Cash

What film did you watch? I prefer things presented WITH comment, Here's a TL;DW: Good tackle. Hairston takes perfect position, ballcarrier squares up and tries to truck-stick, Hairston brings him down for a solo tackle. 2-yard gain. Bad tackle. Hairston takes okay position but gets juked as the ballcarrier is coming through the hole. Good tackle. Hairston comes up in run support, maintains his gap/assignment instead of chasing after the ball, and the cutback brings the ballcarrier right to him. Along with a teammate, brings the ballcarrier down for a short gain, and one of them forced a fumble. Bad tackle. I thought this was gonna be a highlight until the runner juked Hairston out of his shoes. Hairston came up beautifully to shut down the run; just didn't finish. Good tackle. Hairston comes up, keeps the runner from getting to the edge, and works in tandem with a teammate to bring the runner down for a short gain. Good tackle. Receiver is hit almost as soon as he catches the ball and gets 0 RAC. I don't know if they gave him the first down on forward progress at the moment of the catch, or if they thought the WR was taking himself backwards and marked him short. Bad tackle. Hairston got himself a bit out of position at the catch and the receiver took advantage. Hairston had a slim chance at a shoestring tackle but didn't convert. Bad tackle. Hairston was in the right place at the right time, but got royally stiff-armed. Bad tackle, but not that bad. Hairston came up for what would've been a really nice stop, and got his hands on the runner, but they slipped off via a spin move. I rate this not that bad because Hairston still slowed down the runner enough to let a teammate come in and save the TD. Bad tackle. Hairston was way off the receiver at the catch and overpursued to try to limit RAC. Receiver made a nice move and burned Hairston. Good tackle. Great solo tackle in space; ballcarrier never had a chance. Short gain on the play. Good tackle, but not that good. Not that good because it was the opposite of #10 above - Hairston waited for the receiver to come to him. Once he did, Hairston made a nice tackle, but it was like 12 yards down the field. Bad tackle, but not that bad. Very similar to #4 above, to the point where I had to rewind to make sure it wasn't a repeat. This one was a little better than #4 because Hairston did get hands on the ballcarrier and impede his progress, which helped his teammates finish the tackle. Good tackle. Came off his initial man in coverage, picked up the checkdown, and made another nice solo tackle in space. Good tackle. Receiver was trying hard to get some RAC and Hairston wasn't having it. Rode the receiver laterally, eventually brought him down with some help from teammates. So that's 8/15 as good tackles and 7/15 as bad tackles. Definitely some room for improvement, but not cause for concern IMO.

Shedeur Sanders, obviously. I think he can bulk up and play 1-technique. Heading into the 2nd round, I'm looking for about what I wanted in the first: Players who will make a positive impact. If that's just 1 guy in a tradeup, I'm okay with it as long as he actually pans out. If it's 2 guys, and both of them pan out, even better. I'm hoping there'll be value at 1tech DT, but if there isn't, I won't kill the Bills for not reaching. I'd only be upset if they drafted an RB and an ILB or something like that. Anyone they draft tonight needs to be someone we can reasonably expect to see the field this year, and hopefully start at some point of their rookie deal. I don't think that's too much to ask. My ideal Night 2 would give us a 2nd-tier 1tech, and whoever is the biggest faller at Edge or WR. I also think it's pretty likely that the Bills move up at least once, maybe twice, tonight. Gunner had 57 "2nd round worthy" prospects on his board, including borderline 2nd/3rd grades. If the Bills board is similar, that puts both of our picks right on the edge of where the 2nd round grades will run out. (And of course, if the last couple 2nd round graded guys are at positions where we're set this year, that's not super appealing.) Especially if we get in the range where a trade up is only going to cost us one of our 5th rounders or something like that.

Leon?

In that case, I think he's the steal of the draft!

Yeah, even though I'm usually on the side of "trade down, especially if you can get next year's #1", I find myself liking this trade for the Jaguars. Let's face it: they've been pretty irrelevant for a while now. Hunter gives them a legitimate star who is incredibly cool, and he's happy to be there! At a minimum, he's going to sell a lot of jerseys, get the Jaguars mentioned in national media, and inspire a medium number of kids to become Jags fans. (Only a medium number because kids tend to like winners first, then cool players on 8-9 teams second.) I totally get the arguments that you should never pay up that kind of price for a non-QB, but no rule is going to be right 100% of the time in something as complex as the draft. Hunter looks like a special player, and by definition there aren't a lot of those floating around.

Thank you. In general, I'm really sick of these partial-testing "RAS" numbers being thrown around. The agility drills are there to measure a major part of a prospect's athletic profile. If a guy skips them, we don't really know his RAS, because the agility numbers are a significant component of RAS. Good grief! Now, speaking of Hairston specifically, I don't care what his real RAS would be, because he's very clearly a premier athlete when you see his combine workout or game highlights. Dude is both quick and fast, changes direction well, and looks super fluid. Some guys run track much better than they run football, and their 40 times are usually misleading. Hairston's highlights look like a guy with 4.28 speed.

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.