Cash

I do think that there's cases of outright incompetence - Matt Millen comes to mind - but once your scouts/GM hit a certain level of quality, I wonder if it basically just tops out? The analytics on this are far from perfect, but the ones I've seen suggest that maybe no one really has a long-term scouting advantage, and "great drafters" are a combination of luck and having a lot of high picks. I wonder if there's just X% uncertainty in player scouting, and the best you can get is 100-X% sure of anyone? Is it actually possible to know before the draft whether Sammy Watkins or Odell Beckham will be better, or can you just guess right? Anecdotal evidence: Donahoe and Modrak had amazing drafts in Pittsburgh for while, then the quality fell off once Modrak left. Must be that Modrak was the great talent evaluator. But Donahoe's first draft with the Bills was by far his best, and they sharply fell off once Modrak joined him in Buffalo the following year. Did Modrak lose his ability to scout, or was it that Donahoe/Modrak got lucky with a few drafts and unlucky with a few others?

Any idea why the Bills dropped from 3.7 to 3.5 in the "current stadium" list? Could be that Barnwell messed up, I think. Or maybe he's counting some of the renovations as a "new stadium"? Anyway, pretty interesting read - thanks for posting!

Same here. Plus, $8mil/year for a C in his 30s seems like a lot - does anyone think he would've gotten that much as a FA? I think there's 2 main possibilities for what the Bills are doing: 1.) They're acting haphazardly with no real plan 2.) They're trying to sell tickets/keep the team "competitive" in the short term, even though they are mostly building for the long term. Still doesn't explain why you'd give market value contracts to guys like Hauschka and Wood, but does explain why you'd trade Watkins and Darby. They presumably think that Watkins isn't worth the money he'll get in the market, so they're getting something for him rather than letting him walk for nothing. Darby doesn't seem like a fit for the scheme, so not part of the long-term team building vision. Best to get something of value for him while you can. I'm leaning more towards #1 so far, but my mind isn't made up. I also don't understand why you bring back Tyrod only to put him in an offense that downplays all of his strengths and emphasizes all of his weaknesses. There are much cheaper ways to get terrible QB play.

I agree with all of this, to an extent. (Given that McDermott and Beane worked together in Carolina, and there were tons of reports that Beane would be the guy to replace Whaley, I think they're probably more in sync than most of the GM/HC combos we've had.) I firmly believe that the Bills won't cut enough qualifying free agents to earn any comp picks next year. But if they do, then yes - clearly Beane's hire had an impact on the FO's overall thinking.

That is true. But I've read about a dozen articles following Beane's hiring about how in lockstep Beane/McDermott/the whole FO is, and how the Bills as an organization finally have a common vision that everyone is working towards. So if the argument is, "nothing that happened pre-Beane can be held against the current FO", I'm not buying it.

Fair point - it's possible that the FO has decided to take a different tack. But if so, it's still concerning that they went through the entire FA period with a "win now with lots of budget veterans" mindset before pivoting. Even at the time, it made no sense. You probably couldn't trade our entire free agent class for a 3rd and 4th round pick, and certainly couldn't get either of those for combined haul of Ducasse, Davis, Holmes, and Hauschka. Thus far, only Hauschka looks like a decent signing, but I don't see how that helps us. If the FO is throwing in the towel on this season, do we really want a reliable kicker? Isn't it better for the "process" to lose that 13-10 game instead of win it? I'm not really sure what McDermott's "process" is, but I won't be on board with it until it leads to wins.

Philly Brown Andre Holmes Zay Jones Jordan Matthews Brandon Tate Walt Powell Yikes.

I'll take that bet. If they really were forward-thinking enough to care about comp picks, why would they sign Hauschka? He's 32 now. Are we planning on him being our kicker in 3 years when the team is actually rebuilt?

I voted for one of the yes options, but I don't have a ton of confidence. I guess it depends on how you define "the future". If it means will they both still be here through the 2019 season, I say yes with confidence. 2021? Maybe, but I can't be so sure any more. I'm not convinced that they will right the ship, although I do think they should get a fair (4 years maybe?) chance to try. A lot of fans and media are praising them currently, saying the Bills finally have a clear plan. We're not accustomed as fans to seeing a plan from the Bills' front office, so that would be great if it's true. And maybe it is, but I'm still not convinced. If you're building for the future and looking to accumulate picks, I don't see why you bring back TT on essentially a 1-year deal. I don't see why you sign a bunch of middling free agents to nullify potential 3rd and 4th round comp picks. And I especially don't see why one of those free agents is a 32-year-old kicker. If we're focused on the future and rebuilding, who cares if we lose a couple games due to missed FGs? Do we think the kicker needs a year or two to "gel" with the team before he can be good? Now, if those free agents turn out to be great signings, then great! That's worth forgoing the comp picks for. But from all the camp reports I've read, Ducasse is as bad as most of us thought, and Andre Holmes has been one of the worst WRs in camp. And I don't care if Hauschka makes every kick this year - I'd rather have a 3rd round pick in 2018 and a random kicker. And DiMarco is a fullback - probably the least impactful position in the modern NFL.

