Thurman#1

Didn't see any cheap shots. Just hard hits. Hope he's OK.

A lot of those games came in the first year before people figured out how to stop a Tyrod-led offense. Would Tyrod's stats improve if he had better surroundings? Yeah. But he'd still have the traits he has that lead to teams defending the run first and just trying to make Tyrod be a quarterback.

IF they really do think somebody is franchise material, yeah, go get him. They ought to be absolutely convinced he's the right guy, though. I'd then like to see them trade one of their 2nds for a 1st next year (or a third this year and a 2nd next) and get a nice little conveyor belt of high picks coming in.

The Washington F.O. has already ruled out using the transition tag. So the franchise tag is the only way they get control of his contract for another year, barring kissing up to him in the offseason and somehow getting him to change his mind on a long-term contract. I'm guessing you can get him for Stafford money, maybe a bit less if he feels really wanted.

I don't think that's true at all. Just a quick look at the HogWash boards shows most Washington fans there are losing hope but would love to have Cousins there.

It's reasonable not to want Cousins but he's already a lot better than Cutler. Cutler's problem is INTs, and Cousins doesn't really have a problem there. Myself, I'd love to get Cousins but I'm not sure they can bring him in as far as money is concerned. OC would also be something Cousins will be looking at and I'm not sure Dennison would be a guy he'd want to work with. If they want him, they'll probably have to bring in an OC who he'd be compatible with. I'd love it if we did get him, though.

Not buying this at all. I don't hate Marrone as much as most here seem to. He's a good coach. But he has a better roster and it was a home game. Nobody was outcoached today. The Jags personnel is just better.

McCown as a bridge guy for whoever we draft high. He'd be a good mentor / on-field coach if the rookie eventually develops enough to start. I'd love to see them get Alex Smith or Bridgewater on top of a QB in the first round, but not sure they'll want to spend all that much capital on one position. I was really hoping we'd have a chance at Garoppolo this off-season. That ship has sailed.

Yeah, we'd have won with Smith today, I think. We were close. The Jags aren't that great a team either. But we have a lot of other problems too. With Smith we still wouldn't have won another game after Jacksonville. If possible I'd love to see them get Alex Smith and also draft a guy early.

No, you didn't know he has not shot. What you have there is an opinion. It's a reasonable opinion and may still turn out to be true, but the constant confusion here between facts and opinions gets old. He was bad this year, very bad. But he's a rookie. He'll get better but he has to get an awful lot better. The odds are against it, but it's certainly possible.

Bill, I like your stuff, but this is getting really tiring. You said "It seems to me to be inarguable that when they form an opinion on an individual they see it through." I simply disagree. There's not much there to misunderstand. I'm saying that not only is in very very arguable, but that the evidence simply isn't there to show that. Less than three months into the Pegulas tenure with the Bills there's every likelihood they would have listened to Whaley if he'd been strongly negative on Ryan. They wouldn't have paired the two if Whaley had been strongly negative, they'd have stayed away from Ryan. The only alternative would have been to get rid of Whaley and they had nobody else at that point. And is it seeing things through when the Pegulas give Regier a new contract on Jan. 19th and then fire him in November of the same year? As for Roman ... you find it unbelievable, and yet it's never been argued by anyone. It's easy to believe the evidence supports your argument if you believe the evidence that supports it and don't believe the evidence that doesn't. That's called confirmation bias. That's enough on this for me. Have a great day. See you around the boards.

It's not inarguable at all. I'm arguing very reasonably that hiring Ryan was mostly on Whaley. Seeing them do things in some cases - without knowing what they'd have done if the advice they'd received had been different - doesn't show what they do in all cases. It just doesn't. Giving McDermott the power was said by the Pegulas not to be immediate but came from watching what he did when he arrived, and again is very likely to have resulted partly from Whaley's very weakened position. They watched Whaley be involved in two coach searches and then have terrible relationships with both. On Roman: "'This morning I informed ownership of my decision and they were supportive of it,' Ryan said during a news conference Friday. 'This was my move 100 percent.'" http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000703603/article/buffalo-bills-fire-offensive-coordinator-greg-roman The Pegulas had meetings with some players. And we know nothing of anything they thought or did as a result. That's not a good example for your argument. More, the decisions you're talking about came later in their tenure. The Bylsma thing came six years after they took over with the Sabres. Giving McDermott the power happened after three years handling the Bills for the Pegulas. The Ryan search came about two and a half months into their tenure. There's no reason whatsoever to think they'd have gone against Whaley if he'd been strongly against Ryan that early in their football venture. It'd be easy to imagine the Pegulas maybe not hiring a guy Whaley recommended if they just didn't like him. But putting a guy in to work with Whaley if Whaley said he didn't want him? Just wouldn't make sense. And in fact, nobody has ever suggested that Whaley was anything but positive about Ryan. Whaley was the guy who'd been around coaching and football. Whaley should have known even if the Pegulas didn't.

