Turbosrrgood

These suggestions need not follow NFL guidelines... My idea is letting him play in the regular season, but ban him from the playoffs the next time his team makes it. Or we could forget suspensions and fines, the NFL needs to think outside the box. Every week of the NFL season could begin with Sebastian Janikowski using Tom's nuts for field goal practice, broadcast live on NFLN. Then Pats fans couldn't complain about him missing games.

Sure, he was decent in that game...A game in which they were thoroughly destroyed, and one of Cook's only "bad" performances (he still had over 100 yards, 6.9 YPC), since he took over the starting role. I don't think there was much doubt that Cook was the better RB. He also was just a freshman. Karlos Williams certainly had his moments, and has some very good physical qualities. He would break the occasional big play. But he struggled to consistently find running lanes. He was hard to stop when he actually did. For a big guy he was a relatively easy to knock down around the LOS, he was good at powering for a yard when he knew he needed it though. I like the pick, and there are probably a lot of good things he can do for the Bills as a STer and situational back (Goal line, short yardage, 3rd down). I'm not sure he has the vision to be a feature back though, not that the Bills need one. It's a good pick up at that point in the draft.

I watched every game that Williams played in. He was always hyped, but never really developed into what people were hoping for (hence the 5th round pick). I don't think it's necessarily guaranteed that he even makes the team, and could be a PS guy. If he does, I'd say the cut is between Brown and FJ. FJ by far being the easiest guy to cut. I still wonder if they maybe they would consider him at S again. He's got prototypical size/speed, and was highly recruited at that position out of college. At the very least he should be a good ST player.

I'd bet Gugny's testicles he's signed to a 100+ mil deal before the 2016 season.

Life long underachiever, no thanks.

Advice: Just sit back and be entertained as TBDers berate each other our amusement.

Actually the league ruled that the plays by the Patriots were illegal after the game. However the refs didn't know how to call it, the new rule basically clarifies that. Certainly you can't punish the Pats for that, since it isn't their fault the refs didn't call it. BB has proven he's willing to "push the limits" so long as he can get away with it.

Whether the under inflated balls helped is irrelevant. Personally I think the Pats would have won either way...However cheating is cheating. If you found out Tom Brady did steroids between 2011-2013, but stopped before the 2014 season...Is that ok, since the steroids didn't help apparently?

Sure, why not? They were already terrible, they might as well get something for it. Also, they are hardly the only ones, other teams went full sell out as well. It's also worth noting that the NHL changed the rules this year and next year to avoid tanking in the future. After this year there is very little reason to tank again, but if the Sabres didn't do it this year fans would be crying in outrage over the missed opportunity. Most importantly, it's legal. They are not breaking any rules. The Patriots clearly did, on multiple occasions, it's not even close to an equal comparison.

I think many will disagree with this. The Pats were responsible for those balls, if someone in the organization cheated, the organization can be held responsible. They don't necessarily have to prove who it was, they already proved to some level that it happened. At the very least, they used illegal footballs. A scapegoat is not required.

You were the first to bring this to light? That's a joke right? Before Glenn was ever drafted it was assumed he would be a G in the NFL. The Bills basically shocked most of the experts by playing him at LT. There have been Glenn to G rumors since before he was in the NFL and every year since. Also, Glenn is not an all-pro G, considering he has never played there as a pro. You also contradict yourself in your statement first saying is a good left tackle, then saying he is only ok.

I'm hopeful for improvement on the offense this offseason...but damn are people getting carried away. So the "stud" WRs have never had a 1000 yard season between the 3 of them (Don't get me wrong, I like them all), Clay has barely produced more than Chandler, and the QB position is possibly in worse shape than it was last year. Sure McCoy is a huge addition, but if you are expecting the Bills to all of the sudden be an offensive juggernaut you could be in for some disappointment. I think the offense has improved it's offensive personnel, but it has a long way to go to prove it's even a mediocre offense. Especially with a huge question mark at QB. But to answer the OP...Pressure the below average QBs, and focus on stopping McCoy. If Taylor somehow won the job, it would change things, as this surely would become a read option offense.

