Thurman#1

I'm not sure about it either. That's why I said, "I hope he'll get things righted." As for his time in Carolina, it sure looked to me like they thought KB and Funchess were pretty much the same player and Benjamin missed a year to injuries and was injured again, though playing his last year there, so they decided to keep the younger healthy guy. Yup, he's going through a bad patch. Treadwell, Stills and Pryor have also never been this bad before. If he keeps playing this badly, it will be a huge problem. But so far in his career, this is by far his worst stretch. Might just be a bad few games or a bit of a slump. Might not be that. But it might and his history says that's probably what it is.

When playing well, he's on the bubble of being a #1. He's not playing well right now. Hopefully he'll get things righted. Clay. McCoy. But right now he's not seeing all the field. Nobody's playing well on that side of the ball.

Joe isn't the only one who thinks so. https://billswire.usatoday.com/2018/08/19/harrison-phillips-kyle-williams-buffalo-bills/

Yup, this is what I get from it too. He's not saying strategy isn't important, just that with a bunch of quitters, losers and character problem guys you can have a great strategy and it won't mean much.

Time and a draft or two, and a year or two of FAs and scheme consistency. I know nobody wants to hear this, but that's the nearest reasonable solution.

It isn't like they have guaranteed he'll be on the team for the next three years. He gets pretty much the veteran minimum and a shot to show he can display enough character. If he can't, they don't lose anything if they cut him.

Oh, yeah, the Bears are way way warm-blooded and gooey where personnel moves are concerned. They make loyalty their #1 concern. That's why they handled the Matt Forte situation the way they did. They honored a guy who was the face of the franchise, a guy who left his blood and guts on the field every week, a pillar of the Bears by deciding not to try to re-sign him. You could see their loyalty very very clearly from the statement when they announced they were not going to re-sign him they said, " "Matt is one of the all-time great Bears and did an excellent job for us on and off the field last season." That's loyalty. Just about makes me cry, that powerful commitment to doing right by Forte. Your argument isn't just not winnable, it's plain stupid. Sure, if the cost of loyalty is minimal, then yeah, teams will be loyal. They'll bring back a Thurman or a Freddie Jackson for a symbolic one-day contract. Or the Bears might do what they did in your link, pay Miller $458K when they have $10 mill in salary cap space and at the same time keep his rights in case he actually recovers. Sure, small gestures? Yeah, if it doesn't hurt the team. What they did was not unclassy. But it also wasn't a big enough gesture to affect the team much at all. Nonsense. $3.5 mill isn't chump change to this team. It's almost half of what we have left under the cap to sign injury replacements. Did the Bears sign Zach Miller for $3.5 mill? Or was it about a tenth of that, about a twentieth of their cap room? And Miller was hurt playing for the Bears whereas whatever issues Richie has, the Bills have no measurable responsibility for. If we paid $3.5 mill a year to do nothing to everybody who had been a cap bargain for us, we'd be a laughingstock. And continue our Whaley-led recent history of cap irresponsibility.

The comparison is based on the fact that loyalty should in no way be based on how well you play. It's based on how long you've been there and whether you gave everything you could and whether you yourself have been loyal. Are you loyal to your friends only if they've been successful in life? Were the Chargers loyal to Drew Brees when he was injured even though he's performed extremely well for them? Were the Skins loyal to Kirk Cousins when he wildly overperformed as a 4th rounder? How many thousand other examples could anyone with the slightest bit of interest find? Loyalty exists in pro football, but it's only expected within certain bounds. Teams aren't expected to be loyal to guys who - like Richie - can no longer produce. Were the Bills loyal to Peerless Price, who had produced extremely well for them? A history of production means squat. Teams trade productive players if they think they can do better, and they cut productive guys if they're going to be too expensive to keep. Loyalty in football is honored in the breach. It's a lovely idea. People go on about it. And between the players and coach within one season, it means something. But in terms of personnel decisions and salary negotiations and holding out and all the rest of it ... when it counts, in other words ... it means nothing. And everyone knows it.

