Shaw66

Yeah, Beane actually said something about this. I think what he said was that he didn't feel any pressure to get a dlineman in free agency because dline was so deep in the draft that he was comfortable that one would fall to him somewhere along the way. He was clear that his objective was to fill all his needs in free agency, and he did that. He didn't mean he will value d lineman above other positions when the draft comes because he has a need.

Turns out he's in Amherst on Main Street right at Exit 50. Thanks to everyone for the suggestions. I'll pass them on. And special thanks to the Senator. I was going to tell my friend to do the search himself. Thanks. By the way, you aren't helping just some Red Sox friend. He's a football Giants fan, he lives in Cleveland, but he goes to only one NFL game each year, with me on the road somewhere to see the Bills. So he's kind of a closet Bills fan. On the other hand, HIS friend who's coming for the Frozen Four is a Patriots fan, through and through. Oh, well. Thanks again for your suggestions.

Looking for some first hand info. Yelp has plenty of suggestions, but I'd trust someone here more. Are they likely to have the Sox on, and do they care if you hang out for 3 hours nursing a couple of beers?

I have a friend going to Buffalo for the Frozen Four. He's looking a sports bar to watch the Red Sox on Friday night. Any suggestions? Thanks.

I think the point is that even though the BPA might be the move that makes your team batter this season, he is the guy who will help your team best I. The long run. BPA is NOT a short term strategy.

Here's a couple of other things to think about in a pure BPA system. Suppose you have the best defensive lineman in the league. That means, almost as a certainty, that defensive line is NOT your area of greatest need, because almost any three NFL defensive linemen and the best in the league will make up a decent front four. Now suppose it's your pick and the BPA on your board is a defensive lineman. What do you do? Pure BPA, you take the defensive lineman. Which is exactly what the Houston Texans did with JJ Watt in their lineup and Jadavian Clowney on their board. Take the BPA. Now, in hindsight, it hasn't been a spectacular success story, but that isn't because of the theory. Clowney was injured and may not be quite as good as people thought. Another way to look at is this. You've got all these guys with scores, from 8.0 down to 0.1. At any given point in time, the sum of all the scores of all the guys you have on your team is a measure of how much talent you have. If you take a guy in an area of need with a 7.2 instead of the PBA with a 7.4, you are limiting the total value of all the talent on your team. BPA is a system designed to maximize the talent on the team. When you take the guy with a 7.2 and leave a 7.4 on the board, you never get an opportunity to recover that differential. You certainly don't in the next round, when all that's left are 6.5s or whatever. That 7.4 is an opportunity you lose forever. Now, yes, you may get lucky and get a Kyle Williams in later rounds, but every team has those stories. You can't count on those picks to cover the opportunities you lose when you skip over your BPA. Now, I'll say this: Building a successful team is obviously a very difficult task, and BPA is just one of at least a few different approaches teams take toward the draft. I'm not uncomfortable with this approach, but I really have no idea if it's the best way to go about it.

You make a good point. I'd guess that they evaluate players based in the positions the Bills actually have. So they evaluate the guy as a 4-3 linebacker. As for the rest of your points, I think that's exactly right. Except for QB, the BPA is almost certainly going to help you this season or next. Even safety or corner. If Troy Polamalu is there at 9, you take him.

I think they force themselves to make their best guess as to how good a player he will turn out to be. That best guess obviously includes his ceiling. But they force themselves to pick a number and then they trust that number. So, for example, if 8 is perfect, Allen's ceiling was an 8, because he had all the tools to be perfect. But his score wasn't 8, because they have to calculate the probability that he would actually achieve that level. So his score may have been 7.6. That's how I understand what Beane has said.

