Poles media scrum notes:

[IE]

What you're not understanding is that if you want to get a player you covet, particularly as an RFA, you have to put a substantial burden on the team trying to match. The Bills tried Penny Pinching themselves by not signing Bates to the second round tender. You need to make them pay for that. Poles did the equivalent of raising the final bid like 25 cents. 250K is NOTHING in the NFL. Raising them to 1 mill per is a much more substantial bid, while not overpaying much if at all. 5 mill per for a guy who you think can be your starting guard is not that much. It's certainly not even close to the 51 mill contract that we paid to Whitehair. If you want an RFA at least pay him enough to make the other team think twice before matching. This was a no brainer for the Bills.

And yet you'd still be overpaying relative to your valuation, which is always a Bad Thing [tm].

I understand the frustration at losing Bates to his previous team, but that's the price to be paid for dipping your toe in the RFA pool.

Exactly. Yogi missed my main point that Poles didn't crater and pay more than he thought the guy was worth. He clearly thought he was a useful piece but not essential - clearly. This is incredibly obvious. Again we're just back to people disagreeing with Poles over player value and such without having visibility into his real thinking or plan.

[wab]

I think something that people are also overlooking: Poles himself (and Cunningham) were not highly touted offensive linemen prospects coming out of the college. They were both try-hard guys who fought for spots at the bottom of rosters. It's conceivable that they are more willing to give guys like Simmons and lower round picks a chance.

Bates was a UDFA. Patrick was a UDFA.

Poles has passed on the higher priced early FA guys in favor of Patrick/Bates. It stands to reason that his and Cunningham's background factor into their FA approach.

[The Cooler King]

I think something that people are also overlooking: Poles himself (and Cunningham) were not highly touted offensive linemen prospects coming out of the college. They were both try-hard guys who fought for spots at the bottom of rosters. It's conceivable that they are more willing to give guys like Simmons and lower round picks a chance.

Bates was a UDFA. Patrick was a UDFA.

Poles has passed on the higher priced early FA guys in favor of Patrick/Bates. It stands to reason that his and Cunningham's background factor into their FA approach.

Oof if personal lived anecdote is that influential in their roster building process. I get the idea that less skilled guys sometimes make better evaluators or coaches, but the idea is still generally they maximize high level talent as coaches/developers.

[wab]

I think something that people are also overlooking: Poles himself (and Cunningham) were not highly touted offensive linemen prospects coming out of the college. They were both try-hard guys who fought for spots at the bottom of rosters. It's conceivable that they are more willing to give guys like Simmons and lower round picks a chance.

Bates was a UDFA. Patrick was a UDFA.

Poles has passed on the higher priced early FA guys in favor of Patrick/Bates. It stands to reason that his and Cunningham's background factor into their FA approach.

Oof if personal lived anecdote is that influential in their roster building process. I get the idea that less skilled guys sometimes make better evaluators or coaches, but the idea is still generally they maximize high level talent as coaches/developers.

I'm not suggesting that's the basis or even the totality of their evaluation. But I think there's a factor of it.

I don't think they are going to build an offensive line full of UDFA types and 7th rounders.

[BreadNCircuses]

The valuation question is an interesting one. We can infer that Poles offered more than the Patriots or Vikings did. Likewise, Bates was clearly willing to play for what the Bears offered. The real question was ultimately were the Bills going to commit to a 4 year deal for a guy who was currently a backup. It made sense, as both their starting guards are on the last real years of their current deals, and likely one or both won't be resigned next year.

What might be interesting is if this new money means they ultimately move on from one of the guys currently ahead of him on the depth chart a year early -- I would see it as somewhat unlikely as Boettger's cap number is really low, and Saffold wouldn't really free up any meaningful cap space by cutting him, given his dead money in the void year in 2023.

[dplank]

I agree Wab...here's a tidbit from a few years ago when I was working around a lot of these guys. Jack Del Rio (GREAT DUDE). I was chit chatting with him after a meeting once when he was in Oakland, we had met many years before when he was with the Ravens and he was a friendly guy. Anyhow, he was asking me if I ever wanted to get into football ops in some manner and I told him I never played past high school and wasn't good enough to play D1 college and didn't think I had the creds to make the jump from business owner to "football guy". His answer was interesting.

He said that the fact that he was a very limited athlete is what makes him a good coach. And then he told me exactly why that is. He said when he played at USC, he was probably the worst athlete on the field. In order to keep up with the superior athletes, his technique had to be perfect. He said when he dropped into a zone coverage, he had to plant his foot perfectly perpendicular to his coverage zone so that he could get a full push off to jump towards the player/ball. Other guys could do it without having perfect technique because they were better athletes. But not him. He went as far as to say that there's a reason why the great players don't make great coaches, and it's because they're such elite athletes typically that they literally can't understand why a more limited athlete can't "just do it".

Anyhow, long story short, Poles short career as a low end prospect certainly impacts how he views player acquisition and I would mark it down as a net positive on his resume.

[RichH55]

I agree Wab...here's a tidbit from a few years ago when I was working around a lot of these guys. Jack Del Rio (GREAT DUDE). I was chit chatting with him after a meeting once when he was in Oakland, we had met many years before when he was with the Ravens and he was a friendly guy. Anyhow, he was asking me if I ever wanted to get into football ops in some manner and I told him I never played past high school and wasn't good enough to play D1 college and didn't think I had the creds to make the jump from business owner to "football guy". His answer was interesting.

He said that the fact that he was a very limited athlete is what makes him a good coach. And then he told me exactly why that is. He said when he played at USC, he was probably the worst athlete on the field. In order to keep up with the superior athletes, his technique had to be perfect. He said when he dropped into a zone coverage, he had to plant his foot perfectly perpendicular to his coverage zone so that he could get a full push off to jump towards the player/ball. Other guys could do it without having perfect technique because they were better athletes. But not him. He went as far as to say that there's a reason why the great players don't make great coaches, and it's because they're such elite athletes typically that they literally can't understand why a more limited athlete can't "just do it".

Anyhow, long story short, Poles short career as a low end prospect certainly impacts how he views player acquisition and I would mark it down as a net positive on his resume.

Good stuff here

[thunderspirit]

I agree Wab...here's a tidbit from a few years ago when I was working around a lot of these guys. Jack Del Rio (GREAT DUDE). I was chit chatting with him after a meeting once when he was in Oakland, we had met many years before when he was with the Ravens and he was a friendly guy. Anyhow, he was asking me if I ever wanted to get into football ops in some manner and I told him I never played past high school and wasn't good enough to play D1 college and didn't think I had the creds to make the jump from business owner to "football guy". His answer was interesting.

He said that the fact that he was a very limited athlete is what makes him a good coach. And then he told me exactly why that is. He said when he played at USC, he was probably the worst athlete on the field. In order to keep up with the superior athletes, his technique had to be perfect. He said when he dropped into a zone coverage, he had to plant his foot perfectly perpendicular to his coverage zone so that he could get a full push off to jump towards the player/ball. Other guys could do it without having perfect technique because they were better athletes. But not him. He went as far as to say that there's a reason why the great players don't make great coaches, and it's because they're such elite athletes typically that they literally can't understand why a more limited athlete can't "just do it".

Anyhow, long story short, Poles short career as a low end prospect certainly impacts how he views player acquisition and I would mark it down as a net positive on his resume.

Good stuff here

Agreed. Thanks for sharing, @dplank.