JohnC

Although he really hasn't played much in his short career he carries himself as a veteran in the sense as you described he is not affected by his bad plays. He has some mechanical issues to clean up but there are some traits associated with "intangibles" that can't be taught. You either have them or don't. He's got them. From a development standpoint he should stay in for another year. Dak Prescott didn't have a first round game. Russel Wilson didn't have a first round grade. For many analysts Mahomes didn't have a first round grade. And for many analysts Watson did not have a top tier grade. I'm not questioning your grading system because it seems more than reasonable. What I am questioning is that I don't think that qbs should be on the same scale as the other positions. They should be in a separate category altogether. The issue for me is whether in due time the prospect has enough tools both physically and mentally to be a franchise qb. That is why I would not be reluctant to draft a qb higher than the standard ranking of players.

If there were some good ones there you can be confident that they would have passed on by without making a purchase.

He's got the look of what? Why do you think he is a fifth round selection? If the Bills don't use a high pick on a qb in the next draft the franchise should be charged with felonious malfeasance. Enough is enough!

Have you considered the fact that the coaches who see Peterman every day in practice know what they have at this point? What you desperately want to see now is being seen every day in the practices. If Peterman is getting better but not ready to play then that is part of the learning process. Most of us, certainly including the organization, know what TT is and what his upside and downside are. There is no mystery to it. You have a point that the Bills aren't necessarily winning because of him but the flip side is that they aren't mostly losing because of him. On paper the Bills are still competing for a playoff spot. Is it an illusion? Maybe. If it is, so what. Why not just let the season play on and see how things materialize. If it doesn't work out as wanted then there will be an opportunity for Peterman to play. Playing him a little later means playing him when he is a little more prepared. That is the right thing for the player and for the team and for the fans.

On that issue we are in agreement. Not much more to add. Teams adjust to your strengths. It's not a static situation. If you run well teams will focus on stopping it. I don't understand the necessity of changing the blocking scheme when the players you have are adept at it. So I'm sure that is a factor. But for me the bigger factor is that because our passing game is so rudimentary it is not spreading out the defense thus creating more congestion for the running game. I agree with you that our receiving corps is one of the worst, if not the worst, in the league. Much of the decline has to do with the departure of Watkins. However, I understand why he was dealt. Did he want to be here and sign here? Was he on board with how the HC wanted him to comport himself? So the new regime dealt him and got what they could. I'm fine with that. We got a starting CB and a second round pick for him. That' a reasonable return. Where I disagree with you and many others is that I don't believe that the team McDermott inherited was a playoff team. Maybe a fringe wild-card contender but not rising to the level of being a good sustaining team. So he and the GM are doing what new regimes do when they take over a team: tear down and rebuild it to fit their vision of what a good team should look like. As I have said on many posts to the chagrin of many is that this is a rebuilding project. It's going to take another few years until it is close to being complete knowing full well that rosters are always a work in progress. That's the nature of the business. I strongly believe (and I think you do to) that it is a priority to get a good qb prospect from this year's draft. If not the same cycle of mediocrity will continue. I never believed that this was going to be a quick fix and I'm now more convinced of it.

When you watch a game in which a qb can run a full scale passing offense and compare it to a Taylor game, even in a game in which he garners respectable stats, there is a stark difference. At times, especially when our running game is clicking, our offense can be effective. But it is a very crimped offense compared to offenses run by franchise qbs. What galls me to no end is the "let's wait another year" chorus when there will be a better qb crop in the next draft class. The Bills had an opportunity to draft a qb in the first round last year. They didn't because of some magnified flaws. It's the same thing every year. The aversion, or better yet the neuroses, toward drafting a qb has gotten so bad that young qbs who struggled in their rookie year are cited as examples why this bedraggled franchise should not draft a qb with a high pick. Goff is an example of that pessimistic thinking. Not surprisingly those false reflexive critics are quiet now. How much criticism is Newton receiving from his critics? They are quick to point out his failures yet are silent about his successes. The Bills have not had a franchise qb since the retirement of Jim Kelly, a quarter century ago. I'm hoping that after this season, when the outcome is predictable, this new regime will do not only the right thing but the only thing that will give it a chance to succeed i.e. investing in a high end qb prospect. There needs to be a more mature realization that there is no perfect prospect. Citing an exaggerated flaw as a reason to avoid drafting a qb is an ingrained habit afflicting this fan base and organization . Drafting a qb in the fifth round is not a solution. Until this franchise acquires a franchise qb the cycle of futility will continue.

