Thurman#1

He has enough arm. He just doesn't have an above average arm. But he can make all the throws. Montana didn't have much of an arm either. Not that I know if Peterman will make it. But if his only problem turns out to be his arm strength, he will.

Next three years? Yup, you'll get some intelligent takers. Maybe even two years. And we aren't excited by drafting a QB. We're excited by drafting Nathan Peterman. He's an anticipatory thrower, a guy who uses the whole field and has an NFL brain. Does that mean he'll be a franchise QB? Nobody knows, same as all the other draftees. But it's exciting to see and smart this late in the draft.

Yeah, it's fashionable to rag on them, and for good reason, but I like what their new regime is doing. A lot. And they pick up yet another first for next year on top of this year's haul in the first. Yeah, I'd assume it's a competition, but Taylor is a strong favorite and I'd expect him to win it this year. Maybe Peterman will compete for 2nd. Maybe.

I really like him, especially this late.

This doesn't show an ax to grind. Only that he believes it. And like it or not, the News guys have a lot better sources than we do. Doesn't prove he's right, but it's likely. How many times has Whaley traded down in a situation where he pretty much knew he wouldn't get the guy he would've picked in the earlier spot? His most famous trade-down, the Manuel deal, was one where he traded down only because he thought he could get the same player in the later spot. And he was right. They weren't going to pick Tre'Davious White at #10, were they? This deal is very different from Whaley's M.O. Yup, Rex, Pat LaFontaine, Regier ... Remember Tim Murray's 2016 contract extension? It's one thing I like about Pegula. He's willing to throw away money if it gets him out of a deal that would hold him back if new evidence comes in to show him he made a mistake.

I went and listened, expecting to hear proof, and there was absolutely nothing. Only thing you've proved here is that confirmation bias is alive and well and living in your head on this issue. Here's what was said, word for word, "I’d been working about five or six different deals. I started this one probably about five days ago. And Doug and I just talked through the whole thing. We talked every day and then we talked before the draft, ‘do you still agree?’ He says, ‘Yes, I still agree.’ So we had some sort of gentleman’s agreement." That's it. This doesn't even begin to address who was in charge in Buffalo. All it says is that Whaley was making phone calls. In my long career in business, government and academia there have been hundreds of times when bosses told me to go make phone calls and find out what kinds of deals or possible agreements were out there. Hundreds. And then told me to take or reject the deals or negotiate more based on what I told them. I wasn't in charge but I was the contact guy. Being the contact guy absolutely does not prove that you're in charge. It simply doesn't. Sorry, but you've proved absolutely nothing here about whether Whaley is in charge. You ought to look inside yourself, because what you assumed here is only what you wanted to be true, not at all what the evidence shows. No, the Bills scouts expecting to be fired was from a source, not speculation. And that sure tends to back up Whaley's lack of power.

Like the pick. Not at all sure I like the trade. We're now left with nobody till the fifth, no thirds and no fourths. I like the guys we got, but they're the only guys this draft who're likely to do much for this team, though occasionally late-round guys surprise. And we've got a lot of needs. True in the sense that once the guy is drafted no grades mean anything. So they don't mean more than anybody's, yours or mine for instance. But they have more inside info than we do and are likely better guesses, especially if untainted by love for the team.

You're making an assumption there's no particular reason to make. Being on the phone doesn't mean you're the decision maker. Not even close. They were probably talking with twenty different teams about twenty different trades, not knowing which ones would work out and become possible. It could easily be McDermott behind the wheeling and dealing. McD said that his relationship with Reid made his communication easier on this trade, that his trust and familiarity with Reid made things easier. Does Whaley know Reid?

I'm not sure how you can say it's 171 points. We don't know how many points to assign to a next year's first rounder. Next year's first rounder is worth this year's second, but which pick in the 2nd? Nobody's ever said. The middle pick? If so we got the value. There's no way to know where the Chiefs will be picking next year. We can't value that pick exactly on the chart. For the Chiefs this will all come down to Mahomes. If he's a franchise guy, brilliant trade. If he never is, an ultimate waste.

Top five? It might have been worth it to suffer through a bad year for that, but we won't be that bad.

