Matt in KC

The deadline info is currently being uploaded to Google. If you can't wait, you can look back to post 255, 190 (etc.). . . .

Good discussion so far. I have just a couple thoughts to add: Regarding the discrepancy between "the Chiefs are looking for a first round pick and change," and the report that they are holding out for a 3rd round pick. This smacks of the gameTelephone, going something like this: A: The Chiefs want a 3rd round pick B: Really? Do you think they'd really part with him for that? A: Sure, it's a first day pick (no longer true) and they're looking for change. --- C: What did you hear about Gonzales? B: They looking for a first round pick and change... I do think the Chiefs might see some value in being able to negotiate a new contract with Losman now before he hits the open market. I also think that Losman would be receptive to a low starter-money contract and a shot at leading the Chiefs. I see Trent's current health as the issue with any trade including Losman. If we may need JP to start against SD, I'd say there's no way the Bills would let him go. If they know Trent has been fine since mid-week and will practice next week and likely start, it may seem a reasonable risk to them to let Losman go to get Gonzales. Having a reliable receiving TE as an outlet, one the D has to respect, should minimize the blitzes and help Trent get gid of the ball. Personally, I think it's foolish to get rid of Losman when our record is 4-1 and Trent is already hurt, but if they are down on Losman, or feel they have to change the offense more to accommodate him tham Hamden, it's a no-brainer to try o get some value for him.

I need to start 2: J Lewis vs. NYG E Graham vs. Carolina J Jones vs. GB J Fargas vs. NO (I also have Westbrook, who is out.) Also: R Grant vs. Seattle I wanted to drop J Lewis for Grant (FA), but my free league (Yahoo) won't let me (on "cannot cut" list). So, I offered 3 trades in my 10 team league J Lewis for kickers and Defenses. So far I've had one decline and no response from the others. Grant was picked up by someone else a few minutes ago. I'm leaning toward Fargas and J Jones, but might still plug in Graham. All opinions / input welcome....

I on the other hand just picked names off of the list (sorted by ypc) I thought would clear up the "good backs average over 4" assertion. Westbrook isn't a good back? Addai? And J Lewis, E James, McGahee, Forte, Hightower also are all bad backs? I'm nowhere near disappointed in Lynch. Sure he's still developing, but he's doing great so far IMO. Success isn't the only thing I respond to as a fan (though we have a great record so far this year). Seeing how hard this kid runs, and seeing him force his way for an extra yeard through 2-3 defenders regularly is awesome. How can you be disappointed with Marshawn?

I should have known if I composed my post leisurely over coffee someone would make my points before I submitted mine. Obviously I agree with Lori's points....

Welcome. Lynch is currently averaging 3.5 yards per attempt, about the same as Stven Jackson, Addai, Forte, E James, Brian Westbrook (all averaging 3.6 yards per attempt)., and a bit better than McGahee, Jamal Lewis, Reggie Bush, Hightower (3.1-3.4). I share some of your concerns, but don 't blame Lynch much for our struggles to consistently gain yards on run plays. From the comfort of my couch and a position of relative ignorance about such things, I'd say the blame is something like: 40% run blocking by the line (performance), 30% O-line coaching, 25% play calling/audibling to get a favorable call vs the D being presented (and this should improve as Trent gains experience) and 5% Lynch looking to break a longer play rather than trying to hit a small hole hard (though he often does).

A group of cardinals (on the ground, I assume) is a Vatican. Ha ha ha, now that's funny!

100 yards

You know, I'm glad you posted this. I honestly doubted both the Parrish and Lynch TDs when I initially watched them. For rules clarification, yes a receiver must always get two feet in bounds after establishing control of (catching and not bobbling) the ball. After further review (frame by frame on my HD-DVR) Parrish did bobble the ball, but did get two feet in bounds after "finding the handle." It was definitely a legit TD. Lynch however did not stretch the ball across the goal line before his foot landed out of bounds. The ball about a foot short and there's a clear goal-line shot that shows it on the broadcast. The ball should have been placed inside the one. I think this call was missed because it was an incredibly athletic play and there was so much to watch in rapid succession: he did stay in bounds, he did pull off an amazing midair spin-o-rama, he did get the ball over the pylon. I also think the foot was considered by the ref, but he was waching the pylon. When he looked back to the foot, it left a mark where it landed beyond the goal-line, and he'd missed his chance to notice the ball han't "broken the plane" before it landed.

You know, I reacted the same way to this, but after reflection think it's plausible. I know the entire Levy coaching era when they were in this position the Bills would run until 3rd down, not 4th, and would have just enough time on the clock so if there was a bad snap they could throw it away and try again. (Trivia: did this ever happen? Sorry, I don't have the answer.) Even against Washington last year, a great "last second" win, they still had to kick off after the FG.

