Thurman#1

No. In a year when we have little cap space, it doesn't make much sense, unless the salaries are low, and it's unusual to get a good player with a cheap veteran contract, partly because the other team doesn't want to let them leave. Trading for vets is generally a more expensive way to go. Not the year for that.

Great idea. Bring in two HoF players as bookends. How about Alan Page and Merlin Olsen? They're a bit older than the two you suggest, but that's the direction your two are headed. Great timing to catch guys on the slide, that way they have momentum. The only proof that both of your guys have years of gas in the tank is opinion, and frankly opinion that is not real smart, as both of them are already headed downhill and not all that slowly. One? Yeah, maybe. Both, as you suggest? Outright butt-headed. Likelihood somewhat below zero, which is as it should be. Oh, and the odds on Kerrigan as a HOFer, not good. Maybe an outside shot. Not all that likely, and he's not playing at his old level anymore, or even anywhere close. Used to be a fine player, though.

Yeah, bring in both spent guys on a career downslide. Make it rain. Smart play.

Nah. He might. He might not. As usual, we'll have to see. This year is a bizarre year. Offers could easily be quite different from other years, especially if the cap turns out to be $182 - $183M as seems likely. Things are much more unpredictable than usual. The Bills could even still franchise him, it's a legit possibility if they think he's worth it, which is not certain, of course. You might be right that the odds lean that way. If he does walk, that will hurt. A lot more than many here want to admit. The defense simply played a lot better with him and worse without him. He had a major impact. But the cap is the cap. We won't be able to sign everyone we'd like to in a better year.

Sigh. No, they won't. They'll tell you that missing three games in three years before last year wasn't bad at all. Which is a very reasonable thing to say. Those people have a point. So do the people who say that missing so much last year wasn't optimal. Both sides have a point. No need to completely mis-state what anyone is saying.

Sure they might do it, and sure it's been done before. For the player to sign you need to put serious money into either the signing bonus or money that's totally guaranteed for two or three years down the line. It's got a downside, of course, for the teams, it's a huge commitment. Doesn't need to be a six year commitment either. Just, say, four years with a much larger than normal amount of the money guaranteed.

You can kid yourself ... yet again ... if you like, but nearly all of that is nonsense. It's not a crap shoot after round one. If it were, teams would trade 2nd rounders for 7th rounders straight up, they'd all be the same. Just pure dumbosity. 2nd rounders are more valuable than 3rds simply because you're more likely to get a better player, and 3rds are more valuable than 4ths ... this isn't rocket science, but the whole idea of a crapshoot is stupid and always has been. The rest is nonsense too, for many reasons. First, teams need starters even if they're not stars, and they need backups,, and they will need them a lot more this year with limited cap to bring in FAs. Second, it's not that unusual to find truly excellent players in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. Third, Beane has proven an absolutely excellent GM. Brilliant. This team has been built to a top four team, and damn fast. And fourth, Beane has been very good on draft day. Fair enough that he hasn't been excellent at least so far, but he also hasn't had time to run up a final tally on most of his draft picks. The one class that's getting close to their potential enough to get a good view of them: Josh Allen, Tremaine Edmunds, Harrison Phillips, Taron Johnson in the 4th and Wyatt Teller in the 5th, looks like he got solid value everywhere and some terrific bargains as well, starting right from Allen at #7. Giving up early picks in a big tradeup for any reason other than a try at a franchise QB has been proven again and again to be an awful strategy. The Massey and Thaler study of overconfidence vs. market efficiency and the Harvard Sports Analysis Collective study are only two of a multitude that all say the same thing. Don't give away big assets in a tradeup unless a need for a franchise QB forces it. It's a move for saps and soon to be ex-GMs.

From what I read, he had no character issues or red flags before the draft. Had them in Cincy, though. And I'm with you about the LayZay thing. Holy cow!

Yup. If it were me we'd trade back every time and amass picks. But it's not me. Small ones are what he does outside of the year they accumulated draft capital in advance for the move up for a QB. And a large move up would make even less sense this year when we can't bring in many FAs due to cap problems. We've got to make each of those early picks count this year.

Precisely. And yet you're the guy who said that the cap should rise. We don't know.

Latest best guess seems to be less than $185M, probably between $182 and $183M. https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/02/21/salary-cap-most-likely-wont-hit-185-million/ The part I like about this article pretty well answers the question people keep asking about why wouldn't everyone want the cap raised high: The teams that would have benefited from the chaos resulting from a $175 million cap aren’t thrilled by the fact that it will be higher. Most of those teams anticipated the financial losses early in the pandemic and planned accordingly for the impact on the 2021 cap. They believe that the teams that failed to properly plan shouldn’t be given an escape hatch.

Maybe it's also because they have switched him around a lot, even side to side, which is really difficult, especially for young guys. If given one spot and kept there to work on the minutiae of that position, I'm hopeful we'll see why the Bills like him so much.

