MTBill

And I suppose it also matters what Pegs says. If he says, I want to look "good" in the media - and meet some rabid fan expectations - make this move.

I think you're probably right that it will be harder to deny if Cleveland passes on our "guy". I am sort of looking at #4. Cleveland could have their cake and eat it too. Get their guy at 1, then acquire even more draft capital with #4. Beane & Co. will have grades on the players that tell them not to jump up unless the value is right. It may be that even their #1 guy isn't viewed by them as worth pick #2 - and they'll just wait to see if they are available when they see value. I think it just such a different thing when you are sitting at 12 and have to pay a lot of picks to move up, than it is to look at the board at 12 and pick the highest guy left on your board (who should be at least valued at 12+). I would be less shocked to see the bills move up to 4 than I would be to see them spend a ton of picks to get to #2. If you look at these QBs - they may have 1a and 1b - if neither of those go in pick 1, you can almost be certain that at least 1 of those QBs will there at #4 (someone is going to take Barkley or Chubb). So I think #4 is a real target for the Bills - leap over Denver - and use less picks than it would take to get to #2. It would be a win-win potentially since it would cost less - and the Browns would still have a very successful draft. I ran this on that BN site. Move up 8 slots to 4 and 7 slots in the 4th - for the first 2nd round pick we have. I also think any move that is going to be made now - will be made during the draft, they aren't going to make a move right now not knowing who goes at #1. Which may be why there were discussions with the Colts, but no actual trade because it was setting up for draft day, to see how things play out.

More and more - the realization hits me... sometimes you just can't move down because you have more needs than looking "smart" getting draft capital. I think Beane is likely to just sit where we're at and pick best available need - and we'll avoid these "gotta have" QB XY or Z. I also think I'm OK with that. I know it won't be popular to not trade up with many fans - and certainly not with the media who is paid to think(overthink) things - but has no real skin in the game. No analyst is losing his job because we muff a pick they tell us we "HAVE" to make - but if Beane moves up and gets another Ryan Leaf/Jamarcus Russell - he's not going to succeed as a GM. My point is - if you're the Giants - I think you sort of need to use that pick for yourselves - more than acquire more capital that isn't going to help you as much as using that opportunity does. If you're the Bills - I think you have to sort of evaluate what it will cost you to move up - and how much are you willing to risk? For the Giants, it's no real risk if they use that pick on a dud - because they didn't have to trade a bunch of picks to get that. But if we spend 5+ picks getting a dud, we're so much further behind. Yes - low risk = low reward. Putting all your eggs(picks) in one basket you sure better hit a homerun or you'll be set back even further for longer. Just think of how long we lamented the Sammy pick and what it cost. That will be nothing compared to what it will cost us to get to #2.

IIRC - it seems like they started with running plays, moved the ball some, didn't score, but when he did his first (or second) pass attempt it was a pick 6. Being lazy and not looking up the box score. All that said - I totally agree with what you're laying down. Peterman failed - and was failed by his OC. What I thought was ridiculous was how long they left him in. After the 3rd pick, he should have been lifted. At that point you are sort of adding insult to injury and your point is lost. The fact they left him in for 2 more picks - was like they were just trying to communicate to Tyrod - We really REALLY don't want you here. Badly enough that we're willing to sacrifice our rookie prospect.

Fact - doing real analysis of 20 years of QB data takes time & money. things fans rarely have time to do. That said - the analysis you offered was nice and seems logical. To really hit on this there is a lot of subjectivity. What is "successful"? If you measure it by SB wins - there are very few successful QBs in the league. Including some who many feel were very good - or certainly better than their SB W-L record is - and there are a couple who won a SB that most people would categorize as lousy. What is your measuring stick for success in drafting a QB? What metrics are you going to measure? And - are we going to discount parts of the past because they don't apply any longer - or are there lessons to be learned from Marino, Montana, Young, Kelly, Elway, and further back Bradshaw, (my memory is really failing today - but I think you get the picture - 70's QBs who were successful). The NFL of those days was certainly different - however they were the best at their craft when they played and we should maybe not judge them against recent QBs - Brady is great, don't get me wrong, but it is not completely fair to say he's the GOAT. I say this because he plays in a pass heavy league which has 32 teams instead of 26 or fewer. I would be fascinated to read a thorough data analysis on this - if time were no object, I might even write it myself. To do this rigorously requires standards and objectivity - with subjective metrics defined for debate. I'm not sure 12 years is a long enough window - depending on your measuring stick - because some of those QBs have only played 1 or 2 seasons and is it fair to judge them by the same standards as someone who has had more opportunities? (that's a question - not a judgement) What might work best is to identify all of the "successful" QBs of the past 20 years - then look for common threads - how long did it take for them to shine? How good was the defense on their teams? How good were their receivers? How good were their RBs? When were they drafted (round & how many QBs were taken above them)? How do they stack against other QBs drafted the same year?

