JohnC

I am not and never was an apologist for Ralph Wilson. As an owner he was inept and outdated. While most responders are snickering with the clip my take is that the owner was right in firing John Butler. At this stage Ralph was not a very polished speaker. However, that doesn't mean that the action he took against Butler was wrong. Butler was asked whether he was going to sign a new contract since his current contract was expiring. Not only was Butler was tired of working for a tough, meddling boss he also resented the initial contract offer which he considered insulting. Eventually the contract offer was at or at least close to a fair-market offer. Butler continued to stall. Ralph is no fool. He is a tough codger. He knew exactly what Butler was doing and what his intentions were. Butler had no intention to sign a new contract. So the boss fired him. That was an appropriate response by the proud man/owner. Ralph held a grudge against Butler because he felt that Butler was not only unloyal but he also believed that the GM was working on a deal with another team while he was under contract. The suspicion gained credibility when Butler quickly signed a deal with the Chargers after his termination. To Ralph Wilson's credit Wilson took the initiative to see Butler while he was dying from cancer and made peace with him. That was an honorable act to take. So for those who are snickering at the clip although the style was not smooth there was substance and merit to his statement.

I may be getting my terms mixed up but if they franchised him it would be at a high cap squeezing figure. The talk is that if he isn't willing to sign they would transition him and tell him and his agent to go make a deal with another team so they can work out a deal. The organization is not going to have a one year expensive deal with him again where next year they are in the same bind. The talk is that if he doesn't want to sign they will transition him and then work out the best deal they can. Not signing an extended contract brutally tells the organization that he doesn't want to play for them.

It would be nice if They could get Tyrod to read plays and go through progressions. It would be nice if They could get Tyrod to make accurate downfield throws. It would be nice if They could get Tryrod to make anticipatory throws. He is allowed to do what he is capable of doing. A limited game doesn't provide for many options. Blaming coaches for the limitations of this particular player is a misguided way to view the position. Taylor won't be on this roster next year. And it certainly won't be due to exceptional play.

The Jets and Broncos would be good locations for him. If he leaves Washington I see the Broncos as a good landing spot for him. I just don't see Buffalo as a likely destination. The talk in Washington is if he doesn't sign the team would franchise him and then try to work out a deal for him.

The criticism of Taylor is that he can't make reads and go through progressions. The criticism of RG III is that he can't make reads and go through progressions. What's the point of dispatching Taylor and bringing in Griffin, even as a backup. Responding to futility by bringing in more futility makes no sense. I'll enthusiastically pass on this idea.

Your post is a little confusing. Yes, it was widely reported that the Seahawks were interested in Glenn. They had an immediate need. The problem is Glenn would not have passed a physical. So the deal would have been nixed any way you look at it. Seattle then made a deal with Houston to get an OT. Your stadium speculation is interesting. Because it is such a large endeavor with many layers from the legal, financing, real estate, politics and governance it would be impossible to keep this matter a secret. If things are moving and starting to crystalize, as you suggest, then in the not too distant future it will become public. Again, your post is very interesting.

Don't fear being hated---embrace it. Unless you accidently impregnated a mafia hit man's princess daughter. If that is the case then you are dead.

The reason I mentioned Mannion or a player like him is speculating what would happen if the Bills made a decision not to trade off picks for an early round qb prospect but instead kept them to get an infusion of talent. You bring up an interesting issue with Beathard and the 49ers. The Pats traded Garoppolo for a second round pick. You disagreed with a previous proposal I made of trading maybe the lower first round pick plus maybe a second or third for to make the qb deal with the Pats. By taking that route we could have gotten a young qb who has some experience and thus get a quicker return on usage. This offseason is really going to be fun. I get the sense that McBeane are ready to make deals and do their best to make a quantum leap.

Let me offer a hypothetical. Trade a third round pick to San Fran for Sean Mannion. Then follow your board. Stanford's DT Harrison Phillips is one of my favorite players in this draft. This former champion high school wrestler is a type of player and person our wrestling coach would be attracted to.

Respectfully, we are riding on different buses and going to very destinations on this issue. You are however very right that not all players are leaders. And there are a variety of different personalities with different makeups in any large group. But that doesn't relieve the individual, high salaried or not, to be in sync with the other players and coaches from being a dependable teammate/person. Football is a team sport---not an individual sport. The mix is most often just as important, if not more important, than the individual collection of talent. You make it seem as if the wrestling coach didn't put in the effort to get to player to the right place. That's where you and I philosophical have our major divide. For me the onus is more on the player to do what is necessary to mesh with the program. That is not to say that McDermott didn't try to steer the recalcitrant player. I don't care how great a teacher is. If the student doesn't care and isn't willing to work the failing emanates from the student, not the teacher. With respect to the highlighted area I have some agreement and disagreement with your opinion. I agree that McBeane are rebuilding and reshaping the roster. That was publicly declared when they took over the operation. And without question contract size is part of the consideration when forming the roster. But where I disagree with you is that although Dareus has a gargantuan contract if he played up to his ability he would not only be worth his fat contract but he would be considered an anchor/core player to build a defense around. The decision-makers quickly came to the realization that he wasn't the type of person who can live up to that responsibility.