Singletary's blitz pickup has been terrific, even better this year. And there really haven't been that many holes for him or Moss to attack. A few, here and there, but this has been mostly the line's problem. “I’m not looking at Devin Singletary or Zack Moss and thinking those guys came up short for us." - Brandon Beane That's why I put Singletary at #3. And think the likelihood of picking an RB in the first is minimal.

Edmunds, Singletary and far more weirdly, Oliver. If Murphy were still on the team he'd leap to the head of the line. He might actually be worth a vet min area contract, actually. I'd put him at #4, yeah. But they seem to have switched away from his wheelhouse. They didn't pull as much last year, they seem to want to be a power team, and I'm not sure Morse fits that sort of a strategy. Good player, though, and a good guy. Hah. Thoughtful pick. Hadn't even considered that. Not bad at all.

That certainly is one of the possibilities.

"The cap should also rise." Where did I hear that before? Oh, yeah, last year. Let's stop kidding ourselves that we know what will happen with the coronavirus over the next year or so. We don't. There are millions, even tens of millions of people, nutbags really, who appear unwilling to get the vaccine. We don't know whether mutations will occur, or whether they might make the vaccine less useful or useless against the new strains. We just don't know. Nothing should be counted on. So while kicking cans down the road makes sense in certain situations, it's not always a great idea and it's better in limited doses than it is as a widespread practice. A bit of it this year would make a ton of apparent sense. The more you do, though, the riskier it gets and the more you hurt yourself down the road. It's not a cure-all. It is precisely like borrowing on a credit card ... use it wisely and it can be a useful tool, but unwisely used it can make things difficult for you for a long time.

It's NOT a win-now team. It's a win CONSISTENTLY team. They have made that clear since their first press conference. They don't trade away the future for the present. Having said that, I couldn't agree more that the likelihood of going QB here is infinitesimal.

This is an excellent case of pre-hatch chicken counting. Milano's loss isn't a reality. It's a possibility. It's probably the best guess but it won't be the reality till he signs a new contract with another team. And we haven't paid Allen, nor are we likely to give him a contract this year that will cost much of anything at all in 2021.. Big bucks after that? Yeah, seems very likely, but neither side will want the Bills to pay many cap bucks in 2021. And the reason you can't be great at every position has a lot more to do with human fallibility than money. The Eagles weren't perfect at every position either, but they won without paying huge money to a QB (Wentz was on a 4 year $26 million contract). Might easily be too expensive to be a good decision. But if possible at a sensible value, sure, re-sign him.

No, that was NOT Watson who was 4 - 12. It was the Houston Texans. And if you put Allen on a crappy team, that team also might go 4 - 12, particularly if their last coach had as thoroughly dynamited the team's morale and self-belief as O'Brien did in Texas. Wins are indeed the most important statistic, of course. But they are a team statistic, not a QB statistic. Blaming Watson for the Texans having the 30th best defense in the league last year is just butt-headed. You evaluate a QB by how well or poorly he plays, period. I think Allen's better than Watson, but you can't tell it by wins, which are affected by stuff like whether kickers hit field goals or whether RBs fumble or whether an OLB drops an INT right in his breadbasket. You decide who the best QB is by looking at who played QB better. It ain't rocket science.

Glad we found something to agree on. That "first we swapped firsts and then we gave them this," was nonsense, pretending one transaction was actually two. It was purely a move for spin, to make a trade that looked bad from instant one sound a bit better.

That's concerning, about Basham. I'd sort of generally hoped he would be a good fit. We don't have to jettison Murphy. He's not under contract. Me, I hope they get that DE FA from Cincy, Carl Lawson, if they like him as much as I do with a quick bit of research. He seems like he'd be a good bookend with Hughes.

Well said. It's been a long time since that team looked headed in the right direction.

Just precise. If you get it, then fair enough. See you around the boards.

I understand. People get easily confused when they're trying to insist that a trade is actually two separate transactions, a swap and then a separate thing that they're giving away. I'll be glad to teach you. First, we did not give up anything for Sammy Watkins. We picked Sammy Watkins in the draft. Now, we did indeed trade up to get the 4th pick. With which we then picked Sammy. What did we give up to get the 4th pick? Since "give up" is a synonym for "swap away," for "bestow," for "surrender," not to mention "cede," "yield," "hand over" and dozens more, there is only one correct answer here. Cleveland gave up the 2014 #4. And Buffalo gave up the 2014 #9 and the 2015 #19 and the 2015 #115. If you doubt for one instant that we gave up those three picks, all you have to do is to check whether we retained them after the trade. We did not. Because we had given them all up. Just as Cleveland gave up the 2014 #4. No other picks were involved. There is only one possible correct answer here.

No, we need - desperately - to bring in four or five guys in the draft who are real contributors, this year. You don't trade away your third in a year like this. Your fifth or sixth or seventh, maybe. But not your third. A contributor is a guy who contributes, who adds something. If we'd had another contributor to rush the passer, or an extra contributor who was a CB with serious speed to allow us to play man-to-man effectively, or a few more things we could have used, that absolutely would have made us a tougher match for the Chiefs.