Cash

I like Grant a lot - I think there's value in a guy that size who moves that well - but at #12 he's pretty underwhelming. The o-line picks are fine, but yeah not scary at all. I'll give Campbell the benefit of the doubt that he'll be a solid LT, but even then, meh.

Some quotes I enjoyed from Mike Tanier's pre-draft writeup on Hairston (emphasis mine): I'm very encouraged!

Big agree. Hairston's speed helps 2 ways: If he's playing off coverage, he can still close lightning-fast to either pick it off, break it up, or at least limit RAC to nothing. Conversely, he can press at the line, and know that even if he gets beat, he has the wheel to recover and still make a play on the ball.

I wound up talking myself into wanting a CB with our first pick - unless someone like Golden or one of the pass rushers fell, or maybe if Malaki Starks fell. #1 thing I wanted was a player who will make a positive impact. I think Hairston has a great chance to do that. I also don't mind that only Hunter and Barron went before him. The Bills can say whatever they want, but they clearly had McDuffie ranked over Elam back then, and if they'd beat the Chiefs to the punch that would've been a great pick. For me, I keep coming back to the most killer stat from the end of last season - Mahomes averaging something like 2.5 seconds to get the ball out. Put simply, there is no pass rush that's going to consistently get to the QB that fast. That's not to say I'm against fortifying the d-line, because I am. There's all kinds of benefits to having a great d-line. But we could've brought in 2007 Giants d-line via a time machine, and it wouldn't have made a difference in that game.

I find myself going back and forth between agreeing with this, but then also wanting a 1T in the first round, because I think a really good one would significantly help our defense. Intellectually/on paper, it does make the most sense to target the premium position in the first (CB, Edge, or WR), and wait on a 1T. But I also worry we're going to wind up missing out on the prospects who can contribute as rookies, and wind up with a developmental guy in the 5th or something. The idea of rolling out Jones and Carter as our gameday 1T rotation makes me nervous.

Yes, the phone buzzing was my only complaint. It was a really good listen, and here's hoping @gonzo1105 and @GunnerBill make this a tradition!

Yeah, you make a fair point there. Definitely a ding against Kelly. But in terms of leadership during the games themselves, I completely stand by my take that Kelly>Marino, at least during the 90s Super Bowl run. I wasn't around for Marino's burst into the record books, but I was fully around for those Super Bowl years, and IMO Marino was fairly overrated during those years. (And still really good, just not as good as the hype.) Marino from that era wasn't insane like Latter Day Aaron Rodgers, but there were some similarities: phenomenally skilled passers, big egos, insisted on doing things their way, and averse to taking blame when things went wrong. For me, probably the biggest anti-Kelly argument boils down to his playoff numbers. I don't think I ever looked at them directly before they were posted in this thread, and yeah. Even for the time, those are not great.

As someone who was also around during those years, what's your early 90s QB list look like? I'm assuming you've got Montana & Marino (and Elway?) above Kelly most/all years, and maybe swapping in Steve Young once he became the starter in SF. Who else did you/do you have above Kelly? I'd take some but not all of Randall Cunningham's years, and maybe a couple Warren Moon years as well. I get your point, and I think it's fine for a "hottest take" thread, but I personally think you're overcorrecting. IMO, Kelly was probably never above something like 3rd-best QB in any given season, but he was also probably in the top 5 most years. (Just going from top of my head memory here; feel free to prove me wrong.) Regarding Marino specifically - there's no real doubt that Marino was the more talented passer, but at the time and in hindsight, I'd rather have Kelly than Marino for 1988-1995 or so. Kelly was IMO the better leader, and it showed on the field. And his ability to call plays at the line as part of the no-huddle was a huge asset that doesn't show up on the stat sheet.

My draft doomsday scenario: Roger Goodell comes out, but instead of opening up the draft like usual, he says "Initiate Plan Omega". A few seconds later, my (and everyone else's) smartphone explodes, filling the room with poisonous gas. I and everyone I love are killed with no chance to say good-bye. Option 2: We draft a running back in the first round.

