Thurman#1

Don't be ridiculous. It doesn't need to be a conspiracy. Just a widely repeated rumor. Where are the cases of reporters saying "I spoke to several of his teammates and they said bad things, but wouldn't give their names"? I don't even see any of those stories. It's just guys hearing it from many sources, but not direct sources, from what I can figure. I haven't read all the coverage, nor am I interested enough to do so. So I'm serious that I'm willing to be convinced ... but the story has to be convincing. Not just, "I've heard that ..." And there are plenty of ways for teammates to not strongly endorse a guy without fully throwing him under the bus. Asked about Josh Rosen you could say, "I'm proud of all my teammates. I'd run through a wall for these guys." Or, "Josh is just Josh. He's his own man. He's a hell of a quarterback and he won a lot of games for us." You avoid talking directly about the guy himself. You use only cliches. And you withhold praise in the specific area you're asked about. There are ways to do it. And it doesn't appear that that's what Rosen's teammates are doing. There are concerns about Rosen. Injuries, his problems with deep ball accuracy, concussions. I'm not pounding the table for him or anything. But until we get much better info than I've seen there's no reason to worry about his leadership skills.

It's not something new ... so you have old cases where anyone said anything bad about him? I think we'll wait for those too. The rumor about Catherine the Great and what she did with horses is pretty old too. No truth to it, but it's old. Whether a rumor is old or not is irrelevant, the point is whether it's true. And there simply isn't any evidence that this one has any reality to it. Unless you can find some evidence, new or old, supporting it. And I guarantee that he will. Wow. Does that mean the world is going to explode when one of us is found to be wrong? Or just that guaranteeing something you have no control over whatsoever is butt-stupid and is basically an over-confident guess? Now, see, that's fair enough. My guess is that he is if he stays healthy, but I just don't know.

OP, post the link. Otherwise it never happened.

What does "per ESPN" mean? The guy who sold you cable? EDIT: Ah, I see, people looked it up and found it was speculation. This is why you need to post the LINK.

Yup, that was so right on target.

No idea what you mean by all this. But my point stands. The Falcons forced their way through some dry years caused by things like the lack of picks from the Julio trade and so on. But the 8-8 2015 Falcons had a lot fewer holes than the 6-10 2014 Falcons or the 4-12 2013 Falcons. That was the opposite of a one-year turnaround. It was a team improving, getting better, till it started to come together and they could show how good they are. True one-year turnarounds are rare and often lucky things. Sometimes results of a particularly bad or good schedule and something else happening. A good example was the 2007, 2008 and 2009 Dolphins. In 2007 they went 1-15. Then they brought in Pennington, had a historically easy schedule and brought back the Wildcat to shock teams and win a few games. Went 11-5. And then 7-9 the next year. They hadn't actually been good. Just managed to look it for a year. Certainly a one-year turnaround in terms of wins, though. They sucked in 2007. But it's really pretty rare. Much more often we see a team in the third year of a rebuild "suddenly turn things around."

You've said that before, and I've disagreed before. So again ... How do you know that there are only one or two of those four guys who check their boxes. That is a rank, pure guess. And nothing more. My personal guess, which has as much chance of being correct as yours though certainly no more chance, is that maybe two of the QBs meet their qualifications for trading up into the top three to five if they're still available and if trading up can be done underneath whatever ceiling they establish on that possibility in terms of price. I further guess that one more meets their qualifications for trading up to the top seven or eight. And that one more meets their qualifications for picking at their present spot. Needless to say, when I say "top three to five" and "top seven" those are guesstimations and not precise ranges. Same for guessing that only three guys are worth trading up for. They might easily think it's four. And there's absolutely no reason to think they don't want some of the other QBs who I guess they wouldn't take. Here's how their process DOESN'T go: "Well, QB A definitely meets our qualifications. Let's trade up to get him if he reaches the three-spot and we can get him after that. Well, guess that ends our work on QBs. Obviously there's only one per draft who is any good." If the fourth choice is actually their fourth choice and they think he's not as good as the top three, but good enough to trade up for if he falls to ... I don't know ... #12 or later or wherever they can get him for the #22, #56, and the #96 or less , then they should do that. Agreed about your "too many holes" argument. They might not get the chance to draft however many guys they might have been willing to trade up for

