Thurman#1

No, no he's not. That's like putting a roast in the oven and looking in after five minutes and saying, "This roast is unsuccessful, it's inedible as is." Is he relatively unsuccessful so far? Yeah, Too soon to use the term bust in the first year, unless the guy's already out of the league.

I'm guessing they beat us one time, probably not two, though. And it'll likely be the game in Miami that the Fins take. I wish they'd beat us twice. I'd much rather have the 8-8 draft slot than the 9-7 draft slot.

Tyrod would certainly love that, but I don't see the Broncos even thinking that way. I strongly disagree. Luck is 28. He's got another decade in front of him, maybe more. That's not even mentioning the $22 mill in dead money that would hit their cap next year if they did that. No way that happens.

Agreed that getting both is a legitimate option. They might not choose to go that way even if they bring in Cousins, but they certainly could. People try to pretend that Cousins is a product of the system, and that argument just doesn't make sense. Might have before this year but when you perform at a high and consistent level across the terms of two OCs, it's likely because you're playing at a high level yourself.

Thanks for your own thoughtful response. I still disagree but I understand people who feel the way you do. And sure, you can make the playoffs as a fodder team AND still have a good draft. But the odds go down. It's less likely and not by a little bit. A higher draft choice gives you more choices. And if there's a guy who'll be available down low that you want, if your pick is higher you can trade back and acquire more. There is no downside to a higher draft pick. Any pick can be a bad choice - look at Len Bias - but a higher pick widens your choices. Who says if we get in we'd get beat? I do. We are simply not a very good team. And yeah, the Broncos won a playoff game with Tebow. Did they win a Lombardi? Again, that's all I care about. They weren't legitimate title contenders with Tebow. Someone was going to beat them. And the next year they had the 25th pick, instead of the 13th to 19th they would have drafted with their 8-8 record. Their first two draftees the next year were Derek Wolfe and Osweiler. Not exactly a high-impact draft. Who would have been available for them if they'd picked at #13 instead of having the #25? Michael Floyd, Michael Brockers, Bruce Irvin, Quinton Coples, Dre Kirkpatrick, Melvin Ingram, Shea McClellin, Kendall Wright, Chandler Jones, Brandon Weeden, Riley Reiff, and David DeCastro. Some real duds in there but you think Denver wouldn't be happier today with DeCastro or Reiff on their pretty bad OL? Not to mention having more choices in every single round, not just the first. As a coach, sure, you should do everything you can to get in. As a fan, no thanks. Do everything you can to become a terrific team as fast as possible, please.

Like it except your problems with Wood. He's still playing very well, IMHO. I keep hoping they put Groy at RG but for some reason they're resisting that. Maybe he doesn't resemble their vision for an RG? I agree that I hope they keep Cordy and that Dawkins will play as well at RT as he has at LT.

The article predicts Cousins to the Jets. I really hope that doesn't happen. It would be bad news for the Bills. The problem with Bradford to the Bills is a money problem. He'd be a terrific bridge QB to bring in while you let the young draftee take time on the bench to get oriented. He'd be a real upgrade from Tyrod. And Bradford would win games for the Bills and would probably fit the new offense pretty well. But he wouldn't settle for bridge QB money. Nor should he. And he's not the guy you want as your long-term franchise QB. He'd probably need somewhere around his current salary or higher to bring in. $18 - $20 mill. I don't see the Bills spending that. Oh, and the article predicts Tyrod going to Arizona and starting. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

When the choice is between two products, neither of which will get you even close to being competitive for a Super Bowl, sure, take the cheaper one. This team isn't developing around Tyrod or whoever replaces him as vet backup/QB mentor. They're developing around whoever they bring in as FA with a real possibility of being a franchise guy or high draft pick. But as I say, I don't think RGIII fits the system any better than Tyrod.

