Thurman#1

Fair enough summation. And that's why: 1) We shouldn't expect the team to be great this year. It's unlikely. Their goal is - and should be - to build an organization that can consistently compete for championships. 2) There are many ways to fill holes. Expect many of those holes to be filled, but with low to medium-priced guys, journeymen. It's what financially conservative teams do. And it's the most consistent roadmap to competing for a title. 3) We have so many holes. We wouldn't have so many if they hadn't traded guys like Sammy and Cordy (who'd have looked mighty good across from Dawkins) and so on exactly to gain ammo for a tradeup. They created those holes because they knew we absolutely needed a QB and that there was only one effective way to maximize our chances of getting a good one.

You could easily be right in your overall opinon about Rosen. But "barely reads defenses" just doesn't make sense. Where have you seen that? Got any links? I do agree about niftiness in the pocket. He moves decently but he's not very athletic. You'd think he'd move better with both his parents being national champion ice dancers. But I don't see him doing any triple lutzes or double axels out there. It's a worry in a guy who's been injured so much. Personally I'd love to get him. Or Mayfield or Darnold for that matter. But I'll trust Beane. He's been terrifically smart so far.

Still can't argue, hunh? For obvious reasons. You were wrong again here, as you were over and over and over again, almost without exception on Tyrod. Thanks for showing that. And again, the femmy emos don't do anything for me. You seem to keep throwing your spaghetti against the wall to see if it sticks. Trust me, this strategy and the hints about relationships just aren't working here. It strikes me you're on the wrong kind of site. You keep trying to talk about a relationship. Are you perhaps looking for a site with a name something more along the lines of CornFedFootballBoys.com or something similar? I don't have any specific sites to suggest, but google is your friend. Again, I personally am not that kind of guy, though I wish you the best in finding whatever it is you are looking for, I do. For everyone, really. Oh, and while I'm not arrogant at all in real life, conversing with people with opinions as dumb as yours have been on Tyrod does indeed bring out the arrogance in me. I'm not proud of that, but honestly it's hard to resist when facing puffball arguments. You were just wrong so often. I have no problem avoiding arrogance when comparing myself to most people, though. Still, you're right, I should work harder on that. I don't like it in myself. And might I humbly suggest that a guy who says, just above, "Ummm.... have you watched the NFL lately? Rookie QBs play and take fire in year 1." in a year where one early-round rookie QB, Mahomes played in one game, in Week 17, and another, Trubisky, was only put in after his bridge QB totally fell apart ... might be dealing with some of the same arrogance issues as I am, with wrongness issues on top of that? In any case, your unwillingness to back up any of the words of your past arguments speaks for itself pretty well.

Good point that it's strategically less valuable because we don't move ahead of any direct competitors. But it would not be absolutely pointless. It would probably make our compensation package more desireable for the team we want to trade with. Still, saying that, I think it's unlikely. Hughes will turn 30 in August. He'll probably have another 2 to 3 good years. And he's our only real pass rush threat right now other than Murphy if he turns out well. That's not what we want to be trading away unless we absolutely had to. He's a good player, he fits the scheme and we would only save $1.5 mill against the cap this year and next year is his last contract year so we wouldn't save a lot there either. He's worth what we pay him. I seriously doubt it.

Because winning this year is both unlikely and a lot less important than growing and putting themselves in position for consistent long term success. I think he cares less about winning this year than doing that. Why make those great trades for picks and give half away? Because it's the best move for the team. Because without a franchise QB you're simply not likely to be seriously competitive for a Super Bowl even occasionally, much less regularly. Bottom line? Why make those great trades and give half away? Because it's the best move.

As a member of the hoi polloi, a couple of flocks and throngs and a riff raff or two, I quite agree.

You're not a rabble, Meanie. Just a member of one.

It's a five year deal. Unless he sucks, he'll be here all five years. It's seriously front-loaded, the last two years are the cheapest for the Bills, and therefore the least likely for them to cut him. But yeah, if he's bad, anytime after the second year will have non-catastrophic amounts of dead money.

