Chuck Schick

I think the cap does remove some negative incentives (disincentives?) for drafting QBs high, but probably not enough to swing the tide one way or the other. The bigger impact has come from the relatively high recent success rates of the first few QBs taken, even when trading away the farm for them. If the Redskins/RGIII and the Eagles/Wentz drafts were flip-flopped chronologically, opinions might be a little different. As an example.

Percy Harvin- twice, somehow.

Your mind is clearly made up, which fine.... but to say that the Watkins/EJ trade isn't directly tied into the Darby/Mathews trade kind of hurts your cred. One clearly wouldn't have happened without the other. And that was the reality AT THE TIME....to say you'd rather now have Darby to trade, but ignore everything else isn't realistic. And of course there are CBs that are better suited at man-to-man than zone, and vice versa. Good zone CBs are usually better at reacting to and catching the ball and making tackles in the run game, as examples.

You're right in that a WR's stats can be skewed or misleading. But the article you cited was more of an opinion-piece that clearly had a point of view it was trying to defend. So it cherry-picked 10 or so clips from the season to make its point. I think the consensus from just about everyone else is that Sammy was pretty average, all things considered. Even the arguments in favor of the Rams tagging or re-signing him are that a full year working with Goff will result in a much better performance. Not many would be on board with that if they thought he was going to duplicate his 2017 showing.

Vikings and Chiefs are cool. I hate the Ravens...helmets are ugly and the plain black spandex pants look horrible on big linemen

I'm a little surprised the national media didn't make a bigger deal of McCoy's effort on Sunday. To play a few snaps with a sprained ankle is one thing, but he worked his tail off the entire game and had some very nice plays against a stout D. I guess we needed to win to make it a better story.

Remember when Kevin Gilbride was a complete dud with the Bills and then went on to light it up with Eli and some good receivers? Point being: it's not always as simple as "This guys sucks"

Welcome to the new NFL. Loading up with big name players is out, and finding competent lower-cost players that fit specific roles is in. If you can't give McDermott credit for doing a pretty damn good job of that in Year 1, I don't know what to tell you. As for the "lucky bounces" thing.....can you tell me any sport you've played from high school on where "luck" actually determined the winner of a game? For me, the better team is going to end up winning 99 times out 100. A play or two here and there does not win games despite what the highlight shows make it seem.

I'm surprised educated fans still resort back to the good luck/bad luck argument. On any single play.....OK. But over the course of a game and especially a season, that's just not true in a professional sport. Winning a close game thanks to a timely play at the end is not luck...otherwise the game wouldn't have been close in the first place.

Look around the NFL....almost every team could be called weak if you wanted to nit-pick. If you can't give the Bills significant credit for going 9-7 against a pretty brutal schedule with this roster then you're missing out. Beating KC when and where they did is a minor miracle on its own.

The ball clearly hit the ground. I don't even think there's an argument that it did.

This play was called exactly as it should have been according to the rule. I think the only reason it took more than 30 seconds to review it was because they wanted to be sure the ball actually bounced off the ground (and not off his hand/arm), which it did. Bummer

If they beat Miami, I think it would be an even longer- shot to do WORSE than 1-2 in the final 3 games.

I agree. I would guess that film study showed a consistent trend of Tyrod not executing the offense the way it was designed. Too many missed reads, etc. An OC is severely handicapped if the QB can't/won't follow the blueprint.

Tell yourself that the Bills used one of their third round picks.....hell, make it a second rounder....to pick Peterman. Now you feel much better!

True... the contract does raise expectations. I'd put my money that he's got a lot of good seasons ahead of him.

Potential? The guy has put up some nice numbers right through last season. At age 28 this guy has a nice career ahead of him still once he gets right physically.

Which is why Manny Ramirez and Lenny Dykstra were so good at it.

I would actually compare Dareus more to a time share than your used car. Too much money sunk into a something no longer of value PLUS future costs that you are unwantingly on the hook for. Hard to give that kind of thing away, much less get anything of value back.

You 2 guys are really missing the big picture. Just because there's some name recognition and (fairly distant) past success with a player doesn't mean crap in today's NFL. Beane or any other GM is not going to make a move like this unless there is clear value to the team, even if we don't exactly know what that value is. We spent years trying to get the big name guys (Bledsoe, TO, Mario) and that formula just doesn't work.

I think what looks like tanking is actually just moving pieces around to play the salary-cap game. It's not that GMs don't want to win, it's just that keeping a bunch of veterans making $8m/yr so the team can maybe finish 7-9 just doesn't make sense. Replacing those guys with younger and cheaper players, and maybe stockpiling a few picks in the process, is worth it even if it means maybe finishing 5-11. Draft picks are a big part of that, but I really don't think they sweat it out over a few slots in the actual draft order.

Is there really any proof that intentional losing has ever helped any team? It's been pretty well documented that having the #1 overall pick doesn't guarantee a better player than say the #8 guy in any given draft. And that's not even getting into the discussion of whether or not the team as a whole actually gets better. The NFL is a totally different animal than the NBA or even the NHL.

Gotta take the ACL injury into account here. That's a tough one to hang on anybody

I think people get it. Gilmore is not to blame for the coverage. But it's also a bit bullheaded to essentially declare that no CB in the history of football has successfully made a mid-play adjustment when he sees that the deep zone has been flooded with more than one WR. I think it could be argued that Gilmore didn't exactly show great instincts once the ball was in the air. Is it also unreasonable to hope that an RB makes an in-play decision to bounce outside when the designed inside lane isn't open?

As much as he grated on me, I wonder if this way of doing business is what Marrone wanted in an organization. The ability to swiftly make personnel and scheme decisions based only on what they believed to be in the best interest of the team. No concern over name recognition, draft status, etc. We obviously didn't have it before, and maybe that's why he felt it wasn't worth sticking around.