Shaw66

If that's true, then it depends if Gettleman has his heart set on only one of the three, or if he'd be with one of two or one of three. Because if he'd be happy with any of two or three, he can trade back with the Browns, let the Browns take one of his two and get the other, together with a nice pick from the Browns. More likely, however, that you're right. There's a guy he REALLY likes, and he isn't going to give the Browns an opportunity to take him. BUT, if the Browns take Gettleman's guy at #1, it makes sense that Gettleman would be willing to trade back to #4 with the Browns, because Gettleman knows that the Browns and Jets both will take QBs and Gettleman can pick up his second choice plus a free pick.

This post demonstrates how much fun, and how pointless, it is to speculate about the draft. Do the Giants want a QB or don't they? Makes a big difference. Do the Broncos want a QB or don't they? Is Barkely a transcendent player who must be taken ASAP (by the Giants or the Browns)? Without knowing the answers to questions like these, everything is just guess work. That's what makes it so tough for the Bills to decide what to do. That's why the Bills have to have had conversations with all the teams with the top 6 picks, so that when the draft begins to unfold they can make a quick deal, if necessary.

It benefits the Browns because they could get Barkley and the QB they want. Right now, if they go QB at 1, they probably lose Barkley to the Giants. If they go Barkley at 1, they probably lose the QB they want because the Jets might take him or the Giants or the Giants' trade partner might take him. But if they take Barkley at one and then trade with the Giants because the Giants really don't want a QB that high, they are sure to get the QB they want. The Giants don't care, because if they're taking a non-QB, they can afford to trade back to 4 without losing out on their second choice. It could make sense for the Browns and the Giants.

Maybe it could happen Everyone says the Giants want Barkley, which means I guess that they don't feel like they need to solve their QB problem this year. Okay, if that's true, that the Giants are going to slide on a QB, then the Browns have to take Barkley at 1, leaving the Giants standing at the altar without a bride. Then the Gmen have ten minutes to make a deal with the Browns. They've already decided they don't want a QB, so they're looking at some other position. Anyone they see at 2 they can get at 4, I suppose, because the Jets are taking the best QB on the board. So maybe the Giants swing a quick deal with the Browns, pick up a pick by moving back two spots and get the guy they would have taken at 2. Or, the Giants move back to 4 and immediately call the Bills, with whom they've already had discussions, and another team or two, with whom they've already had discussions, and swing a quick deal to move back some more. Get maybe 12 and a second round pick from the Bills. Could it happen? I suppose. But if the Giants like a QB and Barkley over the QB was a close call for them, then when the Browns take Barkley at 1, the Giants take the QB and have no interest in trading back. By the way, I really disagree with this "lock this thread" stuff. How is anyone supposed to know if the same subject is being discussed in another thread? Unless the title to the thread makes it clear that it's about the Browns moving to 2, how do you know without reading every thread and seeing which threads have meandered into a subject different from the title? If there are people on this thread who want to talk about the title of the thread, in my mind it's a legitimate thread that is entitled to its own life.

