Drunken Pygmy Goat

Don't get me wrong, I understand the decision. The staff wasn't sold on TT, evident by the restructure. The 2 previous games (2nd Jets & Saints iirc) were putrid performances by Taylor, but not Taylor alone. Both offensive and defensive lines were being pushed around like shopping carts all day, and the defense went from giving up yards but limiting points, to giving up yards and tons of points. There were plenty of people to point fingers at... But I'm not as focused on the decision to bench him and start NP, like the media was, and how the results could have kept the Bills out of the playoffs. The Bills needed to know what they might have in Peterman, with extra draft picks to utilize in the upcoming draft that could be used for a QB. It sent a message to Taylor, and he seemed to respond positively after Peterman was beched after the first half. My beef was more with how the coaches called that game with Peterman. You don't start a rookie QB and call the game as if he's a 5 year vet. Lean on the run, utilize draws to help negate the effectiveness of their DEs, and give him easier throws out of play action. Maybe that wouldn't have resulted in a win, but it would have allowed NP to settle down, and the game probably would have been much closer than it turned out to be. It was foolish, but McDermott was a rookie HC after all, and expecting him to not make any rookie mistakes is foolish as well. I'm sure that he learned from it. Btw, autocorrect on my phone is annoying. How the hell did "utilize" become "Ulrike" or whatever it was?

Yeah, if this is true, the coaches knew it back then, and would have acted appropriately. I do agree that Peterman wasn't completely at fault that day. A couple of those picks were horrible, but a couple I didn't blame him for. But regardless of whether or not benching Taylor was warranted, and the circumstances around giving Peterman a shot, McDermott and the coaches on offense deserve the heat they got for A: deciding to start a rookie QB against arguably the best pass rush in the league, and B. deciding to force Peterman to be Joe Montana in his first game instead of running the ball 75% of the time and allowing Peterman to get settled and utilize play action. That was a rookie coach mistake.

It's basically the Bills relaying a message from Bleacher Report about one guy's opinion on best fits for each QB. In the article, it does reference a quote from McDermott on his familiarity with those type of QBs, the positive and negatives (McNabb, Newton, Taylor). @Alphadawg7 said it best.

We all know about your endless Tyrod crusades, but tell us exactly how Jackson compares, as a passer.

Interesting perspective, and probably not far off. I highly doubt drafting Jackson at 12 is plan A, but it's certainly a possibility, depending on how the draft shakes out. But this is the time of year that a team in the position that the Bills are in wants this kind of speculation put out there. Keep as many people guessing as possible, about as many things as possible.

I mean, I kind of read it as a jab. Not based on the context (which is easily lost on the internet), but based on the mood of the conversation between the two of them. The only other way to interpret that would be that thurmanator is a woman, and that Rosen is gay. Not that it matters, and going off topic; just giving my perspective on that.

It was the "girlfriend/boyfriend" comment that he is referring to.

I don't know what's worse, your poor comprehension skills, or your terrible spell check awareness.

I was going to say the same. He's always seemed like a good guy, stays quiet, out of trouble. Pretty much exactly what McDermott looks for in a player, as far as character. He was a 2nd round pick, so it's not like he didn't have money prior to his extension. I think, if anything, his ankle didn't "check out", and the Bills got lucky enough to find a cheaper, younger, healthier replacement.

I think it's important to remember that it was his first year as HC. That decision could have but him in the butt, but it didn't. There were a few questionable decisions last year, but that one was probably the most questionble. BTW, it's March 2018

Wasn't it pushed back to May last year or the year before? And who doesn't enjoy cat videos? Great way to lighten the mood.

Yep. Reading some of the posts here, you would think many people are new to how the draft, and the lead up to it, works. Teams say all kinds of things, or let out certain "leaks", but there's a reason for that...Thing is, sometimes they're true, but no one believes it due to the nature of this stuff. Come on draft day!

Exactly, although I would say that today's scouts may have more resources at their disposal to make a better determination than they had 30 years ago. There's all kinds of technological metrics that can be used today that didn't exist back then. How much they use, and how much emphasis is put on those metrics is unknown to us, but they're there. Things like velocity, lbs. of force, etc. In the end though, I would say that the tape and "eye test" still matters far more than those things, but it doesn't hurt to have a computerized visual detail of a QB's throwing motion, arm speed, and things of that nature.

