SBUffalo

He seems to be indicating that a team outside of the top ten is looking at trading in to get him. Teams that don't have a top 10 pick that need a WR: New York at 18, Philly at 22, KC at 23, Carolina at 28 and SF at 30.

As much as he might be technically right about the market crap he's arguing, I don't think there's any way somebody could argue moving a team to another country, when no other team plays in that country, wouldn't be considered relocation. "Wet blanket" indeed.

Carr to Cleveland has been rumored for a while now, but I'm still going to assume this is a smokescreen.

We are and have been one player from making the playoffs for a few years. A quarterback. Not a DE. They aren't taking a QB early, so they absolutely have to hold on to the 2015 just in case.

If they trade up to one it's for Clowney. If it's for anybody else then this team just paid a steep price for a prospect that wasn't worth it. If they trade up to two-five it could be for Mack, Watkins or Robinson. If they trade up to six-seven then it would be for any of the three above if they fall, Evans or one of Lewan/Matthews. In my opinion.

If Mack doesn't go to Jacksonville and we haven't made our move up yet, then I would want us to right then. We probably wouldn't have to get to five, but we would definitely have to get over Atlanta. So five to Oakland would be a good spot and it wouldn't cost a whole lot.

I was talking about Buffalo moving to 5-7, not Atlanta moving up.

I don't see anything being there at 5-7 that would be worth moving up for.

Well they're not going to give us something THAT big. I think they could be targeting Mack. Teams that want Clowney will want Mack. If they talk up Clowney at one then they might be able to convince a team to move up while Buffalo negotiates the second or third pick for Mack.

There's always the chance that he thinks that Clowney being the first pick would benefit Buffalo. Maybe he has a certain order of picks in his mind and believes that Clowney going number one would really help ensure that a certain guy is there at nine. Saying you want to trade up might pressure other teams to make the move to get him. Also, he could be doing Houston a favor. Maybe Houston is close on a couple other fronts in a trade for number one and he's doing a favor for a team. It can never hurt to build a good relationship with another team in case something comes up later and you need the help. I also agree with these people saying Mack is the target. Well, I wouldn't say he IS the target, but he SHOULD be. Not if we trade to number one, that's Clowney every time, but if Mack gets to five then I think we should move up for him. Then go offense heavy they rest of the way.

The best and only realistic way to get to number one is if Buffalo trades up twice. Something like: 9, 73 and next year's 3rd for 5 Then: 5, 41, next year's 2nd and a player for 1 (someone like Jerry Hughes or Manny Lawson). So it'd be 9, 41, 73, next year's 2nd and 3rd along with one player who may not have a role this year for the first pick. Very steep price, but that's the kind of stuff you have to pay.

The trade from 9 to 1 would cost much more than he says. It's barely close to what he says. Add a 2015 first to it and then probably. Chances are we don't get 9 to 1 without giving up a 2015 first. Would be a bad move.

I'm a little confused on the rules. If we think a team is going to trade back and one of the players will be selected by the traded team, do we project the player selected to the team who originally held the pick or?

Time for everybody to get mad at me... 5-11 Week 1: Chicago: Loss Week 2: MIAMI: WIN Week 3: San Diego: Loss Week 4: Houston: Loss Week 5: Lions: Loss Week 6: Patriots: Loss Week 7: Vikings: WIN Week 8: Jets: Loss Week 9: BYE Week 10: KC: Loss Week 11: Miami: Loss Week 12: Jets: WIN Week 13: Cleveland: WIN Week 14: Broncos: Loss Week 15: Green Bay: Loss Week 16: Raiders: WIN Week 17: NE: Loss

San Diego and Miami avoid the cold. Green Bay is the only December home opponent, but they're used to the cold. Bills play in Oakland week 16 and then they have to travel across the country to play in New England in Week 17.

The schedule thing already closed. Ten days ago.

http://www.buffalobi...e-schedule.html Week 1 at Chicago Week 2 vs Miami Week 3 vs San Diego Week 4 at Houston Week 5 at Detroit Week 6 vs New England Week 7 vs Minnesota Week 8 at NYJ Week 9 BYE WEEK Week 10 vs KC Week 11 at Miami (THURSDAY NIGHT) Week 12 vs NYJ Week 13 vs Cleveland Week 14 at Denver Week 15 vs Green Bay Week 16 at Oakland Week 17 at New England

Evans - Oakland Manziel - Tampa Bay Bortles - Tennessee Clowney - Jacksonville Mack - Houston

So your plan was to post a list of jumbled garbage and then hide behind it by childishly saying "you mad?" basically? Well done.

Wait, the Bills texted you? SUE!

I was talking about cheerleaders yesterday... Here are some random facts I found out: 26 of 32 have teams have them The Giants are the only one to publicly state why they don't (because they think it disrespects women) The 2011 SB was the first time neither team had cheerleaders And most importantly... Even the biggest paid cheerleaders make less than an Applebee's waitress.

If we take Evans then I doubt both Williams and Stevie make the team this year. Woods or Goodwin would then be the number five guy. If Evans gets to nine then I would start talking to teams looking to move up. Even if we could get Detroit to throw us an extra pick to swap spots.

I absolutely love Moncrief, but Lawrence would be a steal at that point. He might be a first rounder. I think Moncrief will have a big NFL career.

Terrible idea.

Actually Sullivan isn't in bed with the league/team. His bull **** makes it harder for the guys that actually are. The beat writers for the Bills at the BN get !@#$ed over because of his ****. The columnists with bad attitude will hurt the beat writers everytime.