JohnC

Good post. No question that our receiving corps is below average. However, this unit can reasonably be upgraded in the offseason. Matthews will probably be gone after the season. I'm much more upbeat on Zay Jones that you appear to be . You can see the seeds of a good player as he gains confidence. Benjamin is a good number two receiver. He will never fill the role of a number one receiver because he simply isn't good enough or dynamic enough to become that caliber of player. You didn't mention the TE in your post. Clay is a good receiver and would be even more productive with a good qb. As far as I'm concerned the Goodwin loss is matched with the Jones addition. So his departure wasn't so damaging. We could still use another speed receiver to back up the defensive backfield. As you noted in your last paragraph there are some good free agent prospects who can upgrade the unit. Pryor was a disaster with the Skins but he was playing on a bad ankle all season long. There are options to draw from. I know you don't want to get drawn into another depressing qb discussion but it doesn't matter who your receivers are until you upgrade the qb position. You and I have always acknowledged the superlative talents of Watkins. Those talents were wasted here. If you get the qb position playing at a respectable level then the current below-average unit will internally improve.

As far as I'm concerned the level of outrage is beyond the level of transgression for a play. He lost his cool and foolishly reacted. He acknowledged it and apologized for it. As to whether he was sincere or not I don't care if he was or was not. It was probably more of a self-serving response. The play was rightly reviewed by the league and they gave out a reasonable punishment. Again, the system worked the way it is supposed to work.

Hypothetically I wouldn't have been against trading one of our first round picks and maybe a second or third round pick for Grappolo. The 49ers gave up a second round pick to get him. The Pats have a history of not being afraid to teams in its division if they believe the deal works for them.

The league reviewed the play and reports are that he is being suspended for a game. There was no special treatment for him by the league. Did the ref use poor judgment in not throwing him out? Probably so. But bad calls get reviewed all the time post game by the league. That how the system works.

No one is saying that because he doesn't have a history of dirty play that he shouldn't be held accountable. The league should certainly take a look at it. However, the history of how a player plays certainly comes into play when judging one play. Would I consider meting out harsher punishment if a player such as Burfict with an ignominious history of reckless? Absolutely yes! In my view this play is being over sensationalized because the home team was so pathetic on the field. It is a convenient distraction from the ugly display of the home team's performance on the field. Especially the offense it was embarrassing. The player in question acknowledge that he reacted poorly on the play. He apologized for it. Was he sincere? Whether it was or nor not I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt because he normally plays within the bounds. I offer no rebuttal to such a childish response.

No one is justifying the way Gronk responded after White intercepted the ball. He even said his response was irresponsible, and he apologized for it. What more do you want? Gronk does not have a history of reckless play. In fact, he is usually the player who is frequently abused on the field. I'm sure the league will get involved and fine him. Does he warrant a suspension? I don't believe so because he doesn't have a history of reckless play. We are just going to disagree on this issue. As I said in a response to Plezmid Gronk does not have a history of dangerous play. The TE lost control of his emotions and then recklessly responded. He acknowledge and apologized for his actions. Was it sincere? I'll give him the benefit of the doubt where you don't. So be it.

The Pats recently took a player, Lee, off of our practice squad. He was inserted into their starting lineup on defense. In the game against us he was one of the better defensive players in the game. Organizations that are smart and enterprising create their own depth. Competence always wins out over incompetence. You don't think that the moronic drunken fans shouting out obscenities didn't deserve to be responded to by a player who had a stellar game?

You didn't carefully read and understand what I said. Gronk acknowledged that how he reacted in the White play was wrong. Gronk was constantly being held and mugged in the game. On that particular play where he jumped on White he lost control. And he owned up to it when interviewed in the locker room.

In the beginning of the year Gilmore was having problems adjusting to the Pats scheme and was not playing well. He was benched. The Pats hold their players accountable. That's one of the main reasons why they are champs. Hughes is notorious for repeatedly losing his cool and getting penalties. If he played for the Pats it wouldn't happen because he would be either benched or dispatched from the roster.

