Thurman#1

Yeah, and I was trying to say that it was genuinely dumb to think the 2016 Bills could have won the Super Bowl with a different coach, which is what the OP actually said. That maybe that would have been possible only if we had brought in the entire Denver Broncos defense. And frankly very unlikely even then, let me add now. Say what you want to say, but don't reply to me if you're not going to ... you know ... reply to what I was talking about.

That's not "knowing." It's "believing." There has never been any problems reported by coaches or OCs with Rosen. What has been reported is that he has asked a ton of questions about why things are done. Not that he's been oppositional. Just that he keeps trying to fully understand. Nothing wrong with that in terms of process. I don't know what they'll do. I hope they trade up, hopefully to #2, and get their choice. That's my guess. It seems by far the most likely reason they've been gathering so many picks in a year touted for a year and a half as a good one for QBs.

I live in Japan. Visited Cambodia last year for a conference. Incredible country. Man, were the people nice, and I was knocked out that they use dollars. Cracked me up. I was also really impressed at the variety of food and restaurants available in Phnom Penh. I had some goooooooooooood meals there.

Did you reply to the wrong person? Your post has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Yeah. The game has to be changed. They're giving them a chance to bring down the injuries. If they can't, this makes sense. The article mentions that a lot of injuries occurred even on touchbacks, before the ball is whistled dead. Interesting thinking but it wouldn't appear to address the problem. And I don't agree that onside kicks would be much more worth it ten yards down. Teams would be even more and better prepared for onside kicks as they'd be the only reason to have a real kick.

They figured things out after those three games. Yeah, three horrible games. Followed by a bunch that were pretty decent. In any case, getting a franchise QB is worth a bad year or two. The alternative is perhaps dozens of mediocre years till you get a QB. If they can get one of the top three guys, a guy they think can be a franchise QB, go ahead. Give away an awful lot. It'd be worth it. Exactly.

Please. Glenn has been a consistently good player. He didn't mail in squat. He had injury problems. This would seem to be a win-win.

Yup. Alshon Jeffery had 367 yards his first year. Some guys don't need time. Plenty do. Tyrell Williams, Enunwa. Agholor. Amendola and Cooks. Edelman managed a total of 734 his first year. Oh, wait, that was his first four years put together. You're right. Folks who argue this just don't get it.

The ability to run is a great thing if you add it to a pocket passer. But there's a problem with guys who are sensational athletes playing QB. And the problem is that if they're confused, if they miss something downfield and they run, they make big plays and the cheerleaders make goo-goo eyes at them and so does everyone else. And they get nothing but rewards through high school and college for leaving the pocket early, for leaving open receivers unthrown-to and scoring TDs with their feet. And they develop the bad habit of running at the first sign of trouble. And in the NFL the athletes they're up against are better than they've ever faced and they aren't as effective at creating off broken plays, and yet their mental habit is to leave the pocket at the first sign of a problem because it's what has served them best all their lives. This can drive OCs insane because it negates the tactical advantages of a good passing playbook. Now, some guys can develop and figure it out. Young is one. And maybe Cam Newton, though it's early and hard to know how his career will go. Will he lose his ability to escape, juke and outrun people as he gets older and the injuries mount? Will he be able to change his style of play if that happens? It can be done, but it means you've got to make a huge adjustment that most guys have already made earlier in their careers, getting used to working effectively in the pocket, retraining yourself to stay there. Oh, and for those saying it's been proven that scramblers don't get injured more often than pocket guys, you have to look at exactly what was examined in that study. They looked at percentage of games lost to injury. They didn't look at how long careers lasted and were they cut short. If they pick Jackson I'll be cheering for him. If they do, I hope they sit him for a year or two and work on developing new habits. Of course, I hope they do the same thing if they draft Rosen or Mayfield or whoever. None of these guys except maybe Darnold seems as completely ready as I'd like. I'm willing to believe, particularly as Matt Waldman, a very smart evaluator, has really good things to say about Jackson. I'd rather have some of the higher-rated guys. But I'm not as smart as Beane. But even smart GMs aren't perfect. In the long run I just hope they pick someone who can be a franchise QB, which in the system the Bills want to run absolutely means he has to be able to effectively pass from the pocket on a very consistent basis. Maybe Jackson can. I hope so. Myself, I'd rather have Rosen, Darnold or Mayfield, even if it means giving up an awful lot in trade.

Nope. Two years had passed. At that point he was a guy looking like he might be a bust ... but that part of the blame for that might rest on the team for playing him at the wrong position. You're a bust three to four years down the line. Not before, unless you're out of the league. Except for trading up for a franchise QB shot, that's correct. This.

Oh, and here I was taking you seriously. Win the Super Bowl? Maybe if they'd switched defensive rosters with Denver. Good grief.

