SoTier

Well, just because he only fired one assistant, Dennison, certainly doesn't mean that there were others that deserved a second season -- or should have even been hired in the first place. Certainly not hiring an experienced QB coach after they decided to draft a first round QB was also a major mistake IMO. Their QB coached last actually coached QBs back in his days as a collegiate assistant thirty years ago.

Since McDermott was instrumental in determining the makeup of those two rosters, I'm not giving him a pass because he's demonstrated his preference for "process" over talent ... and yeah, I think numerous coaches could have gotten more wins from 2018 roster simply by sending Nathan Peterman packing before the start of the season ... his pick 6 in the last minute of the fourth quarter in Texans' game, which was tied at the time, lost the Bills all chance to win that game. If McDermott is, he hasn't demonstrated it much over two years. His teams have been too often unprepared and his game time coaching has been mediocre at best -- and the numerous blow-outs over two seasons underscore that. As for your first point, with Pegula as the owner, you're probably right. After all, he had to actually spend time considering whether he should fire Phil Housley after the horrendous collapse of the Sabres at the end of the season. Football is football, and there are numerous other games to watch while the Bills are getting their butts handed to them as regularly as the Bills have during McDermott's tenure.

I'm sure that McDermott's love affair with Nathan Peterman contributed to his ranking.

Obviously, it's not too early to fit Beane and McDermott for their gold HOF blazers.

Where did I say that Allen was doomed to failure because he didn't play all that well as a rookie? I said that he has to improve his passing and decision making significantly as a sophomore if we can truly expect him to become a good/great QB, and if he does that, then his stats will reflect his improvement as will the team record. Statistics are simply reflections of how well a QB plays, and that means passing statistics. If a QB can run -- provided he doesn't get hurt -- then that's only icing on the cake, but it does not cancel out mediocre passing ability and decision making, As for "cherry picking", that's exactly what you did by only citing Manning's rookie season. Peyton Manning had a higher completion percentage as a rookie (56+%) than Allen (52+%). He threw 26 TDs, 28 INTs, 3700+ yards and his team went 3-13. If he had continued putting up those kinds of numbers, he'd have been considered a bust not a future first ballot HOFer. However, in his second season, Manning made major improvements in his passing and decision making that resulted in him increasing his completion percentage to 62% and throwing another 26 TDs but only 15 INTs for almost 400 more yards ... with the Colts going 13-3. Manning did what I said Allen has to do: improve his passing game and his decision making. It's what just about every single successful QB since Manning has done, too. How good a QB becomes largely depends upon how much and how long he can keep improving his play over the course of his career. QB busts like Ryan Leaf or J'Marcus Russell never make significant improvement. Others like David Carr, Mark Sanchez or EJ Manuel make modest improvements but hit their ceilings fairly early. Some, like Joe Flacco, Philip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger or Andy Dalton improve more over longer periods. Then you have the guys like Brady, Manning, Rodgers, Brees, and Wilson who seem to only get better with age.

I didn't realize 13 games, 3 starts, and 27 receptions for 541 yards (Foster) or 7 games and starts and 3 pass defenses (Wallace) constituted successful NFL careers. Millano at least played in 29 games over 2 seasons, starting 18, but again, that's hardly a "successful career" at this point. The author of this article is really scraping the bottom of the barrel to come up with examples of UDFAs and day three draft picks who've done well for the Bills.

Actually, all the 2018 first round QBs except for Rosen showed marked improvement as the season progressed. I expect all of them to show at least some improvement coming into 2019. How much they improve from where they were last season and if they continue to improve throughout 2019 will be real indicators of their future success. Your A, B & D reasons are true for almost every QB who's drafted in the first round. Your examples of his leadership skills (C) aren't really very good. Lots of mediocre QBs have done both. Allen got his teammates to play better last season -- within the limits of their less than average abilities in too many cases unfortunately -- which is the key indicator of a QB having the "it factor". That on-field leadership is what Allen demonstrated last season, and is probably his most encouraging trait. His teammates believe in him now, but in order for them to continue to believe -- and give that extra bit of effort -- Allen has to up his game, too. He has got to get better as a passer and a decision maker, and if he does that, then his stats --and his analytics -- will automatically improve. A QB who can't complete somewhere around 60% of his pass attempts isn't going to lead his team to many wins. A QB who throws too many INTs or takes too many sacks or fumbles too often because he holds the ball too long isn't going to lead his team to many wins --- and his teammates aren't going to continue to follow his lead without on field success.

