macaroni

But saying he favors one over the other is pure speculation on your part. He could be favoring the Bills and using the Rams as Leverage, or it could be the other way around. Everyone has their own list of priorities … what makes one spot better than the other is purely in the eye of the beholder. You say the Rams are a better team (and I agree) however the Bills are a rising team, so does one value trying to live up to expectations set by others before you, or do they value being part of the foundation of a team on the rise? Only he knows. You say the Rams have a more heralded coach, and that may be. Is one so "star struck" as to want to go to a team where the coach gets the buzz for being a genius, or would he rather go to a team with a low key coach that deflects the success to his players? Only he knows. As far as your desires to live in Flagstaff, I understand 100%. I left Buffalo chasing the almighty dollar, my career led me from California to here in Florida and I don't see me ever moving back. My reasons are the taxes and at 68 years old I just don't want to put up with the winter season but I have a brother and numerous friends that still live in WNY and wouldn't dream of moving. With all of that being said, IMHO if his motive is to create a bidding war, I predict the Rams may very well win. But not because LA is flashier than Buffalo, and not because the Rams are better than the Bills, not because their coach is more famous than ours, but it will because as much as we'd LIKE him on our team … we don't NEED him on our team. I'm not astute enough to know the level of need the Rams have on their O-line, but I do know the Bills have brought in a metric butt-ton of O-line help this off season and we draft high enough to get a prime lineman if we feel it's necessary. I'd guess Bean-o put a fair offer on the table and it's a "take it or not" kind of deal.

Since Beasly's nickname is "sauce", and Brown's nickname is "smokey", they should pair up and market a BBQ sauce … Smokey Sauce …. I can see it now.

Actually Jason Peters was undrafted. The key is finding quality players, nurturing them, allow them time to hone their craft, and signing them long term for continuity of the squad.

I think you may be confusing talent with potential … for example; Josh Allen has potential, if he produces we will all think he is talented. Nathan Peterman had potential, he didn't produce, so we all know he has no talent (except for Chucky and the Raiders).

IMHO Josh Allen was drafted on potential, if he has talent or not is yet to be seen. I really like the kid and hope he produces to show us talent

Maybe that's where I'm confused … if production is NOT a measurement of talent, what should I be using to determine who is talented and who is not?

Hmmm The stats I saw had him at 39 catches for 593 yards and 8 TDs (not nine) for 2017. Jones this year had more catches, more yards, and one less TD. Now once again just to be clear … I'm NOT defending Jones … just comparing and contrasting Jones with Watkins to try and figure out which one is talented and which one is not … or heaven forbid maybe neither one is talented.

No he's not, and I'm NOT defending the Bills receivers (incase you missed it I nicknamed Jones "stone hands" in my post) I'm just saying that Sammy is a whole big pile of potential that has never been realized for any continued timespan during his career. But I am curious as to what makes you feel that he is better than his numbers say he is?

Has nothing to do with contracts …. has to do with talent, and you measure talent with on the field numbers. The poster I was responding to said Sammy is a better WR than anybody who wore a Bills uniform by far. I was pointing out that he wasn't. I added the salary part tom illustrate that TALENTWISE he was comparable to Foster, and somewhat less than Jones, but VALUEWISE Foster+Jones has him beat hands down.

Sammy ….. 40 catches ….. 519 yards ….. 3 TDs Foster ….. 27 catches ….. 541 yards ….. 3 TDs Jones ….. 56 catches ….. 652 yards ….. 7 TDs So actually he's not, you are wrong. Weather he's better than Foster or not may be debatable, but he doesn't hold a candle to "stone hands" Jones, add in the salaries of the three receivers and the Bills are getting WAYYYYYYYYYY more bang for their bucks with Zay and Robert than the Chiefs are getting with Sammy.

Jets on the verge of draining the swamp and starting over Dolphins on the verge of at least partially draining the swamp, and most likely starting a QB search Pats*** at least starting to look mortal

I wonder if Kiko was looking to get that cheap shot on Allen all game because of how Josh embarrassed him last game?

Funny you should mention that … my memories of the early days going to games at the rockpile are in black and white … no kidding. I know they weren't, but for some crazy cockeyed reason THAT'S how I remember it.

I do agree that the 46 man rule is outdated, but it doesn't need to be increased for player safety, it needs to be increased because the NFL has evolved. Roster limits were created so the poor small market teams can compete with the rich big market teams and was a real necessity at the time. I don't remember the times when a large number of players played both offense and defense, but I do remember the days when "specialization" was pretty much minimal … the kicker could have been your second string OT, your punter could be your second string LB. Now-a-days we have the penetrating DT, the run stuffing DT, the rushing DE, the edge setting DE, the power running back, the 3rd down specialist running back, special teams specialists, etc. etc. etc. Shoot awhile back we carried a field goal kicker AND a kick off specialist kicker THAT WAS JUST SILLY. In todays NFL even small market teams make a zillion dollars thanks in large to the TV contracts, so raising the roster limits to 53, 55, shoot even 60 wouldn't cause an unfair advantage as far as the ABILITY a team could support it, it may be a disadvantage to teams who insist on scrimping on their expenses, but that disadvantage is there no matter what the roster size is.

