Thurman#1

And in the year Watkins had his breakout, the Bills offense was still 16th in the league even when the run game was #1. "Run-oriented," yes. Not very good at passing? That's not how it was designed even though it's how it turned out. Tyrod is a bridge QB, he's being paid as a bridge QB now, and that's the reason.

It's awful early, but IMHO seven or seven and a half would be mine. So under.

People seem to use this "how can you lose something you never had" as an argument as if it made sense. It doesn't. Losing something is being deprived of the thing or the use of the thing. If you were going to have the use of a thing and now you don't, you've lost something. You've lost a chance, in the future or present. Another meaning is "to fail to use, or to let slip by," as in wasting a chance. Doing something which deprives you of a comp pick is absolutely choosing to lose a comp pick you might otherwise have gotten. Sorry to get off-track. Bizarre situation. They ought to get something in return from the league, but likely the most they would get is an apology.

He's correct that signing UFAs at this point in the process absolutely does lower your chances of comp picks, it really does. We won't know how the count turns out till a few months pass, but every compensatory FA raises the count that they will subtract from however many compensatory FAs we lose. So this could, for example, lower our FA haul from three to two, or from one to zero, depending on how the counts turn out.

LB Reuben Foster might easily turn out to be worth the 10th pick. And while you're right that we'd be spinning our wheels grabbing a CB, the wheels have already spun when we let Gilmore go. You can't turn back time, they're spinning. CB, or safety for that matter, would be a good pick. While I'm not against drafting either of those first two WRs if we like them, we've got a defensive head coach in his first year with a terrible defense last year. They are very likely to give McDermott something to get the defense going with the #10 pick if there's a reasonable way to do so with the BPA at that time. Yup. Top ten. Thank goodness the run game was good enough to compensate for the below average pass game, and the defense was under-the-radar good enough to get the offense the ninth-best average drive start in the league, even though the offense gave the defense only the 22nd best drive starts. People keep pretending scoring is a QB stat. It's not. It's a stat about the whole offense, with probably 20 - 30% defense and STs thrown in. Agreed, though, that Justin Hunter isn't a great route runner.

It's common sense, with rocket science on top, and plenty of it. But as for why we're going with cheaper FAs, that really isn't rocket science. We are in cap trouble and need to sign a bunch of guys while hopefully bringing in guys in ways that will allow us to get out of cap trouble next year. But yeah, the Pats don't get in cap trouble, generally because they only rarely sign expensive FAs and they rely on the draft as their main means of stocking the team, filling holes with cheap and medium-priced FAs, with an expensive one only once or so every three or four years. And yeah, we should emulate that, including maximizing our comp picks and trading back consistently for more picks. Yes it is, it's very laughable. While you might have made some decisions better than Whaley (me too) you'd have made some others worse. Would you have drafted Darby? Or brought in Robey-Coleman as a UDFA? I could give a ton of other examples, as I'm sure could you. I'm not thrilled with Whaley, in fact I'd rather they had dumped him. But I'm not going to kid myself that I could do a better job. I couldn't and neither could any fan. We'd end up like a Matt Millen, doing our best but untrained and unsophisticated.

