Thurman#1

You talk the way you talk. I'll talk the way I talk. OK? You've summed up the results perfectly. For one guy, we'd have traded away two firsts and two seconds, getting a (considerably better) first in return, when we don't have a third round pick that first year.. That's absolutely the heart of two drafts, in exchange for one player. Who, like it or not might turn out to be a Kevin White, Corey Davis, Mike Williams (from Clemson to the Chargers), John Ross, Drake London or a Sammy Watkins, though all of those guys were thought of quite a bit more highly than Brian Thomas. Bray, I am sorry, though, I didn't see Metcalf in your original post. My fault. But while I would like the results at WR, it would leave even larger gaps elsewhere because we'd be spending $49M on this year's cap for the WR combination of DK Metcalf and Stefon Diggs catching balls from Stroud. That's about 25% of our cap this year for two receivers, only one of whom is actually on the team. IMO if you give up that treasure trove of picks, you're going to need your FA money to fill in the holes.

Very much this. I'm sure he's got a plan. But it's unlikely to be the kind of huge splash folks on here would like it to be. IMO it won't be trading for Aiyuk or someone of that sort, but my guess is that kind of move is more likely than the huge move in the draft so many here want. Guess we'll see.

Oh, agreed that Thomas Junior might be there. But he's just not worth giving up nearly that much for. Not that that any non-QB is. But Thomas Jr. sure isn't.

So, the 1st and 2nd round picks in a draft when you don't have a 3rd rounder, and then the 1st and one of the two second rounders the next year is NOT the heart of two drafts? It absolutely is. And you think we're going to get one of the top three WRs at 16? I mean, it's not impossible, but the likelihood of those three making it past about #10 or #12 is really slim. I'd love to get some of what you're smoking. Quick question: What do these players have in common? Kevin White, Corey Davis, Mike Williams (from Clemson to the Chargers), John Ross, Drake London and Sammy Watkins? All WRs chosen in the top ten picks in the last ten years. We tend to think "a top ten guy, he'll be a Ja'Marr Chase." And that ain't necessarily so. There are some very good WRs chosen in the top ten of those same drafts. But more who never justified the pick. For those curious, here are all the rest of the top ten in those ten years: Chase, Waddle, DeVonta Smith, Garrett Wilson, Amari Cooper, Mike Evans. That's five terrific players, one pretty damn good one in Smith and again, Kevin White, Corey Davis, Mike Williams (from Clemson to the Chargers), John Ross, Drake London and Sammy Watkins. That's why you don't make such massive trade-ups unless you're doing it for a franchise QB. GMs tend to get carried away by their surety in their own abilities. And that's fools gold. Very very very few are genuine sure things. That's why Massey and Thaler and all of their inheritors say what they say. The data says tradeups that big are desperate, not to be made except for a franchise QB, as drafting a possible franchise QB is worth the prospect of a possible catastrophic failure, because you pretty much can't win without one.

It's really not. It would be great. But not worth that price tag. And there are guys after the top three who will have a good chance at being standouts. Remember the Falcons. Went 14-2, seemed in a ton better shape as a roster than this Bills group does, made the same kind of huge tradeup you folks are talking about for Julio. And Julio was a fantastic WR. 2010: 13-3 without Julio 2011: traded for Julio, gutting the next two drafts, went 10-6 2012: 13-3 2013: 4-12 2014: 6-10 2015: 8-8 2016: 11-5, lost the Super Bowl. This was the year when they could have totally validated that trade. But they didn't. 2017: 10-6 2018: 7-9 Most times when you think you're only one guy away and the guy is a non-QB, you're wrong.

You can get playmakers and game changers without trading up to the top ten. You just can. And this is a year for WRs when it looks like there are likely to be some game changers available in the 20s and probably even into round two, maybe even round three. As for not many holes, who's our LB depth? Do you really think the interior OL is solid with a guy who hasn't played more than a few dozen snaps at center since high school playing center? LG looks a bit questionable as well. Neither of the guys we've got lined up to play safety right now has ever settled in as a starter consistently in any of the teams they've been on. And our pass rush does NOT look good right now with last year's leading sacker gone. We've got some real spots to fill. This lineup isn't a disaster, but if they don't fill some of these gaps and depth needs as well, we'll see the results on the field.

Bringing in FAs doesn't make up for losing VERY IMPORTANT picks. It's not just "a few picks." It's the heart of the draft fro two years in a row. Teams are built through the draft. You need a good solid percentage of the draft picks to hit. You need those guys who'll be here for four or five years minimum at a very reasonable price. That's how teams are built, and it's not just me saying so, it's Beane as well.

You say you're sure he has a plan? Absolutely. Not even a question. You say you're sure his plan is a shocker? Not convinced. Maybe and maybe not.

The receivers would be great, but we have more than one need and would be handicapped in the draft for two years. No, thanks.

Um, yeah, no, that's utterly wrong. McD is still here because he's terrific. Rex is gone because he was becoming outright unprofessional.

We'd have been and would be much worse.

Creative thinking, yes. "Not his style" to stand pat in the first? He's done so twice, for Rousseau and Oliver. His style is to do different things in different years. Nothing's impossible, but worth pointing out yet again that he has followed the strategy that the academics (Massey and Thaler, Harvard Sports Collective, and all the rest) say best maximizes your chances of draft success. I'm sure you already know this, Shaw, but the studies all say that you can trade up, but not if it involves giving up large draft assets such as extra first or second round picks. They do point out the exception, which is trading up for a franchise QB. So Beane has followed that. Doesn't mean he will always do so. Seems likely to me, personally. Yes, but again we are talking about small moves up, a couple of places, except for the move up for Josh Allen, which he'd prepared for the year before, trading way back to get an extra first in case he needed it. And again, he stood pat for Oliver and Rousseau, both really good moves. So Beane has followed the Massey and Thaler wisdom each and every year.

