JohnC

If you allow me I'll answer your question directed at Jeff because the both of us are very aligned on this issue. We both believe that the first priority of this franchise is to get a good qb prospect or a good qb by any means on the roster sooner rather than later. I believe, as he does, that the Bills were in a good position to draft a high end prospect in Mahomes or Watkins with our first round pick at the ten spot. McDermott traded out of the spot allowing KC to draft a qb that at the time our denuded GM, Whaley, wanted to do. McDermott who was in control of the football operation at the draft decided to trade down to acquire more picks. He used the lower pick to select a cb and pocketed a first round pick for next year. Was it the right move for the defensive oriented HC to make? My opinion is no but the majority of people believe otherwise. My contention (and his) is that this vacillating mind-set to use a high pick on a qb in the draft has resulted in this franchise to be stuck in the muck of mediocrity for more than a generation. The Bills have not had a legitimate franchise qb since the retirement of Kelly. That is more than two decades ago. It's not surprising that our lack of participation in the playoffs very much parallels the time where we have had a void at that position.

For me Kaep is one of the biggest disappointments I have seen as a player. After watching him play in his rookie year and being coached by Harbaugh I thought he was going not only be one of the better upcoming qbs but that he was going to redefine the position. He is a tremendous athlete and who has a strong arm. For whatever reason he never took the next step and added to his game from his rookie year. It appeared early on that he wasn't going to be the type of qb who was going to be a conventional qb who stayed in the pocket and deftly went through the progressions. What bothered/disappointed me the most is that he never was able to develop a touch on his ball. It seemed that every time he threw the ball it was a fastball with little touch. From a physical standpoint he had it all. He was a physical specimen. He is also very bright. He was smart enough to be courted by Ivy League schools and also Stanford which put in a lot off effort trying to entice him to their program. I'm hoping that eventually he puts it together but when you have been in the league for a number of years and there is little progression then that is very telling. To a lesser extent I had the same disappointing sensation for Losman. The parts never equaled the whole product.

Drew Stanton is probably the prime backup for now. That can change with them keeping their eyes on the market for better qb options. You can bet that Arizona will be intensely scouting the college ranks for the next qb draft class, just like Buffalo.

I like it a lot. The Pegulas went out and got someone who was very sound. All the people they considered were very respected upcoming talents. They didn't try to out think and out smart everyone. The owners were focused on the task at hand and they made a good decision.

Kaep wanted a fresh start. He got it. By not accepting the option he took a major financial risk in testing the market. That's his prerogative. So my original conjecture that Kaep's contract expectations were much higher than Gabbert's is more probable than not. With respect to the highlighted section from a cost/benefit standpoint for a backup or maybe even a second backup position in Arizona the selection of Gabbert makes a lot of sense compared to bringing in Kaep. The central issue for Arizona isn't which qb is better as the issue is which qb makes more sense as a backup and at what price.

I'm very confident that Gabbert's current contract expectation is much less than Kaep's. That's not to say that Kaep's contract's expectation will not come down as time passes and he is still sidelined. Correct me if I'm wrong but couldn't Kaep have stayed with the 49ers, even with a salary modification, at a higher price than what appears to be his current market worth?

It's not a forgone conclusion that any qb is going to be good and it's not a forgone conclusion that any positional player going to be good. If your argument is then we should avoid taking a qb with a high pick then it is a formula that this organization has followed for a long time. Where has it gotten us? You are making a big assumption that the Bills will be using a first round pick on a qb next year. No one now knows that for sure. And even if the organization was determined to use a first round pick on a qb it doesn't know who will be available when its turn comes up. KC successful made the deal to move up to get the qb. It was reported that the Giants and the Saints attempted to move up to acquire him but couldn't get a deal done. That tells you that other organizations also had a high rating on him.

