Thurman#1

IMHO, they "like" him isn't linking us. The main problem with Leaf was an unwillingness to work. Leaf missed his interview with the Colts. He was wildly arrogant and had substance abuse problems, serious ones. These two are not twins from different mothers. Not even close. I'm not a big Allen fan at all, but Ryan Leaf? Nah.

Maybe. And probably the Colts GM, Polian, said the same thing too as he picked Peyton Manning. This is a rich QB draft. You're right that they might make a mistake. They've got to try to figure out who the best guy/guys are and get a genuinely good one. You get a guy at a position that is rich in that draft when you have the ability to trade up. Which is now. But I might feel differently if I had Eli Manning on this team and felt I could get another two or three years and a shot or two at a Lombardi out of him.

Generally, the more trades down they do, the better. The exception is right now. They've got to get a QB. And it sure looks to me like they're going to have to trade up to do it. But generally, yeah, trade down, get more picks. This. Except ... Watson? Do you mean Watkins? Or am I missing something? But yeah, there'll be good QBs in the future. And we'll have an even smaller chance of being able to move up and get them. The best QBs, the ones who are obviously good, in those future drafts will be going very high, and unless you think we're going to be drafting first, the odds are good that the team that is drafting first will want him and if they don't we won't have enough ammo to move up to get him.

I haven't looked at the QBs next year but I bet next year won't be another this year, that the class will be less impressive. Solid, maybe. As good as this year, doubtful. First, because that's how it generally works when you have an outlier. There's not generally another outlier the next year. And second because if it was another great year we'd have heard it by now. The pundits would be all over it. We were hearing about this year's class 13 and 14 months ago and how good they were going to be. And we're not this year. Doesn't mean you can't be right Maybe you are. But that's not the way to bet. And Da"Ron Payne is very good, but he's not an outlier. There'll be a very good run stuffer next year. Not that I'm against Da'Ron Payne. Seems like a good player to me. Will the Bills do what the Rams did? The Rams were in position to do what they did because they'd already put together a terrific defense. So, no, I doubt the Bills will do what the Rams did. But they don't have to. A slow build is pretty common for teams on the build. Whoever we pick will need to develop. There are many ways to do that. And sure that means building a talented core around him, but I'm sure McDermott and Beane are aware of this.

Fair enough to agree to disagree. And of course it's right that you can only play who they put on your schedule. But that doesn't mean that the schedule doesn't make your record more impressive if it's difficult or less impressive if it's easy. And this was easy. And while Arrowhead is a tough place to play, sometimes it's tougher than others. We caught the Chiefs in the middle of a four-game skid. The week before, the Giants beat them. The Giants!!! And the week after, the Jets beat them. The freaking Jets! The Chiefs won five in a row to start, lost six of seven and then finished with four wins. We caught them right in the middle of a part of their season when they were playing very poorly indeed. Yes, they did what they needed to do. Luckily for them, this year they didn't need to do much. Every good team they played was in a funk. Again, if you have to keep boasting about beating the Colts, you've obviously got a very difficult argument to make. They were 4-12. And again, Atlanta was in the doldrums and had their best player go down in the game along with a bunch of others who either went out or were out before the game. And again, I like McDermott and think he did a good job. But he also got very lucky with how things fell this year. Our opponents cumulative record was well below .500 and we caught the good teams at their lowest ebb. Fine, agree to disagree. Agreed. The Patriots, for instance, shouldn't have been worrying about comp picks in Belichick's first year, when they got Brady as a comp pick. And the year after, the year when Belichick's maneuverings resulted in the 2001 comp picks, how did they do? They had three comp picks, a 5th, a 6th and a 7th. He worried about it. So should we. You worry about comp picks every year. Every single year. Occasionally something may trump them. But generally they're important for the most obvious of reasons, because extra draft picks increase your chances of being able to pick more people, improve your chances of bringing in guys who will help at a tremendous price.

Nobody saw much "move up" talent last year either. Back then it was "This group sucks. Wait till next year." Then it turned out there were some guys there who despite having flaws look like they might be good. And it was the same the year before. The Eagles and Rams were idiots for trading up to get guys with so many flaws. You're right that we have some problems around the QB this year. That will make things harder for whoever is in the games this year. But you don't draft a QB only if you think he'll be in a good position in his first year. Peyton Manning was in a horrible situation his first year. So was Troy Aikman. You draft a QB to have a good career. If he's good his first year, terrific, but if not it's not a big problem. This is the richest QB draft in a decade or more, according to everyone, most recently Mayock. If you don't see anyone this year to trade up for it's likely because you are unwilling to ever see that kind of talent. Whether we can get up there at all, or how much we would have to pay, those are separate issues that might indeed prevent us from going up. But there's a better group of talent there this year, likely to go in the top five or six spots than we'll probably see for a long long time. You know which QBs have significant flaws? All of them. Every single one, every single year. And part of the reason none of them stands out far above the others is that the top two especially and maybe even top three, are very very good.

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.