Shaw66

Am I concerned about McDermott's obsession with character? Well, yes, a little. But I'm guessing he knows what he's doing. As others have said, the game moves too fast and the game is too complicated to spend much time at all dealing with problem guys. They get in the way and become distractions. You need guys who are mature, who know how to behave, and who are all-in with being as good as absolutely possible. They want guys with serious commitment. The real problem is with rookies. The guys you sign in free agency you sign because they've already demonstrated they have the necessary focus. You don't know that with the rookies; you don't know whether the money and bright lights will distract them. Many of the rookies don't have the necessary focus. The team is better off if you don't have many young guys who need to learn some important lessons, like Dareus or Marshawn. You want those guys AFTER they've learned the lessons. So I think McDermott's obsession is focused on the college prospects. In that case, a guy like White or Peterman is a huge plus when you draft him, because he's already shown that his priorities are set. You know that you're going to get 100% of the guy you want, you know he's going to apply himself and learn. When he's looking at a veteran free agent, I suspect McDermott cares less about MBAs and such.

I'll add my thanks, too. This man worked hard and was responsible for a dramatic improvement in the talent on the team. Before Nix and Whaley, the Bills drafted players from small conferences, small schools and schools that didn't have winning programs. Whaley changed all that. He started drafting from schools with winning records in the best conferences; in other words, he began drafting players who were outstanding athletes who knew something about winning. And in free agency he did even better. Under Whaley, the Bills acquired a lot of free agents who were drafted in the first or second round and who had struggled with their original team. Those guys have talent and need time to get their feet on the ground. When Whaley signed them, they often blossomed. So, Mr. Whaley, thanks for all you did, and good luck always.

Days - This draft went about as well as I could have hoped. They did exactly what I wanted them to do: Keep Taylor to see what he does in the new offense and with a couple seasons under his belt. Bring in a seasoned backup. Draft a QB in the late rounds who might be a longshot but who has a chance of working out. Put yourself in position to go after a top-rated QB next year if Taylor doesn't work out and Peterman doesn't look like he has it. This is perfect QB management given the position the Bills were in. Perfect. Plus a quality DB and a guy who looks like he could be a seriously good receiver, plus an offensive lineman who has a good chance of helping. Nicely done.

If they take a QB in the first round next season, he probably sits behind Taylor and plays in his second season. Only way he starts as a rookie is if he's clearly better than Taylor from the get go.

That's the bottom line. Frankly, I think the most important issue the Bills had going into the draft was quarterback. It's always about the quarterback. The Bills have a quarterback they think might be their long-term starter. They're not sure. They want to see him one more year before they write him a big check or let him go. They needed a contingency plan in case they decide next year they don't want Taylor. There were two ways to go on a contingency plan. One was draft a QB this season, in the first or second round. The problem with that was that if Taylor turns out to be the guy, you've wasted the pick. The better way to go was what they did - put yourself in a position go after a QB next year if you decide you need one. The trade down in the first round did that for them very nicely - they still got a nice first-round talent, and they now have two picks next year to package if they have to move up in the draft. And if Taylor has a good season and the Bills decided to ride with him, they have two first-round picks next season to build with. It was the right move.

I don't think it's so clear cut. First, you can't use Dak as an example. There's always an outlier. It doesn't make sense to say the Bills were sitting pretty with four 5th round picks, because they got Kyle Williams in the fifth round. That article from KC is telling. You simply have a much better chance getting a starter by picking in the second round. That's where pretty high-probability talent is. So there's real value in trading up 15 or 20 picks in that range of the draft. When you trade a fifth round pick, you're giving up a guy with maybe a 20% chance of starting. Those odds aren't terribly worse than you have with your undrafted free agents. Plus, if really want another guy from the fifth round, you can pick him up when he gets added to someone else's practice squad. Bottom line: not all picks are the same.

I know. What you say is true. If you have the 50th pick, there always will be a guy on your board who you think should have gone at 30. There's always an attractive guy. So I agree with the philosophy. However, I think this where need comes in. Despite "our #2 receiver is already on the roster," I think they really wanted a receiver. They saw a guy who they really didn't think would last to their second round pick. And when you put it together with the probability of getting quality starters with fifth-round picks, it doesn't strike me as stupid to move up like they did. I think that unless you're moving up for a QB, trading up in FIRST round is a mistake. As much as I love Sammy and really wanted him to be a Bill, I think that move was a mistake in terms of draft strategy.

This article is very interesting. It does two things for me: First, it demonstrates the wisdom of trading 4th and 5th round picks to move into the second. You have a much better chance of finding starters generally by getting up into the second. Second, it demonstrates that it is indeed a crapshoot. You really don't get a ton of starters out of the draft. And third, what's wrong with the article is that he doesn't put a premium on first round picks. It isn't enough to get a starter with a first round pick; that's relatively easy. What matters is getting a premium player.

I generally agree with the principle you espouse, but there's another principle that's critical, too. That's "stay true to your board." I haven't heard anyone say it this year, but they said it last year with Ragland. They saw this talent they had ranked up in the first round and he was still sitting there early in the second. They thought he was a huge bargain based on their board. They also thought they weren't the only ones who knew that, so they traded up. I'm guessing the same thing happened twice yesterday. They really wanted receiver and oline help and they saw guys who looked like bargains on their board. They stayed true to the board. Fifth round picks are useful, but they usually don't give you guys much better than the undrafted free agents who make your team. And they rarely start in the first, or even the second season. Bills got three guys who all have a good chance of starting. It's always a good draft when you do that. Still, I agree. It's a crapshoot, and more picks is usually better. But I'm happy this morning.