It isn't that we can't handle the playoffs. It's that making the playoffs as a fodder team doesn't mean squat to a lot of us, and that certainly includes me. I saw the Bills make the playoffs (and the Super Bowl) four times in a row and walk away without a title. I'm a long-time fan and making the playoffs as a crappy team and getting slapped aside against the first good team we played wouldn't make me happy. Seen it before, quite a few times. I have one goal and one goal only for this team. Become legitimately competitive for a title as soon as possible. Nothing else matters to me. And we aren't doing that this year, so the next best thing we can do for the future is to get in position for a good draft. McD disagrees with that. Fine, good for him. A coach should always want to win today. That doesn't mean fans have to feel the same way.

Yup, agreed. I'd love to see them bring in Cousins and still draft a QB in the first.

The problem with keeping Tyrod is that it would cost the Bills around $16 million in cash and nearly $10 mill in cap space. At this point, RGIII would be likely to be very cheap indeed. That matters. But I don't see him fitting the offense any better than Tyrod has.

What this is typical of is the worst of the media. There's plenty of excellent journalism out there and plenty of the mediocre too. And plenty of bad. Same as any other industry, hell any other area of life. Did this actually go in the magazine, or was it just internet fodder? Doesn't really matter I guess. More so when the team they're playing is 3-9. And you can't even go to see Luck play.

His last game, he went 6 for 15 for 50 yards, with 0 TDs and 0 INTs. I would assume that's what he's comparing it to. As everyone should be at this point. If you're only going to look at Peterman's worst game, you ought to look only at Tyrod's worst game as well. If you're more interested in making sense, you ought to look at the body of work of each.

Nah, the NFL isn't a now league. If it were, picking Wentz was a terrible decision because he wasn't very good as a rookie. If it were a now league, maybe half of all new coaching hires would lose their jobs after a year. An As soon as possible league maybe. I have to say your "not one team hired them for the positions they are in now," line cracked me up. That's just a plain old dumb argument. Some first-time guys are awful. Some are great. Nobody had hired Tomlin before the Steelers did either. Both Beane and McDermott are very young, it's no surprise nobody'd hired them before. Agreed they might be failures. Or successes. As usual we'll just have to see. You're wrong about Sammy's injury history. It's been only one injury since May of 2016, but he had a very large assortment of other injuries before that. http://sportsinjurypredictor.com/player/sammy-watkins/6937 I like Sammy and would've loved to keep him but we simply need a QB more. Good trade, IMHO.

Look at what both QBs are doing with their excellent play to make the players around them look really good. Last year both guys looked like they might not be franchise guys. Wentz had a terrific start but tailed off and looked like he might've been figured out. Goff looked like he just might not be good enough. The Eagles had the same OL both years. Agholor, Celek and Ertz both years. Yup, they brought in some new guys, and that surely helped. But most of the people around Wentz were there last year. Of course, the article is right that they brought him along correctly and brought in good people to support him. But an awful lot of the reason he's playing better and the people around him are too is simply that Wentz got an awful lot better. The Rams brought in two new guys on the line with Whitworth and Sullivan. One guy who'd been a Ram last year took over as starter at RG, Jamon Brown. Gurley looks a ton better this year as the passing offense has improved a ton to take the pressure off him. They brought in Watkins and Woods. Woods looks a lot better with Goff throwing to him than he did previously. Watkins hasn't. I'd thought if he stayed healthy he was going to be terrific. He hasn't looked better than decent. The new system probably helped a lot, but I'd argue that though the team again did a good job of bringing in guys around him, that as big a difference as that is simply that Goff got a lot better in his second year. I agree that the teams have done a good job supporting them. But a lot of the reason both guys are doing well is that they both improved a great deal. Particularly Wentz. Wentz was in much the same system last year. IMHO he meant he's playing in that same class right now. Which I agree with. Wasn't saying he'd proven he'll have a similar career as those guys.

