All_Pro_Bills

How about Graham returning kicks and Easley taking 3rd receiver spot on Offense?

The problem with #3 is the Bills got close to zero pressure on Smith blitzing or not. So mixing it up with dropping more defenders into zone to confuse the rookie QB might have been called for here. I think the Alonzo pick was a zone call on that play. The defense gave up over 500 yards in total offense. If people want to characterize that as a 'good' effort well okay but that's not going to win many games in the NFL. Not that the offense did anything either. Of that 182 rushing yards so using the secondary as an excuse for that weak effort doesn't hold water since it wasn't like Pettine committed extra defenders to coverage at the expense of the run defense. To me it looked like a lot of over-pursuit and guys out of position. Things that should get corrected as the scheme becomes more familiar..

I suspect part of the 'solution' might be putting A. Williams back to corner while McKelvin and Gilmore mend which assumes Bryd is ready or Leonard goes to starter at FS. Williams at corner might be a marginal improvement. That certainly is not going to strike fear into the Ravens passing game on Sunday. Expect more of the same but this time from a SuperBowl winning QB and a veteran team. If the Bills were serious about the secondary they would have brought in a veteran back up when Gilmore went down in the preseason or looked at possible late cuts to fill out the secondary rather than keeping guys that from regular season game action can't cover #1 and #2 NFL receivers. Anybody they brought in then would be up to speed by now so that wouldn't be an issue.

The Bills O-line is dreadfully thin. Wood is solid at center while Glenn and Pears are adaquate at tackle, the guard position is weak. The front office did little to nothing to address this obvious deficiency and specifically ignored the need to replace Levitre when he signed with the Titans. While it could be argued there were few free agent options out there during the offseason doing something like signing some vets to a one or two year deal rather than doing nothing would have been a better way to go here. Using some two TE formations to give the QB a little more time, get another big body on the field, and to balance the formation was something I was waiting for yesterday but this didn't happen. The D-line and LB core is even more puzzling. On paper the front seven looks pretty good. In practice they are not playing up to potential. We all saw it but the most troubling thing to me is how easily relatively slow RB's were able to get to the outside edge of the defense and rip off so many long runs. Rather than scheme that looks to me like a lot of over-pursuit and undisiplined play from the DE, OLB position. The secondary is dreadful and how can you can play man-to-man with safeties up close, to do what I am not clear but it certainly wasn't run support, and leave your #6 corner on their #1 receiver? Its hard to comprehend what other than a bad outcome you'd expect if you're the DC in that situation. Pettine made no adjustments to the scheme to help cover the weakness at corner, which was magnified by McKelvin's injury, and left those guys out there swinging in the breeze. The good news is that its only week three but that might be the bad news too..

I think the Bills will win and more importantly I expect it!

I get the culture of failure thing but the Bills lost the game because they failed to make plays down the stretch on offense to hold or increase their lead and failed on defense to hold NE off the scoreboard. They didn't lose because of some mental 'block' that kept them from winning. The simply failed to make 'good' football plays while their experienced and veteran opponent did just that. The team has a new coaching staff, a new system, a new QB, and its going to be a building process, not something that is going to happen overnight. I saw some bad things last Sunday but I also saw some good things and its a question of taking the next step this Sunday where progress and improvement are evident. To me that's Manuel taking the next step with Hackett adding more to his plate this Sunday and the defense (minus all the secondary injuries) installing and picking up more of Pettine's system. A win would certainly be a sign of that happening. If things come together as I suspect the Bills are going to be a pretty tough team to play against moving into the second half of the season.

I also believe the replay would show that Freddie was horsecollared to the ground from behind on the last play of the game which should have resulted in a 15 yard penalty moving the ball to the 49 for one untimed down to end the game. Not saying the Bills would have successfully pulled off the Hail Mary and won the game but that should have been called. Anybody else see that?