Not that it matters, but I'll take this opportunity to write my occasional rant about this smokescreen nonsense. There's about 1/10,000 as much smokescreening during this period than the fans think. It's silly. First, the supposed point of the smokescreen is to influence some other team to make a decision that the other team ordinarily wouldn't make so that the screening team can gain an advantage. Well, if you have the number 1 pick, no one is drafting ahead of you so, there isn't anyone to influence. So there's no point in putting up a smoke screen about what the Browns intend to do at #1. Well, you say, they may be trying to protect the guy they want at #4. Baloney. They're trying to mislead the Giants or Jets into thinking they'll take Allen or Mayfield when they really want Darnold. Then what? The Browns take Barkley at 1 and expect that the Giants and Jets will be so confused by the smokescreen that they WON'T NOTICE that Darnold is still on the board and Darnold will slip to 4? That's the plan? That's like a scene from Dumb and Dumber. Second, who actually believes that GMs sit around and think of ways to slyly mislead some other team so the other team will change it's decision making and then tells some underling to leak a certain piece of misinformation to a certain reporter, expecting that somehow that leak, among all the reporting that's out there, will actually cause the other team to change direction? Maybe Tom Cruise does that in Mission Impossible, but it doesn't happen in the NFL. There's a much more plausible explanation about what happens at this time of year. There are, I'd guess, more than 1000 members of the media who have to print or say something every day about what's going on leading up to the draft. Reporters and broadcasters who cover the league and others who cover individual teams. They need fresh material, so they keep talking to anyone who will talk to them. GMs, coaches, players, scouts, former GMs, former coaches, former players, former scouts, wives of former GMs, ex-wives of former GMs, boyfriends of ex-wives of former GMs, anyone they can find. The media take from those conversations anything they can, and they publish it in a way that makes it sound like it's true. Then fans who don't want to believe that conclusion (usually because the fan doesn't want it to be true because it means his team won't be able to draft the guy he wants) need a reason to not believe it. There's no obvious way to refute the statement, because it's a simple statement about something that no one else on the team is talking, so there's nothing to contradict it. So why would the speaker have said it? Oh, to mislead some other teams. Of course! VOILA!!! The smokescreen is born. Do teams actually try to create smokescreens? I'm sure it's been done once in a while, particularly to trick a team into trading up in a way that benefits the screening team. But that's once in a great while. Why? Because if you're a GM and you trick another GM into doing something that works to your benefit and the other guy's disadvantage, you develop a reputation of not being a straight shooter, and your ability to make trades in the future is weakened. Honesty is the best policy. Long live the smoke screen.

Just to stir things up, I think these Peterman discussions really miss the point. The real point is that starting Peterman was a huge mistake that called into question McDermott's judgment as a coach. Let's hope he learned his lesson. I thought it was a bad decision at the time, but I thought that McDermott must have seen Peterman consistently lighting it up in practice, demonstrating that he was an NFL starter just waiting for his opportunity. Taylor had been playing poorly enough that he created the opportunity. However, Peterman made it clear that that wasn't what was going. McDermott simply panicked. The team was floundering and McDermott made a desperation move. He abandoned his own process and made a change for the sake of change, instead of staying with the guy who had earned the starting position, despite the ugly streak the Bills were on. If Peterman really had been lighting it up in practice (1) he wouldn't have been so God-awful when he did a get a start, and (2) McDermott would have kept him on the field for that game and the rest of the season. To McDermott's credit, he maintained his credibility with the team despite his awful judgment in making the change. He went on to lead his team to the playoffs. It was a coaching triumph following the blunder. Unfortunately, the decision sealed Taylor's fate. Maybe the Bills already had decided to move on from Taylor, but after benching him and then bringing him to relieve the rookie after only one half, there was no turning back. Taylor was toast. You don't see many coaching decisions that bad.

Well, okay, you're just saying that's what Football Outsiders are saying. I'll make the same argument. Why should I care about a stat that Football Outsiders made up if it reaches a different conclusion about the value of players than the coaches, who have greater expertise and access to equally good if not better data? Now, my disclaimers. First, I like Football Outsiders and if they think McCarron is a downgrade, I'm interested. Second, I'm not sure the Bills coaches have ever said they think AJ is, overall, an upgrade. Third, I doubt he's an upgrade. Fourth, I don't think there's enough data to make a meaningful judgment; we have to see more starts from McCarron. Fifth, if it's a close call between Taylor and McCarron, thats enough to know AJ isn't the answer.

No, hap, you have that wrong. if he's more capable than Taylor in the areas that are important to the coaches, then he's an upgrade as far as the coaches are concerned. What you're saying is that the stats you prefer to rely on say he's a downgrade. So that means you're asking me to accept your view over the coaches. I won't do that. How can that be? Well, maybe the most important things don't show up in the stats. I don't know. But if you tell me the coaches like McCarron better, I'm not going to buy your conclusion that they are wrong.

