Rochesterfan

For me you have 1986: 4 Hits, 2 guys drafted in 3rd and 5th rounds that played 60 and 40 games respectively and then a bunch of 7th round or later that were not expected to play. If you only look at the 7 rounds I would say 4 hits, 2 so so players and a miss in the 7th - a bit different than your 7%. 1987: Every pick through the 7th round played a minimum of 35 games and 3 years in the NFL - plus he hit on 2 guys in the 9th and 11 th round that were successful. This was an amazing draft with good players drafted throughout - there were probowl players, depth players, and a fixture or two on the Super Bowl teams. There were only 2 guys drafted that made no real contribution and they were both after the 7th round. 1988: This is probably the worst draft, but they were all late round picks beacuse of the Bennett trade that eliminated many picks. Bennett makes the first round pick a huge success- even though you do not consider him here. Thomas was a great pick. The rest were nothing through 7 rounds, but then he hits on 3 guys after the 7th round and that is amazing. 3 guys that played above 95 games drawn in the 8th round or later tells you what you need to know - they had an eye for small school talent that was unmatched. To Continue: 1989: Another rough draft due to where the selections are - starting late 3rd round as you highest pick. To get any successful picks would be a win and he hits on 2 players that exceeded 100 games - that is pretty good. Beebe not only was good player here - he went on to play in additional Superbowls outside of Buffalo. He also has 2 plays that defined the Bills of that era - so by all accounts he was successful. There were also 2 7th rounders that both played 2 plus seasons and over 35 games - again those are not misses - that is pretty good for that draft position. 1990: 4 draft picks over 100 games played and 3 exceeded 150 games in the NFL. Pretty good once again. Even the first rd with Williams although not a success - was not a miss - he played over 6 seasons and 70 games and although it may not be with the success you want from a first rounder it is far from a bust. The real “misses” were 6th and 7th rounders - again these are not really misses as they are mostly fliers where you are hoping to get anything. 1991: He again hits 3 guys in the draft that played over 100 games in the NFL - not bad. His mid round picks 3rd - 6th were not great, but the Bills were pretty stacked at this point being in the middle of a Super Bowl run. I am not surprised some mid level guys did not stick. Overall - I will not give a percentage because it is objective, but in those 6 drafts he hit on 18 players that played over 100 NFL games in their career and several more that exceeded 60 games and 5 years in the league. He also found a number of diamonds in the rough with picks after the 7th round becoming successful. Finally looking at high picks - he pretty much hit on every first round pick except Williams and Williams did not flame out. 4 successful picks and one so-so pick and no busts to me is pretty good. His second round rate is similar with 4 successful picks and his worst being Roland Mitchell with 89 NFL games on his ledger - I could go successful or so-so, but not one miss in that group either - so you are looking at 8 or 9 major hits out of 10 picks in the first 2 rounds, plus he traded some 1st round picks to get Bennett in here - another Coup for Polian. I think his record and his league awards speak for themselves on how he was viewed as a GM and FO leader.

Then you are doing this wrong - they were drafted as depth/ST players and both exceeded 100 games in the NFL. Not only were both hits - they were wildly successful hits for their draft position. Throughout this process your hits and misses are inconsistent and the vast majority of the players are neither. A 5th round pick that plays 3 years as a back-up with no major plays to his credit is not a hit, but is also not a miss. He did what you would expect at that spot. I appreciate your effort - I just think your numbers for all 3 make no sense - you tried way to hard to make people misses - like Whitner or Pike that had significant careers including special teams and on other teams. Regimes change and guys that are drafted for one coach that is moved out, but the player is still successful after moving on - does not mean that the GM missed on the pick - the GM choose a successful guy - the team changed and that player continued success elsewhere. This is especially true of a guy like Polian that had more rounds and less ability to scout players. His drafting was well above his peers during that time based upon what and where he would draft.

Multiple ways - 1st having a guy that actually plays QB - so the film and practice show how to read and progress - how to take a proper drop. All of those things matters. The coaches teach, but having a guy that does it correctly makes the teaching easier and better. 2nd - TT has been benched each year because of poor play and injuries. Last year it became a race issue with him questioning how a non African American would be treated. This has the potential of splitting the locker room when it becomes time to move on again. You can not risk fracturing the team to continue to play a bridge QB. At some point you need to move on and be able to get some game experience for your rookie and if it is replacing a fresh face then it is easier. I don’t think competition is the issue - it is finding the right fit and the right player. TT does a lot of good things, but he is not a bridge or back-up level QB. The biggest complaint every year preseason has been: well he needs time with the receivers to gel. You do not get that as a back-up - you may need to come in a just start slinging the ball to guys. He also does very little in a standard way - his drops and progressions are not normal and his timing on throws is awful - therefore as a training or film study guy - he provides little for the coaching staff to use a teaching material. I think the band-aid analogy is great - it might hurt a bit short term, but long term it is for the best. Move on - trade him - sign someone else - whatever, but don’t become beholden to the replacement has to be better - the future has to be better - the replacement just needs to get you to the future and help that future grow as much as possible.