Well, fine. But in that case you pretty much can't ever talk about the future. Using that thought, the Bills should never be discussed as heading in the right or wrong direction. It doesn't make sense that you can't think about whether good teams might get bad if they proceed in the wrong direction or that bad teams might get good if they're being smart ... even if they aren't showing it yet with wins. The Browns are using smart methods of proceeding and building. That's more than a lot of teams do. Including us. Does it guarantee success? No. But it's the way to go. Use smart methods and do it consistently. That's what the Browns are doing right now, they're not guaranteeing success, but they're maximizing their chances. The investigations have been done. Thaler and Massey are the most famous study, but all the studies back them up ... GMs have so much information that while it's possible to draft stupidly, you can't draft much much smarter than the other guys over the long term. So what you do - the way you maximize your chances in the draft - is to acquire picks wherever you can. You trade back for more picks, you make player trades for more picks and you use the comp picks system the way the smart teams do. Getting more chances is what improves your draft results. And when you say that the comp picks system makes the rich richer, that's pretty much my thrust. More to the point, it makes the smart richer. The same teams that are trading back are also working the comp picks system. Not looking at all those teams, though you're welcome to do so, but you asked for a look at successful teams if you went back and looked at their last three seasons in a row out of the playoffs, and I thought I'd take a look at the Steelers. The Steelers in 1998 - 2000 went 7-9, 8-8 and 9-7. Three years out of the playoffs, during which they still kept working their system. And they recovered. They had two poor years very recently. They keep working the system. And they recover. Good teams, smart teams, work the system to get draft picks. It maximizes your chances. In 1998 they had a 3rd (Hines Ward), a 6th and a 7th, in 1999 a 3rd and a 5th, in 2000 a 5th and a 6th. It's not that teams with fewer wins get fewer picks, it just isn't. The 49ers have been collecting comp picks like crazy the last few years, including their bad years. Because they work at it. Over the last four years, that's a 3rd, three 4ths, a 5th and two 6ths: a total of 7 and consistency, at least one each year. Brady is a comp pick. Their entire success story is literally based on comp picks. They've been amassing them as an organization, even before they won like clockwork. And that's not true that the Pats can mess around at every position because they have Brady. Their lineup is pretty damn good. Year after year they plug in guys who turn out to be good. Why? Because they're drafting more guys and developing them well. Sure, having Brady is a massive help. But they're still showing a really talented roster year after year.

If it's so impossible, how come the best teams do it all the time? They have years where they lose a lot of guys. More, the point is less that we might not be able to do it this year than that we don't do it many years at all. As I pointed out, looking at all of Whaley's drafts, he's gotten comp picks in one of the four. That's wasteful. It shows they simply aren't caring about it.

This shows that Tyrod was better off drops than off shotgun. But it assumes that the reason why is clear, which it really isn't quite. Did he do better because teams were prepared for shotgun and got crossed up by seeing him drop back since he did it so infrequently? Because he's naturally better at it? Because he was throwing shorter or longer or to different route combos in those plays? It really isn't clear. The assumption in this article is that they know better than the coaches who saw Tyrod at practice every day. I would guess that that is doubtful. It's interesting. I don't think it necessarily shows what they think it shows.

And what do you notice about those teams that have done best at getting comp picks over the last four years? They're basically the best, most consistent, smartest teams in the league. Ravens, Bengals, Cowboys, Packers, Pats, Steelers, Broncos, Chiefs, Seahawks, and 49ers. There's one crappy team on that list, and they made the NFC championship two years running about four years ago. As the article I posted earlier said, comp picks were created to help the worst teams in the league but they have instead helped the smartest teams in the league. Not surprising that we aren't one of the teams that's been helped.

Again, teams can play this game. It's not that difficult. The Pats just did it by trading for Kony Ealy. He's a guy who might play decently for them this year, particularly as a platoon guy. Ealy is going to cost them about $900K this year. And guess what, his contract is up after the year. So if he leaves as he's likely to, guess what ... the Pats at very little cost have gamed the system to help them pursue comp picks, except they're already thinking about comp picks in 2019, 'cause they lose Ealy in 2018. And they do this constantly. Year after year. And we don't. More, the Pats don't pick up compensatory FAs very often at all. Instead they wait till after the signing period and guess what - they don't count against comp picks anymore. They're constantly doing this. And we don't.

How it worked out for Cleveland this year is terrific!!!!!! They have a ton of draft picks over the next couple of years and a ton of cap space and frankly look like a team that is young, smart and looks like they have a pretty good shot going forward. They might even have worked it so that they will have another crappy year going forward and will have a shot at their franchise QB next year. Especially if they trade back a lot this year to get more draft capital next year. And saying the Bills are heading in the right direction is pure hope. We don't look like a good team, we don't have a lot of draft capital and we're still in cap trouble.