After the game Gronk apologized for his actions and said that he wouldn't do it again because it could hurt his team. There is a self-awareness and control that a player such as Hughes doesn't have. The Pats are a more talented team, a better coached team and a smarter team. That's why they are champions and we are chumps.

There was a Pat defensive back who got a penalty holding /interfering with a receiver when the Bills had a third and long. That penalty resulted in a first down after the stop. The defensive back was taken out of the game. The Pats hold their players accountable and to a high standard. That's why they are champs and we are chumps.

The strategy had nothing to do with the emasculation that happened yesterday. You have to mix in the run or your mediocre qbs are going to overwhelmed. Even if a running play doesn't get you much yardage it at least keeps the defense a little honest so it doesn't go full throttle at the qb. The Bills got destroyed by the Saints, Pats and even the Chargers. Those are measuring stick games that indicate how low on the totem pole this team actually is. This team is bereft of talent. It's as simple as that. Our starting mobile qb simply isn't good enough to compensate for the lack of talent in other areas. Every unit on the team is deficient except for the defensive backfield, the kickers and backfield. Coaching strategy means little without talent. That's where we are. Until the team gets an authentic franchise qb and infusion of talent is added to this dry well this team will continue to lag.

There is a role for Taylor as a qb in this league. He can for the next half dozen years earn a good paycheck as a backup and a change of pace qb. I simply don't see him as an entrenched starter. He could be a bridge qb for another team but he is always going to be a qb that you want to upgrade.

He reviews the tapes as do the coaches. Romo, the retired qb, sees plays that are there to be made. When you see the same deficiency over and over there comes a point that there is nothing else to say. Taylor is a high character person and an earnest player. He simply can't play beyond his limitations. I just don't see him on the roster next year.

Kirby, It's pointless to argue over which of our bad qbs are worse. As I stated in another post I thought Tony Romo was excellent in his analysis of Taylor. There are fatal flaws associated with his vision that can't be eliminated. You are as aware as most that until this franchise dramatically upgrades the qb position this team will continue to lag. And you are as aware as most that there are so many other positions that need to be addressed before this team can be considered a serious team. This is a heavy-lift rebuild job!

As you perceptively noted Romo was diplomatic when pointing out Taylor's limitations. Without harshly rebuking Taylor's play he was pointing out this seven year veteran's fatal flaws that are intrinsic to how he plays the position. I thought Romo was excellent at analyzing the game and presented his criticisms with class.

You need to stop with your glamorization of the roster that the new regime took over. It was a mish-mash roster that was not a realistic playoff team. At best it was a fringe wild-card team with little chance of sustained success. This new regime is in the process of cleaning out the miscast parts and rebuilding after the strip down. No matter how much you and your fanciful brethren believe otherwise that is what is happening now.

The Bills OL is less than average. The Bills DL is less than average. The LBing corps is less than average. The receiving corps is less than average. The defensive backfield is solid. Our starting qbs is less than average. On a grand scale the Bills are closer to being an expansion team than a playoff qualifying team capable of winning a game in the post season. The Bills are in their first year of a multi-year rebuilding project. The rebuilding will never be a success until an authentic franchise qb is taking the snaps. Tyrod Taylor is not the sole source of our team's problems. However, he is undeniably not a franchise qb. For those who have the temerity to argue otherwise I recommend that you become silent or you will continue to look foolish. I say this not with derision but with consolation.

When you watch Mayfield play what comes to mind is that his style of play is conducive to playing right away. No doubt there will still be a learning curve and acclimation to the pro game but his short, medium and rhythm passing translate to the pros. Not only is he precisely accurate but his ball placement is uncanny. The receivers comfortably catch the ball in stride when he is slinging the ball. At first I thought that Darnold and Rosen were the qbs in which a lot of assets would be need to be expended to move up the board to select either of them. Now I'm adding him to the higher priced mix. A lot of teams need qbs In this draft. Close to half of the teams have a major deficit at that position. When the draft process is concluded and final evaluations are written up he is going to be near the top of the qb list. I do believe that there are at lest 3-4 very good franchise qb prospects in this draft. Although I am open to other options he is the qb that I would prefer the most, at least at this time. The biggest mistake this franchise can make is get distracted by the prototypical physical requirements for the position, The issue is simple: How do you play? Whenever I have seen him play, mostly against high level programs, he is easily identified as the best and most dynamic player on the field. If one likes players such as Russell Wilson or Drew Brees, as I do, then this is the qb that should be favored.

