Luxy312

Highly unlikely. You don't give a quarterback $71 million in guaranteed money to be a "bridge". He will be the starter for at least 3 of the 5 years of his contract. Just look at the structure of it. There's no team in the NFL that's going to suddenly make a guy getting paid that much money a backup, and they're certainly not going to take a huge cap hit to move him. His contract gets friendlier in years 4 and 5. If they're going to draft any QB early, it won't be until 2021 minimum, and that's if Alex Smith regresses from the fantastic year he had last year.

Based on what, other than your jump to conclusions mat? Everyone, meaning who? I certainly didn't have any expectation, other than it would provide more opportunity for the team to fill positions of need. when that trade was made last year, the Bills were giving Tyrod Taylor the "show me" opportunity to be the starting quarterback for the team. Based on the structure of his contract, it was pretty clear that they were not "all in" for trading up to get a quarterback in the 2018 draft. If Tyrod were even above average last year (also unknown when we traded down), this would be a patently false statement. You are green. I will give you that. LOL.

One of the two tag types can be undone such that they would not be stuck with a contract. You are right though that a tag would virtually eliminate their ability to do anything in free agency until they moved him. I believe that's the biggest obstacle to the tag.

My last paragraph may be the most important of the entire post. For the record, the only guy that I think will be good in the pros is the "short guy" with an attitude in Baker Mayfield. I do not see him making it out of the top 10 picks in the draft.

That's a nice thought, but there's much speculation that the Redskins (despite having traded for and signed Alex Smith) will tag him, such that they maintain some trade value. I would be shocked if they just let him hit free agency.

Kirk Cousins will get paid to be the starter somewhere. Broncos or Cardinals is my guess as they can both win "now". 2 of Keenum/Bridgewater/Bradford will go somewhere. Bridgewater and Bradford both have stated that they believe they are starters. I doubt Nick Foles remains the backup to Wentz. He's going to get paid by someone, and I'm guessing is out of Philadelphia. The Giants don't "definitely" need a QB. If Eli believes he's going to play another 3-4 years, it is not an urgency for the Giants. Phillip Rivers is 36 and Tom Brady is 40. Tell me how hold he is again. See Eli Manning for reference. Ryan Tannehill is 29 and cap friendly. Serious doubt that the Dolphins waste first rounder on QB when they have so many other needs. Andy Dalton is 30. Same thing as the Dolphins. The only way a team like Pittsburgh or New Orleans trade up is if their guy says they're done or this is their last year. So the way I see it, there's 4 potential starters that are either free agents or will be moved. There's 5 teams that are a serious threat to pick a QB if they don't otherwise get one of these other 4 guys. Free agency and trades will play themselves out well before the draft, so we're going to know what's in play on draft day. The other factor to consider is that there is no clear cut #1 college QB in the draft this year. All of the 5-6 guys that have been part of the discussion as potential first round talent, have flaws. It really reminds me an awful lot of the 2006 draft. 5 guys taken in the first two rounds and the best of the lot was Jay Cutler picked at #11, selected after Vince Young and Matt Leinart.

The Philadelphia defense was a complete no-show except for the strip sack fumble, so who's to say that even if Foles and the offense doesn't play as well as they did, that the Eagles defense plays better? I wouldn't have minded seeing some officiating on the field. It's baffling to me that the teams can combine for 91 pass attempts and there be no holding penalties and only one sack. Beyond ridiculous.

First and second round picks should generally be starters. So IMO, I would rather have the 2nd overall pick, ANOTHER first and two seconds. Easy math.

Dilly dilly!

I would have stopped watching and not lost an ounce of sleep over it.

I personally have a bit of "buyers remorse" when it comes to last season versus the upcoming draft. The simple reality looking into the playoffs, for me, is that the offense had been pretty bad, and the defense simply wasn't good enough to win enough games to claim the Lombardi. Let's just say that Rosen, Darnold, Mayfield and Allen are the top-4 guys. I think I honestly would have rather seen the team go 3-13 and be drafting #2 overall. Where they sit now, they would have to trade both first round picks and at least a second from this year to move up high enough to guarantee getting a signal caller. That's a LOT of draft capital to pay for one playoff loss.

That's the Tyrod Terrible that we know.

At the end of the day, there were 24 QB's that had more yards passing, more attempts, more completions and more TD's. There's 32 that had a better QB rating and 37 with more yards passing per game. There's only 2 QB's that took more sacks. In the 15 weeks that he actually played this year, he led the league in the average time from snap to throw 14 weeks. He was ridiculously bad. There's easily 16-20 guys that I would take before Taylor, including the productivity that came from their backups when they got hurt.

