Thurman#1

Either way, under either system, Team A gets what it wants or doesn't. Under your system they are more likely to get what they want due to having yet more competitive advantage over poorly-run Team 2 whose general manager has put himself under yet more pressure with poor cap management than poor cap management produces now. The effect on parity is that Team A has yet another method of exchange to trade for what they need. The smarter team gets the bigger advantage. The dumber team gets more pressure on them from the results of their decision-making and is more easily forced into making decisions. Bad teams will be forced to sell competitive advantage in terms of players on the field for the ability to mitigate their poor financial decision-making. That's the opposite of parity. Don't fix what ain't broken. The NFL is very much not broken and particularly so in terms of the salary cap.

That wouldn't create parity. Just the opposite, it would allow the rich to get even richer. And making things more interesting isn't a good reason for anything. That's essentially change for change's sake, which isn't something you should do for something that is a wild wild success.

That's a fact, not a problem. Oh, the reason he lost snaps as the season went on was that he was not effective? I didn't realize that. But if that's a fact as you're presenting it here, then you'll be able to link to where Beane or McDermott said that. Otherwise - and we both know you won't be able to find anything like that - what you've got there is a guess that fits your preconceptions. He lost snaps as the season went on? Yeah? Here's how his week-by-week snap percentage looked. 48% 66% 36% 50% 43% 46% 39% 53% 47% 39% 44% 49% 46% 53% 47% 44% Is that what it looks like when a guy loses snaps as the season goes on? In four of his last five games he averages more snaps than he did over the year? Or were you just completely making that up? Yeah, precisely. His snaps went up and down week to week, probably depending on formations and game situations, and they didn't go down as the season went on. He was brought in to be a two-down guy. He'd been one in Carolina, under McDermott. He was under McDermott for four years and in two of those four he was below 50%. And the other two years he was at 59% and 65%. They knew what they were getting. He's doing just what they expected, just what they wanted. Yes, PFF tends to grade guys who aren't pass rush types average. That's fine. But clearly this is what McD wanted and knew very well enough to expect. And you may well be not that sure ... but how you feel ain't really all that important. How McDermott feels, that's the key. And judging by the fact that the defense took another major step up, he likely feels pretty good about it.

People have been talking for ages about how we had the largest amount of money available in 2020, and I kept cautioning that that was more a function of not having many guys under contract for 2020. I warned that that would change. And it has. It had adjusted itself to not being #1, but instead being top five, as you've noted here. But it's kept going. Right now, we're 10th, according to Spotrac. Still significantly above average, but not so much so as we used to be. We're around $11 mill below the top five at this point, but about $20 mill above average. https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/2020/ In any case, I wanted to post that caveat, but that was a great post. I think you're right on target.

In answer to your question, no, it doesn't need to be reiterated how many horrible huge contract we've handed out that made no sense. Reiterated, no. Argued convincingly for the very first time, yes. This administration has handed out very few big contracts. Lotulelei is a good example, but of the exact opposite of what you're arguing. He's not making huge bucks. He's tied for 14th for average DT salaries. And he's doing the job they brought him in for very well. He's part of the reason they were a very good defense last year. They're not in a bind. Or not more so than any other GM. Yeah, they committed very few resources to the offense last year and that showed, which they expected and didn't worry about, as they knew it was a rebuilding year. They also got the cap situation in excellent shape, expecting to be able to commit a lot of resources to the offense this year, and they've done so. The plan is moving ahead just as they expected. They're bringing in medium- and low-priced FAs, which has always been their plan, as they've made it very very clear that they expect to get their impact guys through the draft. You're underestimating Bills fans, who see this. They've upgraded the talent a lot. They've got the offense up to where an offense which had major gaps and holes last year doesn't really this year. Depending on how Allen develops, the offense has every chance to be functional this year, when it really wasn't last year so early in the rebuild and with the awful cap situation. That's big.

... while maintaining a healthy cap situation for the future. Don't think "... as financially possible." Think "judicious."

Last thing in the world they want this year is to spend the season breaking in a new guy as the defensive play caller. If they thought they could stash White a year or two elsewhere and then move him in when he's seasoned, that would make sense. If they think he can play Will for a year or two this would make more sense. I think he might be a pure MIke, though. Not sure of that at all but that's my suspicion of how they view him. I do expect them to draft an LB or two, though not Devin White. We'll see.

