billstein22

But if you have more picks you're more likely to use a pick correctly...

http://www.rotoworld.com/headlines/nfl/357230/Report--BUF-'unlikely'-to-use-Watkins'-option Whomp whomp.

Why do you care how much we're paying for him? You should be referencing the cap hit, that's all that matters.

I got killed for pointing this out on the reddit sub. What is this in reference to?

Is this a joke?

Yes but certain losses hurt more than others, which is why our playoff probability is influenced differently. Losing to Oakland particularly sucks because of some of the potential tiebreakers down the road (e.g., win-loss record in common games w/ Denver, KC). Same with Miami because they're a game ahead of us and would hold the tiebreaker if they sweep us. Pittsburgh could still very easily win the division and in that scenario their record against us doesn't matter.

This is one of the funniest threads I've read in a long, long time. Thank you for this.

I think it was a bad sign that not a lot of us had optimism at the beginning of the season, but I figured our defense would be okay, and that the offense could make some noise given the weapons we have. It's time to tank this B word and go after Kizer or Watson. Best case scenario at this point is 6 or 7 wins and what's the point in that?

The other day on his podcast, Bill Barnwell questioned the Bills front office for not offering Tyrod a short term deal for 10 million. The guy is delusional.

The Jets are all in on selecting garbage prospects until one of them works out. I'm okay with this.

haha had the exact same reaction.

My girlfriend's dad bought us tickets to this one a long time ago so I'll still care. Will still drink heavily and I'll probably be in a better mood tbh

this made me laugh like a maniac. i'm at work. people are judging.

Agreed. He is a productive, low cost option at the most important position on the field. I think it's also too soon to say we got the better end of the Shady deal (keep in mind his contract has a TON of guaranteed $$$). But, so far it looks heavily in our favor, and I'm glad we made the deal. Love seeing him in a Bills uniform.

A lot of Darby in the top 5, but I prefer Gilmore. Darby has looked mortal the last couple of weeks, though he's been better than we ever could have imagined this season (also, he's just a rookie so that's nice). Top 5: 1.) McCoy 2.) Watkins 3.) Dareus 4.) Incognito 5.) Tyrod (he's not the best talent but I think he's one of most valuable players given what we look like without him) honorable mentions: Cordy, Wood, Darby, Karlos, Hughes (the penalties are awful, though) Bottom 5 1.) EJ 2.) Duke Williams 3.) John Miller 4.) IK 5.) Carpenter

I'll admit I was mixed on the trade due to the contract and Shady's age for his position, but one thing most of us recognized was that Kiko was not that great after his first outstanding month in the NFL. That, and the injury history. It's early but so far I'm glad we definitely have McCoy.

I think 9-7 could get it done, especially if we win two more AFC games. That'd put our conference record at 7-5 which is pretty solid and should win a tiebreaker if it comes to it. Outside of New England they all look winnable, but we have to consider possible future injuries, slip ups, etc. 4--3 is definitely possible, with an outside shot at 5-2

You're right that it is an oversimplification, but there is a general feel for who is going to be drafted in the first couple of rounds / who will be available much later on in the draft. As for your example, yes I think that would be an appropriate time to "reach" as the QB would no longer be available the next time the Bills are up. There are players who you can safely project as mid-round draft picks (e.g., Grayson, Petty, Hundley in the 2015 draft). Do you really want to use a coveted first round pick on them? It's a question of value-add with respect to a.) the value of your draft pick, b.) the projected value of the player in question, and c.) the opportunity cost of selecting a different player projected as a true first round talent and potentially missing out on the mid-round player.

...what? Anyway, this isn't that difficult. EJ is an example of trying to select a QB early on in the draft, when there are more talented (ie., players who are more likely to hit than miss) players available. We shouldn't do that as there are better ways to use our first round pick. With respect to the 2016 draft, I do not believe there will be any true first round talents available when we make our first round pick. If that's the case, then we should not use a first round pick on a QB. A reach is a reach, whether it works out or not. If it works out, then great. But it is illogical given that players available in the beginning of the draft have a greater likelihood of panning out. Why draft a QB who will be available later on in the draft when you could use that pick on a player with greater talent / higher probability of success? You could always take the QB in one of the following rounds.

What? Of course he does. Drafting EJ is an example of reaching for a QB when the talent isn't there. That IMO is a bad strategy, and one we should not employ in future drafts. Are we just not allowed to mention his name anymore because you were wrong and it makes you feel bad? Is that what's bothering you?

If there isn't a first round talent QB available in the first round, then you don't draft a QB in the first round. Did we not learn our lesson with EJ?

Correlation between people who support Hardy and people who think EJ is good = +1.0

I don't know that Bradham is worth keeping. He's going to demand a huge contract and he's been a liability this season, both in terms of performance and his proclivity for boneheaded penalties.

Why do people think Suh has been bad this year? He's been excellent.

Wow.