Shaw66

It isn't BS. In one sense, of course, he has an opinion on all of them. He has SOME impression about them, he's SOME information about them. But it's completely clear in the context of the press conference (where he said the exact same thing) and the interview, is that what he means is that he hasn't spent enough time to be in position to make an informed decision about which, if any, of these guys he'd want and at what price. The fact that YOU may think that YOU have enough information to make the decision and therefore Beane must, too, simply means that you don't understand how much information is actually required or that you or your staff have done an enormous amount of research, including interviews with coaches, dozens of hours of film study, etc.

King has interesting stuff in his interview with Beane. Most interesting to me is that he decided to completely clean up the salary structure and get positioned the way he thinks they should be. Result? Bills currently have $36 million in dead cap, which is almost twice the next highest dead cap in the league, and Beane said when he's done this year he expects it to be closer to $45 million. Hughes - $6.8 million dead cap McCoy - $5 million dead cap Clay - $9 million dead cap (I think). Sounds like Beane tipped his hand. Someone else is moving out. Yeah, it's an interesting comparison in styles. Based on the draft chart, the Jets overpaid to move up. They must be very sure about a couple of guys, because they can't be assured that one guy will drop to them. Now that we've had a year watching and listening to Beane, it's clear that his overriding principle is maintain the discipline. It's the same thing we've heard from McDermott, and it's why they like working with each other. Last season when the Bills were collapsing, McDermott kept saying "it's a process, stay with the process," and things turned out okay. I mean, I thought there was no way in the world the Bills were going to the playoffs after those three losses, and he's saying "relax, a week at a time, we're not done." Beane is the same. He essentially is saying that he works as hard as he can to make every decision the right decision. It's not about outcomes, it's about the process. Follow the process and the outcomes take care of themselves. In other words, he's saying "sure, I want a better quarterback, but I'm not going to overspend. I'll get the quarterback when the right opportunity presents itself." It's for the fans, because we want results now, but he's learned that if you just keep making good decisions, eventually it comes together. Interesting to watch.

Interesting to read Peter King's comments about the Bills. In his interview with King, Beane made it clear that one objective, maybe his primary objective, was cleaning out the high salaries and getting cap management under control. I've always wondered about this, and he says that attacking the salaries was always part of his plan. I'd guess that means when he interviewed with the Bills he told them he was going to do some major surgery. And he says he wanted to take as much of the pain as he could this year. That's what we've seen. The Bills dead cap money is at $36 million, and Beane says when he's done he expects it'll be $45 million (Shady, Jerry, are you listening?). Remember a few weeks ago when McDermott said "we're not as close as some people think," meaning don't get too carried away because we made the playoffs? Well, hearing Beane say what he says about the salary cap is confirmation. These guys are taking the train off one track and putting it on another, and what they're telling us is not to expect the train to go anywhere until we get it on the new track. What does that tell us about QB? Not much. I think all we know is what we've always known, which is that Beane will NOT overspend. He's all about maintaining discipline and trusting the process. I like this.

I think you and I get into these semantic discussions from time to time. We see it the same way but talk about what the words mean. There's no pro football dictionary that I'm aware of that defines total rebuild. You're taking it literally - if it's total EVERY veteran/star must go. I'd guess that if you look back over the years at situations where the press called a team's transformation a total rebuild you'd fine that in every case, some of the veterans remained. That is, total doesn't really mean total. In this case, a year after the new regime arrived, the entired defensive backfield, essentially all the linebackers and all but three of the defensive linemen are gone (with questions remaining about two of those). Three of five offensive linemen, all the wideouts and the QB are gone. Point is, that I'd think this is about as close to a total rebuild as actually happens in the NFL. The one exception that you raise that maybe makes it not total is Kyle. McD loves Kyle and he had a need at tackle. I might agree with you that in a total rebuild, there's no room for that sentimentality. Between the salary cap and the draft, there rarely is enough draft capital to do a total rebuild in one year. If you dumped EVERYONE who was any good at all for the old the regime, you'd have too little talent left to compete the following year. You'd have what I guess would be a total rebuild and a tank simultaneously.

