Thurman#1

Love this. Smart. Hard-working. Doesn't just snap back a word or two that everybody loves. I've always liked Rosen a lot and now I like him more. Love that he shut up and worked his butt off early. He gets it. Don't think that's ever been the problem. He won't fit some teams. Some teams want QBs who only talk football and even then only in platitudes. He won't fit those teams. He will make headlines about stuff outside football. If you can't stand that, you won't want Rosen. From what I've seen, McD and Beane wouldn't care, but it's not like I know them and we're still figuring out just what their process entails. I'd guess they wouldn't mind, but it's hard to say.

Sure. But it doesn't have to all be done in one year. And yeah, it would be a solid haul. But they've already got like three solid hauls worth to use. I'm usually a huge fan of trading down. I want the Bills to do it every year but this one. Trade up for a QB, Bills. The Browns, IMHO, should do two things. They should bring in two impact players, including their QB. And they should start a treadmill of picks that will put them in premium draft spots every year by trading down for one or two really good picks next year. This year, they're OK. I don't think I have too major a disagreement with you here. I love trading down usually. I just think they already have so much they just need to use it this year. Bring in six or seven or eight players in one year and four years down the line after you've developed your guys you can't keep them all because you can't afford them. Your GM is saying, "We have to give second contracts to our QB. And he's not working with us yet, so there goes our franchise tag, maybe. And we also have to sign our second-best defensive player after Garrett, our LT, two of our OL starters and three of our LBs. We don't have the cap space, two-thirds of them will have to go." You have to spread 'em out.

They are more than one QB away. But they don't have to trade away anything to get the QB they want. He'll be there at #1. And they aren't a team looking to be ready to get to the Super Bowl this year. They'll need to make major improvements this year to keep Hue employed but if they win five or six games and are competitive with most of their schedule it will still be a major improvement. And they're already stocked up on picks. They don't need to stock up on more, not for long-term growth. Just as important, if not more so with their wealth of picks, to get a few real prime talents. And while I didn't watch a single Browns game and don't know what to think about Kizer, I do see that just by the stats he got better as the year went along. I mean, in his first seven games he had two games rated over 50 at passer rating. That's awful. But in the remaining nine games only two games below 50. Had games of 99, 98, 86, 73 and 66. Dunno if he's going to be any good, but as I say, plenty of bad rookie QBs become good players.

Not that I expect Sammy to be back, or am dying for him. But he was a good teammate and nobody except a few fans on forums ever had much problem with Sammy as a teammate or a person.

That 2nd round pick could very easily be a key part in a tradeup for a QB. And no, Benjamin's injury history isn't anything near as bad as Sammy's. Sammy's had a bunch of different injuries, never very often seeming fully healthy, while Benjamin has essentially had one injury. It was a bad one, but he hasn't been often injured. Sammy = high risk http://sportsinjurypredictor.com/player/sammy-watkins/6937 Benjamin = low risk http://sportsinjurypredictor.com/player/kelvin-benjamin/6952 And yeah, the Bills gave up a 3rd and a 6th for Benjamin. And while the 3rd could theoretically come back to haunt them with it's absence, we had two thirds at the time and still have one. And a 3rd is simply worth less than a 2nd. And they made that net gain for a guy who has been just about as prolific as Sammy, game for game but will cost around $10 million less next year and who last year saved the Bills nearly $2 mill on the cap compared to what Sammy would have if they'd kept him. Benjamin is under contract to the Bills for another year at $8.459 mill while Sammy may either be let go or franchised at around $17 mill. He saved money against the cap last year, he will be kept with major savings next year, they still have the 2nd they acquired for Sammy to trade for a QB and it looks like it could well be an integral part of the deal, assuming there is one. And he has a much less consistent history of injury. So, yeah, really.

I'm not supporting the move to pick Shaq. If anything, I have been critical. Rex's seat was warming and that made it maybe less of a smart move, especially with their first round pick. They needed their first rounder to be healthy that year. This year, less urgency, though there's always some. And I don't think many are arguing to pick up the post-injury Price in the first. But the reason Thurman is used as an example of successfully drafting an injured player is simply that that is what he was. An excellent example. You're right, it was a calculated risk with Thurman and I'm sure with Shaq and Listenbee and others. You can bet they consider it seriously. Considered risks are what most successful risks turn out to be. Some turn out well and some don't. You can argue that McGahee, for instance, was a success. I wouldn't, personally, but plenty have done so. I wish they'd just gone with Travis Henry and drafted another position. But it's very arguable McGahee was a success, though personally he's one of the two or three ex-Bills I really dislike. I'd like them to calculate and consider whether it would be worth it to get him if he falls enough to become a bargain.

