2003Contenders

I don't pretend to know how any of these QBs will translate to the NFL, but just the fact that as many as 6 appear to be legitimate first rounders (Darnold, Rosen, Allen, Mayfield, Jackson, Rudolph), I feel a little better about the possibility of a decent option still being there at 21 without having to trade up. And, if there is a guy that the scouts like head and shoulders over the remaining 3-4 (after the first couple are drafted early), the Bills should be able to trade up without having to give away the farm.

I understand the speculation about the Colts possibly trading Luck: 1. When McDaniels took over in Denver, the first thing he did was trade Cutler for draft picks and acquired Orton. So there is precedent for a move like this. His mentor did the same thing in his gigs in Cleveland (Bernie Kozar) and New England (Drew Bledsoe). 2. The Colts have the #3 overall pick. They can certainly draft a top QB option in this year's draft PLUS have the extra picks acquired in the Luck trade to build around the young QB and the rest of the team. That said, if Luck truly is healthy, I have a hard time seeing the Colts trade him. Furthermore, if he is healthy, there would likely be other suitors with better draft picks to offer in exchange.

So many things to consider... First, the Bills are in a bit of a catch 22 because they have no assurance of what QBs will be available to them in the draft (whether they trade up or not). Moreover, since free agency starts almost 2 months before the draft, their Plan A would have to be based on chronology rather than desire. Hence, Plan A would be to sign a proven starting QB in free agency (Cousins, Alex Smith, whichever Viking QB is available, etc.) with part of that plan to also include drafting a long-term QB. Plan B would be in the event that the team is unable to sign a solid veteran in free agency. I would have to think that the plan would then be to go all out for Darnold/Mayfield/whichever QB they prefer in the draft. In the event that they are unable to draft the QB of choice, then I think that is where Plan C comes in. In that case, I would look to draft BPA at QB (Jackson, White, Faulk or whomever) in the appropriate round in the hopes of catching lightening in the bottle -- and also bringing in the best option still available in free agency. That could mean hanging on to Tyrod. That's why I would not get rid of Tyrod WITHOUT having a better option under contract first.

I will say this: if they really do believe that Darnold or Rosen (or whomever) legitimately projects to be a franchise QB, then they should do whatever it takes to move up for him. My guess is that will be hard to do, since so many other teams picking in the top 5 also have a real need for a QB. First, I hope that if they do try hard to move up for a certain guy and are unable to make that move, then they do not panic and trade up for another QB "just because". That is the mistake they made in 2004, when they thought they had a deal in the works to move up to Houston's spot and take Ben Roethlisberger. When Houston backed out and the Bills were unable to get in front of Pittsburgh to get Big Ben, Donahoe panicked and instead traded up for JP Losman. Uggg! I also hope they are not dead-set on taking a QB in the first round even if they believe that the draft class is weak -- a la 2013 when no QB coming out that year had a first round grade and they selected EJ anyway banking on upside. The world does not end if they can't land the QB they covet. There will be some guys available in the free agent market -- and it is smarter to build up the rest of the roster than significantly overpay for a questionable rookie QB. Obviously the free agency period, which opens in about 6 weeks, will give us a strong clue as to what the Bills will do in the draft. Depending on whom (if anyone) they acquire and what they give up (both potentially in terms of draft picks as well as $ paid to the veteran QB).

Funny enough there was a segment on ESPN with Danny Kennell that focused on this issue. The discussion centered around the great pump fake that Foles demonstrated in the NFC Championship game on Sunday. Kennell mentioned that Foles has some of the biggest hands in the NFL -- well over 10". He then talked about the big hands being a nice attribute for cold weather QBs and that Kelly, Bradshaw and Favre all had great success throwing the ball in cold weather because of their big hands -- and that QBs like Dan Fouts struggled when playing in the cold weather. He also added that having big hands is imperative for QBs who do a lot of pump fakes -- and that is one reason why you do not see Brady do many pump fakes: he has small hands (by NFL QB standards) at 9 3/8". Hand-size is certainly a factor to consider -- especially for Buffalo where the need is heightened because of the weather late in the season. But it is silly to place too much emphasis on it as they did when drafting EJ Manuel.

Apparently, MM was offended that some school teacher saw his kid's last name and asked if he was related to the "soon-to-be ex-coach of the Tennessee Titans". Oh, wait...

