folz

I had my opinions about the QBs, as everyone else did. There were things I liked about each of them and things I didn't like with each of them. So, I wasn't really in one camp or the other for the pick. What I hoped for last night, as the draft started playing itself out (Mayfield to CLE and Darnold to JETS), was that both Allen and Rosen would be on the board when we picked, because I wanted to know that whoever it was, it was their guy, the guy they really wanted and not just the last QB available. And the fact that they traded up for him and chose him over Rosen showed that. If they think this is the guy to bank on, then I am onboard. And I do think he is the best fit for Buffalo. Welcome to Buffalo Josh! I'm trusting the process.

If the ONE statistic that he used were a true judge of how good a college QB will be (based on the trust of their college coaching staff), then the draft should have played out in this order: Mayfield Jackson Rudolph Darnold Rosen Allen So, is he also saying that Jackson and Rudolph are superior to Darnold or Rosen and should have been the higher picks? If not, then you can't really use that stat to knock another kid. What if certain OCs are just more conservative than others by nature?

Just a moment of distraction from tomorrow night. One of those dumb slideshow articles popped up on my home page, "The 25 Greatest NFL Receivers of All Time" or something like that. I stupidly clicked on it and through the slideshow just to see where they ranked Andre. I was surprised that he was not on their list. Now, this was just some site named newarena, so who cares, right? But I decided to look up some other sites that ranked the all-time wide receivers. The second one I saw was from Gil Brandt at NFL.com and he did not have Andre in his list of the top 32 wide receivers all-time. I went to another list (from fansided) and Andre did not make their top 30. I did finally find some sites that had him ranked: Althon ranked him #18, Ranker #12, Bleacher Report #20, Swartzsports #27, nflspinzone #14. That is a lot of disparity in how people see Andre's career; from #12 to not top 32. So it just got me wondering where you all who actually watched his career would rank him. But first, let me make the case for Andre (as if I need to on this board): He currently, still ranks: #16 in career yards for a receiver #16 in career receptions for a WR #14 in career TDs by a WR #5 in career postseason receiving yards tied for #3 in most career 100-yard playoff games Other notes: 951 receptions was 3rd all-time at his retirement The only player other than Jerry Rice with 13 seasons of 50+ receptions 7 Pro Bowls 4 Super Bowl appearances 3 TDs in the Comeback Where would you put Andre on the all-time list?

I thought the writer was going to show that overall (like if you took an average of all of the mock drafts), that their prediction rate would at least be relatively accurate when he wrote, "On Thursday, few mock drafters got more than a handful of first-round picks correct. Collectively, though the analysts were more accurate than you might think." And then he just runs all of these charts for each draft pick (with the exact team picking that player in that slot not a requirement) to apparently prove his point. But what the charts show is: Only 3 of the 32 picks were guessed by more than 50% of the mockers polled (and those 3 picks were #1, #3, and #4---many years there is a pretty good idea how the top 4 picks might go, so...) Overall, only 9 picks had a better than 10% hit rate by the mockers. And 20 of the picks had only a 0-5% hit rate by the mockers. So, basically he is saying the mockers on aggregate are more accurate than you think because (outside of two picks that no one got right) at least one person picked the selection for each draft spot. I'm sorry, but one, two, or three out of 120 does not prove any accuracy or that the draft isn't a complete, unpredictable crap shoot as we all know that it is. I kind of think that he wrote the article just so he could say this... "Only Dane Brugler of CBS Sports, Andrew Gribble of ClevelandBrowns.com, and my own mock draft here at SB Nation projected Trubisky to be picked by the Bears."

I got the same feeling watching that press conference. Of course he has to prove it on the field, but I was like, yeah, that is the kind of guy I want leading my team. Fiery and passionate (in a good way), but humble and self aware. Lots of self confidence, but truly a team-first guy.

I'm not saying this is true and I have no idea who Chad Forbes is, but I don't think he is saying the Browns would lose their 4th and not get 12th, I think it was an either/or. He says the Giants would move down to either 4 or 12 (not that they would get them both). And we don't know what the other parameters of the deal might be. So it could be Cleveland moves down to 2 from 1, keeps their 4th, and gets some assets for the swap OR Cleveland moves down to #2 and #12 and the compensation for that move would obviously have to be higher than the first trade. Whichever way it goes, Cleveland would still have two picks in the top 12 at worst.

I never really thought about it before, but that must have sucked for New England and the Jets (although O'Brien was better than Eason), for every team in the division to pick a QB in the same draft and then to watch Kelly and Marino become All-Pro QBs and have their teams consistently in the playoffs, while your QB was a bust or just an average starter. Boy do I hope we are on the right end of that equation again this year.