A measured rebuild is what they did. If they'd done a total teardown they'd have dumped or traded Tyrod, Kyle Williams and Incognito. Probably Hughes too, as at 29 he was already starting to get old. They certainly wouldn't have carried the personnel to win nine games last year if it had been a total rebuild. And as I've pointed out before, there are three excellent reasons they let go plenty of guys who were at least useful. 1) Some didn't fit the new scheme. Darby is the best example. 2) They needed to assemble an awful lot of draft capital for the 2018 draft to be absolutely sure they could get one of the top three or four QBs in that draft. This was an absolute necessity. 3) And the one people again and again try to ignore is that Whaley left them in horrible cap shape and the Pegulas knew it and wanted it cleaned up, and the new guys have publicly said that they promised the cap situation would be completely cleaned up by the end of this year. This was a huge part in the utility of getting rid of guys like Watkins, Woods, Gilmore, etc. Keeping them would have been massively expensive. This is why we have historic levels of dead cap this year and aren't rolling it over. They're swallowing a bitter pill this year, courtesy of Whaley's horrible cap management.

Really. Wilson was a guy who was NFL-ready. Wilson's a terrific QB, still playing very well, in a far less talented lineup. Kaepernick simply isn't as good as Wilson, or close.

Sorry, man, it means exactly that. If Rodgers would have been good from day one ... wait for it ... he would have been good from day one. But he wasn't. He actually was disappointing for three long years. Beyond disappointing and into bad, actually. But they developed him, relentlessly. The HC set up a "Camp QB" and worked and worked his ass. They changed his mechanics and he sat and learned the playbook and how to read defenses. And that meant by the time he started getting a ton of playing time his mechanics had improved, and he understood what was going on around him. Yeah, he had Favre in front of him, kicking butt. And with the same personnel, Rodgers was dismal for three years. And in year four he'd finally developed and his performance took a major extremely visible leap. And it's pretty well-known. Here's Bob McGinn the 30-year Packers beat reporter: The MMQB: "You documented how fortunate it was that Aaron Rodgers didn’t have to play the first couple of years—he just wasn’t ready." McGinn: “He was a very poor player here for his first two summers and regular-season practices. Fortunately for him, and he knows that down deep, he didn’t have to play early. His delivery was a mess, bad body language, he didn’t know how to deal with teammates. He learned so much from Brett Favre on how to in some ways be one of the guys and relate, and he became much more of a leader. He was really poor and how many great players have ever had a start like that? Not that many. A lot of scouts look at that exhibition tape those first two years and he was a little bit better the third year, but not to any degree, and then he just really developed. He lost a lot of close games in ’08, but by ’09 he was playing great and by 2010 he was maybe the best in the business. " https://www.si.com/mmqb/2017/06/13/themmqb-exit-interview-bob-mcginn-green-bay-packers-milwaukee-journal-sentinel-nfl-beat-writer That doesn't mean that every QB needs time at the beginning. Though it would probably help nearly everyone. But some guys are far more NFL-ready than others.

He signed an endorsement deal for butt wipes? Good grief. I guess if that's what he wants to be associated with, it's his choice. You'd think people would get a clue, but you would be disappointed again and again.

You're right. We should stay loyal to our employees. Cutting EJ Manuel, for instance, was just wrong. We owed him more loyalty. Eric Wood, too. I mean, sure, he was injured, but we should have factored in his contribution over the years and kept him on the roster and paid him to sit and cheer, just as a gesture. And Mario Williams ... I'm still shocked by the disloyalty we showed by releasing him. Rex Ryan, too. Never should have let him go. Pro sports aren't areas where loyalty has much of a place. When a guy gets old, he's gone. When someone else gets better, the first guy is gone. Does Belichick show a lot of loyalty? Teams owe the fans a lack of loyalty to players. A team's goal should be winning. The players know and accept that, and it's why they don't feel much of a problem about holding out or asking for a new contract. So, you're saying Richie screwed up, then? He signed the contract, so it would be a fair point if it weren't pretty obvious that he has serious issues. It's not a mistake nobody else is on the phone to Richie. Hope he can fight through these problems.

Wonder! The problem isn't nastiness. It's that Richie was still far better than anyone we had to replace him. But it's not as if the Bills had a choice. The guy has real problems. I wish him the best.

Exactly right, dude. When you suck in preseason for three years, you're not ready. That's what made it impressive that after three years of development suddenly he turned it around the next preseason. He developed. As do many. Who are the best three QBs in the league right now? Brady, Rodgers and Brees? What do they have in common? Oh yeah, they all spent time on the bench developing and soaking it up before they got on the field.

If only what we are "willing to give it" mattered. It doesn't. Not what you are willing to give it and not what I or any other fans are willing to give it. What matters is what he gets. And that is very likely to be the rest of the year at least. One thing that is certain is that Daboll is being handicapped by the offensive personnel.

I think you're misremembering here. Plenty of people reported that Whaley was the one on the phone to Reid. Nobody reported that Whaley pulled the trigger, not that I remember.

