Shaw66
-
Posts
9,726 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Shaw66
-
-
TJ Graham was the worst pick because the OBVIOUS pick at that slot was Russell Wilson. It was no brainer.
-
I like Mayfield. I think I like him better than the others. Only thing I don't like is his height.
Reports are he's extremely accurate. I like that.
He's a big time competitor and I like that.
He can scramble but he's slow.
I think the punk stuff is overblown. Big Ben was pretty outta control when he was young.
I like that he's won a lot.
-
1
-
-
There will be problems with this rule, but after a year or so it will be fine.
Remember the uproar when the defenseless receiver rule came on? DBS took a whole to adjust, but now you don't see guys getting rung up every week, and the defenses aren't getting gashed.
Guys will change how they play and the refs will learn to use some judgment about when to make call.
2018 will be messy, but 2019 will be fine.
-
3
-
-
Happy birthday, Boss!
-
2 hours ago, atlbillsfan1975 said:
Let’s say that this did happen. The Jets did out bid the Bills for the #3 pick. Should Beane now evaluate his options? What about now trading back from 12 and getting another teams first for next year?
I hope and think Beane will not talk himself into another QB that can be had later. For me it is get your guy or build with great pics. When I say get your guy I mean trade what is needed to move up and get him. If you can’t do that, explore a move back to get even more picks to build. I didn’t want to start a new thread with this because I think we have enough draft trade possibility ones.
This is correct.
People need to keep the bigger picture in mind. There are 32 teams. Each one has needs, views about the players in the draft, cap situations, etc. As someone said, the Bills didn't choose the Bengals out of 31 teams to trade Glenn to. The Bengals happened to be the right combination - they had a need, they had an attractive pick, they were willing to deal.
Similarly, the Jets didn't trade with the Colts to try to close out the Bills opportunities. They looked at THEIR needs, THEIR assets and THEIR evaluation of the qbs in the draft and made a move.
Also. I doubt the Colts broke a promise with the Bills. The GMs all explain the same activity - they're talking with each other about what it would take to put together a deal, when they want to do it, etc. If the Bills had an agreement with the Colts, it was that they both would agree to make that deal when both were ready to do it and if nothing better came along. I'm sure when the Jets put together their offer, the Colts went back to the Bills and said "things have changed. Can you do more?" The Bills evaluated their situation and declined to do more. Beane didn't get out maneuvered. He just didn't want to spend more for the Colts' pick.
GMs are dealing with the hands they're dealt, and the hands change from day to day. As soon as a possible Colts deal disappeared, Beane began to reevaluate. He talked more, I'm sure, with the Browns and Giants to see what it would cost to get to 1 or 2, and he and his staff are evaluating whether any of the available rookies is worth what it will cost. If Beane decides he isn't paying that price to move up, he'll be considering what other teams will be looking for to move up from 12. If that all looks too pricey, he'll be looking at which QBs he thinks are worth it at 12 and 22. Maybe he actually WILL thing about trading out of 12 to get another first round pick for 2019. That would give him a year to evaluate McCarron. It might be a smart move, because just about every team that really needs a QB will have gotten one this year and won't be competitors to trade up in 2019. He's constantly looking, thinking, reevaluating. Everything.
Every other GM is doing the same thing.
And Beane is going to make mistakes. He may make a mistake trading up. He may make a mistake not trading up.
I'm feeling good as a fan because I think he's smart, he works hard and he doesn't let his emotions get in the way of his judgment. Yes, he can and will make mistakes, but I don't think he'll make many.
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:
Stats without context mean very little.
This is all discussion about how to approach the process.
I think Parcells had a discipline. He followed this rule to make a first cut of candidates. If you asked him, he would agree, I think, that applying this discipline means that he will miss on some guys who didn't make this cut - that is, some guys that don't make the cut are going to succeed. Parcells was okay with that, because the discipline was more about eliminating from consideration most of the guys who aren't going to make it. That is, his criteria were intended to minimize mistakes.
