Cash

Excellent post! A good example was Jake Locker last year -- definitely unable to play at the NFL level right away, but scouts who liked him thought that he would develop into a really good QB eventually. So he went in the top 10. The one addendum I'd add is that some mid/late round non-QBs do somewhat fit the mold of "developmental" player. I'm thinking specifically of D. Bell, who was labeled as a potential (eventual) starter as soon as we drafted him in the 7th round. The reasoning being that he had only played football for a couple of years, so was super raw, and not nearly strong enough, but had the frame to add muscle. However, for guys like Bell, who are seen as developmental players at the time, it's always a matter of IF not WHEN -- IF the player gets stronger (Bell), or gets in shape (e.g., Jasper), or learns how to play the game (Bell again), or can handle a position switch (Julian Edelman, maybe? This might be pushing it), then he could be a starter. But to Oldtimer's point, if a guy lasts to the 4th round or so, it means that most or all teams think that it's an unlikely prospect.

There are busts at every position, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a first-round DE, pass-rushing LB, CB, DT, WR, TE, OT, or QB who turned into a good player, but was put on the trade block anyways. If you're going to spend a top 15 or so pick on an interior O-lineman, LB who doesn't get after the QB, or safety, you'd better be sure he's going to develop into not just an okay starter but an elite player. Another aspect, which is specific to the LB position: In today's NFL, your third CB usually plays more snaps than your second LB, unless that LB plays DE on passing downs. I don't think it's wise to spend high first-round picks on defensive players who play about half of the defensive snaps.

I voted "yes" in the poll, because Kalil seems to be a can't-miss LT prospect, and I'd be willing to sacrifice the #41 to get that. Having said that, I think it's a mortal lock that the Vikings take Kalil. So I'd be fine with your scenario, although I think moving down is even less likely than moving up. The Bills have shown at least a little interest in moving up under Nix (they confirmed that they tried to trade up into the late first round in 2009 for someone who wasn't Tebow), and zero in moving down. They've usually put in their selection within a minute or two of being on the clock, which means they're not even waiting to listen to potential offers. Nix has consistently said he doesn't like trading up because he hates losing a pick, and he doesn't like trading down because he can't stand the idea of missing out on the guy he wants. It seems to me that the more immediate concern would be missing out on an actual player you know you can draft right now vs. giving up a hypothetical pick, where there might not be any great values available anyway. Anyway, I'm with you on Glenn. I have a feeling he might be the pick. He certainly fits the physical profile that Nix likes in lineman, as well as the geographical profile Nix likes in all players (major conference, southeast). And the team has had him in for a pre-draft visit. I'm not confident enough to bet on it, but Glenn at #10 would be my guess right now.

For all you "we need to draft a LB in the first round" people, be forewarned: This is what happens when LBs who aren't pass-rushers go high in the draft. There's occasionally a Jerod Mayo or Patrick Willis, but the much more likely scenario is an Aaron Curry, Keith Rivers, AJ Hawk, etc. All decent players, but all eminently replaceable and not necessarily worth what they make. The new rookie salary structure has helped that last problem somewhat, but the biggest change salary-wise was for the top 5 picks.

