Buddo

Yes, I know, and it still doesn't alter how I worked out the numbers. The total, including the 3rd round pick, is 1126, for us, assuming a 2nd round value for the 2018 pick. Differences between given picks, are irrelevant, when using total values.

Looking at the trade without getting into how guys might turn out, over the years, it's been generally held that from the old draft value chart, you drop down a round, when valuing future picks, and you do so by a round per year in the future. Now, both the chart, and the way future picks are valued, may have changed, but by what was previously conventional wisdom, the Bills lost out on the trade, in respect of values. KC gets 1300 points, the Bills get 1126, assuming that KC drafts exactly where they did this year. Using that process, KC would have to be picking between 9 and 11 next year for it to be an 'even' trade. Even with a difficult schedule, I can't see the Chiefs dropping that far back. Hence the belief that the Bills got hosed in the trade. In all honesty, I think you do have to assume that teams nowadays, actually value future picks differently. A 'best guess' would be that they assign a value equal to the lowest pick in that round, or maybe the highest pick of the round one below. Do that, and the trade starts to even out, or the Bills get the better of it. Bottom line is, it's all about how teams these days, value a future pick, when it comes to draft trades. My initial reaction to the trade, was 'they only got that much?'. I still feel we should have got an extra pick, like a 5th this year, that we could package to go up if desired. However, we did need to get an extra pick this year, and having an extra 1st next year, is not to be sneezed at. In general terms, how the trade works out, will be determined by how well the guys do, that we took with the picks we got. I couldn't care less about what happens with KC and Mahomes (except for them having a poor 2017 so we get a better pick in 2018 ). No point having extra picks, if you get a bunch of donuts for them. At the end of the day, we haven't done badly, in that we get a CB who is just as likely to be as effective in a zone scheme, as a more talented guy taken earlier, while getting an extra 3rd this year, and an extra 1st next year.

I don't much like the sound of the way this is going . McDermott needs to prove himself as a HC first and foremost, before getting involved in everything else. The likes of Reid and Belichick, earned the extra power they got, it wasn't just handed over to them. Gotta walk before you can run, son.

The interest to me in the article, wasn't the assessment of the various players coming out, although there was a tidbit or two in there, but rather from the perspective of the approach to the draft. No worrying overly about which slot someone should be taken at, more a concentration on whether or not the kid can play, and if so, how long will it take for him to start. Which will define whereabouts, roughly, you are prepared to take him. Also, due to the approach taken, and the desire to have guys who are belived to fit the systems played, the board becomes very 'whittled down', making decisions a lot easier to take.

I think that's the bottom line tbh. I would've given him the 2nd round tender, to prevent other teams from going fishing with bids. If there was serious interest from elsewhere, then he could always have signed the tender and been traded for a lesser pick than the second, which would still be better than the 5th we will get from the Patsies. While I would've preferred he was retained (not on the terms the Patsies have got him for), at the end of the day, we got him for nothing, got production out of him, and now he's gone, we are getting a 5th round pick for him. In a profit and loss column, it's pretty much all profit.

Really interesting read, thanks for that OP.

Two guys caught out like this, starting to smell fishy to me. Wouldn't be at all surprised if there were more. Sounds like there was some information going around the colleges, about how to mess up a test. I wouldn't touch either of these guys, unless they can actually prove illness, or that they don't do weed, or anything else. Being put straight into the NFL substance program from the get go, is not the way to start a pro career. Next positive test a 4 game suspension. It's bad enough with time getting missed through injuries, which will happen, but to have to serve suspensions as well, means you might only see 3 years out of a 4 year deal, as production. I think it's time to go with the old adage 'the most valuable players are those who are available every Sunday'.

