Thurman#1

I like the picks. But it's not foresight. They chose the guy who was highest on their board each time. They've made that clear. If you want to call going BPA foresight, well, I guess in a way you can say that. But the specific guys weren't picked so much for strategic purposes as to raise the level of talent. And I do love this F.O. But the strategic moves purpose-driven, tend to come in free agency.

IMO in a good system he can be a good starter. Remember that one year? This year, the Pats aren't going to have a good offence. But if they sign him and put some skill players around him he could be very good, I think.

Yeah. Dopey idea. Like Brady is famous for backing away from competition

He slid feet-first about four or five times in your video. Without counting, it looked like he went helmet-first just as much, and that's dangerous. And he still took a few big hits. And a bunch that were actually fairly good hits but Josh is so big he can stay up and look as if he wasn't affected. As successful as called QB runs can be with him, I'd like to see them reduced more and more. He did handle runs better last year, avoiding contact better. Needs to do so even better.

We're pretending we know what he is angry about and that it's purely the size of the offer. And that's likely not true. How did they handle it? Did spiteful things get said? Did he thing they should've tried to give him the same offer this year as he did last year? Did they just have a bad relationship? Was the offer written on toilet paper? Did they sit him down man-to-man and explain that they wanted him, that they like him, but that it was a business decision? Or did they not? I can't imagine him - reasonably - being angry for the offer after he had to sign after he got less elsewhere. But there's plenty of other possible reasons he could feel angry. Ah, I didn't need to say anything, you'd already said it. Exactly. I have no problem with the idea. But whatever rule you put in place, smart teams are going to find ways to use the system better than the dumb teams. Law of nature. Thank goodness we've become one of the smart teams.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ They have probably the best stuff on this, stats-wise. Click on "Statistics" and then "Offensive Lines". Their pass stats have the same problems they all have ... some QBs keep plays alive longer, hold the ball longer, others get it out quickly, and there's no statistical way to take that out of it. But their run stats are useful. Particularly comparing "Adjusted Line Yards" and "RB Yards." If RB yards are significantly higher than ALY, then you've got a good RB making his line look better than they are. If ALY is higher, your line is doing better than what is showing up in the standard stats. Second level yards is also helpful. In the end, though, lines have to be judged in context.

No offense, but you have no idea what Fromm is. You might be right. Equally, though, you might be totally wrong. As with most things about new draftees, we'll just have to see. And that last sentence is nonsense. There are a million ways to push a guy, you certainly don't need to start a QB competition to do so. What you do by starting a QB competition this early isn't "pushing a guy." It's demonstrating that you're not confident in him. It's often the kiss of death. When you have two quarterbacks, you don't have any, is the old saying, and that's exactly what you're telling the guy by bringing in someone like that, that you think maybe you don't have a QB. There's a time and a place for that. After the third year is absolutely not that time and place. How well did it work for the Chargers when they drafted Philip Rivers after Brees' third year was a disappointment. Eli Manning's third year was a bit of a disappointment. Did they bring in competition? Or did they correctly understand that they just didn't yet know, and find out the happy news very late in his 4th season when the light came on without a QB competition. They would absolutely bring in somebody who they feel can be an injury replacement, a Fitz type, or maybe they think Fromm or Barkley fills that need. But competition? You're kidding yourself unless he absolutely falls apart. If that happens, everything's up in the air, but IMO a serious regression is unlikely. There simply aren't a lot of great examples of teams spending heavily on a top ten QB, bringing in an expensive FA potential starter after the youngster's third year ... and good things happening.

That would not make sense. After the fourth year, well, maybe, depending how bad years three and four were. After three, though, you still make it clear it's his job to lose, while keeping Fromm here and learning as long as he appears to be coming along. Fromm should be his competition. You don't start a competition unless there's a significant back-slide. Winston's actually a good case study. Four years and a bit of a back-slide and who did they bring in? Fitz was there and they kept him. And you know Fitz isn't going to be your QB of the future. After his fifth year and a back-slide, pffft, Winston's gone. They didn't bring Brady in after Winston's third year, though. It was his fifth.

The offense and play-calling have been fine. They've looked great when Allen played well and not very good when he started making bad decisions. Team fans typically would rather blame a coach than a QB, whether or not it makes sense. In this case, it doesn't make much sense. It's not a mistake that he got interviews last time around. Outside Buffalo fandom, Daboll has great respect around the league. If Daboll starts making awful mistakes, he should certainly be blamed, but the worry is about Allen, and yeah, as House says above, there's some pressure on the OL as well.

Thanks for all the work getting the links. But if I can insert a small pet peeve? It isn't NFL.com who made that list. Nor do they stand behind it. They'll have probably ten other guys writing stories about the same thing. These aren't meant to be what the outlets think. They are the opinions of the writers. That wasn't NFL.com's opinion. It was Chad Reuter's opinion. And yeah, it would make total sense to say something like, "NFL.com's Chad Reuter: ". That kind of thing. But not just the outlet. When Trump (or previously Obama) speaks, you don't say, "America says ...". A few of them say, "We ranked ..." and hey, for those it makes sense.