Nope. What happens every year is that teams that have silently been getting better for two or three years hit a tipping point and start to show how much better they've gotten. Genuinely crappy teams improving a whole bunch in one year, that's a pretty rare phenomenon. The Rams are a great example. People say they turned it all around this year and that's nonsense. For several years now they've been putting together some really talented players, Gurley, Quinn, Aaron Donald, Goff in particular, Barron, etc. Yeah, bringing in a new coach helped, as did some good personnel additions. But if Donald and Goff and Gurley and a bunch of others like Jamon Brown, Havenstein and Saffold on the OL hadn't been there, he probably wouldn't have come. They were a team with a ton of potential

He did, he did. Absolutely no question. So did Ramon Humber. And Rick Dennison. And Vlad Ducasse. And Zay Jones. I could name around 50 - 70 guys who played a role.

You may not have seen that writing, but it was there. They said they wouldn't trade him without a solid plan in place? In the Tim Graham interview they went beyond that, Beane saying, "You have to know you've made an upgrade, you don't just change to change at any position, so right now Nathan and Tyrod both are on our roster, that's where we're at. We're doing our due diligence both in free agency and the draft but we very well could see both those guys going to training camp and competing to start next year." http://buffalonews.com/2018/02/28/on-todays-tim-graham-show-brandon-beane-chad-kelly-big-4-hoops-and-more/ "You have to know you've made an upgrade." How can the Bills know that in the current situation? They can't. In other words, this was all smoke, just as it seemed from the minute they sat Tyrod down in a playoff race. And continued giving the press the most tepid sitreps imaginable on Tyrod. What plan do they have now on the roster? And yet, it was the Bills placing the call, not the Browns. They wanted him out. They got their wish. The only vestige of surprise here is how much they got for him. Great job, Beane. Yeah, they may have a good plan in place, but before FA starts, "man plans and God laughs."

Wonder if I saw you at the Rockpile? In any case, any study where "success" means they started for multiple years is missing the point by a long ways. Losman, Tyrod, Holcomb, Trent, Fitz, all started for multiple years. Not all for the teams that drafted them but they all started and not one was a real success. And there are plenty more where those five came from. Starting for multiple years often means teams drafted them early and are hoping and giving them time to prove themselves good or bad. That's a poor definition for success. In any case, they need to trade up if they can get a franchise QB. Give up all six picks if they need to, maybe even Glenn as well or some other little lagniappe. Yeah, they've got holes and won't fill them. But next year won't matter in the long run either way, and round about 2021 or so this team will look radically better if we got a franchise guy than if we didn't.

Yeah, it is. If you get a franchise QB. Look at what Philly did to get Wentz. Gave up five picks. Worth every one. If Foles had been the QB all year they probably would've been a one-and-done in the playoffs. And they wouldn't have Wentz to come back this year and for the next 12 - 15 years.

Disagree. It's huge that we don't have to be a Super Bowl competitor this year. McD and Beane are not on a short leash, they just aren't. And yeah, you're right on that second point, that a lot of it will come down to what the teams holding the top seven or so picks decide to do. Should be a really interesting draft. I hate that they moved the draft back last year and haven't corrected things this year. The teams don't need the extra time and we fans will only waste more time and be more annoyed waiting and waiting. I think you're wrong, personally. Not nearly enough warts on Darnold or Rosen as there were for Trubitsky for instance. Go get 'em, Bills. Spend all six picks if you have to. But if they want Mayfield, yeah, maybe wait an extra pick or two and pray. I wouldn't but what do I know?