Love the receiver. IMO probably too expensive. My guess is they bring in a significantly cheaper guy, probably an X who's a #2 in free agency. And one or two more in the draft. Certainly they could bring in Aiyuk if they wanted to. The question is whether it would be smart. That would depend on the contract. But he'll be expensive.

Adonai or Chop. Can't make up my mind between the two. If that means I don't get a vote, fair enough.

You don't think I understand that figure of speech, sour grapes? Well, you're wrong about that. That's a stone fact. It's a stone fact that defenders don't always tell the truth about how they covered a guy. Diggs had safeties coming over the top of him all year long, even if it wasn't man to man. And why not? He was by far our best WR. In this year's playoff game against the Chiefs, it's a fact that on the play with 5:47 in the 4th quarter he had two guys within a step or to of him and Josh threw it to him anyway, that on the 4th down completion to Shakir on the left at 4:45, Diggs is the only guy on the right side or going there and when Shakir cuts back the guy who ran with him is staring right at Diggs, the only guy on that side and he doesn't notice Shakir cut back until way too late. Man-to-man coverage and Diggs ends up with two guys around him, Shakir none. It's a fact that on the next pass play, at 3:19 and 3rd and 4 Diggs is alone on the right side, tight to the line and they've got trips on the left. The safety on the left comes down to cover one of the trips, leaving one safety deep. Diggs collects his CB, an LB who heads towards him despite him being the only guy on that side, and the deep safety stays in the middle, leaving a ton of room for Sherfield to convert. Here: And those four around him don't include the safety still on Diggs' side behind all these guys. I mean, I guess the Chiefs don't consider this double teaming, since they didn't do that? Again, Diggs was the only receiver on that side. I went to watch the crucial drive at the end, the one that ended with the missed field goal. I watched specifically the first few plays and described above. The coverage was absolutely focused on Diggs. That's a fact.

"as most attest"? Jeez, I should be in bed. What is wrong with me. Josh has been the leader from about halfway through his first season. He's been one of the five or six best players in the league for three or four years. There has always been plenty of oxygen for him. Beane has made it very clear for years now that he asks Josh's opinions on major moves. Might he have had to walk on eggshells - as I saw someone else say above - a bit around Diggs? Yeah, maybe. But this has been Josh's team - he's been the unquestioned leader - for a very long time.

All that appears to be true. It doesn't prove what you said it does. But again, nothing wrong with an opinion. It certainly could be true. It seems likely that he forced himself out, but there are other facts that seem to point the other way. For example, how the switch from productive to less so came almost precisely when the OC switch happened. Cover1 has said that in their film study of the last half of the season they still saw Diggs open a lot but not getting thrown to much. I do believe Diggs is a diva and I haven't liked many of the things he did last year that you pointed out. But I don't think that comes anywhere close to proving that his lack of productivity late was on him. Must go to bed.

Yaaaargh!! That's what I get for writing so late at night here in Asia. Thanks for pointing that out for me. I appreciate it. Dumb stuff, and a good signal to me that I need to go to bed now. I do think the rest of the post still holds up, though.

I think that message was out there about three years ago.

Your first paragraph here is more of the same. Could happen. Might not. The first sentence in particular is an opinion that might very easily not come true, particularly if Beane doesn't put Thomas as high as many do. But I'm absolutely right there with you on the second paragraph. This is a wonderful time to be a Bills fan.

You say you can tell me right now what caused the free fall. In fact, you can't. What you're telling me there is what you think caused the free fall. Nothing wrong with having an opinion till you start looking at it and saying, "You know, now that I look harder at that opinion, it's obviously a fact." That's where the bad thinking starts. You might be right. Or not.

I do think this makes bringing in another FA WR quite a bit more likely. IMO it'll be another $4 - $6M guy. And it also I think makes it more likely we pick our second WR in the draft a round or two higher than they would have before.

Yeah, I think so. Still a shame it came to this.

Totally unfair. We still don't know what caused that freefall. Was it that with the playbook from an old OC and the playcalling of a new OC they couldn't find a good way to use him? Nobody can say for sure, but that is very likely a large part of the problem, if not most of it. You can pretend that it was all on Diggs. But there's no reason to think that's right. Could easily have been on others to a large extent. Now we'll never know. Pretending we do know, and putting it all on Diggs, is just sour grapes. And it's a stone fact that he was drawing the vast bulk of the coverage and making things much easier for the other WRs. Certain kinds of WRs tend to start going downhill early. Diggs' type, the exceptional route-runners not dependent of top end speed, tend to last longer. Every reason to think he'll still be very very productive for several more years. Unfortunately. We are going to pay him in the high $20M range to watch him on TV catching passes in Texas. This was a horrendous time to let him go. But it doesn't seem like we had any better choices, with how relations with him were proceeding.

It's really not. It'll likely look better as we move towards the season. But this was a huge hit, particularly for this year's team and future cap status. And to remind you, Diggs was 6th in the league in receptions, 13th in yards, 10th in first downs and tied for 7th in TDs last year. It's not fair to only look at his worst section of the season and pretend they sum up his year. Not even close. That production absolutely can NOT "be replaced quite easily."