Thurman#1

They made it clear what a QB needs in their system. One thing. He has to be able to play from the pocket. Tyrod can't. The whole point of a bridge QB is that he's there to make the future better. The way to do that is to play decent ball (Tyrod can do this), and to allow the offense to put in the offense and run it and practice it so that when the new guy comes in the whole offense has had a year or more of time to run the offense, to ingrain it, to make it second nature. Tyrod can't do this. You yourself say they would have to put together an offense that would maximize the strengths of TT. That's NOT what a bridge QB does, force you to build an offense around him that you'll then have to change when he's gone. If they have a bridge guy it's likely to be someone like Fitz or McCown or Foles or Bradford or even if we're lucky Bridgewater. A guy who can run the offense these coaches want to input and be using for the foreseeable future.

You can fill holes in FA in ways that don't cost you comp picks. It's how the Pats have traditionally used FA, as well as Green Bay, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, etc. Comp picks count, especially so now that they're tradeable. Smart teams value them and can work around losing them while still bringing in good (though not the top, most expensive) FAs. The best teams in football, the ones who win consistently, disagree with you. But if it's any comfort, most of the others do go along with you. The best teams in football maximize their comp picks and lead the league when you start to look at two or three years or more all put together. No, it's not the biggest piece of the puzzle. But it's one piece. And again, it's not comp picks vs. getting suitable free agents. Some free agents don't hurt you on the comp pick formula. It's not an either-or. Smart teams can do both.

Funny stuff, mon.

Some drafts are deep. Some are shallow. Some are deep and shallow at certain positions. Like the unbelievably deep WR draft in 2014. The year we traded up for Sammy Watkins. And later end up with another guy from the same draft, Kelvin Benjamin. This year is a deep QB draft. That's not an opinion I came up with myself. It's what the GMs are saying, the pundits, everyone. Those four or five drafts you looked at ... they weren't deep at QB. This one is. And of course a GM should pick the one or two or three guys he thinks he wants, that will fit the team and the scheme and the situation. Of course you shouldn't just grab anyone from the pile. But the reason this draft is different is that it has a bigger bunch of guys with a better shot at success than you have in your usual draft class.

Here's a clear and extremely in-depth article on it. It's not quite as easy as suggested above. https://overthecap.com/the-basics-and-methodology-of-projecting-the-nfls-compensatory-draft-picks/

I disagree with your disagreement about it being luck. There was a lot of luck involved I would argue. Yeah, the Broncos were 2-0 when we beat them. In their first game of the year, Denver had beaten a Chargers team that lost its first four games and a Cowboys team that started at 2-3 and those two wins were only the Giants and Cardinals. That win looked a lot better at the time than it turned out to be. Same with the Falcons win. Atlanta looked pretty good the first couple of games, but a bit weaker against the Lions and then we were lucky enough to see Julio Jones get injured in our game on top of having lost Sanu, Beasley and their RT, can't remember his name. After Julio's injury they only scored seven in a half and a bit more. Also, the Falcons lost to Miami the next week at home in Atlanta too. The fact that you're boasting about a win over the Colts to me kinda sums up the whole thing. I agree that McDermott did a fine job, but he also got very lucky with the schedule (opponents cumulative win-loss was well below even and we hit the better teams at very good times).

Agree with most of this, but two comments. First, it was very clear who was calling the shots in the 2017 offseason. It's been reported on again and again from many different sources and letting Whaley go instantly after the draft only made the obvious even more so. McDermott was calling the shot as the Pegulas loved what McDermott did almost instantly and the power quickly devolved on him. Second, very recently there was an interview with Beane about comp picks. He values them. "I will be very cognizant of the comp formula," Beane said at the end of the season. "When I walked in, it was too far to really do much with it. But I do believe in it and we'll definitely pay attention to it when it makes sense." http://buffalonews.com/2018/02/03/inside-the-bills-how-gm-brandon-beane-views-the-changing-nature-of-free-agency/

You could definitely be right that it's smoke. But are you actually saying that you think it doesn't fit their draft to build through the draft because Beane stated that he will built through the draft? That makes no sense at all. Bringing in Rosen would be building through the draft. People here want us to safeguard those picks against being used to trade up when that is almost certainly what they were acquired for.

