Cash

Volektricity! I'd forgotten that proud moment in Bills history.

I disagree. The Bills had recently re-done Aaron Schobel's contract even though he had multiple years left. This happened after Schobel skipped OTAs for "personal reasons". We were assured it wasn't a holdout, but then by amazing coincidence, the Bills happened to give Schobel a new contract with better terms. So there was a precedent that the team would play ball with an upset player who had multiple years left on his deal. Then consider Peters himself. Yes, he was an undrafted free agent. Does that behold him to the Bills in perpetuity? When he signed that contract, he was the starting RT, and it was reasonable money for a starting RT. But then he was promoted to starting LT, and was excellent in that role. Once that happened, he became severely underpaid compared to his performance at his position. Compounding things, the Bills went out and grossly overpaid Dockery and Walker in free agency, making Peters the 3rd-highest paid o-lineman. You can't have your line set up so that the All-Pro best player plays the most important and highest-paid position, but makes less than two other guys. Peters probably could've handled it better, and the Bills may have been more amenable if he had been more willing to "play ball", but the team was crazy if they thought he was going to be happy with the salary structure they put in place on the offensive line. All of this is from memory off the top of my head, so my apologies for any facts I butchered.

Not sure if Jameis counts, but he's better than I thought he'd be. I don't have strong takes on all incoming QBs, though. And my list of "guys I thought would be good but busted" is pretty long. Recent negative takes: Josh Allen Jameis Winston Blake Bortles Johnny Manziel Ryan Tannehill Brandon Weeden Jake Locker Blaine Gabbert Christian Ponder Tim Tebow

I said Browns, but I don't have a lot of confidence in the pick. This is still the same coaching staff that won 1 game in the past 2 seasons, so it's hard to have a ton of faith in them, even with upgraded personnel. I'm definitely prepared for the Bills to take a step back this year, but McDermott's version of JauronBall seems unlikely to bottom out lower than maybe 6 wins or so. I could see the Browns going 8-8 no problem, but wouldn't be stunned if they went 4-12 either.

Thanks for posting! I agree with the general thrust that 1.) Talent on offense is overall worse, but hopefully 2.) Coaching can make up some of the difference. I'll remain skeptical that it can make up all of the difference until I see it, but hope springs eternal. One thing I disagree with in the OP - the Patriots have had success with multiple WRs over the years, but it hasn't exactly been "plug and play" as you said. They've had several notable WRs not be able to produce in their system, supposedly because of the extreme demands it puts on WRs. Chad Ochocinco was probably the most famous example. But also consider that in the cheating era, they've drafted Aaron Dobson, Chad Jackson, Bethel Johnson, and Deion Branch in the 2nd round, and only 1 of them amounted to anything. Plus Brandon Tate and Taylor Price in the third round. I think it just seems like they've been plug and play because they've consistently invested a lot (at least volume-wise) in the WR position, and we only remember the hits like Branch or Edelman, not the misses like Josh Boyce or Jeremy Gallon. Also keep in mind that the only "bargain" hits were Troy Brown and Julian Edelman. Branch was a 2nd rounder. Welker was acquired for a 2nd rounder plus a 7th rounder. Amendola was signed for a medium-high market FA contract. Randy Moss is kind of a special case - they only had to give up a low pick in trade, but that was only an option because his attitude was so bad in Oakland, and his contract was pretty hefty for the time. Moss' career start in Minnesota put him on pace to be the best WR of all time before crashing hard in Oakland. If we can find a guy like that, I'm all for it, but I don't think it's a very repeatable situation.

It's very hard to predict with Allen, because even if he turns as good as the Bills think he will, it wouldn't shock anyone if he looks like garbage in preseason. Which would probably give AJ a much longer leash than if Allen looks good in preseason. I took it to mean Barnwell thinks Allen will look pretty good, and there'll be a push to play him over AJ while there's still time to "salvage the season".

I get what you're saying, but honestly, all that really matters is if Allen winds up being good. I think most NFL fans/pundits outside of WNY in the 80s and 90s would've put Marino ahead of Kelly, but no one ever criticized the Bills for taking Kelly over Marino, because Kelly was really good. If Allen winds up a clear franchise QB, then the pick/trade-up was a success, even if Watson or Rosen or Mahomes winds up even better. I'm trying to move past the Rosen thing, because it's over now, and he's not a Bill. Being right won't make me any happier, so why drive myself crazy about it?

I'm on board.

Even if I'm spot on, I don't expect the Bills' remaining picks to have a lot in common with my list, because the needs at the top are the kind you need high picks or big FA $$ to fill... OT Pass rush (including DL) OG WR CB LB RB OC Depth everywhere

I agree. I still don't like the Allen pick, but I have no problem with the Bills continuing to take the long view. Build for sustainable success. I've been saying all offseason that next year would likely be a step back - hopefully to then take 2 steps forward.

I hear ya. But which of those do you think will be better with the Bills, at least in the short term? We can't pass block, our receivers can't separate - not even our one good receiver.