Yeah, if he keeps improving at the same rate, we have no chance. And that's the best guess as to what will happen. We'll get somebody, though, maybe even start a pick ladder where we pick with the best of the two and trade back from the second getting another third or fourth and a first the next year. No, that really wasn't said much till after the season. Before the season it was business as usual with the 2017 guys like Kaaya and the rest being probably a good class.

#10 is 1300 points. #27 is 680 #91 is 136. So that's a difference of 484. That's between the 41st and 42nd picks, a 2nd round pick and a better one than average. We didn't take any discount whatsoever, we got a slight premium. I absolutely love this, and I don't absolutely love much the Bills have done for a lot of years. Smart move. I would hate it if I was the Bills. But the Chiefs are in better position to bench Mahomes and develop him. Not so bad for them, though I personally think Mahomes will never be a franchise QB, which would mean the trade will eventually be deemed a bomb on KC's side. But if anyone can mold Mahomes, it would be Andy Reid. The Bills don't have anyone I'd be as happy to see teaching a young QB.

Jerry's right more than he's wrong, but he's off-target here. It isn't a matter of being fleeced. The two teams had different needs. Maybe both did well here. But this was a very smart move by the Bills. I'm not generally extremely excited by much they've done for quite a while. This is a terrific move for the Bills. If that was all they'd done, move from Gilmore to the #7, it'd be bad news. But they got two extra picks including a first rounder. This was very good. Yeah, it'd have been better to keep Gilmore. But you can't do that when you're in such poor cap shape, and we were. What I love about what they've done this year is that they took the hits, they lost some guys they'd probably rather have kept, but didn't do tons of re-negotiations to move their cap problems on into the future. I hated how they handled the cap the last few years. But this year they took the hits the past moves have forced on them and improved their cap future. I'm more optimistic than I've been in quite a while. The front office has been smart. We haven't been able to say that in quite a while. That's not what McDermott ever said, that we didn't value CB as a premium position. It's the spin we've heard from posters. They likely would've kept Gilmore if they'd been in good cap shape. They weren't.

. Thing is, people who say that he doesn't throw over the middle are abridging what is actually said. Nobody says he doesn't throw over the middle short. He does. It's the most obvious thing in the world, he goes to the short middle a lot. Where he goes very infrequently is over the middle beyond ten yards, in the intermediate and long areas. Also, all the stats you can find on "the middle" are talking either about the very small part of the middle between the hashes or more often, the very large part of the middle between the numbers. And again, it's very obvious that Tyrod throws a lot to the outside thirds of the field, and that that includes the area two or three yards inside the numbers. He goes there a lot in the deep and intermediate game. Again, he always has. Where he goes infrequently is the deep and intermediate middle third. Anyone who says that the word on Tyrod is that he doesn't throw over the middle is misquoting the pundits. It's a specific part of the middle he avoids. The specific stats you're referring to there are between the numbers. Which is not 33% of the field, it's about 48%. So if he throws 33% of his passes to the middle 48%, that's an imbalance, and again, Tyrod throws over the middle plenty short. Considering that about 70% of all NFL passes and also Tyrod's passes are short (w/in 10 yards of the LOS or behind it, according to ESPN, where your stats come from), it's not surprising that they have about a third of Tyrod's passes going over the middle 48%. Anyway, I don't expect a QB at #10, though I wouldn't mind if they're really sold on someone. I'm wondering if we'll see them go after David Webb or Nathan Peterman.

Cute is when you think you're smarter than the rest and also has to do with overvaluing skill positions rather than the front seve types. If they picked him most of the football world would think it was a terrific pick. And he's not exactly a skill position guy. You might not like it but it wouldn't be cute. I'd love it. But he won't be there. IMHO the cute pick would be at TE. Not so much when you've got a QB who almost never throws over the deep and intermediate middle third. It would be a move that could pay off down the road when a different QB takes over, but it would seem insane to me to do this when you have Tyrod as your guy and a plan to base your offense around the run game besides. They talked a lot this offseason about getting Tyrod to throw over the deeper middle more. Remember the helmet cam that had the QB coaches happy that Tyrod was looking at the right options including the guys over that area of the middle? It was Tyrod.

