Thurman#1

Ed Oliver has been an absolute freakin' monster as a run defender. Winning with speed and athleticism doesn't mean bad run defense. It means winning with speed and athleticism.

The thing about an offenses is that good defenses can do a good job stopping them. What were the scores of the last few playoff games again? It really isn't an offense-driven league and particularly not "for a few years," as you contest. Last year it leaned that way till the most important part of the year. And even before that it was an unusual year. No reason to think that's not part of the eternal cycle. In any case, what any of us like is beside the point. What Beane will do is the point, and he's made that as plain as the nose on your face. BPA. How many times does he have to say it? You don't like it? Fair enough. But you're not the one who'll use the pick. Beane is.

It's what most big boards out there look like. The consensus is that the top ten is pretty much all defenders with the exception of QBs. And maybe Jawaan Taylor, who I wouldn't mind. And sure, ours could be different. But if you're going to ignore what everyone's saying because it's convenient for a wish to pick an offensive skill guy, then why bother guessing? Best guess is the BPA will be defense, unless it's Taylor or we trade back. Haven't seen many boards w/ non-QB offense guys over Oliver.

I don't think anyone here gives a ***** about your political opinions, and if we did, we wouldn't come to twobillsdrive to hear it. Keep it about football and when you want to say something angry and stupid, take a few breaths and maybe go jogging or something. Your first paragraph here in NO WAY belongs on this site. And yeah, probably same could be said of Glazeduck, but he's keeping things a bit closer to propriety.

It seems that way to me, though there also seems to be a lack of effort. But he definitely isn't running routes the way he did early in his career. It's a shame.

You can keep saying it. It seems obvious you feel compelled to do so, even if it means hijacking a thread as you attempted to do here. Doesn't make it true, though. In fact, it's not. Beane's results are mixed, and really pretty decent for how little money he was able to spend. They signed Jordan Phillips, he's worked out well. They signed Derek Anderson, he worked out well and cheap. Yarbrough, he's worked out well and cheap. They re-signed Kyle Williams, he worked out well. They signed Lotulelei, he's been expensive and worked out well. He hasn't lived up to some expectations ... there's been outrage, screams from thousands of would-be GMs living in thousands of mom's basements all over America, but he's done what McD wanted, and been part of a cheap #1 ranked defense. Bodine was cheap and without him Groy would have made the O-line look considerably worse than they finally did. Bush was super-cheap and solid. Isaiah McKenzie was a terrific pickup for $555 K for the year. He traded for EJ Gaines who's far outperformed his salary. He traded for Jordan Matthews who unluckily got injured but has been on rosters since and performed decently. Philly took him right back when they had the chance. He's been signed by SF for next year for a bit more than the Bills paid for him for his injured year. Yes, there have been some bad ones too. No question, Benjamin didn't work out in any sense. But plenty of deals that are solid for the money or even just plain solid. So your contention here is just nonsense. He's had mixed prop personnel results, but plenty of decent moves. The problem is that he had very little money to spend and picking up a lot of vet min guys is not going to produce a ton of excellent starters. That's what most of Beane's moves have been up till this offseason, due to cap problems. For how much they paid, there were plenty of guys who were solid pickups. Guess I'll copy this so I don't have to look it up yet again next time. It's clear you're going to keep re-cycling this nonsense no matter how many times it doesn't fly. And no matter how many threads you have to attempt to hijack.

Not that simple, maybe. The guy promised $250 M, then only delivered part of it to the league. He could be found responsible. Bottom line is we just don't know either way. Depends on the contracts and the details.

Doh!! Missed that. Good question for you, Bill. If one QB goes above us, which of those other eight is most likely to fall in your opinion, Bill. EDIT: Ah, you already answered while I typed.

I could easily see Oliver fall, myself. I think his size might bother someone easily. If two teams go QB above us, that would leave only three teams to not go QB (Murray and Haskins?), Bosa, Quinnen and Josh Allen) in the top eight for Oliver to fall. Taylor, Sweat, Gary and White could all slip in there very reasonably, IMO. I think we're going BPA too, but Beane has made it clear that sometimes BPA strategy can include a trade, though again, they'd put together a ton of draft capital for last year's drafts in expectation of trading up for a QB. And there are honest differences about who is BPA at any given point.