I like the OP's case (and the Chiefs site's case linked to in this thread) because it's objective and quantifiable. The major flaw with the OP's is that first-round picks, by virtue of their draft position, are given disproportionate chances regardless of their quality of play. Upping the criterion from 3 years starting to something like 5 or 6 might help in that regard, but that's something we need to account for going in. For second-rounders and on, it's pretty good, though. Look at Jimmy Clausen if you think teams are willing to stand by second-rounders and keep giving them chances. Another thing to keep in mind with any QB analysis is that the data pool is very small and will always be skewed. There are only 32 starting NFL QB jobs in the world, and in any given offseason, only 5-10 of them are open. So the 6th round seems disproportionately awesome, but it's usually only because of three guys: Brady, Bulger, and Hasselbeck. Does anyone really think that the 6th round is truly 4 times as likely to produce a good QB as the 5th round? That would be a very interesting analysis. The one counter to that is that most late-round picks do make the team and contribute right away on special teams, whereas QBs really only contribute to wins by playing QB. And even the successful late-round QBs have usually taken several years to develop. (Counter to that counter: it's impossible to tell how much of that delay was from the QB not being ready and how much was from the QB not being given a chance due to his low draft status. I think both factors are in play, but as to what the split is? No idea.) It's not necessarily a bad strategy, especially if you already have a good QB. (If you don't, it's hard to justify buying lottery tickets in late-round QBs instead of just getting a job in the form of a high-round QB. The job might not make you rich, and you might get fired anyway, but there is a much better chance that the job will put food on the table for the next couple of years.) The caveat is that NFL teams have limited resources, especially in the form of practice reps, game time, and time with the coaches. It wouldn't be possible for a team to draft 5 QBs and get any kind of reasonable evaluation on them. Drafting one a year, maybe two if you've got more openings, is somewhat reasonable. You may miss out on Kurt Warner (cut by Green Bay as a rookie), but there's a good chance that Matt Flynn will show enough in camp that he'll beat out Brian Brohm for the backup job and make the team. And the following year, you can probably bring in one more low-round rookie to compete with Flynn, and hopefully get a good read on both of them. I both agree and disagree. I agree that there's no such thing as a safe pick at QB -- it's really hard to become a good NFL starter, and even the safest prospects still carry a decent bit of risk. A lot of fans seem to want to wait for the "sure thing" to come along, but they don't realize that there's no such thing. A team MUST take a chance to get a good QB. But getting a good QB is so important, teams are willing to take those kinds of chances. First-round QBs will always bust at a much higher rate than first-round guards or safeties, because teams are willing to take much bigger chances for the potential payoff of an elite QB. An elite OG or S isn't that big of a jackpot, so teams aren't willing to roll the dice as much. Having said that, I disagree with the notion that there's only a slight difference between rounds. Analyses like the OP's tend to show, over and over, regardless of their methodology, that NFL talent evaluators are pretty good at their jobs. First-round QBs pan out about a third of the time. Second-rounders pan out about a quarter of the time. Third-rounders go down to about 10-15%. Yes, the 6th round is an outlier, but that's skewed by three data points. That's not a lot to draw a conclusion from. Remember, you can think of every late-round QB that's ever panned out, but you've never heard of the vast majority of them whose careers played out more like Levi Brown -- cut in camp in either 1st or 2nd year, maybe given another shot with original or new team, never sees any regular season action, out of the league in 3-4 years. On the other hand, you can probably recite every single first-round bust from the last 20 years, because they're all famous. Fully agree with this, but it's hard to make anything of it, because it's so subject to bias and interpretation. A lot of people (not me) thought that Gabbert and Newton were the blue-chippers last year, and everyone else was the 2nd tier. Not the way it played out, obviously, but if you think a guy is a blue-chipper next year, it's possible that you're actually a fan of the next Gabbert or Jimmy Clausen. Sometimes it plays out like in 2004, but sometimes foresight blue-chippers like Brady Quinn, Matt Leinart, or Aaron Rodgers wind up slipping to the second tier. And it does seem like those guys usually bust, but then there's Rodgers. It's a tough nut to crack.

Agreed, but it's not just that we didn't have a "burner," it's that Stevie was our only outside WR ever capable of winning a jump ball. When the D stacks the line, the WRs on the outside get single coverage. It's rare that the WR will be so fast and so good at getting off the line that he'll be able to get several steps on the CB (not many Mike Wallaces or Torry Smiths out there), but if your WR can make the catch against single coverage maybe 60% of the time, the D will get burned stacking the line. Donald Jones makes the catch about 5% of the time. Brad Smith maybe 10% of the time. David Nelson is never in that position because he's a slot guy. So count me in the "WR is still a need" camp, along with Buddy Nix. And like Nix said after the season, you don't necessarily need a speed guy (although it doesn't hurt) so much as a guy who can win those jump balls.

Also anything that was ruled a non-score or non-turnover on the field, but the coach thinks it should have been called a score or turnover. Which is the main thing I don't like about either rule. But there is such a thing as too much standing around waiting for football to resume. Overtime = more football = good. More reviews = more commercial breaks and shots of the ref in the hood = bad.

Very disappointing. Not even close to your best work. Why bother showing up to post if you're just going to mail it in? You are better than this, Jimmy.

