Shaw66

I think this is right scenario. If the Bills sign a free agent QB (Cousins, Bradford, Keenum) they aren't moving up. If they don't sign one AND they see a QB they really like (Mayfield?) they might trade up into the 10-15 range to get him. Otherwise, they'll do the best they can. Remember, Beane and McD LOVE having picks. They aren't going to want to trade a bundle of picks. That's why I think they spend the money on Cousins.

Pats were 5th in points allowed.

That's what I thought when I saw that. Actually my first thought was Belichick's guys know what their job is. Second thought was McD's guys know. It gave me a warm feeling.

You know, I agree with this. Marrone's ego is SO big, he's arrogant, and he's often in your face. Now, all those things may serve him well as a head coach, but they don't make the guy very likeable.

There are a lot of things that go into coaching. I think Tomlin has a lot of them. He certainly seems to have the respect of his players. They'll follow him anywhere. But I've always thought he as a lousy sideline coach. Showed it again today. The onside kick was clearly the wrong call. And when he got to the five he should have kicked the field goal.

I didn't understand that's what you were saying, and it makes sense. But it's sort of saying "look, I just found some money, I'll spend it something bright and shiny, because it's just extra money." That is, you're saying the Bills have something, extra draft picks that they didn't expect to have, so it's okay to burn them to move. I think it makes more sense just to look at what you have - draft picks - and ignore where they came from, just ask yourself what's the smartest thing to do with what I have? What I have is five picks in the first three rounds, and if I'm smart with those picks (and the GM always assumes he'll be smart with them), I'll have four or five guys playing significant time in 2018. So the question is do I want to trade three of those five guys to take a chance on a QB? And the big problem is that I'm not going to get the best QB prospect, because someone at the top of the draft is going to take him before I can get to him. So I'm giving up three good players to take a shot. And I'll have cap room to sign some free agents to help fill holes. Or do I spend my cap space on Cousins, have a higher probability of getting a quality starting QB, keep those three guys I can draft, but have no cap room to sign free agents? Those are the two ways to go, and neither is obviously the right choice. I like the Cousins choice because of the higher probability that you have a top 10 QB in 2018 and going forward. The other way you MIGHT get a top 5 Qb, you might get a top 10 QB, you might get a bust, and in any case you probably don't have really QB play until 2019. As always, thanks for your comments.

Someone else just quoted this and I wanted to talk about this. It's a very good point. When you pick the wrong guy, whether as a draft choice or as a free agent, he sets you back three years, more or less. Why? Because you have to invest three years in him to know what you've got. If he's the guy you want, you make him the starter and run with him. It's only less if (1) he turns out to be a total bust or (2) somebody like Russell Wilson comes along and surprises everyone. If the guy you're investing in is drafted, if you're like the Bills and not sitting on a top pick, you have to give up several of your picks, usually a couple of firsts to move up, often three. Giving up those picks means you have three holes someplace else for three to five years, and you have to fill them as well as you can. If the guy you invest in is a free agent, it means you're using cap space, so you can't sign as many other free agents (or you have to lose some guys) as you ordinarily would. Bottom line, whichever way you go when you invest in a top QB, you're betting some of your short-term future on the guy. It's different if you're just taking a QB who's available with your pick. That's what happened with Manuel. In fact, the Bills traded down and picked up an extra pick. So the Bills didn't invest a lot to get Manuel, and that's why they were able to be a .500 team even though Manuel didn't work out. The problem with that route is that a guy you're taking with the 16th or 20th pick probably has about one chance in 8 or 10 to be what you need. If he's not at the top of the draft he's a longshot.

I'm telling you, Belichick is McDermott's role model. That's why he'd want Daboll.

That's where I started. I think he's top 10. On the bubble, but top 10. The whole point is (1) you're have to overpay him to get him and (2) it's worth it to overpay him if he's actually top 10. Worth it at top 10 or better, a mistake at top 15 or worse.

And I'd say that it's better than even money that at least one of those is going to be a disappointment, in the sense that he got, say, top 5 money but turns out to be only a top 15 guy. In other words, at least one will be the next Flacco. Yes. He'd be an upgrade right now, and you keep drafting QBs. That way you have his replacement on board if Cousins turns out not be THE answer.

Here's the SI article. Read it and tell me he doesn't sound like McDermott's man. The two guys live for process. https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/11/29/kirk-cousins-washington-redskins-quarterback One more thing. He won't say it, but I really believe McDermott's role model is Belichick. Belichick has succeeded with process and nerdy QB - a guy determined to win, determined to prove that everyone was wrong about him. That sounds like Cousins.

