BarleyNY

I think it probably was Rex that wanted Ragland, but ultimately Whaley had final say. Many GMs have failed because they listened to coaches instead of going with the players they preferred. Phil Savage talked about that exact situation as the one bit of advice he'd give to every new GM. That's what led to him choosing Wimbley over Ngata. He now knows the mistake was ultimately his own fault. The same goes for Whaley. As for Ragland, I do expect some production from him in base and big sets. Again, just because a player is taken earlier than he should have been doesn't mean he doesn't hold some value.

Outstanding work by you both! I needed that.

The higher you draft a player, the more of both you'd want that player to be. It'd just as big of a mistake to highly draft a workout warrior that isn't a good football as it is to take a guy who is a great college player but doesn't have the physical ability to succeed in the NFL. Ragland's physical traits are a bit below the NFL average, but that doesn't mean they are terrible or that he won't make it in the league. It's important to distinguish between criticizing a GM for drafting a player too early or paying a player too much versus criticizing a player or calling one out as a bust. Players are drafted and paid based on educated guesses and virtually every one will either overperform or underperform their draft position or contract. GMs should be judged on how well they execute on those guesses, players on well they play. I don't think Whaley made a good guess with Ragland, but we have yet to see how good of a player he will be. Here's hoping he exceeds expectations.

I hit on the biggest factors regarding Ragland and his availability in the second round. Plenty more detail there, but here's the jist: He has good qualities and certainly produced at the college level, but he did not test all that well physically and he came from the Alabama program. His SPARQ scores were only in the 33rd percentile of all NFL players at his position (starters and backups included) and Bama is known for maximizing their players' potentials so he's probably pretty topped out developmentally. A player who is productive in college, but is below average physically isn't a 1st round pick. I'd even question spending a 2nd round pick on a player with below average measurables unless I thought there was a good reason they were inaccurate. I hope Ragland is a quality player for the Bills, but I wasn't excited about the pick when it happened. He looked like a "2 down LB" to me pre 2016 draft. These days 2 down LBs aren't on the field two out of three plays, they're only on the field about 30% of the time. It's tough to justify spending the 10th pick of the 2nd round on a player that is on the field so little. But that's a sunk cost. He's on the team and I hope we get quality play out of him even if it's only in base, jumbo and goal line defensive packages. I think he'll be fine in that regard, but I'd like more out of a player picked where he was. He should be judged on how he plays, not against where he was drafted though. That's not in a player's control.

Forgive us for talking football here on this football message board.

Correct. Too many people here had high expectations for him when he got back to practice after game 8 and then on the field in game 10. I argued about it on a number of occasions. Lawson literally had zero NFL practices under his belt when he started practicing halfway through the season. And there's no way he could have been in proper shape. It's good he got some game experience to get his feet wet. That was important. We should have a very good idea of what we have in him by the end of this season/start of 2018. We just have to wait and see.

Too much significance is given to dead money. There are good and bad reasons for having it on the books. Out of context it really doesn't tell anyone anything of importance.

Yeah, it's always a great plan to count on someone being an exception to a rule. In all honesty, Ragland holds some real promise. He's a good fit in the new scheme that requires LBs to play a lot of underneath zone. He's got a lot to learn about leverage in McD's scheme, but that role is a huge plus. He's a player that plays the run very well and did a great job of working through traffic and getting sideline to sideline in college. Plus he was an effective pass rusher which could make him a great player to move around and provide the defense with some real flexibility. My concerns with him are all physical. Bama is known for getting everything possible out of their players at the expense of a lot of physical wear and tear. Lots of players come out of there beat up and having already topped out physically. Ragland is in the 33rd percentile of off the LOS LBs (SPARQ). That means he tested as good as or better than only 1 of 3 NFL players - starter or reserve - at that position group. Bama got him into as good of shape as imaginable so I don't think there's really any room for growth there. Then there's the physical nature of his play. That doesn't scream longevity or even 16 games a season to me. The optimist in me sees a sledgehammer who could be a flexible, complete and very effective 3 down MLB in McD's scheme. The realist in me see some very real reasons why that won't happen to the extent we'd all like. I hope things click and all goes well. It'll be interesting to see. SPARQ link: https://3sigmaathlete.com/rankings2016/lb/

That's probably why he was drafted in the second round.

