uncle flap

i doubt 2,000 yards rushing, but barring injury i think they have a good shot to put up around 3,000 yards from scrimmage. i think over the course of the season it'll be a fairly even split between the two as far as overall touches are concerned, but i'd bet we see chan favoring one or the other depending on the matchup in a particular game.

i believe it. but is it because of a learning disability? just joking. in all seriousness tho, why can't you see - or - why can't you admit that more than one factor is at work here? think what you want about the talent level of the oline - you honestly don't realize the play calling and offensive schemes inflate the statistics you're grasping so tightly? and maybe, just maybe, the plays are designed to limit the amount of time the oline is expected to block? now why would that be? again, i dont think fitz is all that good. i think his lack of accuracy on the deep ball plays into the play calling as well. i also don't think the oline is all that bad either. they're serviceable, just like fitz. if there was a QB worthy of the 10th pick i dont think buddy would hesitate to draft him. but the line is not so awesome that if the best player available is an LT they'd pass on him. i would like to see that pick used on a de/olb pass rusher, but not if it's a reach. in fact, i'd really like to see what happens in free agency before i'm sold on what position makes the most sense at #10.

i shouldve just quoted this in the first place. nicely put.

ok, i dont see how you "compared" the stats here. you didnt include the %s of the other QBs, and in fitz's case, 135 out of 569 is about 25% not 4.2. regardless, i dont really think these stats are that important in the grand scope of things. scheme/playcalling, game situation and personnel tell more of the story than these cherry picked stats. i think you can tell a lot more from paying attention during the games rather than just reading the box scores. bottom line: fitz isnt that good, but neither is the oline.

right on. i think re-signing or franchising stevie is a must. that shouldnt preclude signing a DE and another WR. it might make it harder to fit mario or VJ on the payroll, but there's other guys out there that can be significant upgrades at those positions. and i'd much rather they draft 3 DEs before drafting 3 WRs.

good post. i like TO and Moss, but i sincerely believe the bills can do better. they need to be looking at WRs that are going to make an impact over the long haul. i have a hunch that stevie gets franchised. hopefully, they can re-sign him, but if the two sides cant see eye to eye, i think buddy & co. realize that they absolutely can not let him walk. i think they do sign another WR, but franchising stevie likely keeps them from throwing enough money at v jax, bowe or colston. i imagine it'll be someone on the next tier. bills do need a CB, but i dont think they should break the bank for any of the available FAs. i also think the bills go hard after a DE. whether or not they get a big name won't be for lack of trying. in the end i think they get someone who is good enough or has enough potential to keep them from drafting (or at least give them second thoughts about picking) that pass rusher everyone is clamoring for in the first round, especially if they think it'd be a reach. buddy is thinking best player available all the way, IMO. if i'm right about the above, i think the bills strongly consider WR or OT in the first round depending how the earlier picks shake out. that's just what i see happening at this point. not what i would shoot for exactly.

oh no! is "playmaker" going to be debated like "franchise qb" and "#1 receiver?"

to reply to a few of the ideas being knocked around here: 2 back sets are kind of limiting. it's not as if you are just adding an additional running back. the opposing defense still has 11 players, just like the offense. in many if not all cases, the mismatch you gain is at the expense of protection. the bills running successes were primarily achieved using draws and sweeps out of passing formations. not so much out of traditional running formations. fred is good in pass protection, but i dont think he can/should be used consistently as a lead blocker in the running game. and i dont think anyone would suggest using spiller to spring fred. again, a limitation. get some receivers, improve the OL, but keep running the spread and running draws and tosses. the bills run game is set up by the pass.

