Thurman#1

Sounds weird at first. But seeing that Studesville was the run game guy last year makes it seem a bit more understandable. I wonder if it'll work. Wouldn't mind if it causes problems.

You're right, nothing's guaranteed. Injuries happen. Regimes change and they like different things in players because of their different schemes. Guys get older, guys regress, they get better. So nothing's certain. But unless things do change drastically, unless there's regression, injury or a regime change, three of those guys are near-certainties to be here and the fourth is pretty likely as well. That assumes McDermott is still coach. Now, if you're coach at that point, I would definitely change my mind on their futures. But I'm betting you're not and I think it's pretty likely McDermott still is, and that he's still the same guy, whether or not you disagree with his thought processes.

Yes, you are indeed incorrect. Thanks for the warning right up top. And if anyone is all over the place, it's you. In your first post, you tried to show why my examples weren't good, but I pointed out where you were wrong. Then in your next post you said that I was right (you were right about that) but that my point was obvious. And yet your next post was back to arguing the point that a moment ago you felt was too obvious to make. You're right that no one has said there's no risk in FA or trades. But the title of this thread is that first round picks are overrated, and it implies that that is true compared to FAs and trades. That is wrong. You among others here have tried to whitewash the salaries out of how you decide whether an FA is a good pickup. Which is nuts. As is whitewashing out the value of what you give up when you make a trade. They both absolutely factor into a decision on whether an acquistion is a good one. Mario Williams was a mistake. He was overpaid. He was a very good player but he was not as good as his salary made him out to be. For years I tried defending that signing but ultimately there was no good defense. But they brought him in because they thought we were close and he would make a difference. And no not because we didn't win a Super Bowl. In case you didn't notice, we didn't even make the playoffs. Mario was brought in after a 6-10 season and raised the level of the team, so that out record soared up to ... oh, 6-10 again, for his first two years here. You don't pay a hundred million dollar contract, making a guy the highest-paid defensive player in league history at that time ... not for performances like that. Two out of four years here he made the Pro Bowl. Mario was a very good player who was still overpaid. My lens for judging good and bad is what I've been saying in the last few posts. It's what anyone should look at. Is his performance, good and bad, worth what you spent to bring him in? How much money you spend or picks or players you trade away is absolutely part of the equation as to whether it was a good acquisition. And yeah, you could go on an write up hundreds of bad draft picks. And I could go on and write up hundreds of bad FA and trade acquisitions. Which is my point. People want to pretend FAs are safer and better. When looked at correctly - factoring in the money and what was traded away - that is very questionable. Picks are cheap, and rookies are more teachable in terms of developing towards your system and what you want from them. That's why over the years few teams have flourished without valuing picks and bringing in most (not all, but most) of their core through the draft. Giving those picks away will hurt the Rams more than the unnamed executive thinks. And I say that as a guy who thinks Stafford will be a good acquisition for them, that in a good situation he will shine far more than he did in Detroit. Losing those picks, especially while in a bad cap position, will impact their ability to put him in a good situation.

I see. So you agree that I'm right. And yet you just spent about four paragraphs telling me I was wrong about the same thing. You're a real talent here, dude, an asset to the board. Correct, no players is a guarantee. Getting free agents and trades also carry many risks, as many as drafting guys, and yet they tend to cost more.

As usual, you're wrong in many small and large ways. Sanders was not "off the books in one season." They were still paying $5.2 of dead money two years after he left. And the cap at that time was $71.1M, so Deion was taking up about 8% of their cap two years after he left. And for that financial farrago, he got them all the way up to an 8-8 record. Great FA pickup there. You say, "Case Keenum signing a front-loaded deal after a miracle year was a big gamble?" Yeah, um, the answer to that would be "Yeah. Duh." Guaranteeing $25M of his deal at signing while signing Keenum, and keeping him for only one year after he shepherded them to a 6-10 record, was indeed a big risk and a horrible deal. You say, "Josh Rosen was a proven vet?" And yet I didn't say he was a proven vet. I put him in a list of "examples of free agents and trades that also didn't work out or busted" ... and he absolutely belongs there. Rosen was acquired in a trade. Miami gave up a 2nd round pick. How's that deal look in hindsight? I mean, maybe you would do that one over in a second, Chans, but most, um ... wouldn't. They're great examples whether you like to admit it or not. And while you may (or may not) be right that in terms of playing ability you might be better off, playing ability is only part of the equation. You're also generally dealing with much higher salaries or throwing in trade value. So if your Pro Bowl level player (Jairus Byrd, for instance, or the Bills giving sure-fire high-production TE Charles Clay a massive contract so Tyrod could (not) throw to him or giving the massive deal to Mario Williams) even if the guy is good he can be a crappy deal due to how much you're paying or what you traded to get him. And yes, the "what if he's not a star in your system" argument is an excellent argument and is part of the risk you take with FAs. Along with aging worries, overpays, giving away too much on the trade problems, lose interest after the big payday problems, etc.