This is something many here had speculated was the objective more or less from the beginning. It didn't appear there was a lot of 'good faith' bargaining although it wasn't clear whether it was the team, the agent, or both that was not interested in reaching a deal. So now its more or less confirmed that Byrd hired Parker to 'get me out of Buffalo and to a team that will give me the best long term deal I can get'. If I'm the GM I sit down with Parker and Byrd and tell them that I am willing to work with them to move him to another team but that support is not unconditional. I don't expect the team to take a hit for giving the player and his agent what they want. If that's their objecive then they have to work with me and the first part of that is getting out on the field and playing to your full potential and I don't want your bad attitude getting into the locker room. Don't 'dog it' and expect I'm going to help you. Second, we expect adaquate compensation in draft choices or players back. It has to be a win/win kind of deal for both the team and the player.

Your right. Why tell Billy B. who your starter is going to be even though he;s smart enough to figure it out. Might as well take advantage of a potential element of surprise. And maybe not ever seeing the Bills offense and defense on film with the exception of preseason is another advantage for us. We could use a few for a change. Whether its a false sense based on hope or a geniune competency I feel Marrone and his staff will have this team prepared to come out of the gate "guns blazzin'" on week one. Not something I could say about previous regimes.

I agree on overplaying. With the deadline past the only deal that can be signed is a one-year deal or the tag offer. About the only thing Parker can hope to extract from the Bills at this point is a 'promise' not to tag Byrd again next season. The team would be foolish to agree to that at this point. Brandon made a comment the other day that the team is committed to working a long-term deal with Byrd when the labor agreement allows negotiations to resume. All business with no attempt to negotiate in the press or anything negative about Parker or Byrd. I suspect Byrd will sign the tag and report right before the season begins to avoid missing any game checks. Although he can report anytime prior to week 10 and still get credit for the seaon it makes no sense to leave something like $4 million on the table to prove a 'point'. Whatever that point might be at this stage because at the end of the day we all know that money talks and B S walks.

My wife's bad-luck neice was living with us during the season last year and she's gone now. She was the kiss-of-death watching Bills games last season. Lost every one she was home to watch. That should get us to at least 8-8 this season and maybe a strong finish. While she was living with us we got hit by a hurricane - lost power for 9 days, the house got struck by lightning which blew out two circuit breakers, my garage door openers, my directv, and one of my HD TV's, she broke our washing machine, my gas and electric bill went thru the roof, the upstairs shower flooded and destroyed the family room ceiling, and several other household items broke. Oh, and she brought a colony of mice with her belongings that took 6 months to get rid of and they chewed thru the wiring in my wife's car in the garage that cost me $750 to fix.

We need to qualify the term highest paid safety in the league. More like, highest paid safety in the league until somebody signs a bigger contract next season. Like you I am not an expert at the ins-and-outs of the CBA but at this point I don't see how not signing the franchise tag tender is of any benefit to Byrd in the short or long term. If he holds out and then reports right before week 10 to get credit for the year of service he does this at the cost of more than half the contract value. How does it change his situation if he signed it today and reported to camp on time vs. waiting for week 10? Given that only a one year deal can be signed there simply is no leverage for either side. And if I'm th coach and the guy reports after 9 weeks of football, given the Bills low expectations, a new regime, and new schemes, I figure the guy doesn't see the field for the season since its a new defense and other guys are in doing the work. The thinking is he's really not going to help too much at this point and I will not allow him to go out there just to showcase his talents for the next 6 or 7 games to set himself up for next years free agency period. His back end is going to be stapled to the bench. My conclusion at this point is that Bryd for reasons of his own simply doesn't want to play for the Bills any longer and has enlisted an agent that has a reputation for playing hardball to make sure he gets out and receives top compensation at the position from another team, some of which he may already have in mind. This probably ends like the situation with Mike Wallace at Pittsburgh last seaons when he signed a big deal with Miami this spring.