A bit more than I would've liked, but not a ton is guaranteed. Plus we don't know how it's structured. If the deal is back-loaded (which the Bills usually don't do), it makes the number look a lot bigger, but it's fantasy money, because he'll never get that big payday in the last year of the deal. I don't love this signing but I don't hate it either. It helps that my cube neighbor (who is a Pats fan) just told me he thinks Anderson was better than Carter last year, and he was hoping the Pats would bring him back. Doesn't think he's more than a situational player, though. I don't think Kelsay or Merriman are going anywhere, at least this year. I do think Dwan Edwards and Spencer Johnson should be worried. I don't think anyone gets cut until training camp, though. Why bother now? The Bills don't have to write any checks until the regular season starts, and they're still under the cap. Wait till training camp and make sure that you can live with Lionel Dotson or whoever playing in a rotational role before cutting the highly paid veteran in front of him.

At face value, I like this signing. Anderson probably peaked last year, but is still in his prime, and probably didn't cost a lot. He is risky in the sense that he's only had 2 good years sack-wise out of 6 or 7 in the league, he was only a part-time player last year (47% of NE's defensive snaps), and he's definitely a threat to turn back into a pumpkin. So I'm hoping the Bills didn't give him any of guaranteed money beyond 2012. However, at this point, the Bills' FO has completely turned me around, and I actually have faith that Anderson's contract 1) gives the Bills plenty of ways out in case Anderson is a bust, and 2) isn't for too much money, because overpaying mediocre players is about the worst you can do. (Overpaying elite players like Super Mario is fine.) If Anderson goes back to the 4-6 sack range, that's probably too good to cut or ask to take a pay cut, but not good enough that you want him making a lot of money. I'll wait to see the financials before making a final judgment, but given that Anderson lasted this long without signing, I have to think it's a pretty reasonable deal for the Bills. Plus it takes away a pass-rusher from New England, so that's another bonus. Tentative thumbs up.

Ha! The Bills only had 29, and that's including the 10 in the Washington game. Yikes. Anyway, I'll say under. 15 is a lot, and requires some luck. But I'll say team sacks go up, and more importantly, team QB hurries go way up. Three straight pass plays with pressure, even if no one actually sacks the QB, is better than two plays with no pressure and one sack.

I think he probably does not. Great story, but I haven't seen much from him that says he's an NFL wide receiver. Special-teamer, maybe. I still think there's a good chance the Bills draft WR in round 2 or 3. Wouldn't shock me if they go OT at #10, then try to trade back into the 1st round for Stephen Hill.

Great interview, and great to see the kind of comments from Ralph that we've been asking for for years. "Can't take it with you", etc. This is the most hopeful I've been as a Bills fan in a while!

I think he WILL shave it before training camp opens. I think he SHOULD keep it - very badass with just the right amount of gray to look seasoned but not over the hill.

And boom goes the dynamite.

F' yeah!

:lol: That's partly because there's no salary cap in baseball - the total $ amount that goes to the players is the sum total of whatever their agents negotiate. In football, the union basically gets a fixed % of total revenue, so for every extra dollar Mario gets, there's one less dollar available for someone else. I'm simplifying it a bit, but the gist is right.

I wasn't super into any of the FA WRs before FA started - at least not at the prices I expected them to sign for - and I'm not really into them now. For the record, I would've been somewhat upset/disappointed that Meachem was the Bills' apparent top WR target if I had cared about anything but Super Mario for those few hours. I do like the fact that the Bills skipped out on VJax's huge price tag (ocho cincos!), and targeted someone to make LESS than their #1 receiver. That's smart on a couple of levels. But I'd rather take a flyer on a 2nd-round rookie than have Meachem for what the Chargers paid. I like him even less after Chris Brown posted the snap counts for Saints WRs last year. Meachem was actually tops at 877 total snaps, yet was only 4th among WRs (6th overall) in catches. Yeah, he's a deep threat, his YPC is good, etc., etc. I've just never been impressed by him. And signing the #3 or #4 receiver in a great offense with a great QB to become the #2 receiver in a lesser offense with a lesser QB is a recipe for failure. If they sign Manningham to a relatively low contract, I'd be okay with it, but unenthused. Manningham's a decent player, but nothing special. A good #3 for the Giants, but a weak #2 (which is why he lost his starting job in both 2010 and 2011). Not big, not super fast, nothing really special about him. A good player, though. My Plan B of choice would be to take a rookie pretty high and hope for the best. (Which was actually my Plan A.) I like Alshon Jeffery and Stephen Hill the most, but there are some other high-upside guys who might be there in round 2 or even 3. I'm not a huge Michael Floyd fan, and would prefer to see an OT at #10, but I'm sure I'd talk myself into Floyd if he was the pick.