I'm on board for most of this. I'd call it the way to start to build the Bills into a champion. It'll take a lot more time, moves and sweat. But yeah, this'd be a good start. Don't see them getting Poe, though. Too big a ticket. They seem to want to build through the draft, and not sign high-dollar FAs off other teams. I agree with Hapless that that probably won't get us up to #2. I'd guess you'd have a chance if you also threw in Cordy Glenn.

The Falcons thought Favre was a drunk and an idiot, which he was that year. Cleaned up his act pretty well, but he was a problem for the Falcs. And the Chargers knew Brees had serious injury issues and a good chance of never being healthy again. If he'd been healthy things might have been very very different there. But yeah, there are some better examples, like the Packers letting Kurt Warner go (no, he wouldn't have beaten out Favre, but might have been kept and traded for serious value if he'd developed) or the Bucs letting Steve Young go in that trade. Garoppolo over the aging Brady may well turn out to be a classic example. I hope so.

That'd be my guess too. I think they learned that sometimes paying a QB can be a fine draft smokescreen. And that if you're gonna pay a guy to be a bridge / backup you might have to pay a bit more than you'd like, but you ought to handle it like the Bears did so that you only have $4.5 mill in dead money if you cut him before the second year.

Matt Waldman has done some of his usual excellent breakdowns on Lamar Jackson. https://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2017/07/18/rsp-boiler-room-no-101-qb-lamar-jackson-louisville-drops-and-accuracy/ https://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2017/12/30/rsp-film-room-no-119-qbs-lamar-jackson-and-josh-allen-in-the-pocket/

Accuracy certainly can be taught to some degree. Rodgers has gotten more accurate, Brady, a bunch of others. But yeah, some guys never get more accurate. It's absolutely not a sure thing. But it could happen, particularly if the accuracy issues are based on fundamentals problems like bad footwork, which indeed can be fixed. I'm up in the air on Jackson. I'd rather see them trade up and get one of the top three. Or Cousins for that matter, though I just don't see that happening with the FO's M.O. established as build through the draft and be conservative fiscally. But if they don't get any of those, I'd be willing to root for Lamar. But they'd be making a big bet on him. Whoever they pick will color the FO's legacy. Can Jackson throw from the pocket, their one stated necessity for a QB? From what I see from people like Matt Waldman, he can.

Ah, someone necro-bumped an old thread. And you're boasting about production in the OT game where they played 47 seconds less than five full quarters? Gotcha. Well, your post wasn't as dumb as it initially appeared but still jousting at windmills, or in this case straw men. You said Tyrod was "considered a lock to be out of town with zero games left to make his case." Nonsense. I suppose some people were saying that, but in no way was it a lock. Peterman was widely considered as being given his chance, but nobody knew for sure what would happen or if Tyrod would be back. "Like it or not he could be back in the lineup at any moment," you said? Yeah, the possibility surely existed. Hell, on this thread from before Peterman's meltdown, in the three posts in November that commented on whether Tyrod would see more time in 2017, one guy said "highly doubtful" and two said yeah it was possible. What really was considered as being huge about the substitution is that it seemed to show McD's opinion about Tyrod and make it very likely he wouldn't be back the next year. Which is still true. Rapoport's tweet makes more sense from November than now, but wouldn't be surprised to see the Bills floating the same kind of smoke/trial balloon again soon. "Get him while you can before we have to pay the bonus, because we might keep him. Anybody? Anybody?"

