2003Contenders

For a frame of reference, in 2016 the Eagles moved up from 8 to 2 (to take Wentz) by making the following trade with Cleveland: Philly gave up: #8 overall [2016] 3rd rounder (#77 overall) [2016] 4th rounder (#100 overall) [2016] the following year's first round pick [2017] third round pick in 2018 Cleveland gave up: #2 pick overall following year's 4th rounder [2017] That is a lot of picks to move up for a single player -- but the Bills do have the ammunition (if either Cleveland or the NY Giants are willing to make the move) to hypothetically acquire Rosen/Darnold.

The draft value chart is only a guide -- not necessarily written in stone. What really matters is finding a trading partner that is willing to make the trade down -- and what players are on the board at the time. It may be hard to find a team picking early in the top 10 that is willing to move all the way back to the 20s and lose out on a blue chip prospect. Also, when the move is universally known as an attempt to acquire a QB, the value goes up. Just look at what the Chargers gave up to move up one spot for Ryan Leaf (doh!) back in 1998 or what the Giants gave up to move from 4 to 1 in the Eli Manning-Philip Rivers swap. Meanwhile, it cost "just" a future 1st and 4th to move up from 9 to 4 to get Sammy Watkins. Still, I think it can be done if we can find a team willing to move down in the 1st round. Such a move may actually require making multiple moves, though. That is, a move from the 20s up to around 10, followed by a second trade up to get where we need to be to acquire the QB of choice. Just last year the Chiefs moved up from roughly the same spot by giving us last year's #3 and this year's #1. Most teams view a future #1 as roughly equal to the current year's #2. So a similar move (one of the firsts, one of the seconds and our remaining third) from either our own #1 or the one we acquired from KC could get us to 10 as I suggested. That would still provide us with two firsts to move into the top 5 (maybe as high as 1-2) to select a QB. Question is: Would the front office be willing to give up both firsts, one of our seconds and our third to acquire the QB? If they believe the kid is a legitimate franchise QB you would have to think so.

I would draw up a similar defense to what we saw last week against the Chiefs. That is, squat on the underneath stuff and TACKLE. The defense did manage to get some pressure on Alex Smith, but it was mostly with the front four. Humber blitzed several times but failed to get there. If that happens against Brady, he will kill us. You have to figure that the Pats' game plan is to always take away the opposing team's top weapon. That would be Shady McCoy for us, so expect 8-9 man boxes with spies intent on keeping Tyrod in the pocket. One way to combat that would be to spread the field with multiple receiver packages rather than the lame 2 WR patterns we saw last week. I know we do not have much depth at WR, but it may not be such a bad idea to regularly split Shady out wide (and maybe Cadet too). The potential is there for Clay/O'Leary to have strong games. Tyrod will have opportunities down the field, if he can put on his big boy pants and play like a real NFL QB. The biggest thing: the Patriots -- including Brady and Bill B -- are NOT invincible. I think too many of the our coaches over the last 17 years have allowed Bill to get in their heads. So they do foolish things trying to "outsmart" him. I think if the defense plays as well as it did last week -- and the offense sustains drives (which they can, as the Pats' defense is not all that great) -- then the Bills have a chance at home.