Which brings to mind one of the most important questions in the history of western civilization, a question I heard one Saturday morning on Car Talk. Here it is: Does one person who doesn't know what he's talking about know more or less than two people who don't know what they're talking about?

Well, Hapless and Badlands and the others, I say you're all just arguing for the fun of it, because there isn't an answer. Hapless is right, that if you take his actual performance in league games, AJ is a downgrade. But then even Hapless says that AJ is more capable than Tyrod in the ways that McBeane want. Well, if he's more capable in the ways the coach and GM want, doesn't that make him an upgrade? And if you compare the one playoff game that each started, AJ way outperformed Taylor. Plus, AJ was stuck behind an entrenched starter. In that position AJ had to outperform Dalton substantially before he was going to get the starting job. In other words, AJ could be just as good as Dalton. Over the past three years Dalton and Taylor are about a push. I'd give Taylor the edge. Seems to me there just isn't enough information about AJ to say with any degree of certainty that AJ is a downgrade or not.

Exactly. I'm certain we will see four QBs go before pick 12. Someone will trade up if four don't go in the top five picks.

I agree. I think there are no moves until draft night. I think it's unlikely that there's a deal with Browns or Giants (more than Beane is willing to pay), and there are no moves with anyone else until Beane knows for sure whether the guy he wants is at the spot he's about to trade for. I just think it's likely that SOMETHING happens. I mentioned somewhere else something I'd never thought of before, which is that Beane takes the best QB left at 12 (again assuming it's a guy he wants) and then trades up from 22.

But it's so hard to figure. If Denver wants a QB who's left at 5, they aren't trading. Other than the Dolphins, there's no one ahead of the Bills who really wants a QB, and there's no one behind the Bills with enough capital to trade up to 5. In other words, either Denver doesn't want to deal, or if it does, there isn't much reason for the Bills to do it.

I love your stuff. When you think of all the possibilities and all the needs, I'm concluding that there is very little likelihood that the where the Bills sit today is where they will sit next Friday morning. SOMETHING is going to happen. 12 gets traded, or 22, or Shady or Hughes. Beane is going to move in SOME direction, SOMEHOW. At least that seems much more likely than he's going to sit tight for the next eight day.s

People tend not to believe Beane or others when they say things that people don't want to believe. When they made the deal, Beane said that it was a good opportunity (essentially good value), so they made the move. He was quite clear that it wasn't part of a plan to do anything (either move up or not, either get a QB or not). He just liked being at 12 without Glenn better than being at 21 with him. Why? Because it gives him options in the draft, options to move up, down or stay put. Beane's going to do what he's said for weeks - he's going to continue to evaluate and decide what to do next. His appetite to move up will depend on how strongly he feels about his favorite QB. That, in turn, depends in part about how strongly he feels about McCarron. If he really loves some QB in the draft, he'll go pretty far to move up, but he's always said it's important to maintain discipline (which means it's important not to overspend to get what you want). Is it possible that he does something in the next week with the Browns and/or Giants? Sure, it's possible, but that's three teams making some pretty high-stakes gambles. I don't expect a move up to one or two. Definitely not a move to three. So that means to me that there'll be no move up until the night of the draft. Beane's not moving to 4 unless he really loves the guy who is there - there probably isn't a team that has the draft capital to satisfy the Browns in a deal. So with the Browns on the clock, Beane's asking himself whether he's willing to lose his favorite guy to the Broncos. If the answer is yes, he can live with it, then it gets to be fun. Suppose there's a QB Beane really wants after the Broncos have picked. It's quite possible that Colts, Bucs, Bears, Niners and Raiders don't want a QB, and maybe even the Dolphins. So Beane's asking himself: "My guy is at six, and he could fall all the way to 12. But Miami might take him at 11, and maybe even Colts or Bucs. And any one of those teams, Colts thru Dolphins, could trade back and let a QB-needy team move up. Cardinals, Ravens, Chargers. The problem for them is that they don't have great assets to trade. Moving from, say 16 to 6 may cost two seconds or next year's first. Could happen. Moving 16 to 11, however, may cost only a second this year. The GM at each club has to decide what Beane has to decide - how much do I like the guy and what am I willing to pay? Looked at another way, three QBs almost certainly are going off the board in the top 5 picks (Browns, Jets, Giants and Broncos), and possibly four. If Beane's in love with one, he has to pay what the Giants or the Browns want. My guess? The price is too high to go up into the top 5 - it's just too big a risk. On the night of the draft, if a QB his likes survives the top 5, Beane moves up to someplace from 6 to 10, because the risk is just too high that the Dolphins either take a QB or trade back to let someone else take one. Personally, I'm hoping Mayfield or Rosen is there at 6 and falls to 10. Then Beane makes a relatively little deal with the Raiders and gets him. And if they're gone, and Darnold too, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see the Bills take Rudolph at 12. And then Beane might package 22 with a later round pick to move up 13 or 14 for a middle linebacker.

