JohnC

I don't like trading off for next year's first. The question I have regarding Falk is does he have a strong enough arm to make him a credible prospect? I wouldn't mind adding Bryant to a weak receiving corps but is he too undependable regarding his off-field habits? In general I like the infusion of talent to the roster. My ideal situation is that a qb such as Mayfield slides and we select him with our first pick and then select from our honey pot of picks. I have no problem maneuvering up and down to select more players or get another player in a trade. The irony is that the rebuilding Bills played beyond their talent level last year. That hurt us from a draft standpoint. It also demonstrated that in this embryonic stage of rebuilding that McDermott's vision on the type of players he wants on his roster works.

He is in the discussion for the best value pick ever for the Bills.

I'm starting to be more receptive to standing pat and keeping our picks in the first three rounds. A lot of talent can be added to the roster, including a quality qb prospect. There is a chance that Mayfield might slide. I'm hoping that Beane is flexible regarding his preference for a prototypical sized qb.

After which you will be reported missing.

The grass is greener on the other side of the fence especially when you don't have grass. As I said in another post don't let the seeking of perfection get in the way of seeking good. The ideal usually doesn't represent reality.

Just think if the Bills would have drafted either Mahomes or Watson last year? This upcoming draft would be exciting not for the unending discussion about a qb but for the expected infusion of players with the added picks. In my view the rebuilding process would have been accelerated instead of delayed for the never-ending quest to find a franchise qb. The "what if" debates can be gut wrenching.

Even if the Bills stay at the #12 spot and work a deal with the Giants in which they get multiple picks the Giants can still upgrade their OL and add a very good back that isn't named Barkley. The issue as I see it is whether the Giants want to draft a qb with the second pick. If that's what they want then they should stay in their current position. If they want to bolster their roster, including the OL, then making a hard squeezed deal with the Bills makes a lot of sense for them.

Why do you think that Mahomes is going to be a bust? KC handled him the way Allen is probably going to be handled. His first year was a prep year for the most part. He played in the last game and did well. Mahomes must have impressed the KC staff well enough for them to dispatch their long term starter. When watching clips of Allen you do see him make some well placed throws. Some of his long bucket throws are stunningly impressive. That shows you that getting him to be consistent with his mechanics he can be more consistent with his accuracy. Your hesitancy on Allen is understandable. But the same hesitancy you have on him is the same hesitancy that exists for all of the top qbs in this draft. Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good.

If the Bills moved up to the #2 spot and the choice was between Allen and Rosen whom do you think they would select? I think it would be Rosen but would have no problem with Allen. I wouldn't be surprised if the Jets had the same decision to make they would select Allen. If the Giants stayed pat and decided to take a qb and Darnold was off the board I think they would take Rosen. If I had to guess of the top four qbs I would say that Mayfield is the most likely to slide. If you look at the qb situation in Buffalo with McCarron, the Giants with Eli, the Jets with McCown and Bridgewater there is no compelling reason to immediately put him on the field. In each situation it is likely he will be given the time to better prepare for the rigors of the pro game.

I agree with your judgment that charges probably won't be filed because he will pay for the damages. In addition, the filing of the charges will also be delayed because the prosecuting office will wait for the medical/psyche report from where he was examined.

This regime traded Taylor and picked up McCarron. The qb position even before the draft has been upgraded.

No one is claiming that Dennison wasn't the driving force for the replacing of the starter. So I don't understand why you are belaboring the point. McDermott as the HC had the final say. That is an unalterable fact! McDermott is not a fool. He is not prone to doing irrational things. The arguments that Dennison made to the HC were not farfetched arguments that the HC didn't also see. The Peterman argument you are vociferously making isn't about Peterman. It is the emotional trauma resulting from not accepting that he replaced Taylor. The argument isn't that Peterson is so good because few people are making that claim. It is that a person who you believe to be so bad replaced a qb that you are fond of. The issue of who is more worthy to be on the roster than Peterman doesn't resonate to me. I simply don't care. I believe Peterman is going to be on the roster as a backup qb, probably the backup to the backup. If he isn't then so be it. I'm not as invested in him as you are trying to make it out to be. The core of our conflict on Peterman really over Peterman. It's really about TT. That's the source of your energy on this issue. The reality is you and I have an unbridgeable disagreement over Tyrod. My position on him is unlikely to change. It is concrete hardened. He is what he is and it wasn't good enough for me or for the home team that dealt him. You simply had a different view on this issue.

My hating argument is a cheap distracting argument that belies the real issue i.e. as a starting qb he was inadequate. If you want to call him serviceable that is fine. I'll stick with my description of him as being inadequate. You have this unappealing tendency to mischaracterize another person's position and hammer away at it. I never said that Peterman was a good qb. What I have said about the HC starting him is that I understood why he replaced Taylor. No one is questioning that Dennison pushed to replace Taylor. That's obvious. But the HC made the decision. That's a fact! And I guarantee it that there was a reasonable basis for it. Taylor was replaced because he was ineffective for a string of games.