He admitted his selfishness, but there's been no confirmation elsewhere that anyone else considered them serious at all. He apparently was talking about comments that he wasn't getting enough targets. Which is pretty much a nothing for WRs. Where was the flood of Bills players and insiders agreeing with Sammy that he'd been selfish? There wasn't a single one. Appears to be a case of a self-critical guy growing up even more and being willing to be criticize himself in public. You're right that the cap situation "isn't why Sammy was shipped out." Correct. It was only part of the reason. As I pointed out there were also concerns about injury and about whether they would be able to sign him and whether they had enough money to do so. Not to mention an absolutely feverish need for extra picks to trade up for a QB in the draft this year. If you don't know that by now, Common, then there is no convincing you differently.

Yeah, and Graham had to just about tie him down to get that "could". Graham: "Brandon, last question for you and I don't know if you have looked at your contract with the Buffalo Bills, but you are contractually obligated to answer a Tyrod Taylor question at every interview until he's no longer on the roster." (Beane cracks up) "So, to fulfil that contractual obligation I'm gonna say, I noticed that there were questions asked about Tyrod and there was never from either you or Shawn today any specific mention that he will be on the roster in 2018. You know what you have in Tyrod Taylor, what the situation is. Why can't you say, one way or the other, what his role will be in 2018 with the Buffalo Bills?" Beane: "Well, it's like any position, Tim. We have guys on our roster we plan to be here but maybe you come across something that you think is an upgrade. And I wouldn't be doing my job if I'm not looking at every position. And, you know, were we completely satisfied with our quarterback play last year? No. But at the same time, you have to know that you have made an upgrade. You don't just change to change at any position. So right now, Nathan and Tyrod both are on our roster. That's where we're at. We are doing our due diligence in both free agency and the draft. Um, but we very well could see both of those guys, you know, going to training camp with us and competing to start next year. Graham: "So just for the record. In terms of the time frame and how things sort out with the start of free agency next year and where the draft are. You know the dates. You know the situations. When does a decision need to be made on Tyrod regarding what you can do with him or whether he'll still be here?" Beane: "Well, I think, again, you don't just send a guy packing who helped lead this team to the playoffs for the first time in 17 years. So he did a lot of good things. At the end of the day, he's on our roster, that's where we're at now and we're just taking it day by day. I don't have a set day to say, like, 'Hey, it's March whatever, April whatever, Tyrod is definitely here for the whole '18 season or he's definitely moving on. Right now our plan right now is with those two guys, Nathan and Tyrod. And until, you know, something else changes, that's our plan." http://buffalonews.com/2018/02/28/on-todays-tim-graham-show-brandon-beane-chad-kelly-big-4-hoops-and-more/ I know hearing he "could" be on the roster might seem like a big victory since till now nobody has even said that. But it's not. "Could" is the opposite of a solid endorsement of TT. This was yet another briar patch full of obfuscations and an admission that it's not impossible. It has been like pulling teeth and a bit more here of the same.

Did I miss a tweet where they said the Bills would be open to keeping him next season? Where is that one? When did he say it? Neither one I saw said more than that they weren't planning now to cut him They are fine with paying his roster bonus They won't cut him without upgrading the position a one-year, $10 mill contract (his net to another team if the Bills pay the roster bonus) would be much more tradeable None of which amounts to them being more open to keeping him next season. All he says for sure there is that they aren't cutting him now. Again, maybe I missed a tweet where Rapoport said more. Did I? Do you have the quote? Is it the one on Feb. 14th at 4:12, with the associated video where Rapoport says, "My understanding, though, it doesn't seem like they want to cut Tyrod, seems like the Bills would like to trade him. Just based on how much quarterbacks are going for and how much interest, seems Buffalo will be able to do so." Did I miss one?

You mean Thurman Thomas? Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. If they get a good bargain and he misses a year but then is a very good player, I'd love it, myself. The problem is often when you go in unawares, which is what happened last year. The full injury happened after the draft. I can see people saying they don't want him. I'd still like him if he's a bargain and looks likely to recover well.