Not many people are going to argue that Gabbert is anything more than a backup. In fact, that's what he is brought in to do, or at least compete for a backup job. He's at best a second-rate conventional backup qb. For the Cardinals the discussion isn't who is better rather than who is is better suited for the team and at what price? Ask yourself what contract would Gabbert be willing to play for and what contract is Kaep willing to pay for? In this case the cheaper option is the better option as a backup, assuming he makes the team.

Andy Reid schooled the new HC on the day of the draft by making a deal with the younger fellow to get a qb on draft day. The older and heavier HC showed by his aggressive actions how important it is to get a good qb prospect in the fold sooner rather than later. When all is said and done getting McDermott and Beane hired and working together in the organization is an upgrade from a variety of standpoints. One of the biggest positive outcomes is that there is now a great degree of coherency and unity throughout the football operation. The HC and the GM and their respective staffs will be working in tandem instead of tugging against one another. That is a fundamental change that hasn't existed for a long time. Sometimes the process of reorganizing an organization gets messy drawing warranted criticisms. Hiring a HC before getting a GM very often causes problems. In addition, empowering a first time HC to the extent that he is now empowered is also something to be wary of. But all these issues are mitigated because both of the new hires have been close associates and both seem to share the same philosophies about how to run an organization and build a roster.

No doubt the fans will express their frustrations if the team goes through another 6-10 type season. My response is: Tough! This organization needs to stop taking an approach of let's just get by on a year to year basis so we have something acceptable to market. There comes a point where you have to have a winning vision and blueprint that will get you there. The challenge is not to come up with a plan that will lead to success. The real challenge is to come up with a good plan and then having the courage and fortitude to stick with the plan when you go through the inevitable struggles. Taking the easy way out of baling out only gets you back to the starting line. Isn't more than a generation of muddling along long enough before there is a direction change? The Buffalo fans are for the most part smart enough to know what works and what doesn't. If there is a reasonable blueprint and some measures of success I'm confident that most people will be on board. You never are going to get total acceptance but that's reality.

It was widely reported that Whaley wanted to get rid of TT and it was reported that he also wanted to draft a qb, Mahomes, in this draft. I agreed with that strategy. The problem was Whaley lost his authority to act when McDermott was brought on. I'm not an absolutist on the rebuild issue. I understand why McDermott preferred keeping TT and going on from there. It's difficult to instill a positive culture and the coach maintaining credibility when you are weekly being pummeled.

This is not a full-scale Cleveland Browns type of rebuild. That's clearly the case. But in my view this is a mini-rebuild that will take a few years before this team becomes a contending team. We can fruitlessly get into a semantical argument of the definition of a rebuild but what's the point in arguing that. What is very probable is that it is going to take at least three years to get back to being a serious team. The Bills are a 7 win caliber of team, reasonable arguments can be made for -1 or +1 from that estimate. It's going to take because of our qb situation at least another two or three years before it climbs out of its generational rut. With good coaching and smart personnel moves it wouldn't surprise me if this team got better although in the short run it still wasn't reflected by its record.

I never said under a new staff that the Bills are going to tank. However, that doesn't mean that a lower scaled rebuild will not be taking place. McDermott kept Tyrod for the simple reason that it allows the team to be respectable. Why jettison him and then bring in another bridge caliber qb? As you pointed out with TT the team will be in the same mid-tier zone as it is now. What it is also means that with a TT caliber of qb it is not going to climb out of that same wretched zone that we have been entrapped in for a generation. Do you think that McDermott and Beane took the job to remain stuck in the morass of mediocrity? The mistake you are making at assessing the status of the Bills is that you are looking at it from an either/or spectrum when it is not that. It's more like adding an addition to one's house while still living in it. It's messy and sometimes chaotic but as long as the project is moving forward it is tolerable. Are the Bills under the new coach going to continue to strive to win? Absolutely. But when you are not good enough--you are not good enough. My contention is the same as it has been since the hiring of McDermott: This is a rebuild on the fly and that it is going to take another few years before this team is rebuilt to be a contending team. I understand why many would disagree with that assessment but what is obvious to me may not be obvious to others.