Wayne, I'm happy the Bills have used this under some GMs. That's great. But ultimately, I don't care that much because it's not relevant to our present situation. I want them to start using this winning strategy now and in the future. And that's not happening under Whaley. 2017 zero 2016 4th (Cardale Jones) and 6th (Kevon Seymour) 2015 zero 2014 zero Whaley isn't doing this consistently. He just isn't. Same as he doesn't trade back for more picks. That's the smart play, you gather more picks and give yourself more chances, through trades and comp picks. Whaley doesn't even appear aware of these options. During the same four years when Whaley brought in those two guys, this is what some other teams got: Top Ten Ravens: 2014: a third, two fourths and a fifth ... 2015: a 4th and two 5ths ... 2016: two 4ths and a 6th ... 2017: a 3rd ... (over four years, that's two thirds, five 4ths, three 5ths and a 6th: total of 11 and consistent, at least one every year) Bengals: 2014: a 6th and a 7th ... 2015 a 3rd and a 4th ... 2017: a 4th, a 5th, a 6th and a 7th ... (over four years, that's a 3rd, two 4ths, a 5th, two 6ths and two 7ths: total of 8) Cowboys: 2014: three 7ths ... 2016: a 4th (Dak Prescott) and three 6ths ... (over four years, that's a 4th, three 6ths and three 7ths, including Dak Prescott: total 7) Packers: 2014: a 3rd and a 5th .... 2015: three 6ths ... 2016: two 4ths ... 2017: a 5th (over four years, that's a 3rd, two 4ths, two 5ths and three 6ths: total 7, and consistent, at least one each year) Patriots: 2014: a 4th ... 2015: a 3rd and a 7th ... 2016: a 3rd and three 6ths ... 2017: a 5th (over four years, that's two 3rds, a 4th, a 5th, three 6ths and a 7th: total of 8 and consistency, at least one each year) Steelers: 2014: a 3rd, a 5th and a 6th ... 2015 a 6th ... 2016: a 6th ... 2017: a 3rd ... (over four years, that's two 3rds, a 5th, three 6ths: total of 8 and consistency, at least one each year) Broncos: 2015: a 4th and three 7ths (including Trevor Siemian) ... 2016: a 3rd, a 4th and a 6th ... 2017: a 3rd, a 5th, and two 7ths ... (over four years, that's two 3rds, two 4ths, a 5th, a 6th and five 7ths (including Trevor Siemian): total of 11) Chiefs: 2015: a 3rd, two 5ths and a 6th ... 2017: a 3rd, a 5th and two 6ths ... (over four years, that's two 3rds, two 5ths and three 6ths: a total of 7) Seahawks: 2015: a 4th, a 5th and two 6ths ... 2016: a 3rd, a 5th and a 6th ... 2017: two 3rds ... (over four years, that's four 3rds!!!!!!!!!!!!!, a 4th, two 5ths and a 6th: a total of 8) 49ers: 2014: a 3rd ... 2015: a 4th ... 2016: a 4th, a 5th and two 6ths ... 2017: a 4th ... (over four years, that's a 3rd, three 4ths, a 5th and two 6ths: a total of 7 and consistency, at least one each year) Honorable Mention Texans: 2014: a 4th, a 6th and a 7th ... 2015: a 5th and two 6ths ... 2017: a 4th (over four years, that's two 4ths, a 5th, three 6ths and a 7th: a total of 7) Jets: 2014: a 4th and three 6ths, 2017: a 3rd (a 3rd, a 4th and two 6ths: a total of 4) Panthers: 2015 two 5ths ... 2017: a 3rd ... (over four years, that's a 3rd and two 5ths: a total of 3) Rams: 2014: a 6th and two 7ths ... 2015 a 6th ... 2017: a 4th ... (over four years, that's a 4th, two 6ths and two 7ths: a total of 5) Lions: 2014: two 4ths ... 2016: a third and a 6th ... (over four years, that's a 3rd, two 4ths and a 6th: a total of 4) And during those four years, Whaley managed one 4th and one 6th. Oh, and today Belichick moved back eight spots in the draft, from 64th to 72nd, and picked up Kony Ealy, a guy whose contract is low and ends in one year, making him a likely UFA who'll count towards comp picks. They're always working this. We aren't. And should be.