One thing some fans, analysts, and even coaches seem to struggle with is that there's a long way between "100% predictive" and "completely meaningless". Yeah, if completion % in college was a sure predictor of NFL success, Colt McCoy would be a star. But that doesn't mean that bad stats can be completely dismissed. Successful NFL QBs tend to have better college stats than bust QBs. For me, it's not just the poor completion %, it's that in combination with the very lackluster yardage totals and just okay TD:INT ratio. Even his stats from 2016 aren't impressive for a top 10 pick. Factor in the level of competition, and it's a big concern. These are legit red flags that can't just be hand-waved away with "stats are for losers". That all doesn't guarantee that Allen will suck. He could be one of the rare cases whose stats get better in the pros. There are arguments out there for why, and I hope they're right.

From what I've read, he moved around a fair amount in college, and has the potential to play any LB position, including 3-4 pass rusher (maybe). My expectation is that Option A will be to have him in the Luke Kuechly role. If that doesn't work out, there's still other positions/roles where he could be very effective. Edit: It was barely touched on in the first-round press conference with McDermott, and he didn't commit to Edmunds at any specific position. We'll probably have to wait for training camp and see where he winds up playing.

I have the utmost respect for you as a poster here, but I don't think your confusion is warranted. It's pretty simple: most of us took it as a given that the Bills would be drafting a QB, likely via trading up. Before the draft, Allen seemed by far the most likely of the top QBs to be a bust. Rosen, by all accounts, is the best pure passer. So when the Bills opted for the most likely to bust over the best passer, that was a concern. And I don't think it helps how the Bills' FO is selling the pick: First they talk about Allen's size, arm, and athleticism, but nothing about his ability to actually complete passes. Then two guys who've spent a fraction of their lives in WNY talk about how "Buffalo" he is. They may not have intended it this way, but that read to me as basically, "Look, he's a dumb hick just like all of you - you'll love him!" I'm sick of both of those sales pitches. If Aaron Rodgers can be happy in Green Bay, there's no reason to think the Bills have to draft a farm boy. To your other point, I would be even more upset if the Bills hadn't drafted a QB at all, but that was borderline unfathomable to me heading into the draft. They're better off swinging and missing on a QB than not trying at all.

Until it is clear that he sucks. That could be a few games or a few seasons. Or never, if he doesn't suck. Somehow I don't think he'll wind up being mediocre.

I deeply hate the Allen pick, but hey, I've been wrong before. I dunno though. I feel like he's another Jake Locker. I heard a lot of the same arguments about Locker back then that I heard about Allen this year. I didn't buy it with Locker either. But again, hopefully I'm wrong. I'm fairly excited about Edmunds. Only reservation I have is that maybe we'd have been better off staying at 2 and taking Evans (or maybe Van Der Esch, if Dallas takes Edmunds), and still having #65. Especially since we could've traded #65 for Martavis Bryant. Not too worried about it though - Edmunds looks like a potential stud. And I have a lot more confidence in our coaching staff's ability to scout and develop a MLB than a QB, so I'll totally give them the benefit of the doubt on this front.

1. Sam Darnold - Browns 2. Josh Rosen - Jets 3. Josh Allen - Bills 4. Baker Mayfield - Broncos 5. Lamar Jackson - Cardinals Bonus: Bills Pick - Allen

Other than Jackson, that's a lot of odds to be laying. The ones I don't like are Ridley and Mayfield. Other posters have payed out the case against Ridley already. Here's my take on Mayfield: I think he will probably go 5 or 6. But he's short and has several off-field/personality red flags. It wouldn't be a surprise to me if he wound up going somewhere more around 10. There's usually at least one hyped prospect who falls, and I think the 2 most likely candidates are Mayfield and Josh Allen.

Josh Allen. But if they do draft him, I'll hope I'm wrong.

Weird that you included this, since it's probably the best historical case against giving up a lot of picks for 1 guy. That trade laid the foundation for the Cowboys' 3 championships, and led the Vikings to mediocrity. To answer your question, I would give up a lot. But do I know what I'm giving up? I'd much rather include 1983's #12 overall (Tony Hunter) than #39 overall (Darryl Talley). But I'd only give up so much. Without 1984's 1st rounder, we probably don't land Cornelius Bennett. If we include 1985's 1st or 4th rounder, we lose Bruce or Andre. How good would those teams have been if it was Kelly and a bunch of stiffs? The other problem with this question is that I'd give up a lot for Kelly, because I already know how he turned out. What if you know there's a 50% chance Kelly turns into Ken O'Brien the moment you draft him? Still willing to give up as much?

Not voting because it depends on the price. I'm in favor of trading up, but not if the overpay is similar to what the Jets did.

Yeah, credit to him for showing his work in a way that Football Outsiders often doesn't, but I think he reaches some dubious conclusions. First off, a 0.27 correlation is barely anything. A century ago when I was in school, we were taught that 0.3 was the minimum correlation that could be considered significant. Second, despite correctly noting that marginal explosiveness has essentially no correlation to QB success, he still throws into into his analysis anyway.

That would be pretty shocking to me, but I wouldn't complain!

I voted McCarron, although if the question was geared around starting in week 10 rather than week 1, I'd have voted for rookie QB. I kind of want to see McCarron get his shot, partially because I don't think he's very good (fine with him as a backup though!) and maybe I'm wrong. Plus, as a fan, if your starter isn't playing well and there's a 1st-round rookie behind him, that's not so bad. But if the starter isn't playing well and there's a journeyman backup behind him, that's much less sunny.