Buddo

I don't know, but iirc, didn't he apply for a medical clearance for it? I think it was denied in relation to the suspension for 'substance abuse', but I thought it may have been a possibility that it could be allowed going forward, as in from this year/season. It may even have been in part, about not actually applying for the exemption in the right way, or in time.

There's a lot of difference between good defense, resulting in a low scoring game, and inept offence, having the same effect. The Bills/Browns game was played in awful conditions, iirc, but also by two really bad offences. The playoff game was contested by two good Ds, yet the low scoring was as much a function of poor offensive play, than especially good defense. Which is why it also was a crap game.

I think with some judicious rule changes, you could bring back the idea of defense again. Mainly by not penalizing PI in the same way, and by allowing more of a challenge for the football, but also by calling a catch a catch, without half of the preconditions attached to it currently. You can get the best of both worlds then. DBs aren't over penalized, and there's less chance of QBs just chucking the thing up there and looking for a PI, while also letting the incredibly athletic WRs of today, make plays (i.e. catches), without everything being under the microscope of frame by frame. Just having one foot in, for example, could be an option. Imho, a lot of the issues with the NFL these days, come back to an inflated rulebook, that is too open to interpretation, by people who aren't the best qualified to do so.

I'd tend to agree. I think Davis is being viewed as a cheaper alternative to Gaines, tbh, with the assumption that Gaines will get a far bigger offer than the Bills would make him. He might actually be a better player, as well, although that would be debateable. I'm not enamoured of the 'trade Glenn' notion unless it can be done for a serious move up in the first round of the draft. I think we are better off keeping him, and using him at RT, where he won't have to move his feet quite as much. I don't think he currently has that much trade value, after the poor season he just had (fitness wise), but hes no trouble, works hard, and when healthy is a good player. I'd rather keep him, get him healthy, back to playing well, and then look to trade him, after next season, when if my scenario plays out, he will have way more value. I'd be happy to see the much maligned Brown return, as I don't think he's a problem. You might get a 'hometown discount', and if you do, you need to snap it up. The interior of the D-Line is a bigger problem than Brown is, if we don't persuade Kyle to return.

These days, it's very often the case, that from a purely grading standard, a QB isn't in the top 5 overall. Trouble is, once you factor in 'need', they leap up boards, often to the extent of a round early, but in the first, it's more that they leapfrog places. None of the above means that the QBs are bad, just that they are overvalued. I don't recall Mayock beating the drum for Wentz, but I may not have been paying attention to the top two QBs, as we weren't getting one. ;( I do recall him beating the drum for Matt Ryan, and he has been right about him. For whatever reason, I get the sense that Mayock is nowhere near finished with watching film of a lot of the QB prospects, and that there's a lot of room for him to change his mind. There's also still quite a lot of time for that to happen, as well.

I just can't help remembering how badly the likes of Kevin Faulk used to gash us. For the last few years, I'll stand corrected then

My main thought on this is that NE has used a FB successfully for years. But it was one who could catch. DiMarco doesn't do catch. So I could see him being ditched. Having said that, like others did in this thread, I often wondered why we had acually signed him, when he didn't seem to be on the field that much. I also wonder if some of the stupid plays we saw Tolbert being given, were as a result of Dennison not getting an extra RB to use. It seemed to take an age to sign Cadet, and the amount of time we were just going with Shady backed by Tolbert, throughout the season, struck me as being far too much for a run first team.

I think it's something that has to be given a bit more serious consideration, than perhaps is happening. The Browns are in a rare situation, where they could do all sorts of things, not the least of which is take 2 QBs in their first 4 picks. Then wait for the trade offers. Thing is, they could wait to trade until after this years draft, and go for players and future picks from another team - and unless they get some serious 'coin' to move away from the #4 pick, I think I'd be tempted to do that. Of course, as with just about everything else, we will get a much better feel for it as a possibility, once the FA QB carousel has spun around a few times.

I agree with you for the large part. I just wonder if he has seen some of the light in respect of having better players around him. I think he will still get big bucks, but he might just actually consider something of a 'hometown discount' this time. I will say one thing, and that is his attitude to getting paid the last time around, would have seen him 'moved on' from quite a few teams, the Cheatriots being one that springs to mind, as Belicheck wouldn't have compromised his ability to put together a team, over the demands of one player.

Didn't Jauron have something in his contract that meant he had to agree to the top picks, i.e the 1st rounders, and maybe 2nd rounders too. I'm pretty certain Marv loved him some Kyle Williams, as it has been reported, and I think confirmed, that Modrak persuaded him to wait an extra round before taking him - Marv was all set to pick him in the 4th round. Tbh, whoever talked about rating some of these picks in relation to starting for the Bills, is right, that was a time when the team operated within what could be largely described as a talent vacuum. Although in retrospect, it seems that some of the draft classes around that time were also pretty devoid of talent, by comparison to recent years.

How much of the trade up to #3, is coloured by what you would like to see done? Tbh, I think #3 is about as high up as we can get, without giving up way too much, so from that standpoint, I can see the possibility. I just think that the Giants would be mad to not take a QB, when they won't get such a high pick, combined with a good QB class, in probably another 10 years or so. And if they do, then unless they take Allen to sit, the whole pack of cards comes tumbling down. I've also seen where the Colts are desperate for an edge rusher, and could well take Chubb @ #3, although there might be alternatives they would be happy with around the early 20s. Good effort though, and nice analysis to back it up. Food for thought.

They didn't have the luxury of the Browns picking ahead of them though.