I don't have a clue if Allen will succeed or fail, so I don't have an opinion on that. He did not have a good rookie season. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. How he did as a rookie, however, is largely irrelevant in determining whether he becomes successful or not. How much he improves as a second year starter will be far more predictive. Virtually all the good/great QBs over the last twenty years improved significantly in their second season over how they did in their first. That doesn't mean that he has to become a Pro Bowler as a sophomore but rather that he has to show improvement in the skills that good/great QBs possess. I was surprised and encouraged by how Allen played in 2018 but how he plays this coming season will be much more predictive. He needs to improve significantly from where he finished 2018 even if that improvement isn't reflected in gaudy statistics for any number of reasons, including coaching, tream offensive philosophy, offensive talent, etc. I think that he needs to make continual improvement over the course of the year so that he's not only better in 2019 than he was in 2018 but that he's a better QB in December than in September or October. That would indicate that he's still not reached his ceiling and can improve more in the future.

Did he really "always seemed to pick the correct time to run" or did he simply run because, like many rookie QBs, he didn't know what else to do with defenders coming after him? Moreover, while hurdling LBs makes for spectacular highlights, it's almost a guarantee that a QB is not long for the NFL if he makes it a habit. If you want to watch a QB who "knows the correct time to run" -- and how to do it -- watch Russell Wilson extend Seahag drives with regularity -- and usually without taking a hit, too.

I didn't say it did. I said it didn't disqualify him which the poster implied it did simply because he covered sports in southern New England (Mass/Conn/RI). This has nothing to do with Josh Allen and his chances of being a successful NFL QB. I have no opinion on that because I don't have any idea how he'll turn out -- and nobody else has, either. We all have opinions, and right now, the positive opinions of Allen's prospects are based on hope not fact because he didn't play all that well as a rookie.

What "ton of other intangilbes" has Allen demonstrated in his 11 NFL starts? "Intangibles" are traits that enable QBs to be successful that aren't statistically measurable and sometimes aren't even definable but which are keys to separating average NFL QBs from great ones. Work ethic and leadership are two intangibles that Allen has demonstrated that he has. He has not yet demonstrated that he can read defenses quickly and correctly, that he can make good decisions, that he can play "clutch" like Brady, Rodgers, Brees, etc. That may be simply that he was only a rookie ... but maybe that means that he doesn't have any or some of these. At this point, nobody really knows.

IOW, Schatz has much more experience watching Brady rather than Losman, Edwards, Fitzpatrick, Manuel, Orton, Taylor, Peterman, and Allen. How, exactly, does that disqualify him from stating his opinion on a Bills QB?

I suppose this scumbag highlights his "traditional family values" in his political campaigns ...

I think Allen won as many games in 2018 as Garoppollo has won in his entire career, so neither has done anything in the NFL. I think both should be lower simply because both are unproven along with Darnold, Rosen, Jackson, Haskins etc. I would put all of these unproven guys in the lower third of the rankings since they're all resting on hopes rather than actual production.

Totally agree. I would be good with #32 being given out to a vet who joined the team and requested it or to a first round rookie, not to a scrub.

That's an excuse for a QB who hasn't started yet in the NFL or who maybe had 1 or 2 games where he played in garbage time. There's enough game film on Peterman for coaches to realize that whatever he shows in practice doesn't translate onto the field in game time when games actually count. He's not the first, and he won't be the last, NFL QB who plays great in practice but sucks in regular season games. He's just so singularly bad -- his faults are both mental and physical -- that the coaches who keep giving him chances have to arrogantly think they are so superior to everybody else that they're capable of turning water into wine. Gruden has never seen a QB he didn't love because his ego won't let him accept that even he can't fix every QB.

