Cash

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.

I wouldn't be shocked if we stayed put, and drafted QB & LB with our first-round picks. If the Bills have decided they like Mason Rudolph, it wouldn't surprise me if they went LB first. I know this is a new front office, but that would be a very Bills move. The only time the Bills have ever drafted a QB with their first pick was EJ Manuel - and that was after trading down from their original pick. So the Bills have never actually drafted a QB with the earliest pick they held in a given draft.

Frequently, when people say "running QBs", they mean that to mean ONLY a QB who can run, but can't throw - a la Tim Tebow or Vince Young. That's begging the question, because obviously a QB who can't throw is about as valuable as a WR who can't catch or a RB who can't run. But if a WR is a good run blocker, that's an asset. And if an RB is a good receiver, that's an asset. And if a QB is a good runner, that's an asset. Setting aside the question of whether Jackson will be a good NFL thrower (I have no idea, but I'll willing to take the chance), here's some Super Bowl-winning QBs: 2013 - Russell Wilson - 539 rushing yards that year, 1 TD 2010 - Aaron Rodgers - 356 rushing yards, 6 TDs Unless you count 1997 Elway (I don't), you then have to go all the way back to... 1994 - Steve Young - 293 rushing yards, 7 TDs If we expand the list from "win a Super Bowl" to "make a Super Bowl", we also include: 2015 - Cam Newton - 636 rushing yards, 10 TDs 2014 - Russell Wilson - 849 rushing yards, 6 TDs (and should've won if he hadn't passed on the last play!) 2012 - Colin Kaepernick - 415 rushing yards, 5 TDs in 13 games (7 starts) McNabb's rushing numbers were surprisingly low in 2004, so then we have to go back to... 1999 - Steve McNair - 337 rushing yards, 8 TDs in 11 games Either way, there aren't many, but there also aren't none. I think it just comes down to this: Good QBs are rare. Good QBs who are also good runners are even more rare. But I don't think the Bills should actively avoid a prospect just because he can run. If they think he can't throw, by all means, take him off the board. But it's hard enough to find a good QB without artificially limiting the pool.

That's pretty much my dream scenario. I understand this logic, but I still don't agree with it. I'm hoping that McBeane mean what they say when they talk about building something sustainable. Yes, with a mountain of 2019 cap space, a team can theoretically fill all its holes in free agency, but there's still a limited pool of useful free agents. If you want to fill all your holes (phrasing!), you're going to have to overpay some of those free agents. And while you can structure the contracts to have extra cap hit in 2019, there's only so much you can do. Sooner or later, all of those big free agent deals will get you in cap trouble, and you either can't re-sign players like White/Dawkins/Milano, or you outright have to cut productive players who aren't quite worth their price tag. To me, those rookie contracts will still be extremely valuable in 2019, so I think the team should hold on to them if possible.

I'm with you on this, but I'd also include any Jets-level overpay. If the cost of #2 is both firsts, both seconds, #65, and next year's second, I think that's too much. I'd rather just stay put and take Jackson or Rudolph at #12. I think the most I can talk myself into being worth it is all 5 picks in the first 3 rounds this year, and nothing next year. That's a lot to give up for a team with a shaky O-line, no nickel corner, no MLB or SLB, no #2 WR, and not much pass rush. I'm generally against giving up future picks - I know the GM/coach can't be sure they'll be around to use them, but as a fan, I'm young enough to be pretty sure I'll still be around to enjoy them in 2019. And regardless of who our rookie QB is next year, if Shady tears his ACL in week 1, a 4-12 season wouldn't shock me. Even if we stay healthy, we could easily go something like 6-10 just with worse luck and rookie/McCarron growing pains. Taking a step back so you can take three steps forward is fine; but if that happens, make sure you still have your picks!

Yeah, maybe. But Tolbert wasn't a guy McDermott coached directly, and was signed to a 1 year deal for low money. Clearly was brought in as much for "culture" as for play. I think McDermott even said as such when Tolbert signed. (How he wound up getting featured in quick slants and speed options is beyond me.) Lotulelei was a starter for McDermott's D for several years, and signed a 5 year deal that makes him basically uncuttable for a couple years. He definitely fits into the culture, but he was clearly signed to be a key starter on the defensive front. My hope is that McDermott has a good understanding of what that front needs, and how Lotulelei can provide it.

1 - I think the only realistic scenarios where the Browns draft Barkley are: A) They have similar grades on 3 QBs, so they take Barkley 1 and are guaranteed 1 of their 3 at 4. B) QBs go 1,2,3 - very possible if Indy trades out. I am am not a professional scout, and I don't really have a clue who will be good or not. But scenario A makes a lot of sense. If I was them, I'd either do that or go QB 1 and try to trade down from 4. 2 - Me too, but it's early yet. I'll be disappointed if we don't sign a couple FA linemen when it's all said and done. Glad they're not breaking the bank for guards like some teams, though. I think the plan is for O improvement to come from scheme first, then health (Benjamin), then rookie contributions. 4 - I'm not very worried about this - tutoring players is a coach's job, not another player. Favre famously didn't do anything to help Rodgers. And in any case, being good at something is not indicative of being good at teaching it. I think we'll be in rough shape if McCarron starts a lot of games, but I'm fine with him backing up the rookie. 5 - Yeah, it's crazy. I think Evans is amazing, but I wouldn't want him at that money. I'm not sure you can assemble a Super Bowl team with a WR taking up that much of your cap, unless you have a good QB on a rookie contract, or like 2 straight historic drafts or something. I have no problem with the Bills sitting this frenzy out. 7 - Totally with you on the trade up. The move to 12 made a lot of sense, but going to anything but 1, or 2 if everyone knows who 1 will be, usually doesn't happen pre-draft. Because why spend all that capital unless you're sure your guy will be there? But keep in mind that the Bills might have 2 or more guys with basically the same grade. Hopefully not Allen, though - he scares me as well. The guy I keep thinking back to is Jake Locker. 10 - I'll say no. Hughes isn't overpaid, even after a down year, and he's still by far the most proven pass rusher on the team. Shaq is more likely (a la Ragland last year), but I think he gets another shot. I think McDermott wants to play waves on the D-line, so having lots of bodies is key. And they have almost no bodies on the O-line right now, so I can't see Miller being moved, especially for the peanuts he's worth right now. 11 - Meh, they'll just have to cheat harder next year. I'll get excited when they lose their 8th game in a season. 12 - I'd be okay with LJ or MR, but I like both of them more than most. I also wouldn't be shocked if Mayfield (whom I don't like, but could talk myself into) was there at 12. I'm down with us trading way up this year. But I always like when a team lets the draft come to them - seems like half the time, they get the guy they would've traded up for in the first place. Sometimes that's Daunte Culpepper for the Vikings, but sometimes it's Matt Leinart for the Cardinals. 13 - I think anyone who trades for Foles is getting 2015-2016 Foles, not Super Bowl Foles. Unless he comes with the coaching staff, count me out.