Thurman#1

IMO they're working with it, and they haven't maximized their talent or abilities yet, much less had as much of a chance to gel as they would have if they'd settled on five guys to play. It's seemed to me that Nsekhe has been OK at tackle and Ford at guard, but they seem not to want to do that for some reason. In any case, I think this is part of the process and I don't see them bringing in an expensive FA in Williams. Or trading Zay, their third-best WR, either for that matter.

Very true that they don't all take the same path to greatness. No argument there. And I really hear you about the people who were all over Manuel and Tyrod Taylor and all the others through those horrible years. It looked to me like he wasn't so much selling hope as saying we need to wait and see. But maybe you're right.

Aikman already had Emmitt Smith and most of that same o-line the year he was bad. 1990 starting OL: Tuinei, Crawford Ker, Mark Stepnoski, John Gesek, Nate Newton. 1992 starting OL: Tuinei, Newton, Stepnoski, Gesek and Erik Williams You're definitely right he was in a better situation, and that absolutely helped him. But he also made huge improvements in how well he made decisions, threw the football, understood defenses and generally performed as a QB. The bottom line is this, in 1990 he wasn't a good QB and by 1992, he really was.

Nathan Peterman can still go on to be great. It's very very very very unlikely, but not out of the question. Sometimes people improve an awful lot unpredictably. And while I think you're a great poster, I think you're off the mark here (not about Peterman but about what BillsBoy is saying). He's not saying that this proves that Allen will make it. He's simply pointing out the fact that many QBs who became terrific stunk it up for a while in the league first. And that Allen might be one of them but it's too early to know.

Really? Are there threads about bringing in Foles? Jeez, you're right, that's nuts. Threads on his long-term viability make sense. Most of what there is to say about that is that we don't know yet, but it's reasonable to bring it up. But anyone who says we know he doesn't have long-term viability is just a fruitcake. He absolutely did fail this week. But we'll have to wait. On the other hand, "losing faith" isn't nuts. It's just somebody's opinion. I've got no problem, especially with just asking the question. Most of what you quoted there seems OK to me, but yeah, some of it is pretty wacky. Fan boards do get nutsy after really bad (and really good) games.

On the contrary, you can prove plenty with older stats such as Aikman's from nearly 30 years ago. Yes, it's stupid to directly compare them. You're quite right about that. And you're also right that without context stats can be very misleading, especially older stats. But looking at Aikman's second year is very instructive. But by any standards, today's or that era's, Aikman was still bad and still learning in his second year. It's not like having 11 TDs and 18 INTs was good back then, or even borderline acceptable. It wasn't. In his second year, that's how he looked, and then in his fourth year suddenly he had 23 TDs and 14 INTs and was "suddenly" one of the better QBs in the NFL.

Of course it's not time to think of pulling the plug. Are there any nuts on here implying that it is? You're dead right that for some guys, it simply takes time. More time than fans would like. Are there guys who get it quickly? Yeah, a few. More take time. Some guys are NFL-ready. Some aren't. Some guys who are thought to be NFL-ready prove they actually weren't and with time improve a lot. From minute one, Allen was not considered NFL-ready. He really should have had a year to sit and study and practice his mechanics. He didn't get that. And it probably set him back, as it's exactly his mechanics that he seems to be abandoning, and complex NFL defenses that coming out of Wyoming he hadn't seen much of, that are confusing him. Nobody knows if he'll become a franchise guy, though there are reasonable guesses on both sides. He's going to need time, and we won't know till we know.

It's maybe a legitimate question, but the answer, unless he absolutely falls apart, is likely to be that he gets three or four years to grow and improve. Particularly as we're seeing improvement. Inconsistency and mental mistakes are not fatal flaws for 2nd year guys. By the way, I like your name. But the problem with EJ was that his best work was in his first year. Things went downhill after that. In contrast, Josh has showed improvement.

That's not knowing. It's called wishful thinking. It might have happened. Or it might not. But there's no particular reason to think he would have. What we do know is that after the TD, the Bills drives looked like this till Allen was knocked out of the game: 1st: (3rd quarter, 9:00) 6 plays, totaling -14 yards, PUNT 2nd: (3rd quarter, 5:27) 3 plays, totaling 9 yards, INTERCEPTION 3rd: (3rd quarter, 0:58) 12 plays, totaling 62 yards (however, Allen was injured on the fourth play, after making 27 yards, though the penalty on the hit on Allen added to that) So, from the TD to the injury, they had 13 plays totalling 22 yards. In those two-and-a-half drives, Allen went 2 for 5 for 22 yards and an interception. He did also scramble twice for seven yards each and had a sack for -11, so he totaled three yards on the scrambles and the sack. I don't see any evidence there that he'd cracked the code before he got injured.

Very true. Really, there are no make or break games until late in the season when each game starts to be either necessary or not to make the playoffs.

