Dawgg

A front office that has presided over 3 straight 6-10 seasons?

Fair enough. I hope he turns into a Hall of Fame player and that the Bills never look back. But this was a pretty reckless trade to make for a non-QB and if I'm a Browns fan, I feel very good about the chances of next year's pick being a good one.

Read my post above as to why Atlanta's trade is wholly different from Buffalo's trade for a top receiver. To even compare the two situations is laughable.

Of course they think they have their QB when they spent the #16 overall selection on him last year. Sure, they may think they are on the verge of the playoffs given that they surrendered next year's first round pick. And yes, if they are correct, the 1st round pick they gave up to get a stud on the roster will be in the 20s -- not top 10. Still doesn't make it a good trade. You don't make trades that big based on what you "think." You make them based on facts. When Atlanta traded up for Julio Jones, they had a Pro Bowl franchise QB in place (FACT), they had made the playoffs in 2 out of the past 3 years (FACT) and those facts provided them with the confidence to make the trade. The Bills are in an entirely different situation. 3 straight 6-10 seasons QB with tremendous potential but still unproven (even if they justifiably think he's the guy) Lack of depth on the roster - good roster, but many of the backups are questionable NFL players. An injury here and there can turn a good season sour. It was a bad gamble to make. But if I knew I might not around here next year anyway, I might do the same thing.

When: 1) There's "reasonable" (i.e. greater than 25%) likelihood that the pick will be in the top 10 2) The team has an unproven QB and 3) The team is coming of 3 successive 6-10 finishes A trade like this is not a prudent gamble to make, unless it's for a franchise QB. Classic go-for-broke strategy wreaks of a front office that knows it may not be around to face the consequences under new ownership this time next year If he puts up 1,000 yards and 10 TDs and the team still finishes 7-9 or worse, it's still a questionable trade. Surrendering next year's first round pick is essentially betting that the the pick will be later in the round (i.e. the 20's). With an unproven QB and a young roster, it's not the most prudent bet to make. I hope it turns out to be a good one, but given the information we have today, looks pretty reckless to anyone not seeing it through red, white and blue lenses.

This board never ceases to amaze me. The amount of kool-aid drinking following 3 straight 6-10 seasons and a bet-the-farm / mortgage-the-future trade for a wide receiver is nothing short of amazing

Yawn. The Falcons were a playoff team, thus reducing the risk of giving up next year's first rounder. The Bills are a team coming off a 6-10 season with a unproven QB. The Falcons took a prudent risk given the information they had at the time and given where they were as a team. The Bills took a stupid risk given the information they had at the time and given where they were as a team.

^ This.

Makes plenty of sense. Nobody said Russ wants the team to be run the "old guard way." I simply stated that Russ has a delicate balance -- he has to select a coach and GM but is not powerful enough to get rid (or control) the old guard, which has been employed by the franchise for decades. Not to mention, Russ has a pretty sweet gig. He's probably making between $5M and $10M a year as the caretaker of the franchise. Is he going to rock the boat by demanding the ouster of Ralph's most trusted lieutenants? Doubtful. Therein lies the dysfunction that is the Buffalo Bills

Because Russ is the unquestioned boss of Whaley/Marrone. Put another way, both Doug Whaley and Doug Marrone serve at the pleasure of Russ Brandon. Is Marrone frustrated enough to quick? Hell no, there are only 32 NFL head coaching jobs and his last gig was at SU. Same goes for Whaley. While Russ can certainly keep the two of them in line, the same can't be said about Overdorf and Littman.

Brandon on Jan 2, 2013: "Buddy Nix will be the general manager for a long, long time"

No doubt -- local news hasn't broken many stories of late, in large part because Berchtold runs a tight ship and only rewards national reporters in order to curry favor. That said, it has been pretty obvious to me that Tim Graham has some sources within the organization. Nothing he has reported has been ground-breaking, but he has been able to provide a little bit more "color" than his counterparts of late. The second factor that I think you are overlooking: this is a different coaching staff. These are younger coaches who come from winning organizations and are used to having their way. Same can't be said about Gaileys and Jaurons of the world. As a result of this dynamic, some coaches are more willing to talk than previous regimes were in the past. The combination of the above two factors is what led to this report, which I think is 100% accurate. It's very weird that Jim Overdorf and Russ Brandon are the ones talking to and negotiating with agents at the scouting combine when Whaley has the title of GM. Clearly Overdorf has defacto GM powers and it has to frustrate both the coach and the GM, because they are ultimately responsible if the team fails to produce on the field.

Seriously doubt it's Whaley or Marrone. But it doesn't have to be. His article states that scouts and coaches share this feeling. Scouts are in regular contact with Whaley. Coaches are in regular contact with Marrone. I think dots can be connected here with little room for the skepticism that Biscuit seems to have.

