HappyDays

Same exact coaching staff is back so I very much doubt it, but I'll keep my fingers crossed. This coaching staff has a history of choking in the playoffs when we have a lead. They don't finish. Eventually you just have to accept that's who they are. The main difference between us and KC is that on the critical play of the game, they don't have a miscommunication between their special teams coach and their kicker. They don't leave their opponent's best defensive player 1v1. In those critical moments they are completely buttoned up, and that's where we fall behind more than anything.

I know that play has been re-litigated to death but I'm still mostly upset at our coaching staff for leaving Chris Jones 1v1 on a designed shot play. We got the coverage we wanted, it was a TD waiting to happen, Allen just needed another half second. These small details in critical moments is why we can't get over the hump and that falls on coaching.

You know what makes me feel better? Imagining that we took Van Pran-Granger in the 4th and Ray Davis in the 5th. If we had done it in that order I'll admit I'd have zero complaints.

This is why character does matter in the draft process: That's from Bob McGinn's scouting notes from last year.

Yes like I said the 5th year option gave us an extra two months to negotiate with him or finagle the minor details. You're saying without that the deal would have just totally fallen through? It's not like we gave him a record breaking extension that required weeks of sleepless nights. I would guess the terms were mostly set a few months before the agreement was officially reached.

When he trades up a couple spots yes I believe him. I don't remember him saying that about Rousseau for example, or over selling the Coleman pick as someone they were specifically targeting. One thing Beane always has been steadfast on is that he follows his board. I know that's true just based on his actions. If his last player in a certain tier is still hanging around he will try to trade up slightly for them (Elam, Kincaid, attempting to trade up for Bishop). If he has several players at equal value in that tier he will stick and pick. If that tier is wiped out on his board he will try to trade down.

There's a difference in being coy about your future plans and lying about past results. Beane shoots straight when he talks about what he's done and why he's done it. Like I said there's no reason to lie about wanting Bishop. It doesn't make him look any better or worse in the moment, it only sets him up to look better or worse depending on how the player turns out.

I don't think Coleman was "our guy" but he was definitely one of a cluster of guys that we had graded as high 2nd rounders. For all the talk of the WR class there were only four that were seen as consensus 1st rounders. I always thought trading back into the 2nd and recouping a 3rd in the process, then taking the best WR available, was the best possible outcome. If there's anything to take away from this Embedded video it's that GMs including Beane don't have a strict vertical board they're following where they're just ticking off names one after the other and taking the absolute BPA when it's their turn. They are grouping guys into tiers and taking someone from their Best Available Tier (BAT?) who also fills a need.

Uh, yes? We extended him before his 5th year option officially kicked in. Maybe it gave us an extra two months to negotiate, but that's all. Like I said, it's a bargaining chip. The same effect can be had by using the franchise tag if you really need it. The 5th year option is most useful for players like Edmunds or Rousseau where you're not quite sure what you have and you want that one extra year of tape to see if they're worth extending. No, they did it for the same reason Minnesota swapped one pick with NY at #10 - they got scared we would trade back with someone else (likely aided by a bit of salesmanship from Beane) and they would lose out on getting their guy. This happens all the time. Again, look at the trade value chart. #31 to #32 is -6 points. #32 to #33 is -4 points. #33 to #34 is -5 points. Teams are telling you that the 5th year option is worth less than the drop off in total contract value.

Why should it have taken an overpay? KC allowed us to recoup our 3rd rounder for a player they were likely to get anyways. There was no massive bidding war for our pick. Why would we dig our heels in the sand only to get the same exact outcome for both teams but with us still having no 3rd rounder? It was an easy decision and I'm glad Beane did it instead of playing scared of the boogeyman. What analytics guy and points according to what draft value chart? The Rich Hill model has been proven to be more accurate than the old Jimmy Johnson model. I very much doubt that giving up exact equal value on that chart goes down as the "4th worst trade value ever." That's inherently absurd. https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart-Rich-Hill.asp?RequestTeam=Buf

I don't know I thought that trade was a no brainer at the time. 5th round is where all the draftniks said the value of this draft class fell off a cliff. We got back a free mid to high 4th round pick next year, I can't argue with that. I'm as annoyed as anyone that we didn't take two WRs in this draft but I don't think that trade is what prevented it. In the later rounds they were drafting guys that they were confident could make the team (or would not be poached by another team at final cutdowns), and for whatever reason they don't think a late round WR has a shot of beating out... Mack Hollins..... I don't get it but that's what they told us with their actions.

Pegula doesn't make the decisions, Beane does. It's pretty obvious Bishop was the guy they were after. They had deals in place to trade down but didn't because their guy was there. I'll criticize Beane for many things but not for being a liar. He shoots straight. There's no reason to lie and act like he loves Bishop any more than he does. If anything it just looks bad on him in the future if Bishop doesn't turn out to be a good player because he openly admitted that he not only drafted the player but tried to trade up for him. Beane if anything is too honest for his own good.

The 5th year option is a bargaining chip, it isn't something you make draft decisions around. In fact by the trade value chart the drop off in value from #32 to #33 is slightly LESS than the drop off in value from the adjacent picks just before and after, which signals that GMs see those picks as CLOSER in value. I would guess it's because #33 gets paid about $2.2M less than #32 over the life of their 4 year contract which is not insubstantial. In general you don't give up almost two full rounds (59 picks) of draft value because you're worried about something that doesn't come into play until 2029 when Josh Allen is 33 years old.

By the Rich Hill trade chart the trade was exactly equal. What makes you think it was bad value?

It's about the drop off from round to round. Cole Bishop to Jaden Hicks is a much lesser drop off than say Kingsley Suamataia to Giovanni Manu. In any case safeties are the second cheapest position behind only RB so it just isn't a great use of resources taking one in the top 75 or so picks IMO. A perceived short term need shouldn't change the strategy. And that's my overall takeaway from the draft as a whole - we didn't come away with a lot of great value. If you asked analysts before the draft what are the weak positions, they would have said DL, SAF, and RB. We spent the entire middle of our draft selecting those exact positions... For all the talk of a deep WR and OL class, we took one player total from those positions out of the first 140 picks.