gus2378

Doesn't matter if Kelsay sucks, that's completely beside the point. He's on the team, he's been on the team, Williams is the new guy. If the team truly comes first, that applies to everyone. As others have mentioned, if Biscuit can wait for #97 because a Redecic had it, Williams can defer to Kelsay. And he hardly is identified with #90 ... he's a very good player, I am pumped that the Bills have him, but the average NFL fan would have been guessing a year ago if you asked them who #90 on the Houston Texas was. (and don't tell me everyone on this board would have known, if you are on this board you are an above-average fan, IMO. To say someone "is identified" with a number, casual fans better know you, like everyone knows Peyton Manning wears 18)

This is such a non-story, Williams didn't even ask for it. And even if he did, no matter how much better he is than Kelsay, why is Kelsay being "stubborn" to want to keep it? If it's "just a number," wouldn't the new guy be awfully petty and stubborn to ask for it from a guy who has worn it so long?

I agree with the idea of building through the draft. But wake me up when they actually have some of this "young franchise-potential talent." So far, it pretty much begins and ends with Wood and Dareus. I actually tend to agree with those saying Evans was not a great fit for the offense ... I still think he's better than Donald Jones, but whatever. Poz himself said he left because he didn't fit the defense. But that is entirely different than "we have to get rid of these guys and can't bring in help so we have money for extensions." That's a crock. They have plenty of money for extensions. What they don't have is many guys actually worthy of extending.

OK. I'll give you that. Let's say Martin beat out Huggins for that spot and the other WRs were battling it out for 5 spots. Even Evans on the decline helps you win more than whomever you choose to label #5. It was a save money move, and that would be fine if they actually saved money to improve the team. To claim you are saving it so you can extend the likes of Roscoe Parrish is insane.

Oh, I almost forgot ... the insane "we have young guys we want to develop" excuse for trading Lee Evans was shot down when they kept Ruvell Martin ... who was not on the team until 12 days AFTER Evans was traded. They loved their young talent so much, they kept something called RUVELL MARTIN and cut Roosevelt, Huggins, Aiken and Buster Davis. So I can only conclude they were lying, or they believe Ruvell Martin gives them a better chance vs. Kansas City than Lee Evans would have (that's the standard Gailey said was used for cuts).

Sorry, but signing players for future seasons is not a good reason to get rid of Lee Evans THIS season. You can't say they need to clear money now because Wood and Levitre need extensions in two years ... that's ridiculous. (Not to mention, Levitre may or may not even start this season ... why are we worrying about extending him yet?) Two years ago, Lee Evans was one of those key players that signed to an extension ... so where does it stop? In two years, are you going to tell me they needed to trade Kyle Williams because Dareus had to be extended? What's the difference between Lee Evans in 2011 and Stevie Johnson or Kyle Williams in 2013? No one hates Pittsburgh more than I do (the teams, not the city), but don't compare what the Bills are doing to the Steelers. First of all, the Steelers "key" players are just flat out much better. Second, they sign their good players and KEEP THEM, they don't cut or trade them two years later to make room for the next "key" player .... that's an endless cycle of mediocrity. But maybe I am nuts ... Show me the last time the Steelers cut or traded a starter to make room for an extension for a backup like Roscoe Parrish ... I doubt you can do it.

Something to consider big-picture for those considering this ... IF you can get DirecTV, it still might be the way to go .... the Ticket is free this season, and I can almost promise you that next season when it comes time to renew they will cut you a deal if you call and threaten to cancel it because it is too expensive. Last season I got it for $180 instead of $300+, this season I am getting it essentially for free ... will that last forever? Probably not, but at least I can call and try. Not sure you have that option if you are just ordering it through PS3 online or whatever.

I don't think you can label Palmer and Collins partial busts while giving Culpepper a pass ... Palmer has not been the same since his knee injury but I would take his career path out of our next QB way before Culpepper. But really the bad knee injury totally derailed Culpepper too, so ... maybe they are the same. Collins had his issues that were not injury-related but his career has also been similar to Culpepper's ... in fact has more playoff starts and took an expansion team to the conference title game ... don't get me wrong, if you told me our next QB was the next Collins I would be disappointed, just sayin' ... if Palmer and Collins are busts, so is Culpepper. This is also a good point and scares the crap out of me since our decrepit owner who thinks he knows football will surely be putting is two cents in. And yes, I know he's putting MILLIONS in and some will argue he should have a say but ... I think history has proven that his franchise has been at its best when he stayed out of the way.

Sorry, I am sure someone will move it.

http://blogs.buffalonews.com/billboard/2010/09/kelsay-close-to-extension-deal.html Ugh ... I am almost speechless (almost) .... I love this part, "The Bills like Kelsay’s all-around game and see him as a sturdy outside linebacker and sound in his assignments." All that means is he is standing where he is supposed to be when he gets blocked out of the play or watches someone catch a pass and run away from him. Saying he is sound in his assignments is like saying a receiver runs good routes without mentioning he doesn't have NFL speed or quickness and is never actually open. Look, he's a stand-up guy. He tries hard. But like the rest of the front seven, he needs to go in favor of someone younger who can actually make plays. I can deal with embarassing offensive performances like last week and defensive performances like today if I keep in mind that they will be in position to draft some difference-makers next year. But starting your building for the future by giving Kelsay $24 million, I can't stomach. What is the hurry? They are bidding against themselves! Who is going to be beating on his door with $24 million in the offseason? Who's next? Whitner? I just threw up in my mouth.