Bills passing TDs: 17 Bills defensive TDs: 3 Bills running TDs: 29 And again, we're the only team in the league that scored more TDs running than passing. Scoring isn't a QB stat. It's an offensive stat with a major component from the defense and STs in terms of field position. For our offense, they got the ball in better field position than average this year. And yet our defense saw opponents start drives in much better field position than average. Which shows our defense and STs did better in terms of field position than most would think and our offense worse. And as for the offense, the pass game was well below average and the run game was terrific. So, while "sucks" is a bit strong, yeah, Cousins is a lot better than Tyrod, and Tyrod is a bit below average.

Lemme check the calendar. Nope, camp doesn't start soon. Let's talk around August. Not just about Manuel, about all FAs generally.

1. Meh. 2. Dunno.

Yeah, it is. We're not going to be competing for the Super Bowl this year. And we're in cap trouble still, though a bit less so after Tyrod's re-negotiation. So yeah, we need to start emulating the successful teams that use the system effectively. Doing this means we get cheaper players so we can bring in more and have them cost less. Which is what a team with cap pressure should be doing anyway. Our moves should all be aimed more at the future than at next year. Successful teams tend to have long-range orientations, and so should we. Successful teams tend to get high-priced FAs only very occasionally, and so should we, and successful teams tend to be careful about the cap, not just shifting contracts and problems downstream, and so should we. Being careful of comp picks helps accomplish all these goal, it has you getting more picks which means higher chances of draft success, it means you tend to spend less on FAs which also increases your chances of success. And it shouldn't be done for only one year, but every single year. Occasionally it will maybe make sense not to work that way, but most years you should be gathering and hoarding picks, including comp picks. That's why the teams with the most comp picks over the years correspond almost one-to-one with the most successful teams in the league.

We have to sign FAs. But there are ways to sign FAs without losing comp picks. And year after year we ignore those rules while the Pats and Ravens and others know them bone-deep and use them consistently. 1) You can sign FAs that were cut without losing comp picks. 2) You can sign untendered RFAs anytime without losing comp picks. It's only UFAs who count toward comp picks. 3) After June 1st you can sign anyone not given a "June 1st tender" by their original team without losing comp picks. 4) You can sign ANYONE after the UFA signing period (which ended July 27th last year) without losing a comp pick. 5) You can sign guys to small contracts pretty much anytime. There's a minimum salary to qualify and while nobody knows exactly what it is, they know fairly closely. Below that level you don't lose picks. And salaries go down as time passes and players get more desperate. So it's not like you can't fill your team without losing comp picks. You can. But you have to be smart. You often see Belichick waiting till after those deadlines to sign guys exactly for this reason. Nice. And yes they will be very legitimate questions.

Honestly, it's the opposite of stupid. Comp picks, especially when acquired year after year after year directly relate to better rosters and being in better cap shape. This article says it well, "Comp picks are rewards for smart teams." Exactly. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/02/24/compensatory-picks-are-a-reward-for-smart-teams/ "The list of teams that have received the most compensatory picks since 1994 is pretty similar to the list of the best teams in football since 1994: The Ravens have received the most compensatory picks, and they’ve won two Super Bowls. The Packers have received the second-most, and they’ve also won two Super Bowls. The Patriots are fourth, and they’ve won five Super Bowls. The 10 teams that have had the most compensatory picks have won most of the Super Bowls since 1994, with a total of 14 titles for those 10 teams. "At the other end of the spectrum, the teams that don’t receive a lot of compensatory picks tend to be bad teams: There are 14 teams that have received fewer than 20 compensatory picks since the system started in 1994, and those 14 teams have won a combined two Super Bowls." The Patriots love comp picks so much that they consistently trade for guys with expiring contracts who will draw comp picks when their contracts end. The details matter, and this isn't a small detail. Comp picks are extra draft picks. So they make it easier and more palatable for your team to trade away a third or fourth rounder if they want something because they have their regular pick and a comp pick in the same round. And comp picks are even more valuable starting this year, because they're more versatile ... as of this year you can trade them. It's not a mistake that the best teams are the ones who have had the most comp picks over the years. It's a smart strategy to care, and it's the smart teams who do it. And yes we should have made the effort, this year and every year.