My first choice would be to sign Kirk Cousins in FA if he truly becomes available. Doing that would obviously cost a ton of $, but would also alleviate the need to draft one in the early rounds this year. Instead those picks could be used to bolster the lines and other areas. That IMHO would be the best case scenario and almost certainly leads to a better 2018 product on the field. If Cousins is not available (and assuming no serious franchise QB is likely to be on the board at 21/22), then I honestly do not believe that there is another realistic option -- based on age, experience, skill, etc. -- available in free agency that would "solve" the QB issue for the long-term. So I would try to work the phones in hopes of using the heavy 2018 draft capital to move up for a franchise QB in the draft. If this happens, then I would like to see a journeyman veteran (Bradford, McCown, Moore, etc.) come in to help mold the rookie. If legitimate options do not present themselves to trade up for a franchise guy, then I pray that the team does not over-reach for a lesser guy. Instead, there is no reason we can't push the draft capital back another year. That is, 21 and 22 are prime spots for teams who want to move up from the 2nd round to get that 6th year option on a player in the later part of the 1st round. Such a move would move one of our first rounders back to the 2nd round -- but garner another later 2018 pick in addition to an extra 2019 1st. In that scenario, you still draft a QB in 2018 if/when the value dictates AND acquire a second-tier QB that can start for a couple of years (Alex Smith or whomever). So in summary: 1. Sign Cousins; only draft a QB if BPA in given round 2. Package picks to trade up for Rossen/Darnold/whomever; sign inexpensive veteran to mentor and possibly start early in the season 3. Sign a serviceable starting QB in FA (like Alex Smith); draft BPA QB; trade down with one of our 1st round picks to get an extra picks this year plus 1st rounder in 2019 and hope for a better shot at a franchise guy in 2019

I am not sure how accurate or meaningful this stat is. However, I would not be surprised. The WR corps remains a weak link for the team -- and was confounded by injuries to both Matthews and KB. Although Benjamin managed to play through his bum knee, clearly his speed was grotesquely diminished -- and he was hardly ever able to get any separation. Meanwhile, Tyrod's propensity for locking onto receivers and waiting until they came open rather than throwing with anticipation would have also been a factor in the receivers' separation stats. The team clearly needs an upgrade at both WR and QB positions -- which goes without saying and is hardly refutable. Hopefully a healthy KB and Matthews (if re-signed) in 2018 will make a difference.

There are different levels/types of intelligence. A scientist or policy-maker may have a high IQ but may need time to analyze information at hand before moving forward. Meanwhile, with lives at stake, a surgeon has to be able to make good decisions quickly. The same is true of police officers, firemen, etc. Tyrod has shown repeatedly that he struggles to make proper decisions quickly. That does not mean that he is "dumb" -- just that the way in which his brain is wired, he is more calculating in his decision-making process than is required to be a successful QB at the NFL level. No one doubts Ryan Fitzpatrick's IQ -- but he often made poor decisions on the fly. At least he was usually quick in making those decisions (good or bad). After all, Jim Kelly wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but he was great at reading a defense and making quick (and usually "intelligent") decisions.

The problem with Gailey was that he never really saw himself as anything other than a glorified OC. He said as much in his inaugural press conference, when he said he would hire an OC who would have the the job in title only since he would call all the plays. He then went on to say that he would hire a DC that he specifically wanted to run a 3-4 -- but that the DC would NOT be a "household name". That guy turned out to be George Edwards who was in over his head at that point in his career. I believe that McD is more of a true CEO. Yes, his expertise is on the defensive side of the ball, but he appears to have a lot of faith in a veteran coordinator like Frazier to actually manage the D. Based on what we heard in the press conference yesterday, it sounds like he is weighing his options at the OC position.