Fair enough. But good evaluators can have different views. I mean, Daniel Jeremiah has Hockenson, Christian Wilkins, Josh Jacobs and Devin Bush in the top nine of his big board. And Gary tenth. And that's on a board with no QBs in the top ten. I like Burns a lot, actually. Maybe I could change my mind a bit. I don't do nearly the work that you appear to do, but I like Jonah Williams quite a bit. I don't know enough about Ferrell to have a sensible opinion.

I don't think it's as cut-and-dried as all that, Bill. You could be right. That's a thoughtful list. But a team or two could easily disagree or find bad fits, and it's certainly reasonably likely that two QBs go that early as well. Maybe even three, though maybe not. QB fever is as bad as gold fever. To answer your exact question, in that case I'd probably go Williams. Maybe Dillard.I'd guess Hockenson might be available with a smallish trade-down myself, though I'm far from sure. I wouldn't feel those two were a reach. Not that I'm against trading down. It's often a smart move.

Not really buying that this is no-man's land. It always feels that way because you're always pining for guys who will probably not be available to you and scorning the guys who'll likely be there a few picks later. Fans of most teams feel that way most years. I felt that way the year we got Dareus because I wanted Von Miller or a QB even though I didn't love Newton. And I think that Oliver, Jawaan Taylor and Sweat are all blue-chippers and we'll likely get a shot at one of them. And I see another couple of guys on the bubble. I'm guessing you want somebody else?

Absent your new coach's system, you would trade down and surround Rosen with talent. But if your coach says he absolutely needs a QB to run his system who's an athletic threat ... I might listen to him. I might also ask him how come he didn't say so before I hired him to coach the team. He originally said good things about Rosen. But going with your coach's system is big. It's important. And no, one year is absolutely not enough to judge Rosen, it simply isn't, particularly in the crappy situation he was stuck in. I guess I'd stick with Rosen, myself. The coach originally said he could do the job with him.

No particular reason to think Dawkins is a G playing OT. He played very well at tackle as a rookie and thinks he knows the problems he had last year. He could easily play very well at tackle.

If this is your definition and approach, I doubt there's a single pure BPA team in the league. Let's say the Giants are a pure BPA team and at the time they pick the BPA is an absolutely terrific RB, a guy who's ranked far above all others on the board. A pure BPA team would pick the RB even if they have Saquon. I don't think there's a team in the league that would do that. I suppose you could argue that they could trade down. Fair enough, but if the second-best player on their board is ranked above all other players on their board (except for the RB of course), and plays a position of need, I think nearly any team is going to go with that guy. Very few principles work when looked at in an absolutely pure way. There are exceptions to nearly anything, even an idea like BPA that is generally absolutely terrific. Thou shalt not kill. Great principle. But there's self-defense. And if you're in the armed forces. Or if you're driving and somebody darts in front of you and your only alternative is to veer onto the sidewalk and hit a group of nuns ...

Yes, this.

Good post. You can do well as a smaller DT ... if you're a penetrator. If you're not, guys will latch onto you and you will be at a disadvantage. Oliver is really strong for his size, but the key is that he is a terrific penetrator. When guys contact him, he's often already put them in a bad position with his very quick start. Look at Jay/Jeremiah Ratliff, for example. Guy played nose tackle at between 290 and 303, most of the time on the low end, and was extremely effective. Four straight Pro Bowls, for instance.

