billsfan89

The Pats always seem to find a decent kicker but that aside they still had a very good ST unit without a consistent kicker. Their defense should still be top 10 in the league as well. But I do agree I think that their offense might be one of the worst in the league. They have no QB and not the best weapons. Although I think their stable of RB's and their O-line (if they keep Tuney) is solid their flaws will not be drastically improved via the draft most likely. Overall I think the Pats aren't worth writing off just yet. They are exceptionally well coached which is a huge advantage, they still have a decent amount of talent and a good complement of draft picks to work with. I think Billy B can get 7 wins out of a team that normally would win 3 or 4.

They went 11-5 without Brady, granted that was ages ago but we will see just how much was Brady and how much was the Pats system/design. I wouldn't count them out just yet, top ST unit, still a strong top 10 defense, and pieces on offense to work with.

Sounds like a typical "buy low" Pats move. The past few haven't worked out too well (Josh Gordon and AB in particular) but these moves typically work out for the Pats.

Maybe this is because I didn't notice him much (thus being a perception bias) but I didn't think he was anything special last year in the limited playing time he got.

Neither have really been much of a contributor thus far. I was talking about a guy drafted in the 6th or 7th that has played a key role or started significantly. Sweeney was a backup who flashed some potential but not exactly someone you can't find rather easily. I hope I am wrong about both as I think they have some potential but neither 6th or 7th round picks from 2017 or 2018 have come through that much.

In the previous 3 drafts I can't think of any 6th or 7th round picks that were significant contributors. Milano was a 5th round pick and T.Johnson was a 4th round pick. Those two are the only ones I can think of past round 3. So it isn't like this front office nails those late round gems often enough where you have to value those late round picks like gold.

If Yannick got 18-20 he would be making 3-5 million less than Mack but your point stands that it is pretty marginal the difference. If they traded pick 19 for Yannick that would remind me of the Randy Moss trade from Minny to Oakland. The Vikings got Napoleon Harris a good linebacker and the 7th pick in the draft (I think they might have also gotten a later round pick thrown in there) for Moss and they spent the 7th pick on a WR who was a reach and a bust. I get that Moss leaving left a huge hole on the roster but you could try and fill that hole using other resources and then built up other parts of the roster with that 7th pick. Instead they chased the vapors of Moss by somewhat reaching on Williamson when they could have taken a good defensive piece (either one of the corners taken after who both ended up being good or DeMarcus Ware if they wanted a pass rusher) and set up their team for success by building a much stronger defense.

The Raiders also got cap relief by not having to pay Mack a huge contract so not only did you get the two first round picks but you also don't have a 23 million dollar aav contract on your books. Now I do agree that you have to take those picks and that space and either replace the player and add other picks or you have to actually use those picks to build other avenues of the roster and replace those players some other way. Right now the Raiders are chasing ghosts with that pick and space. I think if they do manage to land Yannick without giving up either of their first round picks and the contract isn't too bad then they at least have a prime time pass rusher with a young guy opposite him and they would still have the two firsts there to build the roster in other avenues.

I would say that trading down tends to be the best move (unless it is for a QB and even then it has to be the right QB) as the draft is a crap shoot and getting more tickets in this game is usually better. However trading up isn't bad if you are a GM that trusts your scouting and knows the draft board/league analysis well. I would rather trade a 6th round pick to move up 7-10 spots in round 4 to secure a better player than to just always take picks that might never amount to anyone of consequence.

Ferrel is too early to tell he wasn't lighting the world on fire but he did show some flashes (4.5 sacks is not tragic for a rookie) DE's take some time to develop so I wouldn't call that pick a miss just yet. But I would agree that if they are giving up pick 19 for Yannick that squanders a big part of what they got for Mack. Yannick is a very good player but I am not giving up a 1st and a 18-20 million dollar a year contract for a very good player. The Raiders would be generous to offer their two 3rd round picks for Yannick and the Jags should be happy to get that haul.

The Bills will defer any Tre extension until next off-season, I think he will get his but given they have the 5th year option they get to delay the inevitable cap hit. They need to focus on resigning Dawkins and Milano.

No, Yannick comes with having to pay him 20 million aav and a large guarantee. As good as he is I am not giving up an entire draft class worth of picks for him and a disgruntled RB who is good at best. Now if we are talking about giving up pick 86 and another late round pick I would be interested in entertaining the possibility of securing a top flight DE and a power RB while still having pick 54 to just add a talented young player at any position while still having some mid to late round picks to add some depth around the edges. But honestly looking at the cap situation long term I don't want Yannick clogging up the cap at 18-20 million aav. Yes he is a good player and will be 26, I get that it isn't the worst investment to make and it helps the team vault into contention in 2020. However I could easily see Yannick's contract becoming a burden long term. McBeane prioritizes flexibility and timing in the cap. Right now with Dawkins and Milano needing extension and Tre coming up the year after adding a big DE contract might not be the most prudent let alone adding a big DE contract at the expense of draft capital. I would rather just draft a DE at pick 54 if one is there and stick with adding some younger players. If anything this team's "win now" move should be to sign Clowney to a one year deal. Clowney as a one year mercenary would greatly help the edge rush and we would get the best out of him as he would still be seeking that big pay day.

Not at all, you don't reach for need. However you can't just draft for value (would you take 5 RB's if they all happened to be the BPA?) You need a combination of need and value. Basically my philosophy is that you take the best player available if they are an insane value or you take the best player at a position of need or where you need to get younger. My issue with drafting a RB in round 2 is that RB's are a dime a dozen. A lot of effective running backs can be found in the mid rounds. So my take is that if you are going to take a RB at pick 54 you better be getting a guy who will be a top 5-7 player because you probably can get a decent back in round 4 or 5. So yes you do have to factor in draft value, value of the position, and need when drafting. All three factors are important. Right now positional value at RB is very low which means that despite it being a need on the roster the value of the draft pick has to be there in order to justify spending your biggest draft asset on that position.

