Shaw66

I think the off-season that secures the Bills' future is to write the big check for Cousins. I haven't studied the cap situation, but on the assumption the Bills could find the room, I think that's the way to go. Why? Two part answer: 1. Looking for a QB in the draft is a crapshoot, even near the top of round 1. Teams have demonstrated for years that it simply isn't easy to identify the right guy in draft. So you're much better off if you can solve your QB problem another way and use your picks to build the rest of the team. That isn't easy to do, but if you can do it, you're way ahead of the game. That's what the Seahawks did - admittedly with a little luck, they solved their QB problem with Wilson in the third round. The result was that they had a lot of picks, in earlier years and for a year or two later, and they acquired a lot of cheap talent in the draft. So if the Bills can fill the QB slot without burning a lot of picks, that's the way to go. They have those five picks in the first three rounds, which means they can get a lot of good young talent to bolster the team at several positions. And, if they sign Cousins, they still can take a shot at a decent young QB in the draft where they see value. Maybe they'll get lucky and have a kid on the bench who can grow into the job and eventually take it from Cousins. 2. Why Cousins? Do I think he's a HOF QB? No. But I think you're playing a fool's game if your objective is to get a Hall of Fame QB. To do that, you have to pick at the top of the draft and then hope things work out, because the top of the draft is where Hall of Fame QBs come from. And if you tell me that there's Brady and Watson and Brees, then fine, my strategy plays right into that - pick a QB along the way when you see what you think is a good one. But in the meantime, you want to compete, and to compete you need a top 10 QB. I've said that for years. After Taylor's first year I said that if he'd keep playing at that level, he'd be the guy. Unfortunately, it's two years later and he hasn't played at the same level, he's dropped to the point where he's an average or below average QB in the league, and that isn't good enough. Cousins IS a top 10 QB. He's had three good seasons, altho 2017 fell off a bit. His passer rating comfortably averages in the top 10. He has good size. He seems smart and in control of the game. He sees and is willing to make the throws Taylor doesn't and isn't. Actually, in some ways he reminds me of Kelly. Not the best thrower, but good enough. Tough. Competitor. So pay him. Get him in Buffalo. It means you're not going after any other high priced free agents, because you won't have the cap room. But that's okay. Benjamin is the only who will be coming off a contract soon who will get a big contract. Watkins and Dareus are gone. McCoy won't get another huge deal. Load up on talent in the draft, and go to work. If you have Cousins on a six-year deal, you can draft an occasional QB. If you find one who looks like the guy, then you cut Cousins late in his contract and eat some cap room, if necessary to keep the youngster. And if somehow Cousins emerges into a true star, then you trade the youngster you drafted, like the Pats have done over and over again, and you ride Cousins for the next 8-10 years. Make me GM for a day and that's where I'm going.

I don't think the number is that low, but I think the concept is correct. Why don't I think the number is that low? Tom Brady. He's the luckiest athlete in the world. He had less than the perfect physical skill set - no serious size, mediocre arm, no foot speed. But he had brains, the right temperament, and he ended up with exactly the right coach for him. They were a perfect match. Anyplace, and he might have been a journeyman QB for 10 years, bouncing around the league, having a couple of good seasons. Instead, he grew with Belichick, he took in everything Belichick had to teach him, he work his butt off, and he became Tom Brady. Favre too. Wasn't the right fit in Atlanta, but in GB they nurtured him the right way, gave him some rope, and voila, HOF! So there probably are a few guys who don't make it because they just didn't land in the right place at the right time. Who are they? I don't know, because they didn't land in the right place at the right time and therefore didn't blossom. A guy like Blaine Gabbert, maybe. Give him a couple of years behind Peyton with a good coach, maybe. Heck, maybe Andy Dalton is two notches better playing for Andy Reed. Even EJ, in the right circumstances. Maybe Flacco. So I'd guess if there are 5-8 who are doing it, there may be as many as a half dozen more who are in the league but for whom the pieces didn't come together. And in any case, it's more than 5-8 IN THE WORLD. There are guys in MLB and the NBA and playing soccer at elite levels with the combination of natural abilities that would have made them excellent QBs, if their childhood focus had been football instead of some other sport. Take a guy like Chris Paul, watch the intelligence he plays with, the recognition and decisiveness. He could be a QB. I'm sure MLB has some. Derek Jeter, for example. These people are elite. That means there aren't many of them. If your thesis were true, given how many guys want to play in the NFL, the league would be full of them. The simple fact that there aren't a lot of these guys proves your thesis wrong. They're elite, they stand alone for a reason, and the reason is that they have a unique combination of natural abilities most don't have, they've worked hard, they were this sport and they got the right opportunities.