If I were guaranteed a Hall of Famer? Maybe at QB or pass rusher. Any other position, no. A position of no need, absolutely not. First round choices are too valuable.

You're wrong that Kizer and Kessler won 0 games last year. I think if you go back and go through the game film you will find that the Cleveland Browns were the ones who won zero games. Win-loss record is a team stat. Kizer was a rookie. Plenty of terrible rookies become good or great players. Look at Eli Manning's first year. He completed 48.2% of his passes and had 6 TDs and 9 INTs and a YPA of 5.3. Or Brees' first full year of play, his second year in the league. 60.8%, 17 TDs and 16 INTs and a 6.2 YPA. Kessler has played about as much as Brees had and has frankly outplayed Brees if you only look at similar periods of their career. Young guys can get better. I don't know if either of them will, but saying that they're terrible so they will always be terrible simply doesn't make sense.

Yeah, agreed, out of Keenum, Bradford, Bridgewater, McCarron and Taylor, Taylor might be the cheapest. Just a reminder, the Browns have the most cap room in football, around $100 mill. They won't be making decisions on QB based on saving money. The fact that they thought about bringing in Smith makes that very very clear even if it weren't pretty obvious already. Also, they are very likely to want that veteran to not just be a guy who can start but also a guy who can be an on-field coach and help them develop the young guys, a Frank Reich type who could start. And that's not looked at by anyone as something Tyrod can do. I doubt if you asked him that Tyrod would be interested in that kind of role anyway. He seems to be committed to find a place where he can start and try to prove himself the long-term starter. Can't see the Browns valuing Tyrod enough to make including him in the deal worthwhile.

Sounds about right. And I might take Darnold or Mayfield also.

This is correct, you don't get rid of a guy who's a misfit and then bring him back. Completely irrelevant to this situation of course. We got rid of Sammy because of injury concerns, worry about the cost of re-signing him during our salary cap problems and to get enough trade capital to have a shot at one of the QBs in this draft. I doubt it will happen, but there's a chance because they never didn't like Sammy. It was a few message board people who had problems with him.

I don't know. It would depend on what he paid and on how well he performed. We wouldn't know for a year or three whether or not it was a coup. It would be interesting. I've always like Sammy as a person but his relative lack of productivity in LA left question marks. If they let him go, that would add to those questions.

Yup. Crawl before you walk, walk before you run. And yeah, playoffs are a stepping stone necessary to winning a Super Bowl. So is winning one single game. So is winning a road game. So is going .500. And that's the same kind of accomplishment that "making the playoffs" is. Something you have to do, but not very important in itself. Nothing to be proud of. Nothing to agonize about. If you're worrying about making the playoffs, you're not a good team yet. Consistent playoff appearances don't win you Super Bowls. There are plenty of teams through history to be consistent playoff patsies for years for the real teams. Look at the Colts after they got Luck. Three playoffs in a row but simply not a good enough team. Look at the Bengals making the playoffs six times between 2009 and 2015. Tons more examples. Making the playoffs regularly doesn't make you a Super Bowl contender. Being a really really good team is what gives you that shot.

The Pittsburgh model is to be absolutely awful, go 1-13 and use the first overall pick to choose Terry Bradshaw. And then win four titles with him. Watch him get injured in his last year and only be able to play one game in 1983. Be pretty average for a few years. Draft two third-round QBs, Brister and O'Donnell. Become a really terrific team with decent QBs and yet don't draft a QB. Be very good but don't have a great QB and don't win a title. Draft Slash in the 2nd. Continue being an excellent team without a QB and continue not winning titles. Then, finally, have a really bad year, go 6-10. Be lucky enough to do this when the next year's draft is the single best QB draft in history. Have the Buffalo Bills decide not to trade up in front of you to steal Roethlisberger because it was too expensive to do so. Draft the third-best QB of the class and have it turn out to be a terrific response to the stroke of luck of having a franchise guy available when your pick arrived. Pittsburgh was wildly wildly lucky that they ever got in position to draft Roethlisberger. The Bills have had the same problem for years now in that they've never been awful enough to get a single top three or four draft pick in a year when it would allow them to get a QB. The Pittsburgh model was to be very very lucky. Not a good model to follow. Yeah, teams often need to walk before they run. But when you're working on reaching not the playoffs but the championship tier, your first priority every single year should be getting a franchise QB. Any time you have a chance to do that - as we appear to have this year - you do it, you bring in excellent scouts and you draft one of the guys they tell you fits your system and stands a good chance of being a franchise guy. You don't wait. You make all the sacrifices you need to make. Agreed that they're not ready to win it all, Tyrod or not. But they don't have a franchise QB. Getting one is mission number one right now and forever until they do so.