BPA and the phrase you use, BVA are the same thing. Mathematically speaking, if a guy is the best value available, that means he's the BPA, definitionally. I'm not sure I understand how there could be any difference. And when you said that Beane had said "they had a higher rated player on the board at one point and took someone else," I thought, "Gee, I never heard that, I'd better go back and listen again." And he actually never said that. He said that in four of seven cases they took the highest rated guy. But he also said that in one specific case they had two guys rated equally and took the one because the other was at a position that was already strong so his chances of making the team were lower. That leaves two more, and he never made clear whether the other cases were just cases of having guys equal or not. They may have been. It sure sounded like he was saying that if they in fact weren't equal then they were extremely close. Certainly I agree that if guys are equal or virtually equal you should make strategic decisions factoring in such things as position strength, position depth and that kind of thing as part of your thought process on who to pick. I do see some similarities. For me, when I look at Dane Jackson tackling, I see a more violent Antoine Winfield (the pop, I don't know the son well).

Worth taking a flier on.

Wow!! That's convincing. Great find, Happy.

Or BPA worked out such that a CB we liked was never BPA on our board when we drafted Never heard of him before but I like the way he tackles in that video.

Sometimes your best decisions are the things you don't do. This is one of those cases, IMO.

Yeah, the people wanting a home run hitter are likely disappointed by this pick. But Beane said as much recently that they wanted a vertical runner with power when explaining why Yeldon didn't see so much time.

Thoughtful. Thanks.

8 - 9, yeah. 9? It's very rare. That would leave only two guys to play outside/deep. Assuming only two receivers, it would still mean the CBs were on an island. And for safeties to be up closer is common these days, but actually in the box is really not. While it happens, it's mostly on goal line stands.

Heh heh. Interesting, Doc. And telling as well.

I really could see this. But a few others too. Terrell Lewis, maybe, if they like him. Mims or Claypool, maybe ... If he does trade up this year, I'd expect it to be a small move. I wouldn't mind that either, John, nor would it surprise me.

What you or I think about whether they need a guy like this is less important than what they think. And what they think is probably best indicated by the fact that very recently they became the first team in the league to hire a "Nickel Coach." It's huge for them. Hyde and Poyer are already on the field when they bring in the big nickel. Siran Neal was OK at it but not good enough. And he's too small to really fit the role all that well. Both Chinn and Dugger are significantly bigger than Neal and yet also quite a bit more athletic. Jaquan Johnson is 5'10" 191. He' a safety or a CB, but the guy they're looking for ideally is a lot bigger than that. Marlowe is another smaller guy at 203. I'm not a huge measureables guy, but this site charts size with athletic ability. Take a look at what our guys look like when charted like this. https://www.mockdraftable.com/player/dean-marlowe https://www.mockdraftable.com/player/jaquan-johnson https://www.mockdraftable.com/player/siran-neal Now take a look at Dugger and Chinn: https://www.mockdraftable.com/player/jeremy-chinn https://www.mockdraftable.com/player/kyle-dugger Measurables aren't everything, far from it. But these two are a different kind of beast from the guys we're going with presently. The Bills having visited Lenoir-Rhyne three times speaks to how important they think this is. Not that that means they'll definitely go with either guy. But yeah, the Bills obviously think this is a need.

First, they didn't always use Gore and Allen. Singletary had a very nice 2.5 yard TD run against Washington. As for why they used Allen, it's for several reasons, first because when he scrambles he can sometimes turn passes into running TDs, 2nd because running sneaks can be very effective at scoring if teams don't fill the middle with bodies and because forcing them to do so can create problems for them elsewhere. Like any quick-hitting play sneaks can surprise and be very effective, and RPO plays stress the defense knowing they have to defend both run and pass. As for why they used Gore, they seem to have a philosophical liking for big strong vertical backs in some situations. Plus it was very obvious that they absolutely loved Gore. That they "schemed around [Singletary's] weaknesses" is purely your assumption. They might as easily have been scheming around defensive tendencies, not to mention Allen's, the OL's and Gore's perceived strengths. Or simply playing to their own philosophies about heavy backs in certain situations. So far every year they've had at least one big pounding back on the roster even when their evasive back was by far their best. Was it because they were "scheming around Singletary's weaknesses] that they ran Allen for 8 TDs ... in 2018 when Singletary was still in college? Or is it just something that they like as a philosophy? No, you're right, it's probably that they were putting that idea in place as practice for when they drafted Singletary the next year.

Right, totally. Just to buttress your argument here, could you come up with, say four or five examples of the situation that you argue "often" happened ... where he got 15 yards to pad his stats but didn't get the first down? We'll wait. That's a ridiculous point. That may have happened one or two times but every team in the league pads the stats of their backs in that way when it's near the end of the game and they're ahead. But they also degrade the RB stats by running more than they pass late in the game which makes them much more predictable. (For ex, in the first quarter, KC passed 68% of the time, highest in the league, and in the 4th quarter 47%, 29th highest.) https://www.sharpfootballstats.com/situational-run-pass-ratios--off-.html Buffalo's YPA in the 4th quarter was 0.7 YPA lower than in the first quarter. Singletary's YPA didn't benefit from running late in the game. Yards per carry isn't just a good measure of an RB's performance, it's the best measure. Not perfect, but absolutely the best if you have to choose one measure. Arguably the single worst measure is total yards. It does mean something for the guys who got a ton of carries ... if you got a ton of carries and your YPA is still high, that's impressive. But for everyone else it means far far less than YPA. YPA correlates to effectiveness and effectiveness is what you want from a back.

9 in the box happens around 20 - 30 times a season, mostly in goal-line stand type situations.