Cash

Why would you sign a 32-year-old kicker to a big $$ deal if you're tanking?!?!?! And why would you redo Taylor's contract instead of just cutting him before the extension kicked in? I don't know if this team is bad at tanking, or so bad at trying to win that it just looks like they're tanking. Having said that, I do think they got good value in the Darby trade. Mathews doesn't suck, and neither does a 3rd round pick.

Yeah, college OT is the worst. Current NFL OT is just about perfect. I have no concern about shortening the OT one way or another. If they do it, it would be interesting to see if there are more ties. And what's so bad about a tie anyway? It's worse than a win, but better than a loss. In a 16-game season, one extra win (or loss) is often the difference between playoffs or not, or home field or not, or a bye or not. It's pretty harsh to have all that come down to who's better at 2-pt conversions. Besides, if you get rid of ties, we can't criticize coaches for playing too conservative in OT any more. That's about the only change I'd be cool with. I still prefer the current system, but that would be okay. You'd have to write it so that a kick return counts as an offensive possession.

Ha! I laughed. As for Barnidge at TE, I'm all for it, because I've heard of him. Anyone know if he can block and/or play on the line? He's 6'5", 247 lbs., which could go either way. If he can play on the line, then it's great, because he'd serve as both depth in case Clay gets hurt (likely), and a potentially dangerous matchup in 2-TE sets. If he's only more of an H-back type, then he'd lose the depth appeal, but probably still worth it. It seems like we're on our 3rd or 4th straight O-coordinator who says he loves TEs and multi-TE sets, yet our TEs have been some of the worst in the league for years. Clay is fine, and Chandler was basically fine before him, but who's the last decent backup TE we had? McKellar? Potential negatives for signing Barnidge: He's already 31 - maybe he's losing athleticism or his body is starting to break down. He did nothing his first 6 years in the league, then came out of nowhere to put up monster numbers in 2015. Last year his numbers were okay, but a huge nosedive from 2015 - maybe he's turning back into a pumpkin? Barnidge has interest from multiple teams, so he won't be signing a super-cheap deal. I'm sure he won't break the bank, but it's still possible given the above doubts that he'll make more than he's worth. All in all, I think it's absolutely worth going for him.

Hmm, that makes some sense. The only reasonable explanation I've seen for why Overdorf is still around. You still can't have garbage at CB. The Panthers' D played a lot better with Josh Norman than without. We had a very bare cupboard at CB coming into the draft, since you play 3 more than half the time and 4 a fair amount of time as well. I'm glad they didn't take Lattimore at 10 - I'd rather have a guy who projects to be solid, plus a 2017 3rd and 2018 1st, than a guy who *could* be elite but probably will just be solid.

I stopped reading after the first word. Good to know you agree with everything teef says. I stopped reading after the first letter. B is a pretty good grade, but if you really applied yourself, you might be able to get an A!

Serious question: who is making these transactions? We didn't just fire Whaley, we fired the entire pro personnel department. So I guess it's either McDermott or Overdorf or Brandon?

That's some very interesting outside-the-box thinking. I don't really see it playing out that way, but it's not crazy. In this (unlikely) scenario, we would actually be better off, because Sammy's deal would set the market for OBJ, Evans, and Benjamin, rather than Sammy('s agent) insisting he make more than all of the above because he was drafted higher. Wow, a legitimately good post from Rodak - good for him! The trade possibility is somewhat interesting. I'm rarely in favor of tanking, but if we start out really bad next year - like 0-4 or 2-5 or something - I'd be fine with benching Tyrod for Jones and/or Peterman and potentially trading Sammy. (And potentially anyone else with value in the last year of his deal, although that's a short list - maybe Wood, maybe Kyle Williams, maybe Preston Brown) We'd wind up with probably a top 5 pick in hopefully a good QB year. If it becomes clear that the team or Sammy or both don't want him back in 2018, whether to trade him or let him walk really depends on 2 factors: 1.) What can you get for him? 2.) Do you plan to be aggressive in free agency? Rodak correctly points out that we'd be in line for a 3rd or 4th round comp pick for letting him walk, but didn't mention that we only get that pick if we have a net loss of qualifying free agents. For example, we would've gotten a 4th next year for losing Gilmore this year, but we won't, because we signed more free agents than we lost. So if you're going to be active players in FA, you might as well trade him for whatever you can get. But if you're going to sit tight and try to develop your draft picks faster via more playing time, then you wouldn't trade him unless you can get a 3rd or better.

