Thurman#1

Are people really saying any of that? Weird. I mean, number 2 makes some sense. Allen clearly work, but it's fair to question how hard. I hadn't heard it compared to Diggs. I'm sure Diggs works hard on his body, as I think it's clear Allen does. Beyond that I don't think receivers have anywhere near as much work beyond keeping in shape as hard-working QBs do. A guy like Peyton Manning or Brady has insane work habits even in the offseason. I hadn't heard that about Diggs. I'd seen the podcast. And while it's not the greatest thing Allen said, it's one sentence, immediately after a horrible game, and we don't know what Diggs said. To me, I don't hold that against him one bit.

I mean, yeah, sure, what will be will be. Several years ago many others of us learned a lesson by way of the guard position. Feliciano, Brian Winters, Quinton Spain, Rodger Saffold. What will be will be. But sometimes what is ... is not that good. Sometimes there are too many needs for all of them to be addressed with enough of our limited resources. This year with several cornerstones leaving absolutely looks to be one of those years. I wish it didn't, but it does. Beane still has time, and the draft. But we need that time and those picks to be used very well.

Safety, corner, sledgehammer RB, IOL, pass rush. WR also. Plus depth.

While I see where you're coming from and I have some feelings in common with you, I think that that is NOT the question. Also disagree with you about Whaley. He wasn't a bad talent evaluator. He was a bad overall strategist. The horrendous part of that move wasn't drafting Watkins. (Not that it turned out well, but at that time from having that pick, he was a reasonable pick.) If we hadn't picked him, he'd still have gone within the next couple of picks. He was widely considered to be as close to a sure thing as you can get. The stupid part of that move was moving up to make the pick. That's the part of this that the academics tell you is very likely to raise your chances of an unsuccessful draft. EVERYBODY makes bad picks. Including the absolute best scouting staff in the league. Even in the first round. It's part of the deal. Look at the Chiefs for one. Their 1st rounder last year played 218 snaps, without injury. DE Anudike-Uzomah totalled half a sack and 14 tackles. Now, it's way too early to say he's a bust. But was his first year a disappointment? The Chiefs won't say that, but yeah, he was. How about Edwards-Hilaire? Bad pick. Decent player, but a bad pick by a really good scouting staff. EVERYBODY makes bad picks. Everybody. Drafting is not an exact science, it just isn't. Look at Cody Ford. Our scouts obviously really liked this guy. Thing is, you're going to make bad picks. So you understand that and you use best practices to maximize your chances. And best practices are to NOT give away big value picks in trade-ups for non-QBs. (Again, see the Massey-Thaler study, "The Loser's Curse: Decision Making and Market Efficiency in the National Football League Draft." Key findings: "[The NFL draft] It is also a domain in which multiple psychological factors suggest that teams may overvalue the chance to pick early in the draft. Using archival data on draft-day trades, player performance, and compensation, we compare the market value of draft picks with the surplus value to teams provided by the drafted players. We find that top draft picks are significantly overvalued in a manner that is inconsistent with rational expectations and efficient markets, and consistent with psychological research." Massey and Thaler are extremely respected. Thaler has got a Nobel Prize. And the other studies in this are that have followed have all agreed.) What all those bad WRs drafted in the first ten picks in the last ten years should teach us is NOT that you shouldn't draft WRs in the top ten. If you're already in the top ten, go ahead and draft one if you believe in him. It is that trading away premium assets to get higher lowers your chances of draft success. You said the question is whether you trust the scouts. That's not the question. The question is should you make a trade-up of that size when ALL of the studies done on this question tell you the answer is that in this kind of situation you absolutely should not, because it lowers your chances of successful drafts. It's certainly not impossible that we make a trade like this. But IMO they shouldn't, and I don't think they will. You don't get into and win a Super Bowl by improving your wide receiver room. You do it by improving the team. The whole team. 'Nuff said by me in this thread. Have a great draft season, all.

I posted this in another thread. I think it's worth hearing again. Here it is: Quick question: What do these players have in common? Kevin White, Corey Davis, Mike Williams (from Clemson to the Chargers), John Ross, Drake London and Sammy Watkins? All WRs chosen in the top ten picks in the last ten years. We tend to think "a top ten guy, he'll be a Ja'Marr Chase." And that ain't necessarily so. There are some very good WRs chosen in the top ten of those same drafts. But more who never justified the pick. For those curious, here are all the rest of the top ten in those ten years: Chase, Waddle, DeVonta Smith, Garrett Wilson, Amari Cooper, Mike Evans. That's five terrific players, one pretty damn good one in Smith and again, Kevin White, Corey Davis, Mike Williams (from Clemson to the Chargers), John Ross, Drake London and Sammy Watkins. That's why you don't make such massive trade-ups unless you're doing it for a franchise QB. GMs tend to get carried away by their surety in their own abilities. And that's fools gold. Very very very few are genuine sure things. That's why Massey and Thaler and all of their inheritors say what they say. The data says tradeups that big are desperate, not to be made except for a franchise QB, as drafting a possible franchise QB is worth the prospect of a possible catastrophic failure, because you pretty much can't win without one.