Bingo! You are astute. Your words are few but on message. Your laser is properly targeted to the most important issue.

What's a trade value of a talented player who without question was not committed to working hard and lacked the desire to turn it around. If he is benched or his playing time is severely curtailed then what value does he have on the market when it is already well known that this toxic player is not wanted. When I say toxic I'm not referring to him as a bad person but I'm referring to his work habits and attitude. You don't think that the coaches and teammates over an extended period of time didn't try in a variety of ways to get him motivated? You don't think that tough love and empathetic strategies were used to get him in line? The wrestling coach may be irritating to many people but he isn't a dope. The wrestling coach has been around the game long enough to know that having talent doesn't mean much if it isn't actualized without the required effort and attitude. I want Dareus to succeed. It wasn't going to happen in Buffalo not because of the coaches he had but because of how he conducted himself here. A change of scenery under a coach who knows him and has handled him before might be the best thing for him. This staff has a vision and framework in how to rebuild. It's not simply about accumulating talent. They are trying to create a culture of accountability. Some people consider that to be a saccharine idea. I don't. When the boat is struggling to float one of the things you do is throw over the dead weight. With Dareus that was a lot of soft and jiggly fat to heave over the side. By his own behavior Dareus showed that he didn't want to be in Buffalo. So he was accommodated. It was the right thing to do for all parties involved.

You are missing my point. There was something going on within the confines of the locker room that the staff simply found unacceptable. McDermott usually doesn't publicly call out players. He did with Dareus. On more than one occasion he commented on the record that he needed to see more consistent effort and preparation. When Dareus was traded a message was being sent not only to the dispatched player but also to the players who are on the roster grinding it out and doing the right thing. The message is simple to state but not easy to execute i.e. Everyone is being held accountable There has been a lot of talk about changing the culture and turning things around. Talk is cheap. It doesn't long for the overflow Rex bullshiiiit to be ignored. What doesn't get ignored is a coach living up to his talk and values. The value of the deal comes not only from the future cap space that can be used to a more committed player but also to the integrity of the message that the coach is espousing. You may disagree with the timing of the deal but I don't. Most often taking action sooner is better than later

This trade was never about getting a commensurate value in return because that was an impossibility. The point of the deal was getting rid of a high salaried slacker with the hope that in the near future his salary space would be filled by a more committed player. You don't think the wrestling coach didn't want a player with Dareus's immense talent playing to his potential on his team? Of course he would. But if the player didn't show much interest in recommitting after plenty of hectoring by the staff then so be it. This regime did what it said it was going to do when it clearly stated upon taking over the operation. He didn't come close to filling the mold of the type of player they wanted on the roster. So instead of just talking a good game it acted by dealing him. What's very revealing is that after Dareus was dealt no one on the team criticized the deal and offered much support on behalf of the departed player. Do you want to know why? Because they had an insider's view of how Dareus conducted himself on and off the field. Keeping a player on a team who doesn't care is never the right thing to do.

This is a year in which there is pressure on nearly a dozen teams to a get a qb prospect in the fold. You have to add in the mix teams such as Arizona and Pittsburgh that might do what KC did last year in making a deal to get someone in line to take over an established but aging qb. The Bills have more draft assets to trade off than most of the teams we will be competing for a qb prospect. This is the year to address the issue. Let's not take the Whaley route of waiting so long that you are outside the building before you recognize what you should have done sooner when sitting in the executive chair. In this draft I would prefer to have Rosen, Darnold or Mayfield. Mayfield might be more attainable with a deal. But if a deal can not be made for any of those prospects then there are still a few more high end prospects that can be in reach with some smart dealing. This issue has been lingering for so long that it has become part of the identity of the franchise i.e. a middling franchise without a franchise qb. This is the year to take the initiative and get it done. Enough is enough.

Giving up two first round picks sounds like a lot but it really is a deceptive cost. If you trade two first round picks and a second to move up you are still able to have almost a full draft. The Bills traded down with KC to get that extra pick. So it was banked with the intention of possibly using it in a deal in a deal. The other first round pick isn't lost because it is basically exchanged for a higher pick. If the second round pick is also necessary for a trade up that pick is also a bonus pick acquired in the Watkins trade with the Rams. Who would complain about that deal if it is used as an asset to acquire a blue chip qb prospect? The team that is coming off really smart from a draft positioning standpoint is SF. They acquired their franchise qb, Garoppolo, by sending a second round pick to the Pats. They now are in a good position to trade off their first round pick to a desperate qb team for a bevy of picks. That's how you accelerate the rebuilding process.

The critical passes that were completed to Benjamin and Thompson were passes that Taylor is adverse to making. The offense is stunted because the qb has a severely restricted passing game.