The rest of this season would be a success if Allen, Edmunds, Phillips & Milano make incremental improvements to their game. One thing I'd like to see from Allen is a game or two or three where the majority of his highlights are of him throwing the ball instead of running the ball. I understand that his mobility is a fearsome weapon, but I'd like to see it used sparingly. I'm not real concerned with wins and losses, but I'd LOVE to see us win out over the remaining AFC East teams … just to announce that the Bills are a team on the rise in the division.

OK so I'll amend my comment; Houston scored 20 points (minus a pick six) do you think a Taylor led team scores 13? (IMHO a good chance) Chicago scored 41 points (minus a pick six) do you think a Taylor led team scores 34? (IMHO no freaking way)

Houston scored 20 points … do you think a Taylor led team scores 21? (IMHO maybe) Chicago scored 41 points … do you think a Taylor led team scores 42? (IMHO no freaking way) I do agree with our brutal schedule to start the season, and the depleted talent of our O-line, WRs, and TEs we couldn't hope for a much better record no matter who our QB was.

Not hating here. I root for the laundry, I don't care what the QBs name is I just want a good one. When Tyrod was our QB he was my guy now that Allen is our QB he is my guy … heck when Peterman was our QB he was my guy too … I want them ALL to succeed. It just happens my opinion of TT was that he was good for about an average of 10 - 17 points per game (sometimes more and sometimes less). I don't really believe I'm a blind homer, it's my opinion that you are blindly idol worshipping Taylor so YOU stop it and see Tyrod for what he was, a steady QB that wouldn't turn the ball over but was so hesitant to challenge an opponent down field that he was all but incapable of winning a ballgame for the team … the best you could hope for was he wouldn't lose the game due to turnovers.

Nope ... Would a TT led team score 27 points against the Vikes? … Nope Would a TT led team score 13 points against the Titans? ... Maybe Would a TT led team score 41 points against the Jets? … Nope IMHO, a TT led team this year would stand a good chance of being 1 - 9, or even 0 - 10 at this point this year.

What I'd like to see is for the Bills to pick up two young receivers from somebodies practice squad … somebody who will "mature" along side of Allen. I believe the WR that played with him in college is on somebodies PS. While we're at it get rid of KB and use that spot for young OL or TE. This is a development year, lets get some more youngsters to "mature" with Allen.

Alexander …. Anderson …. whatever .... all those "stop gap" QBs look the same to me. give me a break, I'm old and bordering on senility. I don't take anything about any sports team personally. I'm just pointing out that your "pretty good sports guy" is not, he actually IS some Joe blow looking to make waves. However I do agree with you 100% in that Peterman is NOT in our future … IMHO … once Josh & Anderson are healed Nathan probably receives a lovely parting gift from the Bills and is sent on his way.

This "well known sports guy" in Rochester doesn't know that the reason Peterman started the San Diego game was because the Bills lost three games in a row largely because of the ineffective play of Tyrod, and Peterman started this season because he clearly won the open QB competition this off season, and the reason he is STILL on this team is because Allen has an elbow injury, Alexander has a concussion, and newly signed Barkley is statically hardly an upgrade? I think this "well known sports guy" needs his press credentials pulled just like Bucky and Sully … he certainly doesn't know what he's "reporting, just spews nonsense, and makes up the fact that he has inside sources.

If we hired a football czar, you'd only want to fire him …. so why bother?

Actually, yes you can … management decisions can not account for every possible variable so you have to end up taking calculated risks, and you can't judge past decisions using the benefit of hindsight. So if you agree that Beane had rational reasons to make each of the decisions that he made, than you can't possibly believe that the QB position - in its entirety was mismanaged. I would agree that he could (or should) have handled it better by getting Anderson here the day after McCarron was traded, but that was a calculated risk that ended up biting them in the posterior. The only upsetting thing to me is why Anderson wasn't here the day after the first game when they knew (or should have known) Nate wasn't going to work out.

I may be the only one alive that thinks the QB situation was handled as it should have been (with the exception that I think they should have brought in a "grey beard" QB to mentor Josh/Nate when they traded McCarron). Nates performance during OTAs, Training camp, and the preseason clearly won him the starting QB job. The aforementioned performance led everyone who gave an honest assessment to conclude his start against the Chargers was an aberration and not the norm. Allen is the new shiny toy who's staying no matter what. McCarron's unfortunate injury, and substandard on field performance led him to be expendable. Nates season opening start showed us that he is broken somehow and last years Charger start was the norm … he's great in practice … he stinks at game time (a fact further reinforced last week). Our "mentor" can't be expected to play only being on the team a few days …. so here we are.