McD strikes me as being a very calculating thinker -- one who does not rush into judgement. Recall that the week he made the switch to Peterman, his initial reaction was to stick with Tyrod. A couple of days later he made the decision to try Peterman. After Peterman's melt-down, he was non-committal about the starter (even implying that he would ride it out with Peterman) before turning back to Tyrod days later. The deliberation has caused the media to cast aspersions on his decision-making -- accusing him of not knowing what he is doing. Fair enough. But the QB situation has never been as cut-and-dry as many would make it out to be. Recall that the Bills reluctantly chose to bring Taylor back in the off-season, largely because there simply were no better veteran options available for the same price/value. Taylor is what he is. By now, we all know that he is not often going to win many games that devolve into shootouts. That's just not his game. When the Bills are forced to go into pass-mode, defenses know how to protect against that when Taylor is under center. This explains why he is able to put up decent garbage-time stats when games are out-of-hand, but he is rarely able to lead the team on a comeback drive late. That said, depending on the environment in place, Tyrod could be a VERY successful QB. An example would be Jacksonville. They have a great defense and strong running game -- and are 7-4 even with Blake Bortles occasionally losing (or trying hard to lose) games for them. Placed on a team like that, Taylor would be a head coach's dream: managing the game, rarely turning the ball over and making those 3-4 plays that allow the team to pull out 13-10 type victories. The problem is that the Bills are not built like that. At least not right now. Early in the season when the defense was shutting opponents down (and raking in all those turnovers), that mirage did indeed appear like the team WAS built that way. So Taylor did a nice job managing those games and getting us to a 5-2 record. After the Jets and Saints fiascos, I think it dawned on the coaching staff that the defense was not good enough to keep us in games coupled with Taylor's conservative playing style. Since repairing the entire defense is a far greater task than replacing a single player, McD took (as he called it) a "calculated risk" in starting Peterman. Obviously the call back-fired because Peterman proved he was not (and may never be) ready for prime time. I know also that McD has been under heavy scrutiny due to the timing of his decision. I understood (and still understand) his level of thinking: San Diego's offense had been on a hot streak, and the game looked to be one in which a shootout scenario was highly likely. Also, the Chargers' defense was going to be well-prepared to defend Taylor, given Lynn's strong familiarity with him. Since the stadium conditions in "LA" are not especially daunting to opposing teams, it was deemed a reasonable situation to start the rookie on the road. Bottom line: contrary to the spin of the national press, McD's intention was not to tank the rest of the season by going with the rookie. He simply did not believe that the Bills could win that particular game with Taylor at QB -- and wanted to see what the rookie (who had looked pretty good in garbage-time action the week before) could bring to the table. He was also hoping to see a large enough sample size on Peterman to help in making a decision about whether or not to pursue a QB early in the 2018 draft. The "calculated risk" blew up big time also because -- worse than the results on the field-- McD failed to calculate the effect it would have in the locker room. Or the media backlash. Some would paint his decision to go back to Taylor as wish-washy. I actually give him credit for realizing he made a mistake, consulting the team's leaders, coming to the conclusion that the playoffs are still within reach, and determining that Tyrod Taylor represents the best chance to get there. He is a rookie head coach, after all, and to me it is refreshing that he is flexible as opposed to being stubborn to the Gregg Williams degree. Time will tell, of course. Getting back to the team's long-term view on Tyrod... It is pretty clear that he is not in the long-term plans. If the coaches did not see enough of Peterman in the San Diego game -- and haven't yet in practice -- then I suspect that they will put him back out on the field later this season if/when the Bills are officially eliminated from playoff contention. (Two more losses probably does the trick.) Then at least they will be armed with concrete evidence about whether or not he could potentially be the long-term answer. Marrone selfishly failed to do that at the end of the 2014 season once eliminated -- and went back to the well with Orton when EJ's eventual fate had yet to be decided. In the likely event that Peterman falls short of proving to be even a reliable bridge QB, the team will find themselves in the same situation that they were in last year. Even if they draft a QB early in the draft, they will probably not be in the position to trade up high enough to grab a blue chip prospect. That means bringing in another veteran (bridge) until the new QB is ready. And guess what? The Bills may once again be in the position of reluctantly choosing to bring Tyrod Taylor back as there again are unlikely to be better veteran options available for the same price/value. Depending on how the rest of the season plays out, that ship may be on the verge of sailing -- in which case we will be longing for the days in which Taylor was here to "manage" games.

The ref was late in throwing the flag too. At the time, I thought that maybe Gaines was arguing about whether or not the Chief player had gotten out of bounds or not and maybe got too heated (a la Jerry Hughes a few weeks ago). When I heard the ref's explanation I couldn't believe it. I also thought it was odd that McD did not make a bigger fuss over the bogus flag. Maybe he just wanted to avoid another 15-yard penalty.

First, since Tyrod did not start the first half and Peterman did, we have no way of knowing exactly what would have happened. That said, the overwhelming evidence suggests that the defense, which has been putrid for three games in a row now, would not have been any better -- regardless of whom was at QB. My guess is that the Bills still lose in lop-sided fashion against the Chargers (whom they never seem to be able to beat out on the West Coast) -- just maybe not quite as badly as they did with Peterman starting the 1st half. I will say that, once he did come in in the second half, Tyrod did look crisp and more decisive with the ball than we have seen him in recent weeks. We can hope that maybe the benching helped ignite a spark. The Bills are going to be big underdogs the next 2 weeks -- and if they lose both of those games (as expected) any slim hope for the playoffs will be gone. Tyrod needs to view this as playing with "house money". That is, go out and play with a little more of a nothing-to-lose, gunslinger attitude.