It's certainly not impossible. IMO we shouldn't do it. And - again in my opinion - we won't.

Suddenly you're breaking this down into two deals. That's just a form of spin. You posed it as one deal. That's how I read it. And no. The Bills should not take that. Again, if they did that, they'd be paying $49M on this year's cap for Metcalf and Diggs elsewhere. That major cap hit means we would have to leave holes unfilled. And a greatly reduced chance of bringing in other good players at reasonable cost because you've emptied the early parts of these two drafts. That's part of what this deal's results would be. We'd have great WRs for the future, but be weaker in several places elsewhere. Deals aren't made in a vacuum. You can't ignore the Bills' cap and roster situation. As the cap and the roster currently stand, strong pass.

Did he say that he was JUST tall and fast? Or is that you just paraphrasing badly? Nobody doubts his speed or his height, they're terrific, but he does have other good traits. But he's got some question marks also. He's not great at separation on short and mid-range routes, he's not a very sudden explosive cutter. And there are questions about how he'd handle parts of the route tree against NFL DBs.

Man, you frightened me there. I thought I'd misread the post. Went back and checked it. It's the 2024 1st rounder and the 2025 1st as well, plus the other picks. For Brian Thomas, no I am not. Even throw in the right to pay Metcalf $18M and I'm not.

You talk the way you talk. I'll talk the way I talk. OK? You've summed up the results perfectly. For one guy, we'd have traded away two firsts and two seconds, getting a (considerably better) first in return, when we don't have a third round pick that first year.. That's absolutely the heart of two drafts, in exchange for one player. Who, like it or not might turn out to be a Kevin White, Corey Davis, Mike Williams (from Clemson to the Chargers), John Ross, Drake London or a Sammy Watkins, though all of those guys were thought of quite a bit more highly than Brian Thomas. Bray, I am sorry, though, I didn't see Metcalf in your original post. My fault. But while I would like the results at WR, it would leave even larger gaps elsewhere because we'd be spending $49M on this year's cap for the WR combination of DK Metcalf and Stefon Diggs catching balls from Stroud. That's about 25% of our cap this year for two receivers, only one of whom is actually on the team. IMO if you give up that treasure trove of picks, you're going to need your FA money to fill in the holes.

Very much this. I'm sure he's got a plan. But it's unlikely to be the kind of huge splash folks on here would like it to be. IMO it won't be trading for Aiyuk or someone of that sort, but my guess is that kind of move is more likely than the huge move in the draft so many here want. Guess we'll see.

Oh, agreed that Thomas Junior might be there. But he's just not worth giving up nearly that much for. Not that that any non-QB is. But Thomas Jr. sure isn't.

So, the 1st and 2nd round picks in a draft when you don't have a 3rd rounder, and then the 1st and one of the two second rounders the next year is NOT the heart of two drafts? It absolutely is. And you think we're going to get one of the top three WRs at 16? I mean, it's not impossible, but the likelihood of those three making it past about #10 or #12 is really slim. I'd love to get some of what you're smoking. Quick question: What do these players have in common? Kevin White, Corey Davis, Mike Williams (from Clemson to the Chargers), John Ross, Drake London and Sammy Watkins? All WRs chosen in the top ten picks in the last ten years. We tend to think "a top ten guy, he'll be a Ja'Marr Chase." And that ain't necessarily so. There are some very good WRs chosen in the top ten of those same drafts. But more who never justified the pick. For those curious, here are all the rest of the top ten in those ten years: Chase, Waddle, DeVonta Smith, Garrett Wilson, Amari Cooper, Mike Evans. That's five terrific players, one pretty damn good one in Smith and again, Kevin White, Corey Davis, Mike Williams (from Clemson to the Chargers), John Ross, Drake London and Sammy Watkins. That's why you don't make such massive trade-ups unless you're doing it for a franchise QB. GMs tend to get carried away by their surety in their own abilities. And that's fools gold. Very very very few are genuine sure things. That's why Massey and Thaler and all of their inheritors say what they say. The data says tradeups that big are desperate, not to be made except for a franchise QB, as drafting a possible franchise QB is worth the prospect of a possible catastrophic failure, because you pretty much can't win without one.

It's really not. It would be great. But not worth that price tag. And there are guys after the top three who will have a good chance at being standouts. Remember the Falcons. Went 14-2, seemed in a ton better shape as a roster than this Bills group does, made the same kind of huge tradeup you folks are talking about for Julio. And Julio was a fantastic WR. 2010: 13-3 without Julio 2011: traded for Julio, gutting the next two drafts, went 10-6 2012: 13-3 2013: 4-12 2014: 6-10 2015: 8-8 2016: 11-5, lost the Super Bowl. This was the year when they could have totally validated that trade. But they didn't. 2017: 10-6 2018: 7-9 Most times when you think you're only one guy away and the guy is a non-QB, you're wrong.

