2003Contenders

Very reasonable observations. Add also, though, that bringing in a viable veteran alternative would in all likelihood cost north of the $18 mil that Tyrod would have received PLUS the $8.64 mil dead cap for releasing him. I honestly do not think what happens in the playoffs will make much difference. The book (both good and bad) is out on Tyrod. While it would be great to see him play out of his mind in the post-season, nothing he has done historically would indicate that is likely to be the case. (Fingers crossed that he does!) That said, his leadership, occasional big play, mobility and ability to protect the football (as we have seen) can be enough to win the obligatory 9-10 games to contend for a playoff spot each year. I am not going to over-analyze the fact that McD did bench Tyrod against the Chargers. While it certainly indicates that he was hoping to catch lightening in the bottle and explore the potential of an immediate upgrade at the position, we would be remiss if we overlooked the fact that his re-inserting Tyrod into the lineup salvaged the season. My suspicion is that OBD views the situation like many of us: Taylor is not a franchise QB, the team would love to find an upgrade -- but the grass isn't always greener on the other side. The Bills have something this year in the off-season that they have not had in the past: draft capital. They have the ammunition to move up if they really want to grab one of the top-rated QBs. Conversely, they could sit tight and use the two first rounders and two second round draft picks to hopefully fortify multiple positions (possibly including the QB position). While the team would certainly be better with a true franchise QB, they would also be better with help at OL, LB, DL, and other positions as well. We will have to trust the scouts and coaches to do what makes the most sense for the team as a whole over the long haul. But that is getting WAY ahead of ourselves. After all, there is a playoff game to play on Sunday!

Not going to beat up on the OP too much. He clearly suffers from a form of Bills Fan Syndrome, which is similar to Stockholm Syndrome. That is, so much has gone wrong these last 17 years that it is almost impossible to see anything that happens for this team in a positive light. Heck, many of us are probably still in denial: 1. Were the Bills really able to hold on for dear life after Miami recovered that on sides kick? 2. Did Dalton really throw that TD pass with about 40 seconds to go? 3. Was the Cinci defense really able to prevent Flacco and the Ravens from answering back? 4. Were the tie-breaker scenarios for all the 9-7 teams correct to REALLY allow the Bills to get in?

Lattimore gets in, but Tre White doesn't. Probably a sign of how the DROY voting will go. :-(

Honestly, the defense played pretty well when we played the Pats a few weeks ago. They limited Brady and kept him from having a big game. While Gronk had numerous catches and piled up yardage last time, he was not a back-breaker. The problem in that game was the 3-and-out offense. If the D plays well again, and the Bills' offense can be as productive as it was in the first half against Miami yesterday, an upset victory is not out of the question.

Andrew Siciliano explained it on the Red Zone channel today. The common opponent situation does not apply to the Ravens-Bills because that tie-breaker requires a minimum of 4 common opponents, which the two do not yet share. So at the moment it goes to the next tie-breaker, which the Bills have the advantage. So for now, the Bills have the 6 seed over Baltimore. However... that common opponent tie breaker will kick in with these final two games. So if both the Bills and Ravens win out, the Ravens would leap-frog them with a better record against common opponents.

As McD said there were multiple variables to consider: -- The severe weather conditions -- The impact of going for it on 4th down and NOT making it -- Having an emergency QB behind center -- The fact that the Colts were (I believe) 3 of 16 on 3rd down for the game -- The opposing QB was J. Brissett (and not Andrew Luck, for example) -- The fact that other than the game tying, 10-minute drive, the Colts offense had been unable to move the ball all game long -- Tendencies that Chuck P. and the rest of the opposing staff presented -- Chances of the Colts driving the distance of the field to win (or even converting multiple first downs to secure a tie) versus chances of the defense to stop them and get the ball back And more...

Seriously? You do not think that on such an important play it made sense to call a timeout to review all of the variables in place? I disagreed with the decision to punt there, but the fact that a timeout was called and the coaching staff debated the prudence of the decision to punt at least verifies that the decision was not a knee-jerk one or one that was made without ample thought/discussion.

Or, given the severe weather conditions, the coaches/training staff elected to avoid the strong possibility of aggravating the injury by sitting him.

I am amazed at the angst that I see from some posters here. I have to admit that I disagreed with the decision at the time as well. However, in the end, the decision did work out for the team and they came away with a win! Perhaps statistically speaking the decision was not the one that SHOULD have been made (as I said, I disagreed as well) -- but after weighing the options this is the choice that McD and the coaching staff chose. Remember, they took a timeout to discuss it as well. I was certain that when the timeout was called that we would see the punting team come off the field and the offense go back out. However, that is not what happened. Given the extra time to consider, the decision was a calculated one where discussions about the weather conditions, game flow, having an emergency QB behind center, various possible scenarios/outcomes, and what was at stake were all debated. In the end, the ultimate outcome was a favorable one, which means that the decision to punt was not "gutless".