Yawn. It must be the offseason. NFL Insider Alert! The draft is coming and we have to generate Buzz! How else will our draft ninjas generate revenue? McShay! Captains Obvious. It is more fascinating to me to know what the 2 who don't think the Bills QB situation is the worst in the NFL think. How are they not in agreement?

They didn't have to "overpay" - but they did have to pay. I do trust the process - and I do like these players... My point is we maybe paid more than the market for Star. I think 7M/year on Murphy is probably market. You do bring up a very good point though that the 1st day is when you are paying more - because you have no vision for what the market is seeing as no other deals are public yet.

Take my opinion for what it's worth (0.02) - but I happen to agree that these contracts seemed a bit rich to me too given that they both have had some injury issues which may not be all healed. We seem to be the infirmary with our signings this offseason. Star's contract in particular seems high - I don't think Murphy's is horrible. That said, you also have to pay what the market bears. Now that we have Cousins getting a fully guaranteed contract - contracts are going to be more player friendly. That is the market now. We may look back in a couple years and see that we got a steal. I don't dislike any of the actual signings - presuming they play 16 games. We've seemingly been plagued by FA/trade injuries - Gaines, Benjamin, Matthews, Vontae, ... Maybe the new strength/conditioning staff will have a magic wand.

As a novice observer of contracts - it seems somewhat high for someone with some injury questions... but I also read that it is heavily backended and if for some reason it doesn't work out as expected (injury) - cutting him won't be super painful. We're definitely paying more to players not on the roster than we should be.

The thing with Foles - I think his trade value is diminished. Maybe that "more than a 1st & a 4th" stance has softened up. Maybe you go with McCarron & a rookie + Peterman if Foles is still requiring too much draft capital. The trouble with the draft right now is you still have to package a lot to get one of those big names I think... I suspect the Bills will be waiting to pull the trigger on a trade up. I bet they have 1a and 1b on their board - if one of them go, they start really making a push - but it'll be a dog fight I think, albeit one where we have the most draft capital in 2018 to do it.

Maybe it's just because we haven't been involved in this for a while - but it sure seems like there have been more trades/FA deals which are unofficial than has ever happened before. How busy is the league office going to be tomorrow handling all the catching up paperwork... On top of the deals that are actually announced on the real start of FA.... Cue the popcorn.

Jack Nicklaus - the golfer.... Not Nicholson.

This is #amazing. Best of luck to Cordy!

I'm going to guess a defensive player not on team's radars - ala Poyer & Hyde. I think McDermott has a good read on defensive players who will work well in his system who maybe weren't as good of a fit on their original team. Probably a LB. Yeah - that's not a definitive answer, but I bet we'll sign a linebacker who will end up being a steal. I think they'll also look to re-sign Preston Brown - though he may get paid elsewhere.

I guess they have these 'unofficial' periods for a reason - likely having to do with how they track salary cap.... It just feels odd that everyone knows about something - and they aren't able to even acknowledge the discussion of a trade.

I guess that makes sense. I just looked at the browns site - it doesn't mention any of their trades either. Just weird that news is news - but yet not "official"...

It just strikes me as odd this hit the press Friday - Tyrod tweeted a farewell, and yet the official site isn't even acknowledging it. It's odd how they don't seem to use their official site to release news like this. I get the feeling there is some other move in the works (e.g. a QB signing) and they are going to release both moves at once. Maybe I just expect too much out of the site. The retirement of Wood didn't take them long to announce.

