Rob's House

I figure it's a longshot we'd have re-signed him once his rookie deal was up anyway so I'm not that upset we got a 4th for him. Although it looks like that 4th (Hairston) may not play again.

I agree with this. It seems fans look at the Spiller pick in the context of picking him for Marrone's/Hackett's system when at the time he was picked it was to play in Chan's system, a system he flourished in. Part of the reason Blount went undrafted is because of character concerns. He missed most of his last season of college ball because he sucker punched an opposing player after a game.

The Patriots have something they haven't had since they last won the SB: A power running game. A couple of years ago Teddy Brewski said he didn't think the Pats* had the juice to go the distance because they lacked a power back like Corey Dillon or Antowain Smiff. The one constant that hasn't changed over the course of Brady's career is the NE O-line is always one of the top 5 or so units in the league. Now they have a nice stable of big backs to run behind them. During the SB years Brady was the epitome of game manager (with the possible exception of the season of their 3rd SB which was the year he emerged as the focal point of the offense). This year they've not only leaned on the power running game, but they've also fielded a better defense than they have in some time despite key losses. The irony here is that in what looked to be a rebuild year for the Pats they're probably better equipped to make a SB run than anytime in the last ten years with the possible exception of 2007.

I'm fully aware of the fact that Foles is the starter next year, as is everyone else who so much as casually follows football. The article indicated that the stated philosophy within the locker room is that every position is up for grabs and will go to the best competitor. Whether it's lip service or not, that isn't always the approach in the NFL (see Rob "suck my" Johnson). My question was whether the Bills should follow that type of philosophy or a "stand by your man" philosophy, or something in between.

I'm not big on cherry picking stats. If you look at overall offense from 2012-2013 the statistics are almost identical from the previous year despite losing Andy Cialis and running the rookie quarterback carousel this year. RK TEAM YDS YDS/G PASS P YDS/G RUSH R YDS/G PTS PTS/G 2012 19 Buffalo 5486 342.9 3269 204.3 2217 138.6 344 21.5 2013 19 Buffalo 5410 338.1 3103 193.9 2307 144.2 339 21.2

My favorite WR is Marquise Lee, but he's not necessarily the one I think I would pick if I were the GM of the Bills. While I'd be very happy with Lee, he doesn't bring the element of big, physical jump ball receiver that the Bills lack. At the same time I believe he'd be the best WR on the team the day he walks into camp, and that's never a bad thing to add. He's got great speed, great moves, good hands, and he's got a good feel for the game. I am concerned with his ability to stay healthy but I certainly don't doubt his ability, heart, or toughness.

I would agree that it does have something to do with the actual player, but the conversation is bigger than that. It's more a discussion of what is the best approach for the Bills to take. Some think the team should prioritize talent and try to work with players with attitudinal issues. Others think the team should prioritize attitude and get rid of people who aren't with the program. It also raises questions of whether you take the guy that helps you win now or the guy that might help you win tomorrow. Da'Rick Rogers is just a real world example people use to illustrate their take on the situation as it pertains to those philosophies..

I'm not sure I've seen anyone say that in the first 55 pages of this thread, but I'll keep an eye out and let you know if anyone does. I want to discuss the Bills coaching staff and it's decisions and hear different explanations for why they've done the things they've done. Why? Because it interests and entertains me. If you're taking to an anonymous message board to enact change you're likely to be disappointed.

When I was in high school I had a friend who was a big kitty. At the time a new candy bar called PB Max had just come out. I started calling this guy PB Max (PB stood for kitty Boy) hoping it would catch on. After about a week no one else picked up on it and I was about to give up on the name. Then one day we found a baby bird that had fallen out of its nest and we went back to PB's house to call my dad to ask him what we should do with it. PB was afraid the bird would contaminate his house and didn't want me to go inside with it so I asked my cousin to call my dad for me. He said "Me? why don't you call him?" I respnded, "Because PB Max won't let me go in his house." To which my cousin (who wasn't as big as PB or me) said "Aw come on, PB." PB erupted, bucked up, and said in a threating confrontational way "DON'T CALL ME PB! DON'T !@#$IN CALL ME PB!" From that moment on his name was PB. The moral of the story is, often times things that would fade away on their own are kept alive by protest.

My preference would be to re-sign him first, and if they can't reach a deal to tag and trade. For some reason I feel like neither will happen, but I can't think of a reason why they'd let him walk without compensation. Anyone else share my feeling or have any explanation why they might do such a thing?

Flip the question. What do you want? and why?

I can understand if it was based on attitude. That's why I haven't taken a hard stand on this, because I can imagine scenarios where his behavior would have warranted his dismissal. If it were simply that he wasn't the most game ready option right now I have a tough time seeing how they justify that position.

