SoTier

Early in the season, I pretty much thought like you do, but Bortles has been playing pretty well since about mid-season, and has been even better the last three games or so. I don't know if the proverbial light has turned on or if he's decided he'd rather be an NFL QB than a party boy or if Marrone is some kind of "QB whisperer", but he seems to be more than competent. I would definitely take him over either Winston or Mariota at this point as both of those guys seem to be trending down rather than improving.

I think Jones was pushed to start too soon and without good mentors, and maybe not really good coaching, either. With Woods and Goodwin tearing it up on the Left Coast, it makes the kid look even worse. He needs to make very significant improvement by early next season or calling him a bust is fair. He really ought to be showing better than he is by now.

Well, just about every suburb except the Tonawandas and Evans and Angola are "east" of Buffalo, from Amherst/Clarence which are northeast to Hamburg/OP which are SE. Cheektowaga, Lancaster, and Elma are all basically east. Even Alden.

Bortles had a rocky start but he's been playing well since about mid-season -- and apparently getting even better the last two or three games. Maybe he's decided he really wants an NFL career rather than be a party boy. I think McCown might make it as a sentimental choice. He certainly played better than anybody thought he would. Mariota just hasn't played well most of the season. If Tennessee didn't have that stout D, they'd be a 4-5 win team if they had to depend upon their supposed franchise QB. Flacco also hasn't played well. He's really shortened his game down this year, probably because of the problems the Ravens have had with their OL. I think Bortles and McCown get added althought McCown won't be able to play because of injury. Only if you count Pro Bowlers whom the Bills sent packing.

Another day, another "Oh, woe is me! Since the Bills aren't going to win the Super Bowl, they shouldn't win any games so that they can always go 0-16 and get the #1 pick in the next draft!" post. While I agree that the Bills are worse off talent wise than they were in 2016, that's not really on McDermott. The "process" of shedding talented players rather than pay them market rate has been something that the Bills FO has been doing for the entire length of the playoff drought ... and likely since they fired Bill Polian 25 years ago. It appears to be continuing despite the change in ownership. McDermott, for his part, seems to be a pretty decent HC who does a lot with what he's got. My biggest gripe about him is that he needs to replace Dennison with a better OC who is more willing to create an offense that fits his personnel. The Bills are currently 8-6 and are holding the first wild card slot a week before Christmas. Even if they lose to the Pats, they could still make the playoffs if they beat the Carp and get some help (and not necessarily implausible help, either). How does that make even one of their wins "meaningless", OP? As other posters have noted in another thread, if the Bills miss the playoffs, what it will do is make at least 2 or 3 of their losses even more frustrating. It's been a dozen years (2004) since the Bills have been legitimately in the playoff hunt this late in the season. Here's to the Pats playing as flat in Foxboro Sunday as they did in Miami two weeks ago ... and to Cutler being as much the space cadet he's usually been for most of his career. 10-6 and missing the playoffs on a tie breaker would suck, but it would be the first time that the Bills got 10 wins in this century. It could NEVER suck as much as going 0-16 or 2-14 or 3-13.

I'm not going to label him a bust now only because it frequently takes 3 years for WRs to master the pro game. Ideally, Jones would have had a good veteran WR to watch and help him out early on. Who did he have? Watkins was gone after the first preseason game. Matthews was hurt after his first practice. Benjamin didn't arrive until almost Halloween, and he's been mostly hurt. Thomas didn't arrive until the season had started, and he was signed as a FA. The other Bills WRs weren't NFL caliber WRs so how could they give him many pointers? FTR, should Jones really have been drafted as high as he was or was this ANOTHER case of the Bills drafting a rookie to be "just as good but cheaper" than a good veteran they let walk away because they didn't want to pay him market rate ... and getting bitten in the arse once again? Only time will tell ...

I agree with the idea that the Bills are playing over their heads because they aren't talented, but this appears to be one of those years where coaching and effort can even the odds considerably, especially in the AFC. For all the Bills problems on the defensive side, they seem to have regained their ability to tighten up considerably in the red zone. I wish I had more confidence in Dennison's offensive mind set because he continues to go into turtle mode whenever the Bills get a lead (see KC and Miami games).