I'll jump back in. A couple of things. First, to reiterate a point I made earlier, I think there's a difference between overpaying for a QB and overpaying for a position player. If you pay top 3 money to a receiver or a tackle or a linebacker who turns out to be top 10 at his position, you've overpaid and it was a mistake. You could have gotten as effective a guy for a lot less. Like Sammy. The Bills paid two first round picks plus for a guy who performed like several guys they could have gotten with one pick. So that was a mistake. At QB it's different. If you pay top 3 money for a QB who turns out to be the 10th best QB in the league, it's not a mistake. You're paying too much, but it isn't a mistake, because you couldn't have gotten another guy who's 10th best. They just aren't easy to find. More importantly, if you have the 10th best receiver, or 10th best offensive tackle, that guy isn't on his own putting you in the playoff conversation year in and year out. If you have the 10th best QB, you are in the conversation. If you pay top 3 money for a QB and he turns out to be the 15th best AB, then you've made a mistake, because the 15th best QB DOESN'T put you in the playoff discussion. Yes, whoever gets Cousins will have overpaid for him. But I think it won't be a mistake. Second, a lot of the discussion has turned to whether Cousins would come to Buffalo. Someone said there's an SI article about what he's looking for and how McD is the kind of guy he'd like. I'll need to go find that article - my sense has been exactly that. Cousins is a guy who LIKES being in a program, a system, where everyone has a role and where he can do his. I don't think people should overlook the ability of OBD to sell itself now. Terry and Kim are a very attractive pair - they're pleasant, warm, charming, and earnest. The simple fact that they're spending BILLIONS of dollars because they want to do something for Buffalo is pretty impressive. It speaks to their sincerity. Then you get to Bean and McDermott, two guys who are interest, deadly serious and committed. They LOOK like winners. That's a pretty impressive package. So I think if the Bills decide that Cousins is someone they want, I think they'll be willing to spend and they'll sell themselves quite well. The Giants, by virtue of tradition and market, would be formidable competition. I don't think they'd shy away from the bidding just because they have Eli. They'd find a way to deal with the cap and compensation issues. The Giants problem is they don't have a coach, and the team actually is in much more disarray than the Bills. The Bills offer a stable package going forward; the Giants are up in the air. The Broncos would seem to be more attractive. Elway is an attraction. There probably are other things that might make the Broncos a place he'd like. But let's go back to the Bills for a minute. I think there are some other things, intangibles, that might make Buffalo especially attractive to him. One is the challenge of bringing a championship to the city. But think about this: Cousins is from Illinois, I think. He went to high school in Michigan, played at Michigan State, and has played pro ball on the East Coast. His parents now live in Florida. I think he's and east coast/midwest guy, and Denver may have little geographic appeal to him. Moreover, his father's a pastor, he went to a Christian high school, he participated in Athletes in Action in college. McD and I believe Beane are serious Christians - they don't beat people over the head with it, so far as I can tell, but if Cousins is a serious Christian, there's a good chance he's going to feel a connection to McD. And having an owner who lives in Florida where is parents live is another connection. Not saying it's going to happen, but I don't think it's far-fetched.

Both were injured for most of the year.

The OP lays it pretty well. What you have to add is the probability of each of the guys actually making it. Even Rosen is far from a sure thing, and after him there no telling. Burning picks to take that chance is a huge risk. If I had a top 5 pick I'd take one. If I had a top 10 I'd trade up. Trading p from 21 would be very costly.

Right. And I'm saying I'm not afraid of the price tag.

This is a good statement of why it makes sense. It's a question of the probability of getting a qb who is good enough and the cost if you're wrong. With Cousins there's a pretty good probability that he's good enough and the cost if you're wrong is manageable over about four years. In the draft, the probability is low if unless you trade way up, and even then it's a crap shoot. And the cost of trading up and getting the wrong guy is really high, because you've lost maybe three first round picks, which are worth three quality starters cheap.

Yes. Look, I haven't watched the guy, and I don't know talent like NFL front office guys do, but if I'm right that he's a top 10 guy, then I'd pay that. You have to have a good QB. Have to. You can win with good young, underpaid guys all over the field. The Pats do it, the Pack does it. If you have a good system and good coaching, you get good young athletes to do their jobs, and you're fine. You're fine, that is, as long as you have a good QB. I think Cousins is what people thought Flacco was, but they turned out to be wrong. They thought Flacco was a solid to 10 guy but not a Hall of Famer. Now, it turned out Flacco isn't that, but that's what they thought, and that's why the Ravens paid him. I think Cousins is guy people thought Flacco was, and if he is, you're competing every year he's under center. Some years he'll be better than others, but you won't be saying we need a change.

