Thurman#1

John, it seems pretty clear to me that he doesn't hate Tyrod, he simply doesn't believe in him. And no, bitching about posters sometimes makes a ton of sense and often has little to do with the player and a lot to do with the posters. You do it yourself with the posters you don't like.

I'd agree with all of that personally, except for one thing. He was a very good deep ball thrower. He regressed a lot in that area last year. Which is the real Tyrod, the 2016 model or the 2015? But yeah, I admire his hard work and serious attitude. I like that he negotiated so he could come back to Buffalo rather than hit the open market. I like the guy. But we need a franchise QB. Soon. The absolute best thing to happen would be if he somehow had his light come on and took a huge leap upwards. Man, I hope that happens, but I don't like the odds at all. And we need someone (as does every team that doesn't already have a franchise guy or one one the making.

They didn't quit. If they had they wouldn't be on the roster. They played poorly ... in a season during which they played poorly more often than not. And yeah he could've maybe played but if he'd injured himself further - a legitimate possibility - they'd have been on the hook for the whole of his far too-high guarantee. Anytime there's a conflict between long and short-term priorities, you should go with the long-term. There are a few exceptions, such as if you're a legitimate Super Bowl contender, but we weren't. There was no reason to damage our long-term interests when the short-term was meaningless. Remember 2014 when we won our last game, the thrill when they took out Brady and played Garoppolo and we won to go 9-7? Remember the parades people threw and the wild celebrations? No, me either. It meant little or nothing, same as this Jets game. How about the 2012 finale, remember that terrific win? The Jets, to go 6-10? No, me either. Means nothing.

Yeah. But there's not likely to be any 4th rounder in next year's draft. It'd be for the 20th, their 2nd and 4th. Unless someone is absolutely desperate, and that's not how Elway operates. Still, I'd take that.

You ought to call up the Seahawks and tell them that they fired him. They're under the impression that he quit. Unexpectedly. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/seahawks-lose-key-executive-scot-mccloughan-to-resignation/ The 49ers pushed him out, though it was reported as stepping down, but there are no similar reports from his tenure in Seattle. As for what happened in D.C., there's a lot of unsureness and two totally different stories: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/former-player-reignites-war-of-words-between-washington-and-fired-gm-scot-mccloughan-001059989.html Agreed. He knows how to build teams.

He does have drinking issues, but supposedly people (not the "brain trust" of the Washington Indigenous People, but everyone else, supposedly) is that he hasn't hurt his job performance. If I were the Pegulas, I'd be in the private jet right now. This guy is genuinely good. If you can figure out what happened ... you're using your imagination and disregarding the lack of facts. Confirmation bias. We simply don't know if there was an incident or pattern that caused this or whether it was the result of a power struggle and a guy who needed a justification to do what he wanted to do.

On the contrary. Pretty much all of those trades are right on value. They're offering just what the chart says they're worth. It's not like they're giving the Bills a bargain. They're not, they're paying the expected price. I'm not saying they will happen, of course. But they could. Easily. It would most likely require only that the Bills say "Yes." I disagree with this too. There will be plenty of guys up that high who Seattle might like. Enough to trade up? Maybe and maybe not, but it's not all that far-fetched. If the Seahawks were offering a big premium, then yeah context for such an unlikely move would be necessary. But since they're giving pretty much list price, it's not, really. There are plenty of guys up that high a team like Seattle might be interested in. And Seattle has a history of draft trades. Last year there were about 47 trades in the draft. This just isn't all that unrealistic. It requires that the Bills want to make those trades, but if they do, they could easily be there, with someone if not with the exact teams forecast here.

Love the trades back. Love 'em. I'm not as thrilled with their SPARQ formula as they obviously are, but it looked decent to me who they picked with what little I know this year.

We didn't tank the Jets game. We started Manuel and fired Rex. Not the same thing. Our chances of winning were lowered, but that's not tanking. Made a ton of sense at the time to sit Tyrod with his injury combined with the contract provision that would have required signing him due to the injury guarantee of his option if the injury was worsened during game action. We also needed to know more about where EJ was at. But in any case, I felt fine about it then, and just as fine now. My worries about winning end when we lose our playoff chances and often before if it becomes obvious we simply aren't close to competing for a Lombardi.

It wasn't condescension. It was annoyance at argument point drift. And your original post completely proves my annoyance reasonable. In your refusal to stop arguing you went from saying in your original post that Sean Taylor did not live up to his draft spot (which is just dead wrong, as I have been arguing all along) to somehow wanting to argue that his being shot somehow is an argument that he was a bad pick. Which is nonsense. That and something about Miles Jack's degenerative knee having something to do with why safeties shouldn't be taken in the top ten, which even after two posts where you tried to explain has no earthly connection which I can see. Things have gone far enough off-track that I am (actually) bowing out. You are obviously a guy who needs the last word. Go for it. As I said, see you on the boards.

There'll be peace when he is done.

So your point no longer had anything to do with Taylor being a safety? That was how this started and was the point he and I were making with you. And Taylor played for three and a half years, not a couple, before being shot to death in the botched robbery. He fully lived up to his draft spot. What? I have no idea what leap you're making here, and I've pretty much lost interest in the discussion at this point, as it has wandered very very far, from what I can figure out. Of course if people know your shelf life is limited it affects your draft stock. But they didn't know that about Taylor or any of the other safeties ... you know what, I don't even know what subject you're discussing anymore. Safeties in the top ten aren't necessarily a bad deal. Plenty of them have had enough impact to justify that kind of placement. See you around the boards.

