Shaw66

Interesting. I hadn't thought about it, but I think you're right, that they won't give up picks. They have a system and a plan, and they have the discipline to stick to it. And I think they're confident the Pegulas will give them the time to do what they think is necessary. Having a winning season and making the playoffs secured that confidence. My sense of them, however, is that they would be willing to write a big check if there was a free agent QB they wanted. They'll be patient building at all the other positions, trusting their system. Can't be patient at QB, because the right QB, say a top 10 QB doesn't come along very often. So, yeah, we won't see any picks get traded to move up for any other position, and probably no big picks for a QB, either. That says to me they will be aggressive buyers in the free agent market. Just a guess.

Fair enough. It's what I was thinking about, and to clarify my thoughts I wrote. Once I wrote it, I figured I'd post. My guess was that most people would react like you, but it seems like some people liked it. I'm okay either way.

I've gotten to the point where I don't think this is a consideration. Five out of six AFC teams in the playoffs this season weren't in the playoffs last season. Teams turn over 25-35% of their rosters every year. The Rams went from nowhere to the playoffs in a year. Other than the Patriots, there are no dynasties. So if you're a QB under 30, you don't care all that much about how "close" the team is. I think the agents are telling them to look for a team with the right environment, the desire to improve, quality management, etc. And if you're a GM, you're expecting to be only a year away. (Unless you work for the Browns.)

"not a crazy buyer." In this realm, crazy is in the eye of the beholder. If they make a big free agent move, there definitely will be some folks complaining that they paid too much. Maybe me. If they trade up, there will be people complaining they gave up too much, or took the wrong guy. Hard to know what's crazy. If they trade two first round picks for Luck, crazy will be determined by how Luck plays over the next five years. Peyton's the only one.

Tolstoy, indeed! Gotta have some fun with this stuff. Interesting comments. I think you're right about the springtime. Just watching what Minnesota does will be fascinating. Once they act, the wheels will be turning in a dozen NFL team offices. And the draft seems to have several promising QB prospects, but a GM who bets the ranch on any one of them is also betting his job. Every one of the QBs in the draft could crash and burn. I don't agree that QBs will be looking long and hard at olines. I think the free agent QBs know the score: very few teams have good olines, and the quality of the line on most teams changes dramatically from year to year. Cousins will be looking for a six-year deal, and he'll be much more interesting in who the coach and GM is, because that's who's going to solve the oline problem, if there is one. Bradford and Bridgewater would be looking for big deals, too. Maybe even Keenum. Foles right now probably wishes he'd taken a one-year deal in Philadelphia. I really think the big question is what is happening to the league? I just wonder if a Peyton Manning makes his team a contender by his presence alone on a 2020 team like the real Peyton did in 2010. The game is changing, and as it changes, the difference in value between a Manning and a Matt Ryan may be shrinking. I think you're right. Not just scouting, but a commitment to actually taking one. Not every year, but no less than every three years. The Packers did it for years, the Pats have done it for over a decade. Take one, groom him, let him go or trade him. Just keep doing it. Heck, the Pats spent a pick on Brady when they had Bledsoe, who was going to play at a high level for five or seven more years.

I think I write this stuff just for your entertainment!

I liked it, but I wasn't sure what it meant. I think what he meant is that he couldn't see anything in what I wrote, like it was totally dark out there. I got confused, however, because solar eclipses ARE enlightening, because there isn't total darkness during a total eclipse. There's light, and in fact the light allows you to see things around you in ways that you don't see in normal sunlight. So if that's what he meant, I'm really flattered. I don't think that's what he meant. But I do admit, I liked it.

Right. It's hopelessly complicated to sort through the plans. They aren't even plans in a lot of cases. The possible scenarios are endless. Running the draft is a simple parallel example. You can make plans for what you're going to do at 21 or 22, or in the second round, but until you see the draft unfold, you don't really know what you'll be looking at. So I'd think they've talked about possibilities for weeks, and when the time comes, they look at where they are, they recall the various things they've talked about, and they make a decision. Huge decisions and so many uncertainties.

Always flattering to be compared to Tolstoy.