Nah. That's what you pay to sign a guy to a second contract. Think Cousins is the highest paid QB because Beane knows him? Or is it just because new contract tend to be valued a bit higher than old ones? If you want the 18th or 20th best player at a given position you probably have to give him the 10th or so highest contract.

As far as that, you're very reasonable and I actually agree, except for the part about what people were thinking in December means. They've had more time to watch more tape and get a better picture of the guy. But I'm also hoping we're not looking at him.

That's true. Some rookie QBs play in year 1. However, I think if you look carefully, there are no requirements about that anywhere in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. And that's utter nonsense that the best way to learn is on the field. The best way to learn varies. Different guys have different needs. Sitting, learning, re-jiggering his throwing motion and attending his head coach's "quarterback camp" was the best thing that ever happened to Aaron Rodgers. Thinking there's one best solution for everybody is pure idiocy.

Don't see this affecting the draft in any way. Browns go QB at #1, probably, or at least #4 and plan on sitting him.

Mayock has him at #2. Is he smoke-screening for someone? It's pretty much the consensus. I personally hope we don't take him but I wouldn't rule anything out. Beane and McD are from the Panthers, who chose Newton first overall, a guy who was on absolutely nobody's radar before that final year. Newton threw six passes in two years at Florida then spent a year at that JUCO, and then his terrific year at Auburn. Not that I want Allen. But I don't think there's any way to rule him out. I agree they've been looking at the QBs in this draft for awhile, but I can't imagine they'd close their minds when another guy starts to look draft-worthy.

Yeah, QB is likely their #1 pick unless they really see the top three QBs as exactly equal, which is wildly unlikely.

Broncos are going to be very interested in trading up.

Sal became well-known out of nowhere exactly because he had sources inside the Bills organization. He posted scoop after scoop after scoop. Regimes have changed since then, but we still don't know if his source was someone close to the GM or just someone in the building somewhere who overheard things. In any case, he's pretty good. He's measured and pretty careful. Not a huge fan, but he's alright.

IMHO that's just what they did is pull a Nix. Nix got FAs, but not the high-level expensive guys, or at least not till his third year did he go after one. Nix was a financial conservative. So is this regime. These days you can unofficially sign guys early and you couldn't in Nix's day, but these guys are signing just the kind of guys that Nix did, and Nix built a really good roster ... minus the QB and the coach. Remember the last time anyone thought we had depth? It was during the Nix regime. I think they would've liked to get some of those QBs but knew they'd be too expensive and would destroy the cap. And I think Cousins is the only good risk-reward shot in the group. I would love to have gotten Keenum or Bridgewater, but I figured it would just be too expensive. My guess is that's what the Bills thought too. They probably did due diligence but heard that their guesses on trade price and signing price had been pretty reasonable. They figure McCarron is unproven, but that that made him an affordable bridge. That was the first improvement on Tyrod and the second is that McCarron fulfills their one requirement, that it has to be a guy who can play from the pocket. There's a higher chance that McCarron becomes a good QB who can play from the pocket than there was that Tyrod could become the same thing. An upgrade and a savings. Though he could easily turn out to be an unproductive guy, he fits the offense and could at least be a good mentor for a couple of years if he doesn't play well.

This isn't a big deal. You said it yourself. Money. Money is what drives most free agency decisions on destination from the player's sides, in probably 90% of all deals. The exceptions are generally when the offers are very close and there's no big financial difference or for guys who have already brought in tens of millions of bucks and now on their later contracts can afford to look at championships rather than just money. I think Beane's doing a terrific job. I'm not saying this to slight the Bills in any way. But picking the Bills over the Pats would not be any kind of a big deal unless the terms the Pats were offering were better.