Just as a counter point - they also used analytics last year - went for a huge number of 4th downs and were under 50% and lost more games than they won. Analytics may help, but it still depends upon what you do on the field. Last year they did not convert 4th down plays at the same rate as this year. If their 4th down conversions had stayed near 40% this year they would not have won - the difference was not the analytics- it was the play.

I think it goes Minnesota- then Minnesota - followed closely by Minnesota. I do not think NYJ or Cleveland because both of those coaching staffs are ready to be fired with the least bit of struggle. I think Denver falls in that also - although Elway stabilizes the situation. I think if Minnesota decides not to pursue and I can’t see that - the Buffalo is two, Denver is three and the NYJ and Cleveland only because of money, but I think both want to draft QBs and that is stupid if you sign Cousins.

So you have complained throughout and changed your point as WEO has owned you several times and now you say you do not watch the NFL anymore - then how do you know what is going on. There are still good hard hitting defenses - just as in years past. There are good offenses, good teams with running games, teams with good front 7 and teams with good DB play. Has the league changed anger over the years - yes, but not as dramatically as your post wants to make it out. Overall scoring is about the same, but the players are much more athletic all over the field. The fact that scoring has not changed much, but we now have kickers that can make 60+ yard kicks on every team as opposed to a 40 yarder being a crap shoot means defenses are still making plays before offenses can get into scoring range. The addition of the 2 point play also has potential to add to scoring, but overall scoring has not changed. The increase in passing also lengthens the game - so overall the number of plays per game is up, but scoring has remained- which means that overall - defenses today are better than their counterparts from years ago. The rule changes overall have had little effect on the play. What does effect play is the changes the offensive and defensive coaches have made in game planning. Years ago the prolific offenses had deep outside passing games that accounted for lots of yards, but also a higher incompletion rate. The advent of the 49ers West Coast offense with tons of short passes changed the balance as to why QB numbers are up and passing become more prolific. Overall - I loved football in the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s, and today. Is it different - yes, but if you can not appreciate the greatness of today’s defenses that is on you. If defenses had not evolved and the rules had the impact you stated - then yeah the offense and scoring would be way up, but it is not.

The coaches teach - what do they use to teach? They use practice and game film and game planning sessions and if your #1 QB does not make correct reads and/or requires a unique offense to run or requires an entirely different set-up - that takes away from what you are going to be able to teach him. Everyone complained about the Bills not building an offense around TT, but if he is only a bridge you do not build around the bridge - you choose the scheme you want to run - you draft and acquire players to fit that - and that includes finding the developmental QB you want to grow in that system. If TT was the long term answer then by all means build an offense to fit him. The most important thing a young QB can learn is how to watch film and to understand the progressions and what to look for and the coaches can teach that, but if the game film does not show your starter doing those things - that is a detriment to his growth. Additionally- how awkward is it in the film study to watch TT make plays and the QB coach basically saying you need to key here and throw at this point when TT did something completely different and completed a pass later in the route. You are in a room teaching and ripping apart your stater at the same time. Sal from WGR was talking about this when he was saying why the offensive coaches were so frustrated with TT last year - they needed him to progress and at least attempt to follow the game plan, but when the real bullets fly in the game - he reverts to his old form just winging it, not following the flow of the game. The assumption is not that the QB #1 has to teach QB #2 anything - it is that QB#1 will do enough things correctly that the coaches can actually use the film and the practice time to show the Rookie what to read and why. If your QB #1 is so different and does not follow the basic tenets of the offense - you are now trying to teach without the ability to show things in real situations with your real personnel. It can be done, but it makes it harder and less effective. TT may or may not be back, but if he does come back and the Bills draft a tall in the pocket QB - I think having TT makes the transition harder rather than easier. If you are drafting a pocket passer - I would rather see a McCown type QB as the bridge - even if it is 2 years than see TT as the bridge. If you are drafting a Mayfield or Jackson with a bit more mobility and play making outside the pocket - then by all means keep TT and teach based upon his plays, but that does not seem to be what the GM and Coach say they want out of the position.

