billsfan1959

Absolutely agree. I also think it was an effort of good faith on the part of Whaley and I have no problem with that. I also believe tagging him and trading him presented more problems than some people want to believe. In the end, I it was strictly about money for Byrd and I am fine with that. However, I do not think that position is worth the money he wanted. IMHO, this was not an indictment of ineptness on the part of the FO. It is just one of those unfortunate by products of the NFL. I wish him well, but he is no longer a Buffalo Bill.

And Polian feels he is a quality starter and didn't have any UFA Guards ahead of him - and had him ranked, quality wise, in the same group as OTs Jared Veldheer and Branden Albert. So, I guess everyone has an opinion. Let's just wait and see how he actually performs for the Bills.

Good physical corner. Player of the game in Baltimore's win over Denver in 2012 Super Bowl run...

Well, truthfully, I should have known better . As far as Byrd, trust me, I am very disappointed and my first reaction was "wtf? You have got to be kidding me." I still would rather have him on my team or have gotten something for him. However, after reflection, they used the franchise tag on him last year in spite of all the negative things that were swirling around the negotiations. The fact that they believe it is not in the best interests of the team to do so this year makes me wonder what the issues are that we are not privy to. You may very well be right that it turns out to be the wrong decision. But, it may also turn out to be fine - and it also may be an instance of the organization having no better option than to do what they did.

If so, my apologies

And that is just arrogant...

In response to the OP's statement of letting players go instead of tagging them under this "new era," let me just say this: I'm pretty sure that Byrd was tagged last year under the "new era." So, they obviously have shown the willingness to do so. I am a big proponent of keeping our best players and making every "reasonable" attempt to do so. However, there isn't anyone, other than the people involved, that know what took place during the negotiations with Byrd's agent, or what the Bills plans for the team are this year. What we do know is that the same organization that was willing to use the franchise tag last year, decided it was not in the team's best interest to do so this year. The people involved haven't changed, the dynamics have. I like what they did in the draft last year and, in spite of their record, I liked the direction the team was heading. I am willing to wait and see what they do during free agency and the draft, and how they deal with key players who will be free agents next year before I make my judgment on what the "new era" will be...

You may BELIEVE with 100% certainty that the Bills decision was wrong; however, to say you KNOW with 100% certainty that it was wrong is patently ridiculous. I'm pretty sure none of us are omniscient. One could envision scenarios where it turned out to be the right decision and vice versa.

Your first sentence makes absolutely no sense in the context of my posts. In essence, I said some people do things with integrity and some people do not. I applaud those that do and despise those that don't. That is an unequivocal, consistent position....and no, I do not need to look up up the definition of any words I use. Quite honestly, you are the one proposing that the NFL has its own version of integrity - and that it is absolutely allright to operate in any manner you deem appropriate. Your posts seem to indicate that you are one of those "the ends justify the means" kind of people. That pretty much says integrity is a sliding scale for you - not me. Maybe you should look up the definition of "projection."

Actually, the Bills organization doesn't "get" me to do anything. I defend what I choose to defend - and I don't "assign" my values to what the Bills do. I evaluate what they do according to my values. There is a difference. While there are certainly many things done within the NFL and many other business arenas that lack integrity, there are also many things that are still done with integrity. I despise the former and applaud the latter. Now back to our original debate. For the sake of argument, let us adopt your position that it was just a "handshake" agreement between Clements and the Bills to not franchise him a second time. My position is this: I applaud the Bills for honoring their agreement, even if it meant letting Clements walk. Just because others do things without integrity, it doesn't mean you should - and it certainly doesn't mean it is right. I am glad I have been able to amuse you with my posts.

Been a fan since before I attended my first Bills game in 1968 and the handshake agreement Ralph made with Kelly has no bearing on this argument. Here is a quote from a CBS Sports article from last year: "Giving prohibition clauses to Clady and Byrd wouldn't establish a new precedent for the Broncos or the Bills. Jason Elam received a prohibition clause from Denver in 2002 when he signed his franchise tender. Nate Clements also got one from Buffalo in 2006 as their franchise player." I am not going to continue to argue this point with you. There is ample proof to show the Bills had an agreement with Clements not to franchise him in 2007. And I am really sorry that you "get a laugh" out of honoring an agreement with integrity.

