dave mcbride

Vis a vis Roman/Lynn: square peg and round hole.

That is mostly true, but I did add the qualifier "all else being equal." If a player is good (a big qualifier!), he will have multiple suitors willing to pay.

It makes sense to me. What he's saying is that because of how college offenses are run now, o-lineman and qbs come in woefully unprepared to operate in a pro-style offense. Smart coaches realize this and gameplan accordingly. The "traditional deficiencies" are substandard o-line play and weak quarterbacking beneath the elite tier, which is a product of all the spread offenses (which are very, very simple and succeed because of terrible secondary play at the college level).

Phenomenal piece. Thanks!!

Something I read in Tim Graham's piece this morning stuck with me. He was speaking with someone in the league office about the situation, and that source told him that Taylor was a very popular player among other players around the league. Judging from how he interacts with other players from opposing teams after games, the fond feelings for him in Baltimore, Richard Sherman's comments, and his own rep as a gamer among his own teammates, I suspect that this is 100 percent true. That gets me to my next point: the current treatment of Taylor -- a far superior player to Peterman -- only makes sense if the decision-makers have a long time horizon to work with. Despite what people think here, I am not at all convinced of that. The problem is that Buffalo has become an even bigger laughing stock than before, and this regime will struggle to attract good players all else being equal (i.e., they have other offers) NEXT YEAR. I can't imagine good players will want to come here for not only the obvious reasons, but because of the stink (in the players' minds at least) of the Taylor decision (remember, other players actually like him). Why is that important? Because of the decisions of McDermott and Beane, this team will go into the 2018 offseason as one of the least talented teams in the league. Their talent level after free agency opens will be HORRIBLE--and again, I expect them to struggle in attracting quality FAs. Because of that, 2-14 is a real possibility next season. Taking a team that collectively went.500 over the previous three seasons to 6-10 (where they'll end up if Peterman starts the rest of the way) to somewhere between 2-14/4-12 is not a good look. If this happens, all talk of a long term for the new regime will go out the window. The fans will be in an uproar. They may well get a third season, but they'll struggle to advance from a really bad record to a really good one. The Rams did it this year, but they're the exception. Most teams that are bad stay bad for a couple of seasons. I'd bet a large amount of money if this regime has three straight losing seasons, they will be out. It's the way of this franchise. Completely cratering next season will not be a good look either. Remember, they will walk into FA with one of the lowest levels of talent in the league. The only decent players who won't be over the hill are as follows: Hyde, White, Shady, and Zay Jones (who does look like he can play). I have no idea what'll happen with Benjamin. He has leg issues and will cost a lot to keep. They don't seem to be committed to Glenn either. Clay is alright, but has knee issues and is basically a JAG at the TE position. Better than some but not great. Poyer is alright too. None of the other players on the team are difference makers. Given that they really have to trade the farm to move up and get a qb (although they may not), their draft pick total will be average by the time of draft day. I'd expect them to have to trade their 2 #1s plus a #2 and, say, a 3rd next year to move up from the 9-10 spot to the #2 spot. Cleveland will take a qb.

Truth.

Yep - he was kinda lucky to not have a sixth int.

Re: Schwartz: the Eagles D is pretty dominating this year. First in the league against the run in both yardage and ypa.

He is quietly having a spectacular season this year. He was amazing before he broke his finger last year too. He's a very underrated franchise QB.

The Steelers went 15-1 in 2004, and Roethlisberger threw 17 TDs and 11 INTs.

He had 3 - 16/37 for 205 yards. He did have a rushing TD.

The issue for McDermott and Beane is that if this losing continues this season and they end up, say, 6-10, they are going to be set up to be terrible next year. They won't have an experienced QB, they'll have an exceptionally thin roster, and they'll really struggle to attract good free agents. Moreover, my guess is that we'll be starting fresh with a new OC. They could end up being very bad, and if they are, those two should worry about their jobs. They've put themselves in a bad situation with the talent desert that is this team, and I don't see how you can draft your way out of it quickly enough.

There needs to be a new Jersey Shore season centered around a character named "The Process." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Sorrentino

Hey - Peterman fumbled too! (He recovered it, however.)

The player council is a jury of 12 and I suspect the verdict will be unanimous.

But ... but ... spraying natural gas on the dumpster fire helps you blow it all up!

Good take. I absolutely agree.

Agreed. He will have lost me. More importantly, I suspect he will have lost the team. I mean, you have to at least try to win given the circumstances, and trotting out an average QB gives you a better chance than trotting out the garbage that is Peterman. He will be destroyed by the Chiefs active pass rush and its corners.

They're all bad. It's not like the Bills didn't play the Panthers tough. Anyway, all of these teams have suffered some horrible blowouts this year (Indy: 46-9, 46-18, 27-0). Miami has been destroyed a number of times and just lost a game to freaking Fitz. I'm not positive at all, btw; I just think some of these games are winnable because of turnovers, weather, etc. It ain't over. KC just lost to the Giants, who are *terrible*. I think KC will beat Buffalo with relative ease, but anything can happen.

Oh, I'm not optimistic at all. I expect defeat. Having said that, though, I'm one of those people who plays games hard to the end because a) you never know; b) it's the right thing to do; and c) the other competitors at the bottom of the pool are all deeply flawed too. For instance, I have no doubt in my mind that this year, Tyrod Taylor is a significantly better QB than Marcus Mariota. These mid-tier AFC teams are all weak. Ironically, the Chargers are the best of the lot and should probably be 7-3 if not for three collapses in the final seconds.

Agreed.

What? Why the insult? The Bills have three winnable games: Indy, who is terrible, and two against Miami, who is also terrible. Will they beat KC or NE? Probably not, but crazy turnovers and injuries can happen. Bad weather can happen and affect a game. All of the Bills' erstwhile competitors for the #6 spot are bad too. The Ravens are not good. KC just lost to the Giants, who are terrible. Yeah, sounds likely.

Um ... when you've a bad decision it's actually OK to waver. My god, this reads like someone who has ingested the contents of ten really crappy inspirational management books. Just cliche after cliche.

At 5-5 and with as solid a shot as any in a bad conference to get into the playoffs if they take care of business and go 4-2 the rest of the way, they need to play to win. Anything else is not acceptable. Starting Peterman can't be a serious possibility, right? We just witnessed arguably the worst performance by a QB in league history. He made Jeff Tuel look like Aaron Rodgers.

It's not balls to start Peterman again, it's flat out stupidity.