SoTier

Spreading propaganda again, I see. ... or almost any other QB now in the game except Rodgers or Brady. He's going to be the next elite NFL QB. Not being as good as Russell Wilson isn't such a bad thing ... being only as good as Ryan Tannehill might be, and I think Tyrod's better than that. He's better than many QBs in the league despite the lack of offensive talent and the conservative mind-set of the coaches he's played under with the Bills.

I don't know. Belichick had considerable success before he had Brady. Belichick got those Browns to the playoffs in 1994 ... 11-5 with Vinnie Testaverde as his QB who had never led a team to a winning season in his previous 7 NFL seasons. As Giants DC under Parcells, he was the defensive mastermind behind Parcells' playoff success, including his SB success. Belichick was NE's assistant HC under Parcells when the Patriots lost the SB after the 1996 season. He followed Parcells to the Jests and he was Assistant HC when the Jests lost the AFC Championship game in 1998 ... with Vinnie Testaverde at QB no less. After Belichick left the Jests to coach NE, Parcells never coached another playoff win. Who knows what Brady would have been with another HC and another coaching scheme?

Maybe, but nobody knows. 2000 was Belichick's first year as NE HC, and he spent that year evaluating and upgrading what he had. Brady wasn't drafted with the idea that he was going to replace Bledsoe. Drafting their backup QBs late in the draft or even signing an UDFA was generally how NE operated until they drafted Mallett in the third in 2011 and then Garoppollo in the second in 2014. Brady could have been long gone back to Cali to be an accountant or something by the time the Pats parted with Bledsoe ... Damn stupid Jests! They haven't done anything right since 1969!

I think what you -- and some others -- are not seeing is the rationale for the OP's tiers, which is not based on how well a QB plays/has played so much as it's based on what a QB needs to have success. There are some starting QBs who are just so talented that they'll shine even if playing with little or no support around them. Those are the elite, Tier 1 guys. Then there are some starting QBs who just are not talented enough to be starters no matter how much talent surrounds them ... these aren't journeymen but the backups, wannabees, and busts of various stripes from failed first rounders to UDFAs. The OP really didn't address these guys ... they're probably Tier 4 since they're below the Tier 3. Tier 3 guys can be a variety of guys: journeymen or aging starters or "bridge QBs" or refugees from Tier 4 who have a good run filling in for a missing starter. They can even be first round QBs who are only playing because they're first rounders and their teams are deciding what to do about them. They generally don't have a lot of success, frequently because they don't have the best talent or coaching around them but possibly because they've lost some of their ability or just have too many limitations. Tier 2 guys are the ones who have enough talent to make lemonade if they're given enough lemon juice, sugar, and water. If you've got only 3-5 guys in a tier, the spectrum from top to bottom is limited. If you've got 10 or 15 guys in a tier, there's going to be a spectrum of talent among them. It's hard to quantify because no 2 QBs are exactly the same. It's easy to pick out the guys on the extremes, less so the guys towards the middle. Then, too, there are both young and old QBs in the group as well as QBs who've had lots of starting experience and those with limited experience as starters as well as first round picks who are usually given opportunities early that are not afforded to QBs drafted in the later rounds or who are UDFAs except in special circumstances. All these QBs have enough talent to be starters of decent quality but their performance is much more dependent upon the team around them and/or the coaching situation. If they get into a good situation, they can frequently play like they're elite for stretches ... even a for a season or two... but when the team around them loses its own quality, their play tails off. If there's a coaching change, they're more affected than the Tier 1 guys seem to be. This group is the largest and the most diverse because in the salary cap era situations on teams can and do change dramatically from one season to the next ... even within the season depending upon injuries. Coaching impacts teams -- and that's even more true for QBs than most other players -- far more than it did in the pre-salary cap era, too, when the Cowboys could fleece Minnesota in the Herschel Walker trade and load up with so much talent in the draft that even Barry Switzer could "coach" them to a Super Bowl win. With crappy coaching and surrounded by limited talent, Alex Smith looked like a bust early on in his career. When San Fran improved, he started to look better but he was dumped for a young QB who looked like the next big thing playing in an offensive system that not only highlighted his talents but also masked his deficiencies. Even early on in KC, Smith was considered nothing special as a starter, a "game manager" or "journeyman". Many would have likely consider him only a step or two above Ryan Fitzpatrick ... and then this season happened, and he's being talked about as an MVP candidate. Bledsoe was injured in the first or second game of the 2001 season, so it's a bit difficult to claim that he had "struggled early on the next year".