Here's another question ... WHY are they often in 3rd and long? Doesn't an awful lot of that have to do with how bad the offense (including Tyrod) are on 1st and 2nd downs? He didn't throw long much or well last year either. People are remembering how well he threw long in 2015. He really hasn't done it that well since. Most of the big plays last year were running plays. And I guess you could call a guy generally considered somewhere around 20 - 22nd best in passing as "middle of the league." But it's actually a bit below average.

Ranked by percentage of completions? So if it's third-and-eight and a QB completes a pass that goes for a 2 yard gain, it's OK by this standard?

Yeah, I loved what they were doing with the draft and accumulating picks. Just smart. I guess he and Hue didn't get along and they chose Hue. And yeah, as you say, not picking Wentz has hung around his neck like an anvil. They're likely to have a shot at one of the top two guys this year, though. I think the Browns' future is bright, though the owner seems dead-set on sabotaging himself and the organization.

He was hired in January of 2016 and is often held accountable for not picking Wentz. So, two, I think.

If they like Allen or Mayfield a lot and think he might be gone by their pick ... sure, go ahead and trade up a bit. Not to #3 or anything crazy, but yeah, go up a few spots. You probably wouldn't have to give up a ton in that case. I was really disappointed to see Garoppolo go to SF. I was hoping we'd have a shot at him or Cousins. Now, maybe Cousins but it's not a sure thing he'll even be available. Oh, and Bridgewater is being really undervalued here. He looked to be rounding into shape in 2015 before the injury. He was playing pretty well and it was only his second year. Wouldn't mind them taking a shot at him if he's available. Not sure he will be.

Oh, man, that's what I get for posting when I have no time and should be working. I totally ignored the Dead Cap numbers. What a dolt!! Missed the un-prorated signing bonus for the years of 2019 - 2021. Interesting case because you think of it as a two year contract but of course, it's actually good though 2021 unless they void it after the 2017 or 2018 season. More than $9 mill savings is still a lot, but not nearly as much as I said.

People think he isn't living up to his draft position, which is true. But you don't necessarily have to do that to be a useful player. What you should live up to is your salary. And at $2.5 mill per year, he probably just about does that. And when you do that, you generally stay around till they get somebody better or as good but cheaper.

From what I can tell just looking quickly, that's real time. In other words if you cut Tyrod TODAY that's what you'd save on the 2018 cap. Nobody wants to cut him today. If you do, a bunch of his 2017 guaranteed money hits the cap next year.

$15 million. Last year they paid him $14.5 mill (base salary plus signing bonus) and $15.5 mill was guaranteed. So $1 mill is guaranteed this year, from his roster bonus. In 2018, his base is $10 mill and roster bonus is $6 mill. So he would cost $16 mill, of which $1 mill is guaranteed. This is from Spotrac and I believe I've interpreted it all correctly, but if I haven't, please somebody correct me. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/tyrod-taylor-7899/ It looked all along like it would be very easy to cut him this offseason - if they want to - once he signed the new deal last offseason. That's a lot of cash to save.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2747404-2018-nfl-mock-draft-post-week-13-breakdown http://draftwire.usatoday.com/2017/11/29/2018-nfl-mock-draft-updated-4-round-projections-after-week-12/3/ https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/news/2018-nfl-mock-draft-cowboys-falcons-add-wr-speed-with-ridley-burnett/ Three mocks with Mayfield in the first round, all among the first few mocks on a google search for "2018 mock draft". Mayfield's in plenty of first round mocks. And I know what's coming next from some people on here: "That guy's an idiot and that guy's never right and the third guy has him in the mid-twenties and he could easily fall." All justifications, no good arguments. He might easily make the first. Might not but it could easily happen. McShay thinks Mayfield will go in the first. Kiper is not sure, says he's on the fringe. http://www.espn.com/nfl/draft2018/story/_/id/21665021/2018-nfl-draft-primer-mel-kiper-todd-mcshay-answer-25-questions-prospects-rankings-mock-draft