Nonsense. Pretty much the whole league disagrees with this. McD as well, as we learned, but Allen agrees with it too, as he's said. Again, Rodgers absolutely sucked in the preseason his first three years. It really was only in his fourth year, having spent three years changing his mechanics and learning the game, that he suddenly looked very good in preseason. Pretty much the whole NFL disagrees with you. It's why some guys are considered NFL-ready and others are developmental. Some guys need to learn and some don't. And guys with mechanics issues at QB are among the neediest ones, because it's hard to work on grooving movements into muscle memory when you're spending all your time learning game plans and studying defenses to handle the team that week.

Yeah, it's sad we have a defensive guy like Belichick and Zimmer, two of the four coaches in the conference championships last year. As for McD, we'll know a few years down the road. But yeah, knee-jerk reactions are way more fun.

I guess I disagree even with that, Doc. Our offensive personnel are not NFL-quality and our QB is looking like a clueless rookie. (Understandable, as he actually is a clueless rookie.) If the rest of the season mirrors yesterday, certainly Daboll shouldn't be safe. He should be evaluated very very carefully, but I could see that evaluation going either way. They could say, "Daboll just didn't do the job," or they could say, "He put them in position to do OK but the players simply couldn't execute."

Yes, you absolutely are saying that in hindsight. Of course there were guys they should have drafted but didn't. You can say that about literally every single team in NFL history. When you're a new coach whose GM is Doug Whaley, the guy who was so convinced about EJ Manuel, you have a perfect right to think you should wait for the next year to draft a QB, particularly when it looks like that next year might be a historically good draft for QBs. "McD inherited a talented roster"? Oh, yeah, they were a juggernaut. Remember those days? When they had Tyrod ripping up the league at QB? When our top three WRs managed 613 (Woods), 431 (Goodwin) and 430 (Watkins) yards on the year? When John Miller and Jordan Mills were kicking butt all over the ... oh, wait, they're still here. Oh, for those days when we had Adolphus Washington, Preston Brown, Zach Brown and Corey Graham instilling fear all over the league. When our draftees that year - Shaq Lawson, Reggie Ragland, Adolphus Washington, Cardale Jones, Jonathan Williams, Kolby Listenbee and Kevon Seymour were showing the NFL that the new generation were here and ready to dominate? We were the monsters of the Midway that year, teams used to break out in a cold sweat at the prospect of facing those guys. It was a crime that McD sent those guys away. We were like the '27 Yankees of football back then. Puh ..................... leeze. They were mediocre at best. I wouldn't have minded keeping a few of those guys, but pretending that was a talented roster is indulging a fantasy. And again, the reason a lot of those guys had to go is that Beane and McD have publicly said that they promised the Pegulas to clean up, by the end of this year, the horrible cap situation Whaley left them in. They've done that, but it did require letting guys go they probably would rather have kept, like Gilmore and maybe Woods. They were the first regime to realize how desperate their need for a QB was and that they had to put a bunch of picks in the bank to be able to trade up and get one. And as always when you switch schemes, some old guys don't fit the new scheme, such as Darby in this instance. That's life in the NFL.

Very good with personnel evaluation. Absolutely horrible with handling the salary cap.

No, it's not a sure thing yet. Too soon to say. Remember how good Dak Prescott looked his first year? Best guess is that he's going to be a good one. It looks to me like a mistake. Not a fireable one. If every GM who passed on a very good player were fired, there'd be no GMs left.

Trading for Watkins was a horrible mistake? I agree. Giving up two firsts was .... Wait, you're arguing ... what? The pick they got for Watkins was one of the ones they gave up for Allen. They should have done that and whatever else they thought they might have to do to get a possible franchise QB on this roster. And yeah someone overpaid for Watkins. In his fifth year people are still giving him contracts based on his potential rather than his production.

It's really not. I have only watched one game on the all-22, game 2, and guys were open pretty often even and didn't get the ball. Not as open as if we had Antonio Brown or something, but someone is a bit open on most plays. Not that they're performing all that well. They're not. but it's far far more than 20% of the time that there's a good chance to hit someone. Yes, he did give up two firsts. We had 'em and after the trade we didn't. That's giving something up, when you have it and then you don't. And while picking Sammy wasn't a horrible move (though he certainly hasn't yet looked like a #4 in any way shape or form), trading up and giving up two !sts and change for anyone other than a possible franchise QB is a move with a very low chance of coming off well. Whaley was harpooned at the time, correctly, and afterwards, correctly.