Dr. Who

He competes.

You can't seriously believe Taylor is "at least" a top 10 qb.

Don't know if this came up at some point in this thread, but Joe Flacco had a QBR of 0.8 last week. Fifth worst in the last decade apparently; hard to imagine a lower QBR. Fella got hot at the right time his super bowl year and cashed in.

I only watched the first episode as the second was on CBS All Access or some such. Personally, I liked it, though there may be some contrasting reaction to my strong dislike for the recent Orville show. Unfortunately, the venue means I won't be watching future episodes.

I think this is the correct assessment. I hope Peterman develops to the point where we can see him play towards the end of the season. Still expect and want a 2018 first round pick devoted to trying to secure a franchise qb.

The former Colts' GM criminally failed to improve the O-line.

I've been a fan since the days of Dennis Shaw, so I consider that I've paid my dues and can root for whatever plan I think most likely to produce a Buffalo Superbowl win while I am still alive. Ironically, I also have had to continue my affection for the team in spite of many fellow fans on internet message boards. I liked it before modern technology revealed how often I find my fellows to be ignorant, rude, and disagreeable. In any event, we need a franchise qb and it is unlikely another mediocre year will yield a good opportunity to get one. I am not opposed to one very bad year if it results in many good ones. I'd like to hear the rationale for how 7-9 or 8-8 is going to help the team achieve excellence going forward. If you think we are better than that, you make Pollyanna appear a pessimist.

I also prefer your alternate reality. Whaley made considerable mistakes, but he was much better than his reputation with most Bills' fans today. Anyway, Mahomes and Watkins sounds a lot better than our current roster. Next year, in addition to the obvious bad teams needing qbs, I think you can throw in the Vikings, Giants, and Cards as teams that will be looking at qb early. We threw two birds in hand away for chances that may have to be packaged just to get a qb with Mahomes potential and lots of holes to fill. If we end up with a solid franchise qb and some good young pieces, the gamble will retrospectively be judged wise. At this point, it's anything but a foregone conclusion.

Agree, though Goff also has a young head coach who is supposedly a qb whisperer. In addition to the suspect decisions at wr, letting Kromer go in favor of Castillo does not appear sound. Dennison has yet to show that he is a good hire, though he doesn't have a lot to work with.

I agree, but I believe qb is the larger need all the same.

Counting on a qb to be available at #43 seems ridiculously implausible if one expects such to be a future franchise qb. Who knows if Falk would be there and why gamble at the most important position for NFL success? I sure hope if MajBobby is correct in his surmise, we are picking one of the top three qbs chosen.

Darnold and Rosen are probably gone before we pick and qb needy teams aren't going to trade out. I hope they both enter the draft, because that allows other qb talent to fall. Best hope would be for the Bears to somehow be top two awful this year which would make for a plausible trade partner. Otherwise, Rudolph looks the best of the rest so far, though he has a lot of receiving talent that makes him look good.

Yeah, I would be surprised and disappointed if qb isn't addressed first.

I end up going to the college football forum to see significant discussion of the Bills' qb future. I am thinking the third best rated college qb is what is reasonably going to be available. The Jets are going to get Darnold and someone equally terrible will get Rosen. The only wildcard is if Chicago ends up with a top two pick. We have the ammo to deal with them, but if qb needy teams are 1-2, they aren't trading out. So I am watching a lot of Oklahoma State at the moment.

I think the top ten hated is somehow a corrolary to the front-runner syndrome noted by my colleague, Dr. Fong. There can't be any rationale other than a team with a long record of losing/mediocrity. It's very probable if the team were to start winning, it would be less reviled. Regardless, it's not an appealing aspect of American culture, imo. Addendum: I had not considered NoSaint's view that Buffalo is somehow equated with drunken louts. That's not my view, but I suppose it might be a popular image.

I was bored for the most part and found the humor sophomoric and unfunny most of the time. I did like Galaxy Quest, but I am probably not the target audience as I prefer Star Trek "serious" to parody. I do think emphasizing flaws and real life problems potentially creates more well-rounded characters. It's true one has to give a show a while to find its feet. First season of Star Trek Next Generation is laughably bad.

LOL. Also can't see the middle of the field. Buffalo sports Fun for masochists Promotes gallows humor

Plus one.

I am a skeptic on Taylor, but I am rooting for him and hope I am pleasantly surprised. I certainly expect Taylor will look significantly better than the pre-season. Still feel bad he doesn't have Sammy to throw to.

I don't understand it, either.

Nice Tolstoy allusion, but I actually thing the truth is otherwise.

I remember before the draft, Bill Polian was hyping OBJ. Still think Sammy can have a great career if he stays healthy and has a decent qb.

Trading Sammy and keeping Ducasse are the moves that irritate me the most. I have no idea if this regime will succeed, but I'm pretty sure it will all come down to whether they end up with a franchise qb or not. The rest of the team matters, of course, but qb is the engine for long term playoff success.

If they drop Yates to do it, fine.

I foresee a long year ahead and this topic will keep cropping up in the main forum. Can't say I am confident in the new regime. Cannot fathom the logic of much of their decision making, but hopefully it works out.