I agree with you that my answer would be yes. But how about a related question? How about if the Bills adapted the Rams strategy this offseason and LOST a Super Bowl next year but had to blow it up 3 years from now. Would that be worth it? Or if they adapted the Rams strategy and came much close to the Chiefs next year in the AFC championship, losing by one on a last-minute field goal, almost getting over the top but had to blow it up after that? Would that be worth it?

Leonhard? EDIT: Ah, it was him, and people already picked up the problem. Cool for Jim. Hope he does well.

If by "highly overrated," you mean that they're even worse than people say, I'm with you. Cap problems are real and they have effects. You cite the Rams as your example, but that's a team with a really good defense but were a few players away on offense, and so they're out in the divisional game whereas if they'd been in better shape and had been able to keep or bring in a couple of more guys they might have really competed. IMO the Saints just wasted Drew Brees, only winning one championship, and a lot of the reason for that was their consistent cap problems handcuffing their personnnel moves.

You could. But I could fill this page with examples of free agents and trades that also didn't work out or busted. Remember when the Dolphins got Mike Wallace? Albert Haynesworth? Neil O'Donnell after he left the Steelers? Dana Stubblefield? David Boston. Rosen is on your list. He's on mine too. Is Kirk Cousins living up to his contract? He's a good player but not worth what they paid. Case Keenum's second FA contract? Michael Crabtree? Sam Bradford? Peerless Price? Trent Murphy? Vanderjagt? LaVar Arrington? Deion Sanders in D.C.? Fred Smoot? Two 1sts for Sean Gilbert? Nate Clements in SF? Derrick Dockery? It hurt me to even type his name. Langston Walker, who fits the other side of the story? They signed him as an RT and it was a solid signing, then they moved him to LT and it was a disaster. Larry Triplett? I mean, I could go on and on as well. It always makes me laugh when people talk about signing a "proven vet," like there's no way anything could ever go wrong.

When you look at the Rams best players, most of them are first or second rounders from back when they used to use them. Aaron Donald and Brockers, for instance. They do have a CB who's good and was ... a trade? Ramsey. First rounders are overrated by anyone who thinks they're sure things. Otherwise, no. FAs and trades can also be misses, and draft picks keep your team viable under the cap.

Do you ever read posts you reply to? Overall, I'd suggest it, and it's obvious you didn't here. For the third time, I said that I did NOT use any analytics, nor did the OP, or you. And you have an excellent point about the Chargers game in Week 17 ... but um, how about the other six games I mentioned? Nothing whatsoever? Zippety? You know, the six games where Mahomes did play where the Chiefs were also held to 24 points or less? In these last two years? Anything to say about them? Zilch? Zippo? Diddly? Even the slightest crumb? Even a flyspeck about the fact that in their six losses the past two years, in four of them they scored 13, 24, 24 and 21? Yeah, that last one Mahomes didn't play, but did he in the other three? Because if he did, that means that of their six losses, in four they were held to 24 and below and in both of the other two they were held to an unspectacular - for them - 32? Yeah, didn't think so. Even if you throw out the non-Mahomes game, the majority of their losses came by holding them to 24 or less.

So your point is that our offense was spectacular? That we could have outscored them if only we hadn't run so much? Could you real quick point out where I said that our defense performed well against KC? No? Well, if you're not going to say anything related to what I said, that's fine, but don't reply to me. You don't reply to a guy and then pretend he said something he didn't. We didn't have a "nail in the coffin." They were simply better than us in every phase of the game except STs.

I think he will get a lot for what he is. But obviously he's no Khalil Mack or Von Miller or even Bobby Wagner. He's a good rusher but not great. So my guess is he's looking for around the best ILB who's not Bobby Wagner sort of thing. This also could be a start to negotiation. I think that's reasonably likely. IMO he'll get somewhere in the Kwon Alexander - Shaq Thompson range. $10 - $13M average salary sort of thing. My guess is the Bills would be interested at $10M but not at $13M. And that if they are interested they would try to get him to sign a contract that is cap friendly for the first year, and that Milano would be very interested if the other terms were what he wanted. If he wants too much, they'll let him go, but I think they will want him back and be willing to pay him a lot. He gives them a lot. No reason to replace Star, whether you're talking the value you (don't) save by cutting him, or the fact that we don't have a guy who does what he does. Not signing Milano saves us zero, as he's a free agent. Addison would save us a bit but require us to spend money to replace him. If Milano goes they're virtually certain to try to replace him by drafting another OLB. Our game change on the DL is likely Oliver in his third year when he's got Lotulelei next to him.

Quick checked five big boards. They have him from 15 - 23. Don't see him falling to 30.

