uncle flap

Thank you for the kind words! I think that some of what we saw (wrt an emphasis on power runs) was designed to bring EJ along slowly as it was no secret since before he was even drafted that he is a "project." Hopefully next year we can watch a healthy EJ and CJ all year and also enjoy a clear progression as the season unfolds.

I'm not totally blaming the coaches, since I wasn't privy to all the information that they were. It very well could have appeared to be a hopeless scenario. It could also be that they truly did everything they could to get Rogers to buy in, and he still wouldn't. It could also be the case that it took those cuts and snubs to give Da'Rick a wake up call. Certainly plausible, even likely, considering it wasn't like the Bills were the only team to say, "No thanks." I guess I'm just lamenting "the one that got away." WRs are typically said to need some seasoning, so I'm questioning the coaches/FO for letting a guy that certainly has some talent (and "plenty of upside") go, when even if he turned out to be a bust, it wouldn't have negatively impacted the team, IMO. I'm worried that Marrone decided to make an example out of Rogers at the expense of a possible long/medium term payoff. He got his "quick win" by showing that he "means business," but to what end? He apparently had problems with Stevie all year and Ike Hilliard was fired. Apparently they didn't get the message.

Basically what I'm saying is that even if Da'Rick didn't do anything to earn his roster spot, aren't the coaches partly to blame for not bringing out his talent? Isn't that their job, to get the most out of their players? I'm not completely absolving Rogers, but I'm still baffled that they would give up on a guy who would seemingly fit the bill of what they're lacking at the WR position after the preseason. Couple that with Baghdad Chris Brown writing an article this week about how Kevin Elliot and Cordell Roberson could be the big WR prospects the Bills could be looking for. Whaley himself said they need that big threat. I have to wonder how he felt about the Da'Rick situation.

I do clearly see why they would part ways, and I think everyone else does too. I think they are saying it's still the wrong decision.

I'm sure it's been mentioned here already, but not only am I blaming the coaches and FO for their shortsightedness, but for their inability to get a guy like Da'Rick to conform. It's one thing to preach that they only want players who "buy in," but to what degree can we blame the coaches for not getting the likes of Da'Rick to "buy in." Certainly there are lost causes and players who can or will never "buy in." I think many here are saying, "Well, maybe he never will "buy in," but isn't worth Chris Hogan's roster spot to find out over the course of the year?"

Haha, yeah I mean I'm fully expecting the "If this is so genius, why didn't it work?" responses. And I already said I don't know the answer. Maybe it isn't so genius if the QB can't execute and/or make the correct reads. Maybe it isn't so genius if the o line sucks. Maybe EJ was less willing to keep the ball because his knees were bothering him all season. Maybe they told him not to keep it to protect himself. That was another thing I saw especially early in the year. On those types of packaged plays, the D often crashed toward the RB and if EJ had kept it, he would have tons of space. All of which brings me back to my original point. From and Xs and Os standpoint, Hackett is seemingly solid. The issue comes down to whether or not the players are executing. I'd say the onus is getting the players up to speed - especially EJ - or getting players that will. If your players suck or are lacking, and you have to simplify/limit your offense, then you're already conceding defeat. I get the sentiment behind "putting your players in a position to succeed," and tailoring your offense to your players' strengths, but like we saw with Chan, that severely limits what you can call. Chan's screen game was awesome, but we all saw with defenses squatting on the quick hitters, that's all they had. Sprinkling in runs out of the spread was also successful, but again like we saw, one drop or one run for only a meager gain was often enough to kill a drive. They simply didn't have enough plays to convert third and longs. Lastly, I'm not trying to "blame" the players. They're learning a new offense and that can take time. I just can't help but look at Philly doing a lot of the same things and being far more successful. Their O line isn't ranked much higher than the Bills. If there's one thing I'll criticize Hackett for, it's that he hasn't got EJ to make the correct reads. Maybe a dedicated QB coach is the answer, maybe Hackett needs to spend more time or employ different methods in doing so, or maybe EJ just needs more reps. Or maybe EJ just can't, and the times we did see him make the right reads he just got lucky. Who knows? I just can't wait for next year when hopefully we'll have some answers.