Well, it's all in the details. You have to understand the market in the NFL, and I"m not sure any of us does. Even 7 years $180 might be doable, depending on how much is guaranteed. If you could get out after 5 and having paid $130 million, that's probably not too far out of the market. Cousins is going to get overpaid. The biggest free agent in the market almost always does. I still don't mind having overpaid for Mario - that was the beginning of the change of culture in Buffalo. He didn't play up the level of his contract, but big free agents rarely do. But QB is different. Qb is the one position where if you don't have a top 10 guy, you're not going to compete. That is, it doesn't pay to overpay for the best guy at any position, but it pays to overpay for a top 10 QB. So if the Bills get Cousins, there are going to be plenty of people saying the Bills overpaid. His contract will be bigger than QBs who are better. I don't think it matters. It's the only position where, if you have the right guy, it doesn't matter if you've overpaid.

I think the off-season that secures the Bills' future is to write the big check for Cousins. I haven't studied the cap situation, but on the assumption the Bills could find the room, I think that's the way to go. Why? Two part answer: 1. Looking for a QB in the draft is a crapshoot, even near the top of round 1. Teams have demonstrated for years that it simply isn't easy to identify the right guy in draft. So you're much better off if you can solve your QB problem another way and use your picks to build the rest of the team. That isn't easy to do, but if you can do it, you're way ahead of the game. That's what the Seahawks did - admittedly with a little luck, they solved their QB problem with Wilson in the third round. The result was that they had a lot of picks, in earlier years and for a year or two later, and they acquired a lot of cheap talent in the draft. So if the Bills can fill the QB slot without burning a lot of picks, that's the way to go. They have those five picks in the first three rounds, which means they can get a lot of good young talent to bolster the team at several positions. And, if they sign Cousins, they still can take a shot at a decent young QB in the draft where they see value. Maybe they'll get lucky and have a kid on the bench who can grow into the job and eventually take it from Cousins. 2. Why Cousins? Do I think he's a HOF QB? No. But I think you're playing a fool's game if your objective is to get a Hall of Fame QB. To do that, you have to pick at the top of the draft and then hope things work out, because the top of the draft is where Hall of Fame QBs come from. And if you tell me that there's Brady and Watson and Brees, then fine, my strategy plays right into that - pick a QB along the way when you see what you think is a good one. But in the meantime, you want to compete, and to compete you need a top 10 QB. I've said that for years. After Taylor's first year I said that if he'd keep playing at that level, he'd be the guy. Unfortunately, it's two years later and he hasn't played at the same level, he's dropped to the point where he's an average or below average QB in the league, and that isn't good enough. Cousins IS a top 10 QB. He's had three good seasons, altho 2017 fell off a bit. His passer rating comfortably averages in the top 10. He has good size. He seems smart and in control of the game. He sees and is willing to make the throws Taylor doesn't and isn't. Actually, in some ways he reminds me of Kelly. Not the best thrower, but good enough. Tough. Competitor. So pay him. Get him in Buffalo. It means you're not going after any other high priced free agents, because you won't have the cap room. But that's okay. Benjamin is the only who will be coming off a contract soon who will get a big contract. Watkins and Dareus are gone. McCoy won't get another huge deal. Load up on talent in the draft, and go to work. If you have Cousins on a six-year deal, you can draft an occasional QB. If you find one who looks like the guy, then you cut Cousins late in his contract and eat some cap room, if necessary to keep the youngster. And if somehow Cousins emerges into a true star, then you trade the youngster you drafted, like the Pats have done over and over again, and you ride Cousins for the next 8-10 years. Make me GM for a day and that's where I'm going.

I don't think the number is that low, but I think the concept is correct. Why don't I think the number is that low? Tom Brady. He's the luckiest athlete in the world. He had less than the perfect physical skill set - no serious size, mediocre arm, no foot speed. But he had brains, the right temperament, and he ended up with exactly the right coach for him. They were a perfect match. Anyplace, and he might have been a journeyman QB for 10 years, bouncing around the league, having a couple of good seasons. Instead, he grew with Belichick, he took in everything Belichick had to teach him, he work his butt off, and he became Tom Brady. Favre too. Wasn't the right fit in Atlanta, but in GB they nurtured him the right way, gave him some rope, and voila, HOF! So there probably are a few guys who don't make it because they just didn't land in the right place at the right time. Who are they? I don't know, because they didn't land in the right place at the right time and therefore didn't blossom. A guy like Blaine Gabbert, maybe. Give him a couple of years behind Peyton with a good coach, maybe. Heck, maybe Andy Dalton is two notches better playing for Andy Reed. Even EJ, in the right circumstances. Maybe Flacco. So I'd guess if there are 5-8 who are doing it, there may be as many as a half dozen more who are in the league but for whom the pieces didn't come together. And in any case, it's more than 5-8 IN THE WORLD. There are guys in MLB and the NBA and playing soccer at elite levels with the combination of natural abilities that would have made them excellent QBs, if their childhood focus had been football instead of some other sport. Take a guy like Chris Paul, watch the intelligence he plays with, the recognition and decisiveness. He could be a QB. I'm sure MLB has some. Derek Jeter, for example. These people are elite. That means there aren't many of them. If your thesis were true, given how many guys want to play in the NFL, the league would be full of them. The simple fact that there aren't a lot of these guys proves your thesis wrong. They're elite, they stand alone for a reason, and the reason is that they have a unique combination of natural abilities most don't have, they've worked hard, they were this sport and they got the right opportunities.

