TigerJ

I wouldn't hate it. I'd still like to get a receiver with some speed, but there aren't many guys like that available this year.

I never heard of such a thing.

Wherever I'm drafted is all right with me. I imagine my age (66) is going to work against me. That and the fact I never played organized football.

Good question, Badlands. I think the answer is, "No!" You can look at film and check the Wonderlic score. You can maybe sit down with a prospect in an extended interview that includes video, but there is no sure fire way to identify where a prospect is with respect to intangibles like reading defenses and progressions he's never been asked to read before. Some college QBs have been asked to do some of that, but it is a distinct minority.

This And this.

The OP certainly has a flair for hyperbole. The irony is that after all those moves, Buffalo still made the playoffs after a nearly 20 year absence. Imagine that!

Of course it matters to GMs, or they wouldn't bother administering the test at the combine. It's just not the only thing that matters. If everything else checks out on a QB, a GM may well overlook it and draft the guy anyway, and it's possible he'll have a great career. On the other hand, everything else being equal, a GM is going to pick the smarter guy over the dumb one every time, unless his own Wonderlic is in the single digits. It's like hand size. It is one more tool in trying to reduce the element of chance in the very inexact "science" of picking the next great QB. Yet Jared Goff was drafted first overall despite a hand size of 9 inches even.

On balance, Tyrod's play led to more sacks for the reasons cited by the OP. His mobility enabled him to escape pressure on occasion, but not enough to overcome his handicaps in the passing game.

Of the four generally thought to be at the top, I would go with Mayfield. Second most likely to drop is Josh Allen. It is possible none of them make it to #12.

There has been some noise about the Giants trading UP! There is some consolation in the probability that some QB drafted later than the top 5 will have a successful NFL career. We just don't know which one. All the Bills have to do is find him.

Unfortunately, it's sounding like a distinct possibility. Should that happen, then the Bills have to be wondering about the possibility that the Dolphins are interested ina QB, and/or another team trades up about #12. Do they spend draft choices to trade up to get the fourth best QB in the draft, if three get drafted in the top 4?

I failed to mention that in a one gap defense, the defensive tackle lines up opposite the space between the offensive linemen. His primary responsibility is the gap in front of him. If it's a running play, he first has to make sure the running back doesn't go through that gap. If it is a pass play, he is freer to penetrate the gap and cause disruption in the backfield. One gap systems tend to give defensive linemen more opportunities to make plays on the ball carrier than does a two gap system. All thins is my simpleminded understanding of the difference between a one gap system and a two gap system. I'm sure there are lots of intricacies of which I am unaware.

Double teams happen because a combination of two factors. One: you're a dominant player and opposing coaches are game planning to try and reduce your dominance. Two, you don't have a dominant player next to you, so the offensive line can afford to shade protection one way. Suh is going to face some double teams anyway but if opponents do it all the time, Aaron Donald will make them pay. Also, a one gap 3-4 defense is quite different from a two gap. A two gap nose tackle mostly has a job description of tying up blockers. The better they are, the more likely two blockers will be assigned to him. In a two gap system, the linebackers are the ones who rack up the gaudy stats, simply because the nose tackle is soaking up lots of attention from the offensive line.

I'd be OK with Matthews. I agree with the notion that he is better than he showed last year when he was dealing with old undiagnosed injuries. His sub par season a year ago seems to have gotten in the way of signing a lucrative contract, so he may be willing to come back on a one year prove it deal.

I read somewhere today that Indianapolis was OK with the trade from #3 to #6 but wasn't willing to trade out of the top 10. If that is actually true, there is no reason to think they're any more willing to trade out of the top 10 now than they were a week ago.

As I stated in my post, there is reason to believe that the Giants really are not looking to trade, and are more inclined than not to stay at #2. If true, their reluctance to trade would drive the price up even further than it would be if they were actually looking for a chance to trade.

