Last Guy on the Bench

Less risk equals more value, everything else being equal. The old way, if I move from pick 10 to pick 1, I get a potentially better player, but I also take on a huge financial burden. At the 10 pick, I will factor that into my offer. In the current system, if I move from pick 10 to pick 1, I get a potentially better player at less financial risk than formerly. I will pay more (in draft picks/players). Think about it. If pick 1 gets $0 in salary, then I will offer exactly what I feel that player will be worth to my team on the field. If pick 1 gets $100,000,000 then I will offer less, because in addition to whatever picks/players I am giving up, I will also have to take on the risk not just of losing the picks/players but of losing the $100,000,000 (or the salary cap implications, etc.).

And then some? Really? I'm not keen to draft a safety either, but if he were as good as Ed Reed I'd be happy if they used the number one pick in the draft on him. Ed Reed is not only the best safety of this generation, he's one of the best players of this generation period. Instant hall of famer. If the Bills draft a hall of famer at 10, I don't care what position it is (as long as it's not a punter/kicker). (Again, not saying I think Barron is anywhere near that level.)

Right now NFL network is showing Hey Rookie 2006, and Mario is one of the players they focus on. Interesting watching his development from an overwhelmed rookie with no idea how to use his hands or what is happening in general to a monster. There is one play later in the season where the Texans are facing the Jets. Mario literally throws the Tight End into the running back in the backfield and knocks the RB on his ass. He tackles him without ever touching him. It was a billiard tackle using a 250+ pound guy as the cue ball. I am so happy right now. I wish the season started tomorrow (or maybe the day after the draft).

Good point. That dude is a lean 310.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Not an obvious position of need. But a defense that dominates the middle of the line will control most games. And imagine having KW, Dareus and Cox in a rotation. They'd all be fresh in the 4th quarter. Plus, as you say, we would be insulated from injury at that position. Right now if KW or Dareus goes down the defense is dramatically worse (huge drop-off to Heard or Troup). I would be be happy to draft Cox as BPA, though he's not my first choice.

I voted for Wilson. I am completely on that bandwagon. I think you'd have to burn a third on him, though. I think he'll have more interest than most people are assuming. In fact, I wouldn't at all be surprised to see him go sometime in the 2nd round. I hate the idea of Tannehill. Doesn't have the experience. Doesn't seem clutch. Here's an interesting critique from Greg Gabriel: http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com/thedailydolphin/2012/04/18/former-chicago-bears-college-scouting-director-says-ryan-tannehills-on-field-performance-warrants-2nd-or-3rd-round-pick/

I don't follow college ball (until draft time), so I was wondering if anyone had some insight into why Melvin Ingram didn't start until this last year. He had 9 sacks coming off the bench in 2010 (1 short of the team record, which he then tied in 2011). Was he really weak against the run? He's not exactly a one-year wonder in terms of big plays, but he is a one-year starter. Just seems curious to me. Otherwise, I like what I see/read about him. What gives?

All the AFC East teams have played seven games now. And not only do the Bills lead the division in points scored, but their struggling defense leads in points allowed. Today's shutout didn't hurt.

That's right. I think the original call was most likely wrong. But the replay ruling was right. There is a short period of time where the ball is screened from all available camera angles. It is possible the ball wasn't secure at that time. I doubt it, but if there is a blank spot in the review feeds, the reviewing ref has to uphold the on-field call.

I don't see why you couldn't change the rule and still avoid the ref having to read the QB's intention. As you say, the key is focusing on the ball. Well, when the ball starts moving back toward the QB, in my mind the forward pass is over. Simple. Ball moving forward = forward pass. Ball stationary or moving backward = no pass. Ball comes loose in the second case = fumble. I don't see why the QB should even get the benefit of bringing it back toward his body with no risk. You can't throw a forward pass by pulling the ball toward your body. Hence it is not a pass at that point. I know that is not the rule as it is written. But I agree with everyone who is baffled by what possilble logical intention there could be behind the rule. It should be changed.

No. What area is he in? I just started, so I don't know that many people. Also, I'm at the Graduate School of Business, which has its own building down on the waterfront, so I'm not at the main campus where most of the departments are.

