White Linen

I think it's like a "I want everyone to read what I said, so I'll start a new thread" thing.

When do you propose that they will see him "throw in person" before March? That's my point, they only are privy to the film they have on him under the previous regime. They have no idea if they can help him improve. So they signed Jackson to compete. I'm not saying they won't cut Fitz or shouldn't, but it's not the easiest decision as most fans who want Fitz cut now presume. Then you're left with Jackson. How the heck do you or they know if they'll get a rookie? What if the guy(s) they want get picked before their pick(s)? As Hondo in Seattle mentions above, it appears they aren't just willing to put all their eggs in Jacksons basket.... yet.

Because he might be better than Jackson.

At least let us get through the combine and pro days so there's at least an opportunity for new feedback.

I agree with you and think Jackson is the opening day starter too, and I think they draft a QB. This puts the Bills in a bind because Fitz gets his $3 million signing bonus and his salary. But what else can they do? It's a tough spot to be in. They either cut Fitz (doesn't help cap too much) to not pay him the real money and risk Jackson being awful, or keep him and still have to pay him if he gets beat out. I just don't understand what fans would have them do?

Yep, that's the issue. He's trying to draw an analogy between his opinion and what Whaley said. It's just not there.

I'd be on board with him if it wasn't for his very weak arm. I know evaluators keep trying to say his arm is better when they see it live, but it's pretty weak. That kind of arm doesn't translate well in the NFL.

Pettine's defense is complex. These players have just come off a season with Wanny which was be as vanilla as it gets. If Scott is needed to get this team moving forward quicker on the new scheme's he may be necessary to bring in. No doubt he's not the player he was, in fact his bark was bigger than his bite even when he was thought to be very good. Incentive laden two year deal would be just fine with me.

That rant was classic. Happy B-day.

You're trying to fuse your thoughts and Whaley's and it's not there. "Serious holes" and "Matching skill sets to your offense" aren't exactly congruent analogies.

I don't believe the player has that option. I think I got it now. The non exclusive means the player is able to negotiate a contract with other teams, the team then has the right to match or decline, if they decline they get two 1st round picks from the new team. I think what I meant was the transition tag. This works the same as non exclusive in that the original team gets first right of refusal, but if they decline to match, no compensation is given. The transition tag is what I think we should use. Because no one will sign Levitre having to give up compensation.

How is my theory risking both? We have two weeks to get Byrd signed in order to non exclusive franchise Levitre. If in the two weeks we can't get it done with Byrd you franchise him and you let Levitre walk. To be honest I don't care what message gets sent to the other players and I doubt they do either.

I'm not sure I understand this rationale. If he's worthy of the 8th pick then he's viewed as a franchise QB. If that's the evaluation the Bills put on him, then he's worth trading up for. I'm not saying I do, but if that's the grade then you go get him.

Yeah that's why I'm thinking give Byrd top safety money, which isn't terrible in comparison to other positions. Then let Levitre see what he can get in the open market, if we like the deal we match and sign him, if not we allow him to sign. But at least we will know the numbers before allowing him to go.

What do Jim Harbaugh and Mike Mularkey have in common in this context?

I'd give Byrd 7.5 million per year and make him the highest paid safety in the league. Then I'd franchise Levitre with the non exclusive rights tag. If the Byrd signing can't happen, I unfortunately let Levitre go.

I'm not sure what you've read but I understood him to be a perfectionist and that he's a film rat. His coach said "he studies more film than Roger Ebert."

Thanks for posting.

I thought I told you to include Dysert. Haha

Yeah that's pretty much what I was trying to say. The most important thing to find out is will he do it again. The fortunate thing (if there is one) about drinking and driving is, if no one gets hurt there's instanlty an opportunity to start fresh.

I think it's obvious if you've read some comments above I've had a personal experience with a drunk driver. My wife's sister got killed by one. You're out drinking and the person enters that point where you're not in a non drinking state of mind. Then you have to be responsible enough in that frame of mind to make great decisions, and you're not. So obviously the decisions have to be made prior. You have to be mature or caring for the other people that could be on the road to think ahead. Does a DUI give you insight into how a person will do pursuing a football? No. But to say that it's a non issue is boring.

Well a couple of beers could possibly not put you over the limit the law set, if it does and you drive, you're an idiot. Of course there's degrees of drunkeness, but if me and my family are driving, I don't give a crap if the guy thinks he's ok because he had a few beers. Don't be on the road if you're impaired even if it's slightly over the allowable limit. You mention you know someone killed because of looking at a cell phone. Is looking at your cell phone while driving an issue for you?

Maybe it will hit home to your family someday and you'll undertand how wrong you are. People that drive drunk can certainly have many great qualities, but the fact that they would do that, especially with all the awareness now, is BS.

Yes. I'm trying to force everyone to like Dysert as much as I do.

This is BS man. The problem is it's so common it gets fluffed off as evidenced by you're statement "I know plenty of people with great character who have gotten DUIs." People with character aren't willing to kill families because they are too selfish or lazy to get a ride home by other means. I don't care about this idiot kid, but saying DUI's are non issues is ridiculous.