SoTier

Why is Bodine "likely fine actually"? Because the Bills just have this "knack" for turning trashy OLers who aren't really good enough to be starters on other teams into All Pros? Sorry to burst your daydream but the Bills have no such "knack". Other teams' crappy OLers come to the Bills and play just as poorly here as they did before. Too many Bills fans just ignore that and blame the QB or the RBs or whomever. Teams that have some top notch OLers can often mask the poor play of the other guys, which the Bills did when they had Wood, Incognito, and Glenn in 2016. All three are gone. How much did Dawkins benefit from playing beside Incognito in 2017? Well, we'll find out now, and what's scary is that Dawkins, a sophomore, is probably the Bills best OLer on paper. I'm not saying there's much the Bills could have done between the end of 2017 and now, to have changed the situation, but pretending that "everything will be fine" with the OL is simply ignoring reality. Wood's injury and Incognito's problems weren't things that could be foreseen and remedied. An argument could be made for them keeping Glenn but there are arguments the other way, too. Even addressing the OL in the draft differently may not have been possible. I just hope that what's transpired in FA and the draft in 2018 doesn't portend a return to the kind of lip service to creating a functional offense that we saw during the Jauron years. Just drafting a QB in the top ten isn't enough. All QBs need protection and weapons to be successful, and the Bills are woefully short on talent in those areas.

What, exactly, does Josh Rosen have to do with the fact that Josh Allen is the least accomplished of the top four QB prospects in the 2018 draft? Rosen's success or failure is irrelevant to Allen's success or failure. Each one will stand or fall on his own. The OP implied that Allen is a superior prospect to any other QB prospect that the Bills have had since Jim Kelly, and that's just not true however much "true believers" try to spin it, and that's especially true of Losman. Allen is another project just like Losman and Manuel. Too many pro evaluators fall in love with physical traits while glossing over all the prospect's faults, especially when they involve intangibles like decision making or reading defenses. Allen could be turn out to be great, but declaring him so just because he was drafted in the top ten is simply silly.

Aside from Allen being taken in the top ten, how is he different from JP Losman and EJ Manuel? All three were/are "projects" with lots of raw talent that the Bills gambled on. Almost all QBs taken in the first round who are considered "projects" like Losman and Manuel have failed. Maybe Allen will be different, but don't bet more than you can afford to lose because the odds are stacked against him. That's what's "real", dude.

In an alternative universe your scenario might be true but in the one we inhabit, the defense has stayed about the same, and the offense has taken a major step backwards at QB and OL and done nothing to improve the sad situation at WR. I'm sorry, but McCarron hasn't even made 100 passes in the NFL and no rookie QB can truly compete with a competent NFL starter, and unless Daboll is a miracle worker, the Bills offense will be "offensive" in 2018 will make 2017 look like a juggernaut.

Exactly. I remember when McGahee was here, and the fans were on him because he "danced" at the LOS. Then he went to Baltimore and later Denver where they had good/decent OLs, he stopped "dancing" and the hit the holes ... BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY EXISTED!!!!

Only in an alternative universe.

RIP, Coach Knox. He was probably the Bills best coach ever, given the talent he had on his rosters, compared to what Saban and Levy had on theirs.

Keep telling yourself that when the Bills offense scores even fewer points than last year ... and then blame it all on McCarron or Allen, whoever has the misfortune to be the starting QB. The Bills OL wasn't "fine" in 2017, and the prospects for it being "fine" in 2018 are highly unlikely. Statistical "analyses" of OLs are jokes that seem aimed at "proving" poor OLs aren't nearly as bad as they played.

Sorry, but news is not dependent upon the reporter's political views. News is the simple facts of a story: what happened, who was involved, when it happened, and where it happened. Example: Joe's house in Timbuktu burned down on Tuesday or the President addressed Congress on the economy on Friday. Whether someone subscribes to one particular political creed or another doesn't change the facts. If it does, then that "reporter" isn't reporting news at all but spreading propaganda.

IMO, you're scrambling to find examples so you've used the meaningless phrase, "some success". I would use a stricter standard: only QBs who were considered franchise QBs for the bulk of their careers. That's Favre, Brunell, Bledsoe, Plummer, Garcia, Hasselbeck, and McNabb pre 2000. Maybe Green and Delhomme, too. That's 7 franchise QBs in about a decade. Post 2000, which is almost twice as long as the first time frame, there's only half as many franchise QBs: Vick, Palmer, Ryan, and Stafford. That's a reflection of how much the game has changed over the last twenty years. Given that Allen was a top ten draft pick for whom the Bills expended additional draft capital beyond the #7 pick, I think if he's fails to develop into a franchise QB, he will be a major disappointment at best, and that's even if he performs at about Jay Cutler's level. If he does no better than a McCown or Orton or have a meteoric career like Anderson or Kaepernick, he'll be considered a bust.

