Thurman#1

Talk about a ridiculous statement, here you are joining the crew. Where does anyone say we should feel bad for him? Where does anyone project his actions on anything? Expressing an understanding that everyone makes mistakes isn't projecting Simmons' actions on anyone. More, where is anyone saying someone won't suffer consequences. Simmons has already suffered consequences and will likely continue to do so. He is likely to get drafted though this could absolutely affect where. And I don't call it unfortunate that he'll get drafted at all. What would be unfortunate was if he again hurts someone off the field. There are a lot of sentiments on both sides of this argument worthy of being disagreed with. But if you're going to do so, at least don't pretend they said something they didn't say. EDIT: Good grief, having read the last page, I can see I was wasting my time getting involved in a thread overrun by trolls, threadnappers, red herring tossers, hasty generalizers, those that don't get it, those that aren't interested in what's to be gotten, straw man makers and those who commit the argumentum ad ignorantiam.

I honestly don't understand the anatomy of the problem in Pittsburgh well enough. It's not clear who's the jerk or whether they're all problem children. I'd need to do a lot more research, but since I'm not actually involved in a decision I'll spend my time elsewise instead.

Oh, jeez. Don't remind me. That hurt.

Yeah, I've got my eye on him. Would not mind this at all. Freak athlete.

Yeah, I wouldn't do this if I was Oakland. Three firsts including one of the blue chippers, for a team in the first year of a rebuild ... that would be sweet. If I were them, I'd be more likely to trade down from 24 or 27 to get an extra first next year when they have a better idea of what they need. Next year's supposed to be a better QB draft as well, though it sometimes doesn't work out that way by the time the next year actually ends.

In most drafts there are said to be around 6 - 10 genuine blue-chippers. Haven't seen what people are saying this year but I don't want to trade out of one of those blue-chippers, myself, even if I get two starters. I wouldn't hate it, but I think getting one impact guy is more of what the Bills really need. So far, I like what the new regime has done with the draft, so I would have some trust if they go this way.

" Nine out of 11 current NFL quarterbacks, who started at least seven games as a rookie, helped raised their team’s won-loss record by an average of three wins (see chart). " Chris Brown's words, not mine. "current NFL quarterbacks who started at least seven games as a rookie." Doesn't say anything about whether or not he started his second year. But let's say he accidentally left that part out. Then where's Andy Dalton, who started 16 games in each of his first two years? The Bungles only improved by one and Dalton somehow got lost here. Where's Dak Prescott, who started his first 32 games and whose team lost four more games his second year? Where's Joe Flacco who started his first 32 games and watched the Ravens fall from 11- to 9-7? Not going to bother looking further. This chart is severely broken.

Wow. That really was funny. Thanks for posting.

Wait, how come Dalton's not on there?

How come DaShone Kizer's not on there? He started 15 games. The list is nicely self-selected. "Active" QBs, so it can ignore all the ones who aren't playing anymore. I'm reasonably hopeful, I really am, but this list leaves out more than it shows.

Wouldn't mind Tevin Coleman.

Yeah, but teams that cut guys pick up the same guys later with great regularity. Look at Robert Foster. Hell, Deonte Thompson's in his third shot with this team. In any case, the Bills didn't want Vallejo bad enough to claim him.

The cap situation was a lot worse than obviously not the best. It sucked. And yeah, they'd been 7-9 the year before. That's not good. 7-9 or close has been pretty much what the Bills are for a very very long time. It was time for a change. And yeah, they didn't have to do a complete rebuild. They could have chosen the stupid option and reloaded. Another two to four years of mediocrity and the new GMs would have been faced with the same choice in maybe 2023. You're right they didn't have to rebuild. They did it because it was smarter, not because they had to. And yeah, jettisoning the salary wasn't necessary either. They could have kicked the can down the road and got further and further into cap trouble, all while not getting together the draft picks to bring in Josh Allen or anyone like him. As for it taking 4 years, yeah, that's a guess. Might be right. Might not. We'll see. And yeah, a team cleaning it's cap situation will bring in a lot of bargain bin types in FA for the first couple of years. On offense they brought in the most important piece, Josh Allen. And Robert Foster. And Zay Jones. And Wyatt Teller. And Croom and Ivory and McKenzie and Dawkins. Who are a bunch of young folks, some of whom stand a pretty decent chance of being good. There are still a lot of holes. It's what happens when you rebuild from a mediocre team with little cap room. Wait, "they have nothing on offense because they chose to build their defense first," you say? Dude, you're blowing my mind. I don't think anyone on these boards knows that. Except, you know ... everybody. They haven't put many resources into the offense, excepting the very large number of picks and guys that produced Josh Allen. They could have built up both sides equally and had both sides be below average, I guess, but would that have somehow been better? Now they've got cap room and can address things.