Yes, he was hitting guys over the middle consistently. But unfortunately, it was the short middle, an area he's never had a problem with. In the deep and intermediate middle third - the area he's always thrown to very little - he continued to avoid it.Which makes the passing game easier to defend, because if a guy fakes outside and goes in you can bit on the outside fake and not get punished very often, whereas if he fakes inside, you're probably not going to fall for it or worry about it. And nobody wants QBs who can't run. You're missing the point. Running is fine. It's just a lot less important than the ability to run an NFL-standard passing game while doing things like throwing to the deep and intermediate middle third about a third of the time you go deep or intermediate, or making anticipation throws often and skillfully or staying in the pocket consistently when you have time to stay there. Things like that. We want a QB who can throw. If he can run like Tarvaris or Alex Smith or Rodgers or Wilson, hey, so much the better, but not mandatory. Having said that, now that he's being paid as a bridge QB, he makes sense. He's one of the absolute best bridges in football and his terrific work ethic and drive make him very much worth cheering for.

Agreed, if Rex was in charge of the drafts, Whaley would not be blamed. Whaley was, and Rex had input. That seems to have changed since McDermott.

I don't think they're saying he isn't a good athlete. Just that his athletic strengths seem to be more related to power than explosiveness. Which is much the same as what Benoit was saying, IMHO. Here's some excerpts from the NFL.com's draft profiles on him: http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/profiles/shaq-lawson?id=2555252 "STRENGTHS Built like a tank with thickly muscled legs and a broad chest. Clemson played him at 5-­technique and standing up on the outside. Scheme versatile and will likely appeal to be 3­-4 and 4-­3 teams. Very powerful at the point of attack. Able to punch, extend arms and control the line of scrimmage or set a hard edge. Able to shock and shed blockers and has the hand quickness to staggered block attempts. Power allows him to play on other side of the line. Finished second in the nation in "stuffs" for defensive linemen with 17. Comes off ball low and with forward lean into his rush. Has frame to handle a double team. Has plus instincts and feel for the game. Toughness in full display. "WEAKNESSES Thickly bound with very average flexibility. Average athlete for an end position. Not a natural hip bender and will have to focus on keeping pad level lower to unlock his leverage potential. Shows obvious signs of fatigue as game wears on. At times, is too content to lean on blocks when play isnt run to his side rather than working to discard. Will have snaps where he seems more concerned with imposing his will on blocking rather than diagnosing the play. Doesnt have the bend or upper body flexion to be edge turner as pass rusher. Effort sacks will diminish in pros and will need to become more nuanced pass rusher. "DRAFT PROJECTION Round 1 "SOURCES TELL US "I see Shaq as an outside linebacker in a 3-4. He's not the guy you want to turn loose against the quarterback, but he is the guy that will make it hard for tight ends to block him in the run game. We knew we couldnt run at him and it changed how we called plays." -- ACC offensive coach "NFL COMPARISON Courtney Upshaw" That's pretty much what has been said about him all along, tough, fiery, great against the run and at holding the edge. Will get sacks on effort and strength, but not really an edge bender, as Benoit says.

I can't imagine why his getting fired between the draft and the season wouldn't make complete sense. The Pegulas might catch some fire for it, but not all that much. Whaley isn't especially popular. And they're not giving him the draft. The guy in power right now is clearly McDermott. Whaley is essentially the chief scout. Wouldn't shock me in the slightest. Agreed that we're waiting to see about McDermott. It'd be that way with anyone, though, really. He's got to prove himself. The word seems to be that he's doing a good job setting the tone over there, working like a dog, and organizing things well backstage. That's a great start, but yeah, still got a ton to prove. That's not the problem. The problem is being unsuccessful and not making himself available to explain. If he'd produced good teams people wouldn't mind that he isn't speaking. Yeah, that's what makes those dang reporters think that Whaley should maybe be gone. Some stuff on the hockey team and some other stuff. Not hiring Rex and before him, Dougie. Not producing teams that have produced gradually worse records as his players have filled the roster. No, no, it's the other stuff. Dang those journalists. If the paper had actually said that the problem with Whaley was that Pegs had fired some Sabres and that the star player is not happy (What? Who? What are you talking about?), you'd really have something to complain about. But that's not what they said.