Who on the Bills' current roster do you see as likely being a quality starter for the Bills in 2019 or 2020? There's certainly more that could be, but here's the ones I think are likely (current age in parentheses): DT Marcell Dareus (27) FB Patrick DiMarco (28) OT Cordy Glenn (27) S Micah Hyde (26) DE Shaq Lawson (23) CB Tre'Davious White (22) Honorable mention: Zay Jones, whom I see as about a 50/50 prospect. I'm not sure where I'm going with this. Just got to thinking about it after we traded away 2 players that would've been on the list 6 months ago. (Once we declined Sammy's option, it became much less likely he'd still be on the team in 2019.) I guess if I have a takeaway, it's that maybe they should use all those high picks next year to add more foundational players, rather than spend them trading up for a QB.

Precisely. What reason have they given me to trust them? So no, I don't trust them. I also don't actively distrust them - yet.

Why would you sign a 32-year-old kicker to a big $$ deal if you're tanking?!?!?! And why would you redo Taylor's contract instead of just cutting him before the extension kicked in? I don't know if this team is bad at tanking, or so bad at trying to win that it just looks like they're tanking. Having said that, I do think they got good value in the Darby trade. Mathews doesn't suck, and neither does a 3rd round pick.

Yeah, college OT is the worst. Current NFL OT is just about perfect. I have no concern about shortening the OT one way or another. If they do it, it would be interesting to see if there are more ties. And what's so bad about a tie anyway? It's worse than a win, but better than a loss. In a 16-game season, one extra win (or loss) is often the difference between playoffs or not, or home field or not, or a bye or not. It's pretty harsh to have all that come down to who's better at 2-pt conversions. Besides, if you get rid of ties, we can't criticize coaches for playing too conservative in OT any more. That's about the only change I'd be cool with. I still prefer the current system, but that would be okay. You'd have to write it so that a kick return counts as an offensive possession.

Ha! I laughed. As for Barnidge at TE, I'm all for it, because I've heard of him. Anyone know if he can block and/or play on the line? He's 6'5", 247 lbs., which could go either way. If he can play on the line, then it's great, because he'd serve as both depth in case Clay gets hurt (likely), and a potentially dangerous matchup in 2-TE sets. If he's only more of an H-back type, then he'd lose the depth appeal, but probably still worth it. It seems like we're on our 3rd or 4th straight O-coordinator who says he loves TEs and multi-TE sets, yet our TEs have been some of the worst in the league for years. Clay is fine, and Chandler was basically fine before him, but who's the last decent backup TE we had? McKellar? Potential negatives for signing Barnidge: He's already 31 - maybe he's losing athleticism or his body is starting to break down. He did nothing his first 6 years in the league, then came out of nowhere to put up monster numbers in 2015. Last year his numbers were okay, but a huge nosedive from 2015 - maybe he's turning back into a pumpkin? Barnidge has interest from multiple teams, so he won't be signing a super-cheap deal. I'm sure he won't break the bank, but it's still possible given the above doubts that he'll make more than he's worth. All in all, I think it's absolutely worth going for him.

Hmm, that makes some sense. The only reasonable explanation I've seen for why Overdorf is still around. You still can't have garbage at CB. The Panthers' D played a lot better with Josh Norman than without. We had a very bare cupboard at CB coming into the draft, since you play 3 more than half the time and 4 a fair amount of time as well. I'm glad they didn't take Lattimore at 10 - I'd rather have a guy who projects to be solid, plus a 2017 3rd and 2018 1st, than a guy who *could* be elite but probably will just be solid.

I stopped reading after the first word. Good to know you agree with everything teef says. I stopped reading after the first letter. B is a pretty good grade, but if you really applied yourself, you might be able to get an A!

Serious question: who is making these transactions? We didn't just fire Whaley, we fired the entire pro personnel department. So I guess it's either McDermott or Overdorf or Brandon?

