thurst44

Shown very little? We went to the playoffs a year when we were supposedly "tanking," so yeah might be a bit overblown here. If the team's doing poorly in three years for whatever reason, though, yes, they will probably be on the hot seat b/c that's how it usually works.

4: Jets also picked Ken O'Brien And, technically 5 as the Baltimore Colts were then in the AFC East and the record has them drafting John Elway even if he did never play for the Colts.

Are you Steve Holt?

I seem to remember a high point on New Year's Eve last year...

Ok, this is easily the most absurd Fanspeak draft, but when Rosen dropped and there were also players from the Chubb/Barkley/Nelson camp available, figured I'd see about trading the 22 without the 12 to get to 7, and had to give up next year's first, but didn''t give up much else. However, all those top players of course went off the board between 8 and 11, so I started trading down, and once I had a lot of capital, could trade at will when I wanted someone, and afford to pick up droppers with issues like combine disaster Brown and injured Street, or load up on receivers. Kelly has a high ceiling and Breeland Speaks finally came on at the end of his college career with six sacks in his last six games. Josh Rosen and Bo Scarbrough could bond over shared dislike of a certain fellow, while having already taken a (probably) record 15 picks, can bring over Star's bro for the hell of it. If I could do over, I'd take White or Logan Whiteside later just because.

Seymour started 2 whole games for the Panthers, had 22 tackles, and was rated "poor" and the 110th best cb in the league by PFF Is it your money? Money at that amount is pretty much interchangeable against the cap and Clay might not even make the Top 51, and if he did it would be a difference of MAXIMUM 200k. He's a fast player who can return kicks and play special teams, and there's a good chance he doesn't make the team. Can't see any reason to particularly complain about this move.

Josh Rosen, easily (and there's a longshot logic, sometimes a groupthink will infect gms and players drop). I don't buy the question marks on his intensity. As many experts have said, if he were not committed, he would not have played football at a major program. For a more likely scenario, I'll go Roquan Smith. They seem to be looking to get a LB of the future as well as a QB and he just feels right (ok, not the most compelling argument). If somehow Quentin Nelson dropped, would grab him in a heartbeat, and that has nothing to do with RI's retirement.

Every team has weak spots, and you are waaaaay exaggerating ours. I think the poster you are responding to meant OL as "offensive lineman" as in one. As much as he's trashed here, Ducasse actually did well last year (PFF rated him at the higher half of "average" and 24th overall, and while it's just one rating, that kind of fits my eye test and I also trashed him going in). Miller could easily come back. Bodine has started every game in the last four seasons (admittedly, up and down). That's not counting the possibility of signing someone like Joeckel. Ok, Mills pretty much sucks, but he's been our starting RT for the past few years while we have been .500. The line's probably not going to be great, but it could still very well be solid. There's a good chance someone like DJ Chark or Michael Gallup, with a lot of upside, falls to pick 65 (which we still have in this scenario). James Washington seems to also be falling and he's possibly the best in the draft. What are you even talking about with street FA's playing two LB positions? Matt Milano and Lorenzo Alexander are the starters at two of the spots. Middle linebacker is the one hole there and it's admittedly a big one, but as of now it would be Tanner Vallejo over a UDFA, and that's most likely the other high (or highish) pick in draft even if we trade away some picks. Cornerback depth is meh for now, but our nickelback from last year is still out there anyway. Rafael Bush is a very good backup DB. This is not a team of superstars and will have holes. It will also likely have good coaching. And, again in this scenario, we have a potential star QB and a lot of cap space in 2019. Even then, I don't see this team by the end of free agency being particularly worse than last year's that went 9-7, and while the playoffs were lucky, that record (despite what some on here intimate) was very much earned. More importantly, they will probably be on the upswing.

Y'know, I was very much not a fan of the Ducasse signing (it's rare i rail against a player, but i railed against him), but he played perfectly fine last year. I know PFF is not the be all and end all, but... https://www.profootballfocus.com/nfl/players/vladimir-ducasse/5586 There was a lot of clamor here for Groy to start but now that he might be the starter, he clearly sucks. Miller played well in his second season and is young, so the jury's out. Bodine played well in 2016 like Miller, but is probably below average as you said, but I kinda liked the signing. Mills ... I got nothing. I wouldn't say shambles; it's more of a question mark, and considering there's still a lot of time in the off-season and still some FAs out there and some to come, it can be fixed. Admittedly, though, it would have been nice to not have Wood and Cogs retire right before we potentially start a rookie, but it might not be a disaster.