We aren't pretending. When you are 7-9 and then you lose some of your better players, that's not a good thing. And you're spinning awful hard. Zach Brown didn't have inconsistent effort, at least not until we lost him and the scent of sour grapes started to fill the air. These are good players. No, no Aaron Rodgers there, but they are good players and good teams don't have all Rodgerses. They're also filled with good role players. It's not a coincidence that everyone lists our draft needs as including LB, WR and CB, exactly where we lost guys. Dig hole, fill it up. Dig hole, fill it up. That's not how you produce a fertile well-tilled field. We are a 7-9 team that had the salary cap status of a team that was contending for a title. That's why we couldn't bring a lot of these guys back. It was genuinely bad cap handling and it cost us. Yeah, how could anyone complain about a team going 9-7, then following that up with 8-8 and then 7-9? Hard to understand how anyone could be unhappy with the builder of this terrific lineup and it's consistent, um, direction.

The problem is that he got quite a bit worse last year when teams had a year of film on him. It's not a coincidence that people who support Tyrod don't want to talk about last year, that they instead want to talk about 2015 or combine the two years and look at them together. Tyrod's a good bridge guy, but we need to bring in QBs until we find a franchise guy. Maybe it'll be Tyrod, though I really doubt it at this point, but we need to bring in guys until we find one. I'm not convinced that we should get one in the 1st, but I'm sure not against it either. Do a good job scouting these guys and make the right decisions on them. But if you think that one of them might need a year or two on the bench but then become good, grab him whenever you need to do it so you're sure you get him. Even if the gurus say you got a bad value because they want to argue that first rounders should start the first year. Forget that nonsense. Get a franchise guy. The likelihood of a bridge QB suddenly becoming a franchise guy in his seventh year in the league is miniscule. It's happened basically once with Rich Gannon, out of the hundreds of guys who've been in position to make that leap. It's possible, but not only should you not bet the rent, you shouldn't throw a nickel in the wishing well for it. As for Cardale, keep him on the team. There's no rule that you can't keep four QBs. It's easier than ever with the five guys who don't dress each week.

Setting up the draft board isn't pulling the trigger. Whaley set up the draft board the last two years under Nix. That doesn't mean they didn't change things around to suit the GM's preferences. It doesn't mean if Nix said of the final board, "switch five and six" that they didn't do it. Setting up the draft board is essentially a process. And they wanted Whaley to learn the process. That did not mean he was the decision maker for that year. He wasn't. Nix was. But yeah, Whaley was all in on Manuel, and we know that not because of what he did during the pre-draft process but by what he's said since then. He's had a million chances to back away from responsibility for that pick and he never has. Just the opposite, he supported it for years, even after Nix left when he really had his chance. He may not have pulled the trigger, but he was in on Manuel. But he's never said anything like that for the rest of the picks that year or the year before.

I suppose it's possible, but historically unlikely. Somebody usually wants something. Here are the results of the last ten years of trades in the top 12: 2016: three trades 2015: zero trades 2014: three trades 2013: two trades 2012: five trades 2011: two trades 2010: two trades 2009: one trade 2008: three trades 2007: one trade The Browns might get one of their top two QBs at #12. But they also might not.

They thought Julio was the final piece. Turned out he wasn't. In fact, just when those picks they traded away would have been filling holes in Atlanta's lineup and making a difference, nobody was stepping in and the Falcons had three seasons in a row when they won four, six and then eight games. A lot of that can probably be laid at the foot of that trade. Winning a Super Bowl answers all questions. But they didn't win. That trade for Julio Jones is still very questionable. Terrific player but was he worth having those three awful seasons for? I don't think so. The grade for the Sammy pick itself, using the #4 pick to draft Sammy ... yeah, maybe that's an incomplete. But the grade for the tradeup is in, and it's awful. And while your grandma's philosophy would be right in a lot of situations, it also has caused magnificent flameouts and bridge burnings. Making a horrible decision isn't OK because it took balls. Gutsy stupidity is still stupidity and conservative good decisions are still good decisions.

You'd expect that. Testing the waters is pretty reasonable. Could be the Bills or not. Could really be any of a dozen teams. I'm not sure of that. IMHO Cleveland might easily be willing to trade down to accumulate more picks. They'd want decent value, of course, but a huge deal? They might easily be willing to set up a conveyor belt of picks to assure their draft harvest lasts for years. I don't think it's so obvious that it would take a huge deal, though I'd agree they aren't going to do it without getting decent value. Why would they? My guess is that you're right, though, and this doesn't happen.