Dr. Who

I am going to reiterate something I said earlier in this thread. Apart from Sammy's injuries, one also needs to take into account the puzzling inability of the OC to target Watkins anywhere close to the number of times elite wrs are generally targeted. I don't know if that is a function of deficiency at qb or some other reason, but I do believe that Watkins' numbers would have been even better if we had a mentality less geared towards the run and a qb like Romo or Ryan, for instance. At minimum, one needs to include the context of offensive philosophy and quality of qb when evaluating Watkins as a player.

Our penchant for replacing cornerbacks every few years has rubbed off into a general neurosis.

I am not a medical doctor, so I'd like to know why this would be the case when other athletes have had the same issue and it was rectified (usually requiring a second surgery.)

On the other hand, Jones and Bryant have had good qbs and they were targeted commensurate with their talent. Those who are only looking at production rarely appear to factor in elements beyond a player's control that are likely to frustrate a talented wr.

I concur with some of the previous posters who believe one can call Watkins elite talent already. Sammy's injury often requires a second surgery. Afterwards, it is generally not a problem. I don't think that it is irrational to consider a healthy season a plausible possibility. I therefore do not conclude that past injuries are clear indicators of the future. I don't see how either view is other than conjecture based on probability. I certainly hope this post meets with your rhetorical requirements for awareness of gray areas.

If Sammy has debilitating injuries that one cannot effectively recover from, he will have no trade value. I see no reason to suspect such. You probably surmised, but just to be clear, I was being sarcastic. I am strongly in the keep Sammy camp.

If he puts up good numbers for two years in a row, maybe he decides staying in Buffalo is not a bad idea. Then again, I would have picked up his option.

This, but apparently he is injury prone and we can be sure he will never be healthy and stay on the field.

You get that they could franchise him? Dumb idea -- and for a second. All this based on a rumor from a rugby site. If true, I lose all my cautious optimism that this new front office might have a clue.

Really quality hires. I am hopeful we are getting this right.

Whaley obviously is not good at public speaking and it appears he was not good at political intrigue, but he was pretty good at identifying talent and left with class. The hypothetical you propose could not have been worse than bloviating Rex and I surmise it could have been an effective coaching regime. We'll never know, but the folks who gratuitously bring DW up at every opportunity to continue to bash him certainly do not exhibit a shred of class.

As Bond, Moore was always winking at the camera with a kind of smirking incredulity. One suspects he enjoyed playing Ffolkes, an eccentric character that is a kind of anti-Bond hero. An underrated film and one of my favorites.

Doug Whaley is a good fella and he did a reasonably good job with lots of coaching turmoil and turnover. Best of luck to him in the future.

Usually, I think one has to be an established coach with a track record of success to get that kind of power. I suppose we were not in a position to get that kind of coach. I'm certainly rooting for it to end well.

I agree that one can only conjecture. I also assume Houston may have thought Romo was in play for quite a while, but maybe not. Either way, however strong or weak Taylor's hand was, he is the starter for us. If he's better than I surmise, we have two first round picks to upgrade the roster.

What I have been opposed to was the seeming large amount of power McD has acquired without having ever coached a down as an NFL head coach. The hiring of Beane seemed like he might be a croney hire that will rubber stamp whatever The Bald Ginger wants. However, the revamped front office now looks to have a number of highly regarded individuals, so I have dialed back my skepticism. I hope we got it right and generally echo John C's views.

Racketmaster, I consider Denver and Houston considerably better than the Bills. It's not clear that either was interested in Taylor, is it? Preference to stay in Buffalo may include the more sanguine picture you suggest. It may also be that Taylor's options were not terribly good. He took a large paycut, did he not? It really doesn't matter at this point, however. He'll be given the opportunity to prove himself the long-term answer at qb. Imo, he will have to improve considerably or we will draft a qb high next year.

Nuanced, complex judgment involves being able to separate out individuals who perform well, even if as a whole one wants a fresh start.

There are a lot of variables for certain. My recollection is that rookie qbs used to sit on the bench and learn decades ago, but perhaps I am imagining that. Perhaps there has always been a gap between the college game and what a pro qb is asked to perform. I personally do not believe one should exclude taking a qb early if one doesn't think he can immediately step in and start. The new front office seems to be bringing in quality people. Hopefully they are good at evaluating qb.

A, B, and C cover three diverse possibilities. Scenario A assumes status quo as the default probability. It is framed as a hypothetical, so it is not presumptuous.

Aaron Rodgers turned out alright. I thought the consensus was that college is not generally preparing qbs for the pro game. I understand there may be reasons to throw someone in the deep end and let them learn that way. I don't see that it is the only possible strategy. Bridge qb idea means nothing if you're not willing to let a rookie sit and learn. So many folks seem to think franchise qb equals ready to play immediately. That seems very short-sighted to me.

The Pegulas appear to be getting out of the way and letting a braintrust of football guys captain the ship. So, until we hit an iceberg, I am cautiously optimistic.

I hope the process includes some innovative thinking along these lines. Supposedly we are revamping the scouting department from scratch, so there ought to be consideration for a qb expert.

Any chance any of these qb gurus who work with players are good scouts? If anybody were really this good, you'd think they already would be on someone's staff -- unless the position is just inherently very hard to predict.

I wonder if you could do that or if it would conflict with his ESPN contract. Ah, I posted before reading your comment. Okay, so I'm down to the old eight ball or John Gruden. Appreciate your thoughts.