Logic

I agree with the bolded. If you don't have a QB and coach, nothing else matters. The following sentence you wrote: "that doesn't mean that's all you need", that's where this discussion comes in. What ELSE do you need to give the coach and QB a better chance at sustained success? I'm not convinced that once you get the coach and QB, you're ready to roll. If you want a shot at multiple titles with your coach/QB combo, you'd better have some more around them. Dan Fouts and Don Coryell = 0 championships Dan Marino and Don Shula = 0 championships Philip Rivers and multiple coaches, including Marty Schottenheimer = 0 championships Peyton Manning and Tony Dungy = 1 championship In three out of the four instances mentioned above, defense was usually lacking. So we know that that's a need as well. Simplified, I would say that a coach, QB, and at least reasonably good defense gives you a shot every year. We also know, as discussed, that you've got to protect the QB. I don't think his weaponry is as important. If you have a truly excellent QB, he'll make do with average to slightly above average receivers. You probably can't consistently roll out a WR/TE depth chart as bad as what the Bills had last year. But even that, with better protection, might have been sufficient. As it was, we saw the Bills averaging nearly 24 points per game by the end of the season. This is what's so interesting about football: There isn't just one right answer. I mean, yes, "coach and QB". But after that? Teams have done it lots of different ways, and the ongoing strategic evolution discussed in earlier posts means the roster building strategy is always changing. Doug Whaley once made a quote that I wish I could remember in its entirety, because I liked it. It was something along the lines of: Beyond QB, you need and can afford to pay about 6-8 high quality, important players. Where you spend those dollars and on what positions is up to you. I'd say the Bills have some of their 6-8 already. Tre'Davious White, Matt Milano, Tremaine Edmunds, Dion Dawkins. More are needed, obviously, so it's a critical offseason, as everybody already knows.

My question for Bills fans: If the price tag for Frank Clark is the 9th overall pick, do you do the deal? What if the Bills have already signed an OT, C, and WR in free agency? Bear in mind that Frank Clark is only 25, and consider what the Bears paid for Khalil Mack just last season. It's not unreasonable to think that a 1st would be the asking price. So what would be your answer? Personally, I'd have to give it serious consideration. If you take a defensive lineman at 9, which is a very real possibility, you're rolling the dice and HOPING he becomes a good NFL player. With Clark, you already KNOW you're getting very good to elite sack production, and he's still only 25 years old.

I'm all for getting a dope edge rusher.... But isn't Frank Clark a low character turd?

Geoff Schwartz

Absolutely. There are some really great books about the evolution of football: The Genius of Desperation by Doug Farrar and Louis Riddick The Games That Changed The Game by David Plaut, Greg Cosell, and Ron Jaworski And speaking of strategic moves and counter-moves: I'm looking forward to power run offenses and bruising running backs coming back into vogue a little bit in the coming years to counter the ever smaller, ever faster defensive players that teams are rolling out these days.

It depends so much on who is available, and who the Bills take in free agency. The most strategically intelligent choice based on the importance of the battle in the trenches to the success of football teams would be either an offensive or defensive lineman. I want the Bills to pick whichever offensive or defensive lineman they have rated the highest. Ed Oliver, Brian Burns, or Montez Sweat on defense. Jonah Williams or Jawaan Taylor on offense. It may not be sexy, but games are won and lost in the trenches. Get me a big ugly and I'll be happy.

So the Steelers give up a top 5 WR and a 1st round pick for....an average offensive lineman and a bunch of late round crap? Color me skeptical. That looks more like a fantasy trade idea from the Saints message board.

Very interesting. There certainly does seem to be a formula for winning that is not just as simple as "Get a coach, get a QB". I USED to think that was all that was needed, but the careers of QBs from Dan Fouts, to Dan Marino, to Philip Rivers, to Andrew Luck so far, even to how few rings Peyton Manning won...It's NOT just coach and QB. Get a QB, protect him. Get to the opposition's QB and affect him. That's still the gist. HOW that all is done seems to be fungible. The biggest changes I see are interior pass rushers becoming as important as edge rushers, and consequently centers and guards becoming more important than they used to be. Additionally, right tackle has become a more premium position, as more and more top line edge rushers line up on the left. Football's strategic evolution is so ***** interesting.

