Shaw66

This argument is for another thread, but still I want to make the point. TAYLOR DID NOT TAKE A CONTRACT CUT. Taylor gave up about $10 million of guaranteed money so that he could become a free agent in two years instead of five years. I know a professional agent. He has represented some of the biggest names in sports. I mean BIGGEST. I asked him which was a better deal for Tyrod, the one Tyrod had or the one he took in March. He said the one he got in March, no question, no question at all. He said he would have urged Tyrod to take the deal the Bills offered. Free agency in two years is worth MUCH more than the $10 million he gave up. This idea that Tyrod gave in to the Bills because he had no options is just wrong. The Bills came to him with their hats in their hands looking for help. Tyrod gave them something they wanted in exchange for something he wanted - free agency. If Tyrod plays the full season in 2017 and the Bills make the playoffs, Tyrod will get a new contract next year much better than the one he gave up last month. If that happens, everyone will look back and blame Whaley for renegotiating.

Hey, transplant, thanks for this. (For people who know me, this has turned into a typical Shaw essay. Ignore it or read it, whatever you like.) I noticed Fahey a few months ago when someone at BBMB linked to one of his pieces. His stuff is interesting. I dumped on him, and continue to be skeptical, because I don't like "advanced" analysis from someone without credentials. I think he's still under 30. He has zero football experience, so far as I can tell. Possibly played in high school. I think it's extraordinarily difficult to become expert in a field without actually doing it, in this case playing it or coaching it. That's the only way you can have intense interaction with the people who actually understand what's going on. Having said that, it IS possible to become expert without playing or coaching. It takes a lot of work, a lot of thinking, a lot of creativity. Bill James did it, for example. But those guys are few and far between. As for Fahey, I think he actually has a chance to make it. It certainly seems that he is immersing himself into the game completely. He seems to have done nothing since he got to college except study pro football, analyze it and write about it. That's the only way to make if from the outside, and he seems to be doing it. Still, hard work alone doesn't do it. He needs to understand statistics and he needs to be a creative analyst. Bottom line, for me, is that I pay more attention to Fahey than to most of the other stuff out there, because I have no confidence in most of the people who put it together. Football Outsiders is my only exception, and I at least think about what Fahey is doing. As for this data, although he has to make subjective judgments to make these determinations (interceptable balls, failed reception, created reception) those at least are categories that I think a non-coach could make reasonable judgments about by watching film. In other words, if he's actually taken the time to catalog every pass by every QB, his data in those categories probably is pretty reliable. (As opposed to, for example, blocking performance by an offensive lineman, whose performance can't be evaluated effectively by a non-coach if you don't know what the lineman was supposed to do on the play). What do all the ACCURACY categories mean? How is he evaluating "accuracy." Many fans complain that Tyrod doesn't throw the ball into tight windows, doesn't lead receivers well, etc. I've never been sure they're right, but there certainly are plenty of replays supporting the claim. I also don't trust fan analysis on a category like that. So how is Fahey measuring accuracy? Is he third best or third worst in interceptable passes? Finally, avoidable sacks isn't a useful number on its own. Taylor has a lot of sacks because he scrambles and he tries to keep pass plays alive. If he stays behind the line of scrimmage and gets sacked instead of giving up on the play and gaining 1 yard, yes it's an avoidable sack, but it might have been the right decision, because keeping the play alive