Draft charts may have some value, but there are lots of other factors. On factor is the situation of the team that wants to move up. If that team feels like it's one critical player away from making a serious playoff run, it may be that a high draft pick is worth far more than a team that is several players away. Another factor is the mind set of the team with the higher draft pick. There is reason to believe that the Giants really are inclined to keep that second overall pick because from the owner on down they are adamant about betting a high impact player. They have to know they have a far worse chance of getting that high impact player at #12, Ergo, the price goes up because you have to make it worth it to them to give up something they want. Thirdly, other trades can affect the market. Specifically, the Jets paid a premium over what the chart indicates was fair value to get to #3. If Indianapolis got a premium, the Giants are not going to be inclined to accept anything less than a healthy premium. Put all that together, and my guess is it would be considerably more expensive for the Bills to move up to #2 than some hope and expect.

I don't want to jump to too many conclusions, other than to say it sounds like drugs of some kind. It can't be good, but hopefully he can get himself straightened around.

Fitz wasn't quite perfect - 48 out of a possible 50. Nobody ever said that a high wonderlic score is the end all be all. There have been great QBs who scored low and meh QBs who scored high. In general, however, it's better to have a good score than not.

Tyrod will be better in Cleveland than what they have had. They obviously see him as a bridge QB, a QB who can win some games for them as they try to ascend from the depths, and keep them from having to start an ill prepared rookie. It was time for Buffalo to move on. McCarron is still not the long term answer, but we can hope that #1 he'll take care of the ball, and #2 he'll show a little more willingness to throw the ball, especially with anticipation.

Better than both feet . . .like me. Back in the day, Dansby was a pretty athletic linebacker, with excellent length. I'm not opposed to signing older players to short contracts with lon long term cap implications. Eventually, we need to get more young guys in here, however.

The Bills really need to get Will Compton signed. I'd like to keep Milano outside if possible.

I don't know who it was, (I tuned in after the start of the interview) but a guest on the John Murphy Show representing the Giants point of view stated he thought the Giants were probably inclined to stay at #2 rather than trade. Their owner has publicly stated something about getting a high impact player in the draft. The question is whether that player is their QB of the future or a player who will contribute immediately. The obvious choice for immediate impact is Saquon Barkley, but perhaps you can't rule out Bradley Chub. The real point is that if the Giants are predisposed to staying put already, the price to get them to move may be extraordinarily difficult. Add to that the fact that the Jets' trade up to #3 already set the market at an uncomfortably high level.

Perhaps Jimmy Johnson's draft point chart, or some updated version of it has its uses, but it is not the only criteria to determining whether a trade up is "worth it." More important might be where a team is in its rebuilding process. The picks you give up to move up aren't just bargaining chips. They represent potential players who could have five or even ten year careers on your team. With six picks in the top 100, buffalo could conceivably end up with six starters, and even if not every pick ends up as a starter, those who don't could be quality depth and role players. That's not necessarily a reason not to trade. You have to judge what your team needs. If you've got holes all over the place, you might be better off with six new starters than with a possible superstar and a couple lower level starters (because what you're left with would be third round picks). Buffalo arguably could still stand a major upgrade at right tackle and right guard, but their major hole right now, outside of QB is linebacker. Beane has used free agency well to patch up the D-line. The question Beane will have to ask is if it is time not to go all in on the QB of the future and hope that Les Frazier can use a little smoke and mirrors to cover up the deficiencies in his linebacking corps, or he should build up the rest of the team and hope that the QB he picks a little later (Jackson, Rudolph, Lauletta, White or whoever), develops beyond expectations or that Daboll can work some magic and in the 2019 draft the right QB falls into our laps. There are advantages and disadvantages to both positions. I'll let Brandon Beane try and figure it all out.

Yeah, he does sound quite a bit like PB. If Buffalo doesn't have a chance to draft a good MLB, I suppose I'd be OK with Compton starting and Minter as depth.