I'll give you this: if they have real info from the medical team that the foot is not healing properly, he might never be the same, etc., then that changes my reasoning, and the Bills should absolutely decline the option. If it's just a matter of "it's going slow", then I still think it's dumb to decline the option. Every player in the NFL is an injury risk. Sammy is more so than many, yes. But it's very hard in May of 2017 to say that any player, even the most injury-prone, will be unavailable for the whole 2018 season. Even Fred Taylor had 2 straight years of playing all 16 games. One other point: if the Bills do truly think that there's a serious problem with his foot and that it could impact not just this year but the year after, they should really have invested a lot more in the WR position this offseason. Andre Holmes, rookie Zay Jones, and Philly Brown could be the worst "this is what we expected our top 3 WRs to be" in recent NFL history. I guess Carolina's from the year before they got Benjamin might've been worse. When did Russ Brandon leave the team?

Great post! I agree on most of it. I'm not a staunch Whaley defender, and I've made peace with his termination, but I do think he got a bit of a raw deal. I really think we had a legit talented team the last 4 years that was mostly derailed due to coaching - and Whaley (unlike most GMs) wasn't allowed to hire either coach. Brandon hired Marrone, allegedly over Whaley's objections, and the Pegulas hired Rex, allegedly over Whaley's objections. Now, Whaley deserves blame for the EJ pick, and probably wouldn't have signed TT in the first place if Rex hadn't been hired, so no credit to him there. And the Sammy trade was a terrible move (IMO) at the time and looks equally bad in hindsight. How much of that is on Whaley though, and how much on Brandon? Maybe it's Whaley's fault that he wasn't willing or able to tune out the marketing guy, or stump hard enough for his coaching pick and convince the owner to side with him. Maybe he's a really good scout who needs to work on his "influencing people" skills. I don't know. But I do know that Kryk's article makes some great points at the end re: Overdorf and Brandon. A lot of people in this thread and elsewhere have justified Whaley's firing with a "bottom line" argument - we were 30-34 with him as GM, didn't make the playoffs, so he has to go. Fair enough, but under that logic, Overdorf and Brandon should've been fired before Whaley was even brought on as assistant GM, much less full-on GM. Brandon is technically not involved in football operations anymore, but it seems clear to me that he has the ear of Pegula, and can influence a lot more decisions than I'd like. (The number I'd like: zero.) So in that respect, maybe this Sean McDespot move is a good one: he'll hire a GM who's subservient to him, and insist on every move being one that he likes, regardless of what Brandon via Pegula says. Overdorf just has to go, though. I don't care if the cap problems aren't his fault. I don't care if he's not involved with the poor RFA tendering. I don't care if he's actually great at his job and everything is someone else's fault. He is replaceable. And he's been one of the few constants throughout many front office changes. We need a fresh start here.

It looks like the Bills won't be picking up Watkins' option. I think that's a mistake. The only way we come out of this looking "good" is if Sammy gets hurt or wildly disappoints next year, in which case we look even dumber for trading up for him in the first place. If he has a good year then is franchised or walks, it'll be the latest in a long line of laughingstock moments for the Bills. And for the record, I hated the trade up, and wasn't a big fan of Watkins coming out of college. Mike Evans was my guy. I was way off on Beckham and Benjamin, though, so it's not like I'm some elite WR scout.

I would've preferred a "none of the above" option, but since that wasn't available, I went with Watson. I had no problems with the Bills passing on him, though. I do like Peterman a bit and thought it was a great pick in the 5th, but usually guys fall in the draft for a reason, and the odds are steeply against any 5th-rounder becoming a franchise guy. I voted yes for the second question because I think it's pretty likely that at least one of these guys wins as a caretaker/game manager type - the most recent example being Osweiler and Old Manning for the Broncos.