It's got to the stage where getting cheap FAs has got to be part of a teams recruitment strategy. Identifying those guys who are just about to 'break out', will be an important part of filling holes. The biggest problem is in terms of the shorter contracts that are able to be signed by drafted players. While in theory it was supposed to allow players to get to a big payday quicker, in practice, alongside of the limitations on practices etc., it's simply meant that turnover is greater, as guys either get it quickly, or are gone. The current system for players, very much lends itself to the rich get richer, and devil take the hindmost. As things stand, the NFL has a problem, in that development of players, isn't given the opportunity to happen, as much as it should. Imho, they really need to look at creating another tier of teams, based in the USA, that lets some of the guys come through, in the way that the NFLE did, on a limited basis. I think it would be a godsend for QBs, but would also keep a lot of guys around who could become good, starting NFL players, given time to adapt and learn. Pretty much all NFL teams are likely to have someone 'poached' at some point of time, the Bills got looked at due to being tight against the cap, next year, it will probably be another team who loses guys they would like to keep, due to not being able to afford them. Fwiw, losing Gilmore only really hurts due to where he's gone. I don't believe for one moment that he was going to get paid what he wanted, by any team using a base zone secondary. He's simply not worth it, not because he isn't a good player, but because his salary will not fit within what you want to pay for your secondary, when you are using zone coverages, as opposed to man coverages.

One thing I'd say, is that it doesn't look too promising for any QBs coming off the board early, as in the report about the Bills wanting to trade down, the Jest also get mentioned as working the 'phones to drop back also. I think it's a tricky one, tbh, as it appears that the 'talent evaluators' generally, reckon there are around 9 'elite' prospects, and then there's a lot of good, talented guys, who it's really difficult to distinguish between, in the next 40 or so. If one of the 'elite' guys is there, and it's a position of need, you surely forget about trading down, and sprint to the podium. Due to there being so many guys who are hard to differentiate between, you might be able to snag another pick from the second round by trading down there. Obviously if it's a guy who you don't need who drops, then you still have a chance, but I think nobody really knows who is going to do what, at the top yet - especially as the Browns aren't going to say who they are taking, until their pick is on the clock. I wonder what people think about trading down, but getting a bit less than 'accepted' value,as it might come to that, if we really want to drop back for an extra pick or two.

Patsies don't especially draft that well, imho. They work the draft especially well though, and it means that they can afford misses. I can't remember the last time they drafted a WR who actually was really good, for example. They also are prepared to use the extra picks they regularly get, in trading for guys who they know will fit what they want. For sure, that would be part of it, but you also have to remember, that it's a movable feast, in that a year drops off the list, and the most recent is added, every time they do this. Last year, with Lawson and Ragland mostly missing, is bound to hurt, and without looking at the detail, it may well be that 2011, was a decent year, so you get a bit of a double whammy on that. I don't suppose that Watkins missing a bunch of time helped, either.

I don't recall that Jauron teams lacked effort. Defensively, 'bend not break' was tough to watch, but did keep us in many games. Biggest problem was his total ineptitude when it came to understanding how to run an NFL offense. I don't think you need to be a 'hard case', but you do need to be ruthless. I'm hopeful that McDermott understands this, but also that players need to know where they stand. No point saying that you aren't going to tolerate slackness, if you aren't prepared to do something about it. In that respect, Belichick doesn't mess about. It's very much 'shape up, or be shipped out', one way or another. However, you don't ofen hear any bleating about it from those guys who have been shipped out - probably because they knew where they stood. But he also knows when to take his foot off the pedal, and will do stuff like take the players out to the movies, as an example. If there are guys who aren't going to put the work in, then an example or tow might have to be made, but so long as what is expected has been publicly laid down, then there should be no complaints or recriminations.

