When McDarmott and Beane arrived the team was mediocre, had some good players but no franchise QB and was a locker room filled with guys who did not fit the character they wanted or the scheme they were planning to use. Worse, it was a team that was close to the cap and had a lot of future cap money invested in poor contracts. The rebuild and the lousy cap shape they were in resulted in having very little money to commit to FAs that year. When they had resources to spend the next year, the people they brought in were mostly successes.

You're the professor for Introduction to Point-Missing, aren't you? Terrific job your ownself. Nothing there was conflated. When you figure out what word you actually meant, you might try again.

His method, involving the idea that watching who the Bills visit is predictive, and grading the interviews, has worked pretty well in the past. He doesn't have the same picks in the video above, but does proceed from the same foundation.

This was not the KC offense's best game, in yards, points or any other way. They certainly were better than us, but they were better than nearly everyone they played. Both sides need to be addressed, but it really is talent that needs to be upgraded on D. They need a real pass rush and they need more speed in the defensive backfield. Maybe bring in someone to better handle a TE as well.

Plenty of teams spend a lot on FAs and then don't get better quality of play. Plenty of other teams draft a new franchise savior QB, and should prioritize protecing him by spending a lot of resources, but don't. Of course they should get credit for great improvement of the OL, whatever the means. It's not like they spent too much on the OL so the rest of the team sucks.

More Kindig, just out.