If Dareus is dealt sooner rather than later it won't be because McDermott has a grudge against him. It will be because of Dareus's lack of commitment and work ethic. You don't think that McDermott would embrace him as a player if he played at the same high level he played at when he was playing for a contract? You and I disagree on the Watkins departure. I suspect that the new staff was less than enamored with his attitude, as were his teammates. So it's not surprising that when you are starting over you are more inclined to start fresh than stay with the old remnants of the roster you are taking over. Where you and I have an irreconcilable difference in perspective is that I believe the Bills are rebuilding while you seem to believe that this team was more advanced than I do. My belief is that the wrestling coach convinced the owner/s that this roster was not built smartly and that it needed a major overhaul from a talent standpoint and cap distribution standpoint. From what I have observed the actions of the staff are following that take. My view of the situation is more optimistic than many others. In one offseason the defense was significantly remade and is now functionally well. The team has made a number of deals to acquire picks so the next draft should bring in an infusion of talent, assuming the draft is handled well. Because of the acquisition of additional picks this franchise should be in a good position to draft a high end prospect, something that you have advocated for a long time. That is the key for success!

Do you know what the difference is between the two scenarios? Goff proved to be a qb who can accurately pass and play the position. I have no problem with the selection of Watkins even with giving up the extra first round pick. What makes that deal dumb is that there should have been an urgency to find a qb who could maximize the receiver's talents. EJ didn't work out. If there would have been a greater determination to find a franchise qb through the draft or on the market then the Watkins deal would in hindsight make more sense. Please stop with the argument that EJ had a better rookie year than Goff. That means absolutely nothing. The Rams drafted Goff with the intention of not playing him his rookie year because they realized that coming from the college program he came from he simply wasn't going to be ready. They were forced to play him his rookie year. He was overwhelmed. The next year with an offseason of preparation, an upgrading of the OL and receiver corps and with better coaching he is demonstrating that he was well worth the cost to draft him. I have no problem with the trading of Watkins. As it turned out there was a number of reasons why he was dealt. But for me getting rid of the receiver for a starting CB and second round pick made sense because as it stands with our qbing situation he was not going to be as productive as he could be. There are many people who are already coming to the conclusion that Watkins isn't as good as many thought. My view is the opposite. Although he is not currently a prominent player on offense I believe his contributions are going to increase as the season advances.

Goff was a disaster his rookie year and now it appears that he is going to be a franchise qb. Bruce Smith didn't play well his rookie year but turned out to be a HOF player. Moulds didn't have a stellar rookie year but he turned out to be one of our better receivers in the team's history. etc., etc. Zay Jones has simply been inept. However, I'm not writing him off the rookie. Dawkins has been very inconsistent but there are occasions where he has demonstrated that he belongs. If you want to write him off go ahead. I'm not following your lead. The Bills are a rebuilding team and organization. It is going to take at least another three years, assuming the qb position is upgraded. If you expected that this was going to be an easy transition then you weren't being realistic. You may not understand what the wrestling coach is doing but I do.

I simply don't understand your EJ point. It makes no sense to me relative to Goff. Goff is an immensely better qb. As far as who out-performed who in their rookie year, who cares? It has little meaning. The point with respect to Watkins whether he is with the Rams or the Bills is that without a good passing qb his talents will not be realized. Watkins joined the Rams very late. You may be writing him off as a player but I'm not. It's my belief that he will be an impactful player with Goff and the Rams while that would not be the case in Buffalo under the current qbing situation.