Okay. So we have now had 2 of the 4 or 5 top QB prospects linked to us. At the rate of about one every week, we should have 4 covered by FA.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if we did miss the playoffs this coming year. There's still a lot of work to be done to get this team right, and it wasn't helped by Wood getting injured, and being forced into an eventual retirement. Part of the need, is for a legitimate passing QB. Tyrod can get you to the playoffs, but that's about it, and his style of QB play, hampers the development of your WRs. Because he don't throw to 'em. We get a guy like Matthews in trade, who put up big numbers for the Eagles the previous year, who disappears without a trace, with Tyrod not throwing to him - and that was before he got injured. There will be good opportunities to get a decent QB prospect, without giving up the earth in picks, because this draft has more decent QB prospects than we've seen in a fair few years.

Probably why Casserly is no longer employed by a team..... You could also then argue, that they could pick Allen there, as he's got the most upside, yet needs to sit for a couple. The other side to that, is that if injuries happen, the older you get, the longer it takes to recover from them, so having someone who can step in at a moments notice, is a good thing. The Giants shouldn't be expecting to draft this high again, in a hurry. They have got lucky, in that an unusually bad season for them, has coincided with one of the best QB classes for a while. (FWIW, last time they were in the top 5, they drafted Rivers @ #4)

TBH, I think the Giants would be mad to pass up the opportunity to take a QB. Too much available talent, and too high a pick, to use on another position. Doesn't matter if they see Eli having another 3 good years, either, as you are talking about positioning yourself (i.e. franchise), for a further 12 years or so of success. If the Bills were in that same position, I would be telling the GM to get a QB, if I was the Owner, and I rather suspect that Mara will be doing the same. Truth be told, if you are picking in the top 2, and there are 2 top QB prospects, you probably should be taking one of them regardless.

Tbh, I don't really care what they were ranked at, as I seriously doubt an accurate assessment can be made, by an outside organization. And certainly not when you are talking about how well pass pro holds up when you have a QB like Taylor. My eyes told me they weren't particularly good, generally, whether it was in pass pro or run blocking, and as I mentioned, they are down a center as well. They aren't without hope though, and I've talked myself about maybe using Glenn at RT, with the emergence of Dawkins as being serviceable. Groy might well be okay at center, but the reluctance to use him last year, in any sort of capacity other than backup, doesn't bode well for his standing with the current coaches. The overall conclusion being that more talent will be required for the O-Line, to aid whatever QB we throw behind it.

True enough, but let's face it, we aren't going to be exactly surprised if they are rubbish. Not all of his sacks were on Taylor last season. And they are currently minus one center. My feeling on this currently, is that if we go 'all in' on a drafted QB, then we are going to have to spend money in FA, to get him the best protection we can. We do have some cap space, and might have a fair bit more depending on cuts. Unlike any number of other years, it would seem that we might be able to achieve both, partly due to the availability of QB talent in this draft. We could go the 'other way', and use the cap space on a FA QB, but that would still give us the opportunity to reinforce the lines with a bunch of high round picks.

I'm rather inclined to the first paragraph, myself. The second one, I think is as much the additional influence of Beane, especially in respect of clearing cap space, being prioritised over retaining ability. In respect of the 'pressure' of getting rid of the lack of a playoff game, from others in the thread, I'm not too struck on that notion, as for last year, at least, I wouldn't write it down as one of the fans expectations. Part of a wish list, for sure, but nobody was running McD etc. out of town on a rail, if they hadn't made the playoffs. Back more in respect of the OP, I think that it will take another year or two before we are in any sort of position to actively seek comp picks. There are too many holes that need filling, even if a lot of them are depth, they still exist.

Very much this. See the teams interested in him now, and make his mind up well before 'proper' FA begins. He might want to get something done before the combine, as there's an awful lot of 'possible' business gets done there, outside of the draft evaluations. 'In before the crowd', as it were.

Kiper's QB list seems based off of potential ceiling, as opposed to anything else. From what I've read elsewhere, Allen does have the biggest potential, with the measureables, but there's no hint of the fact he could very easily be bust city. A classic 'boom or bust' type. And these days, the NFL is very quick to label a bust...

He was getting around $9 million per on his last deal with the Colts. I'd guess he would want something towards that again, so the money may be an issue. Tbh, if he came and played as well as he has done at times in the past, I'd say that that money would be worth it, as he has been exceptional at times. If he could be had for $7 million per, that might still be a steal. As well as Gaines played when healthy last year, I'd still put a healthy Davis above him. Seems to me that I'm inadvertently putting a number on what I'd be prepared to pay Gaines, which is around $7 million per. With Hyde and Poyer, getting the other starting CB opposite White, pretty much sets up our secondary well again, going into the draft, with the freedom to take another CB if we like one where a pick falls, as opposed to needing one.

A pleasant surprise last year, and as they like rotation so much, needed depth. No problem with this whatsoever.

Congratulations to Frank. For the Colts, it seems to me that the lines of the Stones song are quite apt "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might just find, you get what you need". Now and then, you just get a feeling about someone, that they are the right guy for the job, and I've thought that Frank would make a good HC for a few years now. Providing it's not at the Bills expense, I hope he proves me right.

Cutting Peters, according to Spotrac, saves them about $5million. Neither Bradham or Graham would be considered as 'must' re-sign guys, imho. A Darby extension can wait until around TC or the start of the new season, by which time a lot of other 'dust' will have settled. It just makes no sense at all to trade a guy who isn't that expensive, irrespective of how much other teams may, or may not, covet him. Especially when he's playing the most important position on the team.