Cash

As our pick at #10 was coming up, I was telling my wife that I expected the Bills to take Lattimore and that I wouldn't be very enthused about that. I was psyched when the team icon at #10 flipped to KC - I've been pulling for a trade down all along. Given the Bills roster, I wanted either a potential/likely superstar at any position or a trade down. I'm no draft expert, but I didn't think anyone at 10 fit that no-brainer/blue-chipper mold - to me, there's usually about 5-6 of them in a given draft - so I was hoping for the trade down. I was actually hoping for 2 trades down - one to the teens for a #2 and then maybe another to the 2nd round for a first next year. I'm very happy with what we got, especially if KC falls on their face next year. I basically don't think future firsts should ever be given up for pretty much anyone. In terms of draft value, we definitely won this trade. Of course, if the QB becomes a star, KC will have won the trade big-time. But no one, including KC, can for sure say that he'll be a star. Even if he does, I'm happy that we at least got better value. Think of it as selling a $1 scratch-off for $10. You would do that every time you bought a scratch-off if you could, but some of the times the scratch-off will hit for $100 and you'll feel like an ass. But it doesn't mean you were dumb to sell it for $10 in the first place. One last thing - the "discount future picks by a round" thing drives me crazy. Coaches/GMs do that for 2 reasons: 1.) They can never be 100% certain they'll be around to make future picks, so those inherently have less value to them, and 2.) That's how everyone else does it, and most NFL people haven't had an original thought since kindergarten. But as fans, we have much higher job security - unless the team moves or I die, I can guarantee that I'll still be a fan in 2018. The chances of the team moving by then are remote, and if I die, I won't really care about the Bills one way or another. So there's no reason for a fan (or an owner!) to discount the value of a future pick. When next year rolls around, that first-rounder will fall in the first round, not the second. Draft picks aren't subject to inflation the way money is. I like to think of it this way: would you rather have: A.) First round picks in 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, or B.) Second round picks in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 No one in their right mind would ever trade A for B, and just about anyone would trade B for A.

I think a lot of this actually serves the OP's argument. When you look at each move in and of itself, almost every move is a good one: Draft Winfield - good player Draft Clements - good player Let Winfield walk - (this one was a mistake - matching or beating his Vikings contract wouldn't have broken the bank and he remained really good for Minny) Let Clements walk - the right call; he wasn't worth that contract Draft McKelvin - seemed like a good idea at the time, but while he wasn't a total bust, you'd want better out of that high a pick Re-sign McKelvin - didn't have much outside interest and signed for pretty low money for a starting CB Cut McKelvin - his performance tailed off, starting to lose his athleticism, and maybe didn't buy in to the new scheme Draft Gilmore - good player (debatable how good) Let Gilmore walk - probably not worth that contract (I think he won't be, but time will tell) Draft White - seems like a good player from what I've read But for all of that, we've stayed a middling to bad team for the entire time. Even though most of those individual moves were good decisions, they didn't lead to overall success. And that's what concerns me. I get the logic of "CBs are expensive, so it makes some sense to draft good ones high, get good play on a cheap rookie deal, then let them walk and replace with another high pick." But I think that approach would work much better for an established playoff team with most of its foundational players in place. For a team like ours that's been perpetually rebuilding, I would much prefer we use our high picks to try to get (and keep!) those foundational players. Even the Maybin pick, as bad as it was, at least had potential - if Maybin had been a good player, we likely would've re-signed him to a big bucks deal, and we'd have had a stud pass rusher DE for 10 years or so. Not every high pick will pan out. Some will be total busts like Maybin, some will be absolute studs like Jim Kelly or Bruce Smith, but most will fall into 2 broad categories: Okay-but-disappointing players like McKelvin or Whitner, or pretty-good-but-not-stars like Eric Wood or Gilmore. I think it's important when looking at overall team building to value some positions more than others in the high rounds. Because if you're not going to be willing to pay a "pretty good" CB when his contract is up, but will pay a "pretty good" LT, the LT is worth more in the long run. I do agree that it's not entirely fair to judge this front office on the actions of previous front offices, but I also think there's legit cause for concern here.

Great post!

1. Mike Williams : Philadelphia Eagles 2. Corey Davis : NY Jets 3. Malik Hooker : LA Chargers 4. OJ Howard : Cleveland Browns 5 Mitch Trubisky : Washington Bills Pick (bonus) : Marcus Lattimore