I mostly agree with you on Cook, but I think it’s worth pushing back on a couple things. First,the comps. Kyren Williams is close but I’d take Cook. Bucky Irving is a notch below IMO. Breece Hall is way overrated and I strongly prefer Cook there. And in their primes Taylor & Kamara? Sure. Actual age/injury situation? Nope. The second thing: elite or standout aspects to Cook’s game. His combo of quickness, burst, speed, etc is unmatched on our roster now, and going back a while. He moves the needle on a lot of those stretch runs and sweeps, where he’s able to beat the defender to the corner and either get a nice gain or break off a huge run. Those same runs are often stuffed when the RB has just regular NFL speed. Cook is also (the only) home run hitter on our offense. He’s shown he’s capable of taking it to the house from anywhere if given the opportunity. A lot of his long TD runs the last couple years would’ve been 10-20 yard gains with just a “good” back. Add in that last year he showed both willingness and ability to be a goal line back and make tough runs between the tackles, and you’ve got a really interesting player. His pass blocking and dropsies keep him from being a truly elite player, but IMO he’s still a guy that moves the needle*. How much is that worth? Probably not elite or market-setting money, which is why I’m open to letting him walk (preferably via tag & trade or at least a comp pick). But I don’t think he’s as replaceable as you’re making it out. *I guess my player tiers are something like: -Sucks/replacement level -Good player but JAG -Needle mover -Difference maker/elite

Yeah, think contributor more than starter, and I think most of us are on the same page. A WR or d-lineman who plays significant snaps off the bench would fit the mold.

My grandfather had a great story about him and his normal partner playing for money against some frenemies. Frenemy 1 was sure Grandpa was cheating, and obsessively implemented a 2-point penalty on knocking the table. (Grandpa and his partner were indeed cheating, but knocks had nothing to do with it.) Grandpa eventually won when Frenemy 1 (drunk) knocked without thinking, and the 2-point penalty was enough to end the game. The penalty/win was accepted, but it came with a free punch in the face for my grandfather. I try to pre-empt these by announcing what's trump (and maybe who called it, and sometimes what's led, and sometimes who's turn it is) every time there's a lull in conversation. It's very effective! And usually by the 2nd or 3rd game, I'm distracted enough to need my own reminders.

My Rochester family plays a ton of euchre, so I basically grew up playing it. Played a bunch in high school during lunch & free periods, but otherwise it's mostly at family get-togethers. I find it's an extremely regional game - most people haven't heard of it. I have met a couple of folks through work who know it (they're from the Midwest; one from Michigan and the other I don't recall), but they have a truly bananas scoring system that uses the 3s and 4s. Certain point values required you to angle the top card diagonally! I shudder just thinking about it.

At this point, I’m prepared for a lot, draft-wise. I’m expecting a repeat of the last few years, where it’s clear the Bills start running low on draft able grades around the 4th round. They could really only surprise me with their first 3 picks.

Ditto for either 2nd rounder. It’s unrealistic to expect Allen to improve on an MVP season. It’s also unrealistic to expect such a low turnover rate again. So just to match last year’s offense, we need to improve. So far, I’d say our personnel is about a wash, maybe a slight downgrade depending on how bullish/bearish you are on Palmer. I’d be very happy to add another WR who can contribute, especially if he can play X and/or take the top off a defense and/or get open against press man coverage.

Counterpoint: The Raiders are not, and in my lifetime have never been, a rational or broadly competent organization. If Mark Davis decides they're taking Sanders, they'll take Sanders. (I'd still be surprised, but I'd put it at like 8-1 odds.)

I really didn't get that impression out of this video. Seemed to me like he wanted to make sure Parrino got some quotes for his story, but at the same time say nothing at all. Maybe I missed something, but it sounded like McD just boiled down to "we evaluate and we have decisions to make and the draft is important". Which, yeah very true on all counts, but also so generic that it's useless. On my end, I'm fairly concerned about our DT position. At this point, the FO doesn't have my full benefit of the doubt on that front. They've thrown a lot of resources at the D-line, and had some successes, but enough failures that I'm not willing to give them carte blanche. Looking at the roster now, we have: -Ed Oliver, 3tech only, in his prime -Daquon Jones, 1tech only, past his prime and we could use an upgrade -DeWayne Carter, mostly 3tech (maybe 1tech on passing downs?), entering his 2nd year after a mostly-forgettable rookie year -Larry Ogunjobi, mostly 3tech, journeyman FA and suspended for the first 6 games -And that's it I think, or at least hope, it's a safe bet that we'll draft a 1tech at some point. If we don't, I may panic. My worry is that they think Carter or Ogunjobi can play 1tech full time, and that they're way wrong about it. Hopefully I'm wrong and they draft a 1tech who can play right away, but we'll see. Regardless of what they do in the draft, it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where we open the 2025 season with only rookies at 1tech DT. I think Jones is about as close to a roster lock as an aging vet could be at this point.

I abjectly hate the college OT rule. It's not football to me; it's some sort of mini-game. And yeah, mini-games can be really fun in the way that it's fun to eat cake frosting straight out of the can. But that's not a good way to live your life. I like special teams, and I like the field-position battle in general. Spoon-feeding offenses the ball in scoring range just doesn't do it for me and never will.

