JohnC

I wouldn't be surprised if Jackson is picked ahead of Allen because of Allen's fatal flaw of not being accurate. As I have said in prior posts the best way to evaluate Jackson is to compare his game a year ago to this year. There was a quantum leap forward. In my opinion neither qb is going to be immediately ready. Development time needs to be allotted for each prospect. In comparison I believe that Rosen and Mayfield are the most ready prospects.

Taylor is a seven year vet with three years of starting. He is what he is just as Trent Edwards was who he was. Trust your eyes.

He is far from being a developed qb but he is much different from Taylor. First, he is a better passer and throws a nice ball. He has better pocket awareness than Taylor and when he is moving he keeps his head looking downfield and is more willing to throw the ball. What is most encouraging about him is that he made significant improvement from the previous year. He is not going to be immediately ready but he is a worker and takes his craft seriously. I would be more than happy to select him with one of our current first round picks. This is a WGR link with Ollie Connonly talking about the qb prospects. It is about 12 min. long. At the end of the discussion the guest talks about Jackson. He seems to like him. http://www.wgr550.com/media/audio-channel/02-07-ollie-connolly-cox-media-jeremy-and-sal-josh-allen

The link is from WGR with Ollie Connelly from Cox discussing the qb class. It's about a 12 minute segment. Good stuff. http://www.wgr550.com/media/audio-channel/02-07-ollie-connolly-cox-media-jeremy-and-sal-josh-allen

The most successful HC in the history of the modern NFL has a big ego. Of course he does. You find that surprising and troubling? That's like saying you are surprised that the Pope is a Catholic. Let's get real here. Rex didn't have a big ego? Marrone didn't have a big ego? McDermott doesn't have a big ego? etc., etc., etc.

I get it. You know more than the Boston reporter who has contacts within the organization. Evidently the issue regarding Butler's conduct was as much about a long standing conduct that included recent events. I'm not sure what you are suggesting? Butler's extended bad behavior caught up with him. I have no problem with the coach sitting him down. It's not surprising that the coach is getting criticism because it was without a doubt a bold move. The players should not be complaining about the coach. They should be directing their complaints toward the player who repeatedly acted irresponsibly. I have no problems with the tough action that the HC made. In fact I salute him. Just maybe this unlikeable coach who has high standards and who is not afraid to enforce them is a factor as to why he is the most successful coach in the modern era of the NFL.

There was a Boston reporter, Jackie McMullen, on the sports show Around the Horn. She stated that there were extensive tardy issues with him and other issues. There may have been a curfew violation for this game (she wasn't clear on that issue but insinuated that there were issues going right up to the game. ) Belichick has high standards that apply to everyone. The player flaunted the rules and the coach acted. He is the most successful coach in the modern era of the NFL. In the operation that he runs he has instilled the ethos that the team is more important than the individual. I salute the coach.

That is so cheeky!

It doesn't matter how well a game is called or how good the surrounding personnel is. If the qb can't throw accurately, make reads and get the ball out quickly the offense is not going to work. Foles is far from being an elite qb. What he can do is execute a pro offense. Of course it has to be adjusted to his strengths but if a qb is an erratic passer and has other glaring deficiencies the offense is going to struggle. I'm not suggesting that is what you are saying. But what made Pederson's smart coaching and play calling work is that he had a qb that can execute his offense. This offseason, without taking the draft into consideration, it is a priority to get a qb from the market who can sufficiently run a well rounded pro offense. Although that qb is going to be far from elite that doesn't mean that there aren't reasonable options at qb that can be a major upgrade from what we have had over the past few years.

He is a good player. He is not a HOF player.

Interesting various scenarios. I just don't see Buffalo signing Cousins while I do see Denver more likely to do so, and then trading the pick. If that is the case then I see us taking Mayfield because I think Rosen and Darnold would be gone. If we get any of the three top rated qbs I would be more than happy. Mayfield may not be the most prototypical qb but I lean toward him.

If the Pats are so dysfunctional we should all hope that the Bills strive to be as dysfunctional.

Is he under surveillance? If he is hopefully it isn't because of a FISA warrant.

If you prefer Montana or Elway that's fine. Both were great qbs. Where I disagree with you is that although there were differences in the rules then I consider them of the same era. You can just as easily make a good case that they were in different eras. I still contend that Brady is the best qb in the modern era which stretches over the Elway and Montana period. But although I disagree your preference is still reasonable. My understanding is that Elway was one of the highest rated qbs entering the draft.

I say this with respect and kindness: You are one crazy hombre! Your response remains vague. Name some of the qbs you believe are better than Brady.

I don't like or dislike Marrone. I consider him a solid meat and potatoes type coach. Nothing more and nothing less. If you look at the season that the Jags had from an overall perspective with the caliber of qb he had to work with he did a very good job. I'm not comparing Marrone to Pederson because they are two distinct coaches working with two distinct teams. If Marrone would have called his games similarly to Pederson with his team it would not have worked. Again, looking at the totality of the season I believe Marrone did an excellent coaching job this year. If you disagree with that assessment then so be it.

Whom do you think is better in another generation?