Yeah, I'm not convinced by any means but it's too early to rule him out too. Is he that much less qualified than Mike Tomlin was when the Steelers hired him? Tomlin had one year as a pro DC and the defense wasn't good that one year.And while I'm not thrilled by Tomlin, he's had a ton of success.

It's $2 mill that's added back into their salary cap. They care. It's not big, but it's something. And they also care negatively because it means their choice will be franchising him or losing him to FA. Irv, no. You absolutely can NOT tag a player who is going to be under contract next year. In fact, why would you? If he's already under contract, why would you force him to stay with your team by putting him under contract for a year. The tags are used ONLY for guys who have finished their last year under contract, guys who will be FAs, specifically guys who are about to become UFAs. The whole idea of a tag is for a team to say to a player, "Oh, no you don't go into FA, we're keeping you for another year." Oh, and Foles wants to start. He might easily accept a contract for less than $20 mill from a team that will commit to make him the starter.

Yup, six teams put in a claim. Not the Bills.

Obviously you don't read my post. The only thing I wrote about Wentz in it was about 2017. Even more obvious ... you don't know what I watched this year, particularly from reading a post which said nothing about Wentz this year.

It would be absurd if there was another reason to look at him. McVay wouldn't have even noticed being stared down from that distance. One thing you can be sure of is that Belichick in that situation isn't wasting time with something irrelevant. He's doing this for a reason and I can't think of another good reason to find McVay on the sidelines. Tells don't have to be tiny little things like the trembling of an eyelid at the poker table. Maybe he makes eye contact with one coach if it's a run call and another if it's a pass, for example. Some things might be very easy to see from far away.

The problem isn't with evaluating receivers so much as it was not putting many resources into receivers. The exception to that is Benjamin, but he made the difference in getting us to the playoffs in 2017 with a couple of good games. Zay Jones may be an example of this in the future, but right now he's doing fine for where he is in his career. And he was brought in while Beane was still in Carolina. The problem with Boldin wasn't a bad evaluation of talent. Benjamin, maybe, though it seems more like a problem at this point in his career. At times in the past, he's been very very good. They haven't put many resources into receiver, particularly since Beane got here. And that's understandable. They had a team that had a ton of holes and in rebuilding and making sure they were going to get a possible franchise QB they created even more holes. They were always going to be unable to address some positions satisfactorily this early, particularly with the major cap problems the Whaley administration left them. Worth noting also that you seem to have forgotten to have mentioned Robert Foster. Is that because he upsets the applecart of your theory that they suck at receiver evaluations? Again, without putting many resources into it, finding Foster seems to have been a really good move. So far, at least. Starting now, they're going to need to address the area and put some real money and picks towards it. Dunno how it will work out, but I'm hopeful. On the other hand, I love taking a flier with Duke Williams but I'm not as positive about his prospects as some here are. Looks to me like he's not very fast or sudden, though I love how he goes up for the jump balls.

This.

2016 with the Pats 58 targets for 38 catches 2017 with the Pats 59 targets for 34 catches 2018 with the Pats 55 targets for 35 catches He's doing what they want. 35 is plenty, or they'd have gotten rid of him before. They don't throw a lot to their outside guys. He isn't making a ton. They might keep him or let him go but it won't be because he suddenly hasn't been doing enough.

I don't think Moulds is the right comparison. He was 6'2, listed at various times as 210 - 225 back when that was really unusually big. Foster's the same height but not such a bruiser, and these days 6' 2" isn't all that unusual. And Moulds ran a 4.5 40. They were different types. Like the rest of the post about Foster, though. Interesting to hear what Tasker said. Thanks. I'm on the other side of that. The draft he posits here isn't based off potential. It's based off what they did last year and positions of need. With his mock draft rules, I think Edmunds doesn't make the first, though I think he's going to be a really good one. In the real world, I like the Edmunds pick a lot for the Bills.

Worse situation for Rosen than Josh put up with. Much worse line. Like it or not, he's got a chance, still, to be a very good one. No way to know, with any of them, but there's a chance.

I hate you. But posts don't get more on target than this. Alright, I don't hate you but I hate to admit how right you are. Painful to think about.

Nicely put.