Ed_Formerly_of_Roch

I feel like Bradford has a longer resume of playing time and shwon he can play, but also a longer resume of showing he has trouble staying healthy. That being said, I'd be OK with Bradford, and maybe Sanchez as an additional backup

So you feel it's the stupidest thing is sports, but you want to know all about how they determine things?? And it's worth starting a thread on it. Do I got that right??

I think in all these Whaley Q&A's he did including the one on Bryce Brown, kind of highlighted there were issues between him and Marrone on players and their usage. Not saying which one was correct, but will be interesting to see what happens with some of these guys next season. Whaley was being professional, but reading a bit between the lines, in particular in the Brown interview his comments about getting on the field, were pointed at Marrone.

Yeah I kind of feel bad for him based on things stated by Fred Jackson makes it sound like the issues may have been more with Marrone than on him. One thing I do wonder about. There were many here my self included that felt if Marrone stayed he needed to dump Hackett, but many also thought and commented that "he'd never fire his buddy Nate" Well from everything being stated about Marrone now, I think he'd have fired him in a second if it saved his own skin and kept him employed.

To me the big question will be Belichek has the rep of being the one guy who can always figure out how to beat the other teams scheme. So will be interesting to see if he dismantles their D

Here I fixed it

This has got to be the last straw for him in Seattle. He's not worth the distractions.

Yes but he's not an UFA today when the comments were made. Not sure what the rules are exactly on players that are to become UFA. Some are signed a few days before the deadline so I'd think comments made my another teams interest could drive up the price tag, therefore tampering??

After watching I needed to take a Dramamine ! Particularly the 1st one!

I'd also be a bit worried though about Ryan's comments on Sanchez and seems I recall similar comments he made this week about another player??

Not even to develop the Stepford QB?? Some may argue that's how Brady found his wife! I agree with you there is more arm and leg talent, but unfortunately I don't think the mind has kept up with it. Once in awhile the guy with the brain does come along ala Fitzpatrick, but then the arm isn't there.

I've thought about this same subject quite a bit myself and do feel that it's a major concern for the league. I also agree that they need to do things to make it easier for QB's to succeed. The problem to me is the game and players have all got too big, and too fast, Teams particularly defense have too much time to devise game plans to confuse the QB's It's too easy for a team to take an upcoming opponents offensive plays and plays create a file of certain types of plays for example. 30 years ago doing that with film may have taken a team a week to compile that, now with computers they can do it in a couple of hours and get it to all the players I-Pads within the same day giving them too much time to analyze the upcoming opponents weaknesses. While the QB's can have the same advantage themselves, it just doesn't help them enough as one person is just not able to process all the extra info. I don't like most of your suggestions only because I want improvements that would only help QB play. Having to only game 8 or 9 yards for a first down also helps the run game, they don't need help! I would go rather drastic though but so think it needs it. My first choice would be to develop a Stepford QB. If the league can do that, all the issues immediately go away. If that's not possible then I'd consider some other ideas like: Adding a 12th player to the offense but with limited abilities all aimed at helping pas blocking to give hte QB's more time to look over the field and less worries about blitzes , I'll call this position the "body guard", he can only line up 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage and can never go up to the LOS so as to prevent him from helping with run blocking . He can not touch the ball except to fall on a fumble. He's strictly an extra blocker. I'd only allow two defensive players to blitz on any play. The blitzers are designated by their number so all the QB would need to look for is two guys and you know these are the only two guys who can rush. They can be anywhere on the field, you likely would have 4 or 5 players with the correct numbers to be blitzers, so they could be the LB or the safety, or a CB, but only two of them can be on the field at any given time. It would add little value to make it easier for the offense in the running game, but would make it easier for the QB to improve his passing game and also this "Body guard" would know who he;s looking for. Instead of hearing the QB yelling out "53's the Mike", now you'd be hearing "62 is the blitzer!" I'm sure many will think I'm out of my mind, but I do honestly think it is a major problem the league is facing and it seems to be getting worse not better. Because of this I do think it warrants some rather drastic changes to the game and rules. Really, then how come 20 teams can't find one? The only way half the teams have one is they got lucky and one fell into their lap more than they truly found the guy. Romo, Wilson, and Brady are examples of that If their respective team really had known how good they'd become they would have drafted them in the 1st round so as not to miss on the guy. But they took them where they were projected to go and got real lucky.