Beane's description of the process, and others that I've heard, are that they do what I said. It's something like an 8 point scale, with 8.0 being a certain Hall of Fame player. Every play gets a number, not a range. They force themselves to make a decision that this guy is a 7.4 and not a 7.3, I don't know how they make those judgments, exactly, but I'm sure some of it is physical attributes and some of it is character attributes. But, at least as I've heard Beane describe, none of it is need based. It is simply a number that is the best score the scouts and others can put on each guy. Then at the draft, if it's their pick in the first round, they take the guy with the 7.4 over any guy who has a 7.3. Beane says they follow their board absolutely. They DON'T say, "well, this 7.3 guy is a receiver, and we really could use help at receiver, so we will take him over the 7.4 guy." Beane says they are very strict about their discipline. On something like an 8-point scale, after the first 100 guys, all you have left on the board is a lot of, say, 5.3s and below. You might have 10 5.3s on top of your board when it's your pick in the fourth round. THEN need becomes a factor, according to Beane, but not before. I'm not saying that's the best way to do it, and I get the sense that other GMs have a different approach. But what I just said is what Beane has said about how he does it.

I think people are making this too hard. From what I understand from what Beane (and others) have said, teams like the Bills evaluate every player in the draft and give him a number. That number is a rating of how good the team thinks the player will be. The guy who ends up with the highest number is the best player. What exactly does that mean? Well, obviously, position has to have something to do with it. The best punter in the history of the world could be available, but I don't think he gets the highest rating in the draft, because the difference, in terms of wins and losses, between having the best punter in the world and having any old punter just isn't that great. In fact, I think the difference in wins and losses probably is the way numbers are assigned. Which has the most impact on winning games? That's why QBs are higher on boards than kickers. It's not which player will have the most impact on wins FOR OUR TEAM. It's just which player helps his team win. Another way to look at it is probability of making the Hall of Fame. Hall of Famers are drafted disproportionately at the top of the draft. Why? Because they are the guys who, over the course of their careers, have the most impact on the outcome of games, so they get drafted first. So every guy has a number, the team lists the players in order of their number, and in the early rounds a BPA team like the Bills takes the guy with highest number left on their board. The only exception is if there's an absolute certainty that the guy isn't going to play - like if the Bills' BPA is a QB, you pass on the BPA. Ideally you trade out, but if you can't find a trade partner, you take the second guy. You DON'T do that if it's a DT and you're strong at DT, because the guy is still your BPA, you platoon your DTs, and in a year or two one or more of your other DTs will be gone. So strength at a position generally ISN'T view as a problem by someone like Beane. If he's in the first round and if he already has a GREAT #1 wideout, and if the BPA is a wideout, he takes him. Why? Because the wideout is the BPA, he's going to strength the team (who wouldn't want two true #1s starting for them?), and it won't be a contract problem until the next contract comes up for one or the other. Difference between wins and losses also makes it easy to see why in the later rounds need becomes a bigger factor. In the fourth round, let's say, there aren't any obvious difference makers left. If a guy is perceived as a difference maker, someone will have taken him before the fourth. So the guys left all have similar or identical scores (based on size, athleticism, brains, etc.), because none of them is likely to impact wins and losses any more or less than the other guys with similar scores. So at the point, based on the scores, there isn't one BPA - there maybe 10 or 20, all tied with the same score. Since they all are likely to have the same impact, you're free to take the player who has the BPA score AND who plays a position where you'd like to get more help.

That's a great example of how need might play into a day one decision. Same thing with Allen last year. But when Beane says he takes the BPA he means that at the pick where he finds himself he takes the BPA without regard to need. That's different from trading because he sees a guy who is the BPA who also fits the need. Beane just means he's taking the guy with higher rating, whatever the position the guy may play. If he has a need he may move.

I'm okay with it. As I understand what they're doing, taking the corner or safety improves the level of talent of the team, and in their process, upgrading talent is more important having all positions equally talented. They dont care that much if, say, the receiving corps is a little weaker if in the bargain they got a really good corner. McBeane expect every guy to do his job, so having less talent at receiver, in my example, isn't a disaster. Having a specially talented corner helps more than adding a less talented receiver. They figure it will even out over time. It's very much a long term approach. I'm okay with it. This is exactly the opposite of what Beane says he does. In the early rounds he takes strict BPA. In later rounds he considers need.