The Rockpile Review – by Shaw66 The GM’s QB Decision Tree The discussion began even before the final whistle blew in the Bills’ playoff loss to Jacksonville: Who should be the Bills’ QB for 2018 and beyond? It’s a question that’s easy to ask but difficult to answer correctly. When Brandon Beane, Sean McDermott and Brian Doball talk about it, what do they talk about? I don’t know; I’d love to be in that room, listening, but I’m not. So I began to wonder how to go about finding the QB a team wants. Here’s how I’d think about it: 1. WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR? Even the first step in the process isn’t easy. When will we stop looking for a QB because you have the guy you want? Are you looking for a guy who will finish his career in the Hall of Fame? That would be nice, certainly, but will you stop looking only when you have the HOF guy? Or are you looking for a franchise QB, a guy who you will be happy to have as our starter until the end of his career, even if he doesn’t make the Hall of Fame? Or are you looking for a guy who will be good enough for the next several years, who isn’t a true franchise guy and who you’ll be actively looking to replace? For me, I think of those categories like this: A Hall of Fame guy is someone I expect to be among the top five QBs in the league, year after year. The franchise guy is someone I expect to be among the top 10 QBs, year after year. The good enough guy is someone I expect to be in the top 15 to 20 year after year. When you have a top 5 guy, every June your team is in the discussion about who’s winning the next Super Bowl. When you have a top 10 guy, your team is in the June Super Bowl discussion if it looks like your team has the other pieces in place. When you have a top 15 to 20 guy, your team is in the June Super Bowl discussion only if your team looks to have a top three defense. What you’re looking for depends in part on your vision for the team: what does the team look like that you’re trying to build? And that vision has to be informed by your view of where the NFL is heading. We’re witnessing the end, it seems, of the truly dominant Hall of Fame quarterbacks. Will more QBs emerge to dominate like Brady, Manning, Brees, Ben and Rodgers? Or will the future game be different? So that’s the first question. What are you looking for and how will you know you got him? 2. HOW LONG ARE YOU WILLING TO WAIT TO GET THE GUY YOU WANT? Obviously, you want him here as soon as possible. Realistically, however, the answer to the second question varies depending on your answer to the first question. If there are no top 5 QBs, or guys who are good bets to become top 5, available in free agency or the draft, you aren’t getting one this year. If you’re just going to draft the best QB you can every year until one of them turns out to be top 5, you have to be prepared to wait a while. If you’re looking for a top 10 guy, the chances you’ll find the guy this year in free agency or the draft go up some. Cousins, Keenum, Bridgewater, Bradford, maybe even Bortles could be available, and each of them conceivably could be your guy. The guy may be in the draft too, maybe even two of them. If you’re taking a free agent QB, you have a shot at having your guy playing at the level you want in 2018; if you draft him, he might do it from the first game, but it may take a year or two before he’s playing like a winner. 3. HOW MUCH ARE YOU WILLING TO PAY THE GUY? How long you’re willing to wait for your guy has some impact on how much you’re willing to spend, and vice versa. Everything has a price, so if you want a Hall of Fame QB right now, it’s only a question of how much the Packers want for Rodgers. How much you’re willing to pay isn’t as easy to figure out as you might think. In the case of a free agent QB, will you pay top dollar only if the guy is THE best QB in the league? Or will you pay top dollar if he’s a top 5 QB, even if he isn’t the best? I’m not sure there’s a right answer to the question, but my answer is that if I’m prepared to stop looking when I have a top 10 QB, and I’ll pay whatever the market demands to get him/keep him. That’s what the Raiders did with Carr and that’s what the Lions did with Stafford. In both cases, the team has the guy they think is good enough – if he comes top 5, great, but if he’s just the 8th best QB in the league, they aren’t having second thoughts about how much it cost. Teams only have second thoughts when they pay top dollar and the guy consistently falls out of the top 10. Like Flacco. If you’re drafting your QB of the future, what you’ll pay to get him is a different question. The players’ collective bargaining agreement fixes what the guy’s salary will be. The more important question is what you’re willing to pay to get into a position in the draft to have a good shot at getting the guy you want. Of course, that depends on where you already are in the draft and how far you have to move to get the guy. Will you trade this year’s first and second, this year’s first, second and next year’s first? Will you trade two firsts this year if, like the Bills, you have two firsts? What you’re willing to spend can’t be decided in a vacuum. The more you spend, in dollars or in draft capital, means you have that much less to spend on other players or another QB, if you happen to pick poorly this time around. 4. HOW DO YOU KNOW THE GUY YOU THINK YOU WANT IS ACTUALLY THE GUY? Of course, that’s the big question: How do you evaluate the guy before you pull the trigger? There’s lots of data, especially on free agents. But you know evaluating a guy is far more complicated than tracking completion percentage, touchdowns and yards per attempt. There’s semi-objective data gained through film study, like reading defenses pre- and post-snap, decision making, etc. There’s subjective data, like leadership skills, dedication, emotional stability for a stressful job. 5. WHAT’S YOUR CONTINGENCY PLAN? What are you going to do if, despite our collective brilliance in answering all the other questions, the guy you pick turns out not to be the guy you thought he was? Remarkably, the Redskins answered all the questions in one draft, with RG III and Cousins as the contingency plan. It looked like RG III was the answer, then he wasn’t, and there on the bench was the backup plan. Even so, the Redskins are looking like they’ll be trying to answer all these questions again in 2018. The Vikings miraculously stumbled into QBs, more by necessity than by planning. They had to pay for Bradford when Bridgewater went down, because their answer to the question when do you need him? was “RIGHT NOW!” Then they thought they had Bridgewater/Bradford to carry them in 2017 but brought in Keenum for insurance, because RIGHT NOW! still was the answer. That move alone should put someone in the running for GM of the Year. One fundamental part of the contingency plan is never to stop drafting QBs. Cassel, Hoyer, Mallett, Garropolo. What does all this mean for Beane, McDermott and Doball? Damned if I know. And it’s complicated by the presence of Taylor. The guy’s top 20, so if top 20 is all you want, the QB questions are answered. But if you want top 10, you have your work cut out for you. Still, is Taylor part of your contingency plan? Or is unloading Taylor part of the answer to how you’re going to find the money or picks to get the guy you really want? It will be an interesting Spring. 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.