Very very logical, if you're rebuilding and your owner is on board, and your first priorities are amssing draft capital to bring in a franchise QB and cutting cap to get your awful cap situation in excellent shape going into the next year. Very illogical if you are feeling the heat and must win games that year. Beane and McDermott, though, have the owners understanding of their rebuild. So it was very logical indeed. To do nearly all the things you're saying up here. They've already admitted they made a mistake in not bringing in Anderson the minute they got rid of McCarron, so you're right there. They likely would have loved to keep Allen on the bench most of the year and that mistake prevented that. But the rest was very rational indeed.

He hasn't had to say he has looked at those studies. He's operated by the rules the studies suggest, both here and in his previous job in Carolina. I think it's fair to say that every single personnel guy in the league reads those ... maybe not every word, but they know all about this Doesn't mean everyone goes by them of course. In fact, pllenty of folks ignore them, especially if they're on the hot seat or if they let their emotions run their picks and fall in love with somebody. It happens an awful lot. Beans didn't have to acquire a ton of draft capital to trade up for QB. Could've traded away 2019's first and second or something like it. Instead he suffered the immediate pain of trading away a lot of guys for picks so he wouldn't have to do what the studies say you shouldn't. As for your question, are you asking if they would trade the higher 4th and the 5th to move up from #40 to the first? Is that right? If that is what you're asking, they would be unlikely to be able to make that trade. Assuming they were trading up from #40 to #30, that deal would give the Bills a 20% advantage on the trade, roughly, 120 points versus 100. If it's the Bills calling, to move up, they're more likely to have to give up extra than to get a bargain. More, if they get that deal, I personally wouldn't do it anyway. What the studies say is that GMs think they're smarter than they are. Meaning the best way to maximize your draft capital, especially over the long run is to maximize draft picks any way you can and take more shots rather than trust your judgment and give away picks to try to move up. And that doing so doesn't produce a small advantage, it makes you much more likely to be a successful drafter. I said it somewhere just above, but think about Taron Johnson, Wyatt Teller and Matt Milano. Those are three of our fourth and fifth rounders the last couple of years. Again, I doubt they could make that trade up giving up that little. But if they did, and could leave themselves a pick in every round, they might well not worry about giving up those "extra" picks.

My guess is they stay at #9 and then stay at #40, maybe moving up 4 or 5 spots to #35 or #36 if they see a major bargain. If they move back from #9 and pick up a third or so, that would make it far more likely that they could move up for a second 1st-rounder by giving away the pick they just acquired, since they'd still have picks in all rounds. There's no reason they couldn't use all 10 picks if they want. No problem for money or roster space. What they could also do is if they want to get rid of one of their 4ths, they could trade it away for a 3rd next year or a 4th next year and another lower-round pick this year or next.

It's not just the top 20. Trading up, say, from #40 where we are to #27, the sort of thing being constantly talked about on here these days, will cost you a 3rd. Don't trade away higher round picks. If you can work something out, like a same-round switch or something, great. But don't give up 2nds or 3rds. Even 4ths and 5ths are valuable (Taron Johnson in the 4th and Teller in the 5th last year and Milano in the 5th the year before). Smaller tradeups outside the first can make a lot of sense, but the further up you trade the more you give up valuable picks.

Not much of a point, then, outside Gronk. Cooks wasn't there last year. Didn't they do OK without him? Same with Amendola, and Amendola's not some great talent. Never gotten 700 yards a year even with Brady throwing to him. Same with all of them, really. The Pats get by without great skill players because of Brady. Gronk is the exception. But believe it, they'll find somebody else to have Brady throw to.

Disagree. The best five players doesn't by any means always make the best line. Plenty of guys are good at one position and not so good at others. And some positions are more important - LT certainly more than LG for instance - and should generally get the best guy at playing LT, which is very likely going to be Dawkins, IMO.

Having a center does indeed make bringing the line together and communicating better more likely. Doesn't speed things up all that much, though. Meshing is going to take time.

Beane wasn't here for the Jones and Dawkins trades, but neither of those required a major sacrifice. I don't doubt they'd trade up. I doubt they trade up and give up high round picks. And as I said above, Beane's trades last year had been engineered to bring in a QB. That's the exception for the general rule about trading away high picks. You can do it to get a QB if your team doesn't have a franchise guy. It's a desperate move, but your team has a desperate need. And yeah they traded up for Edmunds too but they seem to have done that in deep surprise that he was available that late and because they still had two thirds and were willing to give up one of them. This year if they give up a third, it won't be an "extra" third. They only have one. We'll see, but this administration has built through smart, smart methods. They've made mistakes, but they've used smart methods, and the smart teams don't trade up and give away higher pick, except if trading for a QB. The Thaler and Massey study (and many more) explain why, in long and painful detail.

