hondo in seattle

Too early to talk about tendencies. But listening to these guys talk, I get the following impressions. * Beane really is a BPA guy - to a point. He'll draft a good guy at a position we don't need if he feels that this guy is clearly the best guy on the board. Because of this, at the end of the draft some fans may complain we drafted a couple players who weren't entirely necessary while neglecting some glaring needs. * McD and Beane don't want combine warriors. They want good football players who will work hard and put the team first. Athleticism is important, but it isn't everything. * As mentioned by CaptnCoke and others, Beane isn't afraid to trade. My guess is that he's just as likely to trade down as up. He wants to maximize his picks in a way that makes sense with his board & the needs of the team. So while Beane may be a BPA guy, it doesn't mean he'll passively wait for his turn and then choose the best player still available. He'll make some trades to make sure - as best he can - the needs of the team are met.

The quality of the players is so much more important than the age. But Badol is right... we kept the old players. Last year, we were the 28th youngest team in the league. Back in 2013, we were the 3rd youngest. And as all those youngsters matured and gained experienced, we didn't get any better. Being a young team doesn't help if you have the wrong youth. https://www.phillyvoice.com/ranking-nfl-teams-age-after-53-man-cutdowns-2018-edition/ I doubt that the turnover surprises many people. First of all, the NFL is a high turnover sport. On top of that we changed both our coach and our GM. McD - like every other coach - has a vision of what schemes he wants to run and what kind of players he wants to field. Almost inevitably, it's going to be different than Rex. And, almost inevitably, the way Beane drafts college players and evaluates FAs is going to be different than Whaley. As someone with a French mom, all I can say is: Vive la difference!

It may be true that OL play has declined over the years. But - as a Bills fan - I don't care about that. What I mean is I don't care about the absolute quality of our OL. I care about the comparative quality of our OL. We need it to be better at opening holes and protecting QBs than most other NFL lines if we want to be a playoff team. We weren't. Saying it's "not just the Bills" isn't really true when you think about it in these terms. The Bills OL was bad by current NFL standards. Only a few other teams were as bad or worse. But the decline of OL play is an interesting phenomena when most performances in sports get better over time as training, medical support, nutrition, gear, etc get better.

Cottrell? There’s a blast from the past. Bored with retirement?

One of the things that skews the correlation is the cost of players on rookie contracts. If a team is able to draft well at a certain position, it won't have to allocate a lot of cap dollars for that position. I know some teams plan cap allocation by position. I wonder how they take this into account.

Interesting and maybe a little counter intiutive. I would have expected there to be a correlation between QB spending and wins. Seeing this makes me guess there’s no strong correlation between what a team pays for QB play and the quality of play they actually get. Nice work, PP. Shows another side of analytics.

Good find. Sounds like a stand up guy.

Air Force Academy grad. Convinced the Air Force to allow him to serve in the reserves - instead of active duty - so he could pursue his NFL dreams. Tried out for the Bills but wasn't signed. Kicked around the league for 4 or 5 years as a back up and practice squad player. Described as very hard working. Alternatively, McD may have been super-impressed with Chad and they're working out some details before making the announcement.

Ex player... young guy, only 32.... last season was his first season on a coaching staff.

Bruce was awesome. But OJ changed the outcome of more games than Bruce. Our defense wasn't good in those years and Fergie didn't put a lot of fear in the defenses we faced. So opponents went up against the Bills with one overwhelming priority: stop OJ. If they stopped OJ, they would win. It was that simple. Yet OJ averaged 112 yards per game in his prime five years.

Bruce may have been the best pass rusher of all time. But OJ is probably the greatest football player at any position I've seen in my 60 years on earth. In his prime, he looked like a NFLer playing against junior college kids. Let's look at peak productivity... In OJ's best season - back when defenses schemed more to stop the run than the pass - OJ had an incredible 75% more yards than the #2 guy. OJ rushed for 2,003 yards in that season (1973) - next best total was 1,144. And that was in the 1970s when the best athletes in America wanted to be running backs, unlike today. Bruce, on the other hand, never led the NFL in sacks. Not once. He was very good for a very long time, but at his peak he was not as dominant as OJ. Maybe Bruce is a better pick in this exercise because he'd contribute for more seasons. But OJ would make the biggest immediate impact. His talent was other worldly.

Great stat line indeed. That was back in the good old days when QBs liked to sling the ball down the field. And, after all, they didn't call Daryle, "The Mad Bomber" for nothing!

Most GMs say you always draft the best player available regardless of need. With that thought in mind, I'm taking OJ. Then again, QB is the most important position in the modern NFL and Josh is still unproven, so I'm taking Jim Kelly. And since QBs are so important, you really need someone to disrupt the opposing QB, so I'm taking Bruce Smith. I'm conflicted.

Ask any old guy... Daryle Lamonica.

I'm not sure this deserves its own thread... but it is pretty funny.