The only way I could see it happening is if after the draft they don't get a RB they like and don't want to reach. Then you turn to the trade and free agency market. Even then I think they would take Carlos Hyde or another free agent back instead of trading a 6th or 7th away for Fournette.

Nope, unless insane value slips (Like Tua is there at pick 54 or something really out there) or this is a late round project QB should be at the bottom of the draft board.

I would love him as a one year rental over Kroft. I wouldn't mind trading a 5th round pick or a marginal roster player for him. I wouldn't break the bank for Howard but if I can solidify the pass catching TE position and add depth over a guy in Kroft who struggles to stay on the field then I say it is worth the draft investment. I wouldn't keep Howard long term but one year and get a comp pick for him I am sold. This team must really like what Knox can bring and thinks Kroft can stay healthy if they plan to make zero moves at the TE position. I like what Knox can bring but I think he is a year away from being consistent and I don't think Kroft can stay healthy. Give me a better player at the position on a one year rental if the cost is reasonable.

Henry and Cubb were second round picks that's why I started that those blue chip RB's are the types of prospects you want at pick 54. If you can get a really good prospect at pick 54 then take them. But there are other positions you need to take ahead of a RB so the only way you justify an RB is if they are that dam good.

If you are taking a RB in round 2 I expect it to be a high potential prospect who can take over the position in year one or two at worst. I would want a Derrick Henry or Nick Chubb type prospect. Yes I get that it is a high bar to set but overall with the disposable nature of the position you have to have a big return on investment with high draft capital.

Fully agree, they should be able to have 5 or 6 people in a big room without compromising any public health or employee health. This virtual draft is going to be a ***** show.

Tua is the one that they could get that would be interesting. They could most likely wait at 5 and get him. I think Tua at 5 wouldn't help them short term but long term could be a viable QB. I hope some team hops over them at 5 to take Tua and then they go Hubert or some other trash QB. I also wouldn't mind if the Fins traded up for Burrow. Maybe trading 5, 18, 26 and the Texans 1st next year. I think Burrow is massively overrated.

The NFL has experienced insane growth that would probably have eclipsed an index fund even with dividends reinvested. I was more so talking about sports leagues in general being an investment compared to an index fund. However the NFL does have operating losses for some teams (the TV deals only cover the player salaries) as there exists a large operation needed and other forms of revenue don’t always cover it. But let’s say that even if teams have a operating loss the NFL was a good investment to make. However my point is that if you are a billionaire investing in sports is probably not the best way to make money. It is a speculative endeavor filled with operating losses and a reliance on a Television medium whose bottom might fall out sooner rather than later. Billionaires get into pro-sports as a way to have fun and network into other business ventures. They don’t get into it as an investment. Could it be a great investment? Yes of course, but overall the purpose of getting into sports as a billionaire is more so as a hobby/toy than anything else.

I hope you are right in that they are willing to take short term losses in order to make the team as successful as possible. But I think as a fan it is fair to speculate that if the Pegula's insist on a team being a profit center they could cut costs if things get tough. Especially if they are heavily invested in the oil and gas industry.

Like any asset a sports team tends to appreciate. However if you factor in yearly operating losses that return on investment is probably less than that of an index fund. For example let’s say you buy the team for 500 million and 15 years later sell it for a billion dollars (which is a healthy but fair market estimate) that sounds like a super good investment to double your money in 15 years. BUT factor in 100-150 million in operating losses and that return is more like 70%. So 70% still sounds good however if in 2005 if you invested in an index fund you would have gotten a 232% return on investment without dividends reinvested and that’s now during the market crash (you would have collected 30% in dividends too.) So yes some have made good money but odds are the market probably would make you more money.

There is a reasonable limit to what you can eat as far as losses. But if you are a billionaire worth 5 billion dollars (as is Pegula's suggested net worth) eating 20-40 million in losses yearly can sound like a lot but in reality is a very small position of his wealth (Even at 40 million a year we are talking about less than 1% of his wealth) considering that you could make double that on a very stable bond I don't think his lifestyle or wealth is all that threatened by Sabers and sports yearly losses (and considering the write off on taxes that number does come down a bit.) I think that there also exists the matter of how much the franchise is appreciated in value yearly as well. Beyond the business aspects the fact remains that modern sports ownership is a loss leader operations wise. These teams are the toys of billionaires and there are many owners willing to eat 20-40 million in operating losses in order to win as many games as possible. So if you aren't willing to treat the team like a loss leader than you are likely going to be behind the eight ball and handicap your team from winning sustainably. So the question then remains does Pegula have the stomach to be a modern sports owner? Or does he need to make as much money as possible? Is he willing to eat the losses on the Saber and on occasion the Bills?

It isn't necessarily spending on players that would worry me, it is more so spending on the coaching staff and organizational infrastructure that would concern me. Ralph's cheapness extended beyond the cash to cap spending. The Bills always had subpar facilities, subpar coaching and training staffs, lackluster infrastructure and just generally were always second rate in most aspects. Pegula has been the polar opposite so far these past 5 seasons. The Bills have some of the most modern facilities in the league, one of the most respected training and coaching staffs and have let Beane put together on the of the best football infrastructures in the league. BUT if the Bills remain the profit engine of the Pegula's business and they need to paper over other losses in other businesses then that's when things could get sticky in terms of paying top dollar for football infrastructure. Should it be a concern short term? No I think in 2020 and 2021 they are fine. But long term? I could see it being concerning.