No question the Bills are a better team with Byrd its just a question of terms and conditions. Having read elsewhere that Byrd/Parker want him to be paid as the highest paid safety in the league doesn't leave a lot of bargaining room and Parker's perceived position of 'my way or the highway' along with the disparity between that and the teams position (which they've been pretty quiet about) doesn't leave a lot of room for compromise. If I was the Bills I would make this offer. You are unwilling to move from your position that your client should be the highest paid safety in the league and we are unwilling to meet that demand. So we are at an impasse. Therefore, you have the teams permission to seek a trade with one of the other 31 teams in the league but under specific conditions. We will trade your client to another team, and expect compensation of a 1st round draft choice in return, but the contract with that other team must make your client the highest paid safety in the league. And the contact must be structured and administered in what is considered standard and normal terms. If after 2 weeks you are not able to work such a deal with another team then you agree to come back to the bargaining table and act in good faith to reach and agreement that is acceptable and fair to both parties. That will settle the value argument and move towards some resolution.

Last time Parker played hardball with the Bills he steamrollered them into moving Peters to the Eagles which resulted in a lucrative contract deal for his client and the Bills getting a #1 in return. Whether or not it was all just business or not I suspect there were some hard feeling inside OBD over the transaction and the events that led to it. I'd like to see Bryd in the starting line up on opening day but it appears Parker is playing the same hand again looking to force the Bills to substantially raise their offer or in the event of not reaching an agreement move his client to another team that is willing to meet his asking price. I'm not taking sides but IMO, Parker is overplaying his hand this time for a couple reasons, one from a performance perspective and the other business. 1) With or without Byrd the Bills aren't expected to make much noise in the AFC this year. With the expectation of a losing and rebuilding season what difference will it make in the win or loss column if Byrd is playing or not? It isn't like him being absent is going to mean making or missing the playoffs. So if the agent advises his client to sit then let him sit out the season or sign the offer. When the checks stop coming then perspective may change. From a win/loss standpoint the team should be under no pressure to cave in and sign a deal that might be less than ideal. 2) This is for all intents and purposes a new regime, Brandon, Whaley, and Marrone. And the first thing you don't want to do is cave in to pressure the first time up to the plate with an agent playing hardball. You need to make the point that you're not going to be pushed around. If you cave in then every agent is going to come after you and if holding the line results in some short term sacrifice to get the point across that you are not going to be bullied and pushed around then so be it.

Fear not.. with the ban of seat cushions you'll soon see 'stadium pants' that have an extra cushion back-end sown into the rear for comfort being marketed and sold. In fact you can probably wear them anywhere, fireworks, outdoor parties, kids sporting activities, etc. Necessity after all is the mother of invention.

You have a better chance of being struck by lightning than being killed in a terrorist attack. For all the drama now about this threat, there simply aren't that many terrorists out there running around regardless of what the government wants you to believe and the one's that might be here are only here because the government has decided to let them in the country for some reason. After all, not one of these guys that every blew up anything here, or plotted to blow up anything was in the country illegally. They all received legitimate visas and permission to enter the country. Something to think about the next time we're told we need to surrender some freedoms for safely. Maybe not letting these nutjobs into the US might be a good place to start rather tham snooping on everybody. If 'you' (the NSA) are monitoring my post here please take this suggestion under consideration as a good first step. While its hard to get an accurate force assessment because of the nature of their activities I suspect we're talking about a few thousand hardcore members here worldwide. And I don't know about you but to me these guys would stick out like a 'sore thumb' at the stadium. I can't invision a group of al Queda guys tailgating in the stadium lot before the game not attracting some attention..

If another team signed a non-exclusive tagged player then they'd surrender 2 1st round picks to the team that tagged him. That's one option here and I believe these are the others. Byrd and the Bills can negotiate a new contract thru 7/15, after 7/15 the Bills can only sign Byrd to a one-year deal, the Bills can remove the tag and he becomes a free agent, he signs the franchise tag offer, another team offers him a deal the Bills match, another team offers him a deal the Bils don't match and the Bills get 2 first rounders from that team, or he sits out the season. What I'm not clear on is whether or not the Bills still retain his bargaining rights under the tag if he refuses to sign it and chooses to sit out the season? Based on the drafting of a couple safeties and moving WIlliams to safefy from CB it appears the team was/is prepared for any and all options, and this is not the same management/coaching group that Parker pushed around in dealings with Peters. IMO, Parker is can play hardball but I seriously doubt he is going to extract any more money from the Bills than slightly over market here although number of years and guaranteed money are up for grabs probably the issues. And who wants to give up 2 number 1's for a free agent safety?