I heard a story once, true story, about a guy who was responsible for hiring in his company. When he was asked how he selected candidates for a particular job, he said he made two piles of resumes - one with history majors who played intercollegiate team sports, the other with everyone else. Then he looked quickly through the everyone else pile to see if there was anyone there who might make it. But he actually did just about all of his hiring out of the history major pile. He did that because they had found over the years that those were the people who succeeded in that position. When they hired good looking candidates from the other pile, they failed more often than succeeded. Why history majors who played sports? Because in the company, they worked in teams, and their business required big picture analysis. History is a big picture discipline.
I think Parcells was doing the same thing. What he had learned, or his gut told him, was that guys who didn't meet the criteria tended to fail in the NFL at a significantly higher rate than the guys who did meet them.
So, for example, Darnold doesn't meet them. Does that mean he'll fail? No, but if he succeeds in the NFL, it will mean he's an outlier. Parcell's discipline says if you want to pick Darnold, you hae to realize you're betting on him being an outlier, which means the odds of his succeeding should be expected to be less than they would appear.
It's all just a guide.
-
28 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:
This is helpful thanks for looking that up Shaw.
I think maybe the criteria are harder to meet now because guys opt to come out in their junior year and maybe other changes to the college game.
Yes, some guys come out early, but then again, their seasons are longer than they used to be. A lot of these guys are playing 13-14 games a year now.
AND - if the guy stays in college, gets a degree and starts for three seasons, that says something about the guy. One reason Parcells had this three years starting rule, I'm sure, was that if don't have three seasons of film to watch on the guy, you really don't know enough about him to make a big investment.
Plus, Rosen had three years starting and didn't get to 23 wins. He was injured a bit, but he have needed to go 6-0 or 6-1 in the games he missed to get to 23. So he wasn't on pace to get where Parcells wanted him to be.
Darnold, on the other hand, was blowing away the stats requirements, but only started for two seasons. He's the kind of guy who looks so good, staying in school is more likely to hurt his draft stock, not help it.
-
I didn't intend this thread to be a general QB discussion but seeing people valuing one QB or another made me to look at the Parcells QB requirements.
Three year starter, graduate, over 60% completions, 30 starts, 23 wins, 2-1 td to Int ratio.
Mayfield and Rudolph.
-
2
-
-
15 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:
Players have ceilings and floors though. You take the player who has the highest ceiling and most acceptable floor.
That's my point. Of course, where anyone's floor is is impossible to determine. But what I'm saying is that if there are four, for example, above the floor, going after best isn't necessarily the smart move.
It's all unknowable, of course, and Beane's going to do the best he can. If he trades up, some people will like it and some won't. In fact, many of those in favor of trading up will be disappointed, because Beane won't take THEIR guy.
SOME of us know what is the right thing to do. WHO those people are will be known only several years from now.
-
If you're going to analyze it in terms of probabilities, of course, the probabilities are interesting. If there's a 50% chance that Darnold will be a true franchise, a 40% chance that Mayfield will and a 20% chance that Rudolph will, drafting Mayfield AND Rudolph is slightly more likely to get you a franchise guy, and you can do that burning less draft capital.
The point is, even if we all agreed who the best QB prospect is, it isn't necessarily the case that the smart move is to trade up to draft him.
-
4 minutes ago, Batman1876 said:
But the odds of success change. The real question is would you rather trade up for a 50% chance of manning or pick up a 20% chance of Brees by waiting until a later pick.
That's true. And that's where Meanie's Las Vegas analogy begins to make some sense. When do you go all in?
And it's more complicated than that. Just because you know there's a 50% chance you're getting Manning doesn't mean you trade your entire draft for the next three seasons to get him. There's a limit to how much draft capital you ought to spend to take that chance. So, for example, it was a less difficult decision for the Jets to move to 3 than it was for the Bills. But the point is still the same - if you need a quarterback, and if you see more than one that look like good bets, it isn't necessarily the case that you should spend what itakes to bet on the one you think is better.
I'm not saying it's easy to decide. Just saying it isn't even obvious what the objective is.
-
5 minutes ago, Lurker said:
Interesting point.