I agree 100% - TT would be a terrible bridge QB. To be effective you need to build a specific style and that is not what you want. You also need a bridge QB to help work with the younger QB and in the film room talk about what you are seeing and what you read and TT does not make the reads you want.

So so how do they do this. They have gone through multiple OC and multiple WR groups and TT best year was still near the bottom of the league in passing. Maybe they do not care if TT succeeds because he is not part of the long term vision and it would be nearly impossible to find a replacement that fits in with what TT does well.

I think the Eagles and Foles talk and together decide what they want to do. Obviously the Eagles think very highly of Foles and my guess is if he has a desire to try and start again - they will work out a trade. If Foles says he loves his role and wants to be in Philly for his teammates- they keep him around. It is a business first and foremost, but I think there are some coaches that care and listen and if a guy is a great teammate- they work things out to benefit both parties. Foles has shown himself to be a good leader and teammate and I think that is valuable- so if he wants a shot - especially if Reich takes the Indy job - maybe you make a trade and Indy uses their top pick for a QB and sells off Luck for future draft capital.

Problem is that is not PI at most that is illegal contact since the ball is not in the air at that point. They could of had an extra play, but I think it was a good no call.

Correct - that was not an error - that was good clock management. This is the issue and The Eagles did not take advantage and I thought they would. The stoppage just before means means any play gets to the 2 minute warning and you are not penalized for an incomplete pass. This play is missed by too many coaches weekly.

That is bull. If you watch the Benjamin play - he does not catch it cleanly in his hands and bring it to his body. The ball hits his hands (no control) and bounces toward his body. It is not until he secures it to his body with his left arm that he gains control. If he cleanly catches it with his hands it is a TD, but he does not. Looking at his toe at that point it is questionable whether it touches the ground or not once the ball is secured. The issue is deciding the exact moment of control. If you give him control the absolute very second it gets to his body the toe is maybe touching - if you extend that even a fraction of a second - it is not. I think they got the call right - it sucks, but it was a close play and if Benjamin just catches the ball it is easy, but he does not catch it cleanly.

I believe he checked with the ref and was considered ok - not illegal in that case. I don’t think there was any issue here. Agreed - I see the ball move, but it does not leave his possession. There is no true bobble or a period where the ball is out of contact. I thought it would be ok because you don’t see that look like he is fighting to keep control. The Benjamin non TD to me was because he first gets the ball in his hands, but in bringing it to his body there is a clear period of time the ball is not controlled and therefore required him to regain control which is the sticking point for the TD. Clement maintained control to me so they ruled it correctly as a TD. I thought the refs did a pretty good job all game getting those calls right.

It is not bashing him because he did not know -it is bashing because he complained it was not a catch as if he knew. If he had had said boy I am not sure - it seemed like a catch - there would be no issue. He kept on about it not being a catch. To me even if you did not rule him a runner - there was never a shot where the ball hit the ground - it bounced up from his hands and then he caught it on the fly again anyway. It was a TD every way, but CC was just dead wrong.

Agreed - exactly correct

In terms of QB play - Give me Bledsoe. He was by far the best QB we had. If we are truly looking at QB play - then Orton and maybe Fitz top TT. If you are looking at team offense then TT passes Fitz for sure and he and Orton sit close with TT probably moving to 2nd because he did it longer. TT has been the QB of some top scoring and higher DVOA offenses, but for 3 years with him at the helm - the offense goes as the running game goes. We had the top rushing attack 2 years out of 3 and the third year it was top 6. The passing attack which is what most QB are measured on has been bottom 5 on average throughout and bottom 3 twice. TT does have wins to his credit also. The real question is how you want to judge this position during the drought. There are many different ways and therefore many different opinions and each person can be looking at something different and get a different outcome. If I need a drive through the air late to win a game - Bledsoe and Orton come way before TT. If I have a lead and need to milk a 4th quarter - TT is better than the others because he does not make mistakes and can run. Fitz is perfect if you are looking for that late drive that ends in an Int. For me me out of the QB position - I want a guy that can throw the ball and make plays and TT has had plenty of talent - significantly more than Orton or Fitz- and has done less in the passing game therefore for me the order goes: Bledsoe, Orton, then TT and Fitz at 3 and 4. There are easy arguments to make to shift people up or down based upon your particular slant.

How about Gronk - post game thinking about retirement- that would be great.