Were those for Jimbo's neighbors or for the team? What's amazing here is that Fitz is hosting his neighbors every Sunday after he gets the hot sauce kicked out of him by 300 pound defensive linemen. (Actually, come to think of it, not too many of them have been hitting him this year. Rock on, mighty OL.)

I immediately color printed it and stuck it up in my new office here at the University of Cape Town in South Africa. No one here has a clue as to what it is, but it is making me very happy.

This. That's huge to me. I don't even care if once in a while it backfires and we lose a game by being too aggressive. The overall impact playing to win like that has on a team's psyche is well worth the occasional eff-up. I never understand coaches whose main focus is "eliminating mistakes" - you will never eliminate them. It's the coaches who build off their strengths and coach with confidence that can end up with great teams when they have the players. You can't be great at anything if your main goals is "don't be bad."

Looks like Nelson had already stopped before the ball came down. I don't think he had to reverse any momentum. I do agree with you that getting around the DB would have been a helluva trick, but, like Kelly, it doesn't strike me as completely impossible. In general, I hate cheap pass interference calls (and yes, I do hate them in prinicple even when they go in the Bills' favor (though I like them then in practice)). So I probably wouldn't have called this PI. But I can see how a ref sorta reasonably could.

I think Bladiebla posted that vid in support of the idea that Nelson could have got back to the ball in time to at least knock it down, so he agrees with you. It's hard to tell in slow-motion, but Nelson does seem to locate the ball with his eyes and start working back toward it a bit before it actually comes down to the DB, suggesting the ball was not "uncatchable" for him and that the call was correct. On the other hand, he would have to go around his man to get to the ball - the guy is under no obligation to move, and that might have taken too long. I can see how the call could reasonably go either way. Don't think it's as obvious one way or the other as most people are making it out to be. And I think I would say the same thing if the team jerseys were reversed. Either way, like everyone else, I surely don't feel bad about it against the just-give-it-to-em Patriots. (Also known as the bull ****-Henry-Jones-pass-interference-on-a-cluster-!@#$-hail-mary Patriots.)

I only saw that one on TV, but even so you could tell it was fierce in the Ralph. That was another strange game to me. Maybe the most tense/intense game I've ever seen the Bills play (not the best or most dramatic or whatever, just . . . tense). Usually I have lots of emotional ups and downs during any given game, but that game I remember my stomach was just in this kind of grim knot the entire game. Like I was pushing a rock up a hill for three hours. I was exhausted afterward.

Yeah, that MNF game was bizarrely loud. I've been to maybe 40 games over the years (don't live in the area) including playoff games in the 90s and including the Jets division clinching game in 88, which I would have said was the loudest till the Dallas game. Don't know what it was about that Dallas game (I guess the Monday night atmosphere after so long?), but it was absolutely deafening. Literally. My 68-year old father's ears were actually ringing for WEEKS after that game. It messed him up (though he enjoyed it).

That is a great avatar, Nick. Where can I get that on a tee shirt?

Perfect. The perfect man. I think he just took over for the Old-Spice-on-a-horse-guy in my own personal pantheon.

"I'll tell you what," Lindell said with a smile. "I would have just ran up that tunnel and kept on running if I missed." espn afc east blog

Yeah, I thought that in the second half the middle of the Pats line was moving backward a lot and looking shaky. It made Brady a little uncomfortable. When he sees that he still doesn't get sacked, but he does let the ball fly maybe earlier than he wants to. Not exactly the 85 Bears, but I thought that was encouraging.

Agreed. Based on what we've seen so far, going into the bye 4-2 seems attainable and reasonable. The Bengals is the critical must-win. Then we just need to grab one win from NE/Philly/NYG. I think the Bills can beat anyone, including the Pats. But I also think they are very much still in the "can EASILY lose to almost anyone" zone. People who are just writing off various games as obvious wins are jumping the gun IMO. I'd be as happy as anyone to crush the Pats and head into the bye 6-0. But I will still feel great about the progress of the team if they can just get 2 wins in the next 4 games.

Glad we got that cleared up.