may result, on average, in gains instead of losses. Plus, some of his avoidable sacks are plays where Taylor was trying to escape and got caught when he could have thrown the ball away. I want Taylor to try to escape in those situations, because when he does escape he often runs for a first down or more. In other words, the important stat is net yards in sack situations. That is, look at all the plays where the QB should be sacked and net all the yards lost to sacks, yards gained because the QB escaped and completed a pass and yards gain because the QB ran. If my QB has a high net, I don't care that he took more sacks than some guy who threw the ball away every time. I'd bet that if someone generated THAT stat, Taylor would be way up in the rankings. And, by the way, in doing that ranking, you have to determine avoidability objectively. That is, when the tackler is running at x miles an hour, he's 4 yards from the QB and the QB has Y room to maneuver, how many times does he avoid the sack? I guarantee you Taylor is way up on that list. That is, what's avoidable can't vary because the nature of the QB. In one sense, Eli has more or less no avoidable sacks, because he just isn't able to avoid any. All of this adds to my sense that the coaches have a much better idea of what's going on. You can come up with all these detailed stats, evaluating little aspects of the game, but it's the combination of all of this kind of analysis that leads to the right conclusions about this This micro-examination, interesting as it is, doesn't really do the trick. Although I don't agree with BigBuff's eyeball test analysis, in a sense it's correct. At least the eyeball test is about the big picture, and that's what really matters. The question is whether the QB is getting the job done. The problem with the eyeball test is that it's hard to say what "getting the job done" means. It's easy to say wins, but despite the QB's importance, it's still a team game, and there are a lot of reasons for losing beside the QB's play. So people go back to stats, because stats at least are an objective analysis (until you get done to avoidable sacks and such). So here's my conclusion. Stats are the best thing we have to analyze QBs. They aren't perfect, but it's all we have. The fundamental point about stats is that they are useful when there is a high correlation between the stats and your eyeball. If the players who LOOK like they're the best running backs also have the most yards per carry, then there's high correlation between the stat and observed performance. That in turn means that a running back's rank in yards per carry is a decent way to evaluate how good he is. The problem with the kind of analysis Fahey does is that the categories are so detailed that there is not good correlation in every case. That is, Taylor being ranked third in some category simply is not evidence that he's anything like the third best QB in the league. It just isn't. On rankings of these minute categories, the best QBs are all over the place. There is low correlation, which means that the stat isn't useful for evaluating the quality of the QB. May be useful for other things, but not evaluating overall performance. And that's why always come back to the passer rating. The guys we all believe are the best QBs in the league have the highest passer ratings. High correlation, which means the stat is useful in separating good play from average or bad play. Same with the QBR, which evaluates more than passing. Neither is perfect, neither is complete, but they both give us a reasonably reliable way to compare the play of the various QBs. So, although I know Fahey wasn't trying to rate the QBs generally, just for the record, let's be clear about Tyrod. In 2015, Taylor had the 8th best passer rating in the league, and the 7th best QBR. In 2016 he was 18th in passer rating and 9th in QBR. Those ratings are consistent with what I saw. (A good passer in 2015, not good enough in 2016, but his QBR is good because he's the best running QB in the league). Bottom line for me is that Fahey's number's are interesting, but at the end of the day they don't prove much to me.

