Thurman#1

Ah, gotcha. Makes sense.

Agree with most of this, but I'd argue it was mostly their good drafting rather than their good FAs that got them ready for when Brady came. Look at these guys that they drafted who started this year: Ronald Jones, Mike Evans, Chris Godwin, Scott Miller, Donovan Smith, Ali Marpet, Alex Cappa, Tristan Wirfs, William Gholston, Devin White, Lavonte David, Carlton Davis, Sean Murphy-Bunting, Antoine Winfield Jr, and Jordan Whitehead. That's good drafting and development.

Chad Pennington was a likely future Hall of Famer till the arm injuries, so bad comparison. And while Tua doesn't have a gun, he's got a stronger arm than Pennington did after the injuries. Tua has a starter-quality arm. The question about him is whether he can develop an NFL-quality head, as far as making the right decisions quickly. Wait, you're saying that giving them to you to develop is ... not a good idea? Is this an autocorrect problem?

You're understating. The Bills also traded away a very solid LT in Cordy Glenn, with a 5th rounder to move up from #21 to #12. More, they were fully intending to trade up to #5 with Denver rather than #7, and that would have required quite a bit more draft capital, probably preventing them from making the 2nd trade up for Tremaine Edmunds. The bottom line is that this year there are/were a few other options available, such as Stafford, Watkins, Darnold (who still might turn out to be excellent in the right situation), etc. But if you get shut out of those guys and also the draft, you're essentially resigning yourself to not being in contention for the next few years. It hurts a lot to give up those picks. But it's worth doing, though the GM is essentially betting his job that the QB they get will work out. If the QB isn't good enough, it's generally a new GM who will take the next stab at picking up a QB. So, yeah. Worth it. You'd better be convinced your guy will be good, though.

Yup. Just this. Targeting one guy in a situation like this actually makes you less capable. You get tunnel vision and you tend to think that since not getting him would be failure that doing almost anything to get him is justified. Doing that almost forces you to be willing to give up far too much to move up. It's not how rational decision makers work, and Beane is rational as hell. Targeting one guy induces confirmation bias.

You're nuts if you think you, the Bills or anyone but the GM of the Browns "knew" Josh Allen wasn't going #1 to Cleveland. They may have had a strong opinion about it. But they absolutely didn't "know" it. They simply didn't. They didn't know any of this stuff you're saying they knew. They may well have thought the top three picks would go the way they went and hoped nobody would trade up to #4 You also are mistaken about the details of the Denver deal. Denver didn't tell them Chubb was their guy. They just said they had a guy and if he was still there they wouldn't make the trade. Turned out the guy was Chubb, and Buffalo might well have suspected that. But yet again, they didn't know. And we absolutely know that the Bills had Allen in their top three QBs, of course, since they picked him with only two already gone. But it's never been proven that they didn't prefer Darnold or Mayfield to Allen. We may strongly suspect it. We may hope it's true. But we don't know it.

Hmm, interesting. I certainly wouldn't believe that this time of year, but it's absolutely possible. Certainly a very good chance the Bengals take Sewell, but yeah, not a certainty. Decent chance they go elsewhere, though I personally doubt it as they wait for Burrow to recover from his injury. Same point, though. There is a major difference between what will be available at #6 and at #12. They may or may not want Chase, though he'd be one of my top two guesses.

I don't think there's any confirmation that she gave the reporters the name of the other therapist, is there? Which would make sense, actually, if she wants to maintain her own anonymity, why would she give them the name of a woman she now doesn't trust? She'd have to think it would make it more likely that her own name would eventually come out.

Yes, they've spent the offseason. But targeting only one player isn't the way it works. Then or now. If Allen had gotten picked they'd have continued the process. They wouldn't have folded up their tent. They do what all the teams do, they put together a board. They do scenarios and figure out when and if they would trade up, down, etc.

