Last Guy on the Bench

I think the Falcons hunting down Julio Jones worked out well. They had a down year, last year, but I expect them to bounce back. I also think that the jury is still out on Washington with RG III. Looked like a great move year one. Last year struggled with injuries, etc. But he still may turn out to be a franchise guy. I agree that it is a big roll of the dice and probably works out less often than not. But I wouldn't say it is a guaranteed loser move. Also, how many times do teams blow the picks they could have traded on guys that don't work out anyway?

Awesome answer. I love the idea of having an old game on while you're puttering around the house. I am not a nostalgic person by nature, but I do get a little nostalgic over old Bills teams. Don't have the DVDs unfortunately. I do re-watch lots of games online, however. Old ones on Youtube when available. Newer ones on Game Pass (essentially Game Rewind plus Sunday Ticket for those of us out of the country - best thing in the history of everything ever). I watch in different ways. Sometimes I just want a fix during the offseason. Sometimes I do want to perk myself up, as with your EJ example. Sometimes I will just watch certain players or positions that I usually overlook. It's a good way to educate myself a little more. Lately, I've found myself watching the linebackers. It is striking how different the game looks when you focus on positions away from the ball. I do have a tough time re-watching losses, though I will do it if they played well (e.g., first New England game and KC games from last year). It is still kind of depressing, though, when I know the gut punch is coming at the end. The wins I can watch over and over again - especially the blowouts with lots of scoring (not many of those this past decade) or the ones with great finishes. Too much time?? Ha. I love it.

The great Wesley Morris didn't think much of it either. http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/political-footballs-draft-day-the-unknown-known-and-rio-2/ Sounds awful. (I'll still watch it, though, because . . . um . . . it's about the draft!)

You are probably right. I love this stupid team so much for some reason. Maybe even Trump couldn't change that. However, IF they had to move, I would actually like to see them in Toronto and I'm sure I would still root for them there. I love Canada. And the general Lake Ontario region still feels like home to me, so the team would keep some of the geographic connection in my mind. (Keep your pitchforks in the shed. I'm NOT saying I want them to move to Toronto. Just that if they had to move, that would be my first choice.)

None taken. But that's not what I said. I said personally I couldn't cheer for a Trump-owned team, whereas I could cheer for a re-located Bills team under certain conditions. If you asked me, however, if I were given the choice in some magical universe, would I rather have Trump buy the Bills and keep them in Buffalo or have someone else buy them and move, I would pick Trump, because of what the team means to Western New York, where I grew up. But I would be making that choice based on community interest, not from my own personal rooting interest. I root for the Bills for fun, and like many people on this board, I spend a LOT of time doing it. I wouldn't have fun if Trump were the owner, so I think I would turn my attention elsewhere. Of course, it is also possible that I am wrong, and that my 30-year love affair with the team would prevail, even over Trump. Maybe I just can't quit them, who can say? When I started muttering over the laptop about abandoning the team if Trump ever bought it, my wife said she hoped he did buy it in that case. (She took it back after one glare.)

I doubt this happens, but if it did, I seriously think I would dump the Bills. I don't think I could enjoy supporting them anymore. Trump is a complete tool. And I'm one of the apparently few people who would definitely still cheer for the team if they moved to Toronto, or even London or Mexico City. Trump is my breaking point. There is a better chance I would root for the Los Angles Bills (shudder) than the Trump-owned Buffalo Bills.

I would also do it for a once-a-decade defensive player. If you think that's what Clowney is, it would be worth it. Whether or not he is that, is another story. Even assuming you'd hit on your original 1-2-1 picks, would you give up a Gilmore, Dareus, and Glenn for Lawrence Taylor or Ray Lewis? I would, even though those three are really solid players.

Man, for a QB Whaley and co. would have to be SO sold that the guy was way better than EJ. I don't see it. I don't think they can be sure what EJ is yet or what any of these draftees really are. If it was someone like Luck, maybe.