Even though Allen may be a notch (or two) below Rosen, Darnold and Mayfield, he may be more 'value-able' to the Bills if they can get him at #12 and use the rest of the picks to build a very good team. Giving up those prospective players to land Rosen or Darnold might result in a better QB but lesser team--one that might not win as many games in the next 3-4 years, a time frame McBeane likely is most interested in from a contractual/career perspective (rather than the next 10-12 years, if Rosen/Darnold actually were to deliver HOF-type performance)...
A couple of people say Darnold is THE franchise QB in the draft, head and shoulders above the others.
Okay, let's suppose after all their analysis the Bills conclude Darnold is the next Peyton Manning and Rosen is the next Drew Brees. Manning went number 1, Drew Brees went 32nd. Do you trade all the way to top of the draft to get Darnold or play your cards to preserve draft capital and take Rosen? I think if those were the facts, you take Rosen, but I think it's an interesting question.
-
I was thinking about the challenge of deciding on who's the best QB in the draft when it occurred to me that isn't necessarily the objective.
I mean, sure, you always want to take the best player available, and sure, the Bills will rank the QB prospects 1 to 20 or whatever. But what matters most when you take a QB is to get one who's going to be a really good NFL QB. If you could choose among Manning, Rivers and Roethlisberger, what history tells us is that one may have better career than the others, but if you got one you were in good shape.
The same may be true this year. Everyone seems to have a favorite, be it Rosen, Darnold, Mayfield or Allen. Which one of those you get is less important than if you get one of the guys in that group (or outside that group, for that matter) who turns out to be successful.
Why does this matter? Because it informs the Bills in deciding whether and how far to trade up. If they think five QBs in this class are likely to have significant success, then they probably can sit at 12 and get a good QB. If they think it's only four look likely, then they can sit at 12 but have to be prepared to deal quickly once a couple of guys fall off the board. If they think it's three, they'd better start lining up a trade partner in the top 5 or better. If they think it's two or only one, then maybe they have to move to plan B.
The point is, there's no sense in trading up if you think there are five legitimate starters in the class. Yes, you can trade up and get a better starter, but but the cost is prohibitive.
I'll be surprised if the Bills trade up before round 1 begins. I think they go into round 1 knowing the general outlines of deals they'd make with two or three teams, and then they wait to see how the first couple of picks go.
-
8
-
2
-
2
-
-
Be strong, Zay. Come back even better.
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:
...anybody have London Fletcher on speed dial?........
Funny, but London Fletcher had 96, 78 and 63 tackles playing 16 games a season when he was Dansby's age.
If the Bills find a rookie MLB, who better to teach him?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:
They know. We don't.
I've been saying this for years.
I'd love to be on the inside to see and hear what these guys are thinking about. In GM, about the Giants' GM Ernie Accorsi, they recount his scouting trip to Happy Valley. Watching the game, Accorsi commented about how well coached Posluzny was, noting that his first step, either right or left, forward or back, always was with the correct leg in the correct direction. I mean, really, who on this board watches that stuff? Tiny details, observed and collected. People don't believe it when Beane says he really hasn't begun his evaluation of the QBs in the draft, but I do. If they're collecting that kind of data about prospects, it's completely believable that (1) they haven't completed collecting and assimilating the data and (2) Beane hasn't had time yet to begin studying it. As the Bills continue to sign free agents over the past day or two, it's clear that his focus is still elsewhere.
Listening to McBeane, it's clear they've learned a process with the Panthers (and the Eagles, in McD's case), and they follow the process. They have to consider pros and cons, compare apples and oranges, collect information from agents, other GMs, other coaches, wondering all the time how reliable that information is. Precision is necessary to get it right, and almost all aspects of the process are imprecise.
The Kevin Costner film Draft Day is typical Hollywood fare, but it captures the uncertainty and the tension as Costner decides what to do about HIS quarterback situation.
7 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:I am looking at it this way.
Last year McDermott came in and a few months later he picked the draft himself and he Pwoned them.