I've gone back and forth and all over the place on OT rules over the years. For a long time, I was a staunch "sudden death is the way" guy. I eventually relented, when I saw too many OTs that consisted of one mediocre drive resulting in a 40-50 yard FG. That's boring. So I was fully on board when the rules were changed to roughly, "sudden death unless the first score is a FG". I'm still not fully opposed to that, but I will concede that it's pretty lame these days when a shootout ends with just one OT possession. As is tradition, the Bills got screwed by fair application of an existing rule (13 seconds game), so the NFL decided to change it. (Side note: the back half of said tradition is that we will eventually be screwed by the rule change. It hasn't happened yet, but look forward to a big game where we score a TD on the first possession of OT and go on to lose.) I actually liked the Bills' proposal of a 15-minute OT, with sudden death afterwards if still tied. Unfortunately, the NFL owners did not like that, so we got the current setup. I believe this change is just to take the existing playoff OT rule (post 13 seconds) and apply it to the regular season as well. IMO, the OT problems stem from it being too easy to score a TD. I think football works best when it's hard but not ludicrous to score a TD, which isn't exactly where we're at these days. And even though the pendulum swung a bit towards the defense last year, it's hard to imagine it'll keep going that way very long. In any case, here's what I'd like to see for OT rules: Regular season: No overtime, sucker! We play regulation and if it's tied, you each get a tie. Don't like it? Try to win in regulation. (Note: this is BY FAR the best option from a player safety perspective.) Playoffs: Play a 15 minute OT, then go to sudden death if needed.

That's at least supposed to be the point - they want teams to choose to kick the ball short of the endzone so that we fans get to see actual kick returns. TBD if it'll happen or not. I suspect most coaches will do the CYA move and kick into the endzone anyway.

This is mostly where I'm at as well. I'm just sick of seeing the other team's players make huge plays and our guys fall short. And it's not all about investment or draft capital, either. Kincaid was a first round pick and came up short in the clutch. (Yes, it was a tough catch attempt; but that's his job. I'm with the poster who called it a 6/10 in NFL difficulty.) Diggs cost a first round pick and got 2 big contracts, and came up incredibly short in the clutch the previous year. As long as we have Josh Allen, we're going to be in the playoffs most or all years. I want to see a playoff run where the guys around Allen make those difficult catches when it's on the line. Or I would also accept them making so many great catches early on that the game turns into a rout and we win handily.

Interesting, thanks for posting. I watched the first clip and found it interesting. I'd love to hear a similar accounting from the D-line coach, Babich, and McD, but obviously that's never going to happen publicly. My question is, what's to be done about it? It's a bit of a bummer that Groot ends the clip basically saying that he's not happy with how he played but he'd probably do it the same way next time. (Anyone feel free to correct me if I misinterpreted.) Like, I'm seeing a really good diagnosis of the problem, which is a great start, but not much in the way of solving the problem.

I think I'll be on this crusade for the rest of my life as a football fan. Agree with everything you said, and I'd like to add... how is anyone sure exactly who the "BPA" is at any given pick???? This isn't Madden, where every player has an overall rating distilled down to a single, easily-comparable number. Projecting college prospects involves massive amounts of guesswork. If it didn't, we wouldn't see 1st round busts or Day 3 stars. Even if it was Madden, how confident are you that an 81 overall is truly better than an 80 overall at a different position? (And side note, even in Madden the first guy might be an 81 in someone else's scheme but only a 77 in yours. And even at the same position, I'll take a fast 80 over a slow 81 all day, especially at the skill positions.) Even if you're sure the 81 is better than the 80 today, how will they compare in 2, 3, 4 years? It's the job of draftniks to grade and rank players, I get it. But so many fans get caught up in these highly subjective and highly inaccurate grades and ranks, as though they're scientifically proven to be 100% right all the time. I'll put it another way: I'm pretty sure I know the BPA between Travis Hunter and "anyone who'll be available at our pick", and it's Hunter. Feel good about that one. But that's not the decision that'll be on the table for Beane & the Bills. It'll be more like choosing between 2-5 guys, all of whom will have essentially the same draft grade. (Probably early 2nd round.) Maybe a guy with a higher grade will fall in the draft, and the Bills will either trade up for him or sprint their draft card in when they get on the clock. But I think that's pretty much the exception, not the norm.

Hopefully no guaranteed $$, because he sucks.

I have always been pro-Gilliam. Glad he’s coming back!