BullBuchanan

Who's Brady?

Did you watch the Super Bowl? Ironic how you're complaining that we took the 9th best DT instead of the 17th best WR.

That's literally the opposite of what they did when they won. The shootout was when they lost.

Yea, agreed on that. He's definitely not that. I wonder if this means that they'll try to convert Carter into a 1T or if they think he's a longshot to be a long-term impact already. at the one we've got: Jones Ogunjobi (maybe spends time at the 3 too) At the three we have: Oliver Hoecht (spends time at DE too) Carter Sanders Walker I like that after this draft, our last DT and last DE in rotation should either be a rookie with promising upside or a dependable veteran. There shouldn't be any weak links. With Williams as the 3rd LB, our front 7(6) seems resilient.

There's nothing wrong with Jordan Phillips outside of his Personal Fouls. He's been a big time player for us. If we get a rookie version of him in the 4th, I'm happy.

Huh? What's the point? I was asked why I didn't favor taking CBs in the first round, not why I didn't favor taking other positions in the first round. Not sure what I'm supposed to do with this. I want 1st round picks to be game changing players, because I'm paying a premium for them both in opportunity cost of the pick, and salary. I don't think elite CBs fall into that category due to their cost, and the nature of modern offenses. BTW, not an indictment of the player at all. Hopefully he's a great player. Didn't watch any Kentucky games, so no opinion on him.

So, in other words, they don't have anywhere near an "average" bust rate. 10% is a massive statistical difference. The study is six years old - so what? You think 2024 will be more kind to your assumptions as offense continues to widen the gap over defense? Did you look at the even more damning PFF data? I'm not a fan of reaching for a WR in the first round, no. If I'm going to draft one, I want it to be my number #1 or maybe #2 rated WR. I don't want massively flawed/limited players like Coleman in round 1. There's also a big difference in that an elite WR can put points on the board every single play he's on the field where an elite CB, especially in today's game can't hope to take points off that frequently. Even the best CBs get beat, and when they don't, there are 4-5 other players that can beat the lesser quality coverage. If your elite WR is nothing more than a decoy to take away an elite corner, you can still win that way.

I did? Funny, all the Red text showing that they were near the bottom of the hit rate on position led me to conclude otherwise. Weird. If he didn't play for the Bills he likely would have been out of the league a lot sooner. A McKelvin comp is not high praise, IMO.

Here you go: https://draftwire.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/draft/2024/04/25/first-round-draft-hit-rates-tracking-rates-from-the-best-centers-to-the-worst-wrs/73449048007 One of the riskiest positions also this: https://www.pff.com/news/draft-what-historical-hit-rates-reveal-about-positional-success You could have googled it. It should be common knowledge to people who watch a lot of ball.

30 is early. You can routinely get quality starting CBs in later rounds. Benford was a 6, Jackson was a 7, Douglas was a 3. They also have supremely high bust rates, and when they don't bust, it's hard to afford to keep them on a second deal. When you draft a 1st round CB, you're often paying them a premium over a solid veteran, and you have no idea what you're getting. We had to pay Elam the same amount that Jackson made going to Carolina. Jackson is far from elite, but he's at least an NFL talent. By the time their 3rd year comes around, you have to decide if you want to pay them premium money or let them walk. The fact that you need at least 5 competent players at the position just makes it worse. Give me 5 Dane Jacksons over 1 Sauce Gardner and 4 Kaiir Elams

It's whatever. I hate drafting CBs early. At least he's fast?

They can still like Ingram as a rotational player. I still like Hamlin as a rotational player/backup.

I'd rather bring back the QB who holds kicks so that we can credibly fake it on occasion.

This one is gold.

It would be, if he were a bonafide #1. He's more of a top end #2, imo. I'm not sure he's an upgrade over Diggs even considering age.

Aggregate scoring both defense and offense doesn't mean much to me when you're an elite team. All good teams are going to play a lot of weak, non-playoff teams throughout the year. How you stack up against elite teams matters a lot more, but timing is probably the most important thing of all.

