Shaw66

I agree with this, except I think it's extremely hard to prove. The pro-TE folks aren't buying it. I've pretty much come around to the view that the winning formula is to have a franchise QB and have good total talent on the team, regardless of the rest of the positions. That's Belichick's approach. Shut-down corner is about the only position where he really wants a special talent. I think McB are following this approach. They want really good athletes dedicated to their team concept, and they want to get better every day, every week, every year. Year by year they upgrade the talent by taking the most talented players available to them. And in evaluating talent, I think they factor in the positions that players play. We had a brief discussion a couple weeks ago about how a guy who is a spectacular 3-4 LB prospect needs to be evaluated based on his importance to the team in the scheme the team plays, so no matter how good he is in the 3-4, the question is how good will he be in the 4-3. That is, 3-4 skills aren't fundamental to how the Bills play football. The extreme, silly example is the best punter in the history of football may be in the draft class, but he isn't your BPA because punting isn't fundamental to how you play football. Similarly, unless you're going to do what Belichick did with Gronk and Hernandez, tight end isn't fundamental to how the Bills want to play football. Protecting to the quarterback is fundamental. Getting at the other QB is fundamental. Having a HOF tight end isn't any more important to the Bills' philosophy than a HOF OLB or a HOF wideout. Taking a shot at the potential of a tight end makes more sense than taking a shot at a first-round punter, but it makes less sense than taking a shot at the potential in a lineman.

This is quite interesting. I'm not sure it's correct, but it has logic on its side. So it follows that the smart move in looking for tight ends is to draft one in later rounds and keep doing it until one turns into a star. And look for a star in free agency. In the meantime, what you need is a guy (exactly the kind of guy McDermott loves) who will spend all of his time and energy and whatever athletic ability he has learning all the difficult stuff you describe. That guy likely will be as productive as a first-round, future Pro Bowl guy while the future Pro-Bowl guy is learning all the stuff he has to learn. This analysis brings me back to a conclusion I reached several years ago, which is that tight end just isn't that important a position that it makes sense to use an early first-round choice on one. It's not so much that the position isn't important, because it's become more important in the past 10 years; it's just that you get better value at other positions high in the first-round. It just isn't very likely that you're going to find a tight end high in the first round who is going to change your team in his first two or three years. Sure, you MIGHT find a Gronk, but you can get a good offensive tackle high in the first round, and he's going to play for you from day one and make an impact on your team. The chances of finding a Gronk, who impacts your team from day one, are pretty small. I know fans love one tight end coming out, but I'll be disappointed if that's the Bills' pick at 9. I mean, if he's the pick, I'm sure Beane will know what he's doing, but I view a tight end pick at 9 as a high risk proposition. With a much higher likelihood of success, you can get an offensive or defensive lineman at 9, and I believe that success in the first round is one of the most important principles in good team building. QB is the only position that merits a high-risk, high-reward approach in the first round. Spiller and Maybin were high-risk, high-reward, and those picks impacted the Bills' future for years.

I get this. Thanks. I've always said the draft is like Christmas morning. And it's true, there's some regret every year. It killed me for the few moments between the announcement that the Bills had traded up, not knowing whether they would take Watkins or Mack. I wanted both. Bills got that one wrong. Last year I didn't have a problem. Once the first two QBs were gone, my head kept telling me "Rosen." Then the trade up happened, and my heart took over. "Allen! Allen! Allen!" I wanted the big body and the big arm for Christmas, and I was rewarded. Maybe you just have to wait and get a little older. I'm finding I have lost interest in the draft. I don't know who the best players are (except from a few discussions I've read here), and (as always) I'm following the lead of the Bills' brain trust. Beane says he's going BPA, his team will do their homework and pick a guy. I'm confident they will get a good one. (No reason for the confidence other than he seems to have done pretty well so far, and I'm always inclined to trust whoever the guy is - Polian, Nix, Whaley, Beane. And I've stopped worrying about the ones who got away. One thing I like about McD is that he preaches that it's not about the other teams, it's about the Bills. It's about the talent the Bills assemble and their dedication to a process designed to build a winning franchise. All those other guys are just obstacles who get in the way of the Bills' objective. That's in the nature of things. Just get a good guy tomorrow night, or two. And get two good guys, maybe three, the second night. Just keep adding good guys.

