hondo in seattle

Well, we needed talent almost everywhere. And Beane found players he liked for a variety of position groups. So far, so good. I have an open mind about each new player. But I also know, historically, that most draft picks do not become valuable starters. So, there's that. I'm intrigued but I'll wait before judging Beane's work a success or failure.

I haven't read the book but am familiar with the concept. I don't think any individual fan can compete with a pro scouting department. But I think the idea of a collective group of smart fans competing with a professional scouting department is interesting. For example, could the fans on this website collectively make better picks than Beane and his staff??? I went to college 40 years ago and remember little, but I do remember this... In a psych class, the professor handed out a list of random items and asked us to list the ones we would want with us if we were astronauts faced with an emergency situation in space. Then we did the same exercise in 6 person groups. I was cursed to be grouped with the most unscientific, illogical clowns in the class. Or so I thought. To my shock, our group list more closely resembled the official NASA list than my personal list. Amazingly, every group list was better than any individual's list. Collective intelligence is a remarkable thing. But it has limits too - group think, for example. So now I'm curious... Do you think a large mafia group can draft better than Beane and his staff?

I've been thinking about Einstein's complaints about 'anecdotal' arguments. My argument isn't actual an empirical one; it's one of values. I think people should be humble and kind. I can't back that up with science. But I think Einstein is looking for proof that pros are better than amateurs at scouting. As far as I know, no one's yet done a double-blind randomized controlled trial to determine if professional scouting staffs are better at talent evaluation than fans. But wouldn't it be fun to try? Except I wouldn't want the experiment to be entirely random. I'd run it like this: The Chiefs, Pats, Jets, Fins, and 12 other teams would be required to fire all their scouts. Instead, they'd pick some random fan the day before the draft to make all their picks. The Bills and 15 other teams would be allowed to retain their professional personnel departments and scout prospective players as normal. We'd do this for ten years and then compare the results. We could collect the empirical data Einstein is looking for and win a bunch of games in the process.

I sometimes think the #1WR is overblown. What if a team rotates 5 wideouts, none of whom surpass 1,000 yards. But when you add in the TEs and backs, the offense still gains 5,000 yards through the air. Do the fans then think: "Well, we would have had 6,000 yards if we had a true #1!"

Einstein, you know drafting isn't an exact science. You also know it's not purely a game of chance either. It's something in between. Brandt-the-Commentator may have been right more often than some front offices, but he wasn't right often enough for me to feel like I could entirely trust his judgment. Was it luck or skill when Bill Walsh drafted Joe Montana? I don't know. But I do know that Walsh made more good picks than other GMs during his time. I think Beane does, too. Or, more broadly, I think Beane has put together a better roster than most (though not all) GMs in the league. I also think it's absolutely fair for us to judge Beane by the roster he's put together. We can evaluate players like Allen and Cook because we've witnessed how they perform at the NFL level. I just think it's fan hubris to call Beane a moron or idiot for a draft pick when we mafiosos lack the expertise to make those judgments. We might not like a pick. Fine. But let's not rush to judgment and call each other names.

I'm not opposed to inexpert second-guessing. I do it, too. I do question the name-calling, hair-pulling, and gnashing-of-teeth. Especially, the name-calling. Years ago, I would read draft profiles on all our picks and watch their highlights. And then I would turn to a select group of trusted experts. High up on that list was Gil Brandt, who was a scouting innovator, helped Dallas win some Super Bowls, and was inducted in the Hall of Fame. After I digested all that information, I thought I had a reasonably good idea of how our draft went. But I noticed that a lot of even Brandt's takes turned out to be wrong. Of course, Brandt-the-Commentator didn't have the scouting staff and other resources that Brandt-the-Vice-President did. But I think the bigger issue is that it's impossible to unerringly project the future success of college players. There are just too many variables at play. I'm now like Socrates when it comes to the draft: I know that I know nothing. There is no certitude here. There can't be.

Well, I'm admittedly Debi from Depew too and I don't. But I suppose some versions do.