What the Pegulas thought is not especially relevant in a case like that. They aren't heavily involved in cap decisions. And Beane's concern for the cap is deep, it's clearly very important to him, as it should be. I doubt concern over Shady's reaction was an important factor. I think they simply thought that the difference between the RBs with Shady and the RBs without him wasn't worth the $7 or so million they'd save by cutting him.

IMO more like: 1. Morse 2. Dawkins 3. Brown 4. Beasley 5. Feliciano then a bunch close together. For comparison, Buscaglia's grades after watching every grading each player on every play, for the offense are: 1. Dawkins 2. Morse 3. Knox 4. Allen 5. Spain 6. Lee Smith 7. Zay 8. Beasley 9. Gore 10. Brown 11. Ford 12. McKenzie 13. Foster 14. Feliciano 15. Sweeney 16. Yeldon ... and those are all of the ones who had enough snaps. Singletary doesn't have enough snaps, which is what I think as well. We still don't know what we have with him, though it looks good.

The league has been pushing it for a long time. Why wouldn't they? More cash for the owners. But the players hate the idea and for good reason.

We have been talking about a long period of time. Since Wilson got his big contract, and even occassionally going back to last year, he has indeed started making top five rankings. Through the great majority of his career, he has not. Right up to around 2017 many weren't even putting him in the top ten (which I thought even at the time was crazy), but he has absolutely NOT been listed as a top five guy till very recently indeed. Again, my side of this argument is that you don't need a top three or five guy, you need a top ten or twelve guy and your team will have a chance every year they can put a solid team around him. And I think Wilson has been a top ten or twelve guy pretty much right from the beginning of his career. As for Roethlisberger, you say it's without question, but that's just not true. Plenty of people have listed him outside the top five plenty of years, saying (correctly) that he has benefitted from being in the Pittsburgh system. https://www.ranker.com/list/best-2000s-quarterbacks/ranker-nfl https://bleacherreport.com/articles/561038-nfl-best-of-the-2000s-quarterbacks#slide0 https://www.thesportster.com/football/the-8-best-and-7-worst-nfl-qbs-since-2000/ https://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articles/the_25_best_quarterbacks_of_the_2010s/s1__29728982#slide_19 https://bleacherreport.com/articles/804479-2011-nfl-quaterback-rankings#slide27 https://athlonsports.com/nfl/ranking-nfls-starting-quarterbacks-2012 Through most of his career, the top five have generally been thought of as Brees, Brady, Rodgers, Peyton and various combinations of Andrew Luck, Carson Palmer, Phillip Rivers and Ryan Fitzpatrick. Kidding, about Fitzy anyway, but Roethlisberger has indeed very often not been considered a top five guy. Not that he hasn't had a terrific career and been an excellent QB. He has been very very good for a long time. EDIT: As I re-read your post, you say, "or just shy of top 5," about Roethlisberger. Hey, I have no argument with you there, none whatsoever. IMO he's been around 6th for most of his career. But the OP has talked specifically about the top three or five, not "just shy of the top 5."

Wait, he's not a game-changer in game three of his rookie season? Cut him!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I know I generally judge draft success by how well the players do in their first three games.

Yeah, the Harvard of the Southeastern Mount Pleasant urban area. It's a pretty good school, actually, 26,000 students, with most of what that entails. Go Chippewas! Not that I went there but a friend did and he enjoyed it.

He's right that we can beat them. But that's been true every time we've ever taken the field against them. If things had gone absolutely right and they'd played a virtually perfect game and the ball had bounced right, we could have beaten them two times a year every year. It's just that all that happens together so very rarely. We're a better team this year, IMO, than we've been in ten or fifteen years. But that's just not saying much when you look back at those teams and rosters. We have a shot this week. It's just very unlikely, as it has been since Brady's second year.

That was an interesting question. I googled Eagles HOFers and came up with one guy I had virtually never heard of. Steve Van Buren. Check this out: "INDUCTED: 1965 When Steve Van Buren retired from the NFL in 1951, he was arguably the greatest player in NFL history. Not only was Van Buren the best running back in the NFL, he shattered any rushing record the league ever had. In eight NFL seasons, Van Buren rushed for 5,860 yards and scored 464 points (69 touchdowns). He averaged 4.4 yards per carry and left the NFL as the league's all-time leading rusher and scoring leader. "Van Buren saved his greatest performances for the NFL Championship Game. Van Buren scored the game's only touchdown in a blizzard at Franklin Field to give the Eagles a 7-0 victory over the Chicago Cardinals for the franchise's first NFL title in 1948. Van Buren was even better in the 1949 NFL Championship Game, rushing for 196 yards in a rain-drenched Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum as the Eagles defeated the Los Angeles Rams 14-0. Those 196 rushing yards are still a NFC Championship Game (inherited the only NFL title game records) record. "He was named to the NFL's prestigious 75th-anniversary team in 1994 and was a selection on the Pro Football Hall of Fame 1940s All-Decade Team. He was the Eagles first inductee into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, elected in 1965. 'I've seen them all -- Jim Thorpe, Red Grange, Bronko Nagurski,' said former Eagles head coach Greasy Neale to the Philadelphia Daily News in 1957. 'But Steve's the greatest.' " https://247sports.com/nfl/philadelphia-eagles/ContentGallery/Philadelphia-Eagles-in-the-Pro-Football-Hall-of-Fame-120385491/ Another I found was Pete Pihos, who was All-Pro (not Pro Bowl, but All-Pro, considered the best at his position in the league, for six of nine Eagles seasons. That's dominant. He played receiver, but went two ways as a DE. Sonny Jurgenson? Tommy McDonald? McDonald in one six-year period averaged 1.1 TDs per game, and that was when the passing game wasn't anywhere near as prevalent as it is now. Bob Brown, a first-team All-Pro seven times at OL? In any case, though, Peters has been a sensational player and a historical Eagle. By all accounts a terrific team guy. Will almost certainly rank in that team's top five or six players.

