Buddo

People get very quickly enamored of the next QB, whoever that may be. Seems to me that much of the time, they are just more hot garbage. This QB class is not much better than the one we picked EJ in. If you want potential, we have it in Jones, but have yet to really try and develop it, imho. How about we sign a vet to backup Taylor, and actually get Jones some decent reps, to see if he can become something - even if it's just going to be next years backup. Everyone gets it - we don't have a 'franchise' QB, yet neither do we need to waste a draft pick, on another project, and by all accounts, pretty much anyone drafted this year (QB) is going to be one. If it was a good QB class, then there's a different argument to be made, but, put simply, it isn't. One of the biggest exercises in futility in the NFL, is drafting worse players, than you already have on the roster. Yet it seems as though just because it's a QB, that's ok. ;(

As said above, scheme is extremely important in respect of a number of positions. And will define who should be getting what. Part of the Bills problems with Cap Management, will stem from the continual changes in coaches, where schemes also change. One year you are paying a guy in line with market value, the next, you could be either over-paying him, or under-paying him due to a system change.

The current 'strength and conditioning' team, has largely been in place, not long after Nix took over. I think it can be argued that it was time for a change anyway, as the injury side of things, didn't seem to improve overly much, from the guys we had before. Our new HC is somewhat detail orientated, and it may well be that enough details weren't forthcoming from the guys who just got canned. (The Chaplain is probably just because he believed more in Rex than Jebus). McDermott seems totally meticulous in his planning, and I rather suspect that he wants the same degree of attention to detail, from those around him - even if they are 'merely' support staff.

While I wouldn't rule it out totally, schematically, it makes sense to be looking at DL, LB or Safety with the first pick, rather than CB. About the only reason to take a CB at #10, is to get an elite talent cheap for 5 years, because he won't get paid after that. In a draft that has plenty of DB depth (allegedly), you can wait for later rounds, to pick up perfectly good zone CBs. It's still possible that we might go Offense, but I think that comes down to how good they feel the WRs are at the top end of this draft. 'Grades' wise, I think they have to have some clear air between them and someone for the D. Tbh, I'm feeling somewhat more comfortable about the CB situation, with it being largely confirmed we will be going back to zone coverages. I think I'd like to see another vet added in FA, prior to the draft, but I believe we should be capable of filling holes there from the draft.

Same old thing here, people believe what they want to believe, as opposed to looking at realities. Anyone got any solid evidence, that in his time as GM, Whaley has been opposed to any of the picks? Certainly from the time of Nix, Bills have pretty much been drafting as a consensus, but the guy who pulls the trigger, was Nix, then Whaley. I've not seen, or heard, anything that makes me think for one moment, that that isn't still going to be the case.

Good post OP. It's definitely something to hope for, yet playing the old 'devil's advocate', I'm worried that because this class is so deep in certain areas, teams won't come calling, as they will believe they can still get a guy they want, in a later round. Probably the best 'shot' we have, is if there is nobody taken from a position group, by #10, so there's an opportunity for a needy team to get the top guy at that position, by trading up. It's likely that the 'drop off' between the top guys, and the next tier, will also be a factor. Bearing in mind that this draft is supposedly very good in certain areas (and deep), has anyone got a sense of how many guys are considered 'blue chippers' at the top of it - as that could also be the difference maker in getting offers to trade down.

It's one of the reasons why I'm less bothered about making a trade for someone, with a pick, as quite often, the proven guy, will stick for longer than whoever you might have picked. A partial example of this, would be when we picked Lynch with our 1st rounder. Prior to the draft, there was supposedly a lot of interest in Michael Turner, who iirc, we could have had for our 2nd rounder. We baulked, yet the Falcons didn't, and he proved to be a roaring success. Now while I seriously doubt that the Bills at that time were about to become contenders on the strength of getting Turner, and whoever they might have used the 1st round pick on, they almost certainly could have been a better team by doing it. Some years, you are probably better off losing a lower pick or two, for guys who you know can do the job you want of them. It would help, if you had plenty of picks to play with regularly, mind you. ;(

People hear what they want to hear, and with the wider variety of 'news' outlets, gravitate to those who support their often twisted, world views. Sadly, the current Potus, accurately reflects that trend, by getting his stuff off of 'Fox', in preference to utilizing the various intelligence gathering agencies at his disposal.

While there is inescapable logic to this, the problem then revolves around the idiots he leaves in charge when he's taking in the links.

Without any sort of caveats, just McCoy and Incognito. With the 'ifs', Dareus and Watkins. (Attitude and fitness). Hughes is worthy of a mention, but just as a 4-3 pass rusher, where he excels. Top 5 in a much more specific category. Glenn is on the outside looking in, but is comfortably a top 10 OT.