With respect to the highlighted section we have had this discussion before. I understand your position which is conflicted but mine isn't. It's my strongly held view that McDermott entered into this new endeavor with a blueprint on how he wants to not only build a roster but also an organization. This is a major overhaul from the front office to the roster. You don't summarily fire all your scouts and everyone associated with the Whaley regime unless you want a complete restructuring. This isn't simply replacing staff---it is replacing the culture and mind-set on how the franchise operates from top to bottom. McDermott prefers having a roster full of high character and effort players over more talented but less diligent and disciplined players. It is going to take time to rework the roster but it will be done. His first draft clearly indicates that he is not interested in talented players but troubled players. Beyond the roster the wrestling coach also has a vision on how the cap should be structured and balanced out. I believe that one of Beane's primary responsibilities is to better manage the cap. Contrary to the opinion of most others I don't believe that the Bills are close to being a playoff team. (I have stated my position right after his hiring.) That really doesn't bother me as long as the rebuild is done in a smart way and that progress is steady enough where success is soon realistic. It's my opinion that this isn't a quick fix situation. If things are done right I can handle it.

If Beane was hired first as the GM and then he hired McDermott as the HC I would be less troubled and very satisfied. The opposite happened here, at least it seems that way to me. It appears that McDermott is the one most empowered in the franchise. That in itself isn't necessarily bad but it comes with caveats. The obvious advantage of hiring Beane is that because of the close association with the new HC it is more likely that there is going to be more unity of thought in the football operation. That is usually a good thing but it also can be a bad thing when there is too much group think and not enough challenging of views. Contrary to what many people believe my view is that the Bills are going through a rebuild, not necessarily full scale like the Browns but still very substantial. It is not only a major overhauling of the roster but also the organization. That in itself is a good thing if done the right way.

What's your problem with it? Why do you take it as a negative? Weren't you one of the fellows who found Rex's braggadocio act to be a refreshing change of pace and very endearing for this boring franchise?

I respectfully but strenuously disagree with the highlighted comment. As soon as he was hired he became the voice of the football operation over the then muted and castrated GM. He made the decision on the qb, not the GM. This empowerment was clearly a condition of his employment with the franchise. It's not surprising that most although not all of the candidates for the GM position have had a relationship with him. That's certainly not a surprise to me. I'm not say that it is a bad thing for the next GM to have had a previous relationship with him but it is limiting one's options when you do that. Can a strong man HC structure work? Yes. But I don't know why that wide ranging authority was bestowed to a person who has a lot of experience in the league but is inexperienced as a HC. As I said in prior postings the GM and HC have different perspectives attached to their jobs. The GM has a wider perspective while the HC has a more immediate perspective. The Pegulas have made a lot of mistakes in hiring people in both of their pro franchises. In this case I think it would have been a better approach to hire a GM and then let that person hire the HC. I am not as entrusting of the wrestling coach with his expansive authority as most people are. It isn't simply adding scouts to the organization. There is more to it. You have to get all the hires on board to understand what you value in players and the system you want them fit in. The newly hired scouts have a variety of perspectives and different language to describe the attributes of the players. You have to get everyone in sync and on the same page. That isn't a quick process. It especially takes more time when the house was completely cleaned out. Starting from scratch makes the task much more difficult and time consuming.

To be blunt with you I'm troubled with the way the wrestling coach was bestowed so quickly with so much authority. Without a doubt the wrestler made an impression on the Pegulas when interviewed. He had his blueprint to remake this stumbling franchise into a more competitive and upgraded organization. The owners bought into what he was selling. My problem with the apparent current arrangement where the HC is so empowered is that the GM perspective is different from the HCing perspective. Having a good relationship between the two offices is critical but that is not to say that the GM should simply be an extension of what the HC wants. Internal dynamics within an organization even to the point where there is some conflict is not always bad. It is when one is being challenged that new ideas and different options are considered. On what I am observing so far at what is going on at OBD I am cautious and wary.