That stat alone gets overlooked way too often. That is a feat!. And he would have been Super Bowl MVP of SB XXV if Norwood's kick went through. Call me a Homer, but I honestly always felt that the RBs from that era stacked up as Barry, Thurman, and then Smith. Smith's stats are amazing, but Emmitt had 1,575 more touches than Thurman and 1,510 more touches than Sanders and ran behind one of the best offensive lines in NFL history. But, even if consensus says Smith was a better back than TT, I don't think it is as clear cut as you make it out to be. With Barry it is, he could do things that no other human at that time could do. The Michael Jordan of RBs, if you will. And to No Saint who posted his list of guys that would go in the top 10 ahead of TT, I pretty much agree with your first 7, and might add in Tony Dorsett, but then I think you could debate from there between guys like TT and Smith, Peterson, LT, Faulk, Allen, RIggins, etc. And I don't think any of those guys go in over TT without at least a debate. So, I would put Thurman in the 9-12 range all-time. Just my opinion. I just googled a bunch of Best RBs of all-time lists, just to see what the general thought is, and Thurman landed anywhere from 10 to 17 on the many lists I looked at. One list had him at 10 and another at 11, but most had him in the 12-17 range.

Kyle is a shoo-in for the WOF... and Freddie should be too. A fan favorite. A bright spot in a dismal decade. Eight years as a Bill (more than enough accrued time), inspirational story, fought and clawed for everything he got, 3rd place on Bills all-time rushing leaders list behind only Thurman and O.J.---and most of that done as the number two back, as the team kept trying to move on from him, and with some pretty talented backs in Lynch and Spiller...and yet somehow in the end, Freddie was always the man still standing and even outperforming them. Had a 4.4 yard career average. Went to little Coe college (Marv's alma mater), loved the fans and playing in Buffalo (seeing Freddie run the field with a Bills flag after a great victory, c'mon), he was a very good player who should have been in Buffalo at least one or two more years (damn Whaley!), he was great in the community, great teammate, team leader, etc.. I mean we aren't talking about the Hall of Fame, it's not about comparing him to every RB who ever played the game and saying he wasn't elite. The Wall of Fame is about what you did in and for Buffalo and the Bills, and in my opinion, Freddie definitely has all the credentials for the WOF! Glad he's doing the deal to retire a Bill!

Thanks Ryan...great idea to lay it all out. So, by position, they have met with: 10 QBs 6 LBs 4 OTs 4 RBs 4 CBs 3 WRs 3 TEs 3 OGs 1 OC 1 DT 1 Safety 0 DEs I know visits don't necessarily mean anything, sometimes teams draft the only guy they didn't meet with, etc., and there are many more of the 30-pre draft visits to be announced, but I just thought I would speculate about what this list means for the Bills draft wants per position: Obviously, we all know they are looking at/need QB, LB, and WR...interesting, though, that they have met with 10 QBs but not Darnold...at least not yet. Do they not expect to have a chance at him? Are they not interested? Or are they trying to hide their interest? Good to see that they are looking at RT to replace Mills and Guards to replace Vlad and/or to groom behind Ritchie... Seems that they are interested in drafting a CB...maybe either to beat out or eventually take over for Vontaze, as he is probably only here for two years and health could be a question...maybe someone who could play slot in the meantime. And I'm a little surprised, but I guess they are also looking for a RB, maybe to eventually take over for Shady, and either a more dynamic TE than Clay, or someone that lets us move on from Clay next year. Options for dumping big salaries next year? They obviously feel comfortable now, with the recent signings, on the D-line and at Center and Safety.

Thinking a moment from the Giants perspective...the above trade would give them 7 picks in the top 69. 2 firsts, 2 seconds, and 3 thirds. For a team that needs to restock their roster (and with a new GM) that would seem hard to pass up. And if they are in love with someone at pick 2: Barkley, Chubb, QB; I wonder if their fans are asking the same thing we are about moving up for a QB (in reverse). Is say staying put and taking Barkley worth giving up an extra 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks---or more (which you could have in the trade with the Bills)?

For me it was almost a 4-way tie between Flutie, Fitz, Bledsoe, and Taylor when I first looked at the list. Then I thought Bledsoe really trailed off after the first year, maybe he was just on the downside of his career. And I love me some Fitz, but I thought of his late-game interceptions. And I have always liked and rooted for Tyrod, but the not taking any chances (ala Rob Johnson and Trent Edwards) made me leery to pick him too. So I voted for Flutie. And then I decided to look up a few stats, just out of curiosity. Now, of course, Flutie had the best team around him and the smallest sample size, but... Record Pass Yds/Gm Rush Yds/Gm *TD/Gm Int/Gm Flutie 21-9 253 29.5 1.66 1 Bledsoe 23-25 211 2.7 1.23 .90 Fitz 20-33 220 15.5 1.54 1.2 Taylor 22-20 211 35.8 1.54 .36 *Includes rushing TDs because I think you have to weigh rushing yards and TDs in with a QB like Tyrod in the mix After looking at that, I feel better about selecting Flutie. Going by stats alone I would say the rank would be Flutie, Taylor, Fitz, Bledsoe.

