Dr. Who

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.

Well, despite the continual ribbing you get from some posters, I think your insight on qbs is good. I surmise you make a distinction between John Gruden on ESPN and off-camera? He seems to like pretty much everyone on his show.

Why can't we have scantily clad women playing drums?

SoTier, Sound description of the situation, but it leaves me wondering if there is any prescriptive advice hidden in the description. Or is it mainly a matter of chance? My view is that we likely do not have a franchise qb on the roster. I expect us to draft a qb early unless someone we have now unexpectedly emerges as a franchise qb. I surmise there must be some rational basis for determining which highly rated qbs in 2018 are more likely to achieve NFL success.

John Wayne always plays John Wayne. The screenplay for Bridges' film is stronger and he is one of the better actors of his era. I prefer the remake to the original. Wayne's best western is probably The Searchers.

Frustrating about Listenbee

This. The OP presupposes a false dichotomy. It also adds on a bunch of ridiculous aspersions because it isn't a serious proposal.

Please be wrong.

Right. Pro bowl does not mean what it used to. It isn't just smh befuddling that many Bills' fans are not sold on Taylor. He's not that good.

You would have to create two upper management jobs that were obvious promotions. I suppose its possible.