With the depth at OT and WR in this class (ruling out Watkins or Matthews/Robinson as a tradeup target, IMO, at least at one), it is hard to see this being about anyone but Clowney. Even Mack, while I think they would grab him at 9 if by some chance he were there, really seems like more of a 3-4 LB. But Clowney slots in beautifully with Dareus and the Williams brothers. I don't know if you can move from 9 to 1 without giving up next year's first. If Houston would take 9 plus this year's second and next year's second, or something like that, you'd have to think about it. That may not be enough though. Interesting rumor, anyway. Keeps things lively in the loooooong six weeks leading up to the draft.

If I understand this correctly, the 400 million is due by the team to the city/county/state (not sure which) if the team wins a nonperformance battle against the city/county/state. If the team just up and leaves the 400 million is not pertinent. The team would be in breach of contract and the city/county/state could sue the team for whatever it wanted to. Billions if they could make the case for those kinds of damages. Also, as others have said, the NFL is unlikely to approve a move involving a straight up breach of contract (which is different than a negotiated buyout clause). So I read this as extremely good news.

I'm loving these stories. Thanks everyone. Tonight, thinking about Jim, I was trying to explain to my wife how special that team and those guys were. There have been lots of great teams in lots of sports. But very few develop that long term connection to each other and the community that our Super Bowl Bills teams did. I won't say they are unique, but they are rare. You can hear it for example, when Bill Polian talks. Here's a guy that has been gone for 20 years. Spent longer in Indy than in Buffalo. Won a Super Bowl. But you can tell he has a kind of love for his Bills that is different than his love for the Colts. Anyway, hang in there, Jimbo. And keep the stories coming, gang.

It's definitely a good thing I'm not a GM, but not for the reason you give. The idea that winning the Super Bowl is the only way to judge team management is pablum. And I said nothing about how much to pay players. The original argument was that a great QB, once they get the big contract, can hurt your team. I was saying, not so fast. I'm more inclined to agree with you that I would happily overpay one of the elite QBs and scramble to fill out the roster every year. I think that might give me the best chance of consistently making the playoffs and therefore the best chance of bringing home a Lombardi trophy or two. Exactly.

I get that line of argument, but I think you can extend it to making the playoffs as well. If Brady's contract is a definitive restriction, why does he keep making the playoffs? Basically, since the Pats' winning or losing was basically determined by one or two plays, the end result of the game doesn't tell me all that much. Brady could easily have lost the early ones and won the later ones. More generally, the idea the best team wins the Super Bowl is often nonsense, and pretty much everyone will admit this. So I wouldn't say the best GM is the GM of the team that happens to win the Super Bowl. You could take the same 12 teams from any given year and replay the playoffs/SB and get wildly different results every time. Which suggests that the distinction between a Super Bowl winner and an also ran is at least partly mythical in terms of talent level. The Hawks this year do seem like they were the best team, but they could easily have lost to the 49ers. In other years (Ravens, Giants, etc.), the winning team has an even less convincing claim to being the team that is best put together.

Interesting, but it's a little too skewed to winning the Super Bowl, which requires a whole lot of luck (plus talent) and leaves you with a small sample size. I'd like to see some data for the age of QBs getting to the playoffs and advancing through the different rounds. Older Brady lost Super Bowls he could easily have won (i.e., that turned on a handful of plays). Manning was back in the bowl last year at a ripe-old age. For me a team's long-term goal should not be to win the Super Bowl except in the most abstract sense, since there are so many factors that go into that, many of which are beyond management's control. The goal should be to build a consistent winner - which maximizes your chance to win a Super Bowl. And even if you never win the big one, you can have a great, entertaining, profitable team (as we know all too well from the 90s). It's possible that even sustained success is threatened by too much money invested in a QB, but I'm not so sure. A lot of the old guys seem to make the playoffs pretty regularly.

