Thurman#1

Same is true of players, yet plenty here celebrate guys getting cut for other guys they think are better. It's the nature of fans. They celebrate anything they think will make the team better, even guys getting fired or cut. Nobody got so angry when Rex was fired and his lower-paid assistant coaches also. That's a good point, IMHO. Maybe they just wanted to sweep clean and give the new GM the chance to build his own staff. Maybe he could even rehire some of these guys, though that would be unusual, I think.

The GMs need some help from the coaches as to fit, but there are plenty of situations where GMs make decisions without consulting coaches. Depends on the individual relationships, the hierarchy, etc.

Yeah, maybe. Terry said in his PC it was up to the new GM, that Terry would try to support Overdorf but it was up to the new guy.

The trade strategy was worked out in advance ... as one of several possible strategies. Mahomes could have been gone at #10, then it wouldn't have happened. It couldn't possibly have been the only thing they had prepared to do. No reason to think the QB tour was a ruse. Under the right circumstances, it might have happened. They might have determined that only Trubitsky was worth the #10, for instance, or that they wanted Watson but that getting him would be their third choice, if the KC trade didn't work out and they could trade back somewhere in the #15 area. There's no way to know. Did I say I had "proven" that McDermott was in charge? Or did I say it was likely? I said it was likely and ... gosh, it turned out it was. And yeah, he found it necessary within the structure of that article to say those things. They weren't really noticeable to me or to most, since they looked to be probable. Only people who disagreed found them standing out. He was only reporting on the situation. The salty ones were the people objecting. Now where are all the mea culpas from those who attacked this article? It's a weird situation. Pegula also said in his press conference that they ran the process and then only made the decision after the draft. So, how come the scouts knew a week in advance that they were getting fired? Looks like they are running a PR playbook here rather than worry too much about the truth. As long as they get a good group in charge, it won't matter. But this process is going to be absolutely crucial.

Don't like Pats fans, but nothing so terrible here. One guy pointed out that the Pats did the same thing when they hired Belichick, they hung on to the GM till a few days after that first draft. Another said it's a sad day to see two bozo GMs go. Correct. It could hopefully make things harder for the Pats. You will lose your dominance when Brady's gone. :-)

How do you know this? Pure guesswork, correct? I want all the dead wood out. Not sure whether or not that includes Overdorf and I don't think anyone outside the organization can be any surer than I am. But yeah, the GM is more important.

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.