This thread made me think about something I have been wondering for a little while. Last year it seemed like everyone (not Bills fans, but media and fans in general) were saying it wasn't a good QB class, teams should wait until next year, which is going to be a great QB class. And then we get to this year and now I have often heard people saying how great Trubisky and Mahomes and Watson are going to be and I don't know if there is a guy in this year's class as good. What happened? Yes, Watson and Trubisky got to play a bit, so maybe people are higher on them now than when they were drafted, although Trubisky did go #2 overall...and I know a lot of people do like the QBs this year...but it was this overall narrative that last year's class wasn't going to be good and this one would be, but now that it's here it's not as good as last year's class. And then we're told next year's QB class is not going to be good, which only makes me think that by draft day next year it will be the second coming of the '83 class to some people. Just makes me think that no one has any idea when it comes to projecting college QBs into the Pros.

Of course, not everyone who practices hard becomes an All-Pro as there are so many other factors (raw talent, size, strength, coaching, franchise, family, injuries, mental makeup, etc.) that go into it. That was, obviously, not what I was saying. But everyone does get better with practice, so why not see where a kid's ceiling is before dumping him. Do you really think San Diego was Peterman's best and even if he stays in the league for 10 years he will always look that bad on the field? Cause, I am looking around the league and seeing guys like McCown, Keenum, and Foles...who are obviously better at this stage in their careers than they were earlier. Now I'm not saying you wait on a guy for 5-10 years to develop, but let's give these kids at least 2-3 years to acclimate, learn, mature, get some experience and some, of course not all, will surprise you. What Patriots fan in Brady's rookie year thought some 6th rounder should take over for Bledsoe? How many fans were ready to kick Eric Moulds to the curb after his first two seasons. There are just so many examples of players who just needed a little time or the right situation. But, no, since a kid isn't an obvious franchise QB the first time he hits the field, then he's just a bum with no value, let's get rid of him. How are you going to react if the Bills do draft one of the top 4 QBs and his first 8 games are atrocious. Do you dump him and try to draft another one next year? or do give him at least another season to show he can improve and get it?

I am just surprised by how short-sighted people have become these days. It's one thing to have an opinion on if you think someone will become a good player or not (that's fine), but to label players as busts, trash, etc. after one game or even one season is ridiculous. Why is there the old adage of not evaluating a draft until 3 years has passed, or the myth of the 3rd year WRs ready to bust out, etc. It is because 98% of the guys that come into this league need some development, need to get used to the speed of the game, etc. There are only a small group of guys that come into the league each year that ball out right away, and usually it is partly because they were drafted into a great situation. Every job in this world takes time to learn. I don't care if you are a doctor or flipping burgers at McDs, first day on the job you aren't doing everything right, someone needs to show you the ropes, you need to gain experience doing it. This notion that players should come in and not make mistakes and light it up right away or they are a bust is truly baffling to me. In the old days, most fans recognized that it would take some time for rookies to come along and they were patient with them. Some of you guys would have sent Bruce Smith packing after one overweight, mediocre first season. I don't know if Peterman will ever develop into a starting QB, probably not as the odds are against him, but none of us knows for sure. Why would you dump a 2nd year player on a rookie contract if just a few months ago (as a staff) you thought there was something there you could develop? Let's at least give these kids a chance to develop before calling for their heads. Because, ya know, It's a funny thing about humans...when they practice something they usually get better at it.

This brings up a good point. It's so easy for us (myself included) to sit back watching the games and be frustrated with a player for shying away from a hit, or being skiddish in the pocket, or whatever. But most of us couldn't take the punishment that these guys do. I'm sure there are a lot of guys on here that played football at some level, but the NFL is a whole different world. These guys really are putting their bodies and minds on the line. I'm sure there are a number of guys who don't make it in the league simply because humans don't like to get hit. It can't be easy to see a Ray Lewis-type dude running full speed at you, intent on inflicting pain, and just stand there and take it. I can completely understand a guy becoming gun shy to where he plays himself out of the league. It takes a rare breed to do what those guys do.

This could also be a "leak" by the Jets to dissuade the Bills from trying to get up to #2.

Hmmm...Rookie (Rosen, Darnold, Mayfield), McCarron (if we get him over Pats), and Peterman. And then let them battle it out. Seems like a boom or bust strategy. Either none of them prove to be the guy (ouch) or one, two, or all three develop and look good---then you have your franchise guy and possible trade bait. I'm not against it, especially if McBeane feels good about the rook and McCarron...but there is definitely an element of risk to it. Kind of seems like the "keep throwing darts" strategy that some have posted about here on TBD. And at this point I'd rather they go down swinging than settling for a "bridge" QB. At some point, one of those bridges has to lead somewhere, or he's just your average to bad QB.

