The Dean

Really? Very interesting. I just assumed every team had some presence at all bowl games. Good info as usual, Yolo. I do imagine the Bills are contracted with some outside talent evaluators at every meaningful bowl game, even if they aren't officially employees of the team. Does that sound about right?

I understand, but WHY? I can accept following customs that have, or at least had, some practical validity/utility. But when they make absolutely no sense, and those who expect us to follow them can't even give a half-assed explanation as to WHY this custom exists, I can't help but want to rebel. I understand holding a chair for a woman. I understand standing when a woman arrives or leaves (but seriously, I think it's time to retire this one--especially for "every time" a woman gets up--still it has some basis for why it became a custom). But the hat thing I just don't get. I do see one, less than half-assed explanation by Emily Post: http://www.emilypost.com/everyday-manners/common-courtesies/479-hats-off-the-who-what-when-where-of-the-hat Another site has a slightly different take: http://www.ehow.com/info_10007542_did-practice-men-taking-hats-off-inside-start.html But I think it's pretty clear, nobody today is certain of WHY we do it, just THAT we do it. ENOUGH! I say. You want to look like a mook and wear a baseball hat in a restaurant? Have at it. We managed to kick the wig nonsense. Let's make these hat rules next, or at least make them the same for men and women.

I'll ask again: Why Mallet? What has he done that EJ has not? At least the others have a reasonable amount of game day experience.

I'm not sure this means he is looking for an extension for Hackett, but I get your worry that it might be. I actually think there is a real opportunity here for a deal that helps the team, and gives Marrone a little something. Perhaps extend his contract one year, maybe with a small raise (hey if he ends up getting fired, Pegula can eat the contract--it ain't my money ). BUT he agrees to dismiss the OC and OL coach. Give extensions to the defensive assistants he wants to lock up. Team gets something, he gets something and the team is assured of some stability (on the defensive side) and some change (on the offensive side)..Everybody wins.

I was never sold on Robinson that early. But I did covet Jake Mathews, and he hasn't exactly taken the league by storm either. Still I think he will be find.

GMs don't comment on the record about draft picks, before the draft. When they do you never know what they mean. And they rarely, if ever, trash anyone. The people who do public draft analysis, year after year, are the only sources we have for comparing things like this. Great sources? No but for tracking purposes it's what we have to work with, unless you'd rather just ask Kellyto83. But anyway, I never said he would slide out of the 1st round---or even the top 5. Somebody will roll the dice. I'm saying he isn't UNIVERSALLY praised as a safe, sure thing, lock #1 NFL pick. Luck was. Ergo, ipso facto, humpty dumpty, Winston does not equal Luck as a prospect---that is if you are worried about getting a lemon. If all you care about is upside, and can ignore the possible negatives, then sure, he has talent. Definitely high first round talent. So did Ryan Leaf, according to many.

I guess you are right, but for the life of me I can't understand why. Women can wear hats--they used to be required in church. Men can't. Why? I mean other than some lame reason like "it's customary"? Is there any legit practical reason for this?

Seriously? Do you HONESTLY believe this? Or are you in some sort of dumb post competition with Kellyto83?

Really. Over-reactions to wild speculation. Even if he is trying to get a contract extension, or salary boost, why is that a "low move". This clause was built-in to his contract, likely specifically for this situation. Since when do we consider someone exercising a legitimate option a "low move"? I know many don't like unscheduled demands for contract renegotiation, but this one is built right into his deal. Nothing to get worked up about. Seems to me it's being handled very low-key and in-house. That's about the best you can expect.

Well, since it allows backward worn hats, I'd say they are OK with some forms of sartorial douchebaggery. Wearing a baseball hat backwards is fine, if you are riding a bike, or walking into a stiff wind. But they can be turned around inside. Seems like frat-boys are welcome, but other sorts of punks aren't. Perhaps just a tad racist, too.

What move? What did I miss. All I see is wild speculation. Nothing whatsoever from Marrone or The Bills.

Glad I wasn't the only one lost. I gave up early on, though. Can't take information by a guy who goes by CM Punk all that seriously--sorry. I know that's wrong. But with that said, I don't doubt there is some spin on these evaluations---particularly if they are from the doctor that performed the procedure.

I did get to read that story yesterday, Dave. Very good account. But it didn't change my opinion on Winston one bit. I tend to watch a lot of FSU ball (my nieces went there and my brother in law is a huge fan). I've seen much of what people like about Winston. I have also seen him make some God-awful decisions and throws. Way worse than what I ever saw from EJ. I'm not saying EJ has as much raw talent as Winston, but I think he was smarter with the ball. I would have loved for that article to also have included break-down of a horrendous decision and/or throw (or quarter of those poor decisions) by Winston as a point-counterpoint comparison.

