JohnC

I don't understand your point?. What does drafting two good qbs have to do with my comments when for nearly a quarter century the Bills haven't drafted a good qb in any round, let alone the first round. (note: The Packers drafted Rodgers when they had Favre, a HOF qb. And KC drafted Maomes with a trade up with us when they already had a competent franchise qb in Alex Smith.) The point I have made in a number of posts is that this franchise has had a number of opportunities to draft good prospects that were available in rounds lower than the first. Russell Wilson and Cousins come to mind. Ask the Rams if it was worth it to take a risk and draft Goff in an expensive draft deal? Ask the Eagles if it was worth it for them in another expensive deal to draft Wentz? Ask the Texans if was worth it to trade up for Watson, a prospect who was available for us? Kirby and others point out that there are no quaranties when drafting a qb. I'm well aware of that. But the reality is that there are no quaranties when drafting for any position. If an organization is going to take a risk then it isn't unreasonable to do it for a position that when properly addressed literally changes the fate of an organization in a positive manner. The Bills have been out of the playoffs for a generation, and still counting. Maintaining the status quo maintains the dispiriting and numbing status quo. What else can you expect?

Do you want to know the best way to evaluate how a team drafts? Look at its record. When a team hasn't been in the playoffs for a generation in a system that is designed for parity then there is something fundamentally wrong. Until there is a commitment made to address the most important position in the game then the action on the periphery means little. The Bills have had more than their share of opportunities to make a consequential decision and resolve a major problem. They passed when reasonable opportunities existed. I don't understand why you often bring up Hackenberg or Pat White or others bring up Manuel. Good scouting is good scouting and bad scouting is bad scouting. There are teams that do it well and there are teams that don't. Referring to bad evaluations as a reason why not to do something avoids the fact that good evaluations are the solutions to problems. When you don't act because of a fear of failure then you are stymying yourself. When you pursue success and fail then the next response should be try again.

I have a much different perspective on the qb issue than you. When you haven't had a franchise qb in nearly a quarter century I think it is useful to look back at ask oneself why opportunities were missed when they were available. As I have said on prior posts teams that don't have a franchise qb need to be more aggressive and pro-active in addressing that issue than teams that already have an established qb. Not willing to consider what you could have done as well as review what you have done in my mind is missing out on a useful learning tool that applies to all fields of endeavor.

What makes you so wary of Mayfield and Rudolph? Mayfield is dynamic and Rudolph has prototypical size and talents. I haven't seen too much of Rosen but from what I have seen he makes all the pro throws. What scares me about him is that he has gotten to be so battered with concussion injuries added to his numerous injuries. If you can watch a portion of the Okla/OklaSt game you will be stunned by the dynamism of Mayfield. You will also be impressed with how Rudolph's abilities translates to the pro game. I have little qualms with either players. I also like Lamar Jackson a lot but recognize he is more of a project.

If I may, let me ask you in hindsight an unfair hypothetical question. If you had a draft do-over would you have selected the qb, Watson, instead of making the trade down? You already know my position. Interested in yours. The new format has me flummoxed. I wanted to include the Kirby quote. On the Lattimore issue you are both birds with the same feathers.

Both of you make good points about the preference for Lattimore over Adams. I'm not as emphatic on that issue for the Jets. Adams was a good pick if not the right pick for the Jets. It wasn't only about talent. An additional factor was trying to add an infectious attitude (energy) to a lagging team. What's right for one team is not necessarily the most right for another team. Both teams got players that helped their respective teams.

It is not overstating to say that Lattimore is playing at an all-pro level. As you fairly stated Tre White is playing very well. I still like the trade down (although preferred selecting a qb with our original pick) and obtaining another first round pick. The Bills are rebuilding and need a quantity of talent. If the first round pick that was gained in the KC trade is used in a deal to get a qb I will be ecstatic. In addition, it was widely reported that the player the Bills would have selected if they would have stayed pat and was available was Lattimore. So that's an indication their talent evaluation would have been spot on.

What the new HC first did is put the young qb in situations where he can complete passes. As the season is advancing and he is gaining confidence the playbook is expanding. That's good coaching and player development. You start with the basics and then add to your game. Gaining experience and getting better. Next year he will be much more accomplished, and after that he will be an established qb. That's the point I was making.

Goff is a young qb who at this point isn't adept at going through his progressions. One of the reasons why Goff made a quantum leap as a qb is that their smart, young HC simplified the passing game so that Goff could complete passes and gain confidence. It's working and the team is succeeding. Unquestionably, Goff is more comfortable throwing to Kupp and Woods than Watkins. The result is that the passing game is clicking even with Watkins consistently getting open because other receivers are also getting open. It's not too difficult to understand why Watkins who is playing for a contract is frustrated. Tough! The team is winning despite the fact that he is not getting what he believes to be his fair share of touches. There is no doubt that Watkins is a superlative talent. What he is not is a superlative teammate.

I have a different take. It was Rex and his philosophical change that set this franchise back. In reality it was the unschooled new owner who set this franchise back by weirdly hiring the known huckster. My harshest criticism for Whaley is that he didn't adequately address the qb situation.

As a draft prospect he wasn't considered an elite pass rusher. If he were he would have been a top ten selection. He was a good pass rusher who had a well rounded game that included playing the run. He is a responsible contain DE who puts consistent pressure on the qb but rarely gets the sack. He's a good player who will never be special. What's wrong with that? The notion that he is a bust is simply foolish.