I think when Tyrod said that "he wants to continue to be accurate" that what he really meant is that he "wants to continue to be a starting quarterback".

You hit the nail on the head, but probably don't realize just how bad this team was on the turnover front. In their 9 regular season wins, the Bills outscored their opponents by 74 points on a turnover differential of +15. That's about 4.9 points per turnover. That doesn't seem all that bad until you look at the 7 regular season losses. The Bills were outscored by 141 points on a turnover differentail of -8. That's losing to the tune of 17.6 points per turnover. That right there is Mr. play it safe check down Tyrod.

You're missing the point completely. The objective certainly to just be a perpetual 0.500 team every year. So if it's me, I don't go out and spend $15m on a journeyman QB just to be a middling football team. We need to look no further than the Superbowl champs. Draft Carson Wentz and start Carson Wentz. They won it all with Nick Foles, but the Wentz lead team was 11-2 before he got hurt. The objective of remaining average and wasting money seems stupid to me. It's what this team has been doing with the QB position for the last 20 years.

Given the number of data points, I don't know as though we can say anything about Peterman at this point. Did he have a rough start in his roughly 1.5 games started? Sure, and it was rougher than most. Still, there's lots of QB's that don't hit the ground running. That's really all I'm getting at. In terms of wanting to win 8 or 9 versus losing 13 or 14, I'll take the latter. The Bills are not going to contend for anything winning 8 or 9 games. Using this year as an example, would I rather take 9 wins and a first round exit in the playoffs or pick where the Giants do in the 2018 draft? Definitively, I'll take the #2 draft pick. There's talk in WNY of them trading both first rounders plus NEXT year's first rounder to get that #2 pick. Craziness.

That is pretty fantastic, actually. My vote is Kizer "no no".

Brady's legacy is being on a team that got caught cheating multiple times. There's no "excusing it" away for me, so it's pointless to try. None the less, 8 Superbowls in 16 years is ridiculous no matter how you slice it. Teams in the 70's and 80's that were not even subject to a salary cap then were not able to do that. Regardless of all of that, he still has to throw the football when he gets on the field. He's the best in THIS era IMO, but I don't know as though that would extend for me to other eras. It was a really different game even just 20 years ago.

That would be the assumption. I can't see the Bills paying him $16m for another season based on his productivity last year.

I think it's both. Is there any football fan that would say that 2m 20s is NOT enough time for Brady to engineer a game winning drive? The Patriots defense didn't help him, but you can't say that the Eagles defense really helped Nick Foles either. At that point, it was only a 5 point lead for the Eagles. So as much as you can say Brady was the reason they were in it, you can say he's the reason they lost as well.

Nothing, and that's the point. Why pay someone else to be a placeholder for a couple of years, just for the sake of filling in a position with mediocre talent? Taylor, Bradford, Bridgewater, Henne, Stanton, McCown, etc. would all get a decent paycheck to be starters here. Why bother if they're not the future. For Peterman, he's under contract through 2020 and they can basically wait and see what they have with him. I am not. I think he will likely fail for the record. None the less, I don't think that should preclude him getting the opportunity. In a way, I thought the on again/off again thing with Manuel pretty much ruined any chance he had to show us anything. Don't want the same to happen here.

He's as competitive as anyone AND the reason the Patriots likely lost the Superbowl. 2m 20s left and he fumbles away a potential game winning drive. He's just so smug that I can't stand him. He should have congratulated Foles. It would have been the right thing to do.

Should the Bills go after yet another journeyman QB as a stopgap between the presumed QB of the future that they're supposed to get in the draft? If you go after and pay for a guy like Kirk Cousins, you're clearly getting your guy for the next 6-8 years or maybe even more. There are a LOT of guys out there though that could serve in that interim role. What do people think? Personally, I say no. This team has been doing the "stopgap" thing for two decades. If they draft a rookie QB early, I say they start Peterman and then the rookie if need be mid-season.

Time with the Bills organization has to count for something, so I would vote a firm no. Players don't make the wall simply because they're talented. While we're at it, should we put T.O. on the wall? I don't think so. Being talented doesn't make you a Buffalo Bill any more than wearing a Bills logo hat makes you a member of Bills Mafia. Living here in Chicago, I know what Bills Mafia looks like and don't even need to ask the question of who is and who is not when I go to my Bills backer bar to watch the games. McCoy is probably the most talented offensive player on the team, but wall worthy, right now, he is not.