I meant if there were only alternatives - trade more than a 1st and a 4th for a 1 year deal on Foles versus pay nothing more to have TT on a 1 year deal, I'd rather keep the picks. I agree that TT has likely reached his summit with the Bills - a new OC isn't going to change that. I just would hate to see us throw away draft capital on Foles with only 1 year remaining - especially if he decides he doesn't really want to come to Buffalo. Maybe having Shady here will help, maybe not. Effectively - you gave up on Mahomes for this pick + more, don't throw that away for Foles on a 1 year deal.

My question - is this posturing by the Eagles? I just wonder if this isn't going to the court of public opinion... My hot take on Foles. He had a good SB, don't get me wrong. But a big part of why he was the MVP is that he was expected to be a dud and wasn't. Many of the media bobble heads had Philly out of the running when Wentz went down - and continued to every week. I think Foles could be an upgrade for us - but he is not a long term solution and I don't think worthy of more than a #2. That is a lot of draft capital for a band aid (with 1 year on his deal). I'd rather keep TT as QB for 1 season and use those picks on a longer term solution.

I think right now the cap space is not there to make a FA splash. Although it is possible that the glut of FA QBs out there makes one somewhat more affordable. If you consider that they'd likely trade TT for just about anything if they were able to get a FA, it would be doable - even with absorbing the $6M Roster hit - in fact as has been reported, that makes trading TT more attractive for another team since they don't have to pay that. I would be floored if they ended up with Cousins - but getting someone considered an upgrade who is reasonable is possible - and reduces the need to package up all your picks to move up - thus allowing them to build a better roster. I think Keenum or McCarron would be reasonable contracts. Maybe Bridgewater with an incentive deal since he was injured last season.

I buy the sentiment which has been stated before several times. TT is Plan B or C. If they sign a FA starter - TT is gone for sure If they move up and draft a QB - I think TT is gone and hopefully via trade. It is possible they keep him as an inexpensive bridge unless Peterman really shows up. If they don't have the chance to find a QB they want in FA or Draft - TT is probably going to be on the roster in 2018 unless Peterman has an amazing training camp. He's inexpensive. In my view - they'll keep Peterman around because he's cheap, but I don't think they are going to bet the house on him after what he showed last season when given opportunities.

I see Washington in his future - to be paired with Smith. A team unafraid to spend $ on pipe dreams.

I cannot recall a year when so many at least "quality" QBs were available. In Free Agency we have Cousins, Keenum, and Bridgewater out there (I discount some of the others as being candidates I want though there are others who have started recently). Then in the Draft there are like 4-5 potential 1st rounders. Free Agency is going to dictate this market. Who signs Cousins - what happens with Keenum & Bridgewater and some of the other QBs available. That will really impact the draft I suspect. Looking at that Bortles deal, I have a feeling the Jags are going to draft a QB and have Bortles as the bridge QB.

I think the flat earther left the discussion. But yes, this is a real thread. I also think he may have been trolling - not serious about believing the earth is flat.

A "truth" fell from this thread. We have some bright folks here whose scope of knowledge is well beyond football. It is very fascinating to see the work that the Greeks did to model their geocentric theory by explaining variance using orbits inside of orbits. Note - these theories mostly threw out the older mythology around a flat earth and recognize the spherical nature of Earth. There was a fascinating link above which discussed the 'myth' presenting that Columbus was out to prove the Earth was round in 1492. It is no wonder some people are confused by this "history" lesson everyone learns in grade school. The real history lesson is that history is often fabricated or 'spun' to benefit someone. One of the worst travesties in our history is the number of burned libraries - burned books, and other forms of forced loss of knowledge. We tend to think of ourselves as 'modern' and 'cultured', but if you really study history and look for root truths as opposed to the popular history, you uncover that really we just have different (sometimes better, sometimes not) tools at our disposal. History is unfortunately written by the victor - and the loser's history is intentionally lost. Note that the "good side" generally wins - because we hear the story from the victor. It is this modern information age when we have the benefit of more perspective - so we can decide for ourselves if the victor was indeed the 'good' guy. But even this is spun and fabricated much of the time.