As I said, you can come up with a variety of reasons why those guys are gone and why Glenn will stay. But four of the Bills' 10 or 12 best players are gone. Every one of the guys who left hast cleared cap room for the Bills (if you include the cap cost of Darby coming up). Put that together with Beane's simple and clear statement that the best way to acquire talent is to sign rookies. So, yeah, maybe they like Glenn's attitude, and maybe they had one other issue or another about each of the others, but the fact remains that this leadership has shed some of the most talented players on the team and in every case saved cap room. Beane and McD are not afraid to lose present talent to acquire younger, cheaper talent. If they want Cousins and they need cap room, they won't have trouble unloading Glenn. Heck, he barely played in 2017, so from McDermott's perspective he wouldn't be losing anyone. I'm not saying it WILL happen, but I won't be surprised at all if it does happen.

Thanks. Obviously, I don't know what will happen. There are probably 10 teams that would like to have him, and probably five that are serious enough to pursue him at his price. I think the Bills could be one of the five, and I don't think it's crazy to think they could land him. All we can do is wait and watch. I hear you, but as I've said earlier, I think Beane and McD have already shown you what they think about giving up young proven talent. You can argue about whether Watkins was "proven," and you can argue about Dareus and you can argue about Gilmore and you can claim that Darby wasn't a talent, but really? Those four guys were probably all among the Bills' top 10 or 12 in talent. You really think that Beane and McD were okay giving up Watkins, Gilmore, Darby and Dareus for picks or less, and somehow they're going to hold onto Glenn because he's a proven talent? I don't think so, especially because of his injury history.

I don't think it's a question of outbidding anyone. The team that gets him will have more or less made or matched the best offer, but Cousins is a serious guy and he's not going to chase the money. His deal, wherever he goes, is going to make him really rich. He's going to decide among those teams that offer enough money, but not necessarily the most money. So I think the winner will be the team that offers him things he's looking for. I doubt the weather would move him, but Elway and that defense could, Jacksonville (are they looking?) and Minnesota could be attractive. My point was that the Bills have a lot that makes them attractive, too. I think if they decide they want to spend the money, the Bills could be a serious bidder.

That's not correct, according to Horned what's his face, posted in this thread earlier today: There's room. The question isn't cap room; the question is whether they want him.

I agree with hapless. Cousins may or may not be a big-time winner, but neither Cutler nor Flacco is the same situation. Cutler had demonstrated in Denver that no matter how hard you tried, you weren't going to get him to be a consistently good decision maker. It was clear, and the Bears thought otherwise. We all saw the result. Cutler just didn't have it - never did. Flacco was in the right place at the right time. Coming out of college he looked like he might be a star, and then just at the right time he played like one, so he got a big contract. Now, it turns out that was a mistake, but it was a good bet at the time the Ravens did it. If they hadn't done it, they would have been in the same franchise-tag trap the Redskins are in. Now, Cousins could be like Flacco in that things have fallen right for him to get a big contract, and he may prove not to be worth it. But he isn't like Cutler, he hasn't already shown he can't do it. To the contrary, he's performed at a high level for three straight seasons. He's consistently outperformed Cutler's best seasons. I really think it could happen. GO back a few years, this time of year. Fans thought it was totally stupid to think the Bills could sign Mario Williams. Too expensive, won't want to come to Buffalo, blah, blah. The lesson is that if you're willing to pay the guy, the question becomes whether you have the intangibles to sell to the guy. In this case, I think the Bills do.