Fair argument, but I respectfully disagree. First, Faulk was significantly better when you consider more than just rushing yards: 19,154 yards from scrimmage for Faulk, 15,610 for James. Faulk had 136 total TDs, James had 91. Faulk's AV (not the be-all end-all, but a decent metric) is 166 to James' 136. Faulk also fumbled 8 fewer times in 28 more games. James does have him on average rushing yards per game, but Faulk's average yards from scrimmage per game is higher. Faulk's career 4.3 yards per carry beats James' 4.0, and Faulk averaged over 5 yards/carry 3 times, whereas James' career high was 4.6. Second, you're not including the opportunity cost of trading Faulk. Yes, they got 2 good players and replaced him pretty well (James was arguably just as good his first 2 years; he just didn't have as much staying power), but they had to use the #4 overall pick to replace Faulk. If they had instead kept Faulk, they presumably would have drafted one of the other consensus top prospects - Torry Holt or Champ Bailey. Would you rather have Mike Peterson and Brad Scioli or one of Torry Holt or Champ Bailey? I'd understand if you still prefer Peterson/Scioli, but I'd rather have the borderline Hall of Famer at WR or CB than 2 role players, one of whom left after his rookie contract. Oh, as an afterthought, the contract stuff doesn't sway me much either, since this was before the days of the rookie cap. Edge James actually made more in each of his first 3 years than Faulk did in that same time span - i.e., the Rams payed less for 3 years of MVP-caliber Faulk than the Colts did for almost-as-good James. It wasn't till Faulk got a new deal in 2002 that he overtook James.

This game still makes me so mad. I believe the head of officiating sent out a memo to all officials that basically blasted that call. The weird thing is - the PI call was actually (technically) the correct call. Jones wasn't playing the ball at all, and just shoved the receiver as the ball was coming. I get why you wouldn't throw a flag in that situation, but it was worse than just the regular bumping and jostling that happens on most Hail Mary attempts. The "first down" "catch" on the previous play was, to me, the worst call I'd ever seen. Looking back at it on grainy VHS, it's closer than I remembered. His feet *might* have been down for a split second when he catches the ball. I still think at least one of them had already come up, but it's hard to tell without freeze-frame or HD video. However, even if it was a catch, the problem remains that it was 4th down, and he was well short of the 1st down marker.

I would not support the Bills, or likely any team, in a lame duck situation such as this.

I voted defense and safety, but I think CB is about equally likely. If there was a DB option, I'd be all over it. I do think WR is next most likely, though.

Unless the Bills think a true star is there at 10 (a Luke Kuechly type), I'd like to see them trade down, and then maybe trade down again. I know the draft trade value chart has problems, but I think teams still mostly go by it. #10 is worth 1300 points. I feel like I'd rather have #35, #45, and #60 (total 1300) than #10. Part of that is because I think we need a lot of starters and key depth players. But part of that is because we've see the Gilmore Cycle happen a few times - we draft someone in the first round, usually fairly high, and they wind up pretty good. Not so great that we definitely need to sign them to a market-setting contract, but definitely a good player. But since they were such a high pick, the only way to re-sign them is to give them a big contract. If we keep them, we have a good player, but maybe at too high a price. If we let them walk, maybe it's the sound Moneyball decision, but we still lost a good player that we now need to replace. This can happen with any player, but it's most likely with first-rounders, especially high ones. That's why I think positional value is very important at the top of the draft, especially for a crappy team like ours. If you're a SB contender, you have the luxury of trying to grab that last missing piece without worrying about down-the-road implications. But if we draft someone at #10 and only have them for 5 years (a la Gilmore), it's a bad pick. If you draft a safety at #10, he'd better have a chance at being Earl Thomas-level. If you just draft a safety because you need a safety, you wind up with Donte Whitner. Who was a decent player, but basically had to be overpaid because he was drafted so high. Likewise with a WR - I don't want them to take one at #10 because you don't draft a #2 WR that high. And there's no way to do all 3 of: 1.) Keep Sammy long-term 2.) Keep #10 draft pick long-term (if he pans out) 3.) Afford to have depth at other positions

What level was Groy tendered at? I'm guessing the low level, which would give no compensation if he leaves.

Dear God, please no.

Yeah, I guess I was a little groggy this morning; it does appear that all 3 of those are qualifying free agents. Well then I'm not too psyched. I guess on the bright side, all 3 are pretty low-value contracts, and it's still possible that enough of our 23 UFAs are signed to low-value deals to cancel out these 3 and any other signings we make, but we'll see. I know the contract signed has to be above some threshold to count for the formula, but I suspect that most of our UFAs will wind up with minimum-type deals or out of the league. There's a report that Goodwin signed with the 49ers for 2 years, $8 million, so that should count at least. But if any of these 3 wind up cancelling out Gilmore, Woods, or Zach Brown (or Alexander if he's not re-signed), then that's just moronic on the Bills' part. I think I would rather have 3 comp picks and UDFAs at FB, G, and K than the 3 we signed and no comp picks. But I would much, much rather have 3 comp picks and 3 non-qualifying free agents at the ever-so-crucial positions of: 1.) Guy who rarely touches the ball and is on the field for 30% of offensive snaps at most 2.) Backup guard 3.) Kicker DiMarco is definitely the most defensible of the 3 - there aren't really FBs in college any more, so if your offense works better with a lot of FB packages, there is real value in going out and getting a good one. But I'm still skeptical, just like I was when we signed Felton 2 years ago. I tend to prefer the guys more in the vein of Felton 2.0 - useful vets who got cut because they were overpaid, who we then scoop up on the cheap. In that particular case, we were the ones both overpaying in the first place and scooping up afterwards.

