Thurman#1

"Go back with this team and the last one you can find of these mid-late round gems is Jason Peters, over 20 years ago," you say. Brad Butler in the 5th says hello. Wasn't the Bills fault he retired early to go into politics. He was a terrific value and a fine player. Seantrel Henderson was a good pick but his career was sabotaged by Crohn's disease. Other than that, I'd agree. 2022 6th Luke Tenuta 2021 5th Tommy Doyle (but Spencer Brown in the 3rd) 2021 7th Jack Anderson 2020 none 2019 none (but Cody Ford in the 2nd) 2018 5th Wyatt Teller 2017 none (but Dion Dawkins in the 2nd) That's this regime's OL draft history in the 4th round or later. It's not that they're bad at it. It's that they didn't do it three out of seven years and they didn't hang on long enough with Wyatt Teller, although he might not have ever fit this system as well as he fits the Clevelanders. We'll see with Anderson, Doyle and Tenuta, so far no In contrast, here's Philly: 2022 none (but Cam Jurgens in the 2nd round) 2021 none (but Landon Dickerson in the 2nd round) 2020 4th Jack Driscoll 2020 6th Prince Tega Wanogho 2019 none (but Andre Dillard in the 1st round) 2018 6th Matt Pryor 2018 7th Jordan Mailata 2017 none Their success appears to come at least partly from simply investing more resources there. Each team has a relative failure early, Ford in Buffalo and Dillard in the 1st in Philly, a success early, in Dawkins and Dickerson, and a guy who was picked early but can't be graded yet, in Spencer Brown and Cam Jurgens).. But in the first three rounds Philly invested higher picks (1st, 2nd and 2nd) and Buffalo a bit lower (2nd, 2nd and 3rd). In the lower rounds, Philly invested four picks (7th, 6th, 6th 4th, vs. Buffalo's four (5th, 7th, 5th, 6th). Both had a success, Mailata and Teller, but the Philly picks appear to be more known quantities, with Driscoll (whose father was a Bills draftee), in the 4th in 2020 being a possibility while they didn't draft anyone in the last two years, but Buffalo having two guys in the past two years, neither of whom has proven much but both (Tenuta in GB) showing some good signs. Appears more of a case of putting more resources into it.

Correct. We need more. We need to keep taking shots because some percentage of those shots will turn out to be guys like Matt Milano, Taron Johnson, Christian Benford, Dane Jackson, Wyatt Teller, Isaiah Hodgins, Khalil Shakir and Damar Hamlin and Tyler Bass. You have to keep bringing guys through, giving them time and effort and chances to develop. This is what all the studies say, that the way to maximize the chances you get good results in your draft is to maximize the number of picks. And that if you want to minimize the chances of good results, minimize the number of picks with tactics like trading up. The Massey and Thaler study was the fore-runner and still the one that gets the most publicity, but when people study this they all come up with the same answer. Trade down. That's how to maximize value. If you trade up, do it in small increments and only give up later picks, but overall, trade down. The Harvard Sports Analysis Collective is another, and there are lots more. I like the way Reynold, Bonds, Thompson and LeCrom put it, "Additionally, the logistic regression indicated that the more draft picks a team has, the more likely it is to make the playoffs in the future." We only have six picks.

They know a lot more than we do. They have the medicals. We don't. What they do will likely tell us how concerned they are about this. My guess is that they said what they meant and they think he'll get better as he gets healthy, and that they just aren't as worried about this as you are. It's a guess. But I don't think they feel this is as big a need as you do.

This colored part is weak, as I'm sure you know. And it's weak for a reason. There really is no good answer to this problem. It would put us in cap quicksand and would mean we'd be there for a while. Beane does NOT appear to be interested in that. And thank goodness he isn't.

He'll cost a lot more. Easy for fans to say, "He's better, we should have got him." We don't have a budget for football players.

The fact that they've got teams of people gives them an advantage. But there are lots of ways to get an advantage. There's no reason to think that Your idea that because they have lots of people so all the games get watched makes them better is seriously pathetic, like a child's view. It's not just simplistic, it's dumb. That would mean that the Pro Bowl would be the ultimate arbiter, the perfect and unassailable After all, those are decided by millions of people. Together those people have watched all of the games. Amazing to consider, but they've watched them thousands of times more, cumulatively, than even the Gods at PFF. PFF is a good organization. Their stuff is worth looking at. But they are one data point. One. You're coming across as a small person who looked around to find an organization that agreed with him and then decided that because they agreed with him, they were the only ones worth listening to. It's a dumb idea. They are one data point. Worth paying attention to. Not worth kneeling in front of and worshipping as a god. Doing so only shows your confirmation bias.

It could go either way, I think. He can actually play defense if asked, though not at the level you'd like. If pressed, I'd project that they'd keep him. Wouldn't be surprised either way, though.

Putting the needs into rounds like that is diametrically opposed to what they do. Needless to say, they'd be thrilled if one of their two biggest needs becomes available in the first round, and so on. Some years, like last year, it happens and they'll be thrilled. Other years it won't. OL, MLB, WR and DL, particularly if they can rush the passer, would all make sense early, including the 1st if they are BPA. If none of those are available at a good value, I'd expect a trade back.

Yeah, that would make sense to me, I think. Yeah, there is. If it's an important position in your defense it makes a ton of sense. The only reason it didn't work out for us for a career-long guy was that we are short on cap money this year and trying to get back on solid ground for the future. Getting a pure thumper at MLB in round 1? No, fair enough, that's not a good idea. But a guy who can make a big difference in pass defense as well? That makes plenty of sense.

Yeah, that's what it looks like to me as well.