I know I'm probably in the minority here, but I actually like Hackett's play calling and schemes. A lot. This year I saw countless opportunities left on the field, which led me to believe that Hackett isn't necessarily the problem. Ignoring the woulda/coulda/shouldas regarding this season, if there is a dilemma going forward, it's that the players can't execute (or simply aren't executing). And if that's the case- Do they A.) Get players who can/will execute, B.) Continue to coach up the existing players in the hopes that they'll be able to execute, or C.) Change the play calling and schemes? There's certainly a middle ground among those choices. It isn't feasible to completely overhaul a roster if that's what they would deem necessary for success in Hackett's scheme. So next year we will likely see D.) All of the above. I'm still pretty optimistic about EJ. The O line needs some serious upgrading. IF (that's a "big if," get it?) they can get everyone on the same page- which they didn't seem to be much of the year - the offense that Hackett is trying to run should be dangerous. For those that are banging the "they ran the same draw play every first down" drum, please read the article linked below and re watch some of the games. I'd love to hear people's theories as to why EJ is seemingly so inconsistent at reading the defense post snap. Is it the sh***y O line that has him scared? Is it that EJ/Hackett purposely call the draw option to bait the defense and open up the pass options? Is it simply that Spiller wasn't following his blocks? Surely a lot of these factors were in play. I mean look at this below. I agree with the author of the article. This play design is brilliant. And we saw it all year, except the vast majority of the time it was a hand off to Spiller despite one or two receivers being open or coming open. The results have been frustrating for sure, but I'm certainly optimistic that with proper execution, Hackett is more than capable of running a prolific offense. Be sure to check the whole article as it highlights a number of teams and offers great insight into what we can hopefully expect from Hackett going forward. http://www.grantland...option-football

My mistake, thanks for pointing that out... got my wires crossed after enjoying plenty of football today However, my point is the same; Spreading the hit gave them more flexibility during last year's offseason (though they didn't need/use the extra space) and would've provided more flexibility going forward if they had used additional space on more expensive or additional signings.

BADOL and Dibs are both right in different senses. I think the Bills were intending (or at least prepared) to spend more money than they actually did. Since they didn't, today there's no significant difference wrt to Fitz's hit. EDIT: During last year's offseason, they anticipated upgrading or re-signing players at at least 7 positions. If they had eaten all of Fitz's (and others') dead money in 2013, they woudn't have had as much money to roll over into 2014, EDIT: but more importantly, less money to potentially spend. As it turns out, they upgraded those positions relatively cheaply. We just don't know what they would've had to spend if things didn't work out the way they did. I elaborated on this here: http://forums.twobil...s/#entry3013882 However, I'm not 100% sure about the continuous roll over so all these points may be moot altogether. If the Bills can and do roll over all of this year's surplus space, they'll be in very good shape moving forward and all that dead money will be an afterthought.

For those who aren't familiar with Lyerla, here's his highlight film from last year. Very impressive, IMO. Not trying to hijack the thread, but I think this guy is the epitome of the troubled guy you want to roll the dice on. Not sure how he'd fit in with Marrone seemingly being quite the disciplinarian, but maybe that's what Lyerla needs. If he's still there in round 4, I think you run to the podium. Fair chance he might not be though.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/12/28/former-oregon-te-colt-lyerla-pleads-guilty-to-cocaine-possession/ Another more detailed article re: Colt Lyerla http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000269364/article/former-oregon-te-colt-lyerla-poses-dilemma-for-nfl-teams

TJ Ward is the only option I can think of who might be available and wouldn't be too much of a drop off. Otherwise, they have to keep Byrd one way or another. With the cap floor coming into play, the Bills are going to have to spend money somewhere. It might as well be on Byrd.

Darth ICE? Or was that someone else?

http://www.spotrac.com/terms/nfl/can-a-team-carry-excessunused-cap-space-into-the-next-year-295/

In one sense that could be a good idea if they are absolutely certain that player works into the team's future plans. However, it's risky for a couple reasons; The player could get seriously hurt, or his play could decline substantially for some other reason, and then the team is one the hook for a player worth less than they had hoped. It's hard to quantify "motivation," but as we have seen in contract years, players step their game up. Paying a guy early *might* lead to him not playing as hard as he would if there's no proverbial carrot on a stick. It also takes two to tango. A player may feel he stands to earn more money shopping his services in free agency- or at least drive his price up with competing suitors. There's no way to truly know how much another team would pay until they make an offer, so many players are reluctant to re-sign early with out testing the waters around the league.