Where Mayock comes into his own, imho, is when you watch him as the draft unfolds. He has a real handle on what teams are likely to do. He will regularly quickly give a choice between 3 guys for the next pick, but say he thinks it will be one of them specifically, and the one he goes with, is very often correct. Rarely do I see him be wrong, and the pick be someone he hasn't just mentioned. I think the biggest problem with him, is that although he is happy to rank guys, he's less forthcoming about where he thinks they should be taken.

Coaching and scheme changes, have played a big part in the turnover of players, imho. We are actually fortunate that the Pegulas pulled the trigger when they did, and got a coach who wants to run some version of a 4-3, as we have a good deal of the pieces in place to do so, already. The thing with scheme changes, is that when you do so, immediately your priorities change, both in terms of which positions you need to get a different type of player for, and in how much you are prepared to pay said players. In zone based schemes, you simply don't have to have the most talented CBs around. Sure, it's nice to have them, but they aren't an absolute need, for the scheme to work. Hence, you aren't going to be paying them anywhere near as much as if you run a man coverage scheme, where elite talent becomes needed - at least on one side of the field. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the various CBA agreements, player turnover is simply inevitable, as teams can't sign players to long enough deals. Some of that is reasonable, and some of it, doesn't work out so well, either for the teams or the players, particularly talented athletes who need time to develop. The onus being much more 'how quickly can we get him on the field', rather than 'how good can we get this guy to be'. In respect of Gilmore, I think that if Ryan had been HC still for this coming season, we probably would have him already re-signed, because we needed his abilities at the position, for what Ryan supposedly wanted to do. Is letting him walk, because we don't need the same sort of ability, to play a different scheme, and consequently are prepared to pay for it, actually 'spinning wheels?'

I think that was Pettigrew. Supposedly an 'all round' TE, yet never really has caught enough passes to justify the label. Big solid blocker though, but hardly what you want from a 1st round pick at the position. Not that I know much about the various prospects, but it's also being said that the TE group is one of the best ever. Taking one with our 1st rounder, might qualify as being as wasteful as taking a CB, when we could have alternatives, e.g. LB, at other positions.

Got to go with Maybin. A lot of the other guys mentioned in here, were at least thought of highly in the first place, and not just by the Bills. I'm not sure anyone else in the league would have taken Maybin where we did, whereas I think others would have made the same mistake we did, with other guys mentioned.

This would seem to be the truth, especially when there's apparently next to no interest in AP. While his contract desires, may be off putting, there is no way that he's 'done', imho. I rather suspect that the Bills have decided to try and let another team 'set the market' on Gillislee, much as they did with Groy. Personally, I thought we should have given both of them the 2nd round tender, as it wasn't going to cost that much more, but it would seem that the FO have so far done a good job of actually reading the market for both players. I seem to recall there being some talk at some stage, about Gillislee's people being talked to about a long term deal, as opposed to just the RFA tender, but if they have baulked at any offer on the table, from the Bills, thinking they could get more elsewhere, then they might well have made a mistake. I would expect the Bills to match, assuming it isn't an exorbitant deal, should there be any other team that does make an offer, as I do believe they want to keep him, but quite what sort of money we are prepared to pay, is a tricky one, as I'm not thinking big bucks, at all.

Continuity is important. It allows you to keep progressing. Trouble is, you have to get an awful lot of the right pieces in place, before it becomes an option. You need to get a solid GM, who understands what his HC wants, and needs. You also require a good HC, and the rest of his staff. Then you need time to build. The Bills aren't currently, staring down desperation alley, as they do have talent on the roster. McDermott might just be the HC we have been looking for, well, since Levy (Phillips might have been able, had not the old guard decided to interfere - he was certainly the best HC we had since Levy). Whaley, I believe, is actually a 'solid' GM, and I'd also say that one of the things he has tried to do, is to accommodate the succession of HCs he has been lumbered with. Maybe the two Ryan years, will turn out to be a blessing in disguise, as it got Ownership to realize where they went wrong in their first hire, and listened more to their GM than their guts, when making their second. You don't have to have the 'franchise' QB to win in the NFL, but it sure does make it a lot easier. We can, and have, won with Taylor, and his rather unique skillset, means he could be the guy who can help get us back to contending, assuming he makes improvements. His ball security is excellent atm, but where he does need to get much better, is in getting rid of the football, as there are times he gets sacked, when he should be throwing it away. Those negative plays, are a big part of not being able to keep drives going. As the old adage says, 'it all starts up front', and in that respect, we aren't badly off, at all, with the whole of the O-Line returning, and a D-Line that is also going to be coming back, and coming back to a system they were meant to play. Due to the amount of talent on the roster, I think it's safe to say we are in 're-boot' rather than 'rebuild' mode, and I believe it's something that McDermott and his coaches think also. Taylor is almost certainly a 'bridging' QB, but one with which we can win. I think that they are 'comfortable' with what Taylor brings to the table, and that they can get the team back to being a more consistent winner, with him, while still trying to find a QB for the longer term. We do, however, still need to find that 'franchise' QB, as ultimately, while you can be consistently challenging for playoffs without one, you cannot build a 'dynasty' if you don't have one. I'm far more optimistic about the coming season, than I was for last year, the Pegulas threw Ryan off the boat just in time to allow this coaching staff an opportunity to get said boat turned around, without excessive upheaval.