Damn. Awesome idea. If only someone had thought of it and, you know, signed him to a contract. Right now he's a free agent and I hear the Pats are putting together a package averaging around $25 mill a year making him Brady's long-term successor.

Yes he had great numbers in those games, but again, 10 of the 15 of those games happened in the first year Tyrod played, before teams had fully figured out how to defense him. The six games from the second year, 2016, were against these teams: Indy and the Pats in weeks 1 and 2, and Pitt, Cleveland, and Miami in weeks 13 -16. And those were not exactly a bunch of great pass defenses. They were the 27th, 12th, 16th, 21st and 15th ranked in pass defense, average and below. More, it wasn't as if with Woods and Watkins there Tyrod was throwing to them. In those five 2016 games Woods and Watkins combined had one game over 54 yards, Sammy's very good Miami game. And two TDs between them. It was more about bad defenses than Watkins and Woods being there. Being specific, adding their stats together, Sammy and Woods managed 28 receptions, 388 yards and 2 TDs. Over five games. An average of 5.6 receptions per game, 77 yards and 0.4 TDs per game. Not for one of them. For both of them added together. That's the wildly productive catch machines that Tyrod made of Sammy and Woods in their five games together in 2016. Those total stats you are referring to were mostly built (2/3rds of the games) during that first year. So yeah, the receivers were overall not good. But he was throwing to excellent pass-catching backs and a guy who before he got to Buffalo and caught balls from Tyrod was considered one of the better pass-catching TEs in the league, though strangely his forte was catching balls in the intermediate and long middle and he mostly disappeared the last three years. It's extremely fair to say that not all of this mess that was the passing game was Tyrod's fault. But a lot of it was, and that's why they wanted him gone. I wish him the absolute best, honestly, but I'm really happy he's gone. Now we have to replace him but I'll at least have some hope for the new guy, whoever he is.

Yeah, they might easily really love him in Year One. Which is why I give it till Week 8 before we see the first big wave of "Why doesn't this idiot OC change the playbook to take advantage of Tyrod's strengths" criticism. I honestly hope I'm wrong and that it works out well for all involved, but that's what I would expect.

There's no particular reason to think this is so. With either guy, Sammy or Gilmore. But yes, a pretty similar situation. We would probably like to have re-signed them in ideal circumstances but terrible cap management made it punitive to do so. Gilmore had already performed well and was considered an excellent CB, while Sammy was more considered a guy with the potential to be an excellent WR. Couldn't afford either one, though. And yeah, the Sammy decision was made easier by being able to get the pick and Gaines in exchange. When there is a guy the Bills have problems with it doesn't seem to be real hard to notice. Look at Dareus. Everyone knew about the problems. Strangely, nobody did or does with Sammy or Gilmore except fans.

Heh heh. Seen this before?

Well, of course Leslie Frazier and McDermott aren't ready to develop a rookie QB. They're on the other side of the ball. Daboll did pretty well in Alabama. I don't know if he and Culley are ready to handle this. But nobody can reasonably say they know for sure they aren't. And I'll tell you, you saying "There's no one at the top that's worth trading up for, point blank," is translated as "I don't like these QBs." We heard on and on last year about how nobody was there who was any good, and that it was a bad year for QBs. Oops. You don't have facts here, you have an opinion, the opinion of a poster on the internet. (And yeah, me too. Same deal.) But the experts seem to feel there are some guys up there this year who could easily be worth trading up for.

For the Pats he was. For the Bills, letting him go was forced on them by the awful salary cap situation the last GM left. A salary cap situation which has been greatly improved but is still tight enough this year to make acquiring Sherman unlikely and difficult even if they did want him as a 30 year old CB.

