Wayne Cubed

This. I think a lot of fans mistake the different LB postions. A QB is always > any other postion. Just below QB is players that rush the QB, ie an outside LB in a 3-4 or a DE in a 4-3. A MLB, which is what Teo is, does not have nearly as much impact on the game as the 2 previous positions I said. Just look at pay scale. MLB's have almost become like RB's. Meaning you can find really good ones in the later rounds and don't need to waste a 1st on one.

Who is this Kevin Barnett Except "Kevin" Nick Barnett plays WLB and Sheppard plays MLB. Sooooooooo Sheppard isn't ever going to "get" any of his playing time.

HUH? Scott is terrible in coverage. Don't you remember "43 is the Mike, 43 is the Mike." They abused Scott last time the Bills played the Pats*. And he didn't play that great this game either. He had some long passes thrown against him Sunday. And Sheppard isn't suppose to be replacing Barnett. Barnett is playing WLB and Sheppard plays the MLB in the base defense. When the Bills are in Nickel or Dime, Scott comes out and there are only 2 LB's on the field. And for some strange reason, eventhough it didn't work when the Bills first played them, Wanny went back to being in Nickel or Dime the entire game. When that happens the Bills get beat up in the run game, because Scott is terrible in run support from the MLB postion. Not defending Sheppard, but I don't quite think you understand what is being asked of him.

This. The people who support Fitz, think the defense is the only problem. The people who don't support agree that there isn't just one problem, but many problems and Fitz is one of them. Yes, I think every fan can agree that Fitz played a good game yesterday but that does not absolve him from how he's played all year. It's like the Fitz supporters are like "see, I told you so." Yet, just last week, Fitz couldn't do anything at all. And in the game against SF, couldn't do anything at all. He puts his WR's in terrible positions by not being accurate. Again, I don't think anyone is saying it's just Fitz, it's a combination of Fitz AND the defense.

Huh? What if the Bills just say NO. He is signed to a contract you know? Not to mention the trade deadline has passed....

So the Bills should just roll the dice with Fitz for another season or roll the dice with picking a late round QB?

Actually thats not what I meant, at all. My point was Big Ben and Rodgers weren't considered "franchise" guys coming out of college. Hence why they weren't taken first overall. Yet they are now "franchise" guys, so there could be good QB's who are picked later that turn our to be great.

These. Even if there isn't an Andrew Luck or Matt Ryan, there will be a Ben Roethisberger or Aaron Rodgers in the next draft. Meaning there may not be an outright franchise player but there will be some good QBs. And a good/great QB trumps a Middle LB every time.

I think this explains it best. Gaileys, not dumb, just limited. I'm sure its frustrating for him because ocasionally Fitz can make the throws. Then he'll throw a duck. The system works. Proof is in the New England offense. Problem is Gailey doesn't have a Brady, not sure if that makes him dumb or if he's just rolling with the punches cause thats all he has.

I think this proves my point. 2003 - Palmer/Leftwich, both I think we could consider not "franchise" QB's 2004 - Manning could be consider a "franchise" Qb as he's won 2 SBs. I'm weary to call Rivers that as he hasn't even been to the SB with the Chargers. 2005 - Smith is a game manager. 2006 - Young is out of the league. Linehart is/was a backup 2007 - Russell is out of the league 2008 - Jury is still out of Stafford. Sanchez is definitely not a "franchise" QB 2009 - Ryan seems like a legit QB. Hasn't been able to get it done in the playoffs. Maybe this year is his year? 2010 - Bradford is developing. Still too early. 2011 - After an amazing 1st season, Newton is in a sophmore slump, so still too eary. Gabbert is turning out to be a bust 2012 - Obviously to early for all of these to tell. So basically since 2003 there has been 1, maybe 2 legitimate "franchise" QBs picked in picks 1-5. And thats however you want to define "franchise." Meanwhile, Rodgers, Brees and Roethisberger were all picked after picks 1-5 and have won SB's. They would be right up there as "franchise" QB's.