OK, you have made this point like a half dozen times in this thread, and it may very well be true. The undesirable dead cap money for Dareus is more a product of the poor contract that the prior regime signed him to when his bargaining leverage was at an all time high (coming off a season when the entire DL was loaded) and without any safe-guards against off-field issues and on-field lack of motivation AFTER signing the big contract. That said, let's not over-exaggerate the cap ramifications. While the trade hurts the cap in 2018 (in the sense that he takes up cap space while playing elsewhere), the reality is that getting rid of Dareus saved the team over $54 M in cap money (not to mention REAL money) over the next few years. The trade saved the team over $5 M this past year, over $7 M in 2018 and $47+ M from 2019-2021. The fact that the Jags were willing to eat that AND cough up draft compensation is actually a good thing for the financial (both from a monetary standpoint as well as a cap standpoint) future of the team. The saved $ also gives the Pegulas and the team additional leverage in constructing contracts (if they desire) that pay larger up-front bonuses to help circumvent the cap. Hopefully the team will be smart in the manner that they do this, as the Dareus situation represents a cautionary tale. Regarding Dareus himself... in Sunday's game, I recall one big play in which he tackled McCoy for a loss. He was otherwise fairly quiet. The Jags largely elected to take him off the field on passing downs -- and it is not as if he has been the missing piece of puzzle that got the Jags into the playoffs. Their defense was elite before he got there -- and they have remained elite. The Bills defense did a pretty good job Sunday too without him, didn't they? It really is a shame because MD certainly has the talent to warrant the 3rd overall pick and the large contract he ultimately signed. The new regime simply tired of his inconsistent effort and elected to move on AND vacate over $54M of dedicated cap/cash for essentially a part-time player. So, while he may take up the 3rd highest cap hit by NOT being here, he will still cost less even n 2018 than he would have cost if he were still here saddling the team with the future contract obligation. That savings are -- as I said -- over $7M in real money (and $2M in cap money) in 2018. Something tells me that McD and Beane will find someone who provides similar/better production at the position with the remaining $ that was cleared in 2018 (and beyond).

I see no way that the Bills enter the season with Peterman as the starter. While he may still develop into a meaningful player down the line, he was given multiple opportunities to take over the reigns this season and failed miserably in each situation: 1. Starting in San Diego... We all saw how that worked out. 2. Relieving Tyrod in the first New England game... where he failed to get the ball into the endzone. 3. Starting against the Colts. He managed to lead a late 1st half TD drive, but in the 2nd half knocked himself out of the game by making a foolish decision to take on a LB rather than slide. 4. Sunday he had a legitimate shot at tying the game but instead threw the game clinching INT. Again, I am not saying that he should be kicked to the curb. After all, Alex Smith started his career with a 1-11 TD-INT ratio I believe. In fact, if the team could bring in Alex Smith to start for a year or two, it would be a nice boost to Peterman (who shares similar traits), I believe. In fact, I would like to see the front office bring in a veteran (Smith, Bradford or whomever), draft a QB early without over-spending draft capital (UNLESS they believe that can acquire a legitimate FRANCHISE QB by trading up) AND hang on to Peterman. Then Peterman and the rookie battle it out to see who is the QB2 going into the season. The other is QB3.

Bingo! Also, Tyrod being an incapable starting QB and Dennison being an incompetent play-caller may not necessarily be mutually exclusive. We have seen enough of Tyrod to know that the first statement is true; I would be willing to give Dennison a shot with a competent NFL QB before running him out of town.

If the team's scouts and front office truly believe that there is a "can't miss" QB in this draft, they you give up what is necessary to get him. That said, I absolutely do not want them taking a QB in the first round (trading up or otherwise) just for the sake of taking a QB. That is what they did the last two times that they drafted one in the first round (Losman and EJ).

You are missing the obvious -- which is not necessarily backed up by statistically comparing Shady's production to that of the other RBs on the team: when Shady is on the field he becomes the focal point of the defense. That is not true when the other RBs take the field. Taking Shady off the field, may lead to reasonable production for the fill-in backs, since they do not draw as much attention from the opposing defenders -- but it also means that the passing game will be hindered more with greater focus on stopping Tyrod and the passing game. Exhibit A: The Cowboys were without Zeke E.'s services for 6 weeks. Idiot pundits pointed out that Alfred Morris had similar production to Zeke in Zeke's absence. But guess what? Defenses were not as worried about stopping Morris as they were Zeke, so Morris saw fewer stacked boxes, and opposing defenses were better able to better defend against the pass. So, while the running game kept pace, it was Dak Prescott and the passing game that suffered immeasurably.