Thanks. That's interesting analysis. Bill's will take BPA, whatever position he plays.

I don't know if BPA is the best way to go. What I do know is that Beane will go BPA. in rounds 1 and 2, except if it's a qb. He's said so over and over. That's why I think people talking about which position the Bills will focus on is foolish. They won't spend a first or second on need. So when the Bills draft in the second round, I won't think they went with need. That isn't what Beane does. His plan is to keep adding the best talent he can find. That's BPA. If it's two DTs in the first two rounds, so be it. If it's two wide outs. Fine. Belichick took Gronk and Hernandez in the same draft. There's no substitute for talent.

I agree. Othe than Motse, the free agents aren't stars in the making. One or two probably will turn into solid starters, but that's not enough for the long term. Beane will go BPA, and if the BPA is an olineman, he will be very happy to take him.

I think it's interesting, but your conclusion is correct. They have the greatest HC and the perfect QB for the head coach. I think it's interesting because I think that McBeane think that they are heading in that direction. And I think it's actually possible they are. You know me. I do that all the time.

All you guys keep talking about whether this position or that position is an area of need. That's all well and good, but that is NOT how McBeane are approaching this. BPA, BPA, BPA. Beane has told us that he uses free agency to fill holes for the short term, and he uses the draft to build the team for the long term. And he's also essentially said in recent interviews that he has filled the holes - offensive line and wide out. That's where he saw problems that needed to be addressed immediately. In other words he's said that he and McD are ready and willing to play football with the team they can field with the current roster. The draft is for making the team better, and they don't particularly care WHERE they get better. The BPA at 9 is almost certainly going to be better than someone they have on the roster. It could be a defensive lineman, it could be an offensive lineman, it could be a wideout, it could be a tight end, it could be a linebacker, it could be a running back, it could be a defensive back. McBeane really don't care what position he plays - if he's the BPA in the first round, he's going to make the team better. McBeane aren't comparing the relative strengths of various positions on the team and decided to point the draft in the area they believe is weakest. They're going to take the BPA and plug him into the team. If it creates an excess of talent at the position, they'll trade someone. It's a very simple philosophy - in the draft, add the best players you can. Now, when you get down to the later rounds, players remaining tend to have very similar ratings, even identical ratings. So in those rounds, their are multiple "BPAs," so you can pick the one where your team might need the most help. But not in the early rounds. In the early, just take the best player and move on.

This is true, but it's not about Brady as much as it's about Belichick. Brady gets rid of the ball fast because Belichick understood faster than everyone else that there simply isn't any way to protect the QB consistently the way teams could do it 20 years ago. Pass rushers are too good, and schemes are too complicated, to expect your blockers to build a nice, safe pocket, play after play. Belichick accepted that reality and asked himself how to deal with it. The way to deal with it is to have an offense where you virtually always can get a receiver open quickly, regardless of what defense you're looking at, and have a QB and receivers who can recognize the situation and react to it. Brady is about as good at it as you can imagine. He's smart, quick and accurate. But it works because Belichick's schemes always have someone open quickly; Brady is just the guy who takes advantage of it. I think that's one of the reasons we heard McBeane say after last season ended that they have to get Allen to take the easy short throw. They've learned from Belichick and Brady that you can have something like a 90% completion percentage on those throws - they're short, the receiver typically is wide open, and the pass rush doesn't have time to bother you. It is, in fact, the modern substitute for the effective running games 60 years ago. You can complete those passes all day long - that's why you see QBs completing 15 passes in a row sometimes. And it's particularly effective because once defenses react to try to stop that maddening short stuff, by dropping linebackers wider and shallower, you start finding receivers 15 yards down field over the middle with no defender within five yards, so you throw it to him. McBeane want to make Allen Brady-effective. He's smart, he's committed, and seems like he's the kind of guy who work in a system like that. If he can, the Bills could have the GOAT, because if he can play in his head like Brady, he's bigger, stronger, faster and has a better arm than Brady.