But because Wilkerson will be cheaper, Bills fans will love him. Right. I bet you don't like spending money on OTs either.

Another day, another day "we have to draft a QB in the first round so he can take us to the playoffs" thread from the OP. He doesn't care who the Bills draft just as long as he's a QB and they take him in the first round. How'd that work the last two times the Bills tried that??? The only thing that drafting a QB in the first round guarantees is that the team will be committed to him for at least four years unless he's a J'Marcus Russell or Johnny Manziel style bust, so they won't be drafting another first or even second round QB if a better prospect comes along during that time. The Bills got bitten in their arses for drafting both Losman and Manuel higher than they should have been drafted. Even if a first round -- top 5 pick even -- turns out to be a great QB, that's no guarantee that the team will make and/or win playoff games. The OP uses Andy Dalton who has been a decent, even Pro Bowl, QB at times in his career but conveniently ignores Phillip Rivers. The Chargers have won exactly 1 more playoff game than the Bills since Rivers became their starter in 2006, and they've made the playoffs only once in the last eight years.

Yeah, but he's not necessarily BETTER. Dawkins has played well as a rookie but that doesn't mean that he's going to continue to develop and improve. Lots of rookies don't, and what's "good" for a rookie isn't all that good for a three or four year veteran. If he doesn't, then he'll end up a mediocre LT at best, which means that whoever is the Bills QB in the future will be getting pummeled unnecessarily ... because the Bills were once again too cheap to keep their own talent.

No, you're not right. Get a clue, "whoever is on the top of the QB draft board" is going to be gone by the time the Bills draft because the teams that will be drafting at the top of the first round almost all need QBs (San Fran and Washington (or the team that signs Cousins) may not) so they aren't going to trade out of the top spots. Trading up for any QB who is not the consensus #1 pick has only worked out once in the last 20 years IIRC ... in 2016 when Philadelphia took Wentz.

The Carpies also beat the Pats at home in 2007 for their only win in a 1-15 season. The Carp may look like a great team against the Pats but they usually revert to form -- good or bad -- for the rest of the NFL. This year, their form's been bad.

Well, that may be true in general, but he looked like a pro bowler against the Pats. NE played as flat as I've ever seen that team play except for maybe the Miami game back in 2007 when the Carp came in winless (that was the year they went 1-15), and the Pats were on a roll --- and got their butts handed to them by the Fish.

My observation was only in relation to the assertion about Beane being "the smartest guy in the room", and I'll stand by it. Since we don't even know exactly what Beane's actual responsibilities are for player personnel decisions, annointing him as some kind of "genius" is nonsense. He dealt primarily with ordinary personnel decisions (job descriptions, wages, benefits, etc) rather than with decisions about which players to acquire, release or retain during most of his time in Carolina, so McDermott may very well have better player evaluation skills. IMO, Beane is the same kind of GM that Whaley was: subservient to the higher ups in the Bills FO and to McDermott.

How do you know this? He's never been responsible for making player personnel decisions before. There's a big difference between being an assist and being the guy in charge. The 2 big player personnel moves that can be attributed to him in Buffalo were the Watkins and Benjamin trades, neither of which suggests he's close to being "the smartest guy in the room". Watkins has not only stayed healthy in LA but he's repeatedly helped insure that that 2nd rounder the Bills got for him will be at the end of the 2nd round not at the beginning. Benjamin has a history of knee problems, was hurt when the Bills traded for him, and has been hurt most of the time he's been here.