IMO they're set to pick up one of the top two players on their board. They wouldn't have made this trade if they wanted whoever will be the 3rd and 4th QBs picked. Probably would not have done it if they wanted Penei Sewell either, as he's very likely to go at #5. So if they don't want a QB or Sewell, they might get a shot at their #1 choice, whoever he is. TE Pitts? WRs Chase or Smith or Waddle? CB Surtain? LB Parsons? Most likely one of those. Perhaps even Mac Jones, though I doubt it. But say it's Pitts, Chase, Smith, Waddle, Surtain or Parsons. If the first four picks are QBs and Sewell goes 5th, they get the #1 guy on their board. The only other likely alternative first five picks is three QBs instead of four and Sewell. In that case, one guy will be gone from that group of six, maybe Pitts or Chase? So as long as they have two guys they are thrilled with there, they will get one of their top two and a bunch of picks besides. And a very solid chance of being able to pick their #1 guy. Whereas at #12 all or nearly all of those six would probably be gone. This trade, both parts of it, makes total sense to me. Before the second trade they would have been able to be pretty sure to be able to pick one of their top seven. After the second trade they are almost sure to be able to pick their #2 pick and maybe even their #1. If you have a very good chance to pick the same guy at #6 that you would have picked at #3 ... and you can then pick up an extra 1st rounder down the road and a couple of others ... man, do it.

Please. That's nonsense. He absolutely took on a bunch of doubles and he certainly does eat up space. He's very good at it, but certainly not elite or anything. And he's a two-down guy, not a penetrator or an athlete. But he's good at what they want him to do. And he could certainly be here longer than a year, though not if he regresses.

They've got three. They don't need one this year. They could definitely use a young guy to develop, though. Wouldn't be surprised to see them draft one.

I think you're pretty wrong about that.

Whoever is their highest rated CB, whether it's Campbell, Kelvin Joseph, or someone else. If I saw your three as the best options, I'd look hard at Phillips to see if he can play DE the way the Bills like. If he couldn't, I'd look at Owusu-Koramoah to see if he could fit what I needed as a big nickel. If I thought he couldn't, I'd trade down a ways. I love the way Owusu-Koramoah plays, but I can't see him lasting long as a pure LB at his weight. Not sure if Phillips can be a hand in the dirt DE.

Fair point. Wouldn't be surprised to see us upgrading on speed at CB and maybe big nickel in the draft this year.

They don't have to. This already is a proven coordinator and scheme. 2018: defense 2nd in yards allowed, 18th in points allowed 2019: defense 3rd in yards allowed, 2nd in points allowed 2020: the D certainly wasn't great, particularly at the beginning of the year. (In the last ten games, if their per game stats on points were pro-rated out to 16 games, they'd have been 8th in yards allowed per game and 5th in points allowed per game) The D certainly wasn't great this year, but in the second half of the year they absolutely came around and started playing much better. And I don't doubt we'll be having the same discussion next year. Some people were doubting this D even in 2019.

Talk about "never gonna learn" ... Thinking you've identified our team's ceiling that year ... in March ... is a "geeeezzzzz" indeed.

Doesn't look that way to me. Looks to me that when he starts his push if anything the band goes downwards, making it harder. It's only after he's built up his own momentum upwards with flexion that the band is able to contract. I often do pushups with hands on two different swings while my daughter is playing at the playground. The instability means I can generally only do around half of my normal max and it definitely stresses not just the usual pushup muscles but the stabilizers as well. I love that exercise. Instability makes it a lot harder, and my feet aren't at the same level as the swings, and the band makes Henry even less stable. I'd love to try one, but there are people around where I work out and a guy my age would look like an idiot trying this, even if I managed one or two somehow. Particularly the chain.

If trades are evaluated that way, by the players taken, it's generally by people not thinking as precisely and clearly as they should. It makes it easier to compare and thus come up with a result. But that's truly evaluating not the trade but instead two things, the trade and the drafting. Those are two different things. The tradeup in which we took Watkins was a bad trade. It made us more likely to come out of it with lesser value. But the drafting was also bad. If they'd picked Mack instead of Watkins (I thought for just a moment that they would ... sigh), the cumulative result would have looked a lot better. Whaley screwed up both facets of that. But that's always more likely. It's precisely overconfidence in your talent at picking that means that keeping more draft picks or trading for more will increase your chances.. But it's your first sentence I disagree with. You're dead on with the rest of it. They increased their chances, but could still either screw it up or knock it out of the park.

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.