Buddo

Much depends on the prognosis for Wentz, tbh. I think I've seen something, somewhere, that says his injury wasn't as simple as being made out, in that something else got injured alongside his acl. I have no idea what that might be, but while the return from the injury (s) was still confidently predicted, the timeline wasn't. The Eagles signed Foles to his deal in the first instance, they must already have some sort of plan in place, for dealing with their cap issues. It makes no sense for them, at all, to trade Foles, without an adequate backup in place, in case Wentz cannot start the season. Where are you going to find another backup who has proven they can win a SB for you? Doesn't really matter what 'value' anyone else might think Foles has, what matters is the value he has to the Eagles, and currently, that's probably higher than anyone else has it. As someone else has also pointed out, assuming they can do it within the CBA, cutting Peters can easily sort out their cap 'issues' for the moment, and at 36 yrs old, I suspect his days are numbered in the NFL anyway.

If by 'fear based' he means with high expectations, then he's probably right. At the end of the day, us regular people all have to go to work, and be there on time etc. Should 'professional' sportsmen be held to any lesser standard than we are? I don't doubt that the cheatriots players have some fun along the way, this stuff is all relative, but imho, it's like any job people do, in that there's a time and place for it, and with them, it's largely out of sight.

I'm not sure McDermott would want someone as volatile as Landry. I'm also not sure if he could actually handle him, if he signed for us. I don't think you can genuinely speculate about possible FAs on the offense, until we have an idea as to where we are going at QB. Although perhaps you could do something on the O-Line, assuming a decision will have been made as to what blocking system we will be using. But without being privy to that decision, it's a bit tricky to speculate which guys would suit best. On D, our best bet would be to try and sign Gaines, then pick up either a decent DT, LB, or DE. Backfill the other couple of spots with the draft. You can probably use the same sort of 'formula', for any two from 4 positions on the D, including CB, it's simply that signing Gaines makes life an awful lot easier, due to him having proven himself there for us last season.

Seems to me a bit of a classic 'join the dots' type of scenario, where elements could make sense, but ultimately, the whole package fails. For me, where it fails, is with the Redskins involvement, which as far as I can see, is irrelevant. Even if they franchise Cousins again. Which I'm not sure they can actually afford to do. It's just way too easy for the Redskins to be turned over, by any of the other teams involved, or by Cousins himself.

If they are looking to hire a HC from the offensive side of things, I don't think there's a much better candidate floating around, as it were. McDaniels might have done the Colts a big favor, tbh, should they do that, as I think Reich would be a better guy to get the most out of Luck, than McDaniels, as I think McDaniels wants a Brady mk2 as his QB, and Luck is much more of a Manning 'type', but with a lot more mobility. I see Reich as way more adaptable than McDaniels, when it comes to types of offense.

Hopefully Benjamin will return fully healthy, as I think he's the real deal when fit. Jones didn't do as well as advertised, mostly to do with 'hands' issues. If he had shoulder problems, that might explain some of that, and I think progress was being made with his route running as the season went on. As a drafted rookie, he's going to get a second chance. Thompson did pretty well for a FA, and probably deserves another deal. Whether or not the Bills give him one, is probably up in the air. Some other team may offer more, as I don't think the Bills will be offering him big money, at all. As he's bounced around some, he may not have huge expectations, in which case we might re-sign him. I never really got the sense that Matthews wanted to be here, and he's probably doubly pissed now that the Eagles made the SB. His injury was probably a god send to him, but I can't see us paying him, unless something completely unexpected happens at QB. Hollmes made a good first impression, then disappeared, then got injured, iirc. Can't remember what his deal was, so he may be back. His performance was underwhelming, but Taylor didn't use his WRs much, so it's a difficult assessment. Irrespective of who the QB is going to be, I think we need to add genuine speed (as many others do in this thread). After that, providing we stay healthy, we should have enough kicking around, to provide sufficient weapons for whatever QB we decide upon, as both Clay and O'Leary can catch, as can Shady, and assuming he returns, Cadet.

I'm no fan of Sullivan, but he's right on this one. Ultimately, if the 'hit' on White had happened outside of a football field, Gronkowski could quite easily be doing time for assault. That sort of thing shouldn't just be 'brushed under the table'. Tbh, the one game suspension was woefully inadequate, imho, but NFL disciplinary rules etc. is far too big a can of worms to open now.

Can anyone explain just why Byrd got the bullet in the first place? This is where the debate needs to begin. Because just about anyone else could be due for the boot, if it's performance related. I had hoped we'd seen the back of the cronyism when Ryan went, but it appears as though that isn't the case. While we obviously aren't a part of the practises etc., I think it's fair to say that a straw poll of fans, would have Castillo top of a list of any Bills coach that should be fired. I'd also question if the Waufle retirement is in any way related to Byrd being fired. 'Trust the process', well at least so long as it suits.