If the Bills feel that Glenn's injury is going to be "chronic", why is he still on the active roster? Why isn't he on IR and rehabbing so he can get as healthy as possible so that the Bills could trade him -- if they're actually interested in trading him? As others have noted, Glenn was unlikely to pass a physical back in October because he wasn't playing much then because of his injuries. Just because the Bills traded for an injured player (Benjamin) doesn't mean that Seattle would have done the same. Moreover, Glenn's injury is NOT a single injury IIRC but apparently at least two separate injuries, one to each foot/ankle. That does not necessarily mean that one or both are "chronic", and AFAIK, the Bills have not said publicly and explicitly what his injuries are (teams never do). Foot/ankle injuries in athletes are always problematical and tend to take a long time to heal whether surgery is invovled or not. IMO the sum and substance of the OP's "inside information" seems to be little more than a rehash of a lot of opinions floated on this MB and not real "inside information" at all. If the OP truly has a "source", then that "source" is leading him on. For example, the OP's claims about disagreement between Bean and McDermott about cutting "marginal" players for compensatory picks and Beane being worried about Glenn's "huge cap hit" sounds like the BS that was constantly raised on this MB (and probably others, too) earlier in the fall. It just doesn't ring true, even for a dysfunctional organization like the Bills have been for this entire century.

Agree. Wood is a decent C so I wouldn't send him packing until the Bills have somebody better to replace him. I'm not sure that's Groy, but they have bigger trouble spots on the OL than C. OT isn't a trouble spot at present either -- unless the Bills decide to listen to the ignorant fans who want Glenn traded because he was injured this season. The Bills need to keep Glenn because there's no guarantee that Dawkins will continue to develop as a LT. I believe he was drafted with the intention of playing him at RT anyways. Most collegiate LTs don't have the quickness and agility to play LT in the pros, but they can make excellent RTs. I think that the main focus on OL should G because that's where the Bills need an upgrade. Incognito is 34, so a kid to replace him in the near future -- 2018 or 2019 -- seems almost a necessity ... except that the Bills need an upgrade at RG desperately. At least one of the Bills picks in the first rounds needs to be used on somebody to put Vlad Ducasse on the bench permanently. If Dennison were given his walking papers (along with his OL coach), then John Mills might become a useful RG again, but it doesn't look like he has a future with Dennison/Castro. The Bills should probably take 2 OLers in 2018 ... definitely a prospect for RG within the first three rounds and either another G or a C prospect later in the draft. Bringing in some UDFAs wouldn't be a bad idea either. A new QB isn't going to have much success if he's running for his life instead of throwing the ball.

This is what makes the most sense but it's not going to happen because I don't see the Bills landing Cousins either. I am adamantly opposed to trading up for any QB except the consensus #1 pick in the draft. They succeed about 80% of the time, after that the success rate drops like a rock: 50% for QBs in the top half of the first round. Trading up for the 3rd best QB prospect ... supposing there even is one ... is a waste of resources. If 2 QBs are already off the board, stay put and see who's available at your spot ... or take a flier on a QB in the 2nd or 3rd round. Somebody like Mayfield who's undersized but who would otherwise likely be a first round prospect would be a good choice if he fell in the first round or into the second. Lack of size can be compensated for (Brees, Wilson, and Cousins have all proven that) but you can't compensate for a lack of the instinct/processing ability/"it" factor that separates guys like Peyton, Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Wilson, etc from guys like Sanchez, Ponder, Gabbert, Osweiler, etc. How'd that work out in 2013? It's not ANY QB but the RIGHT QB that they have to draft. If there's nobody worth taking, take another position and see what's up in the 2nd round. It's a lot easier to send a 2nd round bust packing than a 1st round one.

Kevin Kaduk got it right. With all the NFL games looking like well choreographed productions, that game was special ... an echo of earlier times when the game of football was simpler ... and maybe more joyous. The shots after Shady's TD of the Bills players in the end zone with snow showering down on the players and fans were cool, but the shot of Matt Milano making a snow angel after the winning TD was the best!