I don't like ever paying a CB big money, because you need at least 4 of them.if you have a star ona rookie deal, you can go out and get a premier guy and then fill the bottom of your depth chart with C-tier guys and you can probably still have an elite defense. You go out and pay Benford $20M and now you have Ingram as your #2 battling it out with a rookie. Even if you get decent CB play, there's still 2 more receiving threats open on any given play. I'd rather have solid Cb play and an elite man up front or on the back end. Yes, I would have signed any of the players listed above to the deals they received and kept Benford on his rookie deal for another year.

Yes, I'm complaining. Is there another option if you disagree with the approach our front office has taken? How many Super Bowls do we have over the last 5 years? How many times have we been? For me, the hope is all in the hands of rookies and guys who were disappointments last year like Carter, Bishop, Coleman, Kincaid, etc. I'll be making up scenarios for these guys to become all-pros like I used to in the drought years.

Hufanga, Holland, Milton Williams, Metcalf and even Reddick would have represented the potential for elite play at positions of dire need and they were all available. I'm sure there are other trades that were possible that didn't materialize as well. I understand the reluctance to be critical of Beane's approach because all the players he re-signed are very good football players. It's hard to look at a team with a lot of good players on it and think it's a poorly constructed roster. I hope the board is right that building a team with an old school Steelers-esque approach of having a very solid roster will net you enough kicks at the can that eventually you win one. I just don't like the odds of that approach based on the teams we'll have to get through. No. I want them to do whatever they have to do every season to have the best possible shot. Instead, Beane is sacrificing this season, just as he did last year, so that he can protect future seasons.

I couldn't possibly care less about what's "fair" when building an NFL roster. Benford is a hell of a football player, and I hope he gets all the money in the world. I'm just disappointed that we're the ones that gave it to him when he isn't the difference maker we need. It's the exact same way I felt about the Groot extension. I would have been fine filling another hole in 2026, because our goal should be trying to win a Super Bowl every year at this stage, even though I don't think that's the way Beane sees it. They could have added even a single high impact player. if you change Joey Bosa's name to Boey Josa, and judged him based on his performance alone, you'd probably find he hasn't been a meaningful contributor in 4 seasons. How has he rebuilt the core? Everyone signed to an extension has been here for months and all of the talent added are complimentary pieces, not core pieces. I've detailed my plan dozens of times.

Paying out big contracts seems to be a fetish around here. We didn't have enough money to build a Super Bowl caliber roster when Benford was making 750k. We're supposed to get better when the same player is now making $19m? If someone sees the vision of how we take a very similar team to what we had last year, and somehow get over the hump this year, I'd genuinely be interested in having it explained. For me, it seems like the plan has to be to draft 2-3 players that play at an all-pro level on rookie deals.

he put on 50 lbs in 2 years? yikes.

Any scenario that requires a Bills opponent to throw up all over themselves in the most critical moment for us to win isn't really based in reality. As a drought survivor that played that game weekly for the better part of 20 years, I've come to grips with that not being the way Super Bowls are won. We've lost the thread quite a bit ont his one though. I stand by my assertion that Groot is not a difference maker at all, and paying him difference maker money to stay puts our team further away from being a contender than had we let him walk away for nothing. Love the player, hate the contract. I'll be more than happy to eat a rack of humble pie if we somehow have a dominant d-line next year spearheaded by Groot and Joey Bosa, but it would be one of the most shocking things I could see happening to the roster. I think they'll be a usual B to B+ that looks great while the leaves are changing and looks lost and overmatched when the snow is on the ground.

Good for him. Perfect fit for them honestly. Adding Diggs will provide Maye with the ability to take the next step (if he has it in him). They probably won't be playoff contenders any time soon, so the pressure on Diggs should be low. Wouldn't be shocked to see him around 1k 6/7 TD though.

or they just grab it and kneel down at the 30 and have 10-12 seconds to go and the exact same thing happens. Our defensive coaching blunders (soft zones and off man coverage) and the players melting down/ not being talented enough two drives in a row (13s and overtime) is a far bigger problem and int he full 3 seasons following that game nothing has been improved. Instead, we're largely running it back with the same guys that couldn't get it done and giving them a far larger percentage of our cap than they previously commanded.