Yeah, I agree. Drafting is such an inexact science that I like accumulating extra swings at the piñata. It's true that 1st round lottery tickets are better than late round lottery tickets but I like lots of lottery tickets to improve the odds. I'd love for the analytics guys to come up with a true equivalency and trade chart based on historical hit rates at different places in the draft. If being a good GM was easy, Matt Millen would have succeeded. In truth, Millen knows more about talent evaluation than 99.99%+ of the human beings on the planet. Yet, despite being supported by a multi-million dollar scouting organization, he authored one of the worst 7 year stretches in NFL history. However smart he may have been, he was still worse than the 31 other GMs. I used to walk away from drafts thinking, "This is a good one," or "This is a bad one." But I never actually had a freaking clue. Now I turn off the TV, read the online scouting reports, and say, "Well, this is interesting. Let's see how it works out."

Every blue moon, an intrepid crime podcaster breaks a criminal case. But imagine your daughter was kidnapped and you had a binary choice: (A) You can have the FBI, with all its trained investigators, forensic scientists, labs, subpoena power, police connections, and other resources handle the investigation. (B) You can have Debi from Depew, who views herself as an investigative reporter because she podcasts from her mom’s basement, search for your daughter. I don’t know about you, but I’d choose A. It's part of fandom to stand by our unfounded opinions, call the GM a moron, and generally spout nonsense. But, if we want to be honest about it, we’re all - to varying degrees - Debi from Depew. Fans are notoriously lousy at assessing draft picks. Many of us criticized Beane when he picked Josh in the draft while few of us offered up flowers when he chose Milano. And, look, talent evaluation is hard. Go back and look at what sportswriters said five years ago about the draft. Their hit rate isn’t high. Even the analytic guys, armed with their algorithms and statistical analyses, aren’t good. They told us that if Josh became a successful NFL QB, it would shake the very foundations of all math, science, and human knowledge. I doubt if there’s anyone on this board who knows as much about scouting college players as Tyler Pratt who starts researching and evaluating players at 5:30 am each day and keeps at it until 8pm. Tyler is an area scout for the Bills Personnel Department which includes 18 dedicated fulltime professionals, not including the admin folks, and is aided by 7 equally dedicated professionals in the Analytics & Football Research Department. While none of us matches Pratt hours and expertise, we don’t hesitate to act like we’re smarter than Beane and his entire, fantastically resourced organization. So when someone starts spouting that Beane is an idiot because he drafted a slow wideout, a lineman with short arms, and a guy who never played football before, I just yawn. Debi from Depew doesn’t interest me. Beane and his team have spent millions of dollars, studied thousands of hours of tape, conducted hundreds of interviews. I just hope the Bills FBI (Foot Ball Investigative) unit is better than the FBI units at our rivals. Time will tell. But I trust Beane and his team of experts far more than Debi from Depew.

Obviously, I wish Coleman had 4.3 speed. But I think what's interesting that if you look at our receiving options: Samuel, Shakir, Coleman, Knox, Kincaid, Hollins... they're all different. They all bring something unique to the table. I still wish longevity scientists could do some kind of plasma therapy or genetic/epigenetic engineering with Andre Reed or Eric Moulds to make them young again so they can play with Josh. But if Brady is as talented as some seem to think he is, he should be able to put together a capable WR-by-Committee passing attack with the guys we have.

Congrats for having the courage and self-esteem to admit this! And I hope the trend continues!!! As memory serves, more than half the Bills mafia disliked the Allen pick at first. Then as people read more about him, and watched more video - and as homerism did its furtive work - he started growing on people. Sadly, we fans aren't talented talent evaluators. My own takes have been wrong so often, as have the takes of the media draft gurus I once trusted, that my opinion on Coleman is: Wait and See. Same as my opinion on every other draft pick.

Maybe you missed this part: "Beane says Coleman is a 4.5 kind of guy. These receivers all ran 4.5 or slower: Cooper Kupp, Allen Robinson, Mike Evans, Antonio Brown, DeAndre Hopkins, Davante Adams, Dez Bryant, Jarvis Landry, Tyler Boyd..." As for Largent, he didn't line up in a Wing T formation wearing a leather helmet. His career overlapped with Jerry Rice's, Andre Reed's, and James Lofton's. The NFL had already transformed into a "Passing League" by then and speed was considered as important back then as it is now. But speed is only one of the attributes a wideout needs. There are other traits that contribute to success.

