thurst44

I'm the optimist (as usual) who went with 7. The offensive talent is certainly meh right now (although our RBs pull us out of the gutter, and Dawkins is strong, Benjamin and the TEs have talent and if Logan Thomas ever comes together), but I truly believe we are rolling very deep on defense. The 26th ranking was very misleading as they were dominant in more games than they were bad, but in that three-game stretch, everything was near-historically bad, and that tanked our defensive ratings.

I ageree, but that attitude is just absurd (but then so is grading drafts instantly). Frankly, I don't love the Allen pick, and if that was the only choice, or even the only first round choice, they made, I'd get giving them a C or lower; however, they also picked up the top linebacker in the draft, with a top ten grade from pretty much everyone, at 16, and a guy sometimes mocked in the 1st round at the end of the 3rd round. Ok, I get that it is "all about the QB," but by that logic, why grade anyone, because they should have taken a QB.

Edmunds might be a game-changer for a decade, and the idea they got him while also swinging for the fences on their franchise QB, Allen, but I'm respecting it as a gutsy move made while mitigating the damage (no first rounders or future picks given up) and am ready for him to hopefully prove me and others wrong. Taron Johnson felt like a bit of a reach during a run on defensive backs. However, he does seem to have some high upside makes him an interesting option for nickel. Edmunds. Phillips will be in rotation. Teller has a good shot at guard. If Teller beats out the competition (whatever you think of our current players) at one of the guard slots, that's a good sign for us. Going into 2017, he was one of the best guard prospects out there. If he figures out what went wrong, he could be a huge late fifth-round steal. Or he could be Cyril Richardson. If anyone, probably Ray-Ray and/or Austin. Ideally, no. Very! However Allen works out, they may have got the best MLB in years, a potential pro-bowl DT, an intriguing guard prospect, Siran Neal has some promise at safety or even LB, and they brought in a few very interesting UDFA in de Beer, Wallace (Alabama football walk on?!?!), Foster, and Boettger.

As 1959 said, it doesn't really matter whether we trust them or not. We can only watch and hope (and sometimes b and moan). I didn't like bringing in Ducasse, but he played decently last year and, sure we can debate this, but he made less than 500k over the vet minimum so saying they paid him too much seems a bit trifling.

First off, when we "burned off" 5 picks, when we got likely the best linebacker in the draft, not just "a linebacker." Second, no, they did not set the franchise "back 5 years" (and to me that's one of the few saving graces). They have eight picks left and nine next year (and maybe some comp picks), so they still have the regular 3 picks in the first 3 rounds. If Allen is a bust (as both of us suspect), he might simply never play and we'll try again. If Rosen and/or Jackson play well, yes, they blew it, and they missed the chance to not have to worry about QB for a decade or more, but that whole "set back 5 years" is just not true.

Ha, this is my problem with the pick though. I'm terrible at picking out what QB is going to be good (liked Akili as well), but my intuition's been almost perfect with QBs I was sure would be terrible (Leaf, Losman, Hackenberg, many others). Josh Allen seems made of red flags. Here's hoping Allen breaks that streak. Hopeful things (besides arm): he's affable, seemed to be maturing at a faster rate than most rising QBs, someone noted he was the leader of the QBs at the combine. Kelly's stats in college were even more unimpressive, fwiw, and he improved. Still hard to get past: experts observations he's bad at reading defenses, wilted against good competition So, we'll see, I guess. I do believe we have far fewer holes on defense than people think, and Tremaine Edmunds is likely the steal of the draft (quite possible we have the PFF ROTY on defense for a second year in a row), so do feel we at least improved ourselves in one pick, and there's a small chance a lot of us are wrong and we got our QB of the future (as much as i would have preferred four other qbs to this guy).

I tend to see political motives in a lot, and I truly am not a fan of this pick, but the motivation for this looks a lot more basic than that. This is the chase for the (usually) imaginary potential. Rosen looked great in college, but b/c he feels ready, he feels complete and taking him grants the selector no glory (you made the obvious choice). However, the project is sexier, and plays to the vanity of the coach/GM as if they hit, it makes them look prescient for seeing the potential in him, and coaching geniuses for being able to get the most out of him.

I mostly agree. My only rankle here is one of Allen's adherents' arguments for overlooking his ridiculous amount of red flags is his leadership qualities. How he was on social media at 15 or 16 barely means anything wrt how he acts as a leader now, but it does put a small dent into one of his defenses.

FWIW, Krabb last night on WGR justified his Pats-get-Rosen trade (ugh) by saying some teams have 30 players with first down grades, thus 49ers might be fine with 23/31, so it's always hard to know, but my sense would be a lower number of (probably)-can't-misses with a deep pool of round 2-round 3 types

For a late round pick, maybe. Living in NYC area, listening to WFAN, I've never heard anything positive about him--absolute disaster area!

I think both of those are possible, as is Rosen for silly/no reason(s) or genuine injury concern.