Nah. Whether or not a study verifies a self-fulfilling prophecy is beside the point. That it verifies something is the point. Plenty of things that people call self-fulfilling prophecies are actually ... not self-fulfilling prophecies. And one example is exactly what you're talking about here. This isn't a self-fulfilling prophecy at all. Yeah, good teams trade down. So do bad ones. Were the Browns a terrific team when they kept trading down the past few years. Were the 7-8 2016 Bills a good team? They traded down with the Chiefs in 2016. Were the 2016 Chiefs who traded up with us to get Mahomes a bad team? They had just gone 12-4. It's nonsense that only bad teams trade up and good teams trade back. It's just not true. What do these studies say about trading up for QBs? I think it's already pretty clear from my earlier post, but to repeat ... the rule is that you don't trade up by giving up important picks, that if you do, your outcome will worsen a large number of times, but that the exception is trading up for a QB, because without a QB in or extremely near the top ten, you're not likely to see Super Bowls. Trading up for a QB early is where a desperation move can be your best move. The studies understand this. If you're actually curious, go read the studies. They're the new best practices. That was the Residents, not the Replacements. The Replacements are terrific.

Why? Because whether or not we do that, next year we'll have positions of need. That's the way this all works. And next year is the year we might very realistically start to be a very good team if things work well and we can fill those positions of need.

I disagree totally. They're all about NOT being a win-now team. Their goal is specific ... long-term, consistent excellence.

You can demand these deals. But they don't have to say yes. They could easily say, "OK, thanks, we'll work something out with Cincy at #11 or GB at #12, or whatever." To get these premiums you need a desperate team. Last year we were desperate and everybody knew it. I don't know that a team with Carr on the roster should be as desperate as we were last year. Also worth looking at the Rich Hill chart as well as the traditional Johnson model. #24 - 237 #27 - 216 #35 - 170 equals 723 Bills #9 equals 387 Supposedly teams are moving towards the Hill model. Personally, if I'm Oakland I don't make this trade. In any case, I'm not convinced Oakland is going after a QB. I guess they are building around Carr. We'll see. I generally like trading back, a lot. But IMO if Oliver is still there, we snag him.

Three 1st round OLs since 2005 for the Pats. Three in 13 years. Us? One. Scarnecchia is great. Clearly. But three 1sts has to have helped him.

I count it 14-8. In 2001 they went 11-3 with Brady and 0-2 without him. And most of that 14-8 (14 of the 22 games) was with Cassel against an extremely easy schedule.

I disagree, strongly. It's more about Brady. When you've got him at QB it gives you a ton more latitude elsewhere. Look at Belichick's history in Cleveland. And yeah they protect Brady very well, but he is one of the absolute best movers at QB in football. Not most athletic movers, of course. But he keeps his eyes downfield while moving away from pressure in the pocket as well as or better than anyone else in football. Brady also hits small windows in short and medium throws as well as anyone around, and processes things extremely fast too. Maybe Belichick did build an offense with quicker releases earlier than anyone, though there are other coaches who've worked hard on the same thing earlier or around the same time. But people now know the Belichick system. They know you need a skittery waterbug guy, a Welker/Edelman type, an RB who can catch and bunch formations and picks. Plenty of teams have caught on to that. And yet none of them are as good as the Pats. Why? None of those teams have Tom Brady. The problem with a system that so stresses short passes is the obvious one. You have to run more plays, you have to make more good throws, and there are more chances for QB errors. Hell, most defenses in the league try to take away long throws and force teams to nickel-and-dime down the field. It's in the defense's best interest. So how come nobody runs it, after all this time, as well as the Pats? Brady simply makes fewer mistakes. Defenses force you to dink-and-dunk because more passes means the QB has more chances to make mistakes. Drives with more plays bog down a higher percentage of the time. Brady drives teams nuts by not making those mistakes. He's simply better.

"All Pro"? This and your OP make it look like you did what GMs shouldn't do ... you fell in love with a prospect and went looking for ways to justify that love rather than seeing what's really there. I like Hockenson. But putting him as an All-Pro is a massive reach. More, the failure or success of their tenure doesn't depend on Allen becoming a franchise QB. It depends on the Bills becoming a very good team. Yeah, Allen becoming a franchise QB would certainly help towards that goal. But so would having a terrific defense. And while getting a very good TE would help Allen, would it be the difference between him becoming a franchise QB or not? No particular reason to think so. I put Hockenson in the group of guys they should consider in the 1st round. I'd rather trade back if they go for him. I think they can get him a few picks later, myself, but if Oliver is there, I'd rather just take him.