I can't imagine Beane giving up next year's first. QB is the only position I'd do that for, and he isn't looking for a QB. I think k a trade down is more likely than a trade up.

I think we're learning a bit about the kind of running backs McBeane like. They live Shady, but if they can't get a Hall of Fame type runner that want touch bbn inside his with good ball security. I think Yeldon's style is a lot like Gore's.

Wow!!! That never ever occurred to me. That's really original. Thanks for the insight. Okay, so now that you've caught on that the QB is the one exception, just as running back is the one exception for the Giants, Beane is going BPA in round one.

I'm thrilled with what he did last year. Time will tell. I agree about DT and OT, buys who will start or play a lot this year. I'd like two more eventual starters out of the seven rounds. Four total starters is about as much as we can reasonably expect; once you get beyond four, you're talking about an exceptional draft. Now that Qb and MLB are settled, I've gone back to my fall back view about the draft, which is that you have keep working on the o line and d line. Get studs for the lines, and the rest will fall into place.

There was a story about when Tim Duncan was becoming a free agent, at the top of his game. He hadn't decided whether he was going to stay in San Antonio or try his luck someplace else, a move that probably would get him more money than San Antonio was going to give him. Pop called him and said "let's go out to dinner." Three hour meal, and they did not talk about basketball once. No once. The next morning, Duncan called his agent and told him to negotiate the best deal he could get in San Antonio, because he wasn't leaving.

If you're interested, take a look at this long piece on ESPN.com about Greg Popovich's job, basketball, and his passion, food and wine. http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/26524600/secret-team-dinners-built-spurs-dynasty Turns out Pop is a great connoisseur, and he regularly organizes really high end dinners at the best restaurants around the league. Three to four hour dinners, 8 or 10 courses, all kinds of wine. The meals are legendary. Pop arranges all the details; what food is served, what wine, where the tables are set up, who sits where. And here's what's interesting. He does it as a team building activity. All his players say they've never been on a team that did this, and it was a lot to do with their success. Ray Allen drops a miracle three on the Spurs in game 6 of the NBA finals, the team is crushed, and Pop's reaction was "we're all going out to dinner. Tonight." And off they went. Pop believes that building relationships over meals is important. And it's part of what makes his players love him. I think McDermott wants his team to have really strong relationships. Can't do it the same way with a football team - just too many guys to take them all to an intimate dinner at some super restaurant in Seattle, but that's the kind of environment he's trying to build.

Ryan - You make a good point. We all should recognize that Nate is going to be a part of Bills' lore forever, because his experience in Buffalo was so extraordinarily bad. There's no denying it. What follows is NOT INTENDED to comment on what anyone has said here. It's just my thoughts about Peterman and how I think he should be treated. If we're going to joke about it, that's fine. But not the guy. The guy was doing everything he could to be good. It just didn't work. We all know how hard it is do what he was trying to do - be a successful NFL QB, and we should have respect for the guy who did his best at it all along the way. It's guys like that, with that heart, who McBeane want on their team. That's exactly why he survived as long as he did with the Bills; other teams would have dumped him much earlier, but McDermott wouldn't give up on him. Couldn't, because that kind of determination is what McD literally loves. There are plenty of funny stories people may tell about Wide Right, but Bills fans practically never went after Norwood about it. He wasn't a jerk, a prima donna. He was just a guy doing everything he could to win. He just didn't do it that day. Norwood had that heart, too, and that's why no one made it about Norwood. Want another example? Don Beebe. Catching Lett wasn't a bad thing, of course, like Peterman's experience was, but it happened in a lost-cause game in what was becoming the annual humiliation of the Bills. It just didn't matter, except in one category: heart. We've loved Beebe since that day just because he WOULD NOT QUIT. Want another? Talley. Want another? Kelly. Bills fans love their players do everything they can to win. Everything. Bills fans love the players with heart. So, yeah, it IS a lot of fun talking about the Peterman experiment, and Bills fans will do it for a long time. If Allen turns into a star, the Allen Story sill start with Peterman Story, just to emphasize where the team was when Allen arrived. But whatever happens to Peterman and to the Bills over the next ten years, he deserves to be talked about with respect and admiration and maybe even gratitude for what the man was trying to do. Just like Flores and Powell, and just like Talley and Beebe and Kelly. Yes, even just like Norwood. .