The problem is who defines a franchise QB? Are we talking, when a team picks, they think that person is a franchise QB or is a franchise QB determined after they have been in the league and proved it. Because there have been MANY QBs picked number 1, that have amounted to nothing, eventhough I'm sure the team picking them thought they were "franchise" QB. Likewise there have been many QB's picked later that have become "franchise" QBs. I honestly don't have the time, but I'm sure if you looked at QB's picked 1-5 and QB's picked 6-10, the amount that have turned into "franchise" Qb's would be pretty equal and would probably suprise you.

I get the idea and premise behind what the OP is saying, but... no pick is a lock or gurantee. Andrew Luck is possibly a once in a decade pick. Is there a pick like that this year? Probably not. So basically, you tank the season and take a 50/50 chance on a QB or whoever. Lets say that QB doesn't do well, now the cycle starts again. And it keeps happening over and over and over again. Meanwhile you've lost the fan base and possibly the money to keep the team. Aslo, players are as good as the organization they are brought into.

To be fair, in the 3rd quarter the defense held Foster to 8 carries for 16 yards... I'd say that's doing there job.

He was back at practice today, per Bills/Chris Brown tweets. Gailey says he is encouraged.

Huh? A MLB hasn't gone #1 in the draft in 24 years. Why would you think that would change? I like Te'o, but he isn't going #1, hell I don't think he goes top 5. The teams picking top five are looking for franchise altering players. And IMO that's not a MLB, not when you can get great LBs in the late first, early second round. Remember the buzz about Luke Keuchly, he went at 9. Te'o will go somewhere between 7-15. Not to mention the browns already have a stud MLB in Jackson.

Touche

Going to see some Viking artifact...

I watched Green a lot and really thought he was BPA at #3, easily. That said, I'm not upset with the Dareus pick. And I certainly wouldn't label him a bust.

Austin Howard introduced you to Mario Williams. Wow. That must have been crazy and awkward at the same time. Talk about friends in high places.

and yet, even with a bum wrist, production-wise he's the best DE on the Bills. Why not get on Anderson or Kelsay? Anderson that "num/fraud" is crying about his knee.

Loads of fans are blinded by the almighty $. I saw what you posted before and tend to trust what casserly said FWIW. This thread is overreaction at it's finest.

.....so far.... for this season.... which is not even half over. And even thats a stretch, he's by far our best DE, in terms of production.

Not that I think Fitz is the answer, but lets stick to facts. In his career, Fitz has played in 64 games. He has thrown 3 or more interceptions in 7 games. I wouldn't exactly call that regular or "usual." Thats about 10% of his games. Eli Manning, by comparison, has played in 127 games. He has thrown 3 or more interceptions 25 times. Thats about 20% of his games. I'd call that a little more regular or usual. Certainly more than Fitz. Let that sink in for a minute. Would you like another? Sure why not. Tom Brady, in 168 games has thrown 3 or more interceptions 13 times. Thats about 8% of his games. Am I saying Fitz is like any of these QB's? Nope not at all. But please, lets try to stick to facts and not blow things out of proportion. He has multiple game interceptions somewhere between the likes of Tom Brady and Eli Manning. Certainly not as little as Tom Brady but definitely not even close to as regularly as Eli Manning. What did these teams have that helped them win the SB? Defense.

I said something similar to this in the shoutbox. It's sad, really. I hate to bring him up, but Whitner was great in run support. I understand Byrd will never be great in run support, but his job really isn't suppose to be. That falls to the Strong Safety, which Wilson is just not gettting it done this year. I'd almost prefer Scott back there during obvious running downs. That way there is at least some size back there. Wilson is OK, to come in during passing downs or nickel/dime. But then you have the problem of substituting too many players. In the end, we need better safety play from the SS position.

This is exactly the point. Why bring up the amount of money everytime you mention his play? Who cares. Thats the price it took to get a FA here.