Most years Roethlisberger hasn't been ranked in the top five in contemporary rankings. Some years yes. Most years more like six and seven. Even further back lately. Very questionable. And by your definition of sustained excellence, the Chiefs have been consistently excellent in the six-year Andy Reid era and look to continue that and again, did not have a great QB till last year. The Seahawks very easily qualify over the Carroll regime, without a top five QB. And one of your top examples, the Saints in the Drew Brees era, do not qualify, having made 6 of 13 division championship games. Sorry, but with this definition, your contention still doesn't hold up. Having that "excellent non-future HOF QB" you talk about (that's so unclear I return to my definition of what you need) a top ten to top twelve guy gives you a chance every year. As I said above, " Not that you'll be good every year, but you'll have a chance if you can put a solid team around him." The Lions certainly have not put a solid team around Stafford in the large majority of the years he's been there. Same with those Bengal teams around Palmer. You saw in Arizona what happens when you put a decent team around Carson Palmer. Cincy improved a bit at scouting after that but they've been a team that has settled for mediocrity and saving money in player acquisition. The Ravens have made your benchmark for a long time without a top five QB. Ozzie simply put an excellent roster on the field for years. Even really good QBs can't rescue bad teams as Rodgers and Rivers among others have showed.

You are what your record says you are. And while I think this is the best Bills team we've seen in quite a while, we've got a chance, but it isn't a likelihood, or close.

Yes, and the same can be said for all QBs.

I think you're drinking the Kool-Aid. Not so much predicting that the Bills win. That could happen, thought he odds are high against it. But in thinking there's no way to defend Josh Allen, even if you're Bill Belichick. There is, and Belichick will find it and it will likely include confusing him, as it does for most 2nd year QBs. And secondly in putting "articles" in your headline. It was mostly the one article.

IMO they should be working out anyone they think might have a chance to upgrade the lineup, at any position. Always. Due diligence.

Brady really is showing amazing longevity. But at his age, injuries start becoming a factor, and they're not predictable. I doubt we see a few more, personally. My bet is this year and maybe next year. And I'm not one of those guys who has been predicting his downfall for a decade. Just the opposite, I have always said that you can't predict it with him, as he doesn't get hit much. But we've finally started to see his arm strength lose the top few percent, and I don't see him thriving at 44, I just think the odds against that will finally be too high. An opinion? Absolutely. But a reasonable one.

While you're right that having a top QB is huge, I disagree that it needs to be a top 3 or top 5 guy. Roethlisberger, for one, isn't top three, or even top five. Top ten? You betcha. And Russell Wilson is another terrific example. They've been consistently competitive right since they got him, and no he's not top five either, though close. I'd further argue that Rivers has been a top five guy for a very long time now and it hasn't got that team consistency. Oh, and in your first paragraph you say that "Fans seem to be hanging their hats on the concept that there somehow there is a requirement to have short term mediocrity or failure in order to build for a period of sustained excellence. Not sure 21st history really bears that out." But then you hang your hat on the Steelers, Manning's Indy, the Pats and the Saints. But the reason they Colts got Manning was that they were so very very bad the year before they drafted Peyton that they got the first draft pick. The Steelers were also consistently good before getting Roethlisberger. Wasn't till they had a bad year and got the 9th pick in a year where Eli and Rivers were also coming out that they finally got their first Super Bowl titles since Noll. More, the year before the Saints got Brees and got good, they went 3-13. They were lucky enough to get Brees without having to draft him, but they were still bad to mediocre for a long time before that, and that had a lot to do with how they were able to put a pretty good team around Brees almost instantaneously. And the Pats sucked pretty good in Belichick's first year too, going 5-11. I don't think your best examples bear you out very well, even though the Pats and Saints managed to get a top five QB without having to draft him very high, a rare feat. Get a top ten or top twelve QB and you'll have a chance every year. Not that you'll be good every year, but you'll have a chance if you can put a solid team around him. Below the top ten or twelve and you have to have not a good team but a sensational team to have much success and it's likely not to be very consistent. If you can get a top three or five guy, you're even better off, but it's not necessary for consistent competitiveness, as your own example, the Ravens, show.