Hey, Marv! That's hysterical!!! I love it. I got the logic of the Lamonica trade; the Bills thought they had a great defense and needed only a veteran level headed QB (Flores) and a serious number 1 receiver (Powell). It actually made sense. HOWEVER, in terms of evaluating the players in the trade, and what their individual futures in the league might look like, the Bills wholly misjudged each player. Nothing will make up for the Lamonica trade. That's why that trade is legendary.

I'm ashamed that I clicked on this thread. Mel Kiper's opinion is based on what, exactly? I give the guy credit for having marketed himself so successfully.

If I recall correctly, in his predraft press conference Beane said his scouts will work over the weekend, submit some stuff on Monday, then go home. As others have said, apparently it's not unusual.

I agree there were a lot of clear statements made by various parties, but I wouldn't call it a dialog. The deal didn't happen for one or more of four reasons: 1. Bills and Steelers couldn't agree on trade terms. 2. Bills and AB couldn't agree on money 3. AB didn't want to come to Buffalo 4. Bills became concerned over character issues. Now, I know AB has said it wasn't that he wouldn't come to Buffalo, but that is not at all the original message we were hearing from him. It seams it isn't 1., because it sure seemed like the deal had gotten past the trade negotiations. But maybe the Raiders came back with a better offer, and the Bills wouldn't match it. But I don't think there's any clarity on how those issues combined to reach the end point where the Bills pulled the plug. Not that it matters all that much. They couldn't make a deal. I don't think that's anything we can ascribe to Beane doing a good job and doing a bad job unless and until we have those kinds of details.

As a wise man said to me yesterday, we've had years of exciting drafts and boring seasons. Wouldn't it be nice to turn that around? If a boring draft is the price of a successful season, I'm prepared to be bored. By the way, I agree. It IS boring.

Beane has been extraordinarily clear that in the first couple of rounds the teams needs will have NOTHING to do with his pick. He doesn't care if the pick falls to the offense or the defense. He is trying to improve the total talent on the team, and you do that by taking the BPA. Having said that, I agree with you that Beane is likely to go offense in the first round, but not for the reason you give. What he has said is that when there's a lot of talent clustered in one position group, lile d line, he is inclined to go away from that group on the assumption that there's so much talent there that he will be able to get good quality at that position group in a later round. So I'd think if he has two guys rated more nor less evenly, he would go with the offensive guy, because defense is deep in the draft.

I really don't think we've heard the full story about how that deal died. Who pulled the plug is different from who made deal ubdoable. I'm not arguing with your take on it. Just saying that I don't think any of us knows the whole story. Beane seemed to comment on it with carefully chosen words.

I don't agree. With this at all. First, McCoy is every bit as much an impact player as any of the five you named. Second, it's a whole new game thus year with the offensive line. No one knows how much better the line will be, but it could be a lot better. If it is, everything on offense changes. If the line is significantly better and if Allen improves, the skill players WILL suffice. Brown and Beasley are solid players and will get the Bills through the season just fine. If the line isn't better or if Allen doesn't improve adding a star receiver won't help. The Bills can either offense or defense in the draft. And if they go offense, it might be a lineman.