"Settle" for what? Drafting a QB in the first round isn't what makes a QB a success! Drafting a QB prospect in the first round who should be drafted later just to draft a first round QB is what the Bills have done twice in this century. They got 2 busts for their trouble ... and they effectively locked themselves out of picking up better QBs from the drafts in the following years. The Bills lost out on even the opportunity to take Aaron Rodgers in 2005 and on Jay Cutler in 2006 because they had so much invested in Losman. Instead, they tried to make a third rounder into their franchise QB, and so didn't take a shot on Joe Flacco in 2008. Because they drafted Manuel in 2013, the Bills ignored Bridgewater, Carr, and Garoppolo the next year. It's not that the Bills haven't looked at QBs in the first round of the draft or that they haven't had the opportunity to draft decent to great QBs. It's that the bad choices they made in the QBs they did draft in the first round in 2004 and 2013 came back and bit them in their arses. You keep yapping about fans being willing to "settle", but in reality it's the Bills that "settled" for the fourth best QB prospect in the 2004 draft -- and traded up to get him, too! It's the Bills that failed to act in 2012 and take Wilson in the third or Cousins in the fourth and "settled" for Manuel in 2013, a kid who wasn't even a first round prospect, just to say that they took a first round QB. IMO, they drafted both QBs simply to excite the fan base and sell some more tickets. My guess is that they'll do the same in 2018. It's always dicey drafting a QB in the first round because they're expensive. No rookie minimum for any first rounder, especially a QB, and since most teams only carry 2 QBs with only the starter getting reps in practice, taking one in the first round precludes taking another one in the next draft or the one after that unless your original one sucks Johnny Manziel-style. The Bills' drafting rationale makes it even dicier.

No, they didn't. Not when late season games meant something like back in the 90s. We wanted to see the Carp come to Rich Stadium in December and freeze their aqua and orange arses off.

Sorry, but the Drought is all on the Bills themselves, and that's particularly evident with the argument about the Patriots. If the Bills FO was seriously interested in making the playoffs, they would have built better teams than they did over the years. In 8 of the 17 Drought years, 2 more Bills wins and 2 fewer Pats wins would not have even given the Bills a winning record. In 2004 the Bills lost to the Stillers' backups in the final game of the season; that's all on them. In 2008, the Carp won the division with a record of 11-5. Even if the Bills had swept the Brady-less Patriots, the best they could have done was 9-7 which wouldn't have gotten them into the playoffs because NE missed the WC with an 11-5 record. The only time that 2 wins over the Pats would have definitely put the Bills into the Patriots was in 2002 when they would have won the division. In 2014, they actually won the season finale against NE, so sweeping NE would have given them a 10-6 record, so getting a WC would depend upon winning the tie breaker against Baltimore. In 2015, the Bills would have vied with the Pats, the Jests, and the Stillers for the last WC with 10-6 records. The Patriots vs the Bills records since the Drought began: 2001: Patriots 11-5, Bills 3-13 2002: Jests 9-7, Patriots 9-7, Carp 9-7, Bills 8-8 2003: Patriots 14-2, Bills 6-10 2004: Patriots 14-2, Bills 9-7 2005: Patriots 10-6, Bills 5-11 2006: Patriots 12-4, Bills 7-9 2007: Patriots 16-0, Bills 7-9 2008: Patriots 11-5, Bills 7-9 2009: Patriots 10-6, Bills 6-10 2010: Patriots 14-2, Bills 4-12 2011: Patriots 13-3, Bills 6-10 2012: Patriots 12-4, Bills 6-10 2013: Patriots 12-4, Bills 6-10 2014: Patriots 12-4, Bills 9-7 2015: Patriots 12-4, Bills 8-8 2016: Patriots 14-2, Bills 7-9