Bingo! The problem, of course, was the contract that had the foolish buy-out language that allowed Marrone to unilaterally make that decision! Still, aside from believing that the Jets would likely hire him, the real reason he left is because of a poor relationship with Whaley -- who tried to force EJ down his throat and then double-down by trading away the 1st rounder in 2015 to move up to get Sammy in 2014. Marrone had his quirks certainly, including placing too much faith in Hackett and an inability to work well with others. But he also had the team very disciplined -- and did a nice job hiring defensive coordinators (and allowed them to work independently). I think if the fornt office had chosen to give him the control he wanted -- essentially sided with him over Whaley -- then he probably would have stayed. For Whaley's part, if he had had his way then we would have had Hue Jackson over Rex (not sure that would have been any better; although Hue was reportedly willing to retain Schwartz at DC) and Lynn over McDermott.

I am not sure why any Bills fan would even worry about what these national media talking-heads have to say about the Bills. They know less about our team than most of us.

If you look closely at the WRs that the new regime has acquired (most emphatically KB), they are all big receivers that fit the West Coast offense style. Given that Taylor is probably the worst fit imaginable for such an offense -- which requires quick reads and the ball coming out of the QB's hand quickly -- it would seem to me that Taylor has been here on borrowed time since McD and Beane took over, regardless of what they say. Meanwhile, Peterman would seem to be a better fit for such an offense. Of course, we will never know if we do not see more live-game action from him. Like or not, the coaching staff opened the genie's bottle by trotting Peterman out there yesterday. I would seriously hope that they would be open to making the switch by halftime Sunday if Taylor struggles again. Let Peterman play the season out, so we know whether he really is just destined to be a career backup -- or something special. That will also affect plans for the 2018 draft. Wouldn't it be nice, after all, if Peterman DID turn out to be a decent NFL starter and we could turn our attention toward fortifying the offensive and defensive lines (as well as other areas) instead of using all that draft currency to trade up to draft another crap-shoot at QB?

Which is a great argument for continuity. The problem with Whaley is that he never had the opportunity to work with a coach of his own choosing -- Marrone, followed by Rex (Whaley reportedly wanted H. Jackson). At least McD and B are joined at the hip, and hopefully their partnership eventually bears fruit.

And how exactly is this a myth? Is your hatred for Taylor so over-the-top that you do not recognize that he has some strengths -- namely his mobility that really does set him apart from other QBs in the league? My argument simply is that this strength does not overshadow all of the shortcomings, and it is time to move on. Especially since opposing defenses all now know how to defend him.

Yes, it is true that Tyrod Taylor was not the only reason that the Bills lost yesterday. The defensive line, which was once such a strength of this team before Rex came along, is now an embarrassment. But, back to the topic... While Tyrod can do some things from time-to-time (with his legs) that virtually no other QB in the NFL can do, he has also proven time and again that he is incapable of even making the routine throws that any competent NFL QB should be able to make. It was obvious that if you noticed the commentary the last two weeks from the analysts that do not regularly cover Tyrod (Romo on NBC and Barber on FOX) that they had a certain amount of disdain for him. Countless times yesterday Barber observed receivers that were "NFL open". Taylor just does not have the confidence or accuracy to throw into these tight windows, nor does he have the ability to make quick decisions and throw with anticipation. I thought Peterman looked good yesterday, especially give the limited practice reps. Obviously a small sample size, but he was doing all these things that Tyrod has proven time and time again incapable of doing. And before detractors suggest that Peterman did this in garbage time, the game had been in garbage time since early in the 3rd quarter, yet Tyrod was incapable of getting anything done. The AFC is so weak this year that 9-7 (or possibly 8-8) gets us in as a Wild Card. Not only does that mean winning 4 of the last 7 games, but it also means beating key AFC teams. Beating the Chargers, Colts and going at least 2-4 with Miami and New England probably does it. It is pretty clear that the coaching staff is set on continuing with Taylor. If and when he falters against the Chargers (and the long West Coast trip has been a major problem for this team for years), I would hope that the coaching staff is prepared with the quick hook to move to Peterman. The season hangs in the balance next week IMHO.