Agree 100%. Recall that coming out of college many thought Glenn was best suited to play RT or guard anyway. That said, I would still like to see 1-2 offensive linemen drafted in the mid rounds.

Bills players, take note. Someone needs to do this to Gronk in a few weeks...

Your point is well taken. As I said, Marrone probably was "right" about most of the things with which he and Whaley disagreed (EJ, decision to trade up for Watkins, etc.) Still, Marrone's inability to play well with others proved to be counter-productive. The reported "St. Doug" references also betrayed a notion that Marrone felt that he was the ONLY reason that the team had any success -- not the players, scouts, GM, etc. Whaley was far from perfect, but not everything he did was bad. Still, the poor relationship between GM and head coach was a two-way street -- and there is enough blame for both Marrone and Whaley for not working better together. Also, the Mularkey situation was very different. Ralph and Marv clearly wanted to bring in another guy and instead of firing Mularkey (and paying for his remaining years on the contract), they imposed enough mandates/restrictions on him to provoke him to resign.

It is hard to say. Marrone deserves credit for creating a more disciplined environment and for hiring well-qualified and effective defensive coordinators. But he also had an abrasive personality and could not get along with anyone else in the front office. While he may have been right (especially regarding the QB position), he was just so snarky... He is doing well with the Jags because he and Coughlin are of a like-mind, and the team (loaded defense) has played well. But, minus a string of winning seasons, his act in Jacksonville will eventually get old too. He's just not a likeable fellow. Honestly, I am not sure that the Bills would have been any better in 2015 than Rex's 8-8 had Marrone stayed. Don't get me wrong, I know that the Rex hire was a huge mistake, and I realize that he ruined an outstanding defense. But recall that Orton had announced his retirement, and the de facto starter would have been EJ. Rex was the one who brought in Tyrod, so it unlikely that Tyrod plays for the Bills in 2015 if Marrone is still on board. Recall also that the veteran that the Bills brought in that year was Matt Cassel. So even though the defense would have been better with Schwartz still at the helm, the offense probably would not have been as good with EJ/Cassel/Hackett running the show. Finally, the elephant in the room is that Marrone was self-serving. The Bills had been eliminated from the playoffs headed into that final game of the season -- and the Patriots were resting many of their starters. EJ remained a huge question mark -- and there was already a sense that Orton would not be back in 2015. Marrone was trying to brush up on his resume by winning a meaningless game (to get the record over .500 and claim a big road "win" over New England, the first in 14 years) rather than get a good look at players like Manuel. Marrone already knew he was going to cash in on that out-clause in the contract, and he also knew that Rex was about to get fired from the Jets (his dream job). Essentially, after demanding loyalty, etc. from his players all season, Marrone quit on them when he had a chance. Other teams (including the Jets) saw this too, which is why it took him a couple of years to get another job.

Agreed. I thought Dennison did a much better job yesterday -- especially on that first drive. When you have a QB that cannot execute on a consistent basis, it makes it hard on the play-caller. That said, I expect an upgrade at BOTH OC and QB next season.

I don't know. The more I look into the guy, the more I like him. He may be cocky, but I do not see that as "bad character" To me he is the anti-Johnny Football. Mayfield has had to earn everything he's ever received -- so no sense of entitlement here. He is also poised and plays VERY well under pressure: https://www.diehards.com/oklahoma/baker-mayfield-pro-football-focus-oklahoma-sooners-2

Not only was Jefferson clearly out of bounds, but the ball was clearly behind the 1st down marker on that 4th down pass. Should have been Bills' ball there EVEN if you believe that he would have come down in bounds.

For a frame of reference, in 2016 the Eagles moved up from 8 to 2 (to take Wentz) by making the following trade with Cleveland: Philly gave up: #8 overall [2016] 3rd rounder (#77 overall) [2016] 4th rounder (#100 overall) [2016] the following year's first round pick [2017] third round pick in 2018 Cleveland gave up: #2 pick overall following year's 4th rounder [2017] That is a lot of picks to move up for a single player -- but the Bills do have the ammunition (if either Cleveland or the NY Giants are willing to make the move) to hypothetically acquire Rosen/Darnold.