Giving up those picks is not mortgaging the franchise. Not even close. We're likely to be able to do it nearly completely with picks we have this year, with the trades we made exactly to put us in position to trade up and find a QB in this QB-rich draft. If it can't be worked out with only picks from this year, it won't be more than a pick or at absolute most two from next year. That's not mortgaging the franchise. That's paying what a franchise QB is worth. It's not worth any price whatsoever. Just to pick a random number, it's not worth the next six #1 picks, for instance. That would be mortgaging the franchise. What we have to pay will hurt us. But it won't destroy our ability to bring in good players, and pretty quickly. Somewhere between what it will probably cost and my outrageous number here there should be a line. But we're very likely to find a team that will trade down for a reasonable amount. Painful. It's painful to give up picks. But worth the try if there's a QB there they think will be a franchise guy.

Yup, it's so hard to trade up in the first round and teams are realizing it more and more. That's why last year there were two teams trading back out of the first five picks. That's 40%. It's why we traded back from pick 10. It's why the Texans were able to trade up to #12 to get Watson. It's why the Eagles were able to acquire the #14 in the Bradford deal. That's almost 50%, 6 of the top 14 picks, that were traded. Last year as it is getting so hard and teams are realizing yadda yadda yadda. All those factors you're talking about haven't slowed up trades. They haven't even cranked the price up all that much. Twelve of the first 32 picks were traded. Last year. The years people are saying that we should trade down, people always are on here saying "It won't be easy. Everybody wants to trade down, it's hard to find people who want to trade up." And now we want to trade up and we hear the same thing, the other way around. It's a bit hard, but not that hard. There are people who want to trade down. The problem isn't so much going to be finding a partner as it is paying the price. Oh, and your contention that the #18 guy and the #33 guy are equal in talent is simply not something GMs are thinking. If it were, we'd see FOs trading back from around #18 to around #33 all the time and not demanding much in trade. That doesn't happen, and the reason it doesn't happen is the huge amounts of information available on these players and natural human confidence give the GMs the feeling that they can draw distinctions in value here and more, a real confidence that it's possible. Just go back and look at the people in several drafts who were drafted #15 - #25. Now look at the people in the same draft who were drafted #32 - #42. There won't be many drafts where you'd trade the second group for the first.

Trading up for a QB ... IS building through the draft. People want to pretend it's not. It is. It's the best way to build through the draft, provided you get the right guy, of course. The bottom line is that it's this simple. If you don't have a franchise QB, getting one is your number one priority. Same with about 17 other clubs at any given time. So if you have a chance to get one, you take it.

FAs aren't sure things either. Picks are cheaper and you generally get 'em for longer. How good is Ivory these days? I remember really liking him a few years ago, but his last two years he's posted YPCs of 3.8 in 2016 and an awful 3.4 last year. I didn't see much if any of him so I don't know why, but that's a major dropoff from his older figures. On a team that managed 4.2 YPC last year, although Bortles managing more than 6 YPC certainly pumped that up. Didn't they have a pretty decent OL? Were teams keying on the run game?

The reason we have space next year is that we don't really have anywhere close to a team under contract yet. For OL starters under contract for example, they've got Glenn, Wood, Ducasse and Dawkins, backed up by Conor McDermott, De'Ondre Wesley, Aaron Green, Josh James and Adam Redmond. On the DL they have Jerry Hughes, Shaq Lawson, Adolphus Washington, Rickey Hatley and Marquavius Lewis. At LB, Milano, Tanner Vallejo, Nordly Capi, Xavier Woodson-Luster, and nobody else. The 2019 cap numbers would be better referred to as having an "INC" grade right now rather than referring to any specific figures. Yup, lots of space, but also lots of spaces on the roster. Contrast that to what Philly has under contract in 2019 and your draw will drop. They have a terrific team already signed for that year. And yes they could do restructurings, but that's not how fiscally conservative GMs generally operate and so far a fiscally conservative game plan is exactly what they seem to be using. They said the same thing last year, that they could restructure and kick the costs down the road. They didn't do that. It doesn't appear to be their way, for which I'm personally really happy.