I'm interested in the topic, but agree with most of the responses this has drawn. Why not frame this as scouting our Dec 21st game in Denver? (One that may well have playoff implications....) Marshall is the most dominant WR in the NFL right now.

I watched the Holt TD from last week again (really lucky). I can't do it. I just put in Evans, so now I'm playing Evans, Lynch and Bills D. Go Bills! Kick some a$$!

Alright, I'll step forward. I just voted: I root for the Bills to win but hope the FF guy has a bad game. I just realized I probably interpretted that differently than the rest of you. I thought "the FF guy" meant my FF opponent i.e. Hope the Bills win, it's just not enough for FF guy to win the day. Th following is what I'd want, in the following order: Bills win FF Opponent to see that he was wise to select Bills for his team Win FF Game Crush my FF Opponent

So much of these negotiations depends on how desperate each side is. Warner for Holmes sounds fair to me, and a good deal for you since you have Cutler to fill your starter role. Do you have another QB lined up as a backup / bye week fill in? I have a less severe week 6 problem with Lynch, L Evans, H Ward, and the Bills D. I'm deep at WR, so I can cover it fine with Marshall, Holt, and/or DeSean Jackson. Pick up DeSean if he's a free agent! I would have thought everyone had caught on by now, but he's only 85% owned on Yahoo, and 62% on my other league (Flea Flicker). Week 6 is vs. SF and they were able to torch the Cowboys.

Thanks for the posts. I'm still torn, but have tentatively set Holt as my flex option. His numbers are worse than Lee's this year and he was lucky to get his sole TD. But, he plays a weaker defense (StL), certainly one with worse CBs than Oakland. Can someone please convince me Evans is a better start?

Tomlinson and Gerrard... and maybe a third player for Rogers? Why is this not a no-brainer? Sorry for the double negative.... why is this not un-confusing? ...er, WTF, take this deal and run! Sure Rogers is doing well so far, especially last game, but I think Tomlinson has a very good shot at out-performing him the rest of the season.

I'm torn whether to start Lee Evans or Tory Holt (vs. Seattle) this week in my flex position. I'm already starting Lynch and the Blls defense (I know, I know), so I hesitent to add another Bill. I know the Raiders have good corners, but I swear Lee is ready to break another big game, and haven't been overly impressed w Holt this year on the dreadful Rams. I also have DeSean Jackson (Easgles WR against PIT), Fred Taylor against the Indi defense, or Michael Bush to choose from. Anyone have a strong feeling or rationale? My head says play Holt, my heart Evans.

I'll think we're a contender when we have 10 wins, or twice as many wins as losses a minimum of 9 games into the season. I'll think we have a realistic chance of winning the Superbowl when we have 12 wins, win the Wildcad game convincingly, or are ahead in the AFC Campionship game.

Is this the official "who blew it" thread? I didn't see one, so I'm posting here.... How the heck did you get Westbrook and Peterson? Are you in a four team league that took Brady, S Jackson, Addai that high? (I still can't list enough players to make it work w 4 teams...) --- My two teams are 2-0, both lead by Romo, though i played Eli Manning in front of him in one league this week. FAs WRs jacking up my teams (haven't started either yet): Eddie Royal, DeSean Jackson. For me, these are the players that have been under-performing: Shockey, Vinatieri, Jamal Lewis, T Holt (showed some signs of life wk 2).

I agree with Big Bad Boone. Marshawn (or Jones) may struggle for yards, but he's clearly a better choice than J Jones. Do you think SF is going to be scared by the SEA pass attack? I think Jones is a bad choice. Marshawn and Thomas Jones for sure.

You know, I picked the Pats* defense thinking the same thing. But, I just couldn't stand it... now trying to get someone to trade w me, and am starting the Bills.

I hear: "You know what's special about the Ralph? The idiots fighting in the parking lot. I looove watching the idiots fight....." Are you kidding? Your a maroon!

Bruce Matthews. Though Bob Johnson (a Center; the original Bengal) is the best I've actually talked to.

I think almost all the posts I read here agree that Peters plays as soon as the coaches are conviced he'll perform at a higher level than Chambers. The disagreement seems to be if that is next week, or later, due to conditioning and learning the playbook. As for the argument that Peters might permanently lose his LT job, sure it's hypothetically possible, but given what we know now, it's a one in 100,000 chance. (And if that happened, we'd see him go to RT... or play TE - - never mind, this hypothetical is absurd.) I personally guess the O-line will stay in their current positions against the Jags, and Peters will play some, but not all of the series. More interesting is who is cut and who is made inactive. Can we sneak Bell to the PS?

If you don't start Peters at LT, surely you'd find somewhere else to plug him in, like TE and the kick return wedge, right?