***TL; DR version: The Bills are in a good position, and should move up for a top QB prospect, but nothing is guaranteed.*** I've been posting this picture in Facebook posts for a couple of weeks now, as a counter to the "stay put, fill the roster, and wait for a QB" people. It's a good way to put things into perspective, but as always, numbers don't lie, but they don't always tell the full truth either. There's several factors that can play a role in those statistics. As with all averages, there's outliers on both ends of the spectrum. The numbers are telling, but they do not go in depth into each individual case. Football is still a team game. Many of those QBs may not have had a good team around them, hindering their success. Several QBs have had their careers hindered by a GM that did not do a good job of building the team around them. Coaching plays a role. Injuries play a role. Most teams that have drafted QBs in the top 5 are drafting there because their team sucked the previous year. Sometimes it's a lack of talent issue, and sometimes it's a poor FO structure issue. Some teams get those corrected after 2-3 years, some don't. The teams that have traded up into the top 5 for the QB haven't always had a good roster already, and some have. Some of those teams had extra draft capital to afford them the ability to still build a better roster, some haven't. Some of those teams with extra or few draft assets already had a good roster, some didn't. Not every QB draft class is created equal. Example: the Bills drafted EJ Manuel in the middle of the first round in 2013. It was clearly a reach (even more evident in retrospect), but they needed a QB after not re-signing Fitz. Kolb wasn't going to be the savior, but was considered a decent bridge to allow Manuel to sit and learn. That plan obviously was thwarted by a rubber mat, and Manuel was thrust into action, perhaps well before the staff would have liked. No one knows for sure (although I know what most will say), but it's possible that his career could have been at least a little more successful had he been afforded time to sit and learn. But the point of using this example is that his situation is one that plays into those statistics, and there's been several other QBs that had similar situations that may have altered their careers, for better or worse. The main point of those statistics, however, is that most of the QBs drafted early aren't necessarily drafted there due to teams reaching. They're slotted to be drafted there based on their talent, and expected results. Guys like Levi Brown don't go early, because they're not expected to be any good. Guys like Goff and Wentz are, and are drafted at the top. But again, other factors play a role. Goff was considered by many to be a bust after his rookie season. Jeff Fisher isn't exactly considered to be a QB or offensive guru, though. A new, young, offensive minded coach comes in, and suddenly Goff is looking like the player the Rams thought they were getting. Bottom line, if the Bills want to increase their chances of landing a good QB, they'll need to move up. They might get lucky at 12, but the numbers show that the chances aren't nearly as good. "Might" and "lucky" aren't two words you want in the same sentence when you're a GM on a QB search. The good thing is that the Bills can afford to do so, while still having plenty of draft picks to have a normal draft this year and next. They have holes, but the roster isn't that far off. Their drafted QB won't be thrust into a terrible situation, be it this year, or after sitting behind AJ. His level of success comes down to a couple of factors, as opposed to many factors: how well will the team be built around him (especially in offense, in regards to stats, Pro Bowls, etc.), how well a defensive minded HC can allow his offense and OC to operate, and most important, that QB's actual talent. The data isn't comparing QBs from different eras based on individual statistics. Its simply breaking down the overall level of "success". It doesnt, however, show any details that may have played a role in those averages. The way I interpret it is simple: Its not an exact science, but you tend to get what you pay for.

#9. Reminds me of the Bills @ Pats a screw job in the late 90s. But it took a playoff game in 2017 to propose a rule change. End of regulation, or in overtime, it's a walk off TD. There's a crazy story about a guy that had a 10 game (iirc) parlay squandered that day, all because of the screw job, but more specifically, the rule to make the players kick the PAT or go for 2. Since the Bills "just gave it to them", the Pats went for the easy 2, which was the difference in the man covering the spread in the final game of the day/night. I'll try to find the link and edit in in... Edit: here's the link http://www.profootballweekly.com/lists/2017/11/29/c3eb88f0b74949878d62de0cfde99f2d/index.xml?page=1

I think Lawson would be of more value in a trade than Hughes. He's a former 1st round pick, mid 20s.

I never thought that they didn't at least call. You would think a good GM would at least pick up the phone, but maybe that says it all about the relationship between the two teams, or lack thereof. I have however been of the belief that the Giants would much rather make a trade with the Bills than the Jets for a potential franchise QB. They don't want the Jets to have a player that could turn that team around, making them the big dogs in NY.

I don't have an iPhone, but I see the same thing, only as the page is loading though. Could be a settings issue on your end???? I have a LG G Vista...far from the quality of an iPhone.

It was in the article. Over 50 grams in a soda can.

We'd definitely have flying cars by now

Absolutely! That monkey was more like a gorilla, and to finally shed that is essentially turning the page on a dreadful stretch. No longer will we see that picture of the Bills logo as the only team in all professional sports to not make the playoffs in this millenium. These players had no idea what this town is like when they produce a winning product, and not only did the fans show them how much it meant, they also put their money where their mouth is. Players take notice to that kind of thing.

Exactly. I don't believe Zay's arrest affects the draft much at all. It crossed my mind at first, but for only a second. WR was already a need, and we don't yet know how the Bills or the league will respond to his arrest. Beane and the Bills won't let one player alter their plan.

Totally agree. No question, that has been the plan, ever since Watkins and Darby were traded, and especially since Taylor and Glenn were traded. People will argue that the Bills should stay put, and use all those picks to fill the roster, often speaking as if it's an absolute guarantee that most, if not all will turn out to be starters or solid contributors. The problem with that is, even if they do pan out, many of those players will leave in free agency once their rookie deals are up for a "winning team", aka, team with a franchise QB, rendering that strategy ill advised, unless a franchise QB falls in the Bills' lap within the next 2-4 years.

Oh, sorry. I saw the thread title and thought it was. Either way, not exactly earth shattering reporting.