Shaw66

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.

I agree. Especially the last 3.

Look at it this way: It's February 2016. You're Tyrod Taylor sitting with Whaley, who says the Bills will make two offers and you can take whichever one you want: 1. $6 million guaranteed for 2016. After that we can cut you. If we don't cut you, you get $40 million guaranteed for three years, and you get $15 million a year, not guaranteed, for two years after that. You're a free agent after the 2021 season. 2. $6 million guaranteed for 2016. $30 million guaranteed for the next two years. You're a free agent after the 2018 season. I think Taylor takes deal 2 all day, every day. Problem for Taylor was that the Bills weren't offering deal 2 last year. They were only offering deal 1. What happened was that the Bills wanted the opportunity to cut Taylor sometime after the 2015 season without it costing them so much. So they asked Taylor to renegotiate. This time around Taylor got the balance of deal 2. And the Bills got the right to get out of the deal after 2017 and again after 2018.

No, it makes complete sense. He hadn't made any real money through 2015. He'd made maybe a total of $3 million in the NFL, and he signed a contract worth, most likely, $46. That's why he did it. He was taking serious chips off the table. A year later, he gave some of those chips back to buy his freedom, but his first big deal with Buffalo was still worth $36 million in the bank.

He put money in the bank. The six-year deal gave him $6 million in 2016 alone, plus another $40 guaranteed. He'd made nothing up till then. It was a good move for him. Then this year he gave a bit of it back - $10 million out of $46 - so that he could be a free agent again. He's been very smart about this.

No. You just don't want to agree. Under his first Bills contract he was going to make about $3 million in three years; with incentives it could have been $6 million. Under his second Bills contract he got $6 million for his second year in Buffalo (so he did better in 2016 than he would have done in 2016 and 2017 under his first deal), and $40 million for his next three years (unless the Bills cut him before March 11, 2017). Clearly a better deal than where he was, in terms of money. But he gave up the ability to be a free agent in 2017 and left himself at Buffalo's mercy through 2021. In his third Bills contract, he gave up the last $10 million so that he could be a free agent in 2019. Why? Because he's confident he can do better from 2019 through 2021 as a free agent than under the terms of the his second Bills contract. He views it as a better deal for him. To recap, he went from $3-6 million in three years under his first contract to $46 million under his second contract to $36 million (adding 2016 back in for comparison sake) under his third contract, with the right become a free agent in 2018 (the prime of his career) instead of 2021 (the beginning of the tail end of his career). If it's a better deal for him, why did the Bills do it? They did it because THEY wanted the option to get out in a year or two, also. Just as Taylor was betting on his upside and was willing to give something up for it, the Bills wanted protection on their downside. Both sides got what they wanted.

Try to keep up. Why did he sign the six-year deal? Because his contract at the time was worth $1 million or something like that for 2016, but under the contract he signed he got $6 million. So he got a guaranteed increase in compensation of $5 million for 2016. And he got a guaranteed $40 million after that. He gave up his freedom, but he got, in total $45 million guaranteed. A year later, he had the $6 million and he had about $40 million guaranteed coming. By renegotiating, he gave up $10 million guaranteed but he got his freedom back so that, as Happy says, he can cash in on his contract beginning in 2019. Through 2015, Taylor had been playing football for NFL chump change. Then in 2016 he made $6 million. Call it $3 million after tax. If he's smart, and I think he is, he banked $2 million. He was looking at an offer of $30 million for two years, essentially guaranteed. After tax, $15 million, he'll bank $10 million. So at age 30 he'll have $12 million in the bank, which will pay him $400.000 for life. So he's all set. Now he gets to play for two years with a chance to cash in on a big contract, over $100 million. He's positioned himself well. I'm telling you: If he has a 94 passer rating in 2017, the Bills will be negotiating with him in a year, and they'll be in the $100 million range. Taylor is likely to be the winner. He didn't take a pay cut.

David West has done it for two years in a row in the NBA. He's a professional athlete. $10 million this season, $10 million last season.

I think Kraft and Brady have a handshake deal that will pay Brady millions for being a team ambassador after he retires.