Elli is streaky, and that makes him an enigma I think. When he's on a hot streak, like he was the last time the Giants won the SB, he's definitely Tier 1 ... he carried that Giants team with his leadership and passing ability, masking a lot of their shortcomings much the way that Rodgers masks a lot of GB's shortcomings. When he gets into a funk, though, like he seems to be this season, he sinks to Tier 3 ... and sometimes to the lower end of Tier 3. Most of the time, though, he's probably a top-half Tier 2 guy ... and in clutch situations, if you can't have Rodgers or Brady, you might consider Eli ... he seems able to make clutch plays more often than you might think.

Then talk about his injuries as a factor in deciding to trade him! Don't claim that he's "inconsistent" which indicates that a WR doesn't play the position well and is unreliable. Good post. My concern about getting rid of Woods and Watkins stems from the fact that the Bills left themselves with no viable WR who can stretch the field. That may come back and bite them in the arse yet even this season, although so far they haven't suffered too badly. I think Benjamin is a good addition but he's not the kind of WR who terrifies DBs. Neither is Zay Jones. The Bills might make the playoffs this season without a downfield burner but if they continue to develop and hope for more than just making the playoffs, they're going to have add a WR good enough to break games open. This sounds like all the gleeful pot shots that so many Bills fans took at Jason Peters and Marshawn Lynch during their initial seasons after they were traded to Philly and Seattle respectively. Both players were overpaid, spoiled scrubs "who didn't want to be here" and the Bills FO was filled with bonafide personnel geniuses for getting rid of them according to so many Bills fans. Well, fast forward 7 or 8 years and both are going to be HOFers ... and they won't be going in as Bills thanks to those geniuses in the Bills FO. It's a tad early to judge the outcome of the Watkins trade ... just as it's unlikely that Benjamin is going to play as well this year as he's likely to play next year for the Bills (assuming they sign him) after he's had OTAs, minicamp, and TC.

Given up on your Carpies, huh?

The poster I replied to claimed that Watkins and Woods were "inconsistent" which was why they were moved out, and that's untrue. Neither was "inconsistent" in their play for the Bills. They weren't dropping easy balls or running the wrong routes with some frequency. They both played well within the limits of the Bills offense. Certainly the way the Bills used Watkins in 2015 and 2016 when he was healthy was "inconsistent" but that's on the coaching staff not the player. Woods was a very solid WR on a run-first team with a QB still learning the ropes. He's in a better situation now, and he's showing his stuff. BTW, how many Rams games have you watched? Woods has turned into a clutch WR for them although Kupp gets most of the glory because Goff relies on him the way Matt Ryan relies on Julio Jones and Andy Dalton relies on AJ Green. The rest of the receivers scramble for the crumbs. Woods would have been worth $8 million in a Bills uniform because he would give them a downfield threat that they still don't have even with the trade for Benjamin. It's the going rate, and they probably will have to shell out close to that to keep Benjamin. As I asked Teef, how many Rams games have you watched? WRs are dependent upon how often the QB throws to them. Goff throws to Kupp as if he were his only option a lot of the time. As Goff matures and gets more confidence in Watkins and Woods, as well as defenses start double covering Kupp, Goff should start throwing the ball to his other options more often. Even without having as many targets as he should have, Woods is on pace to get at about 800-900+ yards (I'm not sure if the Rams have played 8 or 9 games). The point is, however, not whether the Bills should have gotten rid of one or both Woods and/or Watkins but rather whether they were "inconsistent" as WRs. They weren't in Buffalo, and they aren't in LA.