You make an excellent point about keeping the game simple for Goff and then building off that. Herm Edwards was asked on a radio show why Goff is doing so much better this year and seems more confident. He made the point, as you did, that he called simple pass plays so that he can get completions and boost his confidence. This is good coaching and player development. There is another factor as to why Goff is making a quantum leap forward in his second year. In the offseason, the OL was bolstered and the running game with Gurley was emphasized to take the pressure off of the qb. In addition, Kupp was drafted and Watkins was belatedly added. Or another way of saying this is that the offense got better with added players. What it came down to is that the qb was put in a better position to succeed.

You are right that they drafted Watkins to help EJ. It didn't work because the problem was with the qb. The same issue followed when Taylor became the qb. The point is that the receiver is not substantially going to mask the inherent deficiencies that the qb has. That's the point! With respect to EJ looking better than Goff as a rookie, so what? Who is the better qb now and in the future? EJ is going to be a pedestrian backup while Goff has the potential to be an established franchise qb for the rest of his career. When you make an instant judgment on a player without allowing for development time you are making judgments that are prone to be wrong.

What are you arguing for? Bad qbing play? The issue with Taylor isn't that he is bad because he isn't. The issue is whether he is good enough and whether you can find a better qb. No doubt different teams are constructed differently. Unquestionably some modestly successful teams can be built with at best average qbs. You don't have to have a great qb to be successful because there are few qbs available in that lofty category. (As you noted.) But if you want to have sustained success the odds exponentially increase if you have a good franchise qb who can play a well rounded game. We don't have that now.

From what I have seen of Rosen I agree with you that he makes some jaw dropping NFL throws. But if your standard for drafting a qb is to only go for the best qb on the board then odds are you will rarely have that opportunity. In assessing qbs it's not unusual that the consensus best qb doesn't turn out to be the best qb as time goes by. A lot of that has to do with where the qb goes to. If you go to a chaotic situation the prospects for success deeply drops. I believe that there are going to be maybe three to five first-rate prospects. Maybe none of them will be ready to start right away. We need to get a legitimate prospect on the roster sooner rather than later. I'm not expecting a qb who turns out to be our salvation. I want a legitimate franchise qb playing on a well-rounded team that gives us a reasonable chance to be a meaningful team.

You got the argument twisted. In Buffalo Whaley's reasoning was that a talented receiver could make the limited qb functional. Taylor was never considered to be a young developing qb in the sense that he had recognized limitations to his game. There is no point to argue otherwise because this veteran qb has not outgrown his liabilities. He is what he is. Or another way of saying it the receiver was brought in at a costly price to prop up the qb. That's different from having a talented passing qb maximizing the talents of a receiver. So far in LA Watkins hasn't been fully exploited. But that shouldn't be a surprise because he joined the team late and the Rams have other weapons such as Gurley and Kupp. I have said it many times but it is futile to heavily invest in a talented receiver, whoever it may be, if the qb is mediocre at best. The Falcons got it right when they made an expensive deal to draft Julio Jones because they had Matt Ryan as their qb. Buffalo as usual got it half-assssed backwards. With respect to the highlighted segment you make a good point. The Rams made a big investment in trading for Goff. Especially with qbs there is a developmental period. In his rookie year he simply wasn't ready. In his second year he made a quantum leap but still is far away from being an established qb. In the next year or two he should be a much more impactful player. Because of the time required for the learning process I have strongly argued to get a serious prospect on board sooner rather than later. Dithering is not a solution---it is a problem.

Goff is still in a very early stage of his development so his ability to scan the field is still rudimentary. Given time and with a young passing qb who is going to get better Watkins will be targeted more, assuming he signs there. Watkins joined the Rams late so he didn't have an opportunity to work out with the team in the offseason. Right now Goff is more comfortable throwing to Kupp. As time goes on Watkins should be more involved with the offense. Anyone who is dismissing Watkins from a talent standpoint is because of his personality is making a mistake.

I'm asking this as a serious question. Was the topic related to farming and local enterprises?

What's the difference? The outcome is the same.