Hi Thurm - Thanks. I think you have to look at what's guaranteed and then what's likely. Guaranteed was $40, and what's likely now is $30. Why is it likely? Because there's no upside to the Bills cutting him after 2017, because the cap hit is almost as bad as keeping him. So unless he becomes a public relations problem, the Bills will always keep him for 2018. Even if they've found another starter, he's a better backup than they could find anywhere else. So I'm pretty sure Taylor looked at it as giving up $10 million. However, if you review what's been said and and the contract history, I think the conclusion that these negotiations are a lot less about the money and a lot more about the option to terminate the contract. That is, it's always been about Taylor's freedom to make a new deal and who has the option to set him free. He left Baltimore and wanted to go someplace where he could start. He didn't seem to spend any time or energy on getting a lot of money; he wanted to go somewhere where he had a good chance to start and where he would have a short contract. He signed a three year deal with Buffalo, but a major part of the deal for Tyrod was that he could opt out after two years. So what happened? He played well his first year and the Bills were unhappy about the fact that Taylor could leave after year two. That meant that if Taylor had a good year two, the Bills would have to give him something like five years at $20 million per to keep him, and the Bills knew that they weren't going to be willing to commit that much to him after year two. They wanted to see him for at least three years. So they go to Taylor and suggest renegotiating, so the Bills could have a full three years and then cut him without penalty if they wanted to. Taylor said no, because the option at the end of year two was what he wanted. He wasn't going to give up the option for nothing. He asked for a long-term deal with big money. Bills said no to the money, yes to the long-term IF the option to end it all without penalty at the end of year two came back to the Bills. Taylor said ok, he'll give up the option to get out because he has guaranteed money. Year two happens and Taylor underperforms, in comparison to year one and also in terms of what's good enough to win in the NFL. Now the Bills are on the hotseat. They have the option to end the deal and avoid the guarantees, but they aren't sure about Taylor. If Taylor is the year-one QB, the contract is a bargain. If he's the year-two QB, they're overpaying and they may want to move on. Meanwhile, Taylor doesn't have the same doubts. He's started for two years, he knows he can play in the league. His seasons are nothing like the seasons Manuel and most young QBs have in the league. He's seen guys bounce around the league. He knows for the next seven years he can get FItzpatrick-McCown money all day long. He's better than they are, and someone will always pay him to play or to be a quality backup on a contending team. That's his cushion. He knows that he's always going to be able to make the money he's guaranteed under his current contract. What he wants is to get the option back. He wants the leverage to be able to say in a year or two that he wants more money, more than he'd get locked up with the Bills through 2021 or whenever. So I think Taylor looked at it and said, "I'm guaranteed $40. Under the two-year deal we're talking about, I'm almost certainly going to get $30. I'm almost certainly going to get the additional $10 in the next one or two years after that. So the guarantee of $40 doesn't mean a lot; I'm going to get the $40 either way. But under the new deal, my upside in 2019, 2020 and 2021 is much higher. The salary cap is going up. If I play well, I can get over $20 a year, maybe even $25 a year." I think Taylor listened to that, has confidence in his abilities and his future, and said "this is easy - I'll get the $40 either way, and the new deal gives me options." Bills, likewise, liked the deal because THEY got the option to terminate without major pain after 2018. What the Bills gave up is the opportunity to have Taylor on the cheap if he turns out to be good. I think what very well could happen is that in 2017 Taylor has a good year - say a passer rating around 94, which is his average. That would be at or around top 10. Bills win 9-10 games. And next February or March, Taylor and the Bills are renegotiating AGAIN. Why? Because at that point the Bills don't want to go into 2018 with Taylor playing on a one-year deal. If he has another good season, his price tag will go WAY up - as I said, in the low- to mid-20s. So they'll be talking about a new deal, 4-5-6 years, just like the last one, worth more than the deal the Bills just got away from, and with more than half of it guaranteed. If Taylor has another mediocre season, Bills go looking for a new QB, keep Taylor for 2018 and then negotiate or let him walk. What happened is that Taylor gave up some money to get out from under a long term deal. The Bills gave up the bargain price for a starting QB in order to get out from under the long-term future. They're both betting on what Taylor does in the next two seasons. If Taylor didn't want to make that bet, he would have refused to renegotiate and called the Bills' bluff.

This is a good point. I don't think that an agent has that conversation sitting at the table with the Browns, because that would risk the tampering charge. But I think the agent has that conversation sitting at the table with the Packers or the Raiders or the Falcons. What's the difference? Everyone understands that the Falcons aren't looking for a QB. There's pretty no much NO likelihood that the Falcons would be interested in him. So that's just casual conversation between two guys in the business. Agent might even say "I'm guessing I can get a team to give him $X million a year," and the GM might say "I doubt anyone would go that high" or "yeah, you probably could get that." Browns' GM isn't saying that, because that looks like a negotiation, and everyone is at risk. Falcons GM, over a cup of coffee, I agree that those conversations probably take place. And those conversations gave Tyrod's agent some idea of what he might be able to do if Tyrod were about to become a free agent.

Of course I do. You read what KC got fined for tampering with Maclin. Do you think all the other teams and agents are talking? Don't you think KC would be raising holy hell? Jets got fined just for the owner saying he'd like to have Revis come back. $100,000 for nothing more than that. Most people in the civilized world play by the rules most of the time. The overwhelming majority, the overwhelming amount of the time. That's true if there are penalties and they are enforced. Are there cases here and there where someone says something to someone and someone says something back? Probably. But not many. If you're a GM and you know that the Chiefs got fined in six figures AND lost two draft picks for talking to Maclin, are you really going to talk to Taylor?. In that case Maclin was going to become a free agent, but they talked before the so-called tampering period began. In this case, Taylor had NO RIGHT to be a free agent, so it would have been tampering with a player under contract. Moreover, I believe every GM was pretty sure the Bills would keep Taylor, because they know as well as most people that you don't cut a decent starting QB when you have NO ONE even remotely able to play as well as Taylor. So why would your risk draft picks and fines to talk to a player who most likely was NOT going to become a free agent anyway? It makes no sense that any GM would be talking to Taylor's agent under those circumstances. Remember, the Maclin case was finally decided only a year ago. Two draft picks for talking to someone early. The penalty for talking to someone who isn't even scheduled to become a free agent has to be worse.