Good luck to Woods with the Rams! He always gave his best here. Never one of my favorite players, and I was cool with letting walk due to economics, but he's definitely a net asset to a team.

If my job was done in front of 60,000+ people who paid to see me do it, plus potentially millions more watching me on tv, I would probably celebrate a lot more when I did something well. Likewise, if I plunk down $100+ for a ticket, I don't really want the players to seem disinterested. Some fans prefer the players to be super-intense "warriors", and that's fine, but I prefer to see guys enjoying themselves while playing a game - assuming they're doing well. And god forbid a guy celebrates with his teammate - what will we tell the children?! The only thing I was ever okay with penalizing was the use of props. It was cool when TO had the sharpie in his sock, but then lame copycats like Joe Horn were inspired to come around with dumb cell phone acts. Not a fan. But I do think they should be allowed to use the ball as a prop again.

Scroll up! 4 years, $12.4 million per Schefter. Source: 26CornerBlitz's post above.

So far, we've signed Tolbert, Ducasse, Hauschka, and white FB du jour, right? Of them, I think only FB was a qualifying free agent under the comp pick rules. That's somewhat encouraging. In a year when we might lose 4 medium to big ticket free agents (Gilmore, Woods, Z.Brown, Alexander), I don't want 3rd or 4th round comp picks wiped out by signing FBs or kickers. Or anyone, really.

Main thing I like about this signing is that Hauschka was released by Seattle and thus won't count in the compensatory pick formula. He's fine, but all kickers have up and down years, and IMO it's generally not worth paying free agent money for them. Edit: just saw the $$$ - yikes! Don't like paying that for any kicker.

Always liked Easley; sorry to see him go. Best of luck at his next stop!

I disagree with OP's logic. The operative question isn't "Will he?", it's "Can he?". And while I voted no for "Will he?", I would vote yes for "Can he?". And as such, I voted yes for keep him. And I think OP knows he's full of it, because his post talks about the implications of a QB who *could* win the Super Bowl, not one who specifically will do so. Or does he really think that all 22 QBs he listed will definitely win Super Bowls in their careers? If so, I'll happily take that bet. I don't think Tyrod will ever be good enough to be the Aaron Rodgers type who can win the Super Bowl practically by himself (and note yesterday - even Rodgers can't win all by himself), but switch places with him and Russell Wilson, and I don't think you see much fall-off in Seattle, and I don't think you see much upgrade in Buffalo. I voted no for "Will he?" because let's face it, very few QBs will ever win a Super Bowl in their career. Odds are against it. But on the right team, Tyrod absolutely could win the Super Bowl. I don't think he could ever be league MVP, though.

Bortles and the Jags' offense weren't so hot last year. I don't know how likely another OC spot would've been. If I'm Hackett, I'll take any OC job over any position coach job. Don't know if you'll get another chance.

I don't think Hackett is necessarily that bad of an OC, but I'm wary of the Hackett/Marrone combo. After Marrone left, I read some quotes (maybe from Fred Jackson?) suggesting that there was a lot of good stuff in the playbook, but implying that Marrone wouldn't let Hackett unleash it. I.e., Hackett had to follow risk-averse orders from above or whatever. I do remember that in preseason 2014, we came out with a really interesting uptempo offense, with read-option, "packaged" plays (could be run or pass depending on what how the D looks pre-snap), and generally looking innovative. But that basically all went away by about week 3. I even wondered if Manuel was being instructed to always hand off on the read-option, because DEs were completely ignoring him, but he almost never kept it. Of course, the other possibility is that EJ did a terrible job of reading the DEs. Also, I thought the Bills' passing game under Hackett was way too reliant on four verticals. Every time I saw an all-22 breakdown, it seemed like every pass play was four verticals.

Best available QB, so we can have a 4-way battle in training camp. Or maybe a 3rd #2 WR.

Agreed. After the Miami game, I thought that he had to go for sure, but I still bear him no ill will. Best wishes to him in his next endeavor - hopefully color commentary on TV.

I've always liked Van Pelt, so I'm cool with this unofficial announcement that he's our new OC. Don't hold his last stint against him - he was totally unqualified for the job at the time, and thrust into it just days before the season started. Still waiting for Vic to own up that his "playoff ultimatum for both Rex and Whaley" report was wrong. Instead, he's doubled down and conveniently forgotten the Whaley part. I maintain that there never was an ultimatum, and that Rex was still very much in play to come back until his atrocious performance in the Miami game.

Couldn't agree more. I wanted no part of Coughlin and so far, it looks like I'm right. The guy still wants to coach, not be an executive. Remember how poorly it went when we hired Marv as GM when he really still wanted to coach? And Marv >>>>>>>>>> Coughlin in my opinion. Agreed; no ill will but no problem in seeing him go. If memory serves, at every stop he's been, he's had like 1 good/great year, and the rest mediocre to terrible.