No, I don't believe I am. I think if you research it and you will find that Clement's agent was the first to actually have a promise not to franchise again written into the contract. However, even if we accept your contention that it was "just a handshake agreement," it was still an agreement. You can assert they could still have "technically" franchised him; however, under any definition of integrity you care to adopt - it would have been wrong. So, in the end (if your contention is correct), you can argue that it was a foolish position to place themselves in - but, my point still remains that to keep Clements they would have had to at least match the 49ers offer. Which, again, is the whole point of my post.

Actually, I do not believe you are right. If I remember correctly, part of Clements' signing under the franchise tag in 2006 was that the Bills could not franchise him in 2007 (I believe it was actually written into the contract). So, unless I am mistaken, the Bills would have had to at least match the offer the 49ers put forth and, as good as Clements was - he wasn't worth that type of a contract. That was the whole point of my post.

This really is a pretty simplistic, superficial, and skewed take on the players you listed that the Bills did not keep. Maybe you can go through them individually and tell us, respectively, how and why the Bills screwed up on each one - like not offering Nate Clements more than the 80 million dollar contract (with 22 million dollars guaranteed) he got from the 49ers...

Clearly, such a rule would be designed because racial slurs are deemed insensitive. However, to be fair to all players, I think all players should undergo a battery of psychological tests and interviews to determine what would be most insensitive to each individual player. For example, one player might be less offended by racial slurs and more offended by remarks about his mother, his manhood, etc. - or maybe just compile a "Top 10 things that offend me the most" list for each player. Of course, these lists will only be known to the league and the refs - and not to other players. Each player will be microphoned and each player will have the ability to make an official complaint if he feels something was said that was insensitive to him. The ref will be able to review audio for the accused and make a ruling. If the ref finds the accusation credible, then a fifteen yard penalty would be imposed. However, if a player clearly makes a false allegation, or what was said to him wasn't on his specific "list" of top 10 most offensive things - then his team will be assessed a fifteen yard penalty or lose a timeout. Or, the player that was falsely accused can be afforded the opportunity to say one thing he believes would be most offensive or insensitive to the player that falsely accused him. And, If the falsely accused player manages to say something that is on the accuser's top 10 list - then he should be awarded some sort of bonus. I think we are on to something here....

No, I do not think TJ Graham is as bad as some people think. I believe what we have seen so far from Graham (and Goodwin to some extent as he has a similar skill set) is the product of a team whose offensive capabilities have not suited his skill set. I have no idea if he could be a really good receiver or not; however I do know this: deep threat receivers do not typically flourish in a system that cannot accurately and consistently get them the ball deep. Graham's first QB was Fitz, whose strength was not really the deep ball - not to mention other problems, offensively. This last year, we had three QBs with little to no NFL experience rotating in and out of the position. Add to that, an offensive line that was, arguably, weakest at the one thing that QBs really need to effectively and consistently throw the deep ball: Stopping pass rushing pressure up the middle and giving the QB a pocket to step up into. There is enough blame to go around for the offensive problems of this team. There isn't a single player who plays in a vacuum. His success, and the success of any given play, is dependent upon a number of other players and a number of other factors.

I posted this in another thread; however, I think it is appropriate here. It is my view on what this team needs (with OL, IMHO, at the top of the list) and why I wouldn't be upset if they used the #9 pick on OL: I truly believe this team's greatest needs at the moment are along the offensive line (in particular, LG and RT) and ILB with strong run stopping abilities. Next on the list for me is either a true #1 receiver or TE with real game changing ability. I think there are some strong candidates for OL in free agency and I hope the bills begin to address it there. I am not a big fan of going the route of paying big money to top free agents. I prefer signing strong 2nd and 3rd tier free agents that tend to bring more value for the money. With that said, I wouldn't be opposed to paying reasonable money for a top tier guy if available. As far as the draft, a lot depends on what the team does in free agency. I have always viewed top 10 picks as the potential to take an impact player (someone who can come in now and be a difference maker) at a position of need. The real question for me is what "impact player" at a position of need would have the greatest impact on the team as a whole? A stud, run stuffing linebacker would go a long way in helping to field a "complete" playoff caliber defense. A true #1 receiver or playmaking TE could really open up the passing game, in turn, helping a young QB, as well as the running game. Offensive line is interesting as far as the #9 pick. I am not a fan of choosing a guard that high in the draft. I have no problem (philosophy wise) choosing a tackle at that position. In looking at the offensive side of the ball, I truly believe the weakness of the offensive line impacted the team's offensive abilities more than the play of any particular skill position player. I group offensive line players into a whole, because it is the line "as a whole" that makes a real difference. One weak link can be incredibly detrimental. Two or more weak links can be catastrophic. A strong, playoff caliber, offensive line can directly improve the play of all skill positions. One or two top caliber linemen (probably a LG and RT) could make this line a top caliber unit - and directly improve the play of the offensive line as a whole. Very rarely can one or two skill position players directly improve offensive line play, compensate for poor offensive line play (most teams do not have the luxury of a Russell Wilson, whose strength is, arguably, his ability to compensate for poor line play), or improve the overall play of the offense to playoff level (Players like Brady, Manning, Brees, Rogers are rare). I am still a firm believer that most championship teams begin with strong defensive and offensive lines. A few teams may find that one superstar skill player that can compensate for poor line play - most do not. I think we have a playoff caliber defensive line. The offensive line is not. So, for me, free agency and the draft (in the 1st round or any other round) need to be (in order of importance): (1) First and foremost about building that offensive line into the strength that it should be. (2) Finding a LB with real run stuffing ability (3) A true #1 receiver or playmaking TE (preferably both) A strong offensive line would be this team's greatest step toward giving EJ the best chance possible to show this year that he is "the guy."

