Richard Noggin

A lot of teams like safeties who can hit.

Fun itch to scratch, though, in this case.

I'd initially want to argue that the Bills depth chart is the reason drafting two WRs could be counterproductive: Diggs Davis Shakir Harty Sherfield Either one of those 5 is bumped off the roster, or one of the two drafted WRs is going to be a gameday inactive or practice squad poach candidate. Then again, the more I look at this, the more I disagree with my own initial reaction. Sure feels like Davis is a goner after this season, and it's probably smart to prepare for a post-Diggs future. Sherfield only signed for one year. Therefore, they should add at least one compelling WR prospect to the pipeline.

Pure BPA for the first few rounds, and I'm not mad at it:

As for the bolded reply to my 2020 San Fran observation, Edmunds DEFINITELY played, but on early downs was lined up a bunch on the edge in a 2-pt stance. On those plays, Klein was the off-ball MLB (he played 69% of snaps). As for the nonbolded paragraph on competing philosophies (keeping it simple to improve execution versus mixing it up to attack specific opponents), I tend to agree that the Bills probably mix it up on D a little more than many of us see, AND that during the regular season they have had a TON of success playing a core scheme...BUT we probably agree that this approach hasn't gotten it done when it matters most.

The bolded is especially intriguing, in that I really covet those games (that seem too few and far between) since 2017 when the Bills successfully employed creative gameplans tailored to stop specific opponents. I am especially curious if we might now see MORE of such opponent-specific personnel groupings, alignments, and schemes? Feels like when it mattered most (in the playoffs recently and just recently in general) the Bills fell back into predictable, passive defenses. You need ELITE talent to beat good QBs who know what's coming. Times when the Bills did things differently (and effectively): The 2017 Jacksonville playoff game sticks in my mind as it felt to me like Lorenzo Alexander was a revelation at MLB. Just an absolute beast. The perfect guy for that opponent, that game. Left me wanting more. The San Fran primetime game from 2020, where the Bills played a lot of 46-defense, with Klein lining up in the middle as the only off-ball LB. If I'm remembering accurately. Def a ton of 5 and 6-man fronts. Huge departure for them. The quoted stuff about Klein and the learning curve to figuring out how to best use him (attacking downhill, something Edmunds just was NOT good at). Similarly, I recall in the Patriots MNF blizzard, McD, knowing the Pats were only running, took Milano aside and was seen pantomiming how to attack the run gaps. Milano then made consecutive TFLs, if memory serves. (Might have been only one TFL and another solid play.) That's a lame list of competent defensive gameplans/adjustments, but I like to imagine that kind of aggressively tailored approach to specific opponents becoming more common. What a world that would be.

Which would mean his value had declined relative to the cap. My best case guess for him now is he plays on the tag, stays healthy, and then takes a deal that is NOT equal in value relative to the cap going into the 2024 season. And he made less for two years than he would have otherwise. It's a losing proposition in the vast majority of simulations. But hey, I'm wrong all the time.

What was lost this past season? Including the GUARANTEED money that goes beyond his annual salary...because nothing is guaranteed beyond 2023 for Lamar, until it is. He could have had a VAST sum of money even just passively earning interest all this time. And the current trajectory suggests he will go another football season without a lump sum (despite being handsomely rewarded on the tag). So much has been left in the accounts of his team's ownership.

But what about the past two seasons?! You keep ignoring the TOTAL sum he could have made. What's with that?

But Lamar Jackson declined to sign a GREAT deal (for him). His value since declining to sign has NOT kept pace with the market. He has cost himself money now and later. Even IF he stays healthy moving forward.

Seems like you're ignoring some obvious realities here. Repeatedly. Jackson WAS offered a pretty nice deal with serious guaranteed money. He WOULD have been able to invest that money (theoretically) and put it to work. He IS well behind where he would have been had he done so, even without much investment acumen (like me). And he IS highly unlikely to catch up to where he could have been by this point moving forward. It's not about future earnings, although even that could be compromised by betting big and getting hurt (and play leveling out). It's about total career earnings. Edit: it's better to secure the guaranteed lump sum sooner rather than later. Always take the sizable lump sum (that WAS offered to Jackson) now in such a fleeting profession. Why let some billionaire owners keep making money on that money for additional years.

Funny how obviously this tweet is coming from the agent: "reachable incentives" and "negotiated by X." Makes me so angry when people apply the term "journalism" to sports news reports (as though a blatant shill job like this--not inherently immoral or anything like that, just clunky and transparent--is somehow representative of actual adult journalism). We all know it's just quid pro quo proxy statements authored by competing interes➖ Wait a minute...

Really thought this was a bit, but I guess there are people who think what the Chargers did with the #1 pick, a seemingly no-brainer generational QB prospect named Manning, is potentially indicative of what the Bills could do with the #27 pick, an injured 25-year old QB who draws comparisons to Geno Smith. There is some compelling, hardline BVA (Best VALUE Available) draft thinking here, but I guess I don't see the player in question representing some masterful value maximization if he does in fact fall to 27. Most of the NFL will have decided they can live without him in the 1st. Why will they suddenly have the urgency to trade significant assets once it gets to 27? And if not, why would he then net some meaningful return a year later? Just because he's healthy? I guess it's possible, but in the meantime the Bills don't get to put that value on the field for far too long (which diminishes the real value of this move in 2023).

Another one trying to let the board dictate:

NO way 1st round falls like this, right? Love the results here.

Definitely appreciate this approach to identifying a range of "realistic targets" per pick, filtered by perceived roster need and positional value. It's a neat exercise, and I enjoy this type of pre-draft analysis. However, it would be unfortunate to use this type of projected/hypothetical data point to criticize any team's draft decisions, within reason. The Bills might very well have a couple-two-tree tight ends on their 1st round target list, or a couple linebackers, in addition to these receivers and linemen. And who could reasonably blame them (I type, knowing full well the answer is: anyone)?

Paris Johnson falling to 27 would be bonkers.

The board fell so beautifully here (although I DID trade back ONE pick in the 5th; just couldn't pass up the value there).

In Williamsville? It did as of this past Fall. Not sure about now...the owner wasn't super optimistic about his prospects back then (I work with restaurants).

Campbell's short shuttle and 3-cone were effing spectacular, weren't they?

The bolded shows your whole arse. Beane's job is not to show YOU that he agrees with YOUR roster-building strategy, and therefore "dramatically shift [your] perceptions about him." This isn't about you. You don't necessarily know better. You DEFINITELY aren't privy to all the information and expertise that they have access to. You say you want a championship, but then you also say what you really want is for the Bills to try to win that championship in a way that you agree with up front, as though failure under those circumstances is somehow more palatable. Because YOU agreed with the approach. Get over yourself. Have some intellectual humility.

Let the board fall on this one, and while Bills fans would be apoplectic after the first two rounds (calling for McBeane's removal, no doubt) I think the rest falls nicely (probably unrealistically) for perceived needs and long term value. And of course, BUILD THE TRENCHES 27. Lukas Van Ness - EDGE Iowa 59. Calijah Kancey - DT Pitt 91. Matthew Bergeron - OT Syracuse 130. Ricky Stromberg - OC Arkansas 137. Bryce Ford-Wheaton - WR West Virginia 205. Max Duggan - QB TCU

This one definitely addresses perceived needs with some degree of value:

That's outlandishly unrealistic. The value on those picks is bonkers. No way. (But great for the Bills in whatever universe allows for such draft value to fall into their laps.)

Funny how the OP broadly throws shade on HCs who would run their defenses, yet ignores how much the league celebrates HCs who run their OFFENSES. Almost like this isn't a completely objective perspective.