Shaw66

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.

That's a tough deal to make. Really can't do either trade unless you know you can sign the guy to a long-term deal, but I don't think they can talk to the agent without the other team's permission. To get the permission, you'd need to have a trade pretty much agreed to. I don't see Houston or Seattle giving permission for the Bills to talk with the agent, because if the Bills are willing to give the guy a big contract, it hampers Houston and Seattle's ability to talk trades with anyone else for the next week. Maybe there's more behind the scenes talking going on than is permitted, but I get the sense that everyone is pretty good about following those rules. It would be risky for the Bills to give up a second round pick without knowing they can sign the guy long term.

Is Beane sick or something? We need some entertainment here. There's gotta be a Cordy Glenn on the roster he can package with some picks to give himself more to work with. Come on. Time's awastin.

That's funny. There's a part of me that doesn't like his intensity, which leads to him acting out from time to time. At the same time, his intensity is what makes who he is. Not a perfect comparison, but Tiger and Richie Incognito have a bit of the same problem. And, if you believe the reports, McDermott and Beane have it, too. There's a couple of tightly wired guys. I love the story about Beane, who was such a student of basketball that they let him coach the JV team when he was a senior in high school. In the first two minutes of his first game, he got two technicals and was tossed! Gotta love a guy who wants it that bad. Tiger has that.

Thanks. That's a really nice piece. I will tell you, however, that I don't trust all thos feel good stuff. Tiger is great press, so the press always writes nice stuff about him. His horrible behavior on the course was well known to the press but never reported. I would like nothing better than for Tiger to be a new man, because I like my heroes to be good guys. The press, because it's in their interest, are going to tell us he's a new man. Whether he is remains to be seen. In the meantime, what he did is what makes us love watching sports.

We'll see how much home turf matters in the upcoming majors. My expectation is that he will compete seriously in at least some of them. The guy is a great, great golfer, and nothing he does amazes me, including his most recent win.

Thanks for the interesting comments. For the record, I wasn't at all trying to minimize his achievement. It was truly remarkable.

You make a good point about Mack, and given McD's determination to get pressure with the front four, an outstanding edge rusher may be viewed by McBeane as essential to the long-term plan. However, as I've often said, I think McD is a closet Belichick disciple, and Belichick is willing to scheme with his front seven and to get pressure not so much with overwhelming talent in the front four as with the uncertainty of which four or five or six are coming. McD's defense is definitely about scheme, and if he would come on here and talk to us, I would guess that he would say that pressure up the middle is more important than edge pressure. I'd guess that he's thinking if he has a stud DT, he can make the rest work. If he doesn't have a stud tackle, he'll force the QB to deal with the threat of Edmunds shooting an inside gap. All just suspicions on my part.

Jobot and Our Year - It's a very interesting discussion you've been having. It's a question that's torn at me a lot as we all have watched the Bills rebuild and rebuild and rebuild. My personal bias is against the big free agent move. I think that players are rarely worth teams pay for them, and players rarely have the impact that fans imagined they would. I'll admit, however, that there are exceptions. Gilmore, for example, but Belichick is, as always, a special case. The shut down corner is a critical part of Belichick's defense, because Beleichick knows that if he can neutralize the opponent's best receiver, his collection really well-trained good but not great football players can outplay the opponent 10 on 10. So when Belichick writes the big check, it's a very well calculated move. It isn't just that the guy is an impact player; it's because the guy is close to essential to the overall scheme. I'd guess that Belichick looks at Clowney and thinks "well, he'd be nice to have, but that position doesn't drive my defensive philosophy, so I'm not paying big bucks for him." Contrast that decision with a Mario Williams, who was among the very best at his position (arguably a guy whose talent level, compared to others at his position, was similar to Gilmore's at his position) and was, even in Buffalo, something of an impact player. He nevertheless was just a random piece who improved the total talent on the team, but he wasn't the key piece to a scheme that could win only with a player of his caliber at his position. We have a pretty good idea of what Beane thinks: He's filling holes in free agency and building through the draft EXCEPT that when an extraordinary becomes available he will take a long hard look at the guy. He said so after his run at Antonio Brown. Pardon my ignorance about Clark. I really don't know him, but I gather he's ferocious on the edge. And I think I read here somewhere that he's been franchised but the Hawks might deal him, or his contract's coming up or whatever. IF Beane has an interest in doing a deal for an edge rusher, the really big question is whether either or both fit their character model. Are they intense workers, fierce competitors, team players willing to commit to something bigger than themselves? Beane said that from watching AB on the field, they knew he was one of those guys. Are Clark and Clowney? My personal impression about Clowney, which may be unfair, is that he doesn't have the ferocious drive that his teammate Watt has. He has extraordinary ability, but it doesn't seem to me that all of that ability gets dedicated to the team every day, every week, every year. The very little bit I've heard about Clark is that he is the kind of the player McBeane like. But that's all conjecture. Then you have to weigh that against Beane's strong preference to build through the draft. He wants this team to be powerful for years to come, and his plan to do that is to build the talent slowly, not because slow is better than fast, but because if you're constantly upgrading through the draft you can afford, under the cap, to keep your team talented. One of you will disagree, but that's Beane's vision. When he's looking at a draft that apparently offers several opportunities to get an edge rusher in the early rounds, his preference is going to be, I think, to avoid writing a big check for a free agent and stick to his long-term plan. Maybe another way to look at it is whether Clark or Clowney is a difference maker like AB has been. Not whether they have the potential - if Beane is acquiring potential, he's going do that in the draft. Clowney still is potential; I don't think that Clowney has been a difference maker on his team in anything like AB was with the Steelers. I don't know about Clark. Bottom line, speaking from a position of ignorance about the players, I'd guess the most likely outcome is Beane goes after neither, and if he's going to go after either, I'd guess Clark. Personally, my confidence level in Beane is quite high these days. I like what I understand about his strategy and philosophy. My only concern is whether I'll live long enough to see it pay off. Other than that, I'm happy to sit and watch this all unfold. I think, for example, that it's going to be very interesting to see what he does in the draft. I'm am sure that there will be one or more moves or picks that will leave some people dumbfounded. I'll just wait for his post-draft press conference, when he'll tell us what he was thinking. It won't necessarily make the dumbfounded any happier, but it'll give us more information about how he approaches this whole process.