JMO but i think it should be blue/blue at home and white/white away. it's not like i hate different colored jerseys and pants, but it just looks soooo much better to me when they match that i dont know why it's not more common

thanks for bringing this up. a lot of people seem to think in order to be pro-Fred, one must be anti-CJ. i will admit i was concerned spiller didnt make a seamless adjustment to the pro game, but i think it's safe to say he's improved at every opportunity. the stats speak for themselves. i'll also admit that stats don't always tell the whole story, but i cant understand the anti-spiller sentiment after watching the games this season after fred went down. i'm convinced he's got what it takes. and that's no knock on jackson. seems to me, a lot of people would rather stick to their guns than reconsider their opinion when faced with new information.

thanks for the clarification. and i'm not opposed to improving the OL at all. but i worry that even with more time to pass deep fitz will be just as inaccurate on the deep throws, and as of right now the only WR who could possibly go up and get it is SJ. and he's no burner. so the bills would need someone with the wheels to totally outrun the coverage AND be able to track down an imperfect pass. so, i also think fitz's downfield accuracy influenced the playcalling as much as the oline's weaknesses. the bills were putting up points. the D needs improvement to take some pressure off of the offense. thru draft or FA the priorities in my mind are: DE/OLB in either order, WR, OT, TE. i'd also like to see another cornerback acquired, but not at the expense of one of the other positions in need. in regards to coaching, so far chan is good, but not great, on the offensive side of the ball. i'd like to see how he does with a few more pieces and hopefully fewer injuries. Edwards was garbage and it reflects poorly on chan to some extent. i'm optimistic about wannstedt, and i expect marked improvement next year assuming there is at least one major addition on that side of the ball, and kyle returns to form.

the substitution of "dominate" for "dominant" has become one of my biggest pet peeves, thanks to this board. it's up there with "definately." but back to the topic at hand- the OP said it himself: Top tier talent at QB and excellent coaching trump all. i do think the pats*' model is a good one that most teams try to follow, but i'd bet the pats* would still be about the same level competitively regardless of their amount of roster turnover as long as belicheat and brady are still in place. and as far as the bills situation - they are on the right track since nix has been GM, but still need to acquire some additional talent. it's unlikely an all time great qb and coach fall into their lap, but the rest of the pieces are seemingly coming together. the bottom line is that all-pro players make the surrounding cast better. assuming the bills can hit on a couple more draft picks and add decent talent thru FA, we can expect to see improvement not only in those particular positions, but also as a team overall.

they fight themselves?

the same government that encouraged people (and capital) to move away from the run-down neighborhoods? government sponsored suburban sprawl played an enormous role in the degradation of the inner city. maybe as much as the loss of manufacturing and industrial jobs. you're right, people shouldnt expect the government to fix things for them, but it's pretty sad that the government is the one that broke it in the first place.

i know you meant "dominant," but i dont know what you are saying re: coaching vs. talent. you wrote the coaching was the problem, but your solution is adding 5 dominant players. not saying i dont agree that the bills could use some better players, but i dont see how that relates to the title of your thread. as things are (considering who's on the roster and chan's offensive philosophy), i'd put OT as the lowest priority based on this list of needs... but i wouldnt be mad if an OT was BPA at #10 and they took him, especially if they let bell walk. i'd much rather see the big bucks spent in FA on DE and WR.

same place as before: the bench. but seriously, moats and batten can spell as situational pass rushers in odd man nickel fronts and dollar packages. not every draft pick is going to be a starter, much less a pro bowler.

THIS^^^^ plus, it's not just foul language in general in these cases. it's targeted language that most people find reprehensible. it's the difference between yelling "you f--kin suck!" - which is certainly foul and of course not family friendly - and a personal attack on a particular player because of his race. because it's been working out so well for them without a rule... and it's not just language, it's people throwing flares and bottles at players. because of their race. if you are racist and want to go to a game, fine. but check your racism at the gate. the mob mentality with the racist chants allow these clowns to think they are heroes by physically attacking players and fans of different race/heritage/creed. _______________________________________________________________________________ from today's man u v LFC match: My link i dont think anyone should say racist stuff, but that's because i dont think people should be racist. and i think football clubs are making a stand to be clear that they wont tolerate that type of behavior, because if they did they'd implicitly be condoning it.

