Ed_Formerly_of_Roch

Sounded to me like the bigger issue was he wasn't very coachable, didn't listen and take instructions well. Those were some of the comments I read about him. I think that would be a bigger reason to dump him than the fumbles. Whether these statistics were completely accurate or not, as was pointed out when Fred was cut, his fumble percentage was about the same as BB. So I think a bigger issue was working with him off the field.

Totally agree on this one. He's a decent QB who played on a great defensive team and a great running team. Now those two aren't looking so good and need to rely on RW and he's coming up average.

How can that be when many here were saying we should have traded for him.? He's on my FF team along with Bortles, fortunately I played Blake, still lost but at least I didn't also have -7 at QB

True, but without Belichick. That was also five years later, I wonder how many of the 95 Browns were still on 2000 Ravens roster. Without the move, the Browns likely would have played better and not got all those good draft picks either. There was a good chance without the move the Browns could have won over the next few years, and possibly the Super Bowl.

Completely agree, a team coming off a lose is usually tougher the next week. I'd rather see the Pats win from that perspective, but I also do like the Giants so am conflicted.

Speaking of which, is he still the OC for the Chargers? My guess is his name won't be so much on the short list this off season for HC openings.

Last week I watched the Football Life show on the 95 Browns. Was pretty impressive list of assistants he had there. I forgot many of the details, but likely Cleveland would have won if it weren't for the move.

That's an understatement!! Will be surprised if he's not defensive player of the week, responsible for 3 turnovers, that's a tough one for someone to beat on Sunday.

Yes it is a serious question, or more like statement. Sure everything you say is true, but the bottom line is their record is better. Actually you could argue that the Jet's had a backup for every game because the starter was supposed to be Smith. At the end of season if the Jet's make the playoffs and the Bills' don't is everyone going to be crying how unfair it was because we had to play Cincy and they played Cleveland. Along the same line, we play KC, they played the Raiders which this year I'd give us the advantage there, you forgot that point. Jet's are favorites, granted they are at home, but that does mean most people who aren't wearing rose colored Bills glasses think the Jets will win. My overall point being, I find it kind of laughable that people would get so worked up time after time about stupid silly things like this. Yes granted his first comment is factual based and wrong, but the rest of the comments are opinions and anyone can find statistics to back up either positions if you want. But all the homers here are outraged!

No the only place they have a clear advantage is in record which trumps all by a factor of like maybe 10 to 1. So if we have better talent or at least equal to the Jet's which everyone seems to be pointing out, why is their record better?

Heard an interesting stat this morning both the Bills and Jets are undefeated this year when scoring more than 24 points, and neither has won a game when giving up more than 24 points. To me that bodes well for Buffalo as the games Taylor has played the Bills have scored a lot of points.

Think you're mixing these up. I can recall we knew right away about Easley's heart condition. Glen and Hairston are still unknown as to what the deal with them was. Speaking of Hairston, I see he was starting Monday night at tackle for the Chargers.

While I'd like to see him resigned, could be he wants to test the waters, or the Bills have approached him, but he's responded with a super high crazy number. I doubt the Bill's would offer less in the off season, by signing now Richie's eliminates the risk of getting hurt in the next 12 games and losing out on the big contract. But if he's willing to take that risk, why sign now?

While I do think neither of them is very good at public speaking I do think in both cases they are very intelligent and know what they are doing. Speaking just isn't there thing. Personally would rather have that than the opposite guy who speaks great and knows nothing i.e. a snake oil salesman.

For once I'd tend to agree with him for the most part as to where he's put in each category. The one exception know way would I put Russell Wilson in the franchise group. He's looking kind of ordinary this season without the great defense, running game and O-line. For now I'd place him 2nd tier, but if Seattle drops off as can't afford all these high price contracts, starting with his, wouldn't shock me in a couple of years to see him dropping down to the game manager grouping. I've never been that impressed by him if you took away the team around him.