Yes, I know this is the time for breaking each others' heads open and feasting on the goo inside, but methinks you might be exaggerating a bit here. First off, a lot of these "two steps forward, three steps back" moves happened last year, before we made it to the playoffs. I'm not sure how you're spinning the fact that we're paying McCarron very little as a bad thing--that was actually a savvy move to get a solid backup with starter potential after everyone else got one. And, if you've been around here regularly, you might have heard from the occasional thread about it that there's more than one major QB prospect out there and the Jets move does not completely shut them out (nor ensure the Jets pick a guy who will be there any longer than our guy--see 1983 draft). We hardly have zero LBs. Milano played quite well in his rookie season, Humber's not great, but he played decently last year, Lorax was near back to 2016 form at the end of the season. We could use more depth and a better middle linebacker, but we don't have "No LB's." As for WR, it's bad, but Zay could still come on, Holmes had his moments. O-line: again not "No O-line"...Dawkins looked like he might be on his way to being a top-level left tackle. O-Line is a question mark. Our CB depth is not discernibly worse than last year and there's ample time to get Leonard Johnson/Shareece Wright level players (including Leonard Johnson himself). I don't really get this supposed need for "TE & RB depth" Ivory is better than Tolbert. Travaris Cadet looked good when he played. Nick O'Leary and Logan Thomas had flashes of greatness and are both very early in their career. As you said, last year's team finish(sic) better than expected, and the likely reason for that was coaching. (1) there's every reason to believe that they could surprise again and (2) we haven't even had the draft yet, free agency is not completely done, and there's June 1st cuts. Let's all bring it down a notch. Incognito retiring suddenly sucks, but it's not the end of the world.

Not really. Despite the dead cap, last I checked, we could easily absorb those cap hits. We just decided not to, and I'm fine with that (even though I liked Gaines and Brown--well, the latter, most of the time).

This is where I'm at. And I see a 10-6 that could peak near the end and win a game or two in the playoffs. Theoretically, they could pull back. If they do, I'll move that 10-6 to 2019 and answer the question of the original poster ... and raise it to 11-5. We have more talent than people here think and coaching showed they're good at getting the most out of it.

They won that game in Atlanta by playing better than the undefeated defending NFC Champions on their home field. How is that luck? They impressively came out of a nosedive to win against (admittedly the only other team that might have been playing worse football at the time) a team that would go to the playoffs. That's the marking of a good team, not luck. Indy also got very lucky because the snow equalized what would probably have favored the Bills in normal weather. They also were lucky that Tyrod, the one QB who might have thrived in that weather, was hurt. Also, while the flag was late, it was a legit flag.

This. We should be excited that our team overperformed in a coach's first year, even moreso that they did it by going 4-2 at the end of the season after flirting with falling apart.

Except the Bills beat Atlanta in Atlanta, KC in KC when both teams were coming off similar slides, they even overcame a snowstorm that equalized a home game that should not have been close. They came back after pulling out of a nosedive to beat every team not named the Patriots, and that takes some focus.Yes, there was luck to get into the playoffs at 9-7, and yes, they played better than their stats would suggest, but to say they got "lucky" to get to 9-7 is unfair. Maybe it was coaching, perhaps it's that their downright disastrous three-game slide made them (and their point differential) look much worse than they were. Also, it may be that Tyrod played better than we give him credit for. Yes, he was inconsistent, but he was also very dynamic at the top of his game, was one of the best in the league at evading sacks, and not throwing interceptions helps win games more than many of us think. He also completely disappeared in many games, so I'm fine with rolling the dice on trying to get one of the best of a strong stock of rookie QBs, but Tyrod was probably a bit better than many here think.

Agreed, if the top 4 are off the board before the Bills are able to do anything (for whatever reason), that will mean that some good position players drop, and I'd prefer they stay put, grab the best LB or DT (yes, yes, I get it, they are not QBs and we need a QB, but in this scenario, we've accepted that we didn't get one), and gauge whether Lamar Jackson will drop (or even do their best to move up from 22 to 13 or 14, which might not cost much), then grab a WR and RB in the 2nd, or if a CB is dropping (if there's anyplace I truly trust the process with McBeane, it's defensive backs).