What ranking did a qb such as Russell Wilson have in his draft year? Without a doubt ranking is part of the process. But if a fifth ranked qb is attainable while the higher ranked qbs are not then you have to take that qb if your evaluation of him indicates that the player has the ability to be a franchise qb. The notion that a franchise should only take the highest or second highest rated qb is a self-sabotaging notion for a team that perennially has been stuck in the no-man's land of the mediocre middle. You and I are in accord on the qb issue. We have been both dancing to the same tune for a long time. It's long past time that this staid and cautious franchise act out of character and be bold. It needs to take the initiative to place itself in a position to come out of this draft with a bona fide qb prospect. My stance on the qb position is that I don't particularly care what round the qb is rated. If you believe that ultimately the prospect has the ability to become a franchise qb then you have to seize the opportunity. The Bills have no excuses this year. They have the draft assets to move up the board. Dithering is not an option.

Someone else brought it up but I want to salute the officials. They used common sense and good judgment in not over officiating the game. On a play or two, as the announcers pointed out, the receivers were lined up slightly offside. The officials wisely didn't call it. The holding calls that were made were blatant. Again, they used good judgment in making/not making the calls. They did make some pass interference calls. They didn't get too picayune on those calls. When they did call the penalty it clearly affected the play. Thank god this game wasn't called by the Ed Hochuli crew. The game would never have ended with their irritating and insufferable constant interruption of the game. Kudos to thses officials working in a very challenging environment.

The critical pass and the incredible catch that Jones made and the TD pass to Benjamin and his other completions were passes that Taylor doesn't make. I watched a good chunk of the Eagles/Rams game. The qbing in this game was stellar. The game was replete with dynamic plays. When you watch the Bills you are watching an antiquated game that belongs in the day of leather helmets. It's like entering a Clydesdale in the Kentucky derby. You certainly feel differently than I do but I would rather watch an inexperienced rookie qb whose potential at best is to be an adequate backup. He at least can manage a modern pro offense compared to the dynamic running qb who is incapable of running a pro offense. Garbage is garbage. It should no longer be tolerated.

Good analysis. The one conclusion where I disagree with you is that I have come to the conclusion that Peterman gives this team a better chance to succeed than Taylor. The weather conditions were awful for good qb play but the passes to Benjamin and Jones that were completed were throws that Taylor doesn't make. Taylor has an ingrained reluctance to throw the ball up for grabs to a covered receiver. Those were the type of passes completed in this game under treacherous conditions. I'm tired of watching a high school passing attack when Taylor is taking the snaps. While you blame the OC for the design of the offense, I don't. Although the conditions made it difficult to come to a conclusion on how Peterman played there is still more of a semblance of a pro style passing game that the earnest seven year veteran has not demonstrated that he can play. Some people are afraid to face the reality regarding the qb situation. Not I.

I don't understand your reasoning and the reasoning of the many other critics on his decision.. He made a decision in which it ultimately worked. No coach all the time makea a decision merely based on the odds. If that was the case then there would be no need for the HC to use his judgment because it would already be scripted based on the odds. Coaches very often make decisions that involve some risk. Sometimes coaches make decisions on intuition and feel. The criticism seems to be based on the cautious/conservative nature of the call. What's wrong with being cautious when the field and weather were historically bad? If the Bills would have gone for it and the qb or back slipped no doubt there would be criticisms that the coach didn't adequately consider the wretched conditions. When the wrestling coach made the decision to punt I was disappointed. However, because it worked out well it seems foolish to join the chorus of critics because it was a decision that could be fairly judged to be instrumental in the victory. I simply don't understand the negative response emanating from a decision that worked.

A controversial decision that ultimately worked out has the indignant masses in a state of frenzy. He made a decision to punt that I disagreed with. It was a very conservative decision but in the end it proved to be the right call, or at least it didn't hurt us. What's there to complain about? As far as strategy or time management this is a game in which the conditions were so severe that being inclined to take a conservative approach was very understandable. Even if you disagreed with the wrestling coach's conservativeness in this particular game it made sense because the field was so treacherous. A win is a win. I'll take it and not complain about it.

Thank you for the well thought out response. But respectfully I disagree with it. The problem with a qb that has a limited repertoire of plays to draw from is that other teams adjust to what you are good at without the need to focus on what you are not good at. When the passing plays you can proficiently execute are so limited because you can't adeptly go through progressions, make anticipation throws or have good downfield accuracy then the defense has a tremendous advantage. What's more evident this year compared to last year is that the defenses are making it a priority to contain him in the pocket and force him to play within that congestion area that he is not comfortable with. Which demonstrates my point that teams are making adjustments to his unique style of play. What's evident is that Taylor who is a seven year veteran has not shown an ability to advance/grow his game. He is what he is. The argument that Taylor is better than Peterman or vice versa means little to me. Neither are franchise qbs, and neither will ever be. That's why I so ardently argue for us to do what needs to be done to come out of the next draft with a qb who has the potential to be a franchise qb.

You and I are in sync. Sometimes the player you think is a consolation prize turns out to be the better option. You can have a prospect who may be more talented from a check box standpoint but that doesn't mean that that particular player is a good or better fit for you. Rosen may be the best pro passer prospect but Mayfield may be the better quick rhythm passer that is more suitable for our offense.