Not recognizing your limitations after repeated, glaring failures is simply self-delusion. As long as Peterman wastes a roster space for a team other than the Bills, that's hardly irritating. It's a good thing.

If Peterman wants to stay involved in football, I think he needs to go into coaching. He simply isn't good enough to play QB -- even as a backup -- in the NFL. I thought it was unnecessarily cruel of McDermott to keep throwing him out there when he was clearly emotionally crushed by his failures. The Bills should have brought in a competent veteran QB to backup Allen immediately after the season opener, and that's on both Beane and McDermott. McDermott not insisting on getting someone better, and Beane not getting it done.

If he was a race horse, he'd be a "morning glory" -- a horse that looks great training in the mornings but sucks when he runs when the money's on the line later in the day.

Not having a GM and competent scouting apparatus in place to run the draft is absolutely not acceptable. It's an excuse for an incompetent organization that hasn't done its job. According to former NFL GM Charley Cassserly, the primary job of a GM, even when he has limited power as Whaley had in Buffalo, is to run the draft. Pegula and Brandon knew what they had in Whaley. If they had any doubts about how he might get along with a new HC, they should have fired him at the end of 2016 when they canned Ryan or they should have let him have much more input into the hiring a new coach so that he could get a HC that he could work with (I believe that McDermott was hired by a search committee but I'm not positive that's true). If an organization doesn't "trust" their GM enough to allow him to run their draft and instead turn it over to a rookie HC whose been with the team for a few months at the last minute, what's the point of keeping him and the scouts that answer to him on the payroll until after the draft? Since the NFL is a tiny exclusive club with only 32 members, it's highly unlikely that the Bills could hide that Whaley was a lame-duck from their peers for very long so the excuse that they didn't want to "tip their hand on the draft" is just more excuse making.

Point 1 - if Darnold becomes a good QB then who drafted him will be totally irrelevant. If he proves to be a bust, then who drafted him will also be irrelevant. Being "his guy" or "their guy" only matters when a highly drafted QB prospect doesn't develop into more than a mediocre starter and a team has to decide whether to keep him or move on. Goff wasn't McVay's "guy" until he proved himself a good QB. If Tampa moves on from Jameis Winston, it won't be that he's not Bruce Arians' "guy" but that he simply hasn't developed into a good enough NFL QB. Point 2 - the only legitimate reasons to pass a great QB prospect when the opportunity to draft one arises is that a) you already have a franchise QB on your roster or b) you already drafted a great QB prospect the previous year or two or c) the player evaluators don't like the QB prospect(s) available. Passing on a great QB prospect in order to give your future GM a chance to draft "his own guy" is beyond stupid simply because the team may not have the opportunity to draft a great QB prospect for the next 5 years or more, either because there aren't any QBs worth drafting (2013) or all the great QB prospects are already gone (2004 or 2016).

This also works on the snowblower chute ... and it's a whole lot cheaper and safer than the products you can buy at the hardware store/home center.

Does your friend also stop at little "self service" farm stands (the kind with a small box for you to leave your payment) and pay for 3 green peppers while taking 4?

I've seen this very recipe for "buttermilk" elsewhere ... and you can also use lemon juice instead of vinegar because "buttermilk" is the fermented by-product of making butter (hence the name).

It wasn't aimed at you or what you posted. It was a general statement in response to the post saying that the Browns had a tougher SOS than the Bills because many posters on TSW like to spin scenarios that make the Bills look good when those scenarios aren't supported by facts ... and sometimes just the opposite. I understand your reasoning about the Browns. Yours is a very different rationale than the simple minded dismissal of predictions that the Browns could be a very good or excellent team simply because the Bills are the only team allowed to make a sudden leap from bottom feeder to SB contender ... at least in the minds of some homers on TSW.