I think the above is implicit in what I posted tbh.

He's pretty much actually said that tbh. I don't think everyone has to be squeaky clean, but I do think he will pass on guys whose commitment he feels he might have to question. Brown is obviously (and understandably, given what he has earned previously) looking for a payday. Does his attitude change, depending on the offer?

Looks like a solid pickup. One thing with Whaley and FA, is that he does do a decent job (on paper) of plugging as many 'holes' as possible, prior to the draft, freeing up as many options as possible. Tbh, the biggest area of concern now, has to be LBer, as we just don't have enough, or any with real sideline to sideline ability. RT will still be iffy, but at the very least, the whole of last years line returns, and as mostly they are decent, that's no bad thing. If this class is as good as being advertised, I can see them doubling down at the TE position.

Good move. Groy deserves a deal, for the way he filled in. His versatility at Center or Guard, gives us some possibilities to eventually replace either Wood or Incognito, as and when necessary. It may be that he is viewed more as Incognito's potential replacement, rather than Wood. Either way, a solid depth/backup signing, with an eye to the future.

I don't think it's that out of the 'ordinary' for them. They have regularly dived into FA after WRs, probably because they are about as good at drafting them, as the Ravens are, which is not very. Sometimes it's about who is available, and at what price.

Athletic ability, for sure, football ability, not so much. Other guys with less athletic ability, have done far better than he has, imho. Time to move on from Gragg. He was injured when we took him, and he's been injured a lot along the way. Anyone remember the Jags game at Wembley a couple of years ago? In a game full of boneheaded offensive plays, he made about the worst I've ever had the displeasure to see, when he caught a pass out of bounds, totally unnecessarily. I'm not losing any sleep if he signs elsewhere, that's for sure.

Don't take the proverbial now! Glad to see there's life still in the FO. Probably one of those signings that familiarity of our HC helped with, both in getting it done, and actually giving a more personal assessment of. We needed to get a guy like this, a somewhat proven vet who can play a role. While we might well not be done looking at FA WRs, we could now be seriously looking at using one of our first two picks on a #2 WR.

Over time, sure, but you are just as well trying to trade back in the drafts to get more picks, if you are desperate for them. Bottom line is that you have to put out a team every year, and some years, worrying about comp picks, simply isn't going to get that done. This year, in particular, being a case in point. I don't doubt the trends you appear to have looked into, hold true, but the fact is, you have to become a good, consistent football team, as your priority, and that doesn't happen through your relative acquisition of comp picks.

I think it's a combination of all sorts of things. Constant scheme and coaching changes haven't helped, at all. Players themselves like continuity, and will be more inclined to stick, when there is some. Once you get beyond the 2nd round, the CBA contract rules, make it increasingly difficult to keep guys who are just about to 'break out', especially when the rest of the NFL is perpetually sniffing around everyone else's rosters. You spend 3 years getting them ready, only for another team to whip them away from under your nose, for a couple of million more. Don't get me wrong, we would happily do the self same thing, and be glad about it, but it's an issue for everyone, and not just the Bills. It might be more interesting to see how many 4th year players you have on a roster, as opposed to guys drafted. Could become a better method of evaluating how a GM is doing, rather than simply being about how many guys you draft, you retain. Viewing numbers in isolation, doesn't help either. Are the Bills that much worse than other teams? Are other teams who are better at retaining guys, actually performing better on the field? How many draft picks have been used in that time, and does the % the Bills retain, match up to that of other teams? Pats might have more guys on their roster that they drafted, for example, but from how many picks? The 2015 draft, had us with 6 picks. Of those, only 2 are not still with the Bills, Steward and Karlos. Steward could be considered a 'bust', as can Karlos, yet Karlos was a 'bust' through his own actions, and not from a lack of ability. Steward has been beset by injuries. Darby and Miller, are very likely to be with us for the foreseeable future. O'Leary hasn't done badly, for a 6th rounder, and has found ways to contribute. Lewis might still develop. We get the same sort of value from 6 picks this year, I'm not going to be complaining in a hurry.