And btw Shaw, the Tolstoy comment wasn't flattering, at all I enjoyed the post anyway. Because you talked about the generalities. And not some pie in the sky plan that will involve someone specific, who somebody else will either sign in the first seconds of FA, or draft with one of the first few picks of the draft, where we have no realistic way of getting to. The Bills have often seemed barely to have a 'plan B', let alone a 'plan C', and tbh, in certain areas, I'm not so sure this current FO is shaping up to be much different. All last year we were a 'run first' team, yet regularly only had two fit RBs on the roster, would be one example of that. Amongst other imponderables, will be what $ a FA will want, and under what circumstances, in respect of how said FA views the team he is going to. I'd expect any potential QB FA to be looking long and hard at the O-Line he's got in front of him, before deciding where to go. One thing I think will be happening, is that both the early parts of FA, and the Draft, will see some explosive movements, with teams running lots of interference in the aftermath. Popcorn needs to be ready on both of those days.

But he probably wasn't

I think you have to view the cap hit, in respect of a gamble teams take, to spread the load out over multiple years. I doubt that there's a team in the league, that wouldn't have to take a big cap hit, if one of their better players, was forced to hang 'em up through injury. As to the nature of contracts being guaranteed for injury, well, if they weren't, guys wouldn't be signing them very often.

Playing Devil's Advocate here, but what about the Dareus trade? Of the guys mentioned above, the only one who might have been missed, would be Davis. Ducasse eventually played okay at the end of the season, but for the first half of the season was easily replaced by any larger sized burger-flipper. Holmes looked 'as advertized' for precisely one game. DiMarco could have been cut, a street FA RB signed, and Tolbert could have been thrown back in as a FB, and saved everyone a lot of anguish.

I'm somewhat curious to know which zebra it was, who blew the play dead on the fumble recovery, as that might have taken 6 points away from the Jags. A much bigger call than you might think. Some pretty ticky-tacky PI calls, but at the end of the day, teams get those, who are willing to throw the football downfield. Especially when they are the Home team, irrespective of where they are. Looked to me that a lot of holding was let go, but on both sides.

Tbh, I think it's one of those situations where the player would do well to stick where he has been successful, irrespective of the OC, as it's often the group of players that is an unseen difference. Keenum has been around the block a bit, yet seems to have finally found a home. Both the Vikes and Keenum, might do well to realize it.

A lot more than a QB away. The roster definitely 'over-performed'. We need plenty of upgrades, and plenty of guys will need to be replaced, who will not return, for a variety of reasons. If Kyle Williams retires, we'll need 2 DTs. We already probably need 2 LBers, and a pass rusher. We'll also need at least one WR, a QB, O-Line. Probably a CB or maybe two.

I think there are alternatives out there as FAs to Cousins. What I don't see, is using a boatload of draft capital, to get a guy who you aren't sold on. Make no mistake, moving up in this draft for any QB, is going to be expensive, because there are plenty of teams who will want to. If we had a better position to pick from, it wouldn't be quite so bad, but we will almost certainly have to pony up an extra pick or two, if we were to try and move up, as the value of the picks we can offer, has been reduced by making the playoffs. This team has a lot of holes still to fill, and 4 picks in the first couple of rounds, could go an awful long way to plugging them, and with talent. I wouldn't rule out picking a QB early, but not for anything other than a couple of picks, if we decided to move up. And not just for the sake of taking one, either. I'm not against going all in for a QB in a draft, I just think that you put other things in place before you do so.

Tbh, this stuff has been around ages, yet nothing has ever been done about it. From the moment a deal was done with his company, he should have been excluded from doing Pats games, and possibly from AFC games generally. The NFL either isn't that bothered by it, or, possibly, there are so many other similar 'ties' around, that they don't want to open up a bigger can of worms. I suppose it's also possible that they could leave themselves open to being sued from a personal point of view, in relation to implied bias, or whatever. Another thing is that they probably haven't got a 'rule' in place to do this discreetly. Whichever way you want to look at it, it's pretty fishy, and shouldn't occur, but hey, it's only entertainment, right?

It's pretty hard to ruin a set of stats that are already very ugly. But thanks for doing it though. So when losing by just one score in the 4th quarter, Tyrod has got us just one win from 8 games. If losing by 11 points or less, it's 1 from 11, and if we are just losing full stop, going into the 4th quarter, it's 1 from 22. It has basically been the case that if the Bills are behind going into the 4th quarter, then save yourself some pain and either leave, or switch off. ;(

Seems a bit harsh to me, you know, he's only played in one game, and already you'e calling him a cheat? Is there filmed evidence of this, or are you going with the 'NFL burned it all already' excuse?