I agree completely. Cousins won't care much about the roster. It's McD and Beane, how they operate, and their vision. I said this in a post a couple of weeks ago: I think the Bills have a real shot at him if they want him. The Bills have to pay the price, which I assume will be at least $25 million guaranteed for four years and then some. But if they price, I think they're serious competitors for him. Here are some reasons: 1. Cousins is an earnest, serious, hard working guy. He believes completely in system and process and getting better every day. Sound familiar? That is EXACTLY who McDermott and Beane are. 2. Cousins can see McD and Beane as being underdogs who've made it through hard work. 3. Cousins is from the midwest. He'll get Buffalo and the Buffalo fan mentality. He'll probably like the challenge of restoring the Bills to greatness. 4. There's a lot of reason to believe the Bills are on the way up. 5. It's clear Beane and McD don't like prima donnas. That's consistent with Cousins. 6. Cousins apparently is a serious Christian. McD and Beane, too. 7. The Pegulas. Washington ownership is high-profile, more in the Jerry Jones style. The Pegulas are low-key, out of the limelight, serious hard-working people. They sell themselves well to a guy like Cousins. I think the Bills can get him if they want him. I don't think the Redskins will franchise him again. They can get him without burning any draft picks. It's only a question of whether McD and Beane think he's a winner.

I've never been a Luck fan. Certainly there's an injury concern, but assuming he's past that, I don't like his attitude - he talks like he believes he's the savior, and I can't say that his production has been all that great. He has a career passer rating of 87. Cousins is 93. Both will come with a huge salary. Why give up two first round picks PLUS a ton of money to get the guy who actually hasn't performed as well as the other guy? But I'll admit I don't know. And I agree, we shouldn't expect that ANYONE on the current roster, including Shady, isn't possible trade bait. Shady is the only guy you can't replace without a serious dropoff in production, and even he may be replaceable. I think the test for every guy is whether the cap relief alone or together with the picks you might get is worth the relatively modest dropoff in production you're likely to get. Taylor and Glenn are the obvious choices, because the picks and/or cap relief is pretty big. But the other big-contract guys are possibilities.

And this point is where the thread started. The question is whether with Wood's retirement is there enough room to fill the hole and still build where the team needs help. The answer is yes. The cap is manageable, even if you want to spend a ton on Cousins. Five picks in the first three rounds of the draft will help a lot. And there's more room to be gained if the Bills move on from Glenn or Taylor.

You don't have to convince me about Cousins. It took me a long time, but I've come around to him. I don't like the idea of taking a flyer on a rookie if you don't have to. I think Cousins is a guy who will continue to get better, if he's in a good system and a stable environment. He's a student, he works hard and he's committed to learning more and more. He's shown he has the basics that Tyrod hasn't grown into - quick decision making, willingness to throw into tight coverages, etc., and he's consistently put up good numbers doing it. I think he'll continue to get better over the next five years. He believes in system and process, which makes him a perfect fit for McDermott. And, as someone pointed out in some Cousins discussion, when Brady, Brees, Ben and Rivers retire (all probably in the next three seasons), who are the top 10 QBs going to be? Cousins is probably in that group, because for him NOT to be in that group a lot of guys have to prove they belong their long-term: Wentz, Carr, Stafford, Bridgewater, Newton, Garropolo, Goff. Would I take some of those guys over Cousins? Sure, because some seem to have better upside. But the others aren't available, and Cousins looks like a good bet. So, yeah, Cousins. And Horned Dogs says it's doable under the cap. I'd love it.

I understand, but you're doing exactly what I said you shouldn't do. Don't look at Glenn; look at the total number cap space and draft picks with him and without him. That's what I think Beane and McD are doing. I think Beane and McD start fro the assumption that there are very few irreplaceable players. Your QB, if you have a good one. Your MLB, if you have a HOF guy. One or two, here or there. Why do I think that? Because they already showed they don't think Gilmore, Watkins or Dareus was irreplaceable, and those guys were taken tenth, third and third in the draft. They're serious NFL talent, and they weren't afraid to let them go. It isn't about whether they like Glenn or whether he can be useful. They're view is he's replaceable. If they get cap room and/or picks by moving him, and if that combination of cap room and picks allows them to get a replacement tackle AND have something left over to use on another player, I think they'll do it. And it doesn't have to be a replacement who's as good as Glenn, at least not right now. Why? Because the difference between Glenn and his replacement doesn't make that much difference in the outcome of games. Glenn's not irreplaceable.