Folk, in that case, would include yourself. Again, there is no such thing as can't miss. Even Luck, Elway and Newton had faults. The idea that only guys who are no doubt #1 picks should be coveted is just dumb. It ignores the fact that some drafts don't have a guy like that and some have several. And this is one of the ones with several. It's not a mistake that the odds look pretty good that QBs will go 1-2-3. This is that good a year. The reason nobody stands out is that they're all really good. There's just the right amount of QB euphoria for a year when there are maybe four QBs who will probably go in the top ten or twelve and maybe as many as five or even six in the first round.

This isn't a fact, it's an opinion. A guess, really. Nothing wrong with guessing, either, except when you start to write stuff like, "we're not trading up to #2," when actually you just don't know anymore than the rest of us do. Only 3 of 7? Rivers, Ryan and Bortles? Wow, and here I thought Wentz was kinda OK. And maybe Mariota and Trubisky as well. Yeah, but that group of picks wouldn't get us the #2. Or rather, that would be a huge bargain in terms of tradeups into the top five, a huge bargain.

"Is it worth surrounding one of those guys with a sub par team to get one?" No. But do we have to do that, even if we spend a lot of picks? No. Does the guy need to even see the field this year? No, not if they think it won't help him. There's free agency, there's trades. And we've finally attacked the horrible cap situation Whaley put this team in and have a ton of room for FAs next year. But Kiper's words here ignore part of the issue, which is style of play. And yeah, that's part of the decision. Which QB would fit the system best? Which worst? That is a huge factor in deciding which QB you want, ignored by Kiper as it should be because he doesn't have team constraints to worry about. It ignores another factor as well which is that while you may have close ratings on the six, a GM doesn't keep his job by managing to get one of the six QBs who are generally rated the highest before the draft. He keeps his job by managing to get one of the QBs who becomes a franchise QB. That's how he will be judged. People don't say, "Well, he got Losman and Losman was seen as one of the top four in that draft." They don't say, "He managed to draft the second-highest-rated guy that year, Ryan Leaf." They don't say, "In a year when there were clearly two guys all alone in an echelon of their own, Washington's pick of RGIII was a really good strong move. Excellent judgment." Through today's lens, getting one of the top six without giving up a lot might seem a victory. Three to five years from now, only having gotten a franchise QB will be seen as an acceptable outcome. Their jobs depend on it. And those jobs will depend on picking the correct one of the six, the one who has the makeup to succeed and to do so within the system of the Buffalo Bills offense.

People questioned Elway and Luck too. But all three were about as close as you'll get to faultless in a world where faultless doesn't exist.

This. Elway, Peyton and Luck. And after that there are guys with faults that have a good to decent chance to make it, but no near-sure things. And yeah, to those who've said so, yeah this thread is unnecessary and wildly repetitive. But like it or not there's an appetite for things like this.

Yes, it really was a complete rebuild. Or as close as makes no difference. And yeah the team before had been nearly .500 consistently. That's the best reason for a rebuild. Keep reloading and you'll stay .500 and never get the high draft picks you need to bring in a QB in particular and impact players in general. It makes a successful rebuild harder, because your first draft is around #10 or #11. Much nicer if the last guy left you an absolute tire fire, but consistent mediocrity doesn't argue against a rebuild at all. And no, the Jauron Bills were never a dumpster fire. They were a classic example of sustained mediocrity, all 7-9s except for one 6-10. Yeah, again, three years is generally enough time for a GM to show progress. The exception is when there's a complete rebuild. And I don't think I am lenient on GMs. I think most of ours have sucked since Polian, Nix being the best (or second-best behind Butler, who at least knew players but absolutely destroyed the cap) of a bad bunch and even he wasn't great, just solid. (Not including Beane in the group as he still gets an incomplete.) Bringing in the bad Whaley being maybe the biggest hit to Nix's legacy here.

Fine. In the same spirit, might I suggest you don't bother the rest of us with your policies. Does that sound too sharp? Exactly. If you're not interested in something, click on to the next thing. He spent like two paragraphs saying to feel free not to read it.

Yeah, you're right. But Wentz and Goff also weren't the best players in the draft their year. Laremy Tunsil was on most boards as the best player that year. Bosa too. Here's Gil Brandt's top 100 that year. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000652753/article/hot-100-40-laremy-tunsil-is-top-prospect-in-2016-nfl-draft Wentz is #7 and Goff #8. PFF had Bosa #1, Goff #4 and Wentz #14. Think the Eagles and Rams are just full of remorse that they didn't pick the higher rated Tunsil, Jalen Ramsey, Zeke Elliott, Bosa, Myles Jack before his injury and DeForest Buckner. I bet they don't wake up at night regretting they traded up for the #7 and #8 players.