I truly believe this team's greatest needs at the moment are along the offensive line (in particular, LG and RT) and ILB with strong run stopping abilities. Next on the list for me is either a true #1 receiver or TE with real game changing ability. I think there are some strong candidates for OL in free agency and I hope the bills begin to address it there. I am not a big fan of going the route of paying big money to top free agents. I prefer signing strong 2nd and 3rd tier free agents that tend to bring more value for the money. With that said, I wouldn't be opposed to paying reasonable money for a top tier guy if available. As far as the draft, a lot depends on what the team does in free agency. I have always viewed top 10 picks as the potential to take an impact player (someone who can come in now and be a difference maker) at a position of need. The real question for me is what "impact player" at a position of need would have the greatest impact on the team as a whole? A stud, run stuffing linebacker would go a long way in helping to field a "complete" playoff caliber defense. A true #1 receiver or playmaking TE could really open up the passing game, in turn, helping a young QB, as well as the running game. Offensive line is interesting as far as the #9 pick. I am not a fan of choosing a guard that high in the draft. I have no problem (philosophy wise) choosing a tackle at that position. In looking at the offensive side of the ball, I truly believe the weakness of the offensive line impacted the team's offensive abilities more than the play of any particular skill position player. I group offensive line players into a whole, because it is the line "as a whole" that makes a real difference. One weak link can be incredibly detrimental. Two or more weak links can be catastrophic. A strong, playoff caliber, offensive line can directly improve the play of all skill positions. One or two top caliber linemen (probably a LG and RT) could make this line a top caliber unit - and directly improve the play of the offensive line as a whole. Very rarely can one or two skill position players directly improve offensive line play, compensate for poor offensive line play (most teams do not have the luxury of a Russell Wilson, whose strength is, arguably, his ability to compensate for poor line play), or improve the overall play of the offense to playoff level (Players like Brady, Manning, Brees, Rogers are rare). I am still a firm believer that most championship teams begin with strong defensive and offensive lines. A few teams may find that one superstar skill player that can compensate for poor line play - most do not. I think we have a playoff caliber defensive line. The offensive line is not. So, for me, free agency and the draft (in the 1st round or any other round) need to be (in order of importance): (1) First and foremost about building that offensive line into the strength that it should be. (2) Finding a LB with real run stuffing ability (3) A true #1 receiver or playmaking TE (preferably both) A strong offensive line would be this team's greatest step toward giving EJ the best chance possible to show this year that he is "the guy." Oh yeah, and please sign Byrd....

Spot on in your assessment. While it may be addressed in free agency, LG and the right side of the line absolutely are dire needs - as is LB. In terms of WR and/or TE, like you, I do not believe it is a dire need; however, we definitely could use a true #1 receiver or a true play making TE. In a perfect world, I would love both - but I would settle for one or the other

Absolutely a brilliant move. As I stated in my post, Walsh was drafted purely for trade value. That wasn't my point. A while back, the situation of drafting Aikman #1 and Walsh #1 in the supplemental draft was used as an example of when a team has drafted consecutive #1 QBs, and the insinuation that the competition made Aikman better.