Well then I’ll take the statement at face value and respond like this.... sure. Those guys had a role. Not nearly as big as the qb’s. Good talk. Not wiggling out of anything here. I do admit to holding back and not attacking the dumber part of his post. Is that wrong? Yeah, I agree that that part of his post, "Not nearly as big as the QBs," was wildly missing the point. You're right about that. I mean, it's stupid on the face of it. Did more credit for the Ravens 2000 Super Bowl winning season fall on the shoulders of Trent Dilfer because he was the quarterback than belonged to Ed Reed or Ray Lewis? You're right. The idea's just plain dumb. Dilfer was on another team the next year for a reason. That's part of the reason I said in the same post that it had been a terrible talk. It really had. And it's also the reason I said, "at least you finally get me," rather than "Yeah, you completely get it" or something totally positive. Yeah, that part of his post was dumb. You're right. But at least he finally got the other part. "Those guys had a role," he said. Exactly. Tyrod had a role and so did everyone else. Wins and losses are team achievements. That was indeed what I'd been trying to say, and he hadn't even managed to hear that until that post. Then he did. That was good. I thought it would be nicer to compliment that than to point out the nonsense that came after. This is the final profound truth. The wins and losses go to the teams. Period. End of story. But some sad people keep on trying to forget this and say nonsense like, "Sure, it's a team thing ... but let's ignore that and stupidly and impossibly try to divide up the credit and the responsibilities so I can make my favorite guy look better." Like, "QBs get more credit ..." and that kind of codswallop. So since you managed to ignore the correct part of what he said and endorse the nonsense, I guess I have to go ahead and give the obvious and correct counter. Which is this: Tyrod gets more credit? Nah. No particular reason to think so. I compared his role to Ducasse's and those other guys? Yup. They were 2017 Buffalo Bills. Ducasse had a pretty good season actually. He was a better guard for most of the year than Tyrod was a QB. Once you start to say he gets more credit because he's a QB you have to also face up to the fact that for a starter, Tyrod was a below-average passing QB and passing is in the end what you need your QB to be good at. You have to look at the fact that the offense was weaker than the defense despite the fact that the run game was quite strong. That when the passing offense was arguably the weakest of the four phases and really weaker than the STs too, that that's not a real good argument that the quarterback deserves more credit than most other players. Maybe if you turn the word from "credit" to "responsibility" you have something nearer a decent argument. Dividing up the credit is a losing game. There's no reasonable way to do it. Tyrod gets his share of the credit / responsibility. So does everyone else, including the coaches. It's a team game. Who gets the credit / responsibility is the team. End of story.

There's all kinds of bridges. Some are there knowing they're a bridge and others want to win the starters job and keep it forever. Some are mentors and others aren't. The thing that makes them a bridge is that they allow the team some time to sit the new guy. That's it, really. Anything else is a bonus. One classic example is Doug Flutie. Not here. In San Diego. He allowed them to sit Brees his first year and Brees has ended up being mildly successful. Pretty sure RGIII didn't know he was a bridge, but effectively that's what he was, giving Cousins a chance to learn, grow and be ready. Testaverde for Pennington. Till Pennington's shoulder injury, that looked like a classic, extremely successful version of using a bridge guy to give a rook a chance to age in the barrel a bit.

Wow, that was eye-opening. I thought he was weak at long throws. But Waldman is a consistently excellent analyst and that was a good video. Thanks, OP.

Nobody should start Rosen or Mayfield either. All of this group would do well to sit and learn for probably a year. What a QB does in his first year should have little to do with the decision of whether to draft him. You draft a guy based on the kind of career you think he might have. I'm not an Allen fan, but I figure Beane knows more than me. And I hope that if they pick Rosen or Mayfield, both of whom I like, that they start them on the bench till their heads stop spinning.

There are a lot of questions about him. I personally don't want him. But having said that, when you say, "he is literally being hyped solely based on his physical attributes," you're wildly exaggerating. Yeah, that's the first thing people talk about. But he has more than that going. If he didn't he wouldn't be being considered the way he is.

No, it was a pretty crappy talk. But at least you finally got me. Yup, Tyrod had a role. So did everyone else. Football is a team game. You can have success with good players, medium players and bad players at spots important and less so. Depends how your team does as a team.

Being in cap hell doesn't necessarily mean you can't get out of it by cutting / trading guys. Sometimes you can and sometimes you can't. The fact that they wanted Smith gone was huge for them in clearing out space. That saved them $16 mill in cap space this year for a guy they wanted to clear out anyway. The Chiefs were in a great position to clear space. Some teams aren't. Depends on the contracts and what year the player is in and dead money and so on. But I'm with you that that won't be an issue for the Bills after this year for a long time. The new administration are a financially conservative bunch. I love it.