Thurman#1

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.

Interesting. I hadn't remembered that he started as a receiver. But you're not a draft bust when the reason you have problems is a completely unpredictable health problem, in this case an eye condition. Your scouts didn't make a mistake. You're just unlucky, the player and the team both.

It could easily happen, especially if they throw in Cordy Glenn as Galko suggests they might.

Bucky was a defensive back, not a receiver. And while he started slow he was actually starting to improve and look decent when they found he had an eye problem which was preventing him from focusing on the ball in the air. If I remember correctly he had surgery but never really fully recovered from that setback. Gotta admit I don't see the irony either.

And their record said they were a non-playoff team in a very weak division with an extremely easy schedule, a year after they went 16-0 with Brady against a tough schedule. Brady has been a huge part of their success there. I'm so happy we dodged a bullet with Garoppolo being traded. Thank you, Mr. Kraft.

No. I'm a big fan of taking a lot of shots at QB. But certainly not two in the first. It's like when you have a rose. Wanna develop the blossoms? You have to prune off the majority and keep doing so. The plant only has enough energy to truly support a few blossoms. One of those guys would turn into a long-term development prospect, a guy who wouldn't get enough reps to know what you had till three or four years down the road. And while you can do that with a lower pick, doing it with a #1 would be a poor use of resources. On the other hand, using both those picks for a QB (by trading up) makes a ton of sense.

It it dies - and it could - it's likely to be a longer term thing. The short term and the longer term don't always line up. More, I seem to recall one or two cases previous of television executives making bad decisions. Maybe I'm just imagining that, maybe they've always been perfect.

https://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2017/07/18/rsp-boiler-room-no-101-qb-lamar-jackson-louisville-drops-and-accuracy/ Waldman's breakdowns are generally pretty terrific. Points out areas that need improvement. He seems to be more positive about Jackson than he is about Allen, for instance, at least on this breakdown (he has several and often compares the two). Sees a real likelihood of development in his game, which is a real positive.

It's not entirely different. Some years college's best player is the best pro. But yeah, it's hard to predict, especially at QB. Mayfield was the best QB in college. PFF be damned. Pretty much everyone thinks so. It's how he'll transition to the NFL that is the question. And there's a very decent argument that he might turn out to be the best in this draft. Or not. But it's not a stupid opinion either way. If it was such a no-brainer how come he lasted till 12? It was a calculated risk same as nearly all of them are. I don't think you can guarantee squat off what we know. Yeah, McBeane values character. But there's a very legitimate argument that Mayfield has it in the important areas, that character isn't really a problem for him. Of course, there's an argument the other way, too. But again, both are legit.No, he's not a choirboy and no he's not classy, but you can be a character-filled person without being either, really. I don't think we've seen enough from McDermott or Beane yet to know exactly how they feel about this kid. He's divisive. It's not like he's JaMarcus Russell.