Crazy. An LB with good size and safety speed who hits like a billy goat. Maybe he is Byrd's replacement (just kidding).

Thanks, Astro.

Try not to feed DC Tom's megalomania.

That is a righteous board, in my opinion.

Wouldn't be surprised. Looks like Donald is going to be one of those guys who people talk themselves out of drafting too high because of his size, but then he turns into an all-pro Geno Atkins type. Even though we have no immediate need for a DT, I would be quite content to draft him, even at 9. His on-field work speaks for itself. And his combine results showed that he is not just an effort guy.

This is a great point. I don't know where drafting Barr would leave Jerry Hughes. And I loved Hughes last year. I agree that Barr is not a great fit. But I just have this nagging suspicion that he is going to be a havoc-wreaker in the NFL. I would be tempted just to grab him and figure out a way to use him. Maybe in a straight 4-3, with Jerry subbing in on passing downs for whoever is playing DE opposite Mario, and leaving Barr in at strongside LB. I don't know.

Again, the thing that differentiates him, to me, from a Maybin, or a pure speed rusher, is the wicked violence with which he closes and hits people. I think that's rare. I agree that he is a gamble. He makes me way nervous. And I could see all sorts of ways in which he wouldn't really develop into a solid NFL player. But that viciousness is really intriguing to me. I'm torn. KD, I would without hesitation take Mack over him. Mack is my favorite player in the draft. If I had the #1 pick, I would take him over Clowney (just call me Mike Mayock, Jr.). And I would be totally happy with one of the big Tackles, although Lewan also makes me nervous.

I've been watching whatever I could get my hands on of this dude, not just highlights, but the Youtube clips of all the defensive snaps of a handful of games. Early on I wasn't paying attention to him, because he was mocked top five, but with the rise (in mocks - I know they don't reflect NFL reality necessarily) of Mack, Robinson, and Watkins, there are lots of scenarios in which Barr is available at 9. I'd love to hear from some of you that actually watch college ball, unlike me. From what I've seen, he's a freakishly quick athlete, and I love his violence. Unlike, say, Aaron Maybin, he tackles through people and causes pain and occasional ball dislocation (both types of balls). To my untrained eye, he also looks lost on many plays, and doesn't seem to have a variety of technique. But on the other hand, he is good for several wow plays a game. Since he has only played LB for two years, I imagine there is a lot of growth in front of him. What if he replaced Lawson? He'd probably eff up more frequently than Manny, who was pretty solid last year. But I bet he would make some sick, game-changing plays with regularity. Right now, I have him on my wish list at number 5, behind (in order) Mack, Clowney, Watkins, and Robinson. I would take him over Ebron, Matthews, Donald, and Mosley (in that order - and I like all of those guys - sorry Evans supporters, I'm not a fan), but then again, I'm an idiot. Thoughts?

Much to my own surprise, I picked Leodis. Definitely not the best player, but he's my favorite at the moment. I just love the energy he plays with. Love his athletic ability. Love how he's kept plugging away through some very difficult times. He's very endearing. I don't see him as a team leader exactly, but I do think his attitude is infectious. And he sure played well last year. Fred deserves all the votes he is getting. He is high on my list. And I agree with those who see some favorite potential emerging in Aaron Williams, Kiko, and even Nickell Roby. I'd add Godwin to that mix, depending on how he develops, and Woods as well. Thinking about this makes me realize that I really like this version of the team. They are easy to root for. (Of course, I said the same thing about Ryan Fitz and the no-names, so that doesn't necessarily translate into success on the field.)

Yep. All later round picks must turn into above-average starters (even though that would defy math) or the people drafting them (i.e., all GMs in the NFL) are idiots. Just as the players themselves (you know the ones who have worked hard enough and are gifted enough to at least survive for a while in one of the toughest, most selective professions in the world) are "clowns" unless they are pro bowlers.

1) Dion Jordan 2) Mike Evans