Very good front office for two, Alex. Bringing in the right players is the key thing. After that you can get by with solid coaching. You can't have awful coaching, but solid is fine if the players are are there. I can understand cautious optimism, but I'm at this point more from Missouri.

I like the players, but I can't imagine them going so offensive. Our new HC is going to be looking at rebuilding that bad defense. I'd love to see them trade back once or twice. Wow, it's fun to watch him tackle.

There's a letter limit, dude.

It's not what you want from a top ten prospect. But it absolutely does not mean he was a bad draft pick that he was killed in a home invasion. That makes exactly as much sense as it would make to say that the scouts should have known that a draft pick would get killed in a car accident or an earthquake. That could have happened to anyone, and Taylor was setting the tone on that ferocious defence. He was a good pick there. There aren't many safeties worth that. But there shouldn't be any question whatsoever that there haver been safeties good enough to have easily validated top ten picks. I'm sure you can come up with a list as easily as anyone else. And Jack dropped last year because he was injured and hadn't played in a while. That is not a reasonable comparison. Don't know whether we will pick a safety but probably two will go in the top ten, and I'm betting at least one will be a good bargain there.

Hogan is absolutely a speedster. Guy ran a 4.39. The reason Belichick - a notorious skinflint - made Gilmore a top ten CB by pay is that he is a top ten CB. Our salary cap problems may have played into why we didn't bring Gilmore back, but Norman and Gilmore are a pattern and as Benoit points out probably indicate his draft tendencies and priorities. Don't see him still being there, but yeah, that's the kind of move this would seem to mean is possible.

Yup. He also said in that article that they should exercise the option, which turned out to be very wrong. He says they can win with Tyrod. He doesn't say they can win a championship with him. I think most of us think he's right that we can win with Tyrod. My personal opinion is that we're not going to see him make the huge steps up in his seventh year or later that he would need to make to make the Bills able to contend for a title. IMHO that's why they re-negotiated with him rather than exercising the option. But if you're saying that they don't need to pick a QB at #10 if they don't think the right guy is there, I agree with you 100%.

I was precisely trying to tell him to mellow out.

I go either way, but if you wait for a QB who is a sure thing, you literally will never ever get a QB. The guys who are close to a sure thing, guys like Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck, come along once a decade or so and are gone in pick #1. And the one thing the Bills have shown for 17 years is that we don't ever get bad enough to get the #1 pick.

Say it together ... Different opinions make the world go around.

Emily Kaplan's Senior Bowl report on Peterman and the responses to him there: http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2017/01/27/nfl-draft-senior-bowl-quarterbacks-nathan-peterman-davis-webb-cooper-kupp-oj-howard-haason-reddick Warning: contains yet another Kirk Cousins comparison. "...But big names around this time of year are always quarterbacks, and when Deshaun Watson declined his invite (he was eligible as a junior since he had graduated), the already-shallow senior quarterback pool was quite dry. However in talking to folks in Mobile before practices began, there was a belief that two of the six quarterbacks competing here could strengthen their stock—the ceiling being 'the next Dak Prescott.' Those guys: Nathan Peterman of Pittsburgh and Davis Webb of California. "We’ll begin with Peterman because he’s been by far the most impressive quarterback here. Says one evaluator who has studied Peterman extensively: 'He reminds me a lot of Kirk Cousins in this sense: He’s not going to blow you away with any of his traits, but he can do everything you need.' The evaluator stressed that Peterman is very mature. A graduate transfer from Tennessee, he enrolled at Pitt in 2015 to pursue an MBA and the 22-year-old got married to his longtime girlfriend in April. "Peterman didn’t have too many weapons to throw to at Pitt; junior receiver Jester Weah (no catches before 2016) came through, and tight end Scott Orndoff had a good year, but other than that 'there was not much there,' the scout said. Peterman has been playing for the North squad coached by the Chicago Bears, and yes, they’re in the market for a quarterback. The 22-year-old has thrown some pretty, well-placed balls and earned bonus points at weigh-in when his hands measured at 9 7/8 inches—impressive considering he’s only 6' 2 1/2". (Yes, the hand debate is back! Sorry I’m not sorry. There’s even one more hand-size reference later in the column, though I’ll go on record with my hand-size stance: It does matter, but only for quarterbacks, who have to grip the ball, especially in poor weather.) My sense is that Peterman is not ready to start next year, but would be a solid third to fifth round target and developmental project." I know I came across in this thread as a big fan. I'm not, especially. I just want the Bills to start drafting QBs regularly. I have no idea if this guy should be the one, but he looks interesting to me.

NFL Draft Scout has him as a 3rd-4th guy. 2nd would be a bit high, IMHO. If they like him, I wouldn't mind them taking him. Thing is ... when there is an Andrew Luck, we won't get him drafting number 12 or whatever. Might as well cross the Andrew Lucks off the list. We're going to have to find a Russell Wilson or Derek Carr or Teddy Bridgewater or whoever, because this team isn't bad enough to get an Andrew Luck, and we won't be in the next year or two either now that we brought Tyrod back. And yeah, TT is it for now. Which means you want to start drafting for his replacement immediately if there's anyone there with potential.

Not so much. Not that he has a bullet arm, he doesn't. But he appears to be able to make all the throws an NFL QB needs. EDIT: I can see this has already been posted here, but it's worth looking at, as are the scouting reports which do say he doesn't have a great arm but can make all the throws.

$13 mill a year. From the Patriots. $40 mill guaranteed from the ultimate cheapskates. Yeah, Gilmore absolutely is a great one-on-one corner. Not perfect and not a shutdown guy. But yeah, great.