I'm down in NC, work with about 1/2 dozen other Bills fans, none of them are all to thrilled about it. I'm probably the happiest one of all of them.

I agree that was my exact thought too. I thought about posting it here at the time, but figured everyone would think I'm nuts!

Yes but you can always get out of a contract for a promotion. So even if the Bills had granted permission to the skins to hire Jim S for DC which would have just been a lateral move, they could have come back a week later and told the Skins we now want to hire Jim back as HC and likely Skins would have to have allowed it. Likely as part of the permission to talk to him they could have even told the Skins that. Unless I'm missing something In this case like they are planning to bring this guy in as a different title, they are asking to interview the Skins O-0ine coach to become the Bill's O-line coach. Isn't that the exact definition of a lateral move? Same as it would have been for Schwartz with the one exception being we were still considering him for HC position, but I'm sure that could have easily been worked around and still been able to hire here as HC if they wanted. That's my point that the Bill's said no to the same thing they are now asking the Skins to agree to, a lateral move.

Well glad to hear the Skins are nicer than the Bills were in that they granted permission to talk with their line coach where as we tuned down their request to interview Schwartz.

Don't exaggerate, he's only 39! Actually I think he's going to be 39 in a couple months!

The evidence were the comments last week by Fred Jackson implying that Marrone changed many of the plays that Hackart would have been much more aggressive. All season everyone here said no way Marrone would ever fire his buddy Hacket. But what's been stated since he opted out, the only person Doug cared about was Doug, so I have no doubt if given an ultimatum get rid of Hackert or you're gone, Hackert would have been gone in a second.

I was just talking about htis very thing at work today, drives me crazy too. Everyone wants to be a hero.

He's not getting fired, he'll be dismissed with every penny do him for this season. Thought wouldn't be shocked if he stays on in a diminished role. It's his choice, but he may feel his reputation got ruined by the whole Marorne thing and staying maybe as assistant OC at his present salary would be the best thing for him. The other liekly option is a couple steps down so this may be better for him. From what Freddy stated, sounds liek alot of the anger directed at Hackert was due to Marrone's calls.

Three minutes left, Denver down by 11, Manning is throwing 5 yard dump offs. I thought I was watching a Bills game!

Hughes is good, but no where near worth franchising. Make him a fair offer even a little better than fair, if he'd agree to it, ask him to bring any offer he gets back to Buffalo if he would like to stay here so we'd have the chance to match, if he doesn't take it, so be it. But say no to franchise. You still have three very good DL players, plus some other subs that played well, be better to spread the money around elsewhere. If the OC ends up being Tressman, can't see Cutler coming here, not that I'd give up much for him anyway.

Can't help but wonder if the Bills had set conditions for Marrones return, say fire Hackert. If Marrone had refused and got fired, I'm guessing he'd by much better off than the way things have gone in the past ten days for him. People are just coming out of the woodwork piling on him. Now that the Chicago rumors are heating up, I'm waiting for some writer out there to start piling on him next.

Exactly, for a number of years hear this argument about bringing in like 5 QB's or so. You'll then have 5 unprepared QB's with no idea if any of them are any good. From what I've read multiple times the #2 QB typically gets about five snaps a week with the first team once the regular season starts. Doesn't sound like a very good way to develop someone if you ask me.

I'm wondering if Hackert will stay in Buffalo as maybe assistant OC or something like thta who reports to Roman or who ever the OC does end up being. If Fred Jacksons comments about him are accurate, the issue there may also have been Marrone. Hackert is still very young, he may be willing to take a step backwards under someones guidance and could turn up again as an OC candidate for some other team. Roman's name was mentioned as a potential HC this year, if the Bill's do improve on offense, he could be gone a couple years and Hackert resumes his old position. Certainly the path I'm descirbing isn't well traveled, not likely, but could see it playing out in some way similar.