That's some very interesting outside-the-box thinking. I don't really see it playing out that way, but it's not crazy. In this (unlikely) scenario, we would actually be better off, because Sammy's deal would set the market for OBJ, Evans, and Benjamin, rather than Sammy('s agent) insisting he make more than all of the above because he was drafted higher. Wow, a legitimately good post from Rodak - good for him! The trade possibility is somewhat interesting. I'm rarely in favor of tanking, but if we start out really bad next year - like 0-4 or 2-5 or something - I'd be fine with benching Tyrod for Jones and/or Peterman and potentially trading Sammy. (And potentially anyone else with value in the last year of his deal, although that's a short list - maybe Wood, maybe Kyle Williams, maybe Preston Brown) We'd wind up with probably a top 5 pick in hopefully a good QB year. If it becomes clear that the team or Sammy or both don't want him back in 2018, whether to trade him or let him walk really depends on 2 factors: 1.) What can you get for him? 2.) Do you plan to be aggressive in free agency? Rodak correctly points out that we'd be in line for a 3rd or 4th round comp pick for letting him walk, but didn't mention that we only get that pick if we have a net loss of qualifying free agents. For example, we would've gotten a 4th next year for losing Gilmore this year, but we won't, because we signed more free agents than we lost. So if you're going to be active players in FA, you might as well trade him for whatever you can get. But if you're going to sit tight and try to develop your draft picks faster via more playing time, then you wouldn't trade him unless you can get a 3rd or better.

I'll give you this: if they have real info from the medical team that the foot is not healing properly, he might never be the same, etc., then that changes my reasoning, and the Bills should absolutely decline the option. If it's just a matter of "it's going slow", then I still think it's dumb to decline the option. Every player in the NFL is an injury risk. Sammy is more so than many, yes. But it's very hard in May of 2017 to say that any player, even the most injury-prone, will be unavailable for the whole 2018 season. Even Fred Taylor had 2 straight years of playing all 16 games. One other point: if the Bills do truly think that there's a serious problem with his foot and that it could impact not just this year but the year after, they should really have invested a lot more in the WR position this offseason. Andre Holmes, rookie Zay Jones, and Philly Brown could be the worst "this is what we expected our top 3 WRs to be" in recent NFL history. I guess Carolina's from the year before they got Benjamin might've been worse. When did Russ Brandon leave the team?

Great post! I agree on most of it. I'm not a staunch Whaley defender, and I've made peace with his termination, but I do think he got a bit of a raw deal. I really think we had a legit talented team the last 4 years that was mostly derailed due to coaching - and Whaley (unlike most GMs) wasn't allowed to hire either coach. Brandon hired Marrone, allegedly over Whaley's objections, and the Pegulas hired Rex, allegedly over Whaley's objections. Now, Whaley deserves blame for the EJ pick, and probably wouldn't have signed TT in the first place if Rex hadn't been hired, so no credit to him there. And the Sammy trade was a terrible move (IMO) at the time and looks equally bad in hindsight. How much of that is on Whaley though, and how much on Brandon? Maybe it's Whaley's fault that he wasn't willing or able to tune out the marketing guy, or stump hard enough for his coaching pick and convince the owner to side with him. Maybe he's a really good scout who needs to work on his "influencing people" skills. I don't know. But I do know that Kryk's article makes some great points at the end re: Overdorf and Brandon. A lot of people in this thread and elsewhere have justified Whaley's firing with a "bottom line" argument - we were 30-34 with him as GM, didn't make the playoffs, so he has to go. Fair enough, but under that logic, Overdorf and Brandon should've been fired before Whaley was even brought on as assistant GM, much less full-on GM. Brandon is technically not involved in football operations anymore, but it seems clear to me that he has the ear of Pegula, and can influence a lot more decisions than I'd like. (The number I'd like: zero.) So in that respect, maybe this Sean McDespot move is a good one: he'll hire a GM who's subservient to him, and insist on every move being one that he likes, regardless of what Brandon via Pegula says. Overdorf just has to go, though. I don't care if the cap problems aren't his fault. I don't care if he's not involved with the poor RFA tendering. I don't care if he's actually great at his job and everything is someone else's fault. He is replaceable. And he's been one of the few constants throughout many front office changes. We need a fresh start here.

It looks like the Bills won't be picking up Watkins' option. I think that's a mistake. The only way we come out of this looking "good" is if Sammy gets hurt or wildly disappoints next year, in which case we look even dumber for trading up for him in the first place. If he has a good year then is franchised or walks, it'll be the latest in a long line of laughingstock moments for the Bills. And for the record, I hated the trade up, and wasn't a big fan of Watkins coming out of college. Mike Evans was my guy. I was way off on Beckham and Benjamin, though, so it's not like I'm some elite WR scout.

