OldTimer1960

If you trade for Cutler you probably can't afford Dareus and Hughes. I would pick Dareus and Hughes over Cutler.

this really isn't news. Of course, any in-coming coach would love to have an established star QB in place. Of the openings, only Atlanta truly features that. Some might argue that SF is set with Kaepernick, but he showed this year that he isn't a sure thing. Others may say Jay Cutler is good in Chicago, but his teams have not been consistently successful and his salary eats up a lot of cap $ that could otherwise help their defense. I'll agree that the Bills' situation is the most unsettled, but only Atlanta's is really very good.

I think you are over-valuing 4th round picks. I know that teams can and do find productive starting players in that round, but the probability of doing so is pretty low. The link below is to an article that suggests the probability of finding a player who starts for more than 1 year in the NFL by the middle of round 4 is about 30%. http://datascopeanalytics.com/what-we-think/2012/05/01/the-chance-of-a-bust-in-the-nfl-draft

OR maybe Stevie is nowhere near as good as he thought he was. Maybe his stats on the Bills were because he was the only NFL WR on the roster at the time.

As-is the frequent demand for the immortal Ryan Mallett.

Man, I think that you are under valuing how good Watkins is. Yes, ODB had a great season. Watkins had a fine season, too.

Actually it was a surprise that Rodgers lasted until that pick. I disagree that there are many examples. To be sure, there are some examples of very good abs who weren't drafted at the top of round 1, but there really have been very few really good QBs at all - they are very rare and it is often luck when a team finds one or has the privilege of drafting high in a rare year when an obvious great one is available.

Dick Jauron was a very good DC.

And yet, you jumped on me for incorrectly identifying Ron Rivera as a "retread"? I think you've provided a fine list of coaches who have had considerable success after having been fired. Well played, Captain Obvious! I did not state that every fired coach is better the next time around. I am only suggesting that it would be prudent to not ignore candidates just because they didn't experience success in their first head coaching opportunity.

What crusade might that be? I am simply saying that a coaching candidate shouldn't be completely discarded just because he had one failed shot in the past. No debate that Manning be Brady have helped Bellichick and Fox, but I wouldn't say Cam Newton is an elite QB capable of masking poor play or coaching by others...

You are right, my bad. Still, the point remains made with just Bellichick and Carrol who both have won Super Bowls after having been fired from previous jobs.

Bill Bellichick, Pete Carrol, John Fox and Ron Rivera - 4 coaches of playoff teams including a few Super Bowl championships among them...

Atlanta "slid" this year AND last year, too. While Dimitrov has assembled some offensive talent, including a good, not great, QB - his defense is void of any talent and they've been worse than the Bills the past two years. I can't imagine hiring him to tell others what to do.

So, if genius chip Kelly is willing to trade Foles (his only viable starting QB) to you for, say a 2nd round pick, don't you think you ought to be a little concerned that you are being fleeced? Sure, it would be different if if the Eagles had a better option than Foles, but that isn't the case - buyer beware!

If the strategy to build your team is "we must get one of the VERY few QBs that can win on their own", then that isn't much of a strategy. Kinda like saying, we can't build a NBA franchise without Michael Jordan or LeBron James or we can't build an NHL team without Gretzky... If the strategy to build your team is "we must get one of the VERY few QBs thy can win on their own", then that isn't much of a strategy. Kinda like saying, we can't build a NBA franchise without Michael Jordan or lea ton James or we can't build an NHL team without Gretzky...

This year, Foles played 8 games, completed 59.8% and was on a 16 game pace to throw 26 TDs and 20 INTs. I am not seeing that as much (if any) of an upgrade over Manuel, whom most here want replaced. DIFFERENT <> BETTER

Can someone explain to me what Ryan Mallett has done in the NFL to warrant so many people here clamor ing for him?

I just think the league figured Foles out and he'll be a bottom third of the league starter. Remember when Derek Anderson looked like a good QB briefly? I suspect Foles may be similar. I've no real problem signing a stop-gap veteran and even drafting a QB this year to see if we can get lucky, but Manuel (IMHO) has more upside than any stop-gap vet or rookie that will be available in the 2nd or later this year. Again,maybe they'll get lucky and find a gem like Russell Wilson in the 2nd or 3rd.

I completely agree with you. I think it is way too soon to declare that EJ Manuel will never become a good starting QB

I stand corrected from my earlier post. This structure is much more common than I thought. Still, seems like it would create more tension between head coach and GM if they are both on the same level. It will be very important to have cooperative personalities in both roles. Whaley strikes me as cooperative, in spite of what Marrone has implied. FWIW, I never had any problem with the Pegula's taking part in the interviews. I wouldn't expect them to make the final decision, but they are entitled to meet the candidates, give any input that they seem fit and have final approval (mostly as a rubber stamp)

If any team is willing to trade their starting QB, then the buyer should beware. The only recent example of this that made sense for both parties was SF trading Alex Smith because they had Colin Kaepernick whom they wanted to make way for. I can't think of many other situations where it a) happened and b) worked out well for the new team. It did work out for KC in the short-term when they traded for an aging Joe Montana, but again, SF was making room for Steve Young to play. If Philly is willing to trade Foles without a clear replacement in place, then you probably shouldn't want Foles.

I am generally one to see the Bills' moves in a positive light as compared to some here, but on this I agree completely. If they aren't sure that they want to keep Whaley, they need to replace him now rather than let him lead the selection process for a coach that won't report to him. For the record, I think that Whaley has done a good job, but this is a fiasco - if what has been reported is true.

Morrison played for the Bills.

knew this topic would show up here this PM. Dope and Bulldog were talking about this stupid topic today. Babbling about scouring the country for the right guy, not just one of the hot candidates. Hmm, then if the Bills are last team to get their coach, they'll be b*tching that they waited so long. IMHO, they don't need to be first to hire their coach, but should not be last, either. Being late to the game usually means slim-pickings for assistants as the other new Head Coaches have already snapped up the available ones. In the Bills case, they can (and hopefully will) keep their defensive staff in place, so the new HC will "only" need to find offensive assistants.

I am still missing something. If the goal is to be championship competitive, how does trading a young WR who could be great for the 15-20th best starting QB in the league help? This team is not championship caliber with Foles or Alex Smith or Andy Dalton, etc and no Watkins.