I know nothing about this guy, but I saw something about him a couple weeks ago, and everyone DOES think he's a wizard. I keep saying the same things over and over. I think McD is a closet Belichick disciple. I think that's one reason he wanted Daboll. Belichick has a pretty simple formula. 100% commitment to doing your job, learning and getting better. Continuity. Be physical. All in, all the time. A lot of what McDermott preaches. And this is why I think a trade out of 9 is likely. Success in the Belichick system, and I think McBeane believe that success in their system, has to do with brains, commitment and hard work. Once you get past QB, the notion that a player is a "game changer" really doesn't fly in their system. They want good athletes with the right attitude. If a guy is a great athlete, that's nice, but it isn't critical. Belichick wins by having built a sustainable system and by being good at finding good, hard-hitting athletes who will work for him in the system. That's exactly what McBeane say about what they're doing, and it's why they keep saying they want to build "the right way." What they mean by that is that a team built with the right work ethic and solid offensive and defensive systems can win football games year after year by plugging in the right kind of guys. It's not a star system. Except at quarterback, and McBeane think they have their QB. They just have to nurture him like BElichick nurtured Brady, and not let a McCarthy-Rodgers problem develop.

I keep saying this and saying this. Beane has been clear - he's building the team through the draft. He's using free agency to plug gaps. That means we probably will seen af offensive lineman or two added to the team this year through the draft, and there will be one or two next year, and the year after that. In the meantime, he's signing free agents as he thinks he needs them.

That's probably true. He's like those couple of camp favorites several years ago - everyone loved the guys, and then they got cut and never caught on anyplace else. But I'll come back to where I started - the guy seems to have great hands, and great hands can hide a lot of ills. We'll see.

As I said, I don't think trade ups to move higher in the second are that noteworthy. We're talking here about using major draft capital to move up higher than 9. That's what I think is unlikely. But as I said, what do I know? I don't have Beane's private number. And Dawkins and Jones weren't Beane's drafts.

I wonder about this a lot, and you may be right. I assume three of the trade ups are 22 to 12, 12 to seven and 23 to 16, or whatever the exact numbers were. Not sure what the fourth one was, but I don't think it was in the first round. QB is a special case, and I think MLB is a special case for McD, because he's experienced the importance of having a star there. You may be right that he thinks the same about a star DT. (One of the adages I often quote is that the most important players in the game are the guys who play closest to the ball, and McD now has three of the four - Center, QR, MLB. Monster DT is the one he's missing, so you may be right.) But when you listen to Beane talk about the D line prospects, he says they're deep in this draft. He said it in response to a question about whether he felt any urgency to go after a position. The clear implication was that he wasn't in a hurry to chase d line talent in the first round. That doesn't prove anything, but it's why I think he isn't so likely to trade up. Still, it's clear he has no fear, so anything is possible.

I don't think this is they way he thinks about it, just based on what he's said. I think he uses free agency as short-term, stop-gap measure. I think he's looking for Matt Milanos in the 3rd, 4th and 5th rounds. I don't think he believes in chasing game changing players in the first round, not once he has his QB and MLB. I think he's look to increase the total talent level on the team.

I really don't think the Bills think this way. I think McBeane view it this way: We've got our quarterback. We've got our middle linebacker. Now our job is to add talent, wherever that talent may fall on our roster. If the BPA is a DE, great. If he's a wideout, great. If he's a corner, great. If he's a guard, great. We'll take whoever the most talented guy is, and he will make out team better. I think their philosophy is that we will fill holes in free agency, we'll add talent in the draft, and we will play with the guys we have.