Brady isn't $15 mill per year. Check Spotrac. It's $20.5 mill per year. His signing bonus was $28 mill. And yeah, $20.5 mill is still a major break off what he could get if he wanted, but it's not some miniscule amount. And those moves are mostly not so much how he wanted to build the team (though it may fit perfectly with the fiscally conservative model he has talked about from day one), it was a guy being dropped onto a team that was in terrible cap shape, particularly for a team that simply wasn't very good. Whaley trashed the cap. For a team that wasn't very good and a seriously middling roster. And we now know that Beane promised the Pegulas he would get rid of all the cap problems within two years. Which he appears to have done. That's the $46 mill in dead cap. I love it. What they're doing simply fits in with the traditional way of building a good team, the way the smart teams have used, the way the worse teams have never had the patience to stick with. You get in good cap shape. You build mostly through the draft, supplementing and filling holes with low- to mid-priced FAs. You maximize the number of picks by using arbitrage opportunities, by trading back, by focusing on the rules for comp picks and maximizing the number of those you get. And still that's not enough, because you've got to get a good coach, get the GM and coach on the same page, do a good job with your scouting, get football people on the player personnel side, and nobody else. Then once you've got a good group you have to take advantage of the many benefits of keeping one system in place for a long time, the benefits of stability of system and scheme. And then you hang in there for what might be a while. You don't let short term thinking derail your long-term movement towards your long-term goals. You don't overreact to the inevitable bumps along the way. You trust the process. Do all that and if you have the right guys in charge (and you get a quarterback somehow) you might start to be consistently in the mix for a championship. That's not some new game plan based on the rookie salaries. It's how to run a great team, has been for decades. Not that you're wrong about rookie salaries, you're right. It has it's effect, it is something good teams keep in mind. But it doesn't change the way the good teams work very much.

Again, the negative story didn't say we didn't contact them. It said there had been no "discussions." There is room for all three stories to be correct.

Explain? Be glad to. Nix presided over a near-complete rebuild. That means you're going to lose for a while. A very small percentage of teams in that position do well in the third year but probably 75% still suck. It generally takes three years of suckage to get past the effects of a complete rebuild. Hope that makes it clear. During those three years Nix put together a roster that in the fourth year and fifth years was a very strong defence with almost all Nix players. The whole roster was really pretty decent when he left. With one major, painful exception at QB, an exception that is a lot of the reason that Buddy can't be considered very good overall. That and bringing in Whaley who turned out to be pretty terrible. QB and the new GM were the main things that tarnish his otherwise very solid legacy. His coaching decisions also had some problems but nobody wanted to come here at that point. He was handcuffed. Mario was very very good. Not quite worth the contract he signed, but not that far away either. Till that last year anyway.

While I think you make some good points here about how contracts have changed, I think you miss on the most important issue. You seem to be saying that to win the SB you've got to have a QB who's "exceptional value" because of the new rookie wage scale. OK, history doesn't back that up. The new wage scale started in 2011. Since then, how many QBs who were exceptional value were on the SB-winning teams. 2011 Giants - Eli was certainly not on his rookie contract 2012 Ravens - You can argue this one either way, it was Flacco's rookie contract but his fifth year. He was making pretty good money that year, though not what he would make after winning the SB and getting that new contract 2013 Seahawks - Wilson was on his rookie salary, absolutely exceptional value 2014 Patriots - Brady costs less than most terrific QBs but his salary isn't anywhere near rookie contract value 2015 Broncos - Manning was not cheap 2016 Pats - Brady again 2017 Eagles - Wentz was a terrific value That's two teams since the collective bargaining agreement that have won with a QB an exceptional value, though you can make an argument for Flacco too. This isn't the slam dunk you seem to be presenting it as. Yes, overall it matters. No it is certainly not crucial to have a QB on his rookie contract if you want to win the SB, even in these days. But it is crucial to have a QB playing at a very high level. Teams without that win SBs rarely, roughly 10% of all SBs.

The Vikings are indeed a good example but they're an example of why you need a QB. How many Super Bowl titles there? They overdrafted Bridgewater, and it might've worked if not for the injury, so now in their desperation they're wildly overpaying Cousins. And it's a good move. You've got to have a QB. How many SBs have the Bengals won? There are a lot of paths to very good. Very few to Super Bowl championships. Generally speaking you need one of the top ten or so best QBs.

Yeah. He talks about learning this (never overdraft anyone) in the Seattle and Green Bay scouting staffs. Green Bay already had their QB. Once you have your QB, yeah, don't overdraft. Seattle got lucky that nobody overdrafted Russell Wilson. If someone had been smart enough to do that, Seattle would never have won a SB.