OldTimer1960

I don't know, I think this is the formula that Seattle has used and it is working out pretty well for them. Maybe I am wrong, but if you put Russell Wilson in position to have to carry a team by himself, I think he'd struggle. Don't get me wrong, I think he is pretty good - great for what they are asking him to do, but take away their dominant defense and outstanding running game and see how effective he'd be.

I thought that would be obvious to all, but apparently some think a legitimate good starting QB could be had for a LB who had a good rookie season, but missed all of last season due to a knee injury. Ugh, no perspective. This is actually an interesting paradox for many on this board: 1. All of our players suck - anybody on another team is better; why doesn't Buffalo get *those* players? 2. Any of our players are also good enough to trade for other team's star players. These two views don't compute.

He averaged 19.6 and 19.5 carries per game the last two years.

I am extremely excited by this trade. Kiko was great as a rookie, but as has been said, did the Bills' D really miss him last year? McCoy is still VERY good and the Bills want to/need to run the ball a lot. Fill out the OL a bit more and build a dominant run game. That will help whomever wins the QB job have an easier time getting the ball to Watkins and Woods.

But the standards for what good QB play have also changed (at least in terms of statistics). It used to be > 50% completion rate and 200 yards per game were very good, now that gets you benched. So, while it is true that rules have changed in favor of the offense, the definition of what a good QB is is relative to the current crop of QBs and they are all playing under the same rules - QBs of the past also all played under the same rules (at their time). If you are arguing that the current rules make it easier for young QBs to succeed relative to their more veteran peers, then I wonder why there is such a dearth of good young QBs.

Drew Bree's was nothing special his first few years, either if I recall correctly.

Like where? Pass Rushing DEs are one of the premium positions. If you won't over-pay for that, what will you pay for? There certainly isn't a QB worth a lot of money in FA and I'd rather pay Hughes (at an impact position) than spend similar money on an OG. Flat out, I'd rather have Hughes than spend even more on a run at Darrelle Revis (at this point in Revis' career).

I wouldn't waste time waiting on an offer made to Clay. He is good, but not so good as to tie yor FA hands for a week waiting for Phins to decide whether to match

We are sort of on the same page, but I don't think this is a particularly bad FA QB group - it is typical. It is very rare for a good QB to become a FA. Peyton Manning was a rare exception and was only available because the Colts had the great fortune to be able to draft the best QB prospect to come out of college in the last decade - in a different year, the Colts NEVER would have considered letting Manning go. Further, in my opinion, finding a QB isn't as simple as having any 1st round pick. There are many years when there are zero good QB prospects and many others where you have to own at top 3-5 pick to have any shot at any good QB prospect that is available. There just aren't many very good QBs.

I'm with you here and I don't see Matt Moore as a guy with any potential.

I would also prefer Mallett to McCown/Hill etc. I think Mallett's lack of track record is concerning, but would still rather roll the dice on him than get an old vet backup. If Kellen Moore is cheap, fine, but his lack of size and mid-tier arm might not be a good match for the very windy conditions in Buffalo.

I understand trying to optimize with what is available, but my point is that I think Locker or Ponder are as good or better players already than 10 year career backups like Hill and McCown. I'd rather take one of the younger guys and let them compete with EJ than one of th "never was" backups. Between Manuel and Locker or Ponder, maybe one would elevate their game with the competition and we might find an answer.

But none of the older vets are good enough to win with and I don't think they are any more accomplished than Locker, Ponder, Mallett or Sanchez. It would be one thing to bring in a fading veteran who used to be great, but these 10 year career backups are not the answer to get a team to the playoffs.

Only teams NOT looking for a better QB are: NE, Denver, GB, Seattle, Indy, NO A few teams currently HOPING that their recent draft picks are the answer: Jaguars, Raiders Pretty much all other teams are looking to upgrade at QB

You aren't the only one. If he were a FA, I would consider him, but I wouldn't give up a 2nd or 3rd round pick in trade for him. I say Locker, Ponder or Sanchez, unless Bradford is released. Locker and Ponder are young enough and physically talented enough to *maybe* still have a chance to become a good starter. Sanchez would be a semi-distant 3rd only because he has played more and has an even smaller chance to turn into a good starter. Someone else mentioned Matt Cassell - while not exciting, he belongs in this discussion if they didn't have to trade much to get him.

I think you are over-estimating McCown's leverage. Save for one miracle 9 game stretch in Chicago throwing to 2 great WRs with a very good RB too, McCown's career stats are flat worse than Manuel's.

Do you also feel that J'vlle should cut Blake Bortles? After all, his rookie year was not very good - guess he'll never be any good...

Huh? Why would we want them to get better? So that the Bills have the best QB that is available to them. If EJ, Locker or Ponder were to grow into competent starters, then problem solved until the Bills get a (rare) shot at a truly great QB prospect - you have to realize the truly great ones are few and far between. In addition, I am not sure that Locker and Ponder aren't already better than McCown.

I would prefer Locker or even Ponder to McCown because they at least have a chance to get better.

I think that describes EJ Manuel too, but the jury is still out on him.

Hughes is an accomplished pass rushing DE. He has now done it for 2 consecutive years, so it doesn't appear to be a fluke. A pass rushing DE is valued fare higher than an OG or even 2 of them. They can't pay top dollar for every position and there are no FA QBs worth big $, so spend the money on the important positions (DE being one of them). Do you think OG Mike Iupati instead of Jerry Hughes would make the Bills a better team?

What is the fascination with Ryan Mallett? Besides having a big arm, he has done nothing to speak of in the NFL - even in pre-season. The Pats thought so little of him that they drafted his replacement last year and dumped him off to Houston for (I think) a lousy 6th round pick. If Houston thinks he has potential to be a good starter, they'll spend good money to keep him.

I kind of like this plan. I think that Locker would be decent competition. I might consider Christian Ponder too (not to sign both, but pick one or the other). Ponder played pretty well in 2012 (his 2nd year) starting all 16 games throwing 18 TDs and 12 INTS. He got hurt and didn't play well in 2013 and was buried this year with Bridgewater coming in and playing well. Could he recapture 2012 form and build on it or was a fatal flaw in his game exposed in 2013?

That is easy to say, but besides Russell Wilson, who is it that they had a good opportunity to draft and failed to do so? I'll grant that they were close to in position to get Dalton or Kaepernick, but I think both went before Bills' pick in 2nd round. Not sure either are a great answer, either