Thurman#1

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.

Well, those people who say that Beane was calling the Bills draft picks two years ago are batshit crazy. Seriously. I see that you're not saying that, John, but anyone who does is nuts. The core values of this group are integrity and character, hard work and the process. If Beane had been receiving a salary from Carolina and then using his work and the work of the Carolina scouts to help the Bills compete with Carolina while still employed by them ... that would have been not just scandalous and indeed criminal but would show stunningly bad character. It would be industrial espionage. It's the absolute opposite of what this regime is about. It would violate the process. Beane's process at that time should have been the process of improving the team he was working for. Didn't happen!!

Nah. That argument simply doesn't work. Did they have talent before the arrival of McDermott and Beane? You're right, they did. Enough to get them to 7-9, and 8-8 the year before that. Yahoo-ee and yippee-ki-yay. No, they weren't absolutely bereft of talent. But they also had a bunch of holes, no QB and the kind of cap situation generally held by teams trying to milk a year or two more out of a franchise QB's dotage and a closing window. And your argument that it's a GM's duty to recognize talent is very reasonable. But the idea that it's a GM's duty to keep the talent at all costs is utter and complete crap. The GM's duty is to do what he told the owner he would do when the owner hired him. McDermott and Beane have been very consistent in letting everyone know what they promised the Pegulas. They promised them that they would get the Bills to a place where they would consistently be among the best in the league and would regularly compete for championships. They did NOT promise to win that year. Or the next. They did a near-complete rebuild. This was a choice, but it was frankly pretty obviously the correct choice. They were handed two massive handicaps. They had an awful cap situation and they had no franchise QB. Those two things together are generally death, unless you're lucky enough to be handed a team that went for one or two wins the year before and you now have the first or second draft pick. So they rebuilt. They promised the Pegulas they would completely fix the cap situation by the beginning of this season. That and the decision to rebuild meant they were in a situation where they were going to have to trade guys to accumulate draft capital to bring in a potential franchise QB and shed guys for cap reasons. You argue that they shed good talent for next to nothing. Nonsense. They shed it to be able to bring in Josh Allen, and luckily ended up with Edmunds as well. And they shed it to move money from the 2019 cap to the 2018 cap. This meant a ton of dead money in 2018 but also the cap freedom they are now enjoying this year and are carefully husbanding in a way that will allow them to have more freedom next year and for the foreseeable future. Clearing up that cap morass in two years was a huge and difficult task. And it required a lot of short-term pain.

There's not really such a thing as wasting one of the 90 spots. The last 30 are pure training camp fodder. If there's a shot at it working out, there's no real drawback. And yes, it absolutely is a meaningful effort at improving that crew. Not a guaranteed effort, but absolutely something that might work out. Or might not. But if they think he's got a shot it would absolutely be meaningful. And as for Logan Thomas ... if one guy taking a shot at switching positions fails, does that mean they all will? Yeah, he can catch. Here's a quick report on his HS career. "BEFORE OREGON — Standout tight end and defensive lineman for Traverse City West High School, garnered four stars from Scout.com … Rated as the No. 25 offensive tackle prospect nationally by Scout.com and fifth-best overall player in Michigan by Rivals.com … Helped Titans tie for Big North title in 2010, making 68 tackles on defense and grabbing 11 receptions for 232 yards … Selected first-team all-state and all-Big North as a defensive lineman following his senior season … Named second-team All-Big North as a junior tight end." https://goducks.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=3976 That's pretty terrific YPC yardage. But will he do a lot of receiving? Probably not, based on his reception totals.

Worth remembering that we weren't the only team that wanted him. There were five teams trying to sign him as a UDFA, and not one thought he was going to make it as TE. Peters wanted his hands on the ball, while teams thought correctly that he'd be better at OL.

It may be irrelevant to some point you're making about which I am not concerned. But it's completely relevant to what I'm saying with that post, which is that the Jets had Allen 4th and weren't going to take him under any circumstances at #3. In fact, it proves it. Several on here have continued to try to say that the Jets might have wanted Allen. Including the post I replied to just above this. They didn't. They had him 4th.

No. As I pointed out above, the Jets had Allen 4th. After the draft, Breer put out an EXTREMELY detailed insider access story including quoted texts, day by day summaries, and on and on about the Jets pursuit of a QB. He went back for two years describing the very earliest roots of the Jets process. https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/05/16/new-york-jets-sam-darnold-2018-draft  "When the Jets dealt up to the No. 3 spot in the draft in March, they’d identified three quarterbacks—Darnold, Mayfield, and UCLA’s Josh Rosen—they were good with. This [Darnold, their favorite, falling to #3] was better than that."

Yeah, Beane does have his fingerprints all over a 2017 draft. That would be the 2017 draft of the Carolina Panthers. Here, it was McDermott who should be given most of the credit for the 2017 draft, with a bit to Whaley. As for 2018, yeah, it looks good too and Beane gets a ton of the credit.

Headlines are written by editors, not writers. Rodak is responsible for the rest of the content, but not the headline. And yeah, the Bills broke the playoff drought, but they did it with the benefit of an extremely easy schedule on top of an AFC that lacked talent after the top three or so teams. When you make the playoffs with a 9-7 record, it's not because you're a very good team. This is a strong, controversial way to put it, but that was a very reasonable way to look at the trades of Watkins and Darby, IMO. They were rebuilding. He got it wrong as to the season's result, but it was a reasonable opinion. And it's nonsense that all of Rodak's Bills coverage is negative. Some is negative, some is positive and some is neutral. Look at his recent tweet: "It's clear the Bills aren't messing around with their O-line rebuild," as just one quick example it took me 60 seconds or so to find. He also described Morse as a "strong signing." That took another 10 seconds. I'm not a Rodak fan but he does good work and the opinion out there by Bills fans that he's anti-Bills is one that most Bills fans seem to feel about most reporters who have columns. And is also true of most fans of most teams. Fans want more positive coverage than neutrality admits. It's part of being a fan. The Bills have been mediocre to bad for a long long time. But they've made some good moves each year and Rodak has been as good as anyone else at pointing those out and lauding them.

I don't think so many people are saying that DT is a need. More that DT is the strength of this draft near the top, and thus that if we stay at #9, the BPA is likely to be a DT, and that while DT isn't a hole, it's definitely an area where if we draft one at #9 we would be strengthening the team. I hear you when you say you are fine with Oliver. I just think if he's still there the chances are pretty decent he would be BPA, though I agree with you that edge rusher is a bigger need.

If we drafted Jawaan Taylor, the best five would likely be Dawkins - Long - Morse - Ty/Feliciano - Taylor, IMO.

Yes, it's been so, now, basically since Peters left. Seems to be a weird kink in Bills fans DNA.