I'll be surprised if they go away from him, but not disappointed, because that will mean they're quite sure he can't do the job. I'd guess that the most likely reason they'd dump is if, as someone suggested earlier, the guy or guys McD really wanted are now available. I don't think that will happen because I believe that McD has studied and is a believer in all the truisms about team excellence, including the one about continuity. I haven't heard McD on the subject, but I would be amazed if he didn't think that continuity of scheme and coaching is critical to team success. I think that will make him reluctant to make a change unless he believes there's a clear and indisputable better choice out there. In other words, he won't fire the guy because he's concluded he can't do the job. He'll fire him if there's a clear upgrade available.

Gunner - Yours is the beginning of the analysis that makes me conclude that none of us knows whether Dennison should be replaced. I'm assuming you're correct that the fundamental problem with the offense this season was execution, not scheme, creativity, play-calling, etc. Now, I don't know that's true, but it's certainly one reasonable explanation for what was the most important problem. That then leads to the next question, the age-old question: Was the execution problem bad teaching and preparation (coaching responsibility) or players who for physical or mental reasons, or both, just don't get the job done? And if it's the latter, what did the coaches do to correct those problems? I don't know the answer to any of those questions, and I don't think we can answer the Dennison stays or goes question without knowing those kind of things. However, I DO think that at least some, and maybe a lot, of the problem is, as you say, execution. I'll focus on one example that I've wondered about for a year or two now, and I've actually started thinking I don't like the answer: How good is Eric Wood? It's seemed to me over the course of this season particularly that I've seen a lot of plays where Wood has not made the block, not gotten to the place he needed to be, just not been very effective. Beaten in pass protection, neutralized in the run game. It's bothered me for some time now. I've noticed during broadcasts of other games that replays show the center making the early double-team block on an inside run, then sliding to the next level and screening (or, even better, drilling) the linebacker or safety. It's obvious how important that play is to an inside running game. Atlanta has an All-Pro center, and when you watch him, you can see how valuable the guy in that position can be. I don't see Wood making that kind of play consistently and effectively. And I see him getting beat on pass plays. Let's say I'm correct in that analysis, and let's say there are two or three other offensive positions where the guys just isn't very effective. You mentioned Zay Jones, and he's a second obvious example of someone who played a lot and was less effective than a decent slot guy ought to be. If you're the OC and you have three or four guys underperforming and no amount of teaching and coaching makes them better, you're probably not the problem. And, of course, if no matter how much studying Tyrod does he doesn't make the decisions he needs to make fast enough or correctly enough, you're probably not the problem. I don't know the answer to any of these issues that relate to evaluation of the coaches and players. I have my opinions, others have theirs. But I distrust ALL of the opinions (mine included) because the professionals - McD and Beane and the people who work for them, have a lot more experience doing those evaluations and have a lot more information at their disposal. Bottom line: I don't think any of us knows, and I think McD and Beane probably do. I certainly hope they do. If they do, next season's team will be improved over this season; if they don't, the Bills stay mired where they've been.

Who would say such a thing? "Coach, why is A starting over B?" "Because B has studied for hours and hours and just doesn't get it." Nobody's going to make a public statement like that. They just demote the guy. Taylor is your case in point. As you point out, they say he studies a LOT. He's as serious about it as anyone would expect him to be. He doesn't seem to get it. He can make all the throws, he's mobile, and yet his pocket awareness isn't great and his decision making is suspect. When he loses his job, the Bills aren't going to say "he studied hard but he couldn't do it." They're going to say "Tyrod has been a great contributor to the organization and done some great things for us. We just decided we needed to move in another direction." You know that's what they'll say. As someone said, you can send me to medical as long as you want, but you aren't going to choose me to be your brain surgeon.

Those weren't his people. Big difference. McD brought Dennison to Buffalo and I don't think he will be quick to let him go.

By that measure the OC's of the bottom 10 offenses should be fired each year. That's flat out bad management, and any manager of a pro football team or a Fortune 500 complany will tell you that. May very well be on the OC. It's bad coaching to ask your players to do what they can't do. If Tyrod couldn't find the open receivers, it could mean the coaching was bad.