Tim Graham may be annoying, but make no mistake: he has sources -- reporting something that significant with no sources would be a major breach of ethics that would inevitably catch up to him. He has been around long enough not to make an idiotic mistake like that.

I don't necessarily agree with this notion. The Ravens, knowing they wanted to target Joe Flacco, traded down with Cleveland and took Flacco later in the first round. Doesn't indicate a lack of confidence in Flacco as much as it does their command for how Round 1 would unfold. In fact, the whole world knew when they made the decision to trade down that the Ravens were targeting a QB later on. My view: the Bills were sold on EJ from the start and fell so much in love with him that they drafted him a full round too early.

I predict you're wrong for one reason: The 49ers opens a brand new, state-of-the art stadium and I'd be surprised to see the team open on the road for that very reason. Thus, I think it's either Denver or Green Bay that makes the Week 1 trip to Seattle.

Wow. You're really grasping at straws here. I defer to what GG said above.

A few points. The cap rises every year, as the teams' share of TV revenues continues to rise dramatically. Factor in the NFL's plans for expanded playoffs, additional Thursday and possible Friday games and sponsorship levels that are the envy of other professional sports leagues, it stands to reason that the salary cap number will continue to rise. The Bills simply don't have top-5 caliber players at other positions, aside maybe from Dareus. The 49ers let Dashon Goldson walk because they had Crabtree, Kaepernick, Iupati, Willis and Bowman to pay. All of those players are elite. The Bills have no such issue problem. Bottom line: the Bills can sign Byrd and accommodate the other players you speak of, while still maintaining cap flexibility.

The only qualm I'd have with the above statement is that there is a 3rd factor that impacts the compensation in addition to $ and performance: position. Safety is simply not among the premium positions that fetches a first round pick in return (like DE, LT, QB, and Peerless Price). I think that if Byrd refuses to sign and the Bills can secure a second-rounder for him, it would be a decent consolation price for Jim Overdorf (who unfortunately does the trade negotiations for the team).

I agree that Wood is a top-5 center and even if he isn't his intangibles and leadership make him an important part of the team. I don't fault them for making that decision to extend him. I think you're right -- there isn't much of a precedent for the Bills because quite frankly, they haven't had many top-5 players at their positions during these years of futility. The closest example I can think of is Jason Peters, who had established himself as a top-5 player. In his case, the the team DID get a good return, acquiring Philadelphia's first round pick (which ironically turned into Eric Wood). I hope you're right that they do whatever is necessary to keep Byrd on the roster, even if it means tagging him. EDIT: The second example of a top-5 player was Nate Clements. Believe it or not, that was the perception when he was coming into his free agent year (that he was a top-5 corner) and Marv's decision to sign away the team's right to franchise him a second time hurt the team in a big way. I'm glad the Bills didn't do this with Byrd this time around.

LOL, that "source" was employed at One Bills Drive. Even still, the Bills had offer from the 49ers to move back from 16 and pick up an extra pick. No axe to grind with EJ -- he deserves a shot -- but the team's continued failure to maximize the value of its premium draft picks is the reason why we're continuing to talk about an NFL record playoff drought. Doug Whaley was in charge of college scouting when the Bills had TJ Graham rated higher on their board than Russell Wilson. Buddy had final say, but to imply that Whaley was not instrumental in the past few drafts is a bit (to use your word) incongruous.

The only player on that list who was top-5 in his position group was maybe Kyle Williams -- and the Bills treated him with extraordinary respect, signing him to lucrative extensions twice before his contract had expired. As for Wood, the Bills paid him top-5 center money despite his failure to stay healthy for an entire season. I'm not disputing that decision, I laud the decision. But my point is that aside from maybe Kyle, Byrd is unique in that he was drafted by the team and established himself as one of the top 3-5 players in his position group.

True. I believe the logic behind franchising him and waiting a year was the installation of a new coaching staff and defensive system, which rendered the "wait a year" strategy prudent. Sure, they could have been more expedient by signing him in advance, but the additional data collected by watching him play in a new scheme was worth the waiting period. Where we sit today, I think we are in agreement that is no excuse (salary cap or otherwise) for the front office to let Byrd walk without receiving adequate compensation in return.

The reality is that the Bills overdrafted EJ Manuel. This was apparent then and it's apparent now. No team had EJ graded as a first-rounder and the Bills could (and should) have traded back again and continued to accumulate picks. Nothing wrong with zeroing in on EJ -- but it was a (yet another) misuse of a premium draft pick.

Nor do I. However, the media does influence fans' perception of what the front office is doing. Along with the unique access the media has to the decision-makers in the front office comes a duty of sorts to inform the public in an unbiased fashion.