Have you listened to Terry Pegula lately? He's just as bad. Kim should be the spokesperson for the team all the time. I wouldn't mind seeing that!!

To me that was a good penalty, with 3rd and 1 maybe you do something to try and draw the defense offsides, hope the refs don't see what you do, if it doesn't work and they cal it on you, worst case, you puint 5 yards deeper, but still should be able to easily put the kick near the goalline.

Add say another one or two years to it and maybe $5 mil per year added so now it becomes a total of $35 to $40 mil spread over 3 to 4 years. You convert his base salary which for the next two years around $11mil per year to a signing bonus. Give im a $10 mil signing bonus and a base salary next year of say $4mil. Why would Mario agree to it, if he doesn't he may be cut, then needs to get another team to pay him $30 mil over the next couple of years. If he really thinks he can, he won't agree to an extension, but if he's not certain he does get that kind of contract he agrees to the re-structure. Seems teams are smart enough to know the numbers needed to get the player to agree to it as more often they do. On the other hand, likely the ones who don't agree are the ones cut each February.

There was just an article I read this week, can't recall where I read it thought it was here at 2 Bills stating Glenn was having his best year ever. Admittedly was kind of surprised to hear that based on many other comments. So thta makes me wonder if either the person who wrote this article is clueless or the many people that post on this website post here for a reason (as opposed to working in the NFL) they don't know anything. I do agree however that some team likely will overpay for him. More likely we resign Richie I, draft a LT, but do think we have two players capable of playing RT. But also wouldn't shock me to see they do draft a RT or a center.

Yeah after I posteds this I remembered it was Collins, Was confusing him with Kelly Holcomb who I believe we also drafted.

How do you coach him to be accurate, just curious?? Then you have the problem of not seeing enough of anyone to know who is or isn't any good,. that was one of the complaints this summer in training camp you had three people competing for playing time.

Johnson was anything but a re-tread, he was in the league what two years? Bledsoe certainly should have had a a number of years left in him, assuming he played at his former level, and not at all implying his level of play dropped because of age. IMO his play dropped way off as Belichick knew his weaknesses and exposed him to the rest of league. They picked Losman, Edwards, Manual, and can't even recall his name who was going to be Kelly's replacement, Kelly something?? Plus Johnson and Flutie were in there too. One of the smaller problems this summer in training camp that was discussed was how do you give enough time for 3 QB's to develop chemistry with all the players which is a legit concern. Then you hear people suggest the Bill's should select a QB every year. Once you do that, to truly give the guy time to figure out if he's any good, you need to play him, then you restrict the development of your current #1 QB. My point is I just listed six guys the Bill's used at QB for various amounts of time hoping one would work out, but none did. Six divided by 20 is a little over three years each. Bringing in more than that is just going to stunt everyone involved as no one would get enough time. Many of the can't miss prospects often do miss, I'd put the level at over 50% of all 1st rounders fail to become dominant players. You mention they should draft and develop more, well unless you have a top ten pick AND in a year with some can't miss prospects who still will often miss, you're then taking gambles. So then you are left to taking lower round guys, making trades, or picking up FA which the Bills have done all three. To me the Bill's have done everything correct to get a new franchise QB but just have not had any success. However over the past 20 years, you could say the same thing about more than half the teams in the league so can't blame them as it's not working for others either any better.

I' don't know if I'd say simplify as much as just play a defense that brings out the players strengths, not what Rex just is comfortable with.

What exact facts bear that out?? Other than speculation as there were all these rumors flying around about Polion coming back in some capacity. That to me is the key, everyone was assuming he was going to be the GM, but I doubt that was ever the case and that's why he's not here.

I'd likely put a yes in front of Detroit (particularly if they have #1 overall and can take anyone they feel is worthy) Chicago, and SF too. So unless we do tank, not likely we're getting anywhere near the top. But not to hard to jump up to #2 on that list either, particularly the way Rex had the Defense playing