you quote one fact from the article and get it wrong. He was 30-34 as GM, which isn't all that bad.

It bugged me that they n didn't draft more linemen. More than a third of your starters are linemen. I think you have to draft for the line every year. You can always find some Rambo to play safety. Actually, one of the two rookie lbs might play back there.

I didn't believe that the Pegulas were pursuing culture change. I thought they just were changing coaches. This move, Whaley and all the scouts, says it is in fact all about culture change. And I also didn't believe they'd turned the keys over to McDermott, but at a minimum he has their ear. It has to be the case that McDermott has said to them that he's seen well-run organizations in Carolina and Philadelphia, the Bills' scouting and player acquisition didn't measure up. I'd guess the Pegulas have come to trust McDermott. It's clear the Pegulas have decided in pro sports, patience is not a virtue until you have the right people.

Am I concerned about McDermott's obsession with character? Well, yes, a little. But I'm guessing he knows what he's doing. As others have said, the game moves too fast and the game is too complicated to spend much time at all dealing with problem guys. They get in the way and become distractions. You need guys who are mature, who know how to behave, and who are all-in with being as good as absolutely possible. They want guys with serious commitment. The real problem is with rookies. The guys you sign in free agency you sign because they've already demonstrated they have the necessary focus. You don't know that with the rookies; you don't know whether the money and bright lights will distract them. Many of the rookies don't have the necessary focus. The team is better off if you don't have many young guys who need to learn some important lessons, like Dareus or Marshawn. You want those guys AFTER they've learned the lessons. So I think McDermott's obsession is focused on the college prospects. In that case, a guy like White or Peterman is a huge plus when you draft him, because he's already shown that his priorities are set. You know that you're going to get 100% of the guy you want, you know he's going to apply himself and learn. When he's looking at a veteran free agent, I suspect McDermott cares less about MBAs and such.

I'll add my thanks, too. This man worked hard and was responsible for a dramatic improvement in the talent on the team. Before Nix and Whaley, the Bills drafted players from small conferences, small schools and schools that didn't have winning programs. Whaley changed all that. He started drafting from schools with winning records in the best conferences; in other words, he began drafting players who were outstanding athletes who knew something about winning. And in free agency he did even better. Under Whaley, the Bills acquired a lot of free agents who were drafted in the first or second round and who had struggled with their original team. Those guys have talent and need time to get their feet on the ground. When Whaley signed them, they often blossomed. So, Mr. Whaley, thanks for all you did, and good luck always.

Days - This draft went about as well as I could have hoped. They did exactly what I wanted them to do: Keep Taylor to see what he does in the new offense and with a couple seasons under his belt. Bring in a seasoned backup. Draft a QB in the late rounds who might be a longshot but who has a chance of working out. Put yourself in position to go after a top-rated QB next year if Taylor doesn't work out and Peterman doesn't look like he has it. This is perfect QB management given the position the Bills were in. Perfect. Plus a quality DB and a guy who looks like he could be a seriously good receiver, plus an offensive lineman who has a good chance of helping. Nicely done.

If they take a QB in the first round next season, he probably sits behind Taylor and plays in his second season. Only way he starts as a rookie is if he's clearly better than Taylor from the get go.

That's the bottom line. Frankly, I think the most important issue the Bills had going into the draft was quarterback. It's always about the quarterback. The Bills have a quarterback they think might be their long-term starter. They're not sure. They want to see him one more year before they write him a big check or let him go. They needed a contingency plan in case they decide next year they don't want Taylor. There were two ways to go on a contingency plan. One was draft a QB this season, in the first or second round. The problem with that was that if Taylor turns out to be the guy, you've wasted the pick. The better way to go was what they did - put yourself in a position go after a QB next year if you decide you need one. The trade down in the first round did that for them very nicely - they still got a nice first-round talent, and they now have two picks next year to package if they have to move up in the draft. And if Taylor has a good season and the Bills decided to ride with him, they have two first-round picks next season to build with. It was the right move.

I don't think it's so clear cut. First, you can't use Dak as an example. There's always an outlier. It doesn't make sense to say the Bills were sitting pretty with four 5th round picks, because they got Kyle Williams in the fifth round. That article from KC is telling. You simply have a much better chance getting a starter by picking in the second round. That's where pretty high-probability talent is. So there's real value in trading up 15 or 20 picks in that range of the draft. When you trade a fifth round pick, you're giving up a guy with maybe a 20% chance of starting. Those odds aren't terribly worse than you have with your undrafted free agents. Plus, if really want another guy from the fifth round, you can pick him up when he gets added to someone else's practice squad. Bottom line: not all picks are the same.

I know. What you say is true. If you have the 50th pick, there always will be a guy on your board who you think should have gone at 30. There's always an attractive guy. So I agree with the philosophy. However, I think this where need comes in. Despite "our #2 receiver is already on the roster," I think they really wanted a receiver. They saw a guy who they really didn't think would last to their second round pick. And when you put it together with the probability of getting quality starters with fifth-round picks, it doesn't strike me as stupid to move up like they did. I think that unless you're moving up for a QB, trading up in FIRST round is a mistake. As much as I love Sammy and really wanted him to be a Bill, I think that move was a mistake in terms of draft strategy.