You can get playmakers and game changers without trading up to the top ten. You just can. And this is a year for WRs when it looks like there are likely to be some game changers available in the 20s and probably even into round two, maybe even round three. As for not many holes, who's our LB depth? Do you really think the interior OL is solid with a guy who hasn't played more than a few dozen snaps at center since high school playing center? LG looks a bit questionable as well. Neither of the guys we've got lined up to play safety right now has ever settled in as a starter consistently in any of the teams they've been on. And our pass rush does NOT look good right now with last year's leading sacker gone. We've got some real spots to fill. This lineup isn't a disaster, but if they don't fill some of these gaps and depth needs as well, we'll see the results on the field.

Bringing in FAs doesn't make up for losing VERY IMPORTANT picks. It's not just "a few picks." It's the heart of the draft fro two years in a row. Teams are built through the draft. You need a good solid percentage of the draft picks to hit. You need those guys who'll be here for four or five years minimum at a very reasonable price. That's how teams are built, and it's not just me saying so, it's Beane as well.

You say you're sure he has a plan? Absolutely. Not even a question. You say you're sure his plan is a shocker? Not convinced. Maybe and maybe not.

The receivers would be great, but we have more than one need and would be handicapped in the draft for two years. No, thanks.

Um, yeah, no, that's utterly wrong. McD is still here because he's terrific. Rex is gone because he was becoming outright unprofessional.

We'd have been and would be much worse.

Creative thinking, yes. "Not his style" to stand pat in the first? He's done so twice, for Rousseau and Oliver. His style is to do different things in different years. Nothing's impossible, but worth pointing out yet again that he has followed the strategy that the academics (Massey and Thaler, Harvard Sports Collective, and all the rest) say best maximizes your chances of draft success. I'm sure you already know this, Shaw, but the studies all say that you can trade up, but not if it involves giving up large draft assets such as extra first or second round picks. They do point out the exception, which is trading up for a franchise QB. So Beane has followed that. Doesn't mean he will always do so. Seems likely to me, personally. Yes, but again we are talking about small moves up, a couple of places, except for the move up for Josh Allen, which he'd prepared for the year before, trading way back to get an extra first in case he needed it. And again, he stood pat for Oliver and Rousseau, both really good moves. So Beane has followed the Massey and Thaler wisdom each and every year.

Love the receiver. IMO probably too expensive. My guess is they bring in a significantly cheaper guy, probably an X who's a #2 in free agency. And one or two more in the draft. Certainly they could bring in Aiyuk if they wanted to. The question is whether it would be smart. That would depend on the contract. But he'll be expensive.

Adonai or Chop. Can't make up my mind between the two. If that means I don't get a vote, fair enough.

You don't think I understand that figure of speech, sour grapes? Well, you're wrong about that. That's a stone fact. It's a stone fact that defenders don't always tell the truth about how they covered a guy. Diggs had safeties coming over the top of him all year long, even if it wasn't man to man. And why not? He was by far our best WR. In this year's playoff game against the Chiefs, it's a fact that on the play with 5:47 in the 4th quarter he had two guys within a step or to of him and Josh threw it to him anyway, that on the 4th down completion to Shakir on the left at 4:45, Diggs is the only guy on the right side or going there and when Shakir cuts back the guy who ran with him is staring right at Diggs, the only guy on that side and he doesn't notice Shakir cut back until way too late. Man-to-man coverage and Diggs ends up with two guys around him, Shakir none. It's a fact that on the next pass play, at 3:19 and 3rd and 4 Diggs is alone on the right side, tight to the line and they've got trips on the left. The safety on the left comes down to cover one of the trips, leaving one safety deep. Diggs collects his CB, an LB who heads towards him despite him being the only guy on that side, and the deep safety stays in the middle, leaving a ton of room for Sherfield to convert. Here: And those four around him don't include the safety still on Diggs' side behind all these guys. I mean, I guess the Chiefs don't consider this double teaming, since they didn't do that? Again, Diggs was the only receiver on that side. I went to watch the crucial drive at the end, the one that ended with the missed field goal. I watched specifically the first few plays and described above. The coverage was absolutely focused on Diggs. That's a fact.

"as most attest"? Jeez, I should be in bed. What is wrong with me. Josh has been the leader from about halfway through his first season. He's been one of the five or six best players in the league for three or four years. There has always been plenty of oxygen for him. Beane has made it very clear for years now that he asks Josh's opinions on major moves. Might he have had to walk on eggshells - as I saw someone else say above - a bit around Diggs? Yeah, maybe. But this has been Josh's team - he's been the unquestioned leader - for a very long time.