I absolutely believe in the concept that competition tends to make people better. I also believe there is no concept that is universally applied in all situations. There is a time and a place for everything. You are welcome to go back a page and read my post where I explained my reasons for why I believe, IMHO, that bringing in a QB to compete with EJ this year is not the best course of action for EJ or the team. As I also previously wrote, I understand your position that "if the FO sees a QB that they feel is "the guy" then "they better take him." Now as far as "regardless of round," I think that is a matter of semantics, and backing away a bit from many of your previous posts. If your stance is that if they see a QB who they feel is "the guy," then they need to take him - then it stands to reason that if a QB meeting that requirement is available to them, then it would first occur in round one, which, according to your logic, is when they should take him. Unless, of course, you forsee a situation in the draft where they reach the third round and all of a sudden get the feeling that a QB who is still available is "the guy."

Two responses: (1) As for putting words in your mouth, I don't see where I did that in what you quoted. You absolutely have advocated picking a QB in the first round after drafting one in the first round the year before. As for reasons, you originally advocated it for "competition." I rememeber it well as I responded to it. Now, it is if they see someone "who they think could be the guy." Let's just say this, you certainly have advocated taking a QB in the first round under "certain conditions." So, what I wrote was true. (2) The FO apparently has found someone "who they think could be the guy" and have decided the caliber of QB they think he will be. They have said so publicly and have named him starting QB in 2014. Since you acknowledge that they are experts, and that is their opinion, then why again should they pick a QB in the first round this year?

Amen!

While there certainly is no such thing as a slam dunk when it comes to NFL draft picks, when you propose to draft a QB early in the first round after selecting a QB in the first round the year before - then he better be as close to certain as you can get (Read: guys like Manning or Luck). I don't see inyone in this year's class close to that caliber.

I believe most people who disagreed (myself included) were "vehemently" opposed to drafting a QB in the first round. My response to a couple of the arguments were and are as follows: (1) You draft a QB available to you who is better than the one you have: There isn't a QB in this draft who will be available at #9 (some might say even at #1) who is close to being a "slam dunk" as far as being a good NFL QB, much less a great NFL QB. Every one of them has as many question marks as EJ did coming out. (2) Competition: There is a reason that, historically, people in the NFL who know a lot more about football than us have decided not to consecutively draft QBs in the 1st round. And, please, I don't want to hear the example of the Cowboys drafting Troy Aikman #1 and then drafting Steve Walsh #1 in the suppemental draft. Walsh was drafted purely for trade value. There was no real competition as Aikman was always going to be the starting QB. Even if, by some chance, you believe there was real competition, it doesn't support the argument as it certainly didn't make Aikman better. His first two years in the NFL were as bad or worse than EJ's first year - and Aikman's numbers didn't improve until after the Cowboys traded Walsh. I think most GMs and coaches view it as a recipe for disaster. The first time the incumbent throws a bad pass or makes a critical mistake, fans would be clamoring for the new guy - and every media session would be filled with questions about the QB situation. I am all for competion in a general sense. Yet I will admit that I am also against bringing in true competion for EJ this year. I look at the QB situation as different than other positions on the field. There certainly is a time to have full competion at the QB position; however, I don't believe this is the time for the Bills to do so. When you draft a QB in the first round, you are saying he is going to be your #1 guy at some point. If the decision is made that he is going to be the starter and not have the opportunity to sit and learn behind a top NFL QB (much like.Rogers did in Green Bay), then he needs all the reps he can get. He has to learn to read NFL defenses, he has to learn virtually every offensive player's roles on any given play, he has to develop chemistry with receivers, running backs, and even his offensive line, etc., etc., etc. It takes time and continuity for all of that to develop. He did not have either last year. The Bills have made the decision that EJ is going to be their starting QB in 2014. People can debate all day on whether he should be or not. Personally, I do not think you can reach any substantive conclusions based on last year. If you cannot see the overwhelming number of factors why, not only EJ, but virtually every skill player on the offensive side of the ball did not perform well last season, then you just do not want to see it. Regardless, the Bills have made their decision and EJ is the starter in 2014. As such, he should be given every possibility to show this year that he can be "that guy." I have no problem bringing in a veteran to come in to fill the role of a "mentor" and to step in should EJ get hurt. I also don't mind if they draft a QB in the 3rd on back to come in and compete with Tuel and Lewis. However, I think drafting a QB in the 1st round has more potential to hurt, rather than help this team right now.