You don't know that for a fact. If the Bills hadn't traded up, it's possible that neither does Arizona or maybe the Cards always wanted Rosen and would have taken him with the tenth pick even with Allen available so that Allen would have been available at #12. Not what actually happened nor what might have happened changes the Allen's quality as a NFL QB prospect. He is what he is, at #7 or #12 or at #22. Moreover, "Allen was always a Top 10 pick throughout the process" is simply hype from the media draft mavens; he was only a "Top 10" pre-draft because the talking heads said he was. Allen's stock rose significantly only after his Combine performance IIRC, so he might not have actually been "always a Top 10 pick throughout the process". He was a good story, and after Carson Wentz's meteoric rise and his Combine, there was a lot more interest in a kid from ND State. Those same talking heads claimed that Sam Darnold was the best QB in the draft ... until he wasn't, and Cleveland didn't take either when they could have, did they? They took the QB who actually produced in games, not just in shorts and controlled situations, and who demonstrated accuracy, good mechanics, knowledge of the game, on-field leadership, etc. Mayfield and Rosen were the best prospects in this draft, and Mayfield was better than Rosen because he doesn't have the concussion injury. That's a very valid reason IMO to downgrade him, and I think it factored into evaluations. Darnold and Allen only really had excuses for why they didn't do was well as Mayfield or Rosen; the excuses were a constant whenever the media experts listed their QBs. Now, maybe some or all of the excuses were legit, but Allen is still the same thing that Losman and Manuel were: a project QB who has a greater chance of busting than succeeding as an NFL QB, and that's not because of where he was drafted but because of the skills and talents he has or doesn't have.

How, exactly, is Josh Allen all that different from JP Losman or EJ Manuel? All three were NOT the consensus best player in their draft class, which is pretty much the closest a QB comes to being a "sure thing" in the draft, but all three were first round picks. All three were selected in the first round because the Bills were set on drafting a QB in the first round. All three were considered "projects" who would have to sit for a season or two to be ready for the NFL because they all had faults with their mechanics. For the record, no first round QB considered a "project" has developed into a successful NFL QB in the last two or three decades, and that has been what has so many Bills fans worried. That you lumped Edwards and Taylor, neither of whom were first rounders, together with failed first rounders as "bad QBs" demonstrates that YOU don't know what you're talking about. Drafting a QB in the top ten doesn't necessarily make him better than other first QBs. Vince Young was drafted #3, Jake Locker #8, and Blaine Gabbert #10. Aaron Rodgers was drafted at #24. Russell Wilson was a third round pick, and of course Tom Brady was a flyer taken in the sixth round.

The Stillers in general have been "much less effective" since they won their last SB. In recent years, their defense simply hasn't been as good as it needs to be for them to win in the playoffs, especially when they play in the same conference with Brady and the Pats, and their cap troubles have limited their ability to fix it. Getting together a good enough team to be true Super Bowl contenders under the salary cap is a major problem for just about all of the teams with great QBs ... except for NE.

You beat me to it. Roethlisberger may be a great QB on the field, but off the field, he's rivals your average golden retriever in IQ.

If he can play guard even decently, then I'm for bringing him in. He'd be an instant upgrade at LG (where there's no legit starter) and possibly at RG as well.

Both are OTs which is not nearly as pressing a need as OC/OG, but the Bills could use upgrades at both OTs just for depth. I'm not sure that the Bills can afford Joekel or Robinson, though, especially as depth players. Established OLers, even when they're busts, are old, and/or injury-prone are expensive in FA. Another concern is that Dawkins being only a sophomore, he's not exactly a sure thing. He wouldn't be the first kid to have an impressive rookie season and then fail to play up to that standard again. The Bills may rue the day that they traded away Cordy Glenn, especially if Allen doesn't work out.

That's not optimism, that's delusion brought on by downing too many Fosters. Well said on both counts, sir!

The poll needs a third option for us skeptics, something like, "I'll wait to see what he can do before I commit to loving or hating him."