Bill, You can make a lot of mistakes with the cap and on players when assembling a roster and still remain competitive. But what can't be overcome is not having a credible qb taking the snaps for your offense. It's so basic that it is perplexing how this bedraggled franchise has almost to the point of it being a neuroses has avoided the issue. Whatever issues you have with Gilmore or the positions that are being prioritized those issues fade when you have a good qb because that more than anything else allows you to compete. One weakness that has plagued Whaley to the point that it ended up in he sabotaging himself is his inability to judge talent for the position. Investing in EJ was as likely to be successful as investing in Rex to be a successful coach. It was a ludicrous position to stake your job on.

The reality is that the wrestling coach already is the acting GM. He made the decision to keep TT against the desires of Whaley. It was the coach who made the draft selections. And it was the coach who after being hired immediately became the sole voice at the humiliation of the silenced GM. Whether Beane or anyone else is selected as the GM he will know in advance the power relationship within the organization and who has the final say on personnel decisions. The relationship is that the GM is working on behalf of the coach and not the other way around. That arrangement is already established. What's obvious is obvious.

Gotham Bill, McCoy was the best player on offense. He was the center piece of the offense, even more so than the qb. Our offense was built around the running game rather than the passing game because of the limitations of the starting qb and the archaic philosophy of our brash and fool talking HC. When you over pay for a player that is producing that is not catastrophic. You can absorb the imbalance between the cost and output. So your complaint about McCoy consuming too much of the cap doesn't seem to be a fair judgment. The Clay criticism has merit but it isn't due to him consuming too much cap. Whaley added a good receiving TE who could expand the restricted offense but he didn't have a qb who could maximize his talents. How dumb is that? The problem with Whaley was he was constantly searching for players who could buttress the play of his limited qb instead of searching for a qb capable of maximizing the talents of his receivers. He had his pants on backwards. Where I agree with you on Whaley is that he took a tactical approach instead of a strategic approach in building his roster and paying for it. He had a patchwork mentality that lacked foresight in the way he approached his job. In the end it came back to haunt him.

It's obvious that the Bills liked Jones and targeted him. But he falls within the #2 type receiver without the upside to be a #1 receiver. The issue isn't what he is as a player so much as what do you give up for this type of receiver. For the sake of argument if you give up a prospect such as Jake Butt, a TE, (rehabbing knee injury) who before being injured was a second round prospect then I would say the trade for moving up was too costly. As far as considering the trade value points I don't give a dam. The primary issue is does the deal make your overall roster better. On this particular deal I would say no because this roster has so many needs. In addition, there still was a good chance that he would have been on the board when it was our turn to make a selection in that round. For me gratuitously giving up a relatively high round pick was not a smart move. Very often when you try to outsmart others you end up outsmarting yourself.

I liked the Zay Jones selection but there was a good chance that he still would have been on the board when our turn came up. He's a good player but not an elite prospect who was ever going to be a #1 receiver. The pick we gave up could have been used on for a player such as Jake Butt, a TE from Michigan. He had a knee injury but reports were that he was coming along and should be ready for training camp. Even if the time table for rehab was off he would have been a good player to invest in. He was rated as a solid second round prospect before he was hurt. A third round pick should result in a player who makes your roster. A fifth round pick usually doesn't make the roster or at best is a special team caliber of player. For a roster that has many needs gratuitously giving up a higher pick for a lower pick is not a smart way to manage a draft.

Clearly Eli is aging and fading. But in his prime he was one of the better qbs in the league. TT at his best will never be the qb that Eli was at his best. When comparing qbs in the present I would clearly prefer TT.

I don't want to get too personal so if you don't want to answer that's fine. What is the reimbursement rate? Does it vary for games? If it is a game where there isn't much appeal and the tickets can't be sold by the exchange are you still reimbursed or not? And how late can you go on the exchange before the game? Is there a cut off time? I'm asking these questions because I am amazed at the number of out-of-towners who have season tickets. It's a testament to one's loyalty to invest so much money and time to get to games.