The draft value chart is only a guide -- not necessarily written in stone. What really matters is finding a trading partner that is willing to make the trade down -- and what players are on the board at the time. It may be hard to find a team picking early in the top 10 that is willing to move all the way back to the 20s and lose out on a blue chip prospect. Also, when the move is universally known as an attempt to acquire a QB, the value goes up. Just look at what the Chargers gave up to move up one spot for Ryan Leaf (doh!) back in 1998 or what the Giants gave up to move from 4 to 1 in the Eli Manning-Philip Rivers swap. Meanwhile, it cost "just" a future 1st and 4th to move up from 9 to 4 to get Sammy Watkins. Still, I think it can be done if we can find a team willing to move down in the 1st round. Such a move may actually require making multiple moves, though. That is, a move from the 20s up to around 10, followed by a second trade up to get where we need to be to acquire the QB of choice. Just last year the Chiefs moved up from roughly the same spot by giving us last year's #3 and this year's #1. Most teams view a future #1 as roughly equal to the current year's #2. So a similar move (one of the firsts, one of the seconds and our remaining third) from either our own #1 or the one we acquired from KC could get us to 10 as I suggested. That would still provide us with two firsts to move into the top 5 (maybe as high as 1-2) to select a QB. Question is: Would the front office be willing to give up both firsts, one of our seconds and our third to acquire the QB? If they believe the kid is a legitimate franchise QB you would have to think so.

I would draw up a similar defense to what we saw last week against the Chiefs. That is, squat on the underneath stuff and TACKLE. The defense did manage to get some pressure on Alex Smith, but it was mostly with the front four. Humber blitzed several times but failed to get there. If that happens against Brady, he will kill us. You have to figure that the Pats' game plan is to always take away the opposing team's top weapon. That would be Shady McCoy for us, so expect 8-9 man boxes with spies intent on keeping Tyrod in the pocket. One way to combat that would be to spread the field with multiple receiver packages rather than the lame 2 WR patterns we saw last week. I know we do not have much depth at WR, but it may not be such a bad idea to regularly split Shady out wide (and maybe Cadet too). The potential is there for Clay/O'Leary to have strong games. Tyrod will have opportunities down the field, if he can put on his big boy pants and play like a real NFL QB. The biggest thing: the Patriots -- including Brady and Bill B -- are NOT invincible. I think too many of the our coaches over the last 17 years have allowed Bill to get in their heads. So they do foolish things trying to "outsmart" him. I think if the defense plays as well as it did last week -- and the offense sustains drives (which they can, as the Pats' defense is not all that great) -- then the Bills have a chance at home.

McD strikes me as being a very calculating thinker -- one who does not rush into judgement. Recall that the week he made the switch to Peterman, his initial reaction was to stick with Tyrod. A couple of days later he made the decision to try Peterman. After Peterman's melt-down, he was non-committal about the starter (even implying that he would ride it out with Peterman) before turning back to Tyrod days later. The deliberation has caused the media to cast aspersions on his decision-making -- accusing him of not knowing what he is doing. Fair enough. But the QB situation has never been as cut-and-dry as many would make it out to be. Recall that the Bills reluctantly chose to bring Taylor back in the off-season, largely because there simply were no better veteran options available for the same price/value. Taylor is what he is. By now, we all know that he is not often going to win many games that devolve into shootouts. That's just not his game. When the Bills are forced to go into pass-mode, defenses know how to protect against that when Taylor is under center. This explains why he is able to put up decent garbage-time stats when games are out-of-hand, but he is rarely able to lead the team on a comeback drive late. That said, depending on the environment in place, Tyrod could be a VERY successful QB. An example would be Jacksonville. They have a great defense and strong running game -- and are 7-4 even with Blake Bortles occasionally losing (or trying hard to lose) games for them. Placed on a team like that, Taylor would be a head coach's dream: managing the game, rarely turning the ball over and making those 3-4 plays that allow the team to pull out 13-10 type victories. The problem is that the Bills are not built like that. At least not right now. Early in the season when the defense was shutting opponents down (and raking in all those turnovers), that mirage did indeed appear like the team WAS built that way. So Taylor did a nice job managing those games and getting us to a 5-2 record. After the Jets and Saints fiascos, I think it dawned on the coaching staff that the defense was not good enough to keep us in games coupled with Taylor's conservative playing style. Since repairing the entire defense is a far greater task than replacing a single player, McD took (as he called it) a "calculated risk" in starting Peterman. Obviously the call back-fired because Peterman proved he was not (and may never be) ready for prime time. I know also that McD has been under heavy scrutiny due to the timing of his decision. I understood (and still understand) his level of thinking: San Diego's offense had been on a hot streak, and the game looked to be one in which a shootout scenario was highly likely. Also, the Chargers' defense was going to be well-prepared to defend Taylor, given Lynn's strong familiarity with him. Since the stadium conditions in "LA" are not especially daunting to opposing teams, it was deemed a reasonable situation to start the rookie on the road. Bottom line: contrary to the spin of the national press, McD's intention was not to tank the rest of the season by going with the rookie. He simply did not believe that the Bills could win that particular game with Taylor at QB -- and wanted to see what the rookie (who had looked pretty good in garbage-time action the week before) could bring to the table. He was also hoping to see a large enough sample size on Peterman to help in making a decision about whether or not to pursue a QB early in the 2018 draft. The "calculated risk" blew up big time also because -- worse than the results on the field-- McD failed to calculate the effect it would have in the locker room. Or the media backlash. Some would paint his decision to go back to Taylor as wish-washy. I actually give him credit for realizing he made a mistake, consulting the team's leaders, coming to the conclusion that the playoffs are still within reach, and determining that Tyrod Taylor represents the best chance to get there. He is a rookie head coach, after all, and to me it is refreshing that he is flexible as opposed to being stubborn to the Gregg Williams degree. Time will tell, of course. Getting back to the team's long-term view on Tyrod... It is pretty clear that he is not in the long-term plans. If the coaches did not see enough of Peterman in the San Diego game -- and haven't yet in practice -- then I suspect that they will put him back out on the field later this season if/when the Bills are officially eliminated from playoff contention. (Two more losses probably does the trick.) Then at least they will be armed with concrete evidence about whether or not he could potentially be the long-term answer. Marrone selfishly failed to do that at the end of the 2014 season once eliminated -- and went back to the well with Orton when EJ's eventual fate had yet to be decided. In the likely event that Peterman falls short of proving to be even a reliable bridge QB, the team will find themselves in the same situation that they were in last year. Even if they draft a QB early in the draft, they will probably not be in the position to trade up high enough to grab a blue chip prospect. That means bringing in another veteran (bridge) until the new QB is ready. And guess what? The Bills may once again be in the position of reluctantly choosing to bring Tyrod Taylor back as there again are unlikely to be better veteran options available for the same price/value. Depending on how the rest of the season plays out, that ship may be on the verge of sailing -- in which case we will be longing for the days in which Taylor was here to "manage" games.