(Pwned is a young people's spelling, which by now probably means middle aged people
, of the word "Owned" but with an emphasis and a subversive flavor).
They will probably do ok this year.
Since they'e arrived, I've been impressed. They're not going to get 'em all correct, but they sure seem to be on the right path. Watching the draft will be fun.
-
38 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:
I heading out to the store. Want me to pick up a Frencheyes qb on my way home!?
Got one of those.
How about a pants sized qb?
28 minutes ago, Bills Pimpin' said:It's completely semantics. The only reason some don't consider it a "total" rebuild is because McD kept around a handful of vets to help the culture rebuild portion of the total rebuild, a 9-7 record which shocked everyone and a playoff birth. If the Bills finished with a 3-13 or 4-12 record everyone would consider it a total rebuild. They have changed every starting position on the football team other than about 5 and they are rotational. You can't judge a rebuild by record only by actions. The fact the Bills stayed competitive with so many new players as well as gaining draft capital is a testament to the quality of the job of the rebuild. But IMO it was and is continuing to be a total rebuild.
Right.
And by the way, Beane said to Peter King that he told the owners that getting the payroll under control was a two-year project. So after this year, Williams almost certainly will retire, and the only holdover big contracts (McCoy and Clay) can both be terminated with minimal cap consequence.
It's a total rebuild.
-
2 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:
...OMG, I'm sweating profusely..........and feeling a "twinge"......
Can't you guys concentrate on football?
-
32 minutes ago, MrEpsYtown said:
Good pickup.Maybe it's the Eric Wood money?
I still think Hughes could be out, maybe through a trade. But I do hope we keep him. He is just a bit too expensive for what he offers.
If Clay is cut now its a 9 million dollar dead cap. If its post June 1, its 4.5 this year and 4.5 next year with a 4.5 cap saving this year. I think Clay stays.
Eric Wood money! That's probably it.
So it wasn't a slip that revealed that more is coming.
Thanks.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, DriveFor1Outta5 said:
Beane on the QB’s “I haven’t spent enough time to have an opinion about any of them yet, honestly”. I’m calling BS on this one.
It isn't BS.
In one sense, of course, he has an opinion on all of them. He has SOME impression about them, he's SOME information about them.
But it's completely clear in the context of the press conference (where he said the exact same thing) and the interview, is that what he means is that he hasn't spent enough time to be in position to make an informed decision about which, if any, of these guys he'd want and at what price.
The fact that YOU may think that YOU have enough information to make the decision and therefore Beane must, too, simply means that you don't understand how much information is actually required or that you or your staff have done an enormous amount of research, including interviews with coaches, dozens of hours of film study, etc.
-
1
-
-
King has interesting stuff in his interview with Beane.
Most interesting to me is that he decided to completely clean up the salary structure and get positioned the way he thinks they should be. Result? Bills currently have $36 million in dead cap, which is almost twice the next highest dead cap in the league, and Beane said when he's done this year he expects it to be closer to $45 million.
Hughes - $6.8 million dead cap
McCoy - $5 million dead cap
Clay - $9 million dead cap (I think).
Sounds like Beane tipped his hand. Someone else is moving out.
51 minutes ago, aristocrat said:So beane has only met with each guy for 15 minutes and is being patient. Jets the same and super aggressive already.
Yeah, it's an interesting comparison in styles. Based on the draft chart, the Jets overpaid to move up. They must be very sure about a couple of guys, because they can't be assured that one guy will drop to them.
Now that we've had a year watching and listening to Beane, it's clear that his overriding principle is maintain the discipline. It's the same thing we've heard from McDermott, and it's why they like working with each other. Last season when the Bills were collapsing, McDermott kept saying "it's a process, stay with the process," and things turned out okay. I mean, I thought there was no way in the world the Bills were going to the playoffs after those three losses, and he's saying "relax, a week at a time, we're not done."
Beane is the same. He essentially is saying that he works as hard as he can to make every decision the right decision. It's not about outcomes, it's about the process. Follow the process and the outcomes take care of themselves. In other words, he's saying "sure, I want a better quarterback, but I'm not going to overspend. I'll get the quarterback when the right opportunity presents itself." It's for the fans, because we want results now, but he's learned that if you just keep making good decisions, eventually it comes together.