I'm having trouble finding interesting things to talk about, so I'm creating my own. This thread actually turned out to be pretty interesting.

Thanks. I didn't know that. Then the notion of a day 2 trade makes more sense. Hmmm. That's an interesting prospect.

Pretty sure I'll be at Jets and at Browns. At Giants is tempting.

That's one of the funniest/scariest thinks I've seen in weeks!!! If they do that, it means they REALLY believe in the process! Well put. I'll meditate tonight to the mantra "boring is good." I think you're right. Maybe nothing until the draft starts, but I think once it starts, Beane has a hard time sitting still.

Actually, I agree with this. It's just boring sitting around with nothing happening, waiting for the draft to start. I think we've seen Beane's appetite in free agency. He'll pay what he did for Morse, and he'll pay what he did for Star, but he's going to be very cautious about writing $20 million checks. AB, he told us, yeah, maybe, but if you aren't a certifiably special talent like AB, he's not too interested. After all, what he means by building through the draft is that he can afford to keep the team well enough stocked with talent by having a lot of players on their first contracts and by spending his money on the cream of the draft crops as they reach free agency. He gets two benefits out of that. One is that he stays out of cap hell. Second, he gets the benefit of the really good players for ten years instead of just five. Clowney's a perfect example. If he fits the Bills' system and process, he's a star for the next five years. Draft the best edge rusher coming out this year (and you're taking him because you've already determined that he fits the system and process), and you've got a star for ten years. Ten is better than five. Still, I'm bored.

I agree, but I think those talks have to happen before the draft starts. If I'm the Seahawks and I think the Bills' second isn't enough but no one else is offering much better and I let the Bills talk to Clark, the Bills may be willing to offer a lot (in part because they think they're making out by getting away with a low-ball draft pick). So Bills offer a lot and Clark says he's take it. This all happens before the draft, but the Bills won't commit until after they pick at 9. Well, that kills the pre-draft market for the Seahawks, because some team that would offer a first for Clark would have to be willing to match, at least, the Bills' offer. But the Bills offer was high BECAUSE they weren't offering a high pick . So I don't see how the mechanics would work to put together that kind of a deal before the draft, and I don't think there's enough time to put it together after the Bills pick at 9. By the way, I've convinced myself that if there IS a deal for one of them, I want Clark. He just seems more likely to settle into the process and commit to it. I haven't seen much of him at all, but he strikes as sort of a souped up version of Hughes, and Hughes has turned into a very effective DE.

I guess I'm missing the point. What's wrong with the system as it is? I don't see the players union objecting to it, because the franchise tag is irrelevant to 99% of the players in the league. Getting rid of the tag just benefits a few guys who are making a lot of money already. And being tagged doesn't hurt them all that much. All they have to do is show up and play, and they get paid a top-five salary, so arguably they're getting paid what they're worth. And if they get tagged a second or third year, they're getting paid more than the highest paid guys in the league. Sure, they aren't getting the big guaranteed payday they'd get if they were free, but they're getting paid a lot. It does kind of suck that you actually have to sit out a year to force your team to let you go, like Bell did. Maybe you could change the tag to say that if a team tags a player, it's a TWO-YEAR tag, first year at the average of the top five at the position, then 20% over the top five in the succeeding year AND both years are guaranteed. So if you get tagged, you know you're getting major dollars (QB would be getting $50 million, guaranteed). That would sweeten it for the players and make it a slightly bigger risk for the owners. I agree with those who don't like the way the NBA works. The owners and the fans should be somewhat secure from their best play holding them hostage. I don't want to spend five years turning Josh Allen into the best QB in football and then just let him walk. The Patriots keep Brady happy. The Pack kept Rodgers happy. Seattle kept Wilson happy. Cousins is the only guy who's left for greener pastures, and the Redskins probably wish they'd let him go a year earlier. I'm not seeing the problem here.