This article is very interesting. It does two things for me: First, it demonstrates the wisdom of trading 4th and 5th round picks to move into the second. You have a much better chance of finding starters generally by getting up into the second. Second, it demonstrates that it is indeed a crapshoot. You really don't get a ton of starters out of the draft. And third, what's wrong with the article is that he doesn't put a premium on first round picks. It isn't enough to get a starter with a first round pick; that's relatively easy. What matters is getting a premium player.

I generally agree with the principle you espouse, but there's another principle that's critical, too. That's "stay true to your board." I haven't heard anyone say it this year, but they said it last year with Ragland. They saw this talent they had ranked up in the first round and he was still sitting there early in the second. They thought he was a huge bargain based on their board. They also thought they weren't the only ones who knew that, so they traded up. I'm guessing the same thing happened twice yesterday. They really wanted receiver and oline help and they saw guys who looked like bargains on their board. They stayed true to the board. Fifth round picks are useful, but they usually don't give you guys much better than the undrafted free agents who make your team. And they rarely start in the first, or even the second season. Bills got three guys who all have a good chance of starting. It's always a good draft when you do that. Still, I agree. It's a crapshoot, and more picks is usually better. But I'm happy this morning.

Nice post. I generally agree. Everything, including most of the complaints about the trade down, are actually the QB discussion rehashed. If you think Taylor is a lost cause, you think the Bills should have done all that they could have to draft a QB. They had Mahomes and Watson sitting there. That tells you what we always knew: the Bills haven't given up on Taylor. If you believe Taylor is a star about to emerge, you don't want to draft a QB this year OR next year. If you're like me (and the Bills) you want to see a year of Taylor in his new offense. Next February is when the Bills make their decision about the QB for the next 5-7 seasons. If they decide it's Taylor, they'll renegotiate his contract and they'll have two first round picks to build around him. If they decide it isn't Taylor, they have the picks that will allow them to move up to the top of the draft. That's the story, like it or not.

It's interesting. I listened to it and it sure sounds like they want to trade out. Two good players instead of one potentially great player.

I rarely agree completely with anything anyone says, but I can agree 100% with this.

Thanks. That's interesting. More evidence that the press and we don't have any idea about these guys. I loved the part about how the scouts laughed when the subject media draft gurus came up.

I think this is correct. He may have saved his NFL pension. And if he had any guaranteed money left on his contract the Pats probably now must pay it. The guaranteed money will be in his estate and probably will end up going to the estate of the guy he killed. But the pension money is protected from judgments and will go to his daughter.

The question ISN'T why did you draft someone who meets the criteria? The question is why did you draft someone who didn't? The criteria aren't a guarantee of success. They are minimum job requirements. I'm sure there are exceptions, but if you haven't produced consistently and at a high level in college, why would anyone thing you're gonna produce in the pros?

Watson's leaving a year early, so he isn't a three-year starter and he isn't a senior. But he's started 30, he's won more than 23 and he has the other stats.

I don't study the draft. I didn't know he started only one year. I don't remember Parcells' drafting rules, but they were very good. One rule is never take a QB based on one season of stats. If he hasn't started and succeeded for two seasons, you don't know what you're getting. Here you go. This is what Parcells said to draft a QB: Be a three-year starter Be a senior in college Graduate from college Start 30 games Win 23 games Post a 2:1 touchdown-to-interception ratio Complete at least 60-percent of passes thrown Don't trade up for Trubisky. Don't take him at 10.

First half of the statement is wrong. What happens in the first season doesn't determine anything. Second sentence is absolutely correct.

Second or third round, if they see a guy they think is a good value. Here's why: The plan is that Tyrod is going to be the guy for the future, but they aren't sure yet. If he has a really good year in 2017, they renegotiate, give him a big deal. The guy they took in the second or third round hangs around for his rookie contract as the backup. If Taylor doesn't work out, the Bills decide next April if the guy they took in the second or third round looks like the real deal and they go with him If they don't don't like him, then they take another guy in the 2018 draft, first or second round.