Not many - most of them were the right call at the time, and especially in hindsight. But that's kind of the point - if we've made all these good decisions, why has it been 17 years since we've made the playoffs? Why aren't these good decisions leading to greater team success? I think part of the reason is unrelated stuff - coaching/GM turnover, for example. But I also think that part of it is poor team-building strategy. It's possible to make a good pick (Gilmore), then make a good decision to let him walk (also Gilmore), and wind up having done very little to help your team in the big picture. I wonder if you're almost better off swinging for the fences with a boom-or-bust player, like Maybin or almost any QB. If they bust, does it really matter if you go 8-8 or 6-10? Again, that's for a rebuilding team like ours - if you're already a contender and looking to get over the hump, I think it makes a lot more sense to go for high-floor guys that you know will be cheap, solid starters while you contend. I'm kind of getting off track. I think my main point is that it's theoretically okay to draft any position high (except K or P), but in general, teams should prioritize certain positions high - QB, OL, DL, pass-rushing OLB, etc. To a lesser extent, stud WR, "defensive QB" middle linebacker, and maybe center-field safety with the way the league is going. If you're going to take a TE, RB, CB, or "other" linebacker, he'd better have a chance to be a great - not just good - player. I loved the trade down. To me, anyone we drafted at 10 would likely be another Gilmore type - good player, not a superstar, doesn't really move the needle, not worth big bucks in 5 years. If I was a GM, I would try to trade down in the first round every time unless I thought that a foundational/superstar type player was available. Maybe the Bills thought that was the case with Gilmore and were just wrong; no one's ever going to be right all the time. But I feel better about how they handled the #10 pick in 2016 than in 2011. (Having said that, I kind of hate the 2 trade-ups in the 2nd round, although I do like both of those players. Hopefully they both pan out!)

I agree. I agree with all of this. I agree with all of this as well. I only sort of agree with this. Gilmore was a good, not great pick - solid starter who seemed like he could be elite but never really was. And I definitely think letting him walk for the money involved was the right move. But if we step back and look at it as a whole, we spent the #10 pick in the draft and got 5 years of good-not-great CB play, and now have nothing to show for it - not even a comp pick. Is that good team building? For a team with a franchise QB tying up lots of cap $, maybe. For a team in the 6-10 to 9-7 range, I personally don't think so. I separate the trade down from the White pick. I love the trade down and I'm fine with the White pick but don't love it. I would've hated drafting Lattimore at #10 - that would truly be a "spinning our wheels" scenario. On the other hand, if White becomes good-not-great and walks after 5 years, we at least got a 2017 3rd and a 2018 1st out of that #10 overall pick. Have they? The only high-pick DBs that the Bills have signed to second contracts since the Winfield days were McKelvin and Aaron Williams. And only Williams really fits the bill of a guy who panned out and then got a upper-market contract - if McKelvin had gotten a Gilmore/Clements/Winfield type offer, the Bills would've let him walk. Now, the Bills have shown they'll pay players - Cordy Glenn, Marcell Dareus, Aaron Williams, and Eric Wood are recent high picks who've been re-signed. Jerry Hughes could maybe count as well, since he was re-signed after his 1st-round rookie contract expired. If you want to look at all picks, you can add Stevie Johnson and Kyle Williams to the mix. (As a sidebar, I'm really surprised how short the above list is - I was expecting more names.) Most of those guys play on the lines - these are the kind of foundational players that typically are prioritized in the early rounds. On the other hand, here's my list of high picks who panned out but then weren't re-signed: Robert Woods, Gilmore, CJ Spiller, Jairus Byrd, Andy Levitre, Marshawn Lynch, Paul Posluszny, and the list can go on but that's pretty far back already. Only 1 of those guys plays on either line, 2 are DBs, and 2 are RBs.

I like this logic. QB is so important in the modern NFL that's it's hard to win without a good one, and hard not to win with a great one. But there are very few great ones, and not that many good ones either. I do think that the Bills have historically not invested enough in the QB position, but there's a balance to be struck. Cleveland hasn't done too well by drafting Johnny Manziel, Brandon Weeden, and Brady Quinn in the first round the last 10 years. This year struck me as a lot like 2011, except without Cam Newton. Teams talked themselves into Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert, and Christian Ponder in the top 12 picks. Time will tell on this QB class.