Yep. I think the most interesting thing this year isn't who we did, or didn't, draft at wideout. It's what Brady does with the offense. Belichick said yesterday that Josh Allen is "pretty special." I want to see if Brady can build a good offensive scheme around his special QB. If Brady schemes right, Coleman and the other WRs will be productive. Steve Largent was slow. He didn't run at the combine (it didn't exist yet) but reports said his 40 time was somewhere between 4.7 and 4.9. Even though he was productive at Tulsa, Largent wasn't drafted till the fourth round by the Oilers due to his slow feet. The Oilers evaluated him during the preseason, decided he was indeed too sluggish for the NFL, and traded him to the Seahawks for an 8th round pick. When he retired, Largent owned all the important career receiving records: most receptions, yards, and TDs. His bust resides in Canton. Speed isn't everything. Beane says Coleman is a 4.5 kind of guy. These receivers all ran 4.5 or slower: Cooper Kupp, Allen Robinson, Mike Evans, Antonio Brown, DeAndre Hopkins, Davante Adams, Dez Bryant, Jarvis Landry, Tyler Boyd...

Thanks for posting. This makes me feel better... even though I won't form an opinion until I see him play in a Bills uni.

I was torn between DeJean and Mitchell. DeJean because I think he's the BPA. And Mitchell because he's the best wideout. But what the hell do I know? Here's my unpopular take of the day. Talent evaluation is hard. Most fans don't know squat when it comes to evaluating college players and projecting their success in the NFL. In fact, most media guys likewise don't know jack. The draft grades they hand out rarely turn out to be accurate. Even some GMs, despite all their experience, insider information, study, tape, and multi-million-dollar organizations, suck at talent evaluation. I'm sure Matt Millen, for example, put in a lot of hours to achieve his miserable results. At this time of year, I take my opinions like I take everyone else's: with a large grain of salt.

Given our cap situation, Beane needs to get some playmakers on rookie contracts.

I mostly agree except that we didn't get any extra picks.

I agree we badly need a WR. But maybe Beane isn't enamored with the remaining WRs and thinks they're more Mack Hollins than Andre Reed. We can get a JAG later on in the draft, or cheaply in free agency, if that's what we're down to. I'd love to see Beane's board and how he's got guys rated. But I'd rather get a superstar safety or DL than a jag receiver if that's what's left.

I voted "yes" simply because I trust Beane (he's an above-average GM) and I didn't love the WRs available based on the little I saw and read. I'm really curious to see what he's going to do today, though. And I'd love to hear his reasoning. (I would have selected "wait and see" if Gugs included that).

The draft is like gambling. You play the probabilities and hope the cards come up right.

I once listened to an interview with a successful GM - I think it was Ron Wolf. He said that he considered a draft decent if he got one Pro Bowler out of it and it didn't matter if the guy came from the 4th round and the 1st rounder was a bust. A really good draft netted him two Pro Bowlers. That's how he rated his drafts. He explained that most players fill roles (i.e., they're JAGS). To win a SB, you needed players who were difference-makers. He said that it's better to get a difference-maker at a position you may not need than a role-player at a position where you do have a need. I rarely watch college football and am no talent scout. But if DeJean is truly a difference-maker when the WRs left are mediocre role-players, then I'm all for the pick.

I also have reservations about Ruff and maybe you're right that he'll have problems relating to younger players. But, again, thinking of Andy Reid... Reid was rated A+ by his players in the NFLPA survey after this past season - best in the NFL. And he relates well enough with his players to win championships. If Ruff fails, I don't think it'll be because of his age. nflpa.com/kansas-city-chiefs-report-card-2024

This was a bad trade for Carolina. The fact we were willing to make the trade pretty much tells them we didn't want Legette. If we wanted him, we would have made the pick and not traded it away.

As someone who's 65 and - arguably - physically fit and mentally sharp, no I'm not concerned that Ruff's 64. Why should I be? Andy Reid is 66. Age doesn't seem to interfere with his ability to coach a team to a championship. Hopefully things aren't so bad with the Sabres that we need Ruff to suit up again.

It depends. Let's say you're a CB playing press coverage in a zone defense. Jamming a smaller, quick guy is easy if you can get your hands on him. You'll push him back and disrupt his route. But once he gets away, he's gone - unless of course you're also very quick. In any case, in zone you probably have a safety backing you up. And let's say you're a smallish DB going against a 6'4" receiver with good hands, a big catch radius, and speed. And he's a talented route-runner. He's going to be hard to defend in any defense. I don't think you can say big receivers are either better or worse than small quick guys. It depends on the receiver, defender, and the defensive play-call.