Um, no. You should grab yourself a dictionary and look up two words. One is "opinion," and the other is "fact." There is a fact there. But that is simply that in PFF's opinion he gets a yadda yadda score and a yadda yadda ranking. That's where the facts run out. You seem to have this idea that because PFF said it, it's true and that there is no argument to it. And that's both wrong and stupid. They're a good organization. But their process tends to favor people-movers and monsters over athletic OLs, and that's not how we block or what we value in OLs. PFF are one data point. That is all. They are not some kind of perfect final arbiters. He went to the pro bowl this year. That's another data point, just as important. The Bills love him, they let him play through his contract and extended him. They love his performance, they've showed that with money and with confidence. That's another point. Virtually nobody lists center as a need for the Bills except for the future after he leaves. That's another. And unfortunately there are far more positive opinions than negative. People who love road graders won't like him. But that's not what the Bills want, clearly. They want athletic OLs. They want smart OLs. Morse is both. I have no doubt if they could find somebody who was smart athletic and a road grader as well, they'd love that. But those guys are rare.

PFF apparently predicts he'll be 3 years and $33M. That sounds like a reasonable guess, on the high side a bit but maybe not that high. Too much. He's a really good player, but everybody knows this. It's why he'll get paid. I'd love to be wrong. I think he's a good player.

Oh, nonsense. He's not mediocre. He's good. Not as good as his draft pick would have you hoping he would be, but good. He's probably one of the five or six best guys on the team. He's not consistent. That's very true, and I'd certainly like to see that change. We'd all like him to be better. But he's disruptive. A lot. Replacing Ed at DT wouldn't be nearly as easy as people think. DT salaries are going up, and fast. We're entering an era where DLs, including DTs, are going to start making serious money. Look at the contract Dre'Mont Jones just got. If we could replace him easily, I wouldn't mind trading him now, as it's the best time economically. But he wouldn't be nearly as easy to replace as many here think. We'd be creating yet another hole in a year when we couldn't replace him. Doesn't make sense. And that's on top of the fact that I don't really trust Jeudy all that much. I expect them to just draft a WR instead.

Analysts, yes. Were any of the three given industry-leading salaries as analysts? I honestly don't know the answer to that, but I do know that the only one still doing much analysis has carved out a schtick as kind of a knowledgeable buffoon. He's not stupid, but he has to act like he is. People in this thread aren't just saying that Lamar will get a broadcasting gig, but that he'll get $20M a year to do it. I find that highly doubtful. I guess it's possible that we may see at some point. I'm guessing that point will be after his career ends, in probably eight to fifteen years depending how things go for him.

There always has to be one. If not more. That's how some people roll.

Players who were cut don't count against comp picks. Losing Tremaine will get us a 3rd round comp pick if we play the system right. Hadn't looked at the particulars. Nice post. Food for thought.

Haven't really watched him for a while. If he's still as solid as his stats seem to indicate, I'd welcome him. But I can't see them spending much money on an RB like that. Money might be the thing which would send them elsewhere, IMO. EDIT: yeah, as WPPete says above, I'd take him for $2M.

Agreed. He's always been really productive against us. I guarantee that didn't escape Belichick.

Their patchwork murdered our patchwork. Our whole team played bad, but the offense even worse that the D.

My guess is they aren't moving up in the first unless something genuinely bizarre happens, like Van Ness or Jalen Carter or Skoronski or Paris Johnson fall to 23 or near there. Beane values his picks and we've already got too few this year. And anyone on our roster with much trade value would leave yet another hole if traded. My guess is they trade back if anything. We'll see.

I do. But not in the first now, probably. Our safeties are old as Methuselah. We need to be thinking about replacements but also backups. Older guys get injured more.

I hope it's not RB. But for all those who wanted us not to keep Tremaine, congrats on getting what you wanted, but you also got a position of serious need. We are going to have to use some serious resources on MLB at some point. Could be FA, definitely. But it seems very possible we'll also be using one of our first three picks to fill the hole there long term. I wonder how high the Bills rank him. Certainly has freakish speed and size. But the Bills have showed that they want guys who can run routes really well and get separation. And other than with speed, I don't see him doing that. My guess is that the Bills rank him significantly lower than most do. In some systems he's going to be extremely valuable, is my guess. But I wonder how OBD feels. I think they want a guy who can get open at all three levels.

Right. Teams are "thrilled" when a back runs for 4.6 YPC against them, as Singletary does. They get all warm and fuzzy. You see DCs posting those stats on Instagram, when RBs get 4.6 per carry on them.

No, and that's dumb. On the face of it that's a conclusion that simply doesn't follow from the facts. What that shows very clearly is that you're so desperate to make a point that you'll use any evidence, even irrelevant evidence, even a complete lack of evidence to try unsuccessfully to make your point. It only speaks to your extreme confirmation bias. Again, did you hear all about our interest in Connor McGovern. If your logic had any basis at all, that would have proved that nobody was interested in Connor McGovern. Again, says more - far more - about your confirmation bias than it does about Devin Singletary. The actual reason we do not hear about any teams that are interested in signing him are ... well, we have no idea. There are almost an infinite number of possible reasons. They are many, they are various and until we get evidence, they are guesswork of the absolute purest kind. Again, you haven't a clue whether or not he pursued. For all you know his girlfriend is from Chicago. There is zero good evidence - right now at least - that they didn't go after him. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. It simply ... is ... not. They didn't get him. That's what we know. You can't believe we couldn't have done better? Well, I disagree. I like him but not that much, but who knows, maybe your're right. Time will tell.

Wouldn't have minded Foreman at all. But maybe Beane was all over that. We won't know unless there are some leaks about it or Beane shares regrets or something along those lines.