I would've preferred a "none of the above" option, but since that wasn't available, I went with Watson. I had no problems with the Bills passing on him, though. I do like Peterman a bit and thought it was a great pick in the 5th, but usually guys fall in the draft for a reason, and the odds are steeply against any 5th-rounder becoming a franchise guy. I voted yes for the second question because I think it's pretty likely that at least one of these guys wins as a caretaker/game manager type - the most recent example being Osweiler and Old Manning for the Broncos.

Not many - most of them were the right call at the time, and especially in hindsight. But that's kind of the point - if we've made all these good decisions, why has it been 17 years since we've made the playoffs? Why aren't these good decisions leading to greater team success? I think part of the reason is unrelated stuff - coaching/GM turnover, for example. But I also think that part of it is poor team-building strategy. It's possible to make a good pick (Gilmore), then make a good decision to let him walk (also Gilmore), and wind up having done very little to help your team in the big picture. I wonder if you're almost better off swinging for the fences with a boom-or-bust player, like Maybin or almost any QB. If they bust, does it really matter if you go 8-8 or 6-10? Again, that's for a rebuilding team like ours - if you're already a contender and looking to get over the hump, I think it makes a lot more sense to go for high-floor guys that you know will be cheap, solid starters while you contend. I'm kind of getting off track. I think my main point is that it's theoretically okay to draft any position high (except K or P), but in general, teams should prioritize certain positions high - QB, OL, DL, pass-rushing OLB, etc. To a lesser extent, stud WR, "defensive QB" middle linebacker, and maybe center-field safety with the way the league is going. If you're going to take a TE, RB, CB, or "other" linebacker, he'd better have a chance to be a great - not just good - player. I loved the trade down. To me, anyone we drafted at 10 would likely be another Gilmore type - good player, not a superstar, doesn't really move the needle, not worth big bucks in 5 years. If I was a GM, I would try to trade down in the first round every time unless I thought that a foundational/superstar type player was available. Maybe the Bills thought that was the case with Gilmore and were just wrong; no one's ever going to be right all the time. But I feel better about how they handled the #10 pick in 2016 than in 2011. (Having said that, I kind of hate the 2 trade-ups in the 2nd round, although I do like both of those players. Hopefully they both pan out!)

I agree. I agree with all of this. I agree with all of this as well. I only sort of agree with this. Gilmore was a good, not great pick - solid starter who seemed like he could be elite but never really was. And I definitely think letting him walk for the money involved was the right move. But if we step back and look at it as a whole, we spent the #10 pick in the draft and got 5 years of good-not-great CB play, and now have nothing to show for it - not even a comp pick. Is that good team building? For a team with a franchise QB tying up lots of cap $, maybe. For a team in the 6-10 to 9-7 range, I personally don't think so. I separate the trade down from the White pick. I love the trade down and I'm fine with the White pick but don't love it. I would've hated drafting Lattimore at #10 - that would truly be a "spinning our wheels" scenario. On the other hand, if White becomes good-not-great and walks after 5 years, we at least got a 2017 3rd and a 2018 1st out of that #10 overall pick. Have they? The only high-pick DBs that the Bills have signed to second contracts since the Winfield days were McKelvin and Aaron Williams. And only Williams really fits the bill of a guy who panned out and then got a upper-market contract - if McKelvin had gotten a Gilmore/Clements/Winfield type offer, the Bills would've let him walk. Now, the Bills have shown they'll pay players - Cordy Glenn, Marcell Dareus, Aaron Williams, and Eric Wood are recent high picks who've been re-signed. Jerry Hughes could maybe count as well, since he was re-signed after his 1st-round rookie contract expired. If you want to look at all picks, you can add Stevie Johnson and Kyle Williams to the mix. (As a sidebar, I'm really surprised how short the above list is - I was expecting more names.) Most of those guys play on the lines - these are the kind of foundational players that typically are prioritized in the early rounds. On the other hand, here's my list of high picks who panned out but then weren't re-signed: Robert Woods, Gilmore, CJ Spiller, Jairus Byrd, Andy Levitre, Marshawn Lynch, Paul Posluszny, and the list can go on but that's pretty far back already. Only 1 of those guys plays on either line, 2 are DBs, and 2 are RBs.

I like this logic. QB is so important in the modern NFL that's it's hard to win without a good one, and hard not to win with a great one. But there are very few great ones, and not that many good ones either. I do think that the Bills have historically not invested enough in the QB position, but there's a balance to be struck. Cleveland hasn't done too well by drafting Johnny Manziel, Brandon Weeden, and Brady Quinn in the first round the last 10 years. This year struck me as a lot like 2011, except without Cam Newton. Teams talked themselves into Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert, and Christian Ponder in the top 12 picks. Time will tell on this QB class.