Interesting to watch.
-
3
-
-
Interesting to read Peter King's comments about the Bills. In his interview with King, Beane made it clear that one objective, maybe his primary objective, was cleaning out the high salaries and getting cap management under control. I've always wondered about this, and he says that attacking the salaries was always part of his plan. I'd guess that means when he interviewed with the Bills he told them he was going to do some major surgery. And he says he wanted to take as much of the pain as he could this year.
That's what we've seen. The Bills dead cap money is at $36 million, and Beane says when he's done he expects it'll be $45 million (Shady, Jerry, are you listening?).
Remember a few weeks ago when McDermott said "we're not as close as some people think," meaning don't get too carried away because we made the playoffs? Well, hearing Beane say what he says about the salary cap is confirmation. These guys are taking the train off one track and putting it on another, and what they're telling us is not to expect the train to go anywhere until we get it on the new track.
What does that tell us about QB? Not much. I think all we know is what we've always known, which is that Beane will NOT overspend. He's all about maintaining discipline and trusting the process.
I like this.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:
It's not a total rebuild. I wish it were and that it had happened last year, but it's not.
If it were, they'd cut/trade McCoy. They wouldn't have re-signed Kyle Williams. They'd cut/trade Incognito. Total rebuilds essentially mean an acceptance that you're going to suck for an absolute minimum of two years and probably three. You dump ALL your guys over 29 or 30 because by the time you're any good they'll be too old.
This isn't a total rebuild. It just isn't. If they had been going to do that, they'd have done it last year and got a high pick this year in the QB-rich draft.
But yeah, it's a partial rebuild. One that started last year.
And this in no way means they aren't going to trade up. A lot of the point of rebuilds - most especially total rebuilds but really all rebuilds - is to get to a place where you can get your franchise QB. Yes, they're going to rebuild primarily though not entirely through the draft, not because it's a rebuild but because they've said from minute one that that's their philosophy. But trading up for a QB absolutely is building through the draft. The most important part of building through the draft if you haven't got a franchise QB on the roster.
Yeah, any GM hates to lose picks. But getting a franchise QB would allay that pain.
I think you and I get into these semantic discussions from time to time. We see it the same way but talk about what the words mean.
There's no pro football dictionary that I'm aware of that defines total rebuild. You're taking it literally - if it's total EVERY veteran/star must go. I'd guess that if you look back over the years at situations where the press called a team's transformation a total rebuild you'd fine that in every case, some of the veterans remained. That is, total doesn't really mean total.
In this case, a year after the new regime arrived, the entired defensive backfield, essentially all the linebackers and all but three of the defensive linemen are gone (with questions remaining about two of those). Three of five offensive linemen, all the wideouts and the QB are gone. Point is, that I'd think this is about as close to a total rebuild as actually happens in the NFL.
The one exception that you raise that maybe makes it not total is Kyle. McD loves Kyle and he had a need at tackle. I might agree with you that in a total rebuild, there's no room for that sentimentality.
Between the salary cap and the draft, there rarely is enough draft capital to do a total rebuild in one year. If you dumped EVERYONE who was any good at all for the old the regime, you'd have too little talent left to compete the following year. You'd have what I guess would be a total rebuild and a tank simultaneously.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, oldmanfan said:
You as in the collective you. Including me and everyone here. This entire past day has been filled with posts claiming absolute knowledge over what they could have done, should have done and will do.
And none of us know squat. Because we do not know what value the Bills have on the QBs in this draft. And none of us have anywhere near the access to the data the Bills have on these guys. Few of us have watched them live, we don't have the volumes of tape they have, we have not had access to their coaches, other players to see about them. We haven't stood at a white board or in a film room and quizzed them about reads, progressions, etc. None of us have any of that kind of data.