I don't get into these detailed discussions of this for that, but you raise an interesting point. There could be a trade back from 9 and a several trades packaging the day 3 picks. Bills could end up with a late first rounder and about 5 picks in the second third and fourth. I'd be good with that. But that's all dreaming. If they like what they see at 9 there will be no trade.

Well, I didn't see the article, and I think it's pretty hard NOT to understand what Beane is doing. He's been consistently up front about it. However, GMs certainly don't always agree on how to evaluate talent. The Bills are very focused on talent, but their focus is fixed on character issues. Some other teams probably don't evaluate players in the same way. So I can see a GM scratching his head about guys the Bills passed up, because another GM who rates physical ability highly and puts less emphasis on what McBeane value will see the Bills passing on what the other GM thinks is a star. This is the year we begin to see if McDermott's character-first approach translates into wins.

I think that's right. Beane wants the guy who, in their rankings, stands apart from everyone else, and especially apart from the guys who play that position. When he see one of those,he'll trade up. If he sees a bunch of receivers clustered on his board and his pick is coming, he's more likely to trade back.

I try to listen to Beane to understand his strategy, and what you say, although it makes sense to me, contradicts what Beane has said. What Beane says is when there's depth at a position, you sit tight and wait for some guy (not a particular guy) to come to you, or you trade back and wait for some guy. So, for example, if there are four d linemen he rates as first round talent, when he's picking at 9 he will be inclined to trade out of 9 to 15 or 18 or so, because there's a good chance one of the four will fall to the later pick. That way he gets extra value out of the 9 spot. Looked at from the other direction, he's going to trade up, to get back into the late first round, when he sees one guy, a particular guy, who stands out among all the other guys at his position AND who the BIlls have rated as the BPA at the spot they can trade up to. The example he gave yesterday, when someone asked, was Edmunds. There was no one like him left in the draft and the Bills thought he was the BPA, so they traded UP for him. If there were six middle linebackers, all really good, they wouldn't have traded up, and they might have traded back. That tells me that if they trade up for D line talent, they think the guy is really special compared to all the other D line talent available. More likely that if they trade up, they're trading for a position that ISN'T deep in the draft.

Cool. Not true in all cases, but true in many.

Yeah, how does that work? He starts with 300-400 and ends up with a board of 130? Does that mean that he WOULD NOT take any of the 250 who didn't make his board? What if he gets to the sixth round and ALL of his 130 are gone? What does he do? I'd like to know how that works.

Exactly

It is the quintessential story. As for his transformation because of all he's been through, I don't know, but I'm guessing that's the story the media want to tell. Tiger is great for the media. Everyone wants to see and hear more about Tiger. So this is the perfect story to tell. I'm guessing that now that he's won and cried, he will be the same old Tiger. The press won't write about it, because the readers don't want to hear about or see the real Tiger. I hope you're right, but tigers rarely change their stripes. Talk to his former friends.