We also dropped over 100 years of age at the top with the promotions of Brandon and Whaley along with the hiring of Marrone. I sense a more aggressive down to business attitude and culture in the making but whether it translates to more wins on the field is something we have to wait to see.

By all accounts the Bills reached by selecting Manuel at 16. Clearly need took priority over value. Could they have improved the team in another area by making a different selection and waiting to take Manuel in round 2 risking that somebody else might select him? Sure, but I suspect they evaluated the risk of waiting and decided to pull the trigger on the pick given the circumstances. Now we have to wait and see if Manuel becomes the 'franchise QB' that the front office and coaching staff is expecting. If he does then it will not matter in a couple years where he was selected. If he turns out to be a bust or just average then we can look back at the 1st round here as another example of why the Bills have missed the playoffs 13 straight seasons. The kid has the intelligence, physical, and leadership skills to perform at a high level as an NFL quarterback. Add to that a good attitude and a willingness to work and learn, with no apparent baggage, along with what sounds like a stable family environment, and you get the kind of player teams look for. I don't worry what the experts say because if you do what they think is right then you get a good grade but if you don't then you don't get a good grade. And given the pre-draft process the BIlls did a pretty thorough examination of the potential candidates before making their decision.

I think you pretty much boiled down the decision process here. Do you go with the 'safe' pick, pick a guy that might be 'boom' or 'bust', or simply swing for the fences. Its a matter of managing risk relative to your situation and needs. If a team like the 49ers picks Austin and he's a bust then the negative impact to them is pretty close to zero because they have a pretty solid lineup top to bottom. But if a team like the Bills picks him and he's a bust then the impact is great because making that pick resulted in not addressing another need or improving in another area. So if you're the GM you've got to be able to accurately assess the risk and reward of the pick and the chances of success or failure. IMO, and nothing against Austin and his skillset, but if you're the Bills you pass here and go the safer route. We'll see tonight..

The point made is grounded in reality. What were the options here? Trade for Flynn, make a play for Palmer? The Bills signed a QB with NFL experience, some good, more bad, for relatively little money and did not give up any other assets, players or draft choices to do it. This gives the team a little more flexibility in the draft. There are plenty of question marks surrounding Kolb and to expect him to lead the league in any positive category is a fantasy at this point but in my view this was the best move the team could make at the time given the circumstances. The Bills situation in Buddy's language "you're at the bar still alone, it's 3:55 am, and the lights are about to go on. You can't be picky at this point. You got to make a move on what's there not wait on what you want which just ain't gonna happen."

The Bills could attempt to sign Palmer (a proven starters rather than trade draft picks for Flynn), who should be serviceable behind a half-way decent offensive line along with a good set of running backs. This while keeping your sights on the draft to bring in a potential QB for the future in either the 2013 or 2014 drafts and provide some flexibility to look at BPA at positions of need throughout the draft process.

No worries. Derrick Dockery is still out there. Arguably the worst free agent signing ever by the Bills relative to the contract size and the actual performance of the player.

I have mixed feelings about the Bills bringing Vick on board but what this shows me is the team is willing to investigate and access all options available. 'Leave no stone unturned' so to speak..

Bowman was mugging Roddy White on that play in the NFC Championship. So the saying goes live by the sword, die by the sword. IMO, given the 'guidelines' the ref's had set for reciever/defender play during the game they made the correct call by not throwing the flag. The message was this is the way we're going to call the game. In the strictest interpretation of the rules it was definitely holding. But again it wasn't an absolute question of whether it was a hold or not. Was the play within the context of how they called the entire game? I think yes. Let's face it, that's a no win situation for the officials. If they throw the flag we end up with a bunch of bitching session threads whinning about how the ref's decided the outcome of the game.