From purely the Bills side of things, I think they have made mistakes, and are making positive strides to rectify them, generally. However, in their defense, I think you can argue that the intentions and rationale were largely right, but that they picked the wrong guy, due to listening to the wrong person. Marrone thought he had all the cards, and so tried to bolster his position by laying down conditions. You can't do that to billionaires, as a few million either way doesn't even scratch an itch. So they had to find a new HC. The problem then becomes, who to look at, or what to look for. It was decided they then wanted a guy with previous HC experience, as they didn't have much experience of running an NFL team themselves. Not exactly a terrible approach. Unfortunately, they fell for the charms of Ryan, after listening to Brandon tell them they would know the guy when they met him. That was the really big mistake, as anyone with a clue, should have realized that Ryan wasn't ever going to be a detail orientated guy when it came to running the team. Realistically, they needed a Parcells/Coughlin/Belicheck type of personality, who would look at all aspects, and not be afraid to ask for stuff they didn't like, to be changed. Now, I'm not sure who might have fit that bill, but there were certainly other viable candidates around. This time around, I think they have got exactly the type of guy they need in McDermott, who is so detail obsessed, that if they spend much time with him, they will find out about just how everything is supposed to work. As to how well the team does under McDermott, that is yet to be discovered, but it won't be for the lack of ensuring that all the I's and T's aren't crossed. My view on Whaley, is that he's good enough at his job, to be worthy of being retained, and, imho, for the foreseeable future. His 'style', generally, as a GM, is that of a facilitator, in that he seems to me to genuinely try to get players of the type that the HC wants/needs, and I think that he and McDermott can work well together. I'd also say that his approach, suits the way in which the Pegulas have things set up, with both GM and HC reporting to them. I think in respect of the Bills, that the Pegulas have really only made one truly bad decision, but as that was hiring Ryan, it becomes a howler. This sort of conversation might not even be taking place now, if, as rumored, an alternative 'ticket' of Hue Jackson and Schwartz had been the way they had jumped.

While I know next to nothing about the Sabres, people saying 'I wish the Pegulas would learn from their mistakes', appear to me to be repeating a tired mantra. With the Bills, and now the Sabres, it looks to me like the Pegulas are trying not to make the same mistakes, in moving on from HCs etc., who just weren't up to the job. You can't have it both ways - either they are doing something about failures, or they aren't. The evidence is that they are, or there would be a lot of guys who still had jobs in either the NHL or the NFL.

Anyone with a recent injury history, that affects what they do.

This is true, although I would definitely have given Gillislee the 2nd round tender. It's a valid point that it might raise the ante in a long term negotiation, but by the same token, you actually have all the cards for this year, because everyone knows that there isn't going to be an offer sheet for a 2nd round pick. Then you can make decent long term offers, that are under the tender on average. e.g. 3 years $7.5 million, with half guaranteed, or perhaps $4-5 million guaranteed. An offer like that, would have been pretty attractive, imho, when there weren't going to be any others. I'd also add that there's something to be said for using the higher tender, when it comes to signalling interest, or the desire to keep a player. Players regularly come out with the idea of 'feeling wanted', and using the higher tender can do that. Ah well, it is what it is. One thing that could be argued in favour of not applying the higher tender, is that it is a good RB class by all accounts, so we can probably pick one up later in the draft, that actually represents the best value on our board at the time. Something I do find annoying though, is the fact that we, as fans, can regularly predict which of our players the Patsies are likely to take a shot at, yet our FO doesn't seem able to do so. I thought the tender for Hogan last year was a mistake also, but our cap situation at the time, was so dire, we might not have been able to do much else, iirc.

CB might be a major priority, but the schematic change lessens the need to take one with the #10 pick, possibly to the extent that we might not be considering it, unless someone actually drops into our laps. Even then, it's just as likely we would try and trade back and get more picks, should that happen. It may be that they want to take a top CB @ #10, but it then becomes the situation that you will be doing that every 4 or 5 years, as you aren't going to be paying the sort of money that guy can get elsewhere, assuming he pans out. Unless you get really lucky in the 'hometown discount stakes', if you are using zone coverage schemes in your secondary, it is one way of getting better CB play 'on the cheap'. Atm, we have 4/5ths of a good O-Line. Rather than another project, I'd prefer to look for a guy who can come straight in and compete for the job at RT. While there is a lot of criticism of Taylors passing game, (justifiably so), it certainly isn't helped by getting next to no pass protection from the right. At WR I like the Holmes pickup, but feel we need to do more there. Listenbee is a very interesting prospect, but after being on IR all of last year, you have to wonder how much he actually was able to pick up, from the route running side of things - which was a weakness of his coming out. Is using the #10 pick on one a waste, if Taylor isn't going to progress? Tbh, I don't care what our new HC says, we need to get better at the Safety position. Hyde is a great pickup, but I'm not convinced about Poyer at all. Irrespective of that, for all we had a whole bunch of safeties around the last couple of years, any of them not called Aaron Williams or Corey Graham, were rubbish. We, at the very least, need some decent depth there. Speaking of depth, we don't have so much. Hopefully our first few picks come in and bump down some starters to depth, which is where they are best suited.

