What a Tuel

Excuses for him every year? What are you talking about? He was phenomenal in 2012. and in 2011 he filled in for Jackson in the last 6 games with 446 and 3 tds. In 2013 he sprains his ankle still puts up nearly 1,000 yard season, and you are complaining? It sounds like you are the one making excuses why we shouldn't like him. Im not even going to respond to the problem with a RB having a high ankle sprain. I guess he was just making it up.

Nope. I used to have Game Rewind but let it lapse after last season. Did you hear it showed the same in 2012? Maybe he was missing the holes because of his ankle? I can tell I didn't like some of the plays that were being called for him. That is for sure. Would you be happy with 2012 like production from Spiller? I was just thinking how everyone is such a fan of Jackson now. I didn't visit this site as frequently in 2012 but were people calling for Jackson to be released/traded when Spiller was doing well in 2012? I know quite a people have flip flopped on the two RB's. It's great we aren't coaches.

If you think Spiller is injury prone then every RB in the league is injury prone. RB's get banged up. He has started the vast majority of his games though. As for inconsistency? He is fairly consistent statistically overall looking at the years he has started and the number of carries. If he didn't have a banged up leg last year he might've matched 2012. Still 933 yards on 202 carries isn't bad. If you are talking about in game play by play? Well as others have said, running him up the middle isn't playing to his strengths. I mean if you want to question my football knowledge that 's fine, but I suggest you look at other variables when talking about football rather than this guy sucks, or that guy is great independent of any situational variables (i.e. in your world "excuses").

Its already agreed that once Jackson goes, Spiller can't be the sole back, but like I said you are crazy if you think a Brown Dixon combo will make the Bills better than Jackson Spiller, or even Brown Spiller. Absolutely nuts. We need to extend Spiller period. Edit: I dispute that Spiller is inconsistent or injury prone, but that has already been hashed and rehashed in this thread.

I think I have good cause to undervalue them both. Funny how you have all the reasons in the world to dislike CJ Spiller, but you want a player who is statistically close to or equal to Spiller, (I would argue they aren't close at all) and a guy who has less than 500 career yards in 4 years. I like the acquisition of depth at RB but if we obtained them as replacements for Jackson and Spiller?...Forget that. To each his own though.

They really need to extend CJ. Depending on Jackson (who is 33 right now), I pray to God we don't go into 2015 with Bryce Brown backed up by Dixon.

This is true Coaching wise, but we fans are separate and tend to look towards the benches when we see something we don't like, which isn't horrible, but it's a terrible trend in Buffalo the next guy in line is always "the" guy. God help them if they don't pass the first "eye" test.

That isn't what I said. The reason Spiller wasn't producing last year was because he was playing on one leg. I imagine he would have had similar stats this year if not for his injury. But that is all speculation. A better passing game wouldn't have hurt. How would a better passing game help this year but not last year?

Agreed. Also, I can't remember where in this thread I read it but someone said averaging 75 yards a game was crap. I just want to put that into perspective by saying: Jamaal Charles averages between 75 and 95 yards a game in his last 4 seasons. LeSean McCoy averages between 72 and 100 yards a game in his last 4 seasons. Last year being his "miracle" year. Adrian Peterson who is widely considered the best averages between 80 and 110 not including his beast 131 average per game (2097 yd) season in 2012. Guess that would be his miracle year Marshawn Lynch between 78 and 99 yards a game in the last three seasons. Averaging 150 yards a game like I think people imagine a good RB does, would put you in the 2400 rushing yards for a season. Just a little perspective for whoever said 75 yards a game is horrible especially for a rb tandem where you share carries.

Miracle year? As someone else pointed out, Spiller has more than one good year. We had 8 more passing TDs and a few more yards. Imagine what Spiller would have done if Gailey would have utilized him correctly and defenses were sold on Fitzpatrick. His "miracle year" he was on par with the best RBs in the league. This may be more reasonable, CJ is definitely not a sole RB. All the more reason to attempt to extend CJ now, we have seen what he can do. Do you think we are a better team with Brown. Or Brown and Spiller?

Am I hearing this right? Unfortunately Jackson is nearing his end (Hopefully hes got another 10 years ). And we think we are better off with Brown and Dixon rather than Spiller? Simmer down people. I seem to remember Philadelphia having 4000+ yard 30+ TD passing game last year that may have helped McCoy out a little. (That's not downplaying McCoy's skill). That compared to 3000+ yard 16 TD passing game for the Bills. Having a downfield threat will help the running game just a little bit.

Being offended is not good enough. Being offended does not give a person more rights than the average person. Especially when the offended party cannot provide a shred of evidence that the offending party intends to offend, or sets circumstances that would detract from the well being of a particular people. And they in fact do the opposite.

Oh I definitely don't think he will be cut. My problem is that we cut the one WR that we knew could perform at a high level, and replaced him with a lot of ? marks. Big gamble. I just think we should have held on to Stevie one more year so that some of those ? marks would have been more clear when we made a decision of this magnitude. I have high hopes for Mike Williams to return to his 2012 playing level, and for Watkins and Woods to blow things up, and even Goodwin to stand out, but there really wasn't a downside to keeping Stevie besides the cap hit we would've taken next year that we took this year instead.