I agree. What goes on is so much more complicated than we understand, and what they evaluate is so much beyond what we do that what we think is just interesting opinions. Uninformed opinions, compared to what the pro front office people actually do. Here's a point I've discussed nowhere, at least not recently. (I've been away from the board for a day, so maybe it's somewhere). Do you know how much dead cap space the Bills have? $35 million, twice as much as the second worst dead cap space. All the important components of that total are Dareus, Taylor and Glenn. I find that fact interesting. It means this really is a total rebuild. McCoy, Hughes, Williams, Incognito is about all that are left. A total rebuild takes time. And it's done through the draft. What does that mean? It means Beane's not going to be in a hurry to package a lot of picks to move up, because picks is all he has to rebuild with. He can't sign anyone else in free agency without cutting or trading more of his core of players. He COULD trade up, but that means that he's building in free agency next year. He's said repeatedly he likes building through the draft, not free agency. And, of course, one has to ask whether, given the dead cap problem, it made sense to dump Dareus. I'm sure their answer would be that they'd seen enough of Dareus to conclude that he probably never would conform to their program. McCarron? I don't think McCarron has a future, but what do I know? I don't know anything that Saban told Daboll about McCarron. I don't know what the Bills' film review tells them about McCarron. I just don't know. I loved the title on a thread today, something about this being a good QB year because of the NUMBER of prospects, not because any are clearly great. I don't know what the Bills think about these guys. So for me to get upset about the Bills trading up further or not trading up, etc. etc. doesn't make any sense to me. All we can do and wait and see what the people who know a lot more that we know decide to do.

I think that thinking is backwards. That means you bow to the pressure and draft someone just because you need a starter. What if, as I said, they don't like whats left after 10 picks? What if all that's left doesn't look like a starter in year one? That ,ears they have to go with McCarron. Maybe they like him. I don't. If they don't like him, Foles is their option. I mean, I don't know, but they're thinking about stuff like this at OBD. If theyre thinking about it, it could happen.

Maybe you're right. McD has guaranteed money. But I just don't think they want him as their starter. I think he's too flawed.

As the first ten picks unfold, if the Bills don't like what they see left on the board, Beane and the Eagles might agree on price for Foles. It might squeeze the Bills on the cap, but maybe that's when they deal Hughes for another pick. I doubt the Bills want to go into 2018 with McCarron starting.

Right. Fans want a top pick so they believe it's Beane's plan to get one. Beane is just dealing when sees an opportunity. When the Colts called and asked if he would outbid the offer they had, Beane rightly said no. He Wil Wait and see what opportunities come to him that make sense.

Will the Jets cut Bridgewater?

You think Beane is snoozing? He knows exactly what he's doing. Look at what the Jets paid to move from 6 to 3. Now imagine what the Colts were asking from the Bills. Should have gotten Cousins.

A lot of Bills fans love Glenn. Let's face it: he was a second round pick who became expendable because the Bills got another second pick and who got traded essentially for a second round pick. That's who he is. Bengals will be satisfied they got him.

Oh, THAT was the playoff game he lost. That was a travesty.

And this is a fair analysis of Glenn. The Bills had two left tackles and it probably wasn't going to work to move one to the right side. So the Bills decided to move the older guy with at least a potential health issue and the bigger cap hit. In a couple years both guys would be looking for leaft tackle money. Bills dealt with problem now.

This is a good point. Both are good football players. They won't make you scream at the TV to get those guys off the field. You just won't hear Troy Aikman talking about them as difference makers.

Brown is a student of the game and works hard. I think his dad played college and maybe pro ball and Preston has been watching film since he was eight. His problem is that he lacks premier speed and quickness. He's often a half step late on his drops into zone coverage, a half step late to the hole. He makes the right reads but doesn't get there in time. McDermott's defense demands speed from the middle linebacker, so he wasn't a fit. In earlier seasons I didn't notice that Browns lack of quickness was such a problem, so depending on you scheme he may be fine. I think Glenn is overrated, but that's just me. He strikes me as a tweener. Not a big road grading tackle but not am elite pass blocker either. Solid, but not special. He was traded because a rookie taken in the second round (like Glenn) was just as good, despite his inexperience. And there's his health. Bills fans tired of the endless news about him in and out of the lineup. Maybe he's okay now. If he is, you'll be happy to have him, but he's not Orlando Pace.

Maybe, but I think you're confusing having a good running back with having a good running GAME. The fundamental reason why teams shouldn't burn igh picks on running backs is that tou can have, and many teams do have, a good running game without a great running back. Contrast that with QBs and the passing game. You can't be consistently good at passing without the right qb. It's the shiny new toy problem. GMS have to resist the urge to take the guy who looks good and focus on the guy who helps build towards long term success. That's why so many offensive linemen go in the first round. I think that's a good example of all of the little things that breed success. Staff like that never shows up on Stat sheets. It doesn't make a bad qb a good qb. But it makes a difference in team building.

Who is Walter Peyton? Some guy they cloned from Peyton Manning and Walter Payton? Now, THAT guy I'd take number one. Now that is REALLY random.

That's what I heard, too. A guy in charge who shares what he can and tells you when he can't. We can learn something about his job by listening to him tell us what he's thinking. On top of that, what he says makes sense. That's REALLY refreshing.

That's the way Rex Ryan talked. The problem was that he thought it meant something.

How many of you who say Beane was lying in his press conference would stand in front of him and say he was lying?