I think part of the equation is that we really do not know for sure just how good/bad the Bills are. A rough look at where they rank on offense (27) and defense (20) suggests that the Bills may not be as good as we hope/believe. Only the Packers (with Rodgers out), Colts (sans Luck and with a terrible defense), Giants, and 49ers are as bad or worse in this combined ranking. Admittedly, playing teams that were not as good as we thought at the time (Broncos, Falcons, Bucs), combined with a ridiculous turnover differential, played a large role in the the 5-2 start. Conversely, they also managed to get to that record with a number of key injuries across the board -- and many of the these key contributors are getting healthy (Gaines, Clay, etc.). Plus, who knows what impact the Kelvin B. acquisition will have? Last week, they were manhandled in every possible way by a highly motivated Jets team that has a much better OL and DL than people are willing to ackowledge. That beat-down could adversely affect the team's mojo (plus, provide other opponents with a recipe for beating them). Or, it could be a rally cry to step it up and return the favor at home against another opponent -- in this case, the Saints. Frankly, the Saints are a better team, on paper -- 4th on offense and 13th on defense. Still, some home cooking and hopefully a return to the positive turnover differential could put the team back in the win column. I think we will learn a lot more about this team based on what happens Sunday.

IIRC Whaley tried to trade up in the 2nd round to get him a few years ago.

Just some random thoughts in response the the OP: -- I am tired of the turnstile that we have seen at OBD over the last 17 years. Going back to 2000 we have had seven general managers (if you count the year in which Brandon was the de facto GM) and ten head coaches (if you count the interim ones). McD and Bean are a package team, and I would like to give them a few years before we start insisting on another regime. -- Let's review each of the players that you believe he did/does not want on the team: Sammy: I love Sammy's upside, but durability and availability have been a concern for him. When the team decided against his 5th-year option, the writing should have been on the wall that his days in Buffalo were numbered. Rather than letting him play out a final season in Buffalo which would have resulted in either another injury-plagued campaign -- or a strong enough season to warrant an inflated contract from another team -- the Bills managed to trade him for a useful CB (whose presence was REALLY missed in Sunday's loss to the Bengals) and a 2nd round pick. Aside from one huge game against the 49ers this season, Sammy has been MIA for the Rams. Darby: He was a Rex acquisition, and even Rex admitted that Darby had not shown that he could ever develop the ball skills that the team had hoped he would learn. The trade with Philly brought back a 3rd rounder plus J. Matthews, whose career production had matched Watkins'. BTW, the team REALLY missed Matthews' presence in Sunday's loss to the Bengals. However, his current injuries appear to be aberrations, as he has not historically been injury prone as has Watkins. Again, the trade with the Rams brought back a similar-quality player in Gaines at the same position as Darby, who appears to be a better fit for the McD defense. Darues: Yes, we can go back to the Doug M. years and talk about what a motivated presence he was back then. But guess what? He has not been the same player since he signed the huge contract. Rex failed with him, and maybe McD is trying to send him a message that a big $ contract does not equate to undeserved playing time. Glenn: When healthy he is a fine OT -- but is he really one of the top 2 in the league (as the size of his contract suggests)? He has not been healthy since last season, and it is hard to know the full nature of his health now. I know he dressed on Sunday, but maybe that was for an emergency situation. -- I am not sure what you are referring to in regards to McD's demeanor that would suggest that he is full of himself. He is a professional NFL head coach, so being very confident sort of goes with the territory. From what I have seen, he seems very measured and pragmatic. Obviously, the verdict is still out, so we will see.

The flaw in logic here for many of you in evaluating the trade is the proposition that the Bills could have stayed put at 10 and taken Watson. That may be true, but that is not what they would have done if the trade with KC had not gone down. In fact, reports indicate that they already had Lattimore's name on the card before the trade was consummated with the Chiefs. It is only 5 games into the season so many things could change (including the ultimate value of Watson, who definitely has the look of being the real deal thus far). However, the fair analysis now is: would you rather have Lattimore -- or White plus a 3rd rounder and a 2018 1st rounder? The answer to that question, as of now, is the latter. Hence the trade was a good one. BTW, on a side note. I wonder which QB the team liked best -- and if there were any genuine discussions of taking a QB at 10. I know reports circulated BEFORE the draft that Whaley loved Watson. I wonder if those reports were true -- and if Whaley may have pulled the trigger on Watson if he had the real say-so.

Or perhaps, you just uncovered the likelihood of what will happen based on the schedule. Assuming the offense does not improve substantially and we are looking at 1-4, the week 5 bye could be the appropriate time to make the switch to Peterman.