I usually find these types of posts humorous at best, but Rivers is certainly in the realm of possibilities for the Bills next year. Particularly if SD drafts an early QB (which is being rumored). If that happens it could mean Rivers separates from SD next off season. If the Bills put up a decent showing this year, it could be enough to attract him. Still, there are ton of variables that make this just a thought for the moment. Also, for the record. I'm a huge Rivers fan regardless of his future. He is a very good QB, that has not had much talent to work with over the last 5+ years.

Well the odds are with you on that one, because the defense was among the best in the league last year. A lot easier to go down than up. For the record, I still think the D will be very good, even if they aren't ranked as high as last year.

You consider Chris Williams, Bryce Brown, and Cassel flashy moves? Why not throw Thad Lewis on there?

Of course Cutler is available, he has been since the season ended. The problem is no one is dumb enough to take on that contract. The Bills certainly won't be dumb enough at this point, having already traded for McCoy and Cassel and their respective high cap hits. There is zero chance this is even in the thought process for Whaley now.

Why would you say we should "overpay" anyone, to do anything? Saying we should sign him is one thing, but overpaying him would be to say "let's give him more than he is worth to us". Why would anyone possibly want to do that? Overpaying is simply poor business, in football, or anything else.

I will say this about Duke Williams. He had some really bad moments (one particularly terrible PI in the endzone), however he got more playing time as last year went on, and certainly seemed to improve in my view. He was given much more deep cover responsibilities than Searcy, and showed very good hitting ability. My one big criticism on him is that he played to far back on the ball, meaning he was often late to make plays. Some of that could have been scheme, and be correctable by coaching. I think he has promise, much more so than he showed his rookie year...however he has to show some more improvement to prove he could be an every down starter.

That's nice and everything, but those combine numbers aren't impressive, and he was a 5th round pick that disappointed in Washington. He had one nice game for the Bills, but he's a backup. He's well behind Duke Williams on the roster, and I doubt the Bills are even considering him as a starter, if he makes the team at all. As far as "would have, should have, could have" that goes for many players...Darick Rogers, Kouandjio, Richardson, all projected higher at one point...none of them lived up to that hype...And I was a big fan of that Georgia team, he didn't slip in the draft just because of drug tests. There were serious questionmarks with his game. I like Rambo, I liked the pickup...but let's not go declaring him the next great thing yet.

I actually think it's a pretty good looking logo. Sure you can make the case that the logo doesn't actually match the team name, but the city name has the obvious dual meaning. In terms of aesthetics it's far more pleasing than many logos across sports. It seems like the point is more against the name than the logo (I could buy into some criticism there). Also, I think this i just another case of Buffalo to be an easy city to dump on.

I think people will still be starting these threads 20 years from now.

Yes this I left too much room to interpret that incorrectly, I meant to say the cost of the TRADE to get Watkins was a 1st and a 4th, NOT 2 first round picks. 2-1 = 1, not 2. Representing it as otherwise, which has been done here many times is misconstruing what really happened. Again, my original point. People love to mention the cost of the trade, without mentioning the return. If people don't like the trade, I get that. I just find it comical that people want to try and word it in a way that makes it sound different than it actually was, as if people don't know what really happened. it makes any argument they are making against the trade sound petty.

I'm not afraid to admit anything, it's simple math...The Bills own 9th pick that turned into a 4th. There is a cost and a return, saying the cost is the net result without factoring in the return is incorrect. I'm not making an argument for or against the trade, just stop trying to make out to be more expensive than it was.

Actually, the way I described is what actually happened. Without any misrepresentation of the cost, it's not semantics there is a difference. Saying the cost was 2 1st round picks for Watkins is factually incorrect.