Posts like this always send me immediately to Google images to figure out who these people are. Having done that, all that I can say is, for me, size matters, so Eminem is definitely last on this or almost any list.

I did 60 years ago. Been a while since I had a Twinkie. I lick other wrappers now.

I don't study these guys in college, so I certainly don't know. However, I have a couple of reactions to this discussion: 1. Gunner at least speaks with authority and conviction. I tend to believe him. 2. Gunner says he'll never be an NFL starter. 3. He was drafted in the fifth round, which means NFL GMs thought there was a high probability that Gunner is right. 4. Peterman didn't do anything in 2017 to suggest that Gunner is wrong. 5. Major physical changes in athletic moves, like changes to make Peterman a stronger thrower, are difficult to make. It's like a baseball player changing his swing. He can practice all he wants during the off-season, but when the bullets start flying, most athletes revert to habits that have been formed over many years. So I don't put much stock in reports of off-season transformations. 6. Bills likely will draft a good rookie QB. He will start, or McCarron will, and the loser of the battle will be the backup. Peterman won't get many reps and, depending on how the Bills want to manage the roster, my find himself out of a job. I think he's practice squad eligibile, but whether he is or not, he just doesn't seem to have a future in Buffalo. 7. HE could be one of those journeymen who bounces around the league for several years without playing much.

I was there! Didn't have a good view. All I could see was that Fred was supposed to go down and he just kept running. I couldn't understand it. Then they showed the replay. Oh, my, you are correct, my man.

Not only the best heart and drive of the era. The best of any era - equal to Talley, for example. Both maxed out on that scale. Jackson had the kind of will, guts and determination that every coach would like to see in his players, not just in Buffalo but anywhere.

Yes. The Wall of Fame isn't the Hall of Fame. You don't have to have the best career in the history of the franchise to get on the Wall. You have to have been a transcendent Buffalo Bill, a person who occupies a special place in the fan psyche. That's why Bob Kalsu is there. That's why Daryl Talley is there. And that's why Fred will be there.

I agree completely with the OP. Keeping that in mind, I'm sure we all can agree the Bills should trade up at any cost to get Josh Allen.

Nice post Metz. I know practically nothing about these guys, but I know what I think is important. Accuracy and decision making. I wouldn't taken Allen anywhere in the top half of the first round because, as you day, he hasn't shown he's a good decision maker and regardless of what you say about not throwing to running backs, 56% is scary. Carson Wentz showed in college what he had. Allen didnt, and I think that makes him a big gamble.

I think I recall what you say - that there were several non-attributed comments from people saying they were gone. And I know the Bills would never say, but stuff leaks sometimes.

How do you know he had the power to call the pick? I think he did have some power, but I don't think the Bills ever have said how it was handled. And in any case, MD had to rely on Whaley and Whaley's team. McD wasn't going to do his own independent evaluation of Mahomes and, if it was contrary to Whaley's analysis, jump on it. The m,ore I think about it, I think McD wanted to save the draft capital for 2018 so he and the new GM could have the flexibility they had this year. And, by the way, I think it's likely Whaley knew going into the draft that he was done after the draft. I can imagine McD vetoing that move and forcing the trade back.