I'll be surprised if they go away from him, but not disappointed, because that will mean they're quite sure he can't do the job. I'd guess that the most likely reason they'd dump is if, as someone suggested earlier, the guy or guys McD really wanted are now available. I don't think that will happen because I believe that McD has studied and is a believer in all the truisms about team excellence, including the one about continuity. I haven't heard McD on the subject, but I would be amazed if he didn't think that continuity of scheme and coaching is critical to team success. I think that will make him reluctant to make a change unless he believes there's a clear and indisputable better choice out there. In other words, he won't fire the guy because he's concluded he can't do the job. He'll fire him if there's a clear upgrade available.

Gunner - Yours is the beginning of the analysis that makes me conclude that none of us knows whether Dennison should be replaced. I'm assuming you're correct that the fundamental problem with the offense this season was execution, not scheme, creativity, play-calling, etc. Now, I don't know that's true, but it's certainly one reasonable explanation for what was the most important problem. That then leads to the next question, the age-old question: Was the execution problem bad teaching and preparation (coaching responsibility) or players who for physical or mental reasons, or both, just don't get the job done? And if it's the latter, what did the coaches do to correct those problems? I don't know the answer to any of those questions, and I don't think we can answer the Dennison stays or goes question without knowing those kind of things. However, I DO think that at least some, and maybe a lot, of the problem is, as you say, execution. I'll focus on one example that I've wondered about for a year or two now, and I've actually started thinking I don't like the answer: How good is Eric Wood? It's seemed to me over the course of this season particularly that I've seen a lot of plays where Wood has not made the block, not gotten to the place he needed to be, just not been very effective. Beaten in pass protection, neutralized in the run game. It's bothered me for some time now. I've noticed during broadcasts of other games that replays show the center making the early double-team block on an inside run, then sliding to the next level and screening (or, even better, drilling) the linebacker or safety. It's obvious how important that play is to an inside running game. Atlanta has an All-Pro center, and when you watch him, you can see how valuable the guy in that position can be. I don't see Wood making that kind of play consistently and effectively. And I see him getting beat on pass plays. Let's say I'm correct in that analysis, and let's say there are two or three other offensive positions where the guys just isn't very effective. You mentioned Zay Jones, and he's a second obvious example of someone who played a lot and was less effective than a decent slot guy ought to be. If you're the OC and you have three or four guys underperforming and no amount of teaching and coaching makes them better, you're probably not the problem. And, of course, if no matter how much studying Tyrod does he doesn't make the decisions he needs to make fast enough or correctly enough, you're probably not the problem. I don't know the answer to any of these issues that relate to evaluation of the coaches and players. I have my opinions, others have theirs. But I distrust ALL of the opinions (mine included) because the professionals - McD and Beane and the people who work for them, have a lot more experience doing those evaluations and have a lot more information at their disposal. Bottom line: I don't think any of us knows, and I think McD and Beane probably do. I certainly hope they do. If they do, next season's team will be improved over this season; if they don't, the Bills stay mired where they've been.

Who would say such a thing? "Coach, why is A starting over B?" "Because B has studied for hours and hours and just doesn't get it." Nobody's going to make a public statement like that. They just demote the guy. Taylor is your case in point. As you point out, they say he studies a LOT. He's as serious about it as anyone would expect him to be. He doesn't seem to get it. He can make all the throws, he's mobile, and yet his pocket awareness isn't great and his decision making is suspect. When he loses his job, the Bills aren't going to say "he studied hard but he couldn't do it." They're going to say "Tyrod has been a great contributor to the organization and done some great things for us. We just decided we needed to move in another direction." You know that's what they'll say. As someone said, you can send me to medical as long as you want, but you aren't going to choose me to be your brain surgeon.

Those weren't his people. Big difference. McD brought Dennison to Buffalo and I don't think he will be quick to let him go.