I agree with your judgment. What many people don't consider when judging Brady is that the talent level he is working with isn't as elite as some of the other great qbs worked with. No doubt that Gronk is a HOF TE but the receiver corps and backfield group he has worked with haven't been of the highest level. His extended excellence is another reason why I think he is the best of the best.

I don't disagree with anything you have said. If you are a troglodyte coach you are going to fall by the wayside. Coaches who are wedded to their systems, such as the boisterous Rex, are going to be bypassed by those who are adaptable and flexible. Take the Pats and coach Billy. Their game plans change week to week. Their strategy is to take away what you do best and force you to do what you don't do best. If you go through their roster they don't have the most talent but collectively they have the smartest talent. Their record in a system designed for parity over the past generation has been extraordinary. As you wisely noted what sets them apart is having the ability to change and adapt. On that issue we can agree on.

I respectfully but strenuously disagree with you and the eball post. Goff is a talent and is going to get better so I'm not going to put him in the Foles and Keenum camp. Foles and Keenum are not elite qbs but they are decent qbs who had good years. Were they handled smartly by their respective coaches? Absolutely. But what both could do is have an ability to execute a pro offense. That is something that Taylor can't do, and to this point what Bortles can't do. Don't misjudge what I am saying. Pederson and Zimmer and their respective staffs did a terrific job in maximizing the talents they had to work with. That we can agree on. But unless you have a qb that is capable of executing the designed game plan then the plan means little. My point is simple and basic: When your qb is limited then it makes sense to simply your offense. When your qb has the ability to make plays then it is smart to expand the game plan that includes some creativity added to the mix. As I stated in my response to eball go back to the Jacksonville game. The qbing on both sides was disgustingly wretched. Having them execute expanded game plans would not have been very prudent. When a person can't do arithmetic don't expect that person to handle advanced physics.

The point that the prior poster was making is that when you get good qb play it improves the performance of the line. A qb that can throw in rhythm and quickly get the ball out without a doubt helps out the line. A qb that can hit a receiver (back or wideout) in stride certainly gives the play a better chance to succeed. As you stated it is obvious that the Bills need a better qb. But it is not so obvious that the play of the qb can significantly affect the play of the line also. I do agree with you that it would be a mistake to get rid of Glenn. Why create a hole when you can add a talent to the unit?

I respectfully differ. If you watched the game you missed what was the reason for success for both teams, the play of the qbs. How can you criticize Marrone for squeezing out the most that he could for the team he presides over when his qb so far has played at less than a mediocre level. The same scenario played out in Buffalo when he squeezed out the most that could on an average team with at best mediocre qb play. There is nothing wrong with being aggressive when you have a qb that can execute an aggressive play call. There is something wrong when you make an aggressive call when you have a qb that can't execute an aggressive play. He didn't have that adequate caliber of qbing in Buffalo and he still doesn't have it in Jacksonville. Didn't you watch the Jacksonville/Buffalo game? From a qb standpoint it was one of the worst qbing that I have ever witnessed for a playoff game. It was wretched and it was embarrassing. If the HCs on either of the sidelines would have called a loose and wide open game they should be fired for malpractice. The basic job for the HC is to utilize the talent he has on hand to its abilities. When your qb is limited to the point of being incapable of running a pro offense what do you expect from the coach? Magic? The smartest approach under those crimped circumstances is to simply/dumb down the game plan and play it safe to manage the reality of your qb situation. The solution to your criticism of the coach is not to criticize the coach for properly adapting to his situation but for the organization to be aggressive in going out and finding a better option at qb. Until that is done it's futile.

I know you and others are tired of hearing my repetitive lament. If the Bills don't come out of this draft with a high end qb prospect I will be rampaging against the regime. The time is now, not tomorrow. Two of my favorite players in this draft are DT Harrison Phillips from Stanford and Da'ron Payne from Bama. I'll be happy with either one. I think Payne is going to be selected higher up the board.

You more deftly stated what I have wanted to state in my posts on this topic. Some posters are responding to me as if I am haranguing them on how they responded to Josh. That's not my intention. I've observed that for a segment of posters (not generalizing to a wider group) any subject matter related to the BN stimulates a reflexive hostile response. My position is that because he is a representative of the BN and because he doesn't regularly post here there should have been more forbearance toward him. (You also smarly noted that because of his limited participation here that there was no intention to hijack or redirect this forum.) We have had people from a variety of media organizations participate here. Invariably, a hostile faction use their energy to hostilely engage instead of civilly engage. The predictable result is that the outside source leaves the scene. The end result is that this platform ends up losing useful sources and perspectives. Instead of calling out the guest contributor for technical violations of protocol he should have been given more latitude.

There is a hardcore segment to this population that have strong feelings toward the BN and some of its writers. That's fine. People are entitled to their opinions. But this broad brush criticism that colors any negative or critical reporting coming from the BN is out of proportion to what is being written. If there is so much disregard for what is being said from this particular source then the solution is simple: Don't read or respond to it. There is no need to require a poster from the BN to indicate that a subscription is required because it is well known that the sports section is a subscription only service. If it is not known it will become evident once one clicks on to that link. This forum has had contributors from the BN and other sources participate in this forum. All of them left because of the ill-tempered responses from a faction of the people here. That's a shame.