Nice post. I generally agree. Everything, including most of the complaints about the trade down, are actually the QB discussion rehashed. If you think Taylor is a lost cause, you think the Bills should have done all that they could have to draft a QB. They had Mahomes and Watson sitting there. That tells you what we always knew: the Bills haven't given up on Taylor. If you believe Taylor is a star about to emerge, you don't want to draft a QB this year OR next year. If you're like me (and the Bills) you want to see a year of Taylor in his new offense. Next February is when the Bills make their decision about the QB for the next 5-7 seasons. If they decide it's Taylor, they'll renegotiate his contract and they'll have two first round picks to build around him. If they decide it isn't Taylor, they have the picks that will allow them to move up to the top of the draft. That's the story, like it or not.

It's interesting. I listened to it and it sure sounds like they want to trade out. Two good players instead of one potentially great player.

I rarely agree completely with anything anyone says, but I can agree 100% with this.

Thanks. That's interesting. More evidence that the press and we don't have any idea about these guys. I loved the part about how the scouts laughed when the subject media draft gurus came up.

I think this is correct. He may have saved his NFL pension. And if he had any guaranteed money left on his contract the Pats probably now must pay it. The guaranteed money will be in his estate and probably will end up going to the estate of the guy he killed. But the pension money is protected from judgments and will go to his daughter.

The question ISN'T why did you draft someone who meets the criteria? The question is why did you draft someone who didn't? The criteria aren't a guarantee of success. They are minimum job requirements. I'm sure there are exceptions, but if you haven't produced consistently and at a high level in college, why would anyone thing you're gonna produce in the pros?

Watson's leaving a year early, so he isn't a three-year starter and he isn't a senior. But he's started 30, he's won more than 23 and he has the other stats.

I don't study the draft. I didn't know he started only one year. I don't remember Parcells' drafting rules, but they were very good. One rule is never take a QB based on one season of stats. If he hasn't started and succeeded for two seasons, you don't know what you're getting. Here you go. This is what Parcells said to draft a QB: Be a three-year starter Be a senior in college Graduate from college Start 30 games Win 23 games Post a 2:1 touchdown-to-interception ratio Complete at least 60-percent of passes thrown Don't trade up for Trubisky. Don't take him at 10.

First half of the statement is wrong. What happens in the first season doesn't determine anything. Second sentence is absolutely correct.

Second or third round, if they see a guy they think is a good value. Here's why: The plan is that Tyrod is going to be the guy for the future, but they aren't sure yet. If he has a really good year in 2017, they renegotiate, give him a big deal. The guy they took in the second or third round hangs around for his rookie contract as the backup. If Taylor doesn't work out, the Bills decide next April if the guy they took in the second or third round looks like the real deal and they go with him If they don't don't like him, then they take another guy in the 2018 draft, first or second round.

I agree. Especially the last 3.

Look at it this way: It's February 2016. You're Tyrod Taylor sitting with Whaley, who says the Bills will make two offers and you can take whichever one you want: 1. $6 million guaranteed for 2016. After that we can cut you. If we don't cut you, you get $40 million guaranteed for three years, and you get $15 million a year, not guaranteed, for two years after that. You're a free agent after the 2021 season. 2. $6 million guaranteed for 2016. $30 million guaranteed for the next two years. You're a free agent after the 2018 season. I think Taylor takes deal 2 all day, every day. Problem for Taylor was that the Bills weren't offering deal 2 last year. They were only offering deal 1. What happened was that the Bills wanted the opportunity to cut Taylor sometime after the 2015 season without it costing them so much. So they asked Taylor to renegotiate. This time around Taylor got the balance of deal 2. And the Bills got the right to get out of the deal after 2017 and again after 2018.

No, it makes complete sense. He hadn't made any real money through 2015. He'd made maybe a total of $3 million in the NFL, and he signed a contract worth, most likely, $46. That's why he did it. He was taking serious chips off the table. A year later, he gave some of those chips back to buy his freedom, but his first big deal with Buffalo was still worth $36 million in the bank.

He put money in the bank. The six-year deal gave him $6 million in 2016 alone, plus another $40 guaranteed. He'd made nothing up till then. It was a good move for him. Then this year he gave a bit of it back - $10 million out of $46 - so that he could be a free agent again. He's been very smart about this.

No. You just don't want to agree. Under his first Bills contract he was going to make about $3 million in three years; with incentives it could have been $6 million. Under his second Bills contract he got $6 million for his second year in Buffalo (so he did better in 2016 than he would have done in 2016 and 2017 under his first deal), and $40 million for his next three years (unless the Bills cut him before March 11, 2017). Clearly a better deal than where he was, in terms of money. But he gave up the ability to be a free agent in 2017 and left himself at Buffalo's mercy through 2021. In his third Bills contract, he gave up the last $10 million so that he could be a free agent in 2019. Why? Because he's confident he can do better from 2019 through 2021 as a free agent than under the terms of the his second Bills contract. He views it as a better deal for him. To recap, he went from $3-6 million in three years under his first contract to $46 million under his second contract to $36 million (adding 2016 back in for comparison sake) under his third contract, with the right become a free agent in 2018 (the prime of his career) instead of 2021 (the beginning of the tail end of his career). If it's a better deal for him, why did the Bills do it? They did it because THEY wanted the option to get out in a year or two, also. Just as Taylor was betting on his upside and was willing to give something up for it, the Bills wanted protection on their downside. Both sides got what they wanted.