I appreciate that and I have no issue with you coming on here to discuss things and you have been very professional in that approach. I do have an issue with you starting a thread linking your own pay content, but understand that also. I was a regular BN subscriber for years - I have stated my opinions on the writers there -I think they have issues with to many things from past experiences and it clouds what they write. You do provide the most content of any outlet around, but when ther are at least 4 writers that I can’t stand it makes the content much less. I have found other sources in both Rochester, Syracuse, and other websites with writers that I believe provide a better and more inclusive view point and that is where I go and that is for me. I have chosen where to spend my time and money -it is the same with Radio -I no longer listen to afternoon drive on WGR - Schoop and the Bulldog provide next to nothing, but I could listen to Sal for hours. Therefore I pick up national and Rochester talk which is less in depth, but overall a better experience. You are correct the customer is not always right and I appreciate you listening and just want to ensure you understand that I love having you on the board because you have a different perspective, but that was never my issue with this thread. I also do get Get that you have multiple interviews that turned into an article, but much like Race was only a small nuanced part of earlier articles - that and TT refusing a pay cut are what get messaged out because I believe that will drive more clicks than a link than saying we have an interview with TT coming up. It is not the main emphasis of the discussion, but it is what will catch readers eyes and that is the job to drive readership - the issue is then that is what gets discussed and people get angry. It it seems to be the nature of the modern world and that is ok as long as people on both sides understand the consequences.

Yes but saying he did not deserve any votes and if you think he deserved a vote you are a massive homer is wrong. It is not being a homer to think that he should have gotten a vote or two as part of the consideration - he did a heck of a job.

The issue is that this was being discussed in another thread - with the article already linked. The OP did not like the way that was going because once again the BN released a very poorly worded teaser tweet and that caused issues. Josh should not create a thread linking a pay article for his own company. That would be like cover1charging for his service and then linking his coverage - it should be against the terms of service. If someone else wants to link the article or if Josh wants to defend the writers that is fine, but do not link a pay article with no discussion- that is slimy. My biggest issue is this is not the first time a BN article has a teaser sent out that then Josh has to come and defend the coverage because the teaser makes it sound worse and does not meet the point of the article. The issue is they need to do either a better job of tweeting out teaser material or accept the criticisms that come with poorly worded tweets. It happened with the race article and with a McCoy article where the tweet made it sound like a major issue and Josh had to provide better contents to understand it better - to me that is a huge part of the problem - they send out click bait leads and then get upset when people have not read the article get mad. We saw it with Hap just a week or so ago. Maybe the BN needs to do a better job at the click bait or maybe they need some new writers that are not so cynical and already leave a bad taste in people’s mouths.

I would disagree with this - he did not deserve to be COY, but he deserved consideration. I personally think top 5 coach of year candidate for McDermott. I think they got got it right with McVay. I also think Minnesota, Jacksonville, Philadelphia- all should have gotten looks just like McD. Suggestioning he should get a vote or two is not being a homer - trying to argue he should have won may be. I thought the NFL got all of the picks right - no real surprises - wish Wentz had stayed healthy because I think he could of been MVP, but he didn’t.

I agree - the stuff I have seen have suggested the Browns were willing to trade for Smith and perhaps do a short term deal, but I do not think they wanted a 4 year extension (my opinion). The Browns are drafting a QB - that is why the new GM is there. They would not have given Smith that extension and waste 4 years of QB time at that cost - again my opinion. The Redskins were not in a place to get a top guy - so the four years for Smith makes more sense - play him and in a year or two draft a guy.

I am not sure I believe this. The league does not allow trades until the new year starts and Kirk Cousins at that point woul not be under contract. Alex Smith can happen because he still had a year left on his contract, but there are rules for guys that have been franchised. Unless there is a window that Washington could sign him before the start of the new year and then trade him afterwards - this seems phony. Even then there would be potential salary cap implications unless the contract is written specifically to prevent that with the trade - such as base pay to start the year - signing bonus after the trade.

Between this and the press conference thread - you have a ton of people just looking to make crap up and try to fit it in and throw blame everywhere. The Bills are trying to screw Eric Wood - or maybe if he retires before the start of the new season they do not have the cap space and would have to recoup. Maybe by waiting they can work together to make sure he gets what he needs. Maybe the conference was delayed to allow his agent and the NFLPA work with the team to find the best possible solution- it does not have to be nefarious. Maybe Gil Byrd was let go (similar to Dennison) because he was not the first choice and a guy that McD really wants became available. This is a business and sometimes in your initial hire you settle and good teams look to upgrade - it does not mean McD did not appreciate his staff and does not make them racist as some seem to suggest. Everyone calm down and let thing play out for a bit - still lots going.