As our pick at #10 was coming up, I was telling my wife that I expected the Bills to take Lattimore and that I wouldn't be very enthused about that. I was psyched when the team icon at #10 flipped to KC - I've been pulling for a trade down all along. Given the Bills roster, I wanted either a potential/likely superstar at any position or a trade down. I'm no draft expert, but I didn't think anyone at 10 fit that no-brainer/blue-chipper mold - to me, there's usually about 5-6 of them in a given draft - so I was hoping for the trade down. I was actually hoping for 2 trades down - one to the teens for a #2 and then maybe another to the 2nd round for a first next year. I'm very happy with what we got, especially if KC falls on their face next year. I basically don't think future firsts should ever be given up for pretty much anyone. In terms of draft value, we definitely won this trade. Of course, if the QB becomes a star, KC will have won the trade big-time. But no one, including KC, can for sure say that he'll be a star. Even if he does, I'm happy that we at least got better value. Think of it as selling a $1 scratch-off for $10. You would do that every time you bought a scratch-off if you could, but some of the times the scratch-off will hit for $100 and you'll feel like an ass. But it doesn't mean you were dumb to sell it for $10 in the first place. One last thing - the "discount future picks by a round" thing drives me crazy. Coaches/GMs do that for 2 reasons: 1.) They can never be 100% certain they'll be around to make future picks, so those inherently have less value to them, and 2.) That's how everyone else does it, and most NFL people haven't had an original thought since kindergarten. But as fans, we have much higher job security - unless the team moves or I die, I can guarantee that I'll still be a fan in 2018. The chances of the team moving by then are remote, and if I die, I won't really care about the Bills one way or another. So there's no reason for a fan (or an owner!) to discount the value of a future pick. When next year rolls around, that first-rounder will fall in the first round, not the second. Draft picks aren't subject to inflation the way money is. I like to think of it this way: would you rather have: A.) First round picks in 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, or B.) Second round picks in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 No one in their right mind would ever trade A for B, and just about anyone would trade B for A.

I think a lot of this actually serves the OP's argument. When you look at each move in and of itself, almost every move is a good one: Draft Winfield - good player Draft Clements - good player Let Winfield walk - (this one was a mistake - matching or beating his Vikings contract wouldn't have broken the bank and he remained really good for Minny) Let Clements walk - the right call; he wasn't worth that contract Draft McKelvin - seemed like a good idea at the time, but while he wasn't a total bust, you'd want better out of that high a pick Re-sign McKelvin - didn't have much outside interest and signed for pretty low money for a starting CB Cut McKelvin - his performance tailed off, starting to lose his athleticism, and maybe didn't buy in to the new scheme Draft Gilmore - good player (debatable how good) Let Gilmore walk - probably not worth that contract (I think he won't be, but time will tell) Draft White - seems like a good player from what I've read But for all of that, we've stayed a middling to bad team for the entire time. Even though most of those individual moves were good decisions, they didn't lead to overall success. And that's what concerns me. I get the logic of "CBs are expensive, so it makes some sense to draft good ones high, get good play on a cheap rookie deal, then let them walk and replace with another high pick." But I think that approach would work much better for an established playoff team with most of its foundational players in place. For a team like ours that's been perpetually rebuilding, I would much prefer we use our high picks to try to get (and keep!) those foundational players. Even the Maybin pick, as bad as it was, at least had potential - if Maybin had been a good player, we likely would've re-signed him to a big bucks deal, and we'd have had a stud pass rusher DE for 10 years or so. Not every high pick will pan out. Some will be total busts like Maybin, some will be absolute studs like Jim Kelly or Bruce Smith, but most will fall into 2 broad categories: Okay-but-disappointing players like McKelvin or Whitner, or pretty-good-but-not-stars like Eric Wood or Gilmore. I think it's important when looking at overall team building to value some positions more than others in the high rounds. Because if you're not going to be willing to pay a "pretty good" CB when his contract is up, but will pay a "pretty good" LT, the LT is worth more in the long run. I do agree that it's not entirely fair to judge this front office on the actions of previous front offices, but I also think there's legit cause for concern here.

Great post!