Exceeded expectations? Good grief. Poor cap management. Above average trades and FAs but not tremendously far above average. Below average drafting. Poor coach selection. He's lucky to have retained his job this year. May 13, 2013. That's the day he became GM, so of course he can't be held responsible for GM moves before that. But did the constant scheme switches on both sides of the ball ramp up the speed of turnover? Almost certainly.

In our salary cap condition, of course we're not going to go after top tier FAs. In any case, the best teams rarely do, tending to build around mid-range or low-range guys to fill holes. We're a ways away.

I don't agree that it's as easy to say as that, that it's just smart. It's too early to say. If we're still winning six or seven or eight or nine games three or four years from now, it won't have been a smart move. It's almost certainly the best move to make to win the most games possible next year. But me, personally, I don't care about next year, especially. It's also likely to give us lower draft picks over the next couple of years, which could easily hurt a lot more in the long run. It's not necessarily a smart move. But it's decisive and appears reasonable. Proof's in the pudding. We'll see. Tyrod's easily the best bridge QB out there. The question is whether we should have gone with a bridge QB or rebuilt.

It's ludicrous. But it's also not what Prisco said. Where die he say Whaley was completely against it? Isn't it just as reasonable to assume Whaley was against it under some conditions? Particularly the conditions of theguarantees and the front-loaded nature of the original contract. It would indeed have been ludicrous to say that Whaley strong-armed a GM who was totally against the move, but that was a poor summary of Prisco's position.. What Prisco said was probably reaching a bit, very possible correct, but too little evidence to be anywhere near sure.

His play kinda does something for me. Not his combine, though. They were indeed on the street for a reason. The reason is they were NFL-good, but not as good as most starters except for Harvin, whose reason was injury. But I watched the All-22 for five games. Guys were open on almost every single play. As open as if we'd had Sammy on the field? No. But open. And on a lot of plays, Tyrod wasn't seeing them. You can't blame Tyrod for more than his share of the losses. But he gets most of the blame for the below average nature of the pass game this last year. And Bill, you asked earlier what options he had. He had one of the best receiving TEs in football, a guy who was consistently open and yet rarely got the ball. Also, I personally was very impressed by Walt Powell. No, not a terrific player, but his cuts were really sudden and he was open a lot. I'm guessing he'll be on the roster again this year. As for improvement, Tyrod's had six years in the league. The number of QBs in the NFL who haven't shown in six years that they can be a franchise QB who then still later go ahead and do .... can pretty much be counted on the index finger on Rich Gannon's left hand. It's probable that we've seen Tyrod's best. Significant improvement is still possible but really really unlikely.

Percentage chance of getting one of those ... 10%, probably. If we cut Tyrod we won't be that bad and if we keep him we won't be that good and won't have the money to bring in the kind of players who could make that kind of difference. Wildly unlikely. Hate to say it but the likely outcome is yet another Buffalo Bills type season, 5 - 8 wins. It would not be the goal. Assuming we have a 2 win season, and the odds are spectacularly low unfortunately, it wouldn't be the goal. It would be the method, part of the road towards the goal.. The goal would be reaching Super Bowl contention in the next three or four years. As a Bills fan, I know I'm dying for another 8 - 9 win season. But I agree that's the sort of neighborhood we'd be looking at with Tyrod, most likely.