Exactly. Every year has a difficult schedule for every team. There is a difference in the relative difficulty of teams' schedules, but those are fluid and not always easily quantifiable with statistics. Short and long term injuries and suspensions to key players on your own team as well as your opponents is huge. Catching the Pats once without Brady and instead facing an injured 3rd string QB sure made a difference in that one game last season. Bye weeks, off night games, order of games, weather, etc. all impact the real difficulty levels of games. So does the interplay of all of the above. You can take a stab at how difficult a schedule will be, but four weeks into a season it'll look very different. And four weeks later it'll look different again.

What is your bar for either franchising SW or giving him an elite level WR deal? What has to happen in 2017 for you to support either of those? And is it the same threshold or are there different ones?

Safety. We only have one starting quality safety on the roster. A team needs at least two. Tight end is shallow, but we only need to line up one starter. A franchise QB is obviously the most difficult to find and the most important, but we don't have a huge hole there with Taylor. He's not a FQB, but he's at least capable of being a starter in this league.

Exactly. Consequences for one's actions and what not.

I guess you didn't read the article. The necessity of wisely using the growing quantity of data available was a central point.

That'd be par for the course for him.

That's the price you gotta pay to get to see the hot ones.

This is the whole situation in a nutshell. Well said, Bloke.

I haven't liked or agreed with almost everything BN has written on the Bills, but this is article is spot on. It's highly unlikely that Watkins is a Bill next season. Since 5th year options were instituted only one player has had his declined and still been with his team in his 5th season. It can happen, but it's not where the smart money is.

Yeah. I don't see how anyone rips DW for the Karlos pick. Day 3 is where you take shots on guys like him. Most don't make it, but some very nice finds can be made.

I thought Whaley was a mixed bag of more bad than good, but I wonder what things would be like if Hue Jackson had been the hire instead of Ryan. That would have included Schwartz staying. Hopefully it'll be worth it with McD and Beane.

Happy this guy's life is on a healthy track now. I have a friend who was closeted for a long time. He was from a very religious and conservative family in rural southern Ohio. The difference once he came out was amazing. He became so much happier and lives a good life now. PHRASING!!!

That's not to say that they're not going to try to win every game they play this season. But teams pushing for immediate wins are usually successful teams with a slew of expensive veterans and looming cap issues. Those teams are at the end of - or in the middle of - their window for a championship run, or at least a deep playoff run. They trade future draft capital for immediate impact and extend themselves with the cap (creating future issues) so they can afford to keep older key, expensive players. They also aggressively fill out their rosters with aging vets as short term fixes. The Bills have really done very little of that. They have largely done the opposite.

I'd like to add/clarify something at this point concerning the Bills direction this season. They're playing the long game this offseason. They're not trying to maximize wins in 2017. They aren't tanking either. They're trying to be competitive and still build longterm. It's what makes sense. They couldn't sell an obvious tank to the fans and due how many of the larger contracts are structured it wasn't even really possible. So they're filling some holes with long term free agents like Hyde while starting to get their cap in order. They acquired extra draft capital next season. They kept their best option at QB for 2017 at a reduced price, but also added two QBs - one each for backup and development. I expect them to give Peterman a look later in the season to see how that development is coming along. The Bills aren't going to the playoffs in 2017, but it could be the start of a successful longterm build. Theres no guarantees, but that's how successful teams do it and that's encouraging to me.

Just like the Wrex brothers.

Pretty much. At the very top of the draft you want players who have both produced at a high level and are very physically gifted. They are your elite playmakers. Next up are more moderately physically gifted players who have produced. Those are your solid starters. Then you have players who have big flaws or deficiencies in some areas, but are gifted in one or more. They are your role players. Lastly we have our developmental players. They're either highly physically gifted, but underdeveloped players or ones that have hit their physical limits already. No sense chasing many of the latter, so this is where I like to see gifted small school prospects who may not have gotten very good coaching taken. Sometimes you can find players from larger schools that have had their development delayed too. Poor coaching, coaching turnover, injuries, legal problems, etc. The bottom line on late round picks is that you might as well swing for the fences.