thurst44

Apparently, because I did. And I even forwarded it to fellow Bills fans who I consider friends and to whom I wish no specific harm. I might be a sociopath. Unrealistic: - At one point, Lorenzo Alexander and Sean McDermott literally disappear on the sideline - Tre' White walks THROUGH a defender at one point - Nick O'Leary catches a pass and the announcers fail to mention his grandfather is Jack Nicklaus Realistic: - The announcers mention players on other teams more often than either the Bills or Browns - The announcers' patter is inane - Hyde and White are everywhere - The spirit of a Bills-Browns football match. This is practically unwatchable (and yet i just spent an hour of my life during daytime on a weekday) with so many ridiculous and frustrating moments for each team. The high point may be when the Bills have the ball 4th & 1 near the goal line, get called for a false start, go for it and catch a break when the Browns are called for encroachment, then proceed to commit another false start.

If Carlos Hyde and Devonta Freeman are on the list, Shady will certainly make it. Plus, they usually make a point of saying if a player is the only representative of a team on the list.

I have faith that he doesn't (or at least I sure hope not)

FWIW, I'm pretty sure this is the same guy who predicted them 2-14 awhile back in his "bold predictions" column. It's possible, but I'd say it's not much more possible than 14-2. It's an extreme. They've only been 2-14 twice since I've been following them, and never in the drought, and this team does not seem like a particular dropoff from last year (the defense could be MUCH better...and was very good in more than half the games, including the playoff game). If Allen starts and has an even bigger learning curve than we expect or McCarron turns out to be awful, and the defense plays more like it did in the three-game disaster or in either Patriots game, perhaps they could go 2-14, but it doesn't seem very likely. And it was that weird thing that seems to happen where national pundits seem to try to top each other with how bad they say the Bills will be.

Fwiw, when another diva ex-Dallas wide receiver signed with the Bills, our QB situation was Ryan Fitzpatrick (who the prior season avg'd 146.5 ypg) and a post-meltdown Trent Edwards. I'm not saying this should happen or is likely to happen, and this is clearly the wispiest of rumors, but we never truly know what's going on in players' heads. One could argue that if Dez does reasonably well in a spot where the QB situation is felt to be subpar, his stock will still go up. Look at the WR signings this off-season; you did not need to put up amazing stats to get top dollar. Heck, 16m/yr went to a guy most people here believe has a world of talent, but has one 1000 yard season and had barely 1000 yards in the last two years combined. If Dez goes to Buffalo, he'll look humbled, and if he behaves and he's any semblance of past Dez, suitors will inflate his stats (b/c Buffalo) and see a one-time superstar who's still just 30. However, it would indeed seem a bit of a strange signing for McD & Beane. The only logic I could see is if they feel it could help their playoff run in this rebuilding year without impacting their future by committing them to any more cap space in 2019.

LBs are the weakest part of the defense, but if Edmunds has a quick NFL learning curve, Lorax plays like he did in 2016 and playoff game (admittedly a big "if" at 35), Milano continues to improve, Humber is ok as a 4th, they might not be a liability. I'd still love them to pick up another player and there's a few decent LBs out there.

Not necessarily. He looked very solid in the last few games and great in the playoff game, so I think calling it a "problem" is an exaggeration, but at 35, yes, it should be a concern.

I grew up a Bills fan in NYC (my family is from Buffalo) and was a vocal enough fan that most sports fans in my high school knew it. We drafted Seals my freshman year, and my classmate Kenyatta, a huge NFL fan--Steelers fan if memory serves, talked to me for an entire Spanish class about how we had got the steal of the draft with Leon Seals, so from that point, while he had a decent run with the Bills, he could never live up to the hype in my mind for Dr. Sack.

No, first off, it's not a whiff, because no one can see what happens in year three. Let's let it play out instead of blaming him for a bad year that hasn't happened yet. No matter how you spin it, that third season has NOT happened yet. If he's stopping the run (as is his skill set), and gets six sacks, and we have a top 10 defense, I would consider picking up his option. Or...see if we can sign him to an extension. In any case, that would be 4 years with him, but that's not the point. Finally, I wasn't saying he was a top 20 pick, but that he was evaluated as a top 20 talent. I may have misread your post a bit though (as low ceiling, low floor), so apologize for that. However, people here often imply he was a pick that was with foresight an obvious bad pick, when as you say, he was a safe pick, and based on expectations of where he was to be drafted, it's understandable that we might want to take a guy who was rated much higher than the pick we were at. Right now, I just don't get the rush to be rid of this guy. He was expected by some to be drafted top 10 for a reason, and he's going into season 3. If McD's plan works, an edge rusher that's great at stopping the run and gets 5+ sacks could be ideal (and would not be "just a guy").

Again, no, at least not according to scouts, analysts or draftniks. This wasn't a Rex and Whaley reach, and I don't know why people seem to NEED that narrative. He was a top 20 prospect universally who so far has not busted, but has not panned out. And at times he has even done what was expected (see nfl.com scouting report below) to do well, set the edge against the run. It's year two, and he''s been injured. I'm excited to see what Hughes, Shaq, Murphy, and Yarbrough are able to do in the second year of McDermott's defense, especially if Star works out the way they plan (which is an if) and takes away the QBs outs and staunches the runs up the middle. http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/profiles/shaq-lawson?id=2555252 https://www.si.com/nfl/2016/04/04/nfl-draft-scouting-report-shaq-lawson-clemson

With your name, I'm not sure you're not a joke account, but I've seen this nonsense suggested way too much, with people acting like he was a reach. While he may yet turn out to be a bust (he's been there just two years, injured almost a year of that, hasn't played nearly as poorly as some people claim when healthy, just not great), he was one of the top prospects coming out of college. Chicago fans were chanting his name before the draft (they picked at 11), and below are just the first 6 mock drafts from April 2016 I could find. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000655072/article/2016-sevenround-nfl-mock-draft-round-1 (Shaq at 8) http://walterfootball.com/draft2016.php (Shaq at 11) https://www.si.com/nfl/2016/04/27/nfl-mock-draft-first-round-expert-picks (Shaq at 11, 9, 19, 19) If he stays healthy, the addition of Star (and the rotational addition of Phillips if he's good out of the box, which could also help Kyle) could allow him to reach his potential. Cutting him would be asinine as it would result in a huge cap hit (8m in dead money according to Sportrac). A trade (after 6/1) would save money, but not much, and we'd be selling low. He's never given any indication he's anything but a good locker room guy nor any hint of malcontent, so I'd rather have him in what could be a very good DE rotation if it works out, to complement what could be a very good DT rotation if that works out.

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.