I'm optimistic about the future of this franchise not because Taylor is on the roster but because he is off of it. No doubt that Dennison was very influential in Peterman starting the Charger game. But let's not forget that McDermott was the one who made the decision. You and I will not agree on this issue. What I have said before and continue to say is that I understand why the decision was made. The Peterman issue now is really inconsequential. Let this issue go Kirby and let that agitation in your stomach settle down. If I really wanted to provoke you I would force you to rewatch the qb play in the Jacksonville game.

What's going on is nuance is lost in the stereotyping of players. You see it in some of the judgments made on Mayfield, Rosen and Allen. While assets get magnified more often than not weaknesses get even more magnified and exaggerated as the evaluation process advances. Very often over-analyzing can be just as damaging as under-analyzing. When in doubt trust your eyes and instincts.

It's not a question of agreeing with Peterman starting. It's that I understand why he started in place of Taylor. There was a frustration and exasperation by Taylor's play that made the staff resort to making a desperate move. And it was his play in general why I was confident that he was not going to be on the roster this year. What was inevitable turned out to be inevitable. (And I was right on that.)

If you were drafting in the #2 spot and had the choice between Rosen and Allen I would take Rosen. If you were drafting in the top ten and the choice was between Allen or Mayfield I believe that Beane would select Allen because he fits Beane's physical profile better. At the three spot if Rosen and Darnold were both off the board I believe that the Jets would take Allen over Mayfield. The decision that GMs are going to make is based on how they project a qb down the line. That's why a number of organizations would prefer a qb such as Allen. I would prefer Mayfield over Allen but wouldn't be overly upset if Allen was selected by us.

As far as I'm concerned the Peterman issue is a marginal issue. Why put so much emphasis on such a periphery issue when there are core issues that need to be addressed such as the OL, receiver and LB units. Why so much distaste for a player when the options aren't perceptibly better? (You may disagree with that judgment?) I am not bothered by Peterman's role as a backup or more likely backup to the backup. I think that some of the lingering hostility towards Peterman is a result of his replacement of Taylor as a starter in the Charger game. Some people can't let it go and continue to refer to that debacle as a basis for their view of Peterman. My interpretation from his starting is guided more from Taylor's failures as a qb than to Peterman's assets as a qb. The point is that the volatile Taylor issue has for many people bled into the perception of Peterman. When all is said and done I believe that Peterman will be on the roster when the season starts. He won't have a significant role but he will have a role on this team. That's how I see it and I'm not bothered by it.

I see him being more entrenched on the roster than you do. If he is the third qb then so be it. The injury rate is high so I wouldn't be so readily to extract him from the roster. Would I want him as a replacement qb for a four game stretch? I would be troubled by that much extensive play. But I do think that he is a smart guy who knows the offense and will maybe not help you much but might not hurt you much when you have to resort to using him. In a league noted for its attrition rate there is a utility and role for this back end player.

Your response is perplexing. Can you elaborate a little more?

He is not starting material. Most people would make that judgment. But that doesn't mean that he can't be a functional backup. If that is what he becomes then it was a good/reasonable investment for the pick. Peterman had a horrible starting debute that many people want to permanently scar him. And to this day people still chortle over it. I don't have great expectations on how his career will materialize. However, it is not inconceivable that he can have a Colt McCoy type of career as a backup up that stretches into a fairly lucrative career.

Rudolph at the 22nd spot wouldn't be a bad way to go.

One of the more interesting teams to watch is the Colts. If there is an early run on qbs and the Bills moved up to their spot they could make a double move down and accumulate a number of picks to add to the boatload of picks they got from the Jets. I was previously adamant that the Bills had to do whatever it took to move up. However, I'm now more receptive to the idea of staying pat and drafting a qb such as Jackson or Rudolph and using the multiple picks to bulk up the roster.

Tell the whole truth that you took the test two times. On the first test you scored 17 and then on the second try you improved to 18. You may not be fully forthright but at least you are moving in the right direction.

Chris Trapasso of CBS Sports was on WGR with Schoop and the Bulldog. He discussed Rudolph and the variety of options they can take on the qb position. He gave some interesting views on Rudolph and Jackson how he would be a good fit for Buffalo. As the draft approaches I'm becoming more open to staying at our spot and selecting our qb without giving up picks. This is about an 8 minute segment. http://www.wgr550.com/media/audio-channel/3-20-chris-trapasso-cbs-sports-talks-draft-qbs-schopp-and-bulldog