By that measure the OC's of the bottom 10 offenses should be fired each year. That's flat out bad management, and any manager of a pro football team or a Fortune 500 complany will tell you that. May very well be on the OC. It's bad coaching to ask your players to do what they can't do. If Tyrod couldn't find the open receivers, it could mean the coaching was bad.

Meanie - Short answer: it simply isn't easy to do. For one thing, I've heard QBs say it takes four or five season ON THE FIELD before they really understood what the defense was doing. So after a while all that off-the-field study your positing doesn't matter, it doesn't advance the learning of the QB. You could study how to fly a plane for five years, but I'm not going up with you on your first solo flight. Learning to fly is an interesting comparison, because you CAN practice flying in a simulator. There are no QB simulators, at least not yet. Madden is on it's way to getting there, I suppose. Some teams put cameras on the QBs head, put him in a scrimmage, then review the film afterward. They can coach the guy about whether he's looking the right way, and looking fast enough. But that's a long way from real experience. You have to train your brain to recognize and process information quickly, and the information is always different, always changing. The pass rushers are coming from different places, depending on the defense and on who has missed his blocking assignment. The defenders are playing zone, or man or a little of each, some are free lancing. Oh, and the defense you're facing this week is different from the one you faced last week, and we know those week to week changes are important. Players started complaining this season about how difficult it is to play on Thursday night because there's no time to prepare for the game. On top of all that, it's simply a matter of brains. People don't all have the same level of computing power, and being an NFL QB requires some really high football IQ. Most people can't do it. Oh, and anothr thing is the ability to operate under pressure. Standing in the pocket is a highly pressurized environment, essentially standing in the middle of a battlefield while your comrades try to protect you the invading horde a couple of yards away. It's very well know that many people behave and perform less well in a threatening environment. Mistakes go way up under pressure like that. That's why the military drills and drills and drills, to try to minimize mistakes under pressure. But for the vast majority of military, they're drilling in something that is generally pretty simple and doesn't have nearly as many variables as an NFL QB faces. These guys have really speacialized, almost unique, skill sets. I don't think this is correct. Kids now are working like crazy in high school, trying to learn this stuff. There are plenty more guys with the dedication to the task that don't make it than there are guys that do. Eli grew up in the same environment Peyton did. Why isn't Eli as good?

So he never called plays. That means you're ready to give up him - you don't think he can't improve at that job in his second season? Bad at his job? Nobody here knows if he was good at his job or bad at his job. His job entails a lot of different things, most of which none of us ever sees. All we know is that the offense wasn't good this year, but there can be multiple reasons for that. McDermott is the only person really in position to know whether Dennison was good at his job and whether Dennison is capable of developing a consistently good offense. McDermott PREFERRED some other guys? How in the world do you know that? DId I miss the press conference where McD announced his top five candidates for the job? Now, for the sake of argument, if it's true that he preferred some other guys, I'll agree with you - McD should at least consider making a change. It would depend on how much better some other guy would be, in McD's opinion. But McD has to have at least some second thoughts about these guys you think he preferred, because if they're now available they've lost their previous jobs, so exactly how good are these guys he preferred? My real bottom line is that McDermott believes in the process, and the process is teaching and development. He fully understood that all that he's doing wouldn't take hold in the first season, that he will learn and grow from season one to season two, and his coaches and players will, too. If they aren't learning and growing, they'll go. I also think he's loyal; he expects his players to commit to one another, and I think he expects his coaches to commit to one another. He holds himself to that standard. So I don't see him pulling the plug on Dennison after a year because Dennison's learning process hasn't run it's course. McD believes, I'm sure, that it's his job to work with Dennison, tell him what he liked and didn't like and then work on improvements. The only way, in my mind, the McD cuts Dennison loose is if the guy was a total disappointment, couldn't do anything, bucked the system and was difficult to work with. I seriously doubt that's McD's view of year one. This is correct. McD has to have lost faith in Dennison. Would I be unhappy to see Dennison go? No, because that would mean that McD has concluded the guy can't do the job and needs someone better. I just doubt that McD missed his mark that badly when he hired the guy. Plus, there's a lot to be said about continuity. Let the oline play the same blocking schemes for a second season. Let the receivers work within the system they learned this year. Let Tyrod, if somehow he turns out to be the guy, have a second season in the system. One reason Belichick has succeeded is that he's run the same offense and the same defense since he's been there. There's great carryover from year to year.