'The Gov' from Blazing Saddles

Glenn is still relatively young, and atm, with Dawkins playing decently for nothing, we can afford to see what's happening with Glenn. If the surgery and rehab is a success, we would be being inane to ship him out, as he could easily be playing here another 5 years at a high level. The other thing with Glenn, is that he's probably a 'professional's professional'. Works hard, takes whatever lumps come his way, and just gets on with it. He doesn't make a fuss about anything, just tries to do his job. Very much a McBeane type of guy, imho. While I do have an appreciation of the old adage that the most valuable players on a team are those who turn up to play every Sunday, he's not been alone in getting crocked this year, and his overall availabilty generally, has been good. There's a reason he got his contract in the first place, and it was down to ability. That hasn't left him, and good OTs don't come cheap.

The thing about UK sports fans, is that they are generally pretty clued up about a lot of sports. The failure of NFLE in London, was about not being prepared to watch a sub-standard product. The same thing happened with the pre-season games that used to occur from time to time. People expect to see the real deal, and if it isn't, they aren't going to show up. Give them the real thing, and they are both happy and keen to watch. Now, the 'London Series', actually puts on proper games, and consequently pretty much sells out, as fans of the NFL generally, will go and watch those games. While there might be a bit more of a preponderance of fans from the teams who are playing, there will also be plenty of fans from other teams, who go just to watch a real game. The link that Khan has through ownership of both Fulham FC, and the Jags, is one that simply greases the way for the London games, mostly from a logistical standpoint. For anyone who actually has a clue about Fulham, even if they gave all of their supporters freebies the day before a game, they couldn't fill even one end of Wembley, let alone all of it. Irrespective of whether or not people like it, the London games are almost certainly viewed as a success by the corporate NFL, as it increases their merchandising reach, and also, and probably more importantly, their advertising and sponsorship reach. That the games sell out, and not cheaply, is almost a bonus.

One thing I didn't see from all of the stats (nice job OP), is the number that makes as big a difference as any other. How often did Taylor lead the team on a winning drive when down by just a single score, on the 4th quarter of games. In respect of how many times he achieved this, I'm fairly confident the answer is 2 times, where I'm less certain, is in the amount of opportunities he had to do so, where my gut instinct is saying around 10, but it may be a bit smaller than that, or it might be larger, but I really don't know. Even if it's just 8 opportunities, then that works out as a 1 in 4 chance to win you a game in the 4th quarter, which simply doesn't cut it. Especially when a lot of games are decided by the margin of one score.

Agreed that DL is more pressing of a need than the O-Line, and should be prioritized, yet the O-Line still isn't good enough. How much help we need on the D-Line is pretty dependant on whether or not Kyle decides to go again. We pretty much need to use one of our 1st rounders, on the D-Line, assuming we don't throw them all at a QB. If Kyle is staying, I'd go after another genuine edge rusher, to put opposite Hughes, or even just to rotate with Hughes, if they are content to have Lawson setting the edge the other side. If he's going, then I think you could go either way, depending on grades, but you will also need to get the other one, (DT or DE) with another high pick, maybe one of the 2nd rounders. I'd say it also depends on if Kyle stays or goes, as to what type of DT you are going to be comfortable with, as his forte has been penetrating, and you definitely want a guy who can do that through the middle. As regards the O-Line, I'd give serious consideration to moving Glenn to RT, in part because Dawkins looks like a good pick, and has done a solid job, but also because Glenn has more versatility, and should be able to go at RT easily, and making that switch, could also mean he has bit less stress as regards his footwork, helping to keep him fit and healthy. Tbh, as we have Dawkins for nothing for another couple of years, the $ Glenn will be getting to play RT, is irrelevant.

I don't think it's the same, at all. Edwards had next to no experience in running a D, whereas Dennison has been involved in Offenses, for years, although his play calling stints have been very limited. People talk about changing OCs like it doesn't matter. It does. Something that has been commented on, a lot, this year, that I've rarely heard from commentators before, was how well some plays have been designed. That's Dennison. It's also been commented on, especially by Romo, that Taylor simply wasn't either seeing the opportunities, or in effect, not having the guts to take them. Yet we still won more games than we lost. Dennison's biggest weakness is in play calling, not iin the design of the offence. His second biggest weakness, is in the personnel he's been given to run the offense. As they aren't that good, Shady, and maybe Benjamin aside.