In fairness, they also weren't particularly positive about Carson Wentz a couple years ago (a fact they allude to and recognize that one of their main markers--years played in college--might be becoming less relevant). However, there are just so many red flags about Allen. Kyle Crabbs made a good point when he was on WGR the other day that there is a break between what analysts think of Allen and what commentators say about him. The latter has an interest in building Allen up, to gin up as much excitement in the draft as possible. if we took him at 12 and still had a plethora of picks in this deep draft, I could get excited about the potential of his arm, and root for A.J. to be a Keenum--style surprise in the interim. However, giving up most of our picks to get a guy who might one day be great, but probably won't be for awhile, and has the highest bust potential, does not seem wise. It's hard to see (and analysts back this up) that Lamar Jackson is any more of a risk (and probably even less so) and can be had along with possible future starters at linebacker, defensive tackle, running back, wide receiver, etc.

I was responding to your own scenario which had the Giants taking Barkley, so in that exact scenario, Darnold would indeed be available at 3 since Allen and Barkley were the only 2 off the board.

Why is everyone so sure the Jets like Rosen? Mayfield and especially Darnold seem just as likely here.

Very simple, they don't take the QB we want (i.e. if the Giants really want Barkley--which is the case if you believe the local NYC press--and the Jets take Allen--if he's who we don't want--and we don't have to expend as much draft to get Rosen or Mayfield). It may not be likely, but you have to admit the original premise is POSSIBLE. Again, it's possible that the Jets are posturing for Barkley, as preposterous as that may be. It's the Jets. As someone who has lived in the Jets market for a good 30-something of my 44 years on this planet, it's hard not to believe that the Jets might not do something head scratching. It's very unlikely, but there's a reason that if you type "jets draft" into YouTube, it autofills "blunders"

Fair enough. And that's a great picture on the site :). So then we've established he's inaccurate in windy conditions. So, since you suggested I "try again", I looked further into this... Allen's accuracy when playing on the road: 58% http://www.espn.com/college-football/player/splits/_/id/3918298/josh-allen Laramie's wind conditions vs. Norman's wind conditions: https://weatherspark.com/y/3574/Average-Weather-in-Laramie-Wyoming-United-States-Year-Round https://weatherspark.com/y/8229/Average-Weather-in-Norman-Oklahoma-United-States-Year-Round Laramie's windier, but not by that much...Louisville and Los Angeles are much less (I'd say obviously, but I did not realize how windy Wyoming was, so research was definitely vital). Buffalo actually lands between Norman and Los Angeles, wind-wise. I will admit that I feel a bit dumb on the whole wind in Wyoming. However, looking into it has made me more resistant to the idea of Josh Allen. If he dropped and we took him while also able to draft a bunch of other players, then I'm all for his potential, but trading up to 2 as Ryan suggests and giving up on a bunch of draft picks, particularly considering last year we might have hit on a starting cornerback 1 and a starting left tackle (and the book is still out, borderline miraculously, on Zay Jones) on the picks in the 22-65 range, is questionable. I'd like the four chances to draft potential starters to help him if we take a guy who most experts label an ultimate boom-or-bust guy as Allen. For the record, Tyrod Taylor had a 62% completion pct in Buffalo last year. http://www.espn.com/nfl/player/splits/_/id/14163/tyrod-taylor

They have three of them on the roster, including one they payed quite a bit to lure from the Dolphins. They might not use them well, but they definitely care about them. Also, Clay was 13th among tight ends, which may be below his contract level, but basic math says is above average for the league.

How about instead of comparing him to a guy who is our team's mortal enemy and a guy who would have likely moved the Bills out of Buffalo the minute he craved attention in the form of headlines, we compare him to one of our own guys who used a chip on his shoulder to good effect. Thurman Thomas said that teams that passed on him on draft day would pay, and as we all know that meant every team -- and he made good on that promise.

So let's get a guy whose accuracy has been terrible in normal conditions. I'm thinking maaaaaybe, we should not listen to Rexy.

They don't really have Jackson significantly higher than Rosen, and they have Rosen marginally more likely to be better than adequate. Their argument, and there's some logic to it, is that Jackson didn't have nearly the supporting cast of Rosen. That manifested itself in his highest drop rate. On that same note, that also accentuates the point that he didn't play the same level of competition, soooo... Personally, I'd marginally prefer a trade up and Rosen to getting Jackson at 12 or 22, but I'd be excited with either on my team (or Mayfield).