What BS. Every time some part of the Bills didn't perform as well as some poster would like, the solution is to fire people. It's so ignorant. It demonstrates no understanding of how people and teams develop and progress. In 2000, BIll Belichick took over as HC of the Patriots. He hired Charlie Weis as his OC. That season the Pats finished 22 in yards and 25th in points in the league. Their record was 5-11. FIre him, right? Uh, no. The next season they were11-5, 19th in yards, 6th in points and won the Super Bowl. In his previous three seasons as OC of the Jets, Weis had one year when they were 4th in yards and 5th in points. The other two seasons they were 22 and 25 and in yards and 12 and 109 in points. Dennison had been an OC in the NFL for 6 seasons before coming to Buffalo. His best season his team was 3rd in yards and 9th in points. Another season they were 7th in yards and 8th in points. Yeah, lets fire him. So much nonsense. Maybe they'll fire Dennison, maybe they won't. But one season that didn't meet some poster's standards ain't the reason. I think you're correct about this. And after the methodical assessment, he won't fire him. He'll meet with him and work with him to change the things that McDermott wants changed. I mentioned Belichick above. Do you think every OC and every DC he's hired comes in doing the entire job the way Belichick wants him to do it? Of course not. Belichick works with him. That's what McDermott will do. He's not going to give up on a proven NFL OC just because the Bills' first-year offense with a weak QB wasn't as good as McD wanted.

Absolutely. About as good as it gets.

Buddy Good to see you. Thanks for the comments.

Those are nice. Thanks! Cookie was one flipped out dude!

Well, Thompson could have been coming back for the ball - he could see that it was taking all day to get there. Plus, if he's coming back, he's better able to break after the catch. He can't box out the defender because he doesn't know where the defender is. In hindsight it's easy to say he should have moved a half step to his right, but he has no way to know that. The better question is what the hell was Peterman doing throwing it there? HE can see the receiver and the defender, so he can see that the ball has to be thrown to lead the receiver to the sideline. Also, as someone has pointed out, the throw to the outside shoulder would lead Thompson out of bounds. Most importantly, Peterman showed on that play that he doesn't have an NFL arm. That's perhaps the most important throw an NFL QB needs to make - a bullet to the sideline. Peterman threw a lollipop. That play is not on the receiver.

Yes and no. Yes, it was awfully close, so close you might want the rule to be let it go. But no, the rule is you overturn if there's conclusive evidence. Here, there's conclusive evidence. Yes, you have to look carefully, but there's no doubt. And if there's no doubt, the call on the field has to be reversed.

That's a movement of the ball in his hands. If the ball hits the ground he loses his grip on the ball, that's an incompletion.

You're not looking carefully. Play the second video and stop it at various points. You can stop it with the ball hitting the ground, and a split second later you can stop it with the fingers of his right hand extend and then regripping the ball. That was not an interception.

That's the test for wide outs, not DBs. No drop is surprising for a DB. It's much harder as a DB, because he's almost always finding the ball later than the receiver. So he has to react. Plus, DB's bodies are often out of position when the ball arrives. Those all were tough catches. Gaines's first was nearly impossible - almost completely out of his reach. Second one he could have caught but it really would have been a nice catch. Third Anderson injured his shoulder on - maybe could have caught it but the mere fact that he injured himself trying to get there tells you it wasn't an easy catch. Can't plan on turnovers. Need to score points. Any kind of decent offense yesterday and the Bills win. Jacksonville AVERAGED 26 points and 365 yards per game this year. Playing in Jacksonville, the Bills held them to 10 points and 230 yards. That's 16 points and 135 yards below their averages. Offense has to win that game for you.

I don't think they'll fire Dennison.

I didn't think Taylor played badly. One INT which wasn't his fault. A LOT of throwaways that brought his completion percentage down. The Thompson drop and Clay out of bounds. Taylor's problem isn't that he's bad; his problem is that for two years running he hasn't been good enough.

Hardly drops. All three would have been very good catches for wide outs

Yeah, well, so it's a little factually inaccurate. Nice article.

It's hard not believe that this is true.

I forgot to mention the review of the INT. Horrible. I assume what has happened is that the league has now gone back to what the replay rule says - unless there is clear error the call stands. By the standard they've applied for the past couple of years, that ball was incomplete.

I can get on board with this. Thank you is right. The guy is a player.