Also, people have already forgotten where the Bills stood going in to last year's offseason. If they took the Fitz and Anderson's hits all at once in the first year, instead of spreading it out (as some have suggested that they should've since they didn't spend the surplus), they would have left themselves with around $15 million to go after FAs, of which they spent about $7 million (on Kolb, Lawson, Leonhard, Leodis, Branch, and Legursky). Since they didn't spend it all, or more of it, they seem cheap. But I'm not going to fault them for doing so. They needed to sign a vet QB, an LB or two, a TE, and a couple O linemen. Just because they didn't get Fred Davis nor another TE, nor a pricier QB than Kolb, nor a more expensive LB than Lawson, nor an additional LB, nor a better G than Legursky, nor any other O line help, doesn't mean that they were necessarily being cheap. Perhaps they were, but it is just as likely that they had their sights set on better (read: more expensive) players and/or additional players, and just couldn't get them signed for whatever reason. McKelvin's status was up in the air and they got him relatively cheap. If he didn't re-sign, they would've had to throw more money at another corner too. If the Bills ate all that dead money from Fitz and Anderson at once, they would've had only approximately $15 million to upgrade 7 (or more) positions. With the benefit of hindsight it appears that there's no difference in the spreading out Fitz's hit, but looking back to where they stood in relation to the cap, it seems like a prudent move to have an extra $10 million to play with. They didn't take advantage of it for whatever reason, and now it evaporates, but I contend they made the right decision. If they had spent more, as I believe they were prepared to do, they would still have much if not all of the approximately $8 million that they can rollover to next year. If they didn't spread the hits, and were only left with the hypothetical $15 million AND wound up spending more, that would've eaten into next year's space, and not left the Bills with the preferable cap situation that they have now. Another thing to remember, is that despite having all that space there are quite a few contracts expiring the next two years, in addition to the positions we'd like to see upgraded. That space could be used up rather quickly, especially if Byrd winds up playing under the second year franchise tag.

I just took another look at the article and now I am wondering if this statement explains the discrepancy: Still, I'm curious where those mysterious dollars reside/disappear from on the Bills payroll. FWIW, the author is a former agent. So I would like to think he has a better grasp of the figures and accounting than a typical sports writer. Unless you're referring to spotrac and overthecap. I never had a reason to doubt those sites, as they seem to be consistent with figures I've seen reported by more mainstream outlets.

I am also operating on the assumption that they cannot "re-roll," so you and I have the same figures. I left some wiggle room bc the article states that the 2014 is likely $126 million, but could be higher. That and I was rounding a bunch of figures. What I don't get is if they can re-roll, or if the author is erroneously re-rolling, that would mean they have around $144 million as an adjusted cap figure. He writes $145 million so that's definitely in the same ballpark. But if that is the case, wouldn't he also write that they have $34 million in space instead of $28 million?

Agree with both of you. I just meant that if Parker holds some acrimony toward the Bills as a result of Byrd's negotiations, he may attempt to steer Carrington toward another team, or simply flat out refuse to entertain offers from Buffalo. I don't think it's likely, as Carrington's best bet is likely the one year deal described here, I was simply wondering out loud if a hypothetical impasse crossed Buffalo's mind in re-inking Branch. Branch certainly deserves the extension on his own merit, and I assume Carrington's status didn't impact the decision. I just love a good conspiracy theory.

Haven't seen any either. I wonder if Carrington is gone. Parker is his agent and maybe Bills anticipate tough (or non existent) negotiations. Then again, as well as he's played when healthy, Carrington is in a tough spot trying to get a new deal coming off an injury. Nice to see u back DrD!

http://www.buffalobills.com/news/article-2/DL-Alan-Branch-signs-extension-with-Bills/72db05dd-5f02-4b23-828b-cc5d75f28094

Prob would've beat Fluff too if I didn't type that haha

per Bills app did i beat Bandit???

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24379050/agents-take-raiders-top-list-of-teams-with-best-2014-cap-situation Now, I'm confused. Based on my (admittedly limited) understanding of the adjusted cap figures and the rollover process, I anticipated the Bills' adjusted cap to be around $134-138 million, leaving them with approximately $24-28 million in space. Of course I would defer to this guy as he's the expert former agent, but what am I missing here? Is the 145 a typo and it should really be 135? Because then my estimations would line up a little more closely, although if that were the case, I'd expect there to be approximately $25 million in space rather than $28 million. Can anyone explain why this doesn't seem to add up? Am I missing something totally obvious?

voted robey but if i had two votes glenn would get the second