Okay, then he was either deflecting, lying, or he's an idiot. That's now established.

Generally I would say yes, but with reservations. The HC is usually given a pass for the first season and for good reason. When you come in year one you're somewhat stuck with what you've inherited, you've got to teach the whole team your system from scratch, have to evaluate how the players respond to you and how they fit into your schemes, etc., etc. That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with fans questioning the moves he makes, and I don't get why some fans feel the need to vehemently defend his every move like he's their dad. And while I don't think we should hold him all that accountable for a losing record (for the aforementioned resaons) it's certainly acceptable to hold him accountable for his decision making. As I've said in previous threads. If he leads this team to the playoffs he'll become a hero and retroactively get the benefit of the doubt on most everything he's done, and then the joke's on his critics. If not, well, then he'll just go down as a doofy idiot with a doofy idiot haircut who made idiotic decisions. It'll all come out in the wash.

So why even draft? Might as well just pick players out of a hat. NFL GMs should have the benefit of this insight so they can stop wasting resources on the draft and just target UDFAs.

I don't know that this has really been established. All we know is that he was cut and other guys weren't. That doesn't necessarily mean he was beaten out. It could simply mean that the coach wanted to make a statement. If in fact he was cut because of performance rather than behavioral reasons, I'd say that's a scathing indictment of the FO. Are we conveniently excluding his 100 yd TD game during the season?

As a matter of fact he did. There was an article or two about that immediately after the draft. It's like Burfict - No one wanted to have to explain why they burned a draft pick on the guy with character concerns, but once they could bring him in w/o consequence a lot of teams were interested.

It occurs to me that a limitation in our abilities to determine the proper course for the Bills in this regard is our lack of knowledge regarding how the coaching staff intends to run the offense. For example, if they see Spiller as an asset to build around the decisions on the line will be different from the approach they may take if they plan to move on from him and go to a more pure power running game. If they plan to bale on the "waterbug" game, a big bodied back and a mauling LG should be sufficient upgrades. If, on the other hand, they want to maximize Spiller they need to prioritize getting strong athletic linemen that can get out in space and make key blocks. If he gets that he'll carve up defenses. Otherwise he's going to be streaky. If you go back and watch the second Jets game closely you'll see that there was no way that CJ was going to do what he does behind the blocking of the Bills line against NY's D. If he was a 230lb. freight train he could lower his shoulder and barrel ahead for a yard or two on a lot of those plays that went for losses, but that's not his game. There was one play in that game where the first time I watched I wondered why he chose to run where he did b/c it appeared to me he opted against the open hole where the play was designed and went to the other side of the C. When I slowed it down I realized the DT was being held back by Urbik (who again, can hold his ground but isn't great at imposing his will) but the DT shifted to the hole where Spiller was going to run with great ease - it was actually impressive that Spiller diagnosed this so quickly and tried to redirect to pick up yards. This is where he gets the reputation for dancing rather than hitting the hole. If he were a power back I'd agree he should plow ahead, but again, that's not his game. If you want the 50 yd gain you'be got to give him a hole to run through. There were a lot of plays like this throughout that game.

Yeeeah, yeah, no. You can't do that. That's against the rules. That's like cheering for Hitler and the Jews. It just doesn't work. You have to pick one.

It used to to the Packers until they ousted Brett Favre in favor of Not Brett Favre. Now they're dead to me.

A positive take on Manziel's NFL potential from a guy who understands that you play to win the game. http://espn.go.com/nfl/draft2014/story/_/id/10262821/much-dismay-skeptics-johnny-manziel-star-nfl-2014-nfl-draft

:lol:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/eagles-plan-foles-competition-2014-184002344--nfl.html Apparently they're planning on taking another QB in this year's draft. Preferably one with mobility. Should Buffalo take this approach?

This should be required viewing for anyone wanting to become a member of the Republican party. That kind of stuffy, up-tight and obtuse thinking by O'Reilly is what's killing them nationally.

Damn. That's pretty bad. I pulled up another one of their "rulings" just for ***** and giggles and I found this http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2013/nov/01/ken-cuccinelli/cuccinelli-says-mcauliffe-wants-raise-average-fami/ It basically says that Cuccinelli's statment that funding all of McAuliffe's promises would cost the average family $1700/yr is false b/c it assumes that McAuliffe actually meant it when he made the promises and it assumes he wouldn't find that money somewhere else. And for that it's ruled straight up false. Looking back over their site it's clear to me that they were nothing short of a campaign PAC for McAuliffe in VA's gubernatorial election.