I agree about Gase. Even Tannehill's injury doesn't give a coach an excuse when his team gets shut out 20-0 and 40-0 within weeks of each other while looking disinterested in playing football. A lot of commentators were blaming Cutler for the Carp's early blowouts by the Saints and the Jests, but it appears that he's the only glue holding that offense together.

This is just so much BS. Watkins wasn't "inconsistent". He sustained an injury that took a long time to heal and he made some statements about WR pay structure in general that the Bills FO used as a rationalization to move him out. Woods wasn't "inconsistent" either. The Bills just didn't want to pay him the going rate for veteran WRs of his caliber. Furthermore, Woods has been anything but "inconsistent" for the Rams. He's caught 31 passes for 451 yards (which may be only slightly less than the Bills current WRs' yards gained) and 2 TDs with 9 completions over 20 yards. He's had only 2 games where he didn't have at least 50 yards in catches. If you want to defend the Bills FO's personnel moves, be my guest, but don't make up stuff to do it.

The problem with tanking is that while you may get the QB you want, you don't have much talent around him. Moreover, the reason for the lack of talent is often due to poor talent evaluation. Luck's suffered from poor coaching, too.

After watching the how well Taylor played for the Bills and then how poorly Siemian played for the Broncos, I began wondering if it had been Dennison as his OC last season who made him look like a decent QB ... and that Siemian looked like he could use some mentoring. I've been impressed with the improvement that Taylor's made this season, and I was one of Dennison's hardest critics early on. I'm impressed that Dennison's got Vlad Ducasse playing okay at RG. That's a shocker. Ducasse has failed everywhere else he's been. I think that QBs taken in the bottom half of the first round are pretty unlikely to amount to much. Of the QBs drafted in the bottom half of the first round between 2000 and 2014, one's career has been compromised by injury (Teddy Bridgewater) so I haven't counted him. That leaves 14 others, and the only three who weren't busts were Chad Pennington (2000), Aaron Rodgers (2005), and Joe Flacco (2008). That's only about 1 in 5 of those QBs being worth a first rounder. It doesn't look good for Lynch.

Right-o. It has NOTHING to do with the fact that the Bills have one of the premier RBs in the NFL, an OL that's good at run blocking, and significantly better at run blocking than at pass blocking, as well as TEs that know how to block for the run. It has NOTHING to do with the fact that the Bills play their home games in an open stadium in an area that's infamous for windy weather, especially from about late October onward. It's all about Taylor's "limitations" because we all know that "franchise QBs" have no "limitations". What exactly are Taylor's limitations that make it impossible for the McDermott to institute a pass first offense, BTW? In the past, he was criticized for not utilizing the middle of the field. He's been doing that. He's certainly has been changing his style from "running QB" to "mobile pocket QB" like Rodgers or Smith. He can make all the throws, he's fairly accurate, and he doesn't make stupid decisions, so he takes care of the football. He's been criticized for not throwing into tight windows enough and for not "throwing receivers open" and he still needs to work on both. Those are hardly the worst "limitations" a QB can have though. Just ask Vance Joseph or Hue Jackson. Maybe it's his lack of height ... he can't do much about that but then neither could Drew Brees or Russell Wilson. I don't think it is, either. I think a big determinant is whether the team can muster a good running game or not. Ideally, teams like to be able to do both but with the constraints of the salary cap, they realistically can't unless they can get a lot of production out of players on rookie contracts ... or they stint on the resources they allocate to the defense. When they can't get a good running game going, the good teams often utilize short passes instead of runs to get 3-6 yards a pop. NE has had this problem for years, primarily I think, because they've built and maintained their OL as a premier pass blocking unit to protect Brady. The lack of a running game has been a major problem for the Giants the last couple of years as they've invested in their passing game (QB/receivers) and their defense but couldn't afford to invest in their OL.

