Shaw66

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.

I agree. It's just very clear that if you're looking for a QB you have to look for one at the top of the draft, and when you're near the top you must take your shot. It just happened that the years they took Marcell and Sammy there wasn't a good QB to go after, but last year there was.

Yeah, I think it's pretty tough to hang the first round decision last year on McDermott. I have to believe that he was in control, at least in the sense that he had veto power. I don't know if he power to actually make the decision. But even if he did have the power, he's working off all the data and evaluations that Whaley and Whaley's people did, and he pretty much had to trust that. If Whaley didn't have Mahomes or Watson at or near 10, he wasn't going to do it. I think more importantly, it's now clear that McDermott had a total rebuild in mind. Given that's what he was thinking, then he probably decided to trade back so the new GM (I'm sure he knew Whaley would be gone after the draft) would have more draft capital to shape the team he and McD want. In other words, the trade back to 29 was the first step in a rebuild that McDermott knew would happen over the next two years.

I agree. They know what the Giants want, they know what the Colts want, they know what Broncos, Bears, Bucs, Raiders want. They've talked to 'em all. Some of them are probably too pricey, some of them have possible deals shaped up with the Bills and are waiting to see if the Bills call on draft day. Beane knows which guy(s) he wants and how much he's willing to give up for each. He might be willing to pay the price to go to 6 for one QB but only willing to pay the price to go to 9 for another. By now, Beane has the makings of a plan in place for how he's going to do this. He knows what deals are out there to be had, and he knows which QBs, if any, he likes enough to move up.

Not to put you down, but there isn't anything new in that article. Whaley described the process in general on several occasions, and not just about this deal. That's how GMs do it - they talk often about what they're looking for and what they made be willing to do, and as things solidify they get closer to committing. Then, when the time is right, usually on draft day when the team moving up knows their guy is still on the board, they do it.

Well, if Mahomes is as good as they say, and they seem to be pretty sure about it, Bills should have taken Mahomes last year, let him learn behind Taylor, and the Bills already would be all set.

I guess. My post was pretty innocuous I thought.

What's wrong with my posts?

Right. It's the talent of the leader and the character of the men.

I think it's much a more about coaching than players. The example I always give about two generals with armies of 100,000 soldiers. I don't care at all which general has the best soldier, or the ten best soldiers, or even the 100 best soldiers. I want the best general. Why is it that when Cordy Glen goes down, Dawkins steps in and does fine? Two reasons: (1), the difference in talent is miniscule. They're both big, strong guys in their physical primes. Compared to all of the men in the world their age, they are in the top one tenth of one percent and size and physical ability, and the difference between them isn't great. (2) They aren't asked to do things they can't. They're just asked to execute physical maneuvers efficiently and consistently. When you have good athletes, they all can do that IF they're taught properly and they haev the work ethic to become excellent at executing things that aren't beyond their abilities. Do you want the BEST offensive tackle? Sure, but that's icing the cake. Teams win with lots of average guys just - are you ready, all you Belichick fans? - doing their job. The coaches know what they want the players to to do, and they get them to do it consistently. Once you have decent NFL talent, it all about coaching and character.

Marcell Dareus is your answer. He was one of the five most talented guys in the league at his position, and McDermott didn't want him? Was he a felon? No. Was he a drug addict. No, at least not seriously. Did he put his teammates first? No. Did he do his job every play? No. Did he work every day to be as good as he can be? No. Did Chris Hogan have the right answer to all of those questions? Yes, and if McDermott had been the coach when Hogan was in Buffalo, Hogan would STILL be in Buffalo. Belichick wants guys with those traits, and McDermott does, too. I say it over and over. Talent is over-rated. (Again, we're excluding the QB here.) Do you need some guys with special talent here and there? Sure. But look at Hyde and Poyer. They're perfect examples. Those guys aren't outstanding safeties, not premier guys every team is drooling over. They are like most players in the league - in terms of talent, they were in the top 5 percent in college. In other words, they ALL have the size, speed and strength to play in the NFL. The question is what do they do with it? And what they do with it is a matter of character. Hogan has it, Dareus doesn't. Now, you can have a Mario Williams every once in a while who is SO outstanding that he can be great without the character McDermott is looking for, but there are very few of those guys. A good QB and 52 solid NFL-level players will win a lot of games for you. Yes, you say, but you can stand a few with less than perfrect character. Well, how good were the Bengals when they had 8 felons on the roster? Lotta talent, but they sucked. In his book GM, the Giants gm said you can have one prima donna on your team. When you have two, you're in trouble, when you have three you can't win. He said the Giants had three prima donnas - Strahan, Barber and someone else. Strahan came to an agreement with Coughlin and stopped being a prima donna, and they got rid of one of the other two. As soon as that happened, they won the Super Bowl. I'd love to hear McDermott on the subject, too. I'd like to know what he looks for. I'm sure he'll tell you he doesn't want guys who are problems. Saban will tell you the same thing, Belichick will. I heard Jim Calhoun say it about basketball. It's hard enough to win with good guys on your team; it's harder still if you have problems.

Sometimes I feel sorry for guys who post things like this and then get dumped on by everyone saying "that's ridiculous." Well, THAT'S RIDICULOUS! Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, consistently puts you in the playoffs from any position except an outstanding quarterback. Nobody. As in N-O-B-O-D-Y. Not Bruce Smith, not J.J. Watt, not Megatron, not Sammy Watkins (certainly not Sammy Watkins), not Troy Polamalu, not anybody. Now, if you're point is that there's nothing more to say about the QBs, I agree. But this year, for the first time in decades, the Bills are in position to get almost anyone they want in the draft AND there are good quarterbacks to be had. It's foolish to expect that people will stop talking about it.

Exactly zero Super Bowl rings on that list.