Thurman#1

Interesting breakdown but a bit negative, IMHO. Most OC candidates, including the best ones, are going to come expecting to have to spend two or three years at the job. On nearly any team they would pick, but certainly here in Buffalo. So yeah, the WRs problem is likely to hurt the offense next year, as is having a rookie high draft pick playing some or all of the season. But if the offense shows improvement over the next few years, the OC will get a huge share of the credit. IMHO they're underestimating the lure of all those high draft picks we have. An OC would likely have a major voice in what QB would be brought in, including whether we focused on draft or FA QBs, or both. And we'll be able to get any QB but Darnold and Rosen in the draft we want, in a year where there appear to be four or five guys with a shot. We might even have some chance at either Darnold or Rosen, though at a guess that chance would maybe be somewhere around 30%. But this is a year when Cousins is available. Nearly any OC would lick his lips at that chance. And the OC will be able to chime in on that decision. They had some good points in that breakdown. This offensive turnaround is almost certainly going to take time, which makes it unlikely Shady and Incognito will be around by the time things start to look up (assuming Incognito's not gone in the next couple of weeks anyway). But a healthy Kelvin Benjamin is going to look a lot better than he did this year. He's a really good building block. And again, all those picks. If we bring in Cousins, those could be used to shore up the team a lot at various positions.

Nope. I believe this is the 8 millionth time this has had to be said, and yet it still needs to be heard, obviously. Wins and losses is NOT a stat for individual players. It simply isn't. It's a team stat. The fact is that Buffalo Bills have a better win percentage in games started by Tyrod than the Washington Redskins have in games started by Kirk Cousins. Know who is responsible for that? The Buffalo Bills and the Washington team.

No, I would settle for a better QB. Which would mean better results. Smith is a better QB. I would be very happy with that in a bridge QB, which is how I would want us to take Smith, drafting a QB high at the same time.

Yeah, I would. If they bring him back it would mean they thought he wasn't the main part of the problem. And they know better than us. I think a lot of that switch is that nobody else can really run Roman's system. Lynn had an advantage in that he'd worked under Roman and the players already knew the system. Roman had coached everyone through the preseason for the year Lynn took over as OC. Roman's system isn't easy to implement without Roman.

His five-year extension deal signed in August 2016 before the re-negotiation spread his signing bonus out over five years. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/tyrod-taylor-7899/ $5.56 mill in dead cap in 2019.

You're right on the Ngakoue penalty, but it was called a penalty. The tackle that caused the concussion wasn't cheap. Rough. Not cheap. There's a reason the commentary didn't even mention the possibility of a penalty there. No choke there either, The guy's arm was around the side of his neck, not the front. Yeah, he slammed him down but you're allowed to do that on a runner, which is what Tyrod is there.

Agreed Tyrod is better. But not much. And McCown is much cheaper. And can play from the pocket, the one thing that McDermott says is a necessity in his system. And would be a better clipboard coach for the new guy than Tyrod, IMHO. Assuming McCown came here for the same salary he got from the Jets (he'd probably be a bit more expensive, but not much), he'd cost us $12 mill less on the cap than Tyrod. Keeping Tyrod would cost us $10 mill on the cap this year and then $5 mill in dead cap next year.

Tyrod isn't cheap, not even for a bridge. It would cost us $15 mill more to keep him than to let him go, $10 mill more in 2018 and then $5 mill more in dead cap in 2019. He's not cheap. And Smith has consistently put up better YPC and completion percentage numbers than Tyrod has managed except for that brief period in his first year starting when teams didn't know how to handle him. 2017 YPC Alex Smith 8.0 (5th in the NFL) and Tyrod 6.7 (25th) 2016 YPC Alex Smith 7.2 (18th in the NFL) and Tyrod 6.9 (26th) 2017 Comp % Alex Smith 67.5% (3rd in the NFL) and Tyrod 61.7% (18th) 2016 Comp % Alex Smith 67.1% (6th in the NFL) and Tyrod 61.7% (21st) Those are two specific stats and it's more complex than that, but they're the two stats you yourself pointed out. Smith is better, significantly so. We should be drafting someone high. Smith would not be a good choice as the long-term guy, but as a bridge he'd be better than Tyrod and not significantly more expensive, though Tyrod's cap hit is partly a year later. Smith is also a guy who plays better from the pocket than Tyrod, and that's the one thing that McDermott has said is necessary for a QB in his system.

It's a somewhat bizarre system. Why are only 97 points available? Why are guys who play certain positions automatically given more value than guys who play other positions? It's also based on giving good scores to do-it-all guys who can do everything well. So if they were ranking Teddy Washington they'd have graded him down based on his inability to rush the passer. Nothing wrong with that, but it's taking points away from guys who aren't meant to be used as multi-use guys. IMHO our current interior guys with the exception of Kyle are mostly run stoppers, not much on the pass rush. It's safe to say they're not as bad as they're ranking them. Our interior line has been decent this year. Not a terrific group but not bad. Which is why even with our so-so LBs we haven't been awful at stopping the run through most of the season, thought there were some bad games and even runs of games. They also don't rank Coleman, probably as he was brought in so late. An upgrade would help, though, if they can get one.

The league year begins on 3/14. Only two days to make the trade.

Yeah, Fournette in Jax is in a huge market. They favor glory positions. Guys who've been on TV a lot and guys in positions that are more easily captured by stats. And offense.

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.