^^^ I'm with these guys. This is the kind of game that "the same old Bills" always lost. Time to be the "the new Bills" by kicking the Jests in their collective arses in their own house. Somebody -- one of the announcing team on Sunday's game? -- said it pretty well when he said something like, "it's not a short week when you win on Sunday."

C'mon, Wayne! I know it's election season but knock off with the politician-worthy self-serving spin. Taylor's only played as a starter in 2 systems, both with the Bills, and both for coaching staffs that want conservative, run-first offenses. I was probably one of the biggest critics of McDermott and Dennison early on. I thought Dennison's offense was going to be a disaster for Tyrod, but he's flourishing in it. He's a significantly better QB against Oakland than he was on opening day, partly because he's being rigorously coached and mentored in the fundamentals, but also because he seems to accept coaching well, something many QBs can't/won't do because of their temperaments. I think if the coaches work with him on throwing into tight coverage, especially to Benjamin, and he comes to trust Benjamin, we'll see him do it. Like many others, I'm not convinced that McDermott's/Dennison's conservative approach to offense is the best one, but I can't fault their coaching when it comes to getting the most out of whatever talent they have on hand. TT is the best QB the Bills have had since Drew Bledsoe left for Dallas more than a decade ago, and he's a good QB, better than many teams have. No, he's not Peyton Manning or Aaron Rodgers and he never will be, but that doesn't mean he can't develop into a Joe Flacco or Carson Palmer or Alex Smith. The Bills would be foolish to dump TT until they are sure that they have somebody better on the roster. A good QB on the roster trumps a great prospect in the draft who might turn out to be the next Aaron Rodgers ... or the next JP Losman or EJ Manuel.

This is Buffalo, which means the backup QB is ALWAYS better than the guy who's starting. Frank Reich was definitely better than Jim Kelly. The last time I looked, the coaching staff decides the type of offense a team runs, and most OCs call plays for their QBs. You're simply scapegoating Tyrod because you need something to complain about. I agree. The reality is, whether it's Tyrod or a young QB in the future, if the Bills build a better team all the way around, it will benefit whoever plays QB. Let's face this sad fact: Aaron Rodgers as their QB couldn't have helped most of Bills teams in this century make the playoffs. Nobody can say that Drew Bledsoe wasn't a good QB, and he couldn't do it. Who knows if Losman might have developed into a decent starter with better coaching than he got with the Bills. Fitzpatrick might not have been particularly good, but he probably could have gotten the Bills into the playoffs with that 2014 squad ... he was better than Orton. Certainly last year's offense was good enough for the team to make the playoffs, but the defense just sucked.

I remember you posting this earlier. As I was reading the part of the article about Belichick, I thought of this. Belichick didn't decide that Brady can keep going indefinitely, but Kraft. We'll never know now, but I think Brady's fear was justified; Garoppollo was going to be the Pats QB next season.

I don't see it. Newton is pretty good but he's not in the same league as Rodgers, Brady, Brees or even Wilson who was drafted two rounds after him. Teams don't trade true franchise QBs ... even if they lack fashion sense ... so that would be the first hint that Carolina, the team that knows him best, thinks he'll never improve only decline. Keep Tyrod and give a youngster a shot in the upcoming draft ... or the next one. Cam Newton isn't the next Jim Kelly.

I think what the OP is trying to say is that NE's success is not really a blueprint for continuing dominating the league indefinitely because it's primarily built on a set of lucky coincidences complement by having aquired a great defensive-minded coach and a great QB, who has only sustained 1 significant injury in his playing career -- his 2008 knee injury. Belichick and Brady are not only great at what they do, they complement each other, and as long as they are together, NE can continue it's dominance but it's unlikely the team can keep doing so once 1 or both are gone. IOW, NE's success is largely dependent upon a couple of specific people rather than upon a plan/philosophy/culture sustained by a group whose members can and do change over time. FYI, if you want to discuss sustainability, consider the Steelers and the Packers: In the 43 years between 1972 and 2016, the Steelers have had 35 winning seasons and made the playoffs 29 times under 3 HCs and with 10 different QBs. They won 6 Super Bowls and lost 2 others. In the thirty years since 1987, the Packers have had 24 winning seasons and made the playoffs 19 times under 6 different HCs and with 4 different QBs.