Hogwash. You say you "can't make a great O like KC "inefficient." That's pure nonsense. Was KC's great O efficient when they scored 23 against the Chargers this year? Or the 2nd time they played the Chargers when they only scored 21? Or 22 against the Broncos? Or 17 against the Falcons? In what Bizarro world is scoring 17 against Atlanta, who allowed an average of 25.9 PPG this year "efficient"? It's not. Or the 22 they scored against the Browns? Or last year when they scored 13, 24, 24, 24, 23 and 23 points in games against, respectively, Indy, Houston, Green Bay, the Chargers, the Pats and the Broncos. Unsurprisingly, they lost 3 of those 6 games. Hold KC to lower points and you can beat them. And it's certainly not impossible to hold them to lower points. More nonsense. You say "u don't beat this team in 13-10 games." Bullcrap. Indy beat them 19-13 last year. With Mahomes under center. Now, obviously, they couldn't have done that by limiting them to few effective drives, since you've said that's impossible. Wooooopsy! That's exactly what they did, holding the Chiefs to 9 effective drives, really ten but the tenth started 0:04 seconds before halftime deep in Indy territory and was a one kneel-down drive. Indy won that game doing precisely what you say can't work. Oh, and by the way, none of this is analytics, anymore than anything whatsoever you have said has. It's just sensible argument. So, again, where are the analytics that make all these great claims?

You say that "Analytics for years now has consistently demonstrated that the “strategy” of controlling the clock via run game etc so as to keep a great QB on the sidelines is a losing strategy. Not a shred of evidence that it ever works, despite many in the WNY media touting this strategy." Fine, where is the evidence that it never works. There is none, of course, since the word "never" makes your contention there obviously wrong. But let's pretend you'd said it in a reasonable manner, something like, "There is no evidence that teams that use the strategy of controlling the clock win at a higher rate." Where's the evidence for that? 'Cause I've search for about an hour now and I don't find anything. But hey, it's only an hour, I could definitely have missed something. You're totally sure of this, so you must have something. Teach me, I'm willing to learn. Where do the analytics say this?

Well, I guess we can agree to disagree. But I don't think he's got some unfixable arm problem. Take a look at this: Go to 2:05. That's a dime, this year, 55 yards in the air, without stepping into it. Might he have injured himself later in the year? Yeah, sure. But I don't think arm strength is a problem for this guy. Throwing is. He hasn't been accurate with any consistency. I think he might get it back together. I'm not saying he will, but IMO he might.

Yup. The McDermott defense calls for a light-in-the-pants DL, with one exception. He wants that big 'ol space-eater at 1-tech to make it easier for the fast LBs he likes. Losing Star hurt a lot, and made the DL as a whole look not as good. McDermott's always had a massive 1-tech jamming things up in the middle. He needs it that way for the D to work at it's maximum level.

You're right. When you look at the Pro Bowl rosters year after year you see what a joke they are. Year after year you see lineups that would be defeated by any NFL team out there ... oh, wait, you really don't see that at all. What you see is a lineup that is better than any single team's even the SB teams. Should Pro Bowls be used as the only thing to judge how good a player is? Hell, no. But they absolutely mean something. And yes, Tyrod was invited to two Pro Bowls ... as a 6th alternate and I think the other was the 4th alternate. It ain't the same thing. Edmunds on the other hand was the first alternate last year, meaning that he was widely considered a top 3 ILB in the AFC at that point. This year he was a selection, not an alternate, meaning he was considered a top two AFC ILB. If someone wants to argue that he's a bit below top two, that's a reasonable argument. But the whole "it's a joke" thing is nonsense. He wasn't good at the beginning of the year when injured. But by the end, when they were voting, he was playing at a very high level. That's what people saw and why he was voted in. Did he play as well against the Chiefs? Nope, he sure didn't. But neither did Allen, Diggs ... the list goes on.

You're right. If someone is unwilling to see, even two Pro Bowls won't make it quite clear. And when a guy is unwilling to see, he will indeed not be watching the same thing as everyone else is. The two Pro Bowls tell you what everyone else sees, but they can't force sense on anyone.

Palmer has said before several times there's a lot they couldn't get to last season. They worked on his mechanics the last two years but even more specifically last year with the body scan they did. And he's said before that they concentrated on the two major changes they found he needed but that there are details that still need to be addressed. It is a good article.

IMO injuries aren't the problem with Cam's throwing. I'd argue it's more about mechanical problems and a relative lack of concentration on the fundamentals of the motion (not to even mention the lack of good players around him on offense). He's always gone in and out of tune with his motion, as Chris Simms has mentioned. He's never been all about throwing, and he's always had accuracy problems. He had games this year where his throwing looked pretty good. Then some where it looked awful. I think his injuries would sooner affect his legs and his running, the area that's still his strong point. I share your worry about Josh's long-term health if he keeps running. I think he's going to start sliding more and more as he grows older and cannier. We're seeing it already.

Yeah, the titles may have a little something to do with that worship. As the article says, during the Brady era a lot of players were willing to take less to go there. Have to admit I like the current situation better. And getting rid of Hopkins could well have been one of the straws that broke the camel's back on that.

No, he really isn't. Two Pro Bowls make it quite clear. Yeah, he was bad early when fighting the injury and when the Bills had injury and scheme problems. Since then he's been much better. There's still room for improvement, but an offseason should hopefully help with that.

IMO it ain't so much his reading comprehension as your very unclear writing. Your last sentence is, "These players can all be replaced in the draft or cheaper route in FA." That could easily be read to mean that you think all eight of them should go because they could easily be replaced.