We are in accord. Getting those value pick nuggets via lower round selections not only help In staffing your special teams and backups but it helps your cap situation by lowering the average for the backside of your roster. In addition, lower picks are usually the developmental players that in a couple of years could be ready to contribute. A fun question to put out there is who are some of our better low round picks. Right off the top of my head I would say Jason Peters who should be in consideration for the HOF. I'm not saying he is going to make it to the Hall but he should be considered. Going way back CB Robert James was another late round gem who had his career derailed due to injuries.

You pointed out examples of lower round players who significantly outperformed their draft status. However, if you want the odds on your side for a draftee to make it in the pro ranks I confidently would predict a greater success rate for players (any position) drafted higher. As you pointed out drafting is far from being a science. But if you want to improve your success rate on draftees it definitely tilts favorably to the higher drafted player. Too often, many people make the claim that one should not draft a qb in the first round because of the risk for failure is great. (I'm not saying you are making that claim. You clearly are making another point.) But the problem with that line of thinking is that you can make the same claim for every position. There certainly are no guarantees. But as I said at the beginning of the post the odds are more in your favor with a selection taken earlier rather than later.

There was a context to Watkins in that draft year. It was a year in which there were a number of high quality receiver prospects. If the Bills were more of a finished product then the decision was a little more reasonable but still risky because of the cost. In hindsight it is easy to be a critic. The compounding mistake and the real mistake in the Watkins selection is that the qb position was inadequately addressed. You can make plenty of mistakes and have them not prove so damaging if you have a franchise qb. That is where more attention and energy should have been directed. As you well know I am a supporter of McDermott's apparent roster building plan. However, if he doesn't address the qb issue in this next draft then I'm going to become a scathing critic. The Bills haven't had a franchise qb for nearly a quarter century. That's the real issue that we are dancing around when discussing Watkins.

When you are wrong it has a cascading effect. Marrone was a tiresome act one quickly wearies of. He was right and wasn't going to tolerate the albatross. EJ was a fourth round prospect who was drafted in the first round. It was a bad decision that had a damaging repercussion on him to the extent that it was a contributor to his failure at the job.

The difference is that the Falcons had a top tier qb and a more complete team that was able to sustain the loss of picks. Julio's talents were able to be maximized because the franchise had a qb to actualize his talents. That wasn't the case in Buffalo. The issue has never been about Watkins's talent. Without a doubt he is a sterling talent. It will be on display in LA with Goff throwing to him while in Buffalo it wasn't going to happen here in Buffalo. In fact it was a source of his very public frustration. Whaley made the mistake of drafting Watkins to compensate for the weaknesses at qb. He got it backwards. He should have first had a qb in place who was capable of maximizing the talents of the costly receiver. Strategic thinking in reverse is always wrong.

When McDermott entered the scene he did so with a blueprint of the type of players he wanted (beyond scheme) and was much more cognizant of cap structure. How a player fits in with his personality and commitment are serious considerations when deciding on roster spots. Chemistry is an issue that is important to McDermott while less so for Whaley, who focused on talent with less regard to the fit. As most everyone acknowledges Whaley was a good pro scout and average to below average as a college scout. There is no doubt that the owner with his HCing hires shackled the GM creating a lack of organizational cohesion. The Rex hire was an outright embarrassment that set this franchise back. This franchise is still working hard to overcome that glaring blunder. What is going to define McDermott is how in general he drafts and whether he comes up with a franchise qb, sooner rather than later. I'm not bothered by the fact that it appears that McDermott has the most authority in the football operation, more than the GM, because what is more important is that the coach and the GM are in sync. So on the issue of organizational cohesion, which I believe is critical, this new regime is more advanced than the prior regime.