A tad defensive? You don't remember the pre-salary cap days when teams like Oakland, Pittsburgh, Miami, SF, Green Bay, Dallas, and, even for a while, the Bills dominated the league for long periods. Back then, sustainability was simple: identify talent, stockpile it, and add a good coaching staff. I think that the Patriots' "model of success" has been significantly aided by the salary cap which Belichick/NE staff mastered and manipulated from the beginning to a far greater degree than any other organization. That Belichick is a coaching genius is pretty undeniable, and that's a significant piece of their sustainability as well as Brady's undeniable talent and durability. Without Brady and/or Belichick, I think the wheels fall off the cart, but exactly when that happens, who knows? Certainly the general incompetence of the rest of the AFCE in this century hasn't hurt NE's "sustainability". Buffalo, Miami, and NY have too often been just too lousy of teams to do more than put up token resistance to the Pats -- or most other good teams. In some other divisions in both conferences, the teams regularly take turns beating the crap out of each other -- the AFCN and the NFCN where the division rivals regularly seem to go to war come to mind -- so that the teams in those divisions expend a lot of energy and often lose key players against divisional rivals that don't even make the playoffs.

Maybe you should follow your own advice.

The Bills are #9 on the NFL.com list, #10 on SI, and #11 on the ESPN list ... color me impressed. Did they even have power rankings the last time that the Bills looked like they could be serious playoffs contenders? By adding Benjamin, they've significantly improved the WRs who were easily their weakest link. It's enough to make even old skeptics like me begin to think maybe this might be the year.

Did you watch that travesty of a game against the Ravens? 40-0. That team seemed as disinterested in playing football as I've ever seen a team. Early in the season they got thumped ... their 20-0 loss ... and the announcers tried to pin on Cutler. Well, Cutler wasn't out there, and they played similarly ... only worse. I wouldn't be surprised if they lost out. I think that they've quit on Gase.

This is what I've said all along. The supposedly great 2018 QB class seems to be fading fast as more of the "stars" sink into mediocrity or are revealed as pretenders buoyed up by the talent surrounding them, so it's likely that there will be only 1 or 2 genuine top prospects, and that those will be long gone before the Bills get to pick. There's no guarantee that any of the teams at the top of the draft will be interested in trading away their picks, either. SF and Cleveland, the two most likely candidates for the top picks, have lots of needs. The Bills shouldn't waste a high draft pick on a QB just to draft one (although I think that's a definite possibility), but they should take one if there's one they think could make it as a pro. Maybe take a kid in the 2nd or 3rd with everything but height or size in general: both Russell Wilson and Kirk Cousins sank in the draft because of they weren't judged "tall enough" or "big enough". Drew Brees, a second rounder, is also relatively short.

Obviously, SF doesn't think that the 2018 QB class is all that much. Agreed. Before the collegiate football season starts, every draft class is "the greatest in a generation" except that it's only that generational class about once in a generation. Some really good QBs play as advertised but decide to stay in school. Some really good underclass QBs return as seniors and lose their sparkle. Most of the shiny new college QBs, even those drafted in the top half of the first round, are destined to be disappointments, and for those drafted in the bottom half of the first round or lower, probably 80-90% can't even rise to the level of competent backup. Garoppollo has already proven that he's a competent backup, so he's likely to be at least a decent starter, especially for a team with nowhere to go but up. If they're lucky, he could turn out as good Dalton, Tannehill or Cousins, which would make him a bargain.