I agree with you---what's the point? The more critical issue has little to do with these qbs but whether this new regime is going to take a more bold move in the draft to upgrade the qb position. Anyone who watched the Oklahoma/OKState game witnessed two high quality qb prospects in that game. Mayfield was dynamic and brilliant in that game. Rudolph also demonstrated by his play and impressive physical attributes that he is certainly a top tier franchise qb prospect. There is nothing wrong with keeping Taylor as your bridge qb. However, it will be a fatal mistake if McDermott/Beane believe that Taylor is the type of qb to build around. When you build around someone's glaring limitations you end up building an offense saddled with those same limitations. There comes a point where you either address the most important position in the game or you continue on with the generational stagnation. If you believe otherwise then ask Whaley what he would have done differently if he had the chance to do his job over again.

Anyone who wanted a CB at the ten spot is prone to being assaulted by NYC Bill. His antipathy toward DBs can not be contained regardless how good a player is. It is a borderline compulsive issue. However, we still love our NYC Gotham man with Alabama roots. I wonder if he says y'all or hey you when he is in Manhattan?

Usually with this type of stern discipline it is because of a accumulation of incidents. The rookie is a talented player and important player for the team. Now he knows and so do the other players on the team who do the right thing that all players will be held accountable. Marrone did the right thing. Dareus beware!

Do you want a mountain of bad news? Drew Brees is the qb playing against a team that can't mount a respectable pass rush. That's a recipe for a disaster.

You are making a good point. There is cap flexibility that allows us to go in a variety of directions. There is a value consideration with this new regime's personnel decisions. Dareus, playing at his best, is well worth his salary. Dareus, playing sluggishly, is not worth his cap hit. The Benjamin deal made a lot of sense for Carolina because they have a similar type player in Funchess who is equally as productive. In addition, there were some conflicts with him regarding conditioning which made the deal even more appealing for the dispatching team. For Buffalo the Bills get a big target at a need position. Our staff is acquainted with the player so it knows the type of player they are getting. Without a doubt he is filling a need and his talent level is higher (in my estimation) than the pick we are trading.

Remember, you are a Bills fan. You are prepared and you are inured.

That's a good question. I'm not sure if McDermott was on board or not at the time. I thought he was on board and the open option issue was there for him to make a final determination. However, I'm not sure. My thinking is that McDermott was instrumental in the decision because the Matthew fallback receiver deal was shortly made.

I agree with your post. Let me add that although you may not agree the Watkins trade was as much about what he was going to cost in the near future. He was a player although very talented the staff didn't want to invest in because he was not their "type" of player. In my view Whaley would have been more amenable to signing him to a grand contract simply based on his talent. Not was not the case with this new regime.

I salute the coach. It's easy to be graceful when you win. Being graceful after you lose is much more challenging and is the right way to act. Sportsmanship is difficult to live up to after an emotional defeat. It's still the right thing to do. Franklin acted like a leader.

There shouldn't be much fretting about the cap situation because there is now cap space, and next year with the added high picks there should be a number of cheap draftees who make the roster. What is just as important as the actual cap is the distribution of the cap throughout the roster. Allowing Gilmore to leave, dealing Watkins and trading Dareus are not just player transactions but also cap transactions that create better balance in that area. What seems apparent to me is that this new regime is more strategic in handling the cap than Whaley was. The former GMo seemed to act in a more case by case basis without less consideration for the longer term ramifications.

Excuse me for the delay. I just fainted and had to soak my woozy head in an ice bucket. We are in accord!

Lamar Jackson intrigues me a lot based on his raw potential. I believe his ranking is going to significantly go up as the draft approaches. Although I see him as a raw prospect I consider him to be an exciting prospect that I am willing to invest in. His leap forward from his prior season to this season is a good sign. Mayfield is another qb that I find very enticing. He may be the most productive qb in the draft. I'm not as wary about him as you are. He reminds me of Brees without the pocket instincts at this point. His ability to use the whole field is a reflection of his good vision and ability to process. Please put away the Manziel references when talking about him. They are not appropriate.

The GM who was leaving (Whaley) wanted to release Taylor. The empowered new regime was willing to keep Taylor under the condition that he take a pay cut. Although technically Taylor was not a free agent he had the ability to refuse taking a pay cut and going to a team that was willing to start him and pay him more. He didn't do it because he through his advisers knew what the other teams were willing to offer. I don't agree with how you are portraying his market value within the league. With his own team it was a diminished value because he had to take a pay cut to remain, even with the new staff. Let's not be naïve here. Players and agents skirt the tampering rules all the time. So he not knowing what he could have gotten on the market isn't a fair representation of the situation. My basic point is if he could gotten more from another team and still started I don't think he would have stayed with the team that required him to take less.

This isn't a qb year in which a Manning or Luck as draftees are on the market. So I wouldn't be selling off the farm to acquire a prospect who isn't much better than the rest of the three to five upscale prospects. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't make a deal or stand pat to get a Mayfield or Lamar Jackson caliber of prospect. (I'm not limiting the list but giving an example.) As you well know I have often stated that this new regime is rebuilding the roster so there still needs to be many more additions. But it would be a mistake for us to not keep our options open to upgrade the qb position. I'm well aware that your take on this issue is different from mine.