Going from #40 to #27 - #31 will cost a 3rd according the chart. I don't see them giving up a third when they've only got one, unless something really weird happens to create an insane kind of bargain, like Bosa falling to #7 or something. My best guess is they stay at #9, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them trade back early. We'll see.

Yup. Their own men, following the Carolina blueprint. Which mostly consists of the smart stuff that the best teams do. Build through the draft. Don't get in cap trouble. Don't use FA as your engine, use it to fill in gaps with low- and medium-priced guys. Don't trade up in the draft if it requires you to give good picks ... except if you need a QB. The smart stuff that the best teams do. Hell, they've even gone beyond the stuff all the best teams do and into more specifics. Like, building the defense first and getting a QB who's big, strong and athletic and not worrying if he's got accuracy problems. They're using the Carolina method.

Again, where's the history of that happening in Carolina? I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see them trade back. Your two firsts scenario's quite possible. I could see them manage it by trading back from #9 to maybe #16 or #20, round there, and then taking the extra pick(s), probably a 2nd or 3rd and packaging it with the #40 to get up from there into the early 1st..

If being on the block after a year tells you anything, it's that the new coach's game plans don't fit Rosen's strengths and that new coach thinks Murray's strengths do. And where is any evidence any Cards teammates were pissed off by his irritation about being pissed off he wasn't picked earlier? There is none.

Agreed. The problem is that if the Cards trade him before the draft, it's an absolute confirmation of what they want to do with their first pick. Me, I guess that they're putting out so much smoke in hopes of a trade back. But if that's wrong, the Cards would need to make that trade after their first pick, and the other team would need to make it immediately afterwards so they can pivot if someone else makes the trade instead. There's a short window for it. But yeah, I think getting Rosen would really stand a great chance of paying off for someone and it would likely come relatively cheap.

Not a process guy. You want your players thinking they'll be difference makers, so good on him for that, but he's old. We need guys who'll be around for a while unless they're super character guys ala Gore to build a winning locker room atmosphere, and Dez isn't that kind of guy.

Fair enough, "tons" was overstating it. Sorry. But yeah, they had extra picks, more than this year.. Before they made that trade they had already got Allen, and still had another 1st and two thirds. After that trade they still had a pick in the third and after they used it, they'd picked three guys in three rounds. That wouldn't happen this year. They have two 4ths and two 5ths. I can see them trading away one of those, but not their sole 2nd or their sole 3rd. The analytics show it's not a good idea. Last year was a special year. They'd spent more than a season accumulating draft capital to go up and get a QB. Things are more threadbare this year in terms of picks. And also in terms of bald-faced needs. Every team without a franchise QB has an absolute need at QB. And in McDermott's system, he has an absolute need at the Kuechle spot, he needs a wildly athletic MLB smart enough to call plays.He filled both of his absolute needs last year with the extra picks he'd husbanded. Doesn't have any more specific needs, particularly after FA. Check his record in Carolina. See how often they traded up there while giving up significant value. This is an unlikely eventuality.

That was a rebuild year when they had stocked a ton of extra picks to go get a QB. They still had two third-rounders when they traded that one. They don't have that luxury this year. He won't be afraid to go up. He'll recognize that it's not smart. There's a difference. Unless there's some kind of all but insane bargain, it bucks the odds. That's the kind of deal that gets you results like two firsts and a 4th for Sammy Watkins. Look at Thaler and Massey. They did an extremely extensive study on it. As Kollidas suggests above, if they can trade away someone they think doesn't have a future here, like Shaq if they feel that way about him, it would make more sense. Don't expect 'em to trade away highish round picks, though.

I don't see any logic at all to the cause and effect you suggest. They are signing FAs as we knew they would because of their many needs and large cap nest egg. If they move down, I see them getting one of the top three TEs or maybe Ximine. Nah. They want to build through the draft. The way you do that is quantity. The way you don't do that is cut your picks in half. The analytics agree. The traditional wisdom is to not trade up at a high cost ... unless it's for a QB. The analytics all back it up. The process of spotting talent is so unsure, for everyone, that your best chance is keeping lots of picks and taking lots of shots. They know this very well.

Depends if you're talking about money or athletic success, IMHO. Matt Birk was a better player, w/ 6 Pro Bowls and 2 All Pros. Dick Button had two Olympic golds in figure skating. Thought I remembered an old Raider, but a quick look doesn't turn anyone up. W/ money, probably Fitzy or Lin, but that's just a reflection of the salary inflation in sports in recent years.