Oh, all I saw was an @MikeRodak. True or not, this is why I think we should have held on to Stevie. If Mike Williams doesn't perform, we are down to Woods and Watkins, and maybe Goodwin. God forbid we have injuries (Every receiver was injured at some point last year) On top of that, Williams is due for decent money next year. Depth is a good thing. JMO take it or leave it.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000358918/article/no-guarantee-mike-williams-makes-bills-roster

I would argue that negative connotation should not be the sole determining factor in determining whether something is decent or not. The problem I have is that nowadays I see all kinds of movies, and tv and I wonder how people would treat them if they came out today. What should be classified as indecent and offensive? Should they be stricken from the record? How far are we willing to go to make sure everything in the world is decent? Is it possible that you may just have to deal with being offended at some points in your life? I feel like the world is overcompensating for the crimes of the past by treating ordinary people like glass. There is a difference between ensuring that an injustice does not recur, and being overprotective. On the other hand comedy just seems to get away with it, because they are just joking, but in reality are cashing in on racist/hateful/derogatory/intolerant humor which sole purpose is to offend you. (shock value) Blows my mind.

Now Native is offensive I bet. Because you must follow the established set of stereotypical rules that clearly make logical sense in a vacuum. Obviously Native can have negative connotations, but we won't make the logical step in thinking that the term "Native" means "a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not." If you twist it and interpret it as demeaning then it must have been the speakers intention, and therefore must be stricken from the record. That is a real irritating way for the world to look at things.

Thank you. I have pointed it out before. Boston Redsox - Boston Redskins. Played at the same stadium. It says in your article he picked the name out of a desire to keep the logo. "He apparently picked the Redskins name so he could keep the existing Native American logo." http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/bhohscn72jl4tg468jvr/Boston_Redskins/1933/Primary_Logo Does that look like the logo of someone who wishes to disparage or resents Native Americans? The true history of the word as you admitted was not a slur. If the Redskins Organization believes it to be a term of honor as it was prior to the 1800's then why can't it be?

What exactly is your point? Do you believe the Organization bears any ill will towards Native Americans?

I agree people need to have conviction. Like I said, I don't blame Native Americans for the escalation of this. I guess my problem is that I hear such an uproar about a name of a sports team that hardly has any real impact on anybody, but I don't hear a word about the real problems Native Americans face that have a real impact, and aren't something they can just ignore. The Native American leaders could have just as easily made an emotional video about conditions they face, and such but they decided to take on a football team that mean them no harm? It just seems absurd. It's like the masses and the government take the easy road. "Racist sounding name? Sure I can beat my drum to that cause". "25% of Native Americans in poverty?" Crickets.

Link please. Also if the original meaning of the term was out of respect, and the Redskins Organization is saying they respect, and honor Native Americans, why don't you believe them?

For both you and NoSaint. Let's not pretend they haven't been asking for 30 or more years. In the more recent years, and with the momentum of the internet, it has turned into a campaign to slander/demonize/discredit the Redskins Organization in order to further the established goal. I don't blame Native Americans for that escalation, I blame the internet who seemingly has the power to determine not only what is right or wrong, but who is good or bad as well. I also blame the Media which has declined dramatically over the years. I also blame the Senate for thinking they have some sort of responsibility to ask beg a private organization to change their name. There are a lot of real problems out there that have real impact on Native Americans lives for so many people to be so focused, and devoting so many resources to changing the name of an private organization that you don't even have to watch and is not intended to be offensive.

Sure, they are perfectly justified in asking the organization to change their name. And the Redskins organization is perfectly justified in saying "No", in the polite and respectful manner that they have. That's where it should end. It isn't some travesty, controversy, or "national embarressment", that the whole country should be getting up in arms about (one side or another), especially the Senate.

I don't understand why this is so hard for people. Intent is everything here. If the Redskins organization really meant to insult or offend Native Americans, then I could see all the resentment toward the name. However it is very clear that the organization, and most fans do not see it as an insult, and do not wish to offend Native Americans. That is where is should end. I picture you guys thinking in your heads that the people of the Redskins organization are laughing, and making crude jokes about Native Americans behind closed doors or something. It is very clearly not meant to be an insult, and the team just wants to keep the history behind it's team and name. A whole lot of words in the english meaning have different meanings. Anyone go on a crusade lately? Getting so tired of people getting offended (or being offended for others) by things that aren't meant to be offensive. "Well if you follow my strict set of stereotypical rules that clearly make logical sense in a vacuum, then obviously you are being offensive"

True. But between the relocation fee, the lease fee, the court battle, etc etc, these fees would likely overshadow the increased value of moving to another city. Maybe you profit your way out of the red. Maybe you don't. Point is that Ralph made it difficult for someone to just pick up and move. How much more nervous would we all be if we didn't have this lease protection? I don't like the way Shredd constantly laughed when their guest asked about the rumor and how they got a hold of it. I think its all a cruel joke.