Where's Alshon Jeffery? Him and Stephen Hill are the rookies I like the most. Both fairly high risk, but with tremendous upside potential. If Jeffery runs poorly at his pro day on March 28th, it wouldn't be a surprise to see him available at the Bills 2nd-round pick. Hill has blown away everyone with his workouts to an extent that I think he probably goes in the first round now. That's a heck of a high pick to use on a guy who caught under 30 passes.

This second overnight stay (assuming he didn't check out of his hotel and flee the city under the cover of darkness) is bizarre. I've never heard of a FA visit lasting this long. On one hand, this does assuage my fears that Williams* was just using the Bills to create leverage with other teams and drive up the bidding, reminiscent of Tyson Clabo last year. There's no way he would stick around for a third day just to get other teams to up their offers. And I tend to doubt the speculation about Williams waiting to see where Manning signs. If that was the main holdup, he probably would've left Buffalo today as originally scheduled. I feel like Williams is truly considering Buffalo. Maybe it's a situation where he's on the fence about living there, or whether the team is close enough to contention, and he needs to think it over to make sure he's making the right decision personally and professionally. Or maybe it's a situation where he's open to playing in Buffalo, but only for a "DEEZ NUTZ" contract, and his agent is slowly negotiating the Bills up to that level. Or maybe he's basically on board with the Bills, but won't tip his hand yet, because his agent is telling him that he can get more money this way. I doubt it's the last one, but who knows? But at the very least, I'm confident that this is not a sham visit and that the Bills are really in play. That's good. On the other hand, it's not a good sign that it's taking this long. We have reliable reports that the Bills have opened up the checkbook in a major way. Usually the top free agents like Williams sign almost right away because someone blew them away with a massive offer. It kind of sounds like the Bills did that, but he still didn't sign. I don't know if I can necessarily fault Williams if he doesn't sign with the Bills, and I don't know if I can necessarily fault the Bills' FO either, but it would still be massively disappointing. I think we're all tired of winning the "we tried our best" sweepstakes. And losing out on Williams now would do nothing to help the perception of Buffalo as a city/franchise nation/league-wide. The Bills are perceived as a joke at best and a non-entity or farm club at worst. The "Ralph is cheap" crowd probably won't have much to say (unless it comes out that negotiations broke down over a relatively small amount). And it's unlikely that anyone could seriously claim that Williams was using the Bills to drive up bids all along. But the narrative will still be that Buffalo is such a horrible place/franchise that even though they offered the richest defensive contract in NFL history, outbidding all other teams, Williams still couldn't be convinced to go there. You'll hear things like "no amount of money is worth throwing your career down the toilet." Terrible. All in all, it's puzzling to me. I'm curious about what's taking so long regardless of how it plays out. Of course, the bottom line is that I'll be elated if he signs and very disappointed if he doesn't. Go Bills! *when I refer to Mario Williams in this post, I'm really talking about the combination of Williams and his agent, and it's probably about 30/70. The player ultimately makes the final decision of whether to sign or not, but the agent is fully in charge of the whole process.

My only complaint about HOT TUB TIME MACHINE was that John Cusack went back to the same year that ONE CRAZY SUMMER took place, but there were no references to it. I would've appreciated a digital splicing of young Cusack and young Demi Moore running through the background or something.

Some dude ("Josh Reynolds" or something like that) was reporting on twitter last night that both Williams and Meachem signed with the Bills. He deleted his twitter account shortly after Meachem signed with San Diego. I imagine he'll create a new fake name and twitter account and go back to breaking big stories. If one of his alter-egos gets lucky with 3-4 correct guesses off the bat, maybe he can parlay that into a steady set of followers who will make excuses for him when he's wrong in the future. Not sure how he'd monetize that, but there's probably a way.

Went back to the Jags.

Yeah, just another misinterpretation of La Canfora's tweet/blog post. Nothing to see here.

ESPN didn't provide a lot to back it up, but said or at least implied that SD came in with a much bigger offer than the Bills and one other team. Would look up the link, but I'm posting on my phone. If it's true, then that one was 100% about money, which is fine. Meachem is not worth breaking the bank for. As for Mario, no comment.