It's clear that Beane and McD are NOT INTERESTED in high-priced talent. They have a different philosophy. They still might break the bank on a star here or there, but they are focused on lower-cost good, young talent. They're focused on the draft. Watkins, Dareus and Gilmore were the three high-priced guys, special-talent guys on the roster (other than McCoy). They unloaded all three within their first year on the job. Beane's said that the way to get good players most cheaply is through the draft, not through free agency. Glenn isn't a truly special talent, but he's up there. And he comes with a really high price tag. So I think he has a bulls-eye on his back.

The link doesn't show your outcome and I don't want to try to recreate it. I assume you're saying this works within the cap. If so, you're on exactly the page I'm on. I don't know the rules about trades of players for picks, but assuming such trades are possible this time of year, I think Tyrod or Cordy could be traded, which might give a little less cap relief but add a pick or two. I think Cousins is the only free agent QB who has a good chance of turning out to be a long-term (5+ years) solution; if Beane and McD think he is, I wouldn't be surprised to see them follow your formula. If they don't like Cousins, then I'd think they'll be more likely to try trade to get more picks, either to move up for a QB or just to get further down the road on restructuring the way they want.

Why the cut? My guess is that he's gone, one way (cut) or the other (trade). Why is he gone? Because it's now completely clear that Beane and McD want a team with their kind of guys. That means a lot of changes. Obviously, we've seen it already, and it's likely that we'll continue to see it. Think for a minute what that means in terms of acquiring new players. Don't focus on who might be leaving, just focus on how to acquire new players. To do that, you need capital. There are two kinds of capital: draft choices and cap room. So I'm guessing the way Beane is looking at his job right now is to find ways to build capital so that he can get new players. So in the case of Glenn, the question for Beane and McD is NOT whether Glenn is their kind of player. The question is whether they can use Glenn to increase their capital. The answer to that is yes. They can get a lot of cap room by cutting him. Trading him also gets them cap room, but less, but it also gets them a pick. Yes, you create a hole if you move on from Glenn, but you already have Dawkins filling that hole, and you can get another lineman with some of the cap room you've created or with the pick you acquired. It's a net win to move Glenn. Wood retiring creates a new hole to fill, which means the Bills need MORE capital, which means moving Glenn is more likely today than it was when the season ended.

Thanks for talking about the big picture. (I actually hope they do sign Cousins, but that's beside the point.) The point is that it often is the case that new regime makes changes, and changes cost money. I will remember for a long time Whaley talking about the fact that there's enough cap room to have six core players, and he thought he had them in Taylor, Sammy, Glenn, Hughes, Gilmore and Dareus. McCoy was an added bonus. Whaley believed the Bills were going to win with those core players and with some improved talent on the rest of the roster. Then Beane and McDermott came in and didn't want Sammy, Gilmore or Dareus. They probably don't want Taylor. They may not want Glenn at his pricetag. When the new regime is that fundamentally unhappy with the core players that the previous regime spent all the cap money on, you have to assume that you're going to be stressed in the cap department until they can flush those contracts out of the system. You can't expect the new regime to just let the contracts play out, because that means they're trying to win with players that don't fit their philosophy. I wonder if the Pegulas and Whaley understood that McD was going to want this kind of turnover when they hired him. And if McD wasn't clear about it, I wonder if the Pegulas understood that Beane certainly was going to do it this way. I tend to think they did, because everything I've seen suggests to me that the Pegulas intend to let McD and Beane have the time they need to get the team running the way they want it.

I think you're ignoring a fundamental point: Beane has been very clear that he believes (and I agree) that the best place to get talent at the lowest cost is in the draft. I think McDermott is on board with that, too. I think McDermott believes that he can teach guys to what they need to do, guys like Milano and Thompson and others. So McD is happy to get a bunch of guys out of the draft, if they have talent. That means, I think, that Wood's retirement means it's MORE likely that the Bills will trade another player or two for picks. If you have more holes to fill, it's more important to go to the place where you can get talent cheap, and that's in the draft. It also makes it, I think, MORE likely that the Bills will be willing to spend cap room on a QB, if there is one they really want (Cousins, Bridgewater, Bradford, Keenum), because that's the one position where cheap talent isn't the best way to go. So, for example, Wood retiring makes it more likely that the Bills will trade Glenn for a pick. If I have it right, he will cost the Bills $14 million in cap space to keep him and $11 million if they trade him. The Bills have Dawkins to play left tackle, they seem at least satisfied with Mills on the right. If they can trade Glenn for, say, a third round pick, they save $3 million in cap space (making it easier to sign a QB). Then they can use a first round pick to get a quality center, if there is one in the draft, and use the third round pick they get for Glenn to draft another olineman to groom.