BillsRdue, Excellent analysis and summary. Well done. When the defense makes it a priority to keep TT in the pocket and make him be a conventional qb he struggles. He's not a rhythm passer and has an ingrained tendency to hesitate before throwing. As you noted the receivers are to an extent getting open but if the timing isn't there and the qb doesn't have the willingness/confidence to throw to tight spots then the passing game is going to be ineffective. Many, if not most, of Taylor's completion are throws that are slightly off resulting in the receivers not being able to catch the ball in stride. (As you sharply noted.) Taylor is a better passer when moving than when in the pocket. Although you are cutting the field when the qb rolls out it is still the best design for him when passing.

Don't get fixated on any one qb. There will be 3 to 5 qbs who are capable of being legitimate franchise qbs. Randolph and Mayfiel are good prospects. Lamar Jackson who may need more grooming could turn out to be the best of the lot. The worst strategy that the Bills could take is waiting to get value. That is a reasonable approach for every position but it is not for the qb position. The best approach is to draft the best qb you can with your first round pick, and that includes using draft picks to move up the board.

Next year the Bills will have a large number of high end picks, six picks in the first three rounds. Since that's the case if there is no change in Dareus's attitude and work habits then just take the cap hit and move on. Because we have so many picks next year's roster should have a disproportionate number of young players whose salary will be manageable. McDermott and Beane have clearly stated the type of players they want. It's clear that Dareus doesn't fit in. It's a shame to see players not play up to their potential. There was a period of time when Dareus demonstrated that he was one of the best interior linemen in the league. If he had the desire and commitment he would be worth his contract. Unless there is an unlikely dramatic change in Dareus's approach to the game it is best for him and the team to move on from each other.

If the Bills don't use a high pick on a qb it will continue to be a failed franchise. No one is arguing against building up the roster because that and getting a qb are not mutually exclusive. Until the qb position is addressed the franchise will continue to flounder. Drafting a qb prospect doesn't mean that there will be instant success. Time has to be given for development. That's why waiting is a poor approach to take. Whaley thought he acquired a receiver, Watkins, who was a generational talent. It was an assss back decision because until the qb issue is resolved the receiving talents will be squandered.

Just think the Browns had an opportunity to draft Wentz and instead traded the pick for multiple picks. The Rams did the same thing to move up to draft Goff. When are franchises going to learn that the most important ingredient for success is having a franchise qb? What do you think the Browns would do if they had a do-over? Some teams get it and other teams don't. The three teams who took qbs in the first round all traded up to get their franchise qb. While the Bills dither other teams act aggressively to seize opportunities that we pass on.

Our receiver corps is arguably the worst in the league. I'm comfortable in saying that. So there is no disagreement between us on that issue. But it also not surprising that teams adjust to what other teams do well. I strongly believe that until the qb position is dramatically upgraded and a more well rounded passing game is instituted that our offense is going to remain a little better than being impotent. No one on this board has been more willing to acknowledge Watkins's talents. If he were still with Buffalo his talents would be squandered because of the caliber of the qb. That's the real issue! If Watkins is not making a major impact with the Rams and a better qb in Goff then how would he be so impactful with the Bills with a lesser passer? I have said it many times whether with Sammy or not the Bills are not a playoff team. This is a rebuilding team with a lot of needs. Watkins by himself is not the difference maker that you and others are making him out to be.

As far as making a comment that was demeaning to your beloved institution your interpretation of what I said is not only wrong but absurdly wrong. Your response is your response. It had no relationship to what I actually said. Do you honestly think that I am naïve enough to believe that a large percentage of the football players would get in Stanford if they applied separate from the football program. That's not what I said and meant. What I did say is that the academic standards for the football program is higher than most tier I football programs. That's a fact! That was my point before you misinterpreted what I actually stated when you surprisingly vigorously responded I used as an example Alabama, among other big time programs, to illustrate a point that Stanford has challenges in recruiting that other programs don't have. There is nothing demeaning about that comment although you took it as such. It's simply true. You are treating my comment as if I was making a scathing moral judgment on Alabama and other programs. You are diving too deep when the issue is much more shallow. Your raw nerve is your raw nerve. I wasn't tweaking anyone or program.