Shaq Lawson was actually picked at #19 and was a very highly rated prospect on draft day. Bears fans (the draft was in Chicago) were chanting for him to be the pick at #11 (recall noting this BEFORE he was our pick). 19 was the lowest position I saw him in any mock. Furthermore, he's been far from the disaster many on this board have painted him as. He's been hurt, but when he's played, many weeks he got good grades from PFF for setting the edge against the run. At worst, it was a mid-first round pick that as of yet has not particularly set us back. Look at the picks after -- other than Myles Jack (who had larger injury concerns) and Deion Jones, it's hard to say what they actually missed that was obvious. Many mocks had us taking Ragland with that 19 pick.

I'm in the get-your-QB camp this year, BUT, we will NOT know if any team save the Patriots have a franchise QB until (probably) a couple years from now :).

Ha, same here. Most years I'm railing against the idea of taking a QB too high, but this year just feels different. I'm starting to (mostly internally) rail against those who don't want to take a QB.

Only a fan of Wentz and Watson in past two years (and not so much that i'm mad about trading down given we got an instant top 10 cb and we undervalue those here given we have to STOP qbs in a passing league) ... Goff helped me win my fantasy league (so i'll admit i may have been wrong) but love 3/4 this year, so also hope it's not that (1) (although i'm in the minority who would be happy with Lamar too).

I'm pretty sure Brandt is actually fond of the Bills if not a fan. Ditto, Schrager, but with him, it's empathy because if memory serves, he's a lifelong Browns fan.

Did they say who they thought the Bills would draft in this scenario?

In fairness, in 2004, we wouldn't have had to move up any higher than 10 to get franchise QB (and imo, that 4th out of 3 is looking likely to be drafted as early as 1st right now).

I agree. This is a believable draft, but I'd take Vander Esch or Evans there. Or if we are going lineman, how about the versatile Wynn. Price is very likely to drop into the late 2nd round. That being said, while I'm not on board with second pick, I'm impressed with this draft all around. It's not gonna happen, but if Guice dropped to mid-2nd round, I'd be ecstatic to take him.

Interesting observation. Seahawks did well early in that one, Jags and Rams only came on this season (although I certainly would not bet against the two of them in the SB next year, but Rams could flame out quickly as they are flirting with salary cap calamity). Browns, well, we'll see, as of now they are 1-15 and 0-16 in the last few years. We'll also see with us, but I do ultimately suspect 2018 could be a step back for a 2019 run. I'm just not counting us out yet. Ok, then Tyrod had 2196 college rushing yards vs. A.J.'s -50, but I don't think anyone's arguing AJ will be better at running than Tyrod. And, similarly, I'm not saying he won't beat Tyrod by keeping more drives alive with more accurate passing. There's nothing to prove or disprove that. He's a wild card with some intrigue. If we can get the o-line to where the QB is not getting killed every time, then I hope we get a QB like Rosen and take a shot at going with him, maybe start 1-4, but see if they come on at (what appears to be) the easier tail end of the season.

Not all best players are old: Tre White, Micah Hyde, Jordan Poyer. I'm excited for Milano and Dawkins (and even Zay Jones) next year. Kelvin Benjamin is great if healthy. Browns, really?!?! Let's not get carried away...but yes, they will probably be much better. It would be hard not to. Ah, no, I mean the four teams who made the playoffs with a worse point differentials. The 7-9 2010 Seattle Seahawks, the 8-8 2011 Denver Broncos, the 8-8 2004 St. Louis Rams (ha, almost wrote L.A.), and the 9-7 1989 Pittsburgh Steelers. And I agree with you about the QBs: we don't know, and that is one reason I can see the potential for disaster. Tyrod had his flaws, but his ability to not turnover the football kept the Bills in a lot of games. AJ has actually shown a similar knack in college and limited pro experience. However, he definitely does not have the ability to keep a drive alive with his legs and that's pretty objective. Looked up his college rushing yards...an almost unfathomable -50 career yards. He's a wild card, but look at Case Keenum.

I am also wary about fairness, but it is about a very specific, almost unique (although Chiefs had a similar seasonal arc) way these losses happened. It's not just a matter of removing the 3 worst games, but a 3 game stretch where the team played markedly different from the rest of the year. I'm a huge fan of 538, going back to Nate's days as Poblano, and would genuinely be curious to hear their opinions as to whether the specific way the season happened has an effect. I'm also curious to hear if making the playoffs has an impact, since the four teams worse than the Bills in differential who made the playoffs went from an aggregate 32-32 to 35-29 the following season.

Again, not to try to find the silver lining in everything, but there is a non-biased reason to believe the Bills are an outlier in this theory, and this is a case where the stats might not be telling the whole story. I'd like to see the stats for before and after our nosedive. Yes, the worst games happened, but we watched the season and know how the season played out. That was a historically bad three-game stretch which kind of spiraled out of control and were outscored by 80 pts. It does seem important to gauging the quality of a team, how these losses and stats happened. It really seems more telling how they were able to get it back together after it epically fell apart, and I'd be curious to see how 538 would address that.

Furthermore, it might go even deeper, as the 2017 Bills might be a total outlier, as most of their point differential and stats weakness stems from a very singular three-game stretch. Yes, those three games happened, but it seems significant that the team played well before and after, and that the true story of what it implies for next year was a bit more complex than the stats tell.

Haha, fair enough. We'll see where we are in September.