I don't think the NFL's ability to select QBs has actually ever been very good. Over the last 20 years, when the #1 consensus pick has been a QB, he's worked out about 80% of the time. QBs taken in the top half of the first round have about a 50% success rate (great/good/decent). I think it's only about 25% for the bottom half of the first round, and after that, it's probably single digits. The 1983 draft was the best QB draft ever. Six QBs were taken in the first round but only 10 more were taken in the remaining 11 rounds of the draft, none in rounds 2-4. Of those 6, Elway went #1 and the last QB taken was Marino at #27. Blackledge went at #2, Kelly at #14, Eason at #15, and O'Brien at #24. The HOFers were mixed among the busts. Back before college teams ran the simplistic read option passing games, they ran the ball more. The pro game was also simpler (which is why the colleges could use pro-style offenses although many, perhaps most, did not), with much less sophisticated offenses and especially defenses, so QBs had a lot less to learn, recognize, and react to during the game. A QB with a cannon arm, a solid OL to keep blitzers at bay, a couple of speedy wide outs along with a good RB who could catch balls coming out of the backfield were a prescription for a successful offense. Most reasonably intelligent collegiate QBs with good arms could be half way decent. Today, the sophisticated defenses with their myriad of disguises, require a lot of skills that not many collegiate QBs can develop in the 2-4 years they're in school. Meanwhile, pro scouts are still totally enamored with tall QBs despite the success of Drew Brees, Russell Wilson, and Kirk Cousins and the failure of Brock Osweiler. Unless a QB would be a first round prospect except for something that has nothing to do with how he plays on the field -- lack of height (Brees, Wilson), a slight build (Cousins), athletic department politics (Brady) -- almost all QBs taken after the first round are destined to be backups. Other than Brees and Dalton, what second rounders have actually become solid starting QBs? For third rounders, there's Schaub in 2004 and Wilson in 2012. Who else? In the fourth round, the only one with a solid claim to fame is Cousins, although Orton did have a couple of decent seasons. Drafting a QB after the first round in hopes of finding a franchise QB is like counting on winning the Powerball lottery to finance your retirement.

This is true, but it's not the number of QBs taken high in the draft that makes a great draft; it's how the QBs from the class play over the course of their careers that determines the quality of the class. . 2011 was supposed to be a great class. The first rounders were Newton (#1), Locker (#8), Gabbert (#10), and Ponder (#12) in the first round and then Dalton the 3rd pick in Round 2 and Kaepernick the 4th in Round 2. Newton and Dalton are the only ones who've done well. I don't believe that Locker, Ponder, and Kaepernick are even in the NFL in 2017. 2012 was supposed to be even better with Luck, RG III, Tannehill, and Weeden in the 1st, Osweiler in the 2nd, Wilson and Foles in the 3rd, and Cousins in the 4th. It actually was the best class since 2004, but that's only because the 2 under-sized QBs picked later, Wilson and Cousins, have blossomed into exceptional talents. Luck has been somewhat of a disappointment in that he hasn't really developed into quite the superstar envisioned by the "suck for Luck" crowd. He's still a "franchise QB" but between playing on a crappy team and injury, he's definitely not the best QB in his class. Tannehill is an acceptable starter on the level of an Andy Dalton or Joe Flacco -- capable of looking really great with the right supporting cast but otherwise pretty ordinary. IMO, Wilson is the best QB from 2012, and Cousins probably the second best based on what he's actually done on the field. Generally, there's 1 really good QB from a draft class with occasionally another decent starter whether there are 5 first round QBs or 1 or 2. Very rarely does a draft class produce multiple good/great QBs. That's why 1983 and 2004 are considered "generational" draft classes.

Agree. IMO, the only way to ever get rid of Brandon and his minions' influence over the way the Bills operate as a football team is if fans stop going to games. Back in the mid/late 80s, when Bills' attendance plummeted (crowds under 30k were common in a stadium that held 80k then), and Wilson responded by putting a "football guy" in charge: Bill Polian. I think that the "honeymoon" is ending between the Pegulas and a lot of Bills fans who had hope that new ownership would mean a new emphasis on winning football games. Instead, it looks like the new owner is following the same course as the old owner. That the Sabres have sucked under Pegula's ownership doesn't give fans a lot of optimism that things are going to improve for the Bills, either. Will fan discontent translate into a big enough drop in ticket sales to force Brandon and Co out, and if that happens, does it mean the Bills will improve on the field? I don't know the answer to either question as I don't have a particularly good crystal ball. What I do know is that this is one fan who is no longer a season ticket holder and is unlikely to attend any Bills game until there's a significant improvement in the product the team puts on the field.