Serious question here. Am I just not remembering how free agency works? Or does it seem like it is awfully late in the process (on the eve of the tampering period) to still have no news about any of our own free agents? Have they tendered the ERFAs (O'Leary, Thomas, Yarbrough)? What is happening with Kyle? Are they resigning anyone? Does assigning tenders and resigning players always happen this late and I am just forgetting? (Did the creation of the tampering period bring this on?) And we will see a ton of activity on Monday and Tuesday of teams locking up some of their own guys? Or is this just the style of the new regime (to wait to gather as much intel as possible first)? Or are they really letting everyone go? None of the guys seem irreplaceable (except Kyle), but it is a lot of guys to replace. The team would then have to be very active in the 2nd and 3rd tier of FA and/or snag a lot of Undrafted Rookie FAs after the draft, just to fill out the roster.

Yes, lots of rookies come in and run well. But conversely, most rookies are terrible at pass protection.

Not to go off on a tangent, but I think 1983 was still a better QB draft class than 2004. imo Elway, Kelly, Marino > Eli, Rivers, Ben O'Brien, Eason > Schaub, JP Losman after that it drops off for both drafts, but there are still more recognizable names in '83 than '04: '83: Todd Blackledge, Jeff Christensen, Gary Kubiak, Tom Ramsey, Bruce Mathison '04: Luke McCown, Andy Hall, Josh Harris, Jim Sorgi, Jeff Smoker, John Navarre But, it is an interesting comparison: 16 QBs were drafted in each of those drafts, 3 franchise QBs in each draft, 1 or 2 starting caliber QBs after that... 2004 has 4 Super Bowl wins to 1983's 2 Super Bowl wins. But 1983 has 11 Super Bowl appearances to 2004's 5 appearances.

Some of you just need to get over the whole Sammy thing. How does a thread about Vontae Davis become a Sammy thread? (I know, and now I'm going to add to the problem.) Is Sammy talented? Yes. But, is he a bust to this point in his career? Yes. He was a #4 overall pick that has produced 47 yards/game and 0.38 TDs/game thus far in his 4-year career (I didn't subtract games he was injured because a team drafting a guy that high expects him to be available). And yet he expects to be paid like a top flight WR? The Bills were smart to walk away with a year's service out of Gaines and a 2nd round pick. And now he's getting the Lee Evans decoy theory treatment too? Sheesh. The most important question though is...is he a member of the Bills currently? No. So time to move on and stop talking about him. He may eventually bust out, but how much did you want this team to pay to wait and see? Not to mention his self-professed attitude problems. At this point, I don't care how many draft picks he cost us or what the final balance sheet is. He's gone and that is all in the past now. Get over it and let's move on. Now back to our regularly scheduled program... Great pickup! Welcome to the Bills Vontae!

Yeah, this is not surprising considering we are on our 3rd head coach in just 4 seasons (each guy wanting his own players/changing schemes, etc.). It is pretty sad actually, that (not including interim HCs Fewell and Lynn), since 2000, we are on our 8th head coach in 18 seasons. That averages to 2.25 years per coach. And in that same time (since John Butler moved on in 2000), we have had 6 GMs (2 at least that weren't even qualified for the job). That's 3 years per GM on average. When you are changing your coach every two years and your GM every 3 years, on average, you can't hope to ever build anything. Let's hope McDermott/Beane stick around for a while!

I agree with the OP. The day after the Super Bowl, everyone was saying what a great, exciting game it was...except for me. I actually thought it was a boring game. Each team just marched up and down the field, scoring on nearly every possession. There was no defense until the sack/strip of Brady, which was probably one of the two most exciting plays of the game (along with the Foles receiving TD---the Philly special). I joked with a lot of people that the Bills/Jags playoff game was actually a more entertaining game for my taste. The running game battle, the strategy, playing field position, the battles on the lines, three yards and a cloud of dust and all of that. (despite the bad QB play on both sides). I actually stopped watching the NBA years ago because no one played defense anymore and because of the star treatment by the refs. Football seems to been heading down that same road. Yes, you can have a low scoring game that is boring because neither team is very good (like the 6-3 Bills/Browns game someone alluded to). But when you have two good defenses going at it, a low scoring game can be way more entertaining than a 41-33 point game. But, I believe this may be a generational thing. I think younger fans are just used to seeing more scoring in sports and partly because the leagues caters to the casual fans, trying to lure them in with more scoring.

Just playing along here ... What does matter for Ballard "the rivalry is on" and Irsay is getting back at the Pats. If Luck is ok, they don't need a QB. And since they have so many holes a trade back for extra picks seems just as wise as taking a stud at 3. So, why not let Buffalo get their QB, who can hopefully become a thorn in the Patriots side for years to come, while you restock your own team.