dpberr

That would be the irony, wouldn't it? The Bills win the Superbowl in a lockout, season-shortened year, with replacement players.

In the world of possibilities, it'll be the 2004 draft all over again. The Bills will trade the #1 for a slew of picks. I still think the Bills will draft a top QB, but will try to answer the LT position with the leverage of trading the #1 slot.

I like Kevin Kolb. Buffalo probably would have something of interest to the Eagles, i.e. Lynch. Apparently the Browns already smell blood in the water. However, being tortured in the Eagles media market as I have been, they won't trade Kolb until Vick and McCoy show they can repeat their performances from the Eagles/Lions game, now that the NFC East is much more open than previously thought before the season started. The Eagles have as much a shot as anybody now. The switch and commitment to Vick is quite odd, and seems out of character for Andy Reid.

The more film a team has on Vick, the less effective Vick becomes. The Eagles will learn the lesson the Falcons did. I wasn't a big fan of Vick to Buffalo. Not due to his personal transgressions, but that once you figure him out, he's very one-dimensional. The Lions had about a half a game of Vick to study. Vick hadn't played any meanigful, consistent down after down football in over two years. Now teams have an entire game of Vick to watch. Things will be different. Just like Seattle. Everyone was saying how awesome Seattle was after Week 1. That's because there was no film on Carroll or any of his assistants, and preseason is all vanilla packages and coverages. Denver had a week to study his game, and made the adjustments. This time next week, Philly fans will be waiting in line for the Kolbwagon or in full panic.

When did the NFL allow trades with the UFL or CFL?

I'm not sure Chan Gailey has ever had a moment of panic in his life.

Fitzpatrick did more with less last year, and as I posted yesterday, that video of Fitzpatrick's throw to Owens during the Jacksonville game graphically demonstrates the differences between Fitzpatrick and Edwards. Fitzpatrick attempted that throw. Edwards wouldn't have dared. The change in quarterbacks was the right move. And yes, it will make a difference.

Are the Packers the only viable trade partner for Lynch? I look at what they have to offer, and it's meh. AJ Hawk? Pass. Backup TE? Pass. I'm all for trading him before free agency.

The difference between RF and TE. For Fitzpatrick, the football field extends beyond 5 yards.

Probably would become a Packer fan. Small market, blue collar, one of the original franchises, and it's owned by the fans. Plus, the fans withstood an astounding 24 years of losing, from 1968 to 1991 when things turned around. And they were still there.

ABE.

...and with Jacobs becoming available in NY, at probably lesser of a cost, you now have competition.

New England would be in full out revolt, the likes of which hasn't been seen since 1775, if the Patriots lost to the Bills on the heels of losing to the Jets.

Haynesworth only has value in a 4-3, and even then, it's when he's allowed to just rush the quarterback. He was at his best when the Titans just told him to get at the quarterback. There are things the Bills could do without any massive trades, but they won't. They won't bench Edwards. They won't bench Green. They won't bring in guys like Tony Ugoh and Tony Washington for a look-see. They won't bring in any UFL guys that might have some left in the tank. They probably won't trade Lynch.

Vick was good, no doubt, Sunday. However, similar to the Seahawks and Pete Carroll in week 1, he benefited greatly from the Lions not having any tape on him for four years. You can't glean a thing from his spot starts with the Eagles. The Lions were limited in game planning Vick with very little to go on. Should Vick start next week, his stats will look different. Just as Seattle looked different with the Broncos having a week of film to study on Carroll and Company.

At least make it interesting for fans...new quarterback every week. Open game-time to all free agents available. You could see your Colt Brennan, Jeff Garcia's in action. Each QB gets a game to light it up. Seriously though, I agree with you USA. Changes need to be made. Now.

You can't fault Gailey for your QB running out of bounds on a 4th and 11. The barometer on Gailey is whether he benches Edwards this week. Other quarterbacks around the league got benched in Week 2 for being less crappy than Edwards has been. I am done with Edwards. That 4th and 11 play was the last straw. I do fault Gailey for the bizarre game plans so far. They look nothing like what we saw in Preseason, and in no way adequately uses the weapons we do have.

You can't fire Gailey after two games. Or even 8. Not after suffering through years of Jauron. That being said, Nix/Gailey must do something....I don't know if that stops at benching Edwards. If I were Nix, I'd be scouring that waiver wire for line and lb talent, and exploring every trade opportunity. It's all hands on deck time. I think going 3-13 or worse would be a disaster for Buffalo, especially if there is no football in 2011. If I were Gailey, I know Edwards and Green aren't the answers and get them the hell out of there. I'm with other posters on the board...QB changes can be a difference maker.

The Bills could win 31-3 and the media will have the excuse of GB not having their starting RB.

These "are" the games Buffalo either wins or makes it too close for comfort.

IMO, I think Lynch is available for trade. However the Bills are working another deal. Announcing Lynch is available removes leverage and potentially scares away the other team from the table. Right now, the Bills trade partner is exclusive, and that has benefits for both teams. My guess for the other team: Minnesota.

I'd like to know what top, marquee free agent refused to come to Buffalo *when* the money offered by Buffalo either matched or exceeded a competing offer from another team. Free Agents don't come to Buffalo because the Bills get outbid by other teams. It's about money. If it makes people rationalize it better by comparing cities, weather, winning or losing, that's ok. But it has, and always will be, about the money.

Or Shanahan.

+1. The excellent players were RFAs which would have required a king's ransom to obtain.

I'm with Zow. I don't think GB is as much of a powerhouse as the national media proclaim them to be. The shaky offensive line and losing Grant are big deals. GB is probable to win, but it won't be a blowout. Might be more evenly matched than most believe.