Coaches by their very nature are a conservative breed. What we saw yesterday was very indicative of what we have seen over the past 18 years and counting. Actually, even including Wade's 3 years, where the winning was predicated on a strong defense and an occasional big play from Flutie. The mindset is typically to keep the offense conservative -- and only open it up when you have to in the 4th quarter. That formula actually works when the defense in strong enough to keep the opponent's offense in check. These coaches like QBs who manage the game and do not turn the ball over. That is what Tyrod did yesterday, so I am not at all surprised to see the vote of confidence from McD and Dennison. The way they look at it is that when your defense only gives up 9 points and your offense does not turn the ball over you are going to win the game the vast number of times. Of course, the margin of error when playing like this is razor thin. I have resigned myself to the notion that this is a mulligan year for the Bills. So I have no expectations. I just want to see a foundation form and for the team to make strides. I like what I have seen of the defense the last 2 weeks and would like to see them continue in a positive direction. I recognize that McD made some errors yesterday -- especially with clock management. But I am willing to be patient and see if he learns from these mistakes and improves as a first year head coach. The same goes for Dennison, who does not have an offensive minded head coach to oversee him like he did when coaching under Kubiak. We know what Tyrod is. He is a serviceable, lower-half-of-the-league starting QB. There are some things he does well -- and other things he will never be able to do well. Still, he has his 3rd OC in as many years and an entirely new cast of WRs to work with. If he continues to minimize turnovers and the chemistry with the receivers improves, then (assuming that the defense is legit) the Bills could very well win 8 or more games this year. If he falls short of that modest goal and/or the team really does start to tank mid-season, then I expect a shift to Peterman.

While it is hard to benchmark exactly where Bills are in the NFL pecking order based on an inferior Week 1 opponent, there are a few things that must be observed: 1. The Bills showed that they could beat a team that they are SUPPOSED to beat. 2. They beat this team in relatively dominant fashion: the Bills rank in the top five in both offense AND defense after week one. 3. The Jets are a division rival who beat them twice last year. The Jets were not a very good team last year either. 4. One of my big fears this off-season was how well the offensive line would stand up. They looked pretty good against an upper echelon defensive line on Sunday. So plenty of positives to take away from the game even if it was ONLY the Jets. Still, cautious optimism remains in order. Carolina is a much better team than the Jets -- and this game is a road game for the Bills. So Test #2 is on the way.

It will be interesting to see what sort of competing offer the Ravens make (if, in fact, they make an offer). The problem for the Bills in offering a 1-year prove-it deal (if true) is that it is hardly an appealing opportunity for a wide receiver hoping to capitalize and hit the jackpot next year. I understand that the offense will be different this year with Dennison, but the fact remains that the team is still built to be run-first. It is difficult to visualize a WR2 putting up huge numbers in this offense. Of course, Robert Woods DID get his.

Well, there was the post-MCM Massacre when Bruce, Andre and Thurman were all cut.

Mel Kiper had Jones ranked as his #22 prospect overall and compared him to Hines Ward. Said he was a man among boys at the Senior Bowl. I know Kiper is certainly not gospel, but would be nice if he was right on this one!

This Cameron DaSilva is a clown. I was about to suggest that he is blogger that wants to be a big boy. But when you read his agenda-driven piece, complete with items taken out of context and quotes left out, it is clear that he represents everything that is wrong with the "media" these days.

There will always a place in the NFL for a QB who throws with accuracy. timing and can read a defense -- even if he has mediocre arm strength. That may limit him as a career backup/spot starter -- or, if he continues to weave his craft and do whatever he can to improve the arm strength, perhaps he could develop into something better. Peterman may have limited upside but appears to be a guy who will probably stay in the league given the shortage of QBs coming out of college these days who can actually read a defense and throw with anticipation. I think that is was Gruden meant when he said that any team drafting Peterman would recognize a "sure profit".

That is what happened to the Lions several years ago when they actually fired Marty Mornhenwig for the sole purpose of hiring Steve Mariucci when he surprisingly became available. Every prospective minority coach on the planet knew that Mooch was their guy so no one was willing to waste time with agreeing to a pointless interview to satisfy the Rooney Rule. Matt Millen, who was the GM at the time, claimed that he had actually interviewed Dennis Green for the position over the phone -- so I do not believe any action was taken against the Lions at the time.