The ref was late in throwing the flag too. At the time, I thought that maybe Gaines was arguing about whether or not the Chief player had gotten out of bounds or not and maybe got too heated (a la Jerry Hughes a few weeks ago). When I heard the ref's explanation I couldn't believe it. I also thought it was odd that McD did not make a bigger fuss over the bogus flag. Maybe he just wanted to avoid another 15-yard penalty.

First, since Tyrod did not start the first half and Peterman did, we have no way of knowing exactly what would have happened. That said, the overwhelming evidence suggests that the defense, which has been putrid for three games in a row now, would not have been any better -- regardless of whom was at QB. My guess is that the Bills still lose in lop-sided fashion against the Chargers (whom they never seem to be able to beat out on the West Coast) -- just maybe not quite as badly as they did with Peterman starting the 1st half. I will say that, once he did come in in the second half, Tyrod did look crisp and more decisive with the ball than we have seen him in recent weeks. We can hope that maybe the benching helped ignite a spark. The Bills are going to be big underdogs the next 2 weeks -- and if they lose both of those games (as expected) any slim hope for the playoffs will be gone. Tyrod needs to view this as playing with "house money". That is, go out and play with a little more of a nothing-to-lose, gunslinger attitude.

Bingo! The problem, of course, was the contract that had the foolish buy-out language that allowed Marrone to unilaterally make that decision! Still, aside from believing that the Jets would likely hire him, the real reason he left is because of a poor relationship with Whaley -- who tried to force EJ down his throat and then double-down by trading away the 1st rounder in 2015 to move up to get Sammy in 2014. Marrone had his quirks certainly, including placing too much faith in Hackett and an inability to work well with others. But he also had the team very disciplined -- and did a nice job hiring defensive coordinators (and allowed them to work independently). I think if the fornt office had chosen to give him the control he wanted -- essentially sided with him over Whaley -- then he probably would have stayed. For Whaley's part, if he had had his way then we would have had Hue Jackson over Rex (not sure that would have been any better; although Hue was reportedly willing to retain Schwartz at DC) and Lynn over McDermott.

I am not sure why any Bills fan would even worry about what these national media talking-heads have to say about the Bills. They know less about our team than most of us.

If you look closely at the WRs that the new regime has acquired (most emphatically KB), they are all big receivers that fit the West Coast offense style. Given that Taylor is probably the worst fit imaginable for such an offense -- which requires quick reads and the ball coming out of the QB's hand quickly -- it would seem to me that Taylor has been here on borrowed time since McD and Beane took over, regardless of what they say. Meanwhile, Peterman would seem to be a better fit for such an offense. Of course, we will never know if we do not see more live-game action from him. Like or not, the coaching staff opened the genie's bottle by trotting Peterman out there yesterday. I would seriously hope that they would be open to making the switch by halftime Sunday if Taylor struggles again. Let Peterman play the season out, so we know whether he really is just destined to be a career backup -- or something special. That will also affect plans for the 2018 draft. Wouldn't it be nice, after all, if Peterman DID turn out to be a decent NFL starter and we could turn our attention toward fortifying the offensive and defensive lines (as well as other areas) instead of using all that draft currency to trade up to draft another crap-shoot at QB?