Do I think they'll trade up? Yes. Do I think Beane is lying about not knowing if he will trade up? No. In my experience, I've heard very few GMs talk in such an open and straightforward manner as Beane does. Here's what he said: I haven't focused on the draft. Until now I've been focused on free agency. We evaluate potential free agents more or less the way we put together a draft board, figuring out what each guy is worth to us. That's what I've been doing. Now I will begin to focus on the draft. I don't know nearly enough about any of the top players, and I will by the time the draft comes. We will put a value on each guy. We haven't done that. When we know how good each guy is, then we can talk to teams to find out what they want for their picks and we can decide whether we think it's worth what they want to get the guy we we want. I don't know whether there's a deal to be made or not, because I don't enough about the players and I don't know yet what teams at the top of the draft want. What part of that don't you believe? The question no one asked, which he would have ducked, is given what you know now about the QBs, what do you think the chances are you'll trade up? I'd say 80%. I'd guess he'd say the same. That's what I'd like to know. Here's the thing: I don't think any one of the rookies has a resume that looks like Luck's or Newton's coming out of college. None of these guys has the same high probability of success that those guys had. If I'm right about that, then the teams that need QBs aren't going to be so excited about trading up. And the teams that are up there already that need QBs may not be so anxious to roll the dice. Look at the extreme year, when EJ and Geno were generally the two highest rated guys coming out. There was no stampede to trade up; in fact, as you know, the Bills traded DOWN and still got the guy they wanted. So maybe Beane isn't all that impressed with these guys. Maybe he actually IS content to sit at 12 and take the best QB left on the board. Maybe he likes that better than coughing up his 22d pick and a second round pick. That doesn't seem to be a completely crazy prospect. On the other hand, how likely is it that he already knows he loves a guy so much he's going to the top of the draft to get him? Looking at the rookies we're talking about, I don't think it's very likely. In other words, I think he's telling the truth when he says he doesn't know if he's trading up.

Actually, it's worse than that, because there are very few $30 million QBs on the market. Cousins this year. Garoppolo, if you were quick enough to trade for him. Last one before that was Brees. (Peyton was a special case.) If I So when you have the draft pick, I think you MUST take the QB. It may be the only chance you get, other than getting lucky. That's why when the Bills passed on Cousins, it was about 95% certain that they were trading up, and now that they moved up to 12, it's just about as certain, maybe more so, that they're moving up again. You have to make your move when you have the opportunity. The Bills decided that Cousins wasn't the opportunity, so it must be the draft. As I said somewhere this morning, if I'm the Browns I'm not taking a running back in the first round at all. But if I really want to take the running back, the only way I'm doing it is if I can trade up from 4 to 3 or 2. If I sit at 4, I run the risk that I'm getting my THIRD choice at QB or I'm losing to Barkely to someone. Seems to me the Colts are either taking a QB or trading out to someone who wants one.

Man, I don't agree at all. Chris Ivory is Fred Jackson. Hard-nosed, good in the hole, good after first contact. Statistically, he had two subpar (for him) seasons at Jacksonville, but so did their starting running backs. As we know, Bortles was sometimes their best ball carrier. Yes, he could be burned out, but I don't think so. This will be his 8th season, and he's averaged only about 160 carries per season. Plus Cadet and Jones, Bills are fine at running back. If McCoy goes down, it's a problem of course. But you're not going to have a McCoy-type backup.

I haven't been around and will jump back in here. I agree with both of you that would be nuts not to take a QB at #1. Where I will disagree with you is taking Barkely at 4. Now, let me say I've essentially never seen Barkely, but I gather he's really special. Still, I'm really in the camp that running backs simply are not that important. A couple of points that I've made before: 1. Who are the best running backs in the last 15 years? Tomlinson and Peterson, probably. McCoy actually may be in the conversation. How many championships have they won? I think the answer to that is none. 2. Which leads to a broader point, which is which positions have the most impact on winning? QB is first. Running back is NOT second. Maybe offensive tackle, maybe edge rusher. But not long snapper, not punter, not running back. I don't care how good Barkely may be, if Kahlil Mack is at 4, I'm taking him ahead of Barkely. Actually, the same thing is true for receivers - the Bills should have taken Kahlil Mack instead of Sammy. 3. Meanie's made the point before about rookie salaries. From a cap management point of view, a stud offensive tackle on his rookie contract is a much better cap management value than a stud running back. The best tackles are $12-15 million, the best running backs are $6-8 million. That's $6-7 million of cap room you have if grab a star tackle in the draft, over what you'd have if you bought a tackle in the free agent market (assuming you could find one). The Bills have made all the drafting mistakes. They made the CJ Spiller mistake, they made the Watkins mistake. Don't waste high picks on running backs or receivers, don't trade up for anything except a quarterback. The Browns have been even better at it. A leading member, I might add.