you rang? ______________________________________ on the topic at hand - yeah, this is a non story at the moment. but meathead is on to something. i dont see it playing out exactly how he does, but the end result is the same. freddy is gone after next year, assuming he doesnt hold out prior to this season. the #1 reason he'll be gone is that he wasn't a part of the long term plans since the new regime was installed. things change, but the facts on fred are the same. he's getting older and even if he has 3 years left as the feature back (which i think is generous), that's it. then what? you sunk a bunch of money that you could've used to eventually pay younger guys that need to be re-signed and go after FAs. i like fred a lot. and i like his story, too. but in the NFL, you get paid for what you're GOING to do. of course, past performance is the best indicator, but you might prefer to gamble on someone who's got more left in the tank. people always point to fred having low mileage. even though he wasnt in the NFL, he was still playing football. at a position that constantly gets hammered. i think the difference is marginal. it sucks for fred that he's been underpaid, but i dont think the bills are going to overpay for that reason. and fred will be insulted and want to test the FA waters. for those of you wishing he is extended, the only hope is that he takes a hometown discount before his contract is up. but i doubt whatever the bills offer him will be in the same neighborhood of what he's looking for. too bad, cuz it was nice while it lasted.

whatever his background/methods i've found him pretty accurate the past few years, and i especially like the succinct bios/analysis. if a player is interesting to me i'll do the leg work myself. plus, although the site isnt modern-looking it's pretty easy to navigate. i by no means meant to paint his site as gospel, but i like not having to wade through the nonsense and start at the bottom line. i only casually watch ncaa football, so to me, it's a great place to start seeing where prospects are slotted.

HOPEFULLY, the cost-cutting moves of last year are not indicative of being cheap, but rather foresight, knowing that re-signing fitz, SJ, fred, and others were in the cards. it would've been nice to have hangartner to back up wood this year, but not at the expense of letting stevie walk. i'm not saying it's one or the other, but the mentality very well could've been, "save this year, spend the next few." i dont mean to defend ralph, but if i cant paint an optimistic picture, i shouldnt even bother rooting for them. edit: i realize my reasoning is flawed, since stevie isnt already locked up, and he prob wouldve if they were really looking that far ahead

walter football also just changed their pick for us to upshaw. theyve been fairly in tune league-wide the past few years, so i like their mocks. they also update/change often based on news when warranted. http://walterfootball.com/draft2012.php i also wouldnt be surprise to see mercilus following the above reasoning and this from charlie campbell (another guy on walter) : http://walterfootball.com/draft2012charlie.php

wtf does terry bradshaw have to do with fred and cj? i agree the RB position is not as important to a team compared to QB. Was there a QB they shouldve drafted there that I missed? my point is that buddy was thinking long term. by that, i assume he said to himself something along these lines, "here i am with the chance to draft an electric player who can score rushing, receiving, and returning. yeah, we've got fred and he's prob got a couple years left. beastmode is outta here. in 4 years when the team that I AM JUST STARTING TO BUILD NOW is coming together, i think i'll have myself a pro bowl game changer." you dont have the chance to draft what looks (looked) like a superstar RB every year. it's a risk worth taking. IMO. which is also the opinion of countless analysts and even a professional GM. i take issue with the idea that RBs are a dime a dozen. think of all the bum RBs you'd absolutely hate to see in a bills jersey. actually, you know what, you're probably right. RBs arent important. trade spiller AND fred. i mean, they can just plug johnny white or tashard choice!

is freddy going to be the freddy we fell in love with in 3 years? 4? 5? spiller will be here and will be take over as the feature back when freddy starts to show his age. maybe it's lucky, or maybe you can see that buddy isnt thinking about "next year," but that he's thinking about the next decade when he's making picks.

a "true #1" receiver is a subjective label, so how are you/me/we going to make an objective determination? stats-wise, look here: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/stats/byposition?pos=WR&conference=NFL&year=season_2011&sort=28&timeframe=ToDate you can sort by receptions, TDs, yards, etc. objectively, you can argue that players like laurent robinson and jordy nelson are "true #1" wrs. they arent even considered the #1 receivers on their respective teams. wes welker always needs to be accounted for when he steps on the field, and has ridiculous stats, but doesnt fit into the mold that pops in mind when thinking of "true #1s," like megatron or larry fitzgerald. not trying to bash the OP, i'm just saying a lot more goes into true #1 label than objective measures. and if this is a stevie johnson thread in disguise - i'll say the only argument against stevie's true #1 status is the drops in crunch time. which i realize is pretty subjective until you define "Crunch time." and of course, dropped passes is an unofficial stat, so... whatever.

what about mcgee?