BarleyNY

agreed. almost invisible.

Heading to Chicago to visit my best friend. I’ll be watching with him.

So much depends on how players come off the board. In recent years the picks have become “chalkier” in the first round so we should have a good idea of how things play out. Still, there are always some surprises and teams need to be flexible. Really, that’s all a GM can do. Lay the groundwork for moves up and down the board and make moves according to circumstances.

Box wine

So which would be better: A) Current format with one team in each conference getting a bye and seven teams making the playoffs B) A post season play in round where seeds 7-10 play each other for the last two playoff spots. 10 teams in each conference make it beyond the regular season and 8 make the official playoffs. 6 teams effectively get a bye. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I think I like option B better and by a fair bit. But with one important caveat - elimination of divisions. Every team plays every other team in the conference plus 2 (or 3) opposing conference teams on a rotating basis. Seeding is by record. I guess point differential would be the tie breaker. If we’re going to have teams that are .500 (or worse) make the post season, then making those teams win another game to get in to the actual playoffs would be fine with me. I’d rather see that then an 18th regular season game.

My optimism comment was the joke.

If that were true then I’d see the pools get a lot more use. But if we want to set aside the jokes and be honest, I think that people in Buffalo really embrace what little Summer they have here. Even when the weather isn’t optimal they get outside to do stuff more than in most places. And I like that about Buffalonians.

We were surprised by the percentage of houses with pools in Buffalo when we moved here. Buffalonians are an optimistic group.

Can you understand the difference between drafting one, two or even three DTs (or drafting seven) and drafting none? It seems like you can't. I took care to lay out how drafting one, two or even three DTs would have to work.

I don’t think anyone is saying that.

I would think that if it were to happen, Jones would not be released until after week 6. Still, if your plan is O-Gun plus a rookie then that rookie better be phenomenal because if you think Jones is washed, then you’re going to hate seeing O-Gun on the field. If you’re thinking we’re getting rid of Jones and O-Gun and going with two rookies at 1 tech, then you’re not living in reality. That would be pure maleficence by the Bills.

I see so many posts like this - saying that the Bills should draft several DTs. But not a single one of them explains where on the roster they’re going to fit. The Bills have always carried either 4 or 5 DTs on the 53. As of now we have Jones, Oliver, Carter and O-Gun (after game 6) that will all make the team. Logue will probably be a PS player. Hoecht has also dropped inside, but he’s out until Game 7 too. To me that leaves open a single spot at 1 Tech and a single PS spot - or two at most if they carry two there and Logue gets beat out. The only other possibility is that they’re already giving up on Carter and he gets replaced. He did nothing last season so that probably isn’t zero. So my plan would be a 1 tech on day one or two and another developmental 1 tech in a late round. I also see no issue with one 3 Tech if they aren’t comfortable with Carter, but that has to be with the understanding that either the rookie or Carter won’t make the 53.

My doomsday scenario is the Bills reaching for need rather than taking vastly superior talent on the board.

I could see that too. But it depends on how the board falls. My concerns about this draft center around where the runs are going to be and the Bills reaching for positions because of them. Obviously they are happy to make moves up when those runs happen, but that doesn’t always work out. Sometimes you wind up with an Elam that way. I’d rather they be more aggressive and get a better prospect even if it means not filling every hole with a first or second round pick. Time to change up the usual tactics. Edit: The other position I think the Bills should consider in the first two rounds is Edge. They have a pretty glaring need there IMO.

I agree that CB will likely be our first pick. If not, then definitely in the 2nd. As for DTs, I’m not sure how the Bills would manage the roster if they took two early. The most they’ve kept on the 53 is 5 and often it’s been 4. Oliver and Jones seem like locks. Ditto O-Gun after week 6. Hoecht may see time inside too (after week 6). Carter was a round 3 pick last year. I have seen nothing from him so they might want to move on already, but if that is not the case then I don’t see room for two rookies. One early and one later day 3 for the PS and/or to push Carter would make more sense to me. I think an early swing at an Edge makes a lot more sense than that second DT.

Jets jumping in front of Pittsburgh to grab Pitt CB Darrelle Revis was a rare, savvy move.

His concussion history (five since 2020, I believe) would make him relatively cheap in trade. You don’t often find a WR of his caliber (when healthy) available at the kind of discount he’d warrant at this point. I do not think he’s a great fit for the Bills because of that uncertainty, but he’d be the best WR on the team if we did acquire him. As long as he stayed healthy, that is. Now, if I were a team that is rebuilding I’d definitely take a shot at him so long as the trade compensation is as reasonable as I think it would be. This is year 4 of his rookie deal so a decision has to be made soon on his 5th year option. That’ll probably be about $15M. So that factors into it too. Is your team willing to take that risk? One last thing - I don’t know Olave’s feelings, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he wanted to move on. Carr is not the QB that I’d want to have throwing me the ball if I was worried about taking unnecessary hits.

Yeah. If Carr can’t go this season then NO may change their mind on trading Olave. Might as well tank properly.

It’s true of just about any business really.

Only as far aa availability and distraction are concerned.

Yeah. It didn’t help that Mayfield needed to grow up. He has made strides there and has become a better QB and I’m guessing leader.

Yep. 100% true. The league has a habit of making an example out of one person or team - usually the worst offender in a situation. That’s why the Saints were the only team to be punished for bounties. Hammering Watson - and by extension the Browns - was enough good PR for the league. Goodell made sure that the suspension ruined the season for the Browns, but did not toll Watson’s contract. If no team would have traded for Watson, then the Texans would’ve gotten punished.

True. Me too. But you never know how someone will react to that kind of public humiliation and hate. Some can be Ray Lewis and use it for fuel. Others fold or become a shell of their former selves. There was just too much risk to give those picks AND a fully guaranteed contract. The other teams were not willing to do that. Those teams also were savvy enough to require Watson to settle all outstanding cases before completing the trade. One trade fell through due to a couple holdouts on the settlement. The Browns weren’t so smart. They also misjudged how hard Goodell was going to punish him.

The year Watson sat out as a Texan was due to an agreement with the team to do so. They didn’t want him to play - and neither did the league. That all said, your point about him missing so much time clearly hurt his performance on the field. He was not up to date on widespread defensive changes. He also was operating under incredible pressure due to his contract and the very well-deserved public humiliation and vitriol. Not to overstate the obvious, but it was incredibly stupid of the Browns to give that kind of person in that situation that contract. They’ve deservedly paid the price for it. The Texans did a fantastic job of finding a sucker to pay a ransom to take Watson off their hands.

Some innocent posters catching strays in this thread