I don't have any kids, so I probably don't feel quite the same degree of empathy that many here do. I just know that it's about the worst case scenario, you could possibly have, for losing your child. My deepest sympathies go to the family, and I hope they can pull through it, together.

I think it was much more about giving EJ one more chance, to show if he had what it took to even be the backup this year. Other than how bad EJ was, there wasn't any real need to play Jones. It wasn't his future that was even remotely on the line. I would also have serious doubts as to how much the Ryans were actually bothered about developing Jones. Their collective attention span doesn't seem to extend to 'projects'.

It would seem that they believe it's Sammy Watkins, which is more than a little contrary to what many would believe. I'm in the 'Cordy Glenn' camp myself. Great value in the 2nd round, and a nice 'smokescreen' put up before the draft to get him. Buddy did good on that one.

While it's a good thing to have a guy around who can explain the labyrinthian mess of the NFL rulebook, it doesn't help to have people whose first take, is to try and explain how the Zebras got it right, rather than to impartially call what they saw. For sure, the TV angles will give different perspectives, and what someone 'sees' initially, may be incorrect, when you get better pictures (and thus information), but I'd rather they called it as they saw it, and then held their hands up, if what they saw, wasn't exactly right. Rather than being employed by the TV Networks, you get the feeling that they are still employed by the NFL, whose party line is still that the Zebras can do no wrong, even when they demonstrably do, regularly. Personally, I still find it laughable, that in a multi-billion dollar industry, you don't actually have a professional body actually refereeing the games, rather than a bunch of amateurs.

Well, he can't be any worse than the guys (ex Zebras) they currently have on that gig.

One thing I do remember about Modrak, is that he persuaded Marv to wait an extra round to take Kyle Williams, not because he didn't want Kyle, but because he 'knew' he would still be available. I think he was highly knowledgeable, and a pretty decent talent evaluator, but like others have been, he was rather led by the nose at times, in regards of what different HCs wanted. While he may have pretty much run the draft board in his time with the Bills, he didn't actually have the 'final' say on picks. I'm pretty sure that Jauron had a veto built into his contract, and the earlier anecdote shows that Marv could pull rank on him, if he wanted to. I'd say his best work was behind him, when he joined the Bills, yet I also don't think he was as much at fault for some of the poor drafting we saw, in his time here, as many would have it. Regardless, RIP Mr. Modrak

I do not think this is the case for one second. Jones has got as much chance to be good, as most of these guys - and he's already on the roster. Any law of averages, is defined by the term of 'over time'. Some years you will get the average, for arguments sake, your '2', others you won't get any, and some you will get a fair few. This year looks very much to me, like the year you don't get any. I certainly understand, and believe, that the Bills haven't tried hard enough to find a good QB over a good number of years, but you really shouldn't be taking one for the sake of it, and especially in a weak class. We've been there, done that, and got the T-Shirt. How about we try not to repeat past mistakes?

If you've only got 6 picks, and plenty of holes to fill, why should you be drafting yet another project QB, when you already have one? In respect of being 'ready', this class is in the same boat that the one EJ came from was - i.e. they aren't. Now I think there might be a guy who sticks somewhere, but I'm not convinced, so it's quite possible that the only guys who are still around from this class in 3 or 4 years time, are backups, much like the EJ class. I'm not sure how you 'properly address the QB position', if there aren't any decent ones to be had. If there were a bunch of decent guys, or even a few, then it would be a different question, and possibly a sensible argument, but there aren't, so it isn't.

Spot on. I think you can perhaps give them some leeway as first time owners, for the Ryan hire. While they may have fallen for the charm of Ryan, they did actually have a plan in place, that said basically, as first time owners, they wanted to hire a guy with previous HC experience. That being the case, they then made a bad choice, as they could've hired either Jackson or Schwartz, who would both have filled the criteria, and, imho, done a better job. Ultimately, it may prove to be a blessing in disguise, if McDermott does pan out, as he could be our HC for a very long time. It would seem that the dysfunction being referred to often, was occurring, but that rather than it being the fault of the GM, it was the result of the Ryan hiring, and the addition of his twin to the staff.