1. Mike Williams : Philadelphia Eagles 2. Corey Davis : NY Jets 3. Malik Hooker : LA Chargers 4. OJ Howard : Cleveland Browns 5 Mitch Trubisky : Washington Bills Pick (bonus) : Marcus Lattimore

Fair argument, but I respectfully disagree. First, Faulk was significantly better when you consider more than just rushing yards: 19,154 yards from scrimmage for Faulk, 15,610 for James. Faulk had 136 total TDs, James had 91. Faulk's AV (not the be-all end-all, but a decent metric) is 166 to James' 136. Faulk also fumbled 8 fewer times in 28 more games. James does have him on average rushing yards per game, but Faulk's average yards from scrimmage per game is higher. Faulk's career 4.3 yards per carry beats James' 4.0, and Faulk averaged over 5 yards/carry 3 times, whereas James' career high was 4.6. Second, you're not including the opportunity cost of trading Faulk. Yes, they got 2 good players and replaced him pretty well (James was arguably just as good his first 2 years; he just didn't have as much staying power), but they had to use the #4 overall pick to replace Faulk. If they had instead kept Faulk, they presumably would have drafted one of the other consensus top prospects - Torry Holt or Champ Bailey. Would you rather have Mike Peterson and Brad Scioli or one of Torry Holt or Champ Bailey? I'd understand if you still prefer Peterson/Scioli, but I'd rather have the borderline Hall of Famer at WR or CB than 2 role players, one of whom left after his rookie contract. Oh, as an afterthought, the contract stuff doesn't sway me much either, since this was before the days of the rookie cap. Edge James actually made more in each of his first 3 years than Faulk did in that same time span - i.e., the Rams payed less for 3 years of MVP-caliber Faulk than the Colts did for almost-as-good James. It wasn't till Faulk got a new deal in 2002 that he overtook James.

This game still makes me so mad. I believe the head of officiating sent out a memo to all officials that basically blasted that call. The weird thing is - the PI call was actually (technically) the correct call. Jones wasn't playing the ball at all, and just shoved the receiver as the ball was coming. I get why you wouldn't throw a flag in that situation, but it was worse than just the regular bumping and jostling that happens on most Hail Mary attempts. The "first down" "catch" on the previous play was, to me, the worst call I'd ever seen. Looking back at it on grainy VHS, it's closer than I remembered. His feet *might* have been down for a split second when he catches the ball. I still think at least one of them had already come up, but it's hard to tell without freeze-frame or HD video. However, even if it was a catch, the problem remains that it was 4th down, and he was well short of the 1st down marker.

I would not support the Bills, or likely any team, in a lame duck situation such as this.

I voted defense and safety, but I think CB is about equally likely. If there was a DB option, I'd be all over it. I do think WR is next most likely, though.

Unless the Bills think a true star is there at 10 (a Luke Kuechly type), I'd like to see them trade down, and then maybe trade down again. I know the draft trade value chart has problems, but I think teams still mostly go by it. #10 is worth 1300 points. I feel like I'd rather have #35, #45, and #60 (total 1300) than #10. Part of that is because I think we need a lot of starters and key depth players. But part of that is because we've see the Gilmore Cycle happen a few times - we draft someone in the first round, usually fairly high, and they wind up pretty good. Not so great that we definitely need to sign them to a market-setting contract, but definitely a good player. But since they were such a high pick, the only way to re-sign them is to give them a big contract. If we keep them, we have a good player, but maybe at too high a price. If we let them walk, maybe it's the sound Moneyball decision, but we still lost a good player that we now need to replace. This can happen with any player, but it's most likely with first-rounders, especially high ones. That's why I think positional value is very important at the top of the draft, especially for a crappy team like ours. If you're a SB contender, you have the luxury of trying to grab that last missing piece without worrying about down-the-road implications. But if we draft someone at #10 and only have them for 5 years (a la Gilmore), it's a bad pick. If you draft a safety at #10, he'd better have a chance at being Earl Thomas-level. If you just draft a safety because you need a safety, you wind up with Donte Whitner. Who was a decent player, but basically had to be overpaid because he was drafted so high. Likewise with a WR - I don't want them to take one at #10 because you don't draft a #2 WR that high. And there's no way to do all 3 of: 1.) Keep Sammy long-term 2.) Keep #10 draft pick long-term (if he pans out) 3.) Afford to have depth at other positions

What level was Groy tendered at? I'm guessing the low level, which would give no compensation if he leaves.

Dear God, please no.