The Giants were never going QB at #2. They spent the off season getting Eli protection and weapons, and all they needed was a RB. The only way they weren't taking Barkley was if Cleveland took him #1. In that case, they likely would have taken Chubb.

It's highly unlikely that either the OL or the WRs "will be fine" despite all the whistling past the graveyard. The Bills have a decent LT, a journeyman RT, and a black hole in the interior of the OL. They are depending upon a backup and a rookie to replace a solid OC. They are hoping that 1 of the 2 RGs who struggled last season can step up and play better. AFAIK, they have only a name penciled in at LG to replace a Pro Bowl LG. This is easily the worst pre-season OL the Bills have had since 2009. They're depending upon backups to replace good starters, and didn't add any depth. The WR unit stunk last season with 1 NFL-caliber WR (Benjamin) on the roster, and he only arrived in mid-season, and was hurt for much of his time with the Bills. Jones was a bust, and will have to have a major turn around to even merit a starting spot on this poor unit. All the others are STers or street FAs. What have the Bills done to improve their WRs? Nothing. AJ McCarron isn't Tom Brady who can make useful WRs out of rookies and street FAs, and if Josh Allen has the misfortune to see the field (which seems likely because of the crappy OL), he's likely doomed. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm really afraid that the Bills are going to struggle to score on offense even more than they did last year, which doesn't bode well for them winning many games.

Read my post again. I said IF McDermott was still HC when the contract renewal came up, then he'd have input, but he'd have to do something spectacular -- like winning the SB -- in order to completely override competing considerations as to where hold TC. I don't believe that the Pegulas are going to cede the right to make what is essentially a business decision to a head coach unless he does something spectacular.

McDermott's 2017 coaching job hardly merited consideration for "Coach of the Year", and his "limited roster" was/is largely of his own making since he had significant input in determining which players were added, sent packing or kept kept over 2017 and into this season. You can jump on the McDermott bandwagon but even Dick Jauron, easily the Bills worst HC in the last three decades, once coached a team to a playoff berth (13-3), so I'll wait and see if he can replicate or improve on 2017 before I nominate him for the HOF.

McDermott might not be the HC in two years, so I find it highly unlikely that the Bills would break a valid contract and possibly alienate business sponsors just to please him. If he's still HC when the contract comes up for renewal, his wishes will be taken in consideration but unless he brings a Lombardi to the Bills in the next 3 or 4 years, his preferences won't be the overriding fact in determining if TC stays at SJF or is held elsewhere.

Because too many posters on this MB don't put their brains in gear before hitting the <Submit Reply> button.

The statement I was commenting was one about "results". The "results" from the Bills first season under McDermott and less than a year under Beane were certainly not that good, and certainly not great, enough to merit more than a "nice job". Neither has demonstrated that he's a coaching or personnel genius. Major personnel changes usually happen when there's a change in ownership/management, not when a team has a modestly successful season. Excuse me, but winning football games is, and should be, the first priority of every NFL football team, although I don't think that was necessarily true of the Bills during Ralph Wilson's ownership. Except for McDermott, his coaching staff, and in small part, Beane, all of the Bills non-player personnel responsible for the Bills 9-7 2017 season were hold overs from previous regimes or were hired at some point after the 2017 NFL draft and OTAs began. McDermott introduced "culture change" into the team itself, but that wasn't what the OP was asking about; he was asking about the replacement of long-time employees who had been with organization over several coaching changes. McDermott's means of "culture change" has been getting rid of players who don't apparently fit into his "culture" despite the cost in talent. This isn't anything particularly new for the Bills, either; McDermott's "process" philosophy is simply a resurrection of Dick Jauron's "my way or the highway", and Beane's drafting of a questionable first round QB just to placate the fans echoes Dough Whaley's drafting of EJ Manuel in 2013. The only thing really separating Whaley and Beane is that Beane paid a whole lot more for Allen than Whaley did for Manuel. I'm not the one rationalizing "moral victories" and pretending that the 2017 Bills were so awesome that the HC and GM should be given carte blanche in running the team. I pointed out that not only were the Bills not that great, but they haven't done anything to fix their serious flaws on offense, which you are trying to now claim is "rationalizing all those years of losing". Sorry, dude, but you're the one doing the rationalizing over a 9-7 team that lucked into a playoff berth, and then promptly lost in the WC game. You can start crowing about "results" when the Bills beat NE in NE with Brady playing QB and when the Bills manage to win 10 games in the same season or -- be still my heart! -- win a playoff game!