Me too. I love them even when they make mistakes. But we see last year differently. I have no interest in the playoffs. Didn't last year either. I want this team to be competitive for a Super Bowl title. Nothing less means squat to me. Last year's team was not good enough to be competitive for a title and frankly I wish they had lost more games instead and improved their draft position. I'm glad for people who feel this was a monkey off their back. My monkey is still there and will be till we're truly an excellent team.

Nope, not toxic. As a matter of fact, you're the one who brought up the word. The guy you replied to didn't use it. Why not dump him now? Trade possibilities, for one thing. What do they lose by keeping him and trying to trade him. They lose nothing till March 16th.

Again, keeping Tyrod isn't $18 mill. It's $23 mill. If we keep him this year, next year in 2019 he'll be somewhere else and we'll be paying yet another $5.6 mill in dead money. The alternative is cutting/trading him now and taking the $8 mill in dead money this year. Saving $15 mill on a QB who doesn't fit the one requirement our coach gave for a QB makes a lot of sense. Hope you're right about a trading partner. I tend to doubt it, but it's certainly very possible. Their threat to pay him the $6 mill roster bonus had to be a wake-up call for teams that assumed he'd be cut. He could easily be cut in March if they can't trade him of course, but that's not as much of a gimme now as it had been. It was smart of the Bills to put that out there. Thing is, the league isn't starved for QBs. the league is starved of really good QBs but Tyrod being available wouldn't change that. And this year is a very tough year for FA QBs because of the large number of replacement value guys on top of this year being a good year in the draft. Cousins is the kind of guy who is almost never available in FA, and on top of that there's whoever becomes available out of Keenum/Bridgewater/Bradford. On top of Rosen, Darnold, Mayfield, Allen and Jackson. This isn't a good year to be holding onto an FA of Tyrod's ability and trying to maximize his value in trade. Last year would've been a significantly better time to try for a trade. Last year the leading FAs were Cutler, and Kaepernick. If Romo hadn't retired he would've made things much better but once the Pats decided - or said they did - to keep Garoppolo, those were the best guys out there, Cutler and Kaepernick. With what was widely considered a bad year in the draft, though that looks now to have been a misjudgement. But this year there's a lot of choice out there for teams unhappy with their situation at QB.

Would they trade back? I wouldn't be surprised but I bet they'll be looking for picks next year and in the future at this point. They don't need more this year, really. But can they start a conveyor belt so that each year they have more coming to them than anyone else does? I'm sure they'd love to start something like that. We should be - in the long term - hoping to start working that way as well. But just as for us getting a franchise QB has to be #1 and then probably toughening the front seven the next ... the Browns are going to have bigger priorities than bringing in more picks. They would demand extra value, and would turn things down if the guys they want are there. And they're likely to be. Oh, and Cleveland doesn't need Tyrod. They've got Kiser and Kessler. Tyrod wouldn't mean anything to them. In any case, my guess is no, they'd rather have one of the top seven or ten guys, the absolute blue chippers, rather than more numbers for a team that's already got a ton of picks. Just a guess. But the Bills should ask. They should ask everyone at this point. I'm not a believer, but I'm sure hopeful about it.

Disadvantaged. Their average position of drive start was 27th in the league. Bad field position is a killer for a defense and we consistently started in worse positions than nearly any other team. Decent, with reasonable consistency. Except for those absolutely horrible three games in a row, they were pretty decent the whole year. Ball-hawking. 5th in INTs per drive. Promising. Need more horses up front, but for the first year of a new regime, not bad at all.

My tendency is to like Teddy. But I'm not pounding the table at all. But Bridgewater's stats were in his first two years. Let's repeat that, his first two years. He was still extremely early in his life cycle and he was improving quite a bit. Haven't a clue if he'll improve more, but there's a hell of a lot better chance of a guy playing better than he did when he was that young than someone improving on stats made mostly in his fifth, sixth and seventh years. Wanna put it as, "he hasn't proved more than Tyrod," and I'm all in. That's pretty fair.

This is the only reasonable change, IMHO. And it would undoubtedly cause some controversies about which version would've been correct. But would be an overall improvement, most calls would be correct.