The Rockpile Review “I Can’t Help Myself – I Like Tiger” I like Tiger. There, I’ve said it. I know I’m not supposed to like Tiger. There are all kinds of reasons not to like Tiger, but I can’t help myself. What reasons? Like, he’s the most ill-mannered player in the history of professional golf, fined more than anyone else. Like, he’s an egotistical, self-centered guy who seems incapable of appreciating any greatness other than his own. Like, he had a gorgeous wife and he couldn’t make that work. Like, sooner or later, he dumps each person who gets close to him – friends, women, agents, coaches, everyone. I guess he’s still close to his mother. His track record is so bad that people wouldn’t be surprised if he dumped his mother. And while I’m at it, I may as well say it: I like LeBron, despite, you know, all the LeBron stuff. And I like OJ, despite all the, you know, OJ stuff. Do you want the complete list? I’m not sure I can give it to you, because my memory is failing. I like Bill Russell, even though he’s a sanctimonious old fart. He was a sanctimonious old fart even when he wasn’t old. I like Michael Jordan even though he is, by many reports, a nasty guy. I like Barry Bonds. I like Pete Rose. I like Bill Belichick and Nick Saban, even though sometimes they seem to behave like total jerks. I like them even though sometimes I wish they would go away and leave the game to mortals. I like Rodgers despite the recurring reports about him. I like Brady despite the obnoxious watch ads, and the *****-eating grin, despite all of it. I like Jim Brown, maybe even better now than when he was playing, because when he was playing he was also doing some bad stuff that he owns now and has moved beyond. Why do I like all of them? Because big-time athletics is a unique showcase of talent and a lifetime of dedication to one’s craft that allows the truly exceptional to rise and, on occasion, thrill us all. So I have to admire Tiger for his talent, the skills he’s developed, his determination, his passion for the game. That kind of extraordinary expertise should be rewarded, no matter what the competitor may be like personally. People don’t like admitting it, because Nicklaus was just, well, so perfect, but Tiger’s the greatest golfer of all time. At his best, he was brilliant beyond anything we’d seen or even could imagine. Like Nicklaus, he’s now given us one last thrill (or, just maybe, more), one last chance to step back and admire his unique greatness. (By the way, how about Dwayne’s triple double to close out his career?) We’ve never seen anyone who wants it more than Tiger. He’s desperate for greatness on the golf course, and his fierce determination simply won’t permit others around him to stand in his way. He mows them all down, friend, foe, whomever, with a fire that rages inside him. Is Tiger a nice guy? I’m sure that by some standards he his. I’d love to have a chance to get to know him. I’m sure he’d like to be known as a nice guy, but he doesn’t want that as much as he wants something else. That something else drives him to be great. I especially really like the Bear (the golfer, not the coach, who probably should be listed up there with Belichick and Saban) and Stan the Man and Larry and Secretariat (it’s hard for a horse to be a jerk) and Junior and Oscar and Ichiro and Diana (the athlete, not the other one (well, the other one was okay, but that’s a different story)) and Peyton, because they could achieve Tiger-like greatness without, so far as I know, being jerks about it. I love the parade of greatness that sports gives us. (If this is supposed to be about the Bills, well, I hope that we’re now looking at a QB and a head coach who one day will be right there next to Secretariat.) GO BILLS!!! The Rockpile Review is written to share the passion we have for the Buffalo Bills. That passion was born in the Rockpile; its parents were everyday people of western New York who translated their dedication to a full day’s hard work and simple pleasures into love for a pro football team.

Exactly. In order to understand this stuff, you have to understand another layer of detail that preceded it. It's really complex. And it's a good example of why I like McDermott's "process" approach. The game already has evolved into one where complex team concepts are what win. The definition of BPA goes way beyond best athlete available. To play a defense like this you need seven guys committed to these principles, understanding them and executing them play after play. You can be the best shut-down talent in the league, but if you aren't also performing with concepts like this, you hurt your team. That's what's so good, for example, about the Bills' safeties. They know the details, the complex stuff, and they execute it. Thanks for the link.

Inigo Great post, again. It proves your point very well. I think the people who are bemoaning the lack of high end talent are missing a few of the realities of this team. 1. McD intends to win with a team concept. He would tell you he doesn't need a lot of high end talent to win. 2. Beane dies NOT use free agency to get high end talent. He did with Morse pretty much because the line was so weak he had no choice. He says he fills holes with free agents and he builds talent through the draft. That means we have to wait for high end talent. He added two in the draft last year and he will add one or two this year. Yes, when an AB or a Clowney becomes available he will think about it, but he doesn't plan to add talent that way. 3. Something was posted the other day about the o linemen coming out of college. They have no skills, and they can get better only by sitting and practicing and eventually playing. What I like about the free agent linemen is they have a lot of playing experience. They know what it takes. I think that will help a lot. And if one of them gets cut because the Bills get a stud OT at 9, that's good news.

The concept makes sense. The problem is that they don't have much time left before the draft. Bill's and Houston might agree, but Bill's and Clowney would have to agree too. It's not clear that the Bill's would want to pay more than Houston.