Very reasonable observations. Add also, though, that bringing in a viable veteran alternative would in all likelihood cost north of the $18 mil that Tyrod would have received PLUS the $8.64 mil dead cap for releasing him. I honestly do not think what happens in the playoffs will make much difference. The book (both good and bad) is out on Tyrod. While it would be great to see him play out of his mind in the post-season, nothing he has done historically would indicate that is likely to be the case. (Fingers crossed that he does!) That said, his leadership, occasional big play, mobility and ability to protect the football (as we have seen) can be enough to win the obligatory 9-10 games to contend for a playoff spot each year. I am not going to over-analyze the fact that McD did bench Tyrod against the Chargers. While it certainly indicates that he was hoping to catch lightening in the bottle and explore the potential of an immediate upgrade at the position, we would be remiss if we overlooked the fact that his re-inserting Tyrod into the lineup salvaged the season. My suspicion is that OBD views the situation like many of us: Taylor is not a franchise QB, the team would love to find an upgrade -- but the grass isn't always greener on the other side. The Bills have something this year in the off-season that they have not had in the past: draft capital. They have the ammunition to move up if they really want to grab one of the top-rated QBs. Conversely, they could sit tight and use the two first rounders and two second round draft picks to hopefully fortify multiple positions (possibly including the QB position). While the team would certainly be better with a true franchise QB, they would also be better with help at OL, LB, DL, and other positions as well. We will have to trust the scouts and coaches to do what makes the most sense for the team as a whole over the long haul. But that is getting WAY ahead of ourselves. After all, there is a playoff game to play on Sunday!

Not going to beat up on the OP too much. He clearly suffers from a form of Bills Fan Syndrome, which is similar to Stockholm Syndrome. That is, so much has gone wrong these last 17 years that it is almost impossible to see anything that happens for this team in a positive light. Heck, many of us are probably still in denial: 1. Were the Bills really able to hold on for dear life after Miami recovered that on sides kick? 2. Did Dalton really throw that TD pass with about 40 seconds to go? 3. Was the Cinci defense really able to prevent Flacco and the Ravens from answering back? 4. Were the tie-breaker scenarios for all the 9-7 teams correct to REALLY allow the Bills to get in?

Lattimore gets in, but Tre White doesn't. Probably a sign of how the DROY voting will go. :-(

Honestly, the defense played pretty well when we played the Pats a few weeks ago. They limited Brady and kept him from having a big game. While Gronk had numerous catches and piled up yardage last time, he was not a back-breaker. The problem in that game was the 3-and-out offense. If the D plays well again, and the Bills' offense can be as productive as it was in the first half against Miami yesterday, an upset victory is not out of the question.

Andrew Siciliano explained it on the Red Zone channel today. The common opponent situation does not apply to the Ravens-Bills because that tie-breaker requires a minimum of 4 common opponents, which the two do not yet share. So at the moment it goes to the next tie-breaker, which the Bills have the advantage. So for now, the Bills have the 6 seed over Baltimore. However... that common opponent tie breaker will kick in with these final two games. So if both the Bills and Ravens win out, the Ravens would leap-frog them with a better record against common opponents.

As McD said there were multiple variables to consider: -- The severe weather conditions -- The impact of going for it on 4th down and NOT making it -- Having an emergency QB behind center -- The fact that the Colts were (I believe) 3 of 16 on 3rd down for the game -- The opposing QB was J. Brissett (and not Andrew Luck, for example) -- The fact that other than the game tying, 10-minute drive, the Colts offense had been unable to move the ball all game long -- Tendencies that Chuck P. and the rest of the opposing staff presented -- Chances of the Colts driving the distance of the field to win (or even converting multiple first downs to secure a tie) versus chances of the defense to stop them and get the ball back And more...

Seriously? You do not think that on such an important play it made sense to call a timeout to review all of the variables in place? I disagreed with the decision to punt there, but the fact that a timeout was called and the coaching staff debated the prudence of the decision to punt at least verifies that the decision was not a knee-jerk one or one that was made without ample thought/discussion.

Or, given the severe weather conditions, the coaches/training staff elected to avoid the strong possibility of aggravating the injury by sitting him.

I am amazed at the angst that I see from some posters here. I have to admit that I disagreed with the decision at the time as well. However, in the end, the decision did work out for the team and they came away with a win! Perhaps statistically speaking the decision was not the one that SHOULD have been made (as I said, I disagreed as well) -- but after weighing the options this is the choice that McD and the coaching staff chose. Remember, they took a timeout to discuss it as well. I was certain that when the timeout was called that we would see the punting team come off the field and the offense go back out. However, that is not what happened. Given the extra time to consider, the decision was a calculated one where discussions about the weather conditions, game flow, having an emergency QB behind center, various possible scenarios/outcomes, and what was at stake were all debated. In the end, the ultimate outcome was a favorable one, which means that the decision to punt was not "gutless".

Agree 100%. Recall that coming out of college many thought Glenn was best suited to play RT or guard anyway. That said, I would still like to see 1-2 offensive linemen drafted in the mid rounds.