"Straw man" has been getting used a lot on this message board. But most of the time I believe it is being misused. You are confusing baseball analytics with football analytics, I fear. I find it doubtful analytics will ever be a revolutionary presence in the NFL---perhaps I'm wrong. But that isn't to say they can, and might be, used in a way that helps the human evaluators on the club, make better decisions. I'm a long time research guy, who has advised decision makers. Some lean too heavily on the research findings. Others ignore them completely, to their detriment. The most successful decision makers know how to use the research, without following it blindly. It may give them ideas, raise questions, confirm hunches, etc. And each researcher has their own way of analyzing, and decimating the data. Football analytics are a lot like that, I believe. And why would any team want to discuss their inner decision-making process. I'm sure it would be hard to simply explain to reporters, if they even tried. The mess the reporters would make of it, and the micro analysis they would offer, would be truly amusing, though.

Here's the thing, BADO, they ARE a young team (relative to the rest of the league). It is fact. You just can't find a way to admit it. And while the Bills have many, many years of failure. The current front office only has two-three years. You can't put those past failures on them. The name of the company doesn't reflect those currently in charge, especially if you see improvement. Those 15 years have been the combined failures of many different leaders. Go ahead and put the blame on Ralph if that makes you feel better. But how can you hang 15 years of failure on guys who have been here 2-3 years, and an owner who just took over the team months ago. I understand many fans are stupid and can't figure out a way to separate the team from those running the team. But you aren't. Forget the past 15 years. Start the clock at two, three years ago---and then perhaps, reset it for the new owner. Wallowing in the past gets you nowhere.

Which instantly makes him on a different level than Luck. When Luck came out nearly EVERY analyst said he was gold. I can't think of one who remarked they would not touch him in the first round. Can you say the same for Winston? See---not nearly the same. Luck was "a Luck" because he was very good, NFL ready and SAFE. Plus you never trade away that much for one guy. What if he gets horribly injured in the first year? Now you re out the player, your great player and two first round picks. A seriously idiotic suggestion.

Seriously WTF are you talking about. Do you even know? Maybe you should pass your posts by a smarter friend before you submit them.

Only for teams not named Buffalo Bills.

Weighted snap count, BADO. Entire team. Yes the QB makes a difference in the average, But so do OL and LB etc, who play every down. And lets not forget a young QB makes a big difference to the team, compared to an older experienced vet. So, in short, they were, and are, a young team compared to others in the NFL. That is both on their roster and weighted snap count. You can try to explain it away, but don't say it isn't true. It is. With that said, I don't accept it as a reason for failure year-after-year. However if they continue to make measured progress and become a factor in the NFL playoffs once again, it might be considered a legit factor in the explanation of their growth.

Indeed, I'm not saying age should always be used as an excuse for failure. But it is what it is. Sometimes young guys can also be experienced. And you make a good point. Many of our "young guys" on defense have experience. I'm hoping the offense catches up soon. And I agree. I doubt Marrone is going anywhere this year. He earned another year to make it all work. If the team regresses, then buh-bye, most likely.

The Bills NEED to tell us everything about how they make decisions. After all, we OWN them. Oh, wait. Never mind.

Veteran team and young team can be two different things. There is little doubt the Bills have a young roster. There are actually measures of that. Last year the Bills had the 3rd youngest roster in the NFL. And their "snap-weighted age" according to Football Outsiders was 4th youngest. Interesting fact is, the three teams younger than the Bills had older, experienced QBs. http://www.footballo...013-nfl-rosters The Bills roster this year on cut-down day wasn't quite as young, but was in the bottom third of NFL teams. They were #10---but their average age (25.72) was only marginally older than the youngest team, the Rams (25.09) and far from the oldest teams in the league, the Raiders (27). http://www.philly.co...oldest.html?c=r Unfortunately I was not able to find an end of the year snap-weighted average yet this year. I assume Orton brings that average up, but then again the playing time of Henderson and Brown might tip it the other way. Figure in Dixon playing instead of Fred for a good chuck of the year and I suspect the Bills will still be among the youngest teams, on a snap-played basis. So please, don't lie. You are above that BADO. They ARE a young team, by comparison to the rest of the NFL.

I consider Eddie Vedder one of the most overrated people in music. I don't even think about what generation he is from.

You always have good info, Dibs. Thanks.

Fair argument. Sammy played the entire year injured to some extent--I don't think he was ever 100% other than a few snaps before getting injured. Still managed to put up good numbers in a dysfunctional offense. Beckham started the year with a hammy--but seemed to be recovered as the year progressed. Still hard not to like what he did. Then again, he had a two time SB MVP QB throwing to him.