Know what else? We don't have phone lines connected to every other team's front office. So we have no idea what offers are flying around. For all we know there's a deal right now with the Giants or Browns. Or not. Or with someone else. Yet people here insist we cannot move up now and that we lost any chance at a QB. Which is simply wrong. Because we don't know.
i love the Tom Clancy books. One of Jack Ryan's favorite phrases is : don't know means don't know. We don't know. Beane does know. He knows he has to decide if any of the four is a guy he has to have, or if he's OK with any of the top 6 guys. He knows or will know if the draft capital he has acquired will allow him to get a guy he wants or if he has to sweeten the deal. He knows if there's a MLB or DT that at 12 could solidify his D for years. He knows because it's his job to know.
Does that mean a guaranteed certainty in his decision? Of course not. But he's in a helluva lot better position than we are to make the call. When we woke up this morning everyone thought Beane was smart for getting a bunch of picks for this draft, for getting some decent FAs, clearing cap, etc. And 24 hours later he's a bum because he didn't make a trade that might only get him the third QB in his board.
He knows. We don't know squat. It's fun to debate opinions, but in the end we don't know squat.
I agree.
What goes on is so much more complicated than we understand, and what they evaluate is so much beyond what we do that what we think is just interesting opinions. Uninformed opinions, compared to what the pro front office people actually do.
Here's a point I've discussed nowhere, at least not recently. (I've been away from the board for a day, so maybe it's somewhere). Do you know how much dead cap space the Bills have? $35 million, twice as much as the second worst dead cap space. All the important components of that total are Dareus, Taylor and Glenn. I find that fact interesting.
It means this really is a total rebuild. McCoy, Hughes, Williams, Incognito is about all that are left. A total rebuild takes time. And it's done through the draft.
What does that mean? It means Beane's not going to be in a hurry to package a lot of picks to move up, because picks is all he has to rebuild with. He can't sign anyone else in free agency without cutting or trading more of his core of players. He COULD trade up, but that means that he's building in free agency next year. He's said repeatedly he likes building through the draft, not free agency.
And, of course, one has to ask whether, given the dead cap problem, it made sense to dump Dareus. I'm sure their answer would be that they'd seen enough of Dareus to conclude that he probably never would conform to their program.
McCarron? I don't think McCarron has a future, but what do I know? I don't know anything that Saban told Daboll about McCarron. I don't know what the Bills' film review tells them about McCarron. I just don't know.
I loved the title on a thread today, something about this being a good QB year because of the NUMBER of prospects, not because any are clearly great. I don't know what the Bills think about these guys.
So for me to get upset about the Bills trading up further or not trading up, etc. etc. doesn't make any sense to me. All we can do and wait and see what the people who know a lot more that we know decide to do.
Football Outsiders Rates the 2018 QBs In the Draft
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
As some of you know, Football Outsiders takes a highly analytical, statistically driven approach to evaluating teams and individual players. Like any rating system, there are assumptions built into their analytical tools that affect their results. Thus, like any rating system, there's some bias built into the system. Still, they're objective is to be as objective as possible.
I happened to look at Football Outsiders today, and it turns out they have a system for evaluating college quarterbacks. I have no idea how they do it, but I'm sure they explain it on their website. If it's like their other systems, you'll need a Masters degree in statistics to understand it. They have applied their system, called QBASE, to previous drafts. The highest rated guys on their system are Rivers, Palmer, McNabb, Russell Wilson, Peyton, Mariota, Leftwich, Rodgers and Roethlisberger. In other words, their system seems to work reasonably well. Certainly there are some names they missed, and Leftwich is an outlier, but it seems like if a guy rates high on their system there's a pretty good chance that he's going to make it in the NFL. Doesn't mean that some other guys who aren't highly rated won't make it; just means that you're looking good if you rate high.
So they analyzed 2018, and one guy stands alone - everyone else is back in the pack somewhere, not close. Baker Mayfield rates number 4 on their ALL-TIME list, of college quarterbacks behind McNabb and ahead of Russell Wilson.
Their article about this is here: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/qbase-2018
Sorry if this has been discussed in another thread - I didn't see it anywhere.