Offers change. And they certainly change, or appear or disappear, after milestones like the bonus. Nobody's going to see them at the combine and say, "We'll give you a 7th. But if you hold onto him and pay the bonus, then we'll give you a 4th a couple of months from now." The Bills will be blind about what they can get after paying the bonus. At least until they - theoretically - pay the bonus. The argument I referred to is whether the Bills would pay the bonus and then trade him. So as I said, if they pay that bonus it likely means they are willing to see him on the roster for another year, though that might change with a really nice offer. A group this fiscally conservative is unlikely to bluff by paying $6 mill. Which is why it appears improbable that they would pay the bonus. Which would make this rumor a feint, released by the Bills, trying to convince teams that if they want Tyrod they'd better get him before the bonus. That's my guess. Could be wrong, but that's by far the most likely explanation.

Those stats came from 15 games. 10 of those games were from his first year when teams hadn't yet figured out how to defense him. And the five games from last year were against teams that ranked - I'm doing this from memories of a day or two ago so I may be off a spot or two but not by much - in defensive passer rating 14th, 15th, 17th, 30th and 31st. They were not good pass defences.

It's interesting, the NYC writer's first question is a command to, "Tell me why Baker Mayfield and New York City would be a perfect marriage." And Mayfield laughs. And says he'd love to go to Cleveland if they draft him. The Post's headline, about "NYC Love" was more than a bit ridiculous, but thanks for posting it, as the rest of the article was pretty interesting. I don't think there was any NYC love there except maybe of the "I'd love anyone who drafted me" type.

No, they'll know whether they can get an offer at that time by the end of the combine.

Seriously? Is that an actual question? Why wouldn't another team give an honest answer now about what they'll give after the bonus is due? Same reason you don't show your cards in poker before you bet. And especially not halfway through a betting round when the next guy to pay or fold is your opponent.

Yup. That's the traditional wisdom, and for very good reason. Never ever trade up, always trade down, unless you're going after a franchise quarterback. Oh, wait.

It's not that small of a deal either. And no team is going to tell them what they would give in trade before they pay that bonus. If they pay the $6 mill, they will have to do it blind. The new regime is fiscally conservative. What level pick would they think would be worth $6 mill? A 3rd? A 4th? A 5th? And if they do pay that $6 mill, it'll mean $13.64 mill in dead money, for a team that's already got $18.68 mill in dead money. Would that be an all-time record? If not, it'd be pretty close, I'd guess. It's possible. I'd argue it's not likely at all. If they pay that $6 mill, my guess is that they would have to be willing to see him on the roster for another year unless they get a very nice little offer.

Really? The Bills had their biggest offensive yardage production day ever this year? Which day was that? 'Cause I'd have thought the 488 against the 9ers in 1992 would've been at least one game higher than anything they did this year, or the 490 the same year against the Pats. Or the 537 the year before against the Steelers. Or the 582 that same year, 1991, against the Dolphins. Glad to find out we did even better this year, reaching "their biggest offensive yardage production day ever." Wow!!! Which game was that again, this year? And how many passing yards did Tyrod have to add to this massive outburst?

Again, he wasn't a bust. The eye thing does seem to have been behind his switch in position. It was an eye problem. And while he could see, it wasn't clear that he could pick up a ball the same way as he had before.

Not sure what you mean by "clean draft." But GMs getting their franchise QB in their first draft are actually a fairly common thing. Makes perfect sense, really, and seems very likely that it's why McD acquired the extra picks in the first place. Whether the guy they want will be available is another question, of course, as is how far we'll be able to trade up.

I'm not saying I know they are interested, though it certainly seems reasonable, and it should count that Galko correctly had the Bills after Trubisky last year. Anyway, I was replying to someone who said that the Bills wouldn't be able to trade up that far. And there's definitely a solid chance they could. If they want to. As to who his source is, that's not generally how sources work. It's reasonable to have doubts, though. Could be a smoke screen. But IMHO the fact that the same people said Trubisky last year makes it more credible.