Fournette, unfortunately. Maybe Campbell. More fun if you're right, though.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I blame Whaley for that pretty much completely. He should've known and he should've told them. If they'd then overruled him ... then it would have been a Pegula decision. Whaley's the one who should have known. The Pegulas were new and not in a position to know. Agreed that the McD decision was on the Pegulas. At that point, they had pretty good reason to doubt Whaley after he was part of the decision on two coaches and couldn't get along with either one.

In any case, I wish Whaley the best. Seemed like a good guy. But I'd never give him a position in my (theoretical) team over assistant GM or better yet pro personnel director.

You say you'll tell me what is more idiotic than making bad decisions? Bill, IMHO nothing is. Big decisions are judged by whether they were correct or not. And when you're new in a field as the Pegulas were in football, you should listen to the professional advice you bought. When you're new in a field, your instincts aren't worth much. My bet is that if Whaley had nixed (heh heh) Ryan the Pegulas would've gone along with it. And held him responsible for giving them that advice, but they'd have followed it. No way to know, but that early on they'd probably have listened. Putting a coach under a GM who said he couldn't get along with the guy wouldn't have made sense.

That's probably a bit strong, but basically correct. If Whaley had said that he couldn't work with Ryan, the Pegulas almost certainly would have picked someone else. Having decided against a czar, Whaley was going to be the main football voice. You wouldn't go against that as a very new owner. Backing your own judgment is idiotic a lot of the time. If it weren't, why would anyone ever take advice? Or change their minds? Ross Perot had a chance to buy Microsoft for $40 to $60 mill at one point. Says it was "one of the worst business mistakes I've ever made." He backed his own judgment and it certainly was idiotic. Excite passed on Google for $750K. The Ravens gave Flacco a huge contract when they had Tyrod on the roster. People ignore good advice and make bad judgments all the time.

It's not a modest contract, not for him anyway. $16 mill in cash (salary and March roster bonus) in 2018, that's 10th. Cap hit? 17th, which is higher than he deserves and certainly higher than a bridge QB should get. And they'd still have to pay him $5 mill in dead cap to cut him after the 2018 season, only about $3 mill less in dead cap than if they cut him now. All for a QB who doesn't fit the one requirement that they stated for their QBs, that he has to play well from the pocket. I agree, you could do a lot worse. But when "you could do worse" is a major argument, that's not a good sign.

They, um, they have. Our offense is well below average in points and yards. And passing in particular. That's what teams want out of our offense, and what they're getting.

Franchise him? You're a hoot, Transplant. Franchise him??!!! Classic. I know you didn't mean it as a joke, but it is one. Says an awful lot more about how you see the world than it does about the world in reality. Tyrod doesn't qualify as a franchise guy, and those are the ones who are valuable. Franchise guys and those who might become one, and Tyrod doesn't qualify there either. That's why his contract is not particularly valuable right now. Or ever. It won't be necessary to keep him much less franchise him. The ones below franchise level are cheap, the Foleses and Cutlers and Fitzies and Tyrods. That's the group he belongs to. I guess in one sense it can indeed be said that his contract is valuable. Valuable as in overpaid for production.

Three defensive TDs. One pick-six and two fumbles returned for TDs. Which is around tenth in the league for non-offensive scoring. http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&statisticCategory=SCORING&conference=ALL&role=TM&season=2017&seasonType=REG

Rosenthal loves him some Tyrod. Always has.

I don't see a blowout. The Bills even have an outside chance for a win. The Jags are not a great team.

It wasn't so much a solid OC that understood Tyrod's limitations and strengths and used them to score more points than any Bills team in a while last year. It was really much more a solid OC that understood McCoy and Gillislee and the run game's limitations and strengths and used them to score more points than any Bills team in a while. Tyrod's passing yards and TDs were pretty close this year and last year. It's the run game that was massively more effective last year than this year. 2017 12 rushing TDs ( 4-way tie for 15th in the NFL) and 16 passing TDs (27th). Last year, 29 rushing TDs (1st in the NFL by a large margin) and 17 passing (27th). The run game was the difference. Going from 27th in passing TDs last year all the way to ... um ... 27th in passing TDs this year doesn't exactly show a major difference.

There were a few who said Tyrod couldn't get us to the playoffs. Most thought that he probably could, but that only a fanbase as abused as ours would make a big deal out of making it to the playoffs. It's not that big a deal for a QB to take his team to the playoffs. Last year Osweiler and Savage got the Texans there. Anyone want them as your long-term QB combo? So did Matt Moore and Ryan Tannehill get the Dolphins there. Again, anyone want them as your combo long-term? Have they proven anything? It's pretty common for a questionable QB or two make it to the playoffs. That's not the measure. It's being competitive for a title. Legitimately competitive. And unfortunately, this Bills team isn't. I wish they were but they just aren't. It hasn't been that long since Colin Kaepernick and Nick Foles got their teams to the playoffs. Kaepernick for a brief moment looked like the real thing, but not so much. Same with Foles. Under the circumstances, not much, probably. We're going to have three days after trading starts to work something out or we'll have to pay him that $6 mill roster bonus (of which $1 mill is already guaranteed anyway). It's due on 3/16. Teams under deadline pressure like that aren't in the driver's seat on trades. We might get something for him but it's not likely to be much under these circumstances.