Dr. Who

Apparently as of right now, that's the asking price and there are multiple teams interested. I didn't say you should pay that price, I said that was the likely ask.

Not even as a joke . . .

Pick #27 in the first round.

Definitely worth consideration. I think it probably will cost 27 and there is likely more competition for him.

Agenda is a word with negative connotations -- it subtly implies an ideological distortion or putting one's thumb on the scales. "Falling short anywhere similar to the last two years is going to bring a lot of dissension. I don't think the long game is psychologically realistic." I stand by that. Built into the first bolded is a subjunctive -- "if this happens, then," so it is not a certitude. And I think taking into consideration the likely psychological results is germane to how one strategizes building the team.

Naturally, it's speculation. I don't know the future, neither do you. One speculates.

Some folks think that as long as we have Josh Allen, we're in the discussion for a SB means a conservative approach at player acquisition and building through the draft is the best counsel. I think if we don't win a SB in the next few years, Diggs won't be the only one who is irate with the regime. Josh Allen is in a legacy competition and Mahomes is up 2-0, Burrow has two number 1 receivers, and the conference seemingly keeps adding premium players. Win one now might very well open up more success later. Falling short anywhere similar to the last two years is going to bring a lot of dissension. I don't think the long game is psychologically realistic.

Plausible argument. I don't think there is a LB left in free agency that is going to stop them from using an early pick at the position. You know the pull of their natural inclinations is going to favor DL, LB, S, but I hope somehow they fight against that and really tilt more towards the offense in the draft.

I'm assuming 8 of the 19 missed games are due to the suspension. You're gambling on availability, that he'll be relatively healthy and maintain production. Some old timers have hearkened back to James Lofton. I dunno, but so far there hasn't been any perceivable drop off in his play. I think he's still got something left in the tank. Beck Water's concern about oline protection is another issue, but I don't think trading for DHop is going to tangibly affect that side of things. They've made their free agent plays on oline. I think they should add a day one or two pick as well, regardless of whether they get Hopkins or not.

Do you own a van with shag carpet and a psychedelic paint job?

I think he is the most likely pick. (Omitted a bunch of bad OJ jokes, you're welcome.)

At the moment, if the scuttlebutt is not just a bunch of delusional smoke, we'd be primarily bidding against ourselves. I do think Beane needs to negotiate and keep the price down as much as possible, yet ultimately, I suppose I would be willing to "lose" a bit on compensation to acquire the player.

I think it's difficult to project precisely. I've referenced elsewhere folks who surmise the cap is going to escalate significantly in the next few years. Maybe that doesn't happen, I don't really know. I still suspect there is a plausible way to make Hopkins work, though perhaps that is too close a margin for many to comfortably live with. What I do know is that I am now a graybeard. When I was young, well, I didn't think about it, but paradoxically, had I done a cost benefit analysis, I might have been more cautious because I would be thinking of those future years as time I expected to be watching the Bills possibly struggle as a result of hasty investment. Where I'm at now, if there is a genuine shot at the SB, you take it. Things alter quickly. The future that is now might be very different in a short time regardless of all your prudential efforts.

You could always get a second opinion from a different doctor. I think you're alright.

Yes, I'm not trying to ignore the important distinctions. I think Beane should be able to find a way to acquire Hopkins without crippling the future. Or, to be more precise, I'd be willing to take some hit to the future to get him. I don't think the cost has to be anywhere near what LA did.

I'm not at all happy about it. It is what I expect. I would like Kincaid if he drops to 27.

McDermott and his D.

You're absolutely correct in what you distinguish. What is the same is the Rams saw an opportune moment to grab a ring and made decisions on that basis. I think Beane getting Hopkins fits that scenario.

This is one of the few positions in an apparent weak draft that has a lot of good players. Be a shame if the Bills don't grab one of the better ones.

Might be missing a few chicklets when they smile.

I don't think it's a choice between arcade style no defense, high scoring games and cloud of dust minimalism. The former is not a balanced, complex game. Neither alternative is interesting, though lots of points can be superficially distracting. Style is actually a nuanced sensibility if properly cultivated -- and this applies beyond sport.

Sorry, did not.

I'd be shocked at this point if the first pick isn't LB. They ought to at least try to trade back into the early second.

Yes, I hated those Devils teams, too. Winning that way is just an ugly aesthetic. It's the equivalent of three yards and a cloud of dust football. That's not the kind of hockey I want to watch, but if it's your team, naturally, folks find a way to embrace it.

It's just a joke. Fella was skeptical about the fella with inside information that was offering a hopeful assessment (assuming you want to trade for Hopkins.) If I have to explain it to you, it isn't funny.