Yep, I agree. I think the Bills figure they likely have three of the four secure. QB, CB, and LT. They just need their edge rusher. Murphy's just a complimentary piece and Hughes is closer to the end of his career than the beginning. This explains the current rumors about the Bills having serious interest in Frank Clark. I will not be surprised in the least bit if the Bills draft an edge rusher at #9 or trade for a recently franchised guy.

I hate to EVER give Geoff Schwartz credit for anything, because he is a stubborn, arrogant goon. But he's pretty correct here:

I have "interest" in Rachel Bush. Not gonna do me any more good than the Bills having "interest" in Frank Clark, I'm afraid.

I've gotta be totally honest: Just about any young, rich athlete with a choice in the matter would rather live in Las Vegas and play for the storied silver and black and a Super Bowl winning coach than live in Western New York and play for a team with a history like the Bills have and a head coach with a career losing record. I bleed Bills Blue just like everyone else on here and I love McDermott and I will defend my city/region until the end, but c'mon...Picture being a 30 year old millionaire with no bias toward either region or team. Which one are you going to pick? Can anyone really blame this dude if that's what ends up happening?

Raiders it shall be. Antonio Brown + Vegas + Chucky. I'm sure this will end well.

If only there were MULTIPLE already-existent threads in which this could have been discussed!

I'd like to see them a take a risk on Tyler Eifert in free agency AND draft an Irv Smith or a TJ Hockenson.

The thing that drives me nuts about people knocking the city of Buffalo is that you never hear the same sort of crap about Cincy, Cleveland, or Pittsburgh, all of which are EASILY as "bad" as Buffalo. And as for the cold weather, people never seem to complain about Green Bay being "Siberia", despite the fact that I'd be willing to bet it has more snow games than Buffalo or at least an equal amount.

It sounds like Brown is demanding that whoever acquire him also make him the highest paid WR in the league. We have no way of knowing if it was Buffalo's lack of willingness to acquiesce to that deal that ultimately killed the trade, or whether it was Brown's dislike of the city of Buffalo. It's all conjecture based on assumption. If it WAS simply Brown's dislike of Buffalo that undid the deal, well....Buffalo's image problem isn't new in the NFL. It's been used as a threat against players for years ("Keep messing up and I'll trade you to Buffalo!"). It's always been this way. It hasn't stopped Buffalo from landing some marquee free agents over the years.

You know you're a huge dude when you make an NFL left tackle look like a child.

I already am a big fan of Brandon Beane. I think he is going to prove to be an EXCELLENT GM. That being said, I'm actually a bit perplexed at the attempt to get Brown. From a culture standpoint, it doesn't seem like a fit. From a "having a head case WR yelling in Allen's ear every time he doesn't get the ball" perspective, it doesn't seem like a fit. Considering McDermott recently says he wants a WR that can work well with Allen, catch passes, then put the ball down and line up and do it again, it doesn't seem like a fit. Considering McDermott and Beane recently talked down the notion of needing a "#1 WR" in their offense and given the fact that Daboll's Erhardt-Perkins offense historically DOESN'T need a #1 WR, it doesn't seem like a fit. I fully grant that adding Brown would be a HUGE boost to the Bills offense from a pure talent standpoint. But from all the other angles I just mentioned, it seems like a weird move. One thing it does is show us all that without a shadow of a doubt, Beane views 2019 as the year to strike and really build up the talent level on this team, and is willing to take risks to accomplish that goal.

Fair enough. I was thinking of it from a "waking up" perspective, and less so from a "going to bed" perspective.

If only there was already a thread about this!

Is there? I'm not doubting you, but I haven't seen this reported anywhere. It seems to be universally agreed upon that Brown is the one that nixed the trade.

Good for you, chief! I go to bed at 9 because I start work at 5am. I don't have a smart phone and, thus, don't receive notifications about football.