1. Even if this "glory among peers" was enough incentive for a guy to "nudge" a game the way the NFL wants (which I do not believe it is, but whatever, I'll play long with that part), think about how much you are expanding the conspiracy here. Now the refs are actually EVALUATED on their abilty to fix games without being caught, so the best ones at it are "rewarded" with the right to fix the biggest games? What about when they are college refs and the NFL is looking for the ones they want to hire? Do they ask them to fix games to see how good they are at it? I mean, if it's part of the job, I want to know if a guy is willing and able to do it before I hire him, don't I? Who is doing all this evaluating? Is it the commissioner himself or does he have a staff to do it? because like I said, you are talking hundreds of people who would know about this program for "nuidging" games. You mean to tell me there has never been one honest ref who worked his way up through HS and college games hired who wasn't outraged and didn't spill the beans? Also, since fans agree that most officiating in every sport is pretty bad, you are also asking us to agree that these same guys that suck most of the time somehow can fix games without messing it up. 2. I said in my earlier post, I can see a ref in an NBA game influencing a game MUCH more than an NFL game, there are fewer players, fewer officials and just fewer moving parts. But that doesn't mean it came down from the league. I just don't see the reward being worth the risk. All I am saying is, I have serious reasonable doubt. Could I IMAGINE a game being fixed, sure. But what you are describing is systematic fixing as the normal day-to-day operating procedure of a league. I just can't believe that has not leaked ... a memo, an email ... SOMETHING. You can't tell me EVERYONE involved is crooked enough to fix games but honest and loyal enough to keep it a secret out of loyalty to the NFL or NBA. They are not all millionaires, Someone by now would have talked.

LOL ... if it was SO fixed, what would they have done if Bledsoe had the ball slip out of his hand and he had thrown the hail mary 5 yards out of bounds? Or out the back of the end zone? The whole thing goes down the tubes. Again, the definition of FIXED is it is a SURE THING. If you FIX a game, you bet TONS of money on it ... would anyone in their right mind bet TONS of money and then let the team they bet on be behind in the closing seconds? Wouldn't it have just been easier to call holding on one of the Bills' TDs earlier in the game or something? Until the pass interference (however long it was, I forget, but it was at least 40 or 50 yards), the Pats had more penalty yards than the Bills. That's the worst job of fixing a game I can imagine for like 59 minutes and 30 seconds.

OK, only two problems ... 1. What's in it for the refs? These are part-time guys. They have real jobs, some are even lawyers and the like. They make good money for part-timers, but the pay range is like $25K-70K. They are not going to be out on the street if the NFL fires them. There is certainly no glory involved, people only notice you when you screw up. There is no endorsement money. So why are they "nudging" games in one direction or the other? Is the NFL slipping them extra cash to "nudge" games? Is it just in their job description? And again, if so, you are expanding the conspiracy and making it less and less likely that this is going on for 30 years and no one has EVER talked about it. The money one of these guys could make writing a book about it is 10x what they make reffing games. Now, if you want to talk about a ref with a gambling problem or something who needs to fix a game for the mob, well again that brings us back to making it a SURE THING. The idea of a FIX is you CAN'T LOSE. I totally agree a crappy ref or two can influence a game, but he can't throw and catch the ball. He can ignore all the holding and pushing off he wants, but there are still like 90 players, two head coaches and six other officials who could screw it up pretty easily. 2. Is it worth the risk to the NFL? The NFL is a golden goose ... it makes BILLIONS from TV and advertising sponsors before it even sells a ticket to a game. It doesn't even matter who wins the games. Sure, maybe they will make a few extra million here and there in the next TV deal if the big markets are generally good because maybe it means an extra ratings point but ... when you are making billions, why put it at risk for $10 million? The only thing that can bring down the NFL is if people thought the games were fixed. It's why baseball comes down so hard on gambling while ignoring drugs, but it's even more important in football because gambling is the whole reason many people watch. If people believe games are fixed, they will stop gambling and therefore stop watching. It's just bad business to try to "nudge " games, there is so little upside and so much at risk.

There are a couple reasons I do not believe games are fixed ... Reason #1 I don't believe it is that the refs in all major sports are mediocre at best most of the time ... what makes you think they could all get together and pull off some grand conspiracy successfully without screwing it up? especially a football game with so many officials watching different things. The example someone noted about the Bills late TD on a tipped pass to cover the spread ... I mean, for that to be fixed, all 22 guys plus all the refs have to be on board, because all it takes is the Pats backup DE in the game in garbage time deciding he's going to get himself a sack to pad his numbers and you are screwed ... or the Bills OT grabs him and the ref calls holding ... I mean, there are like 64 moving parts when you consider all the players and possible subs and all the refs and then you still have to throw a good pass and have it tipped exactly the right way? Come on. The idea of a fix is that you CAN'T LOSE. No one is paying off all these people to MAYBE pull it off. Even the "Just give it to him" game ... if they were fixing it for the Pats to win, they really do suck because they waited until there were 30 seconds left to start fixing. What kind of sense does that make? They just blew it. Reason #2 is the people. Plural. Like, hundreds of them who would have to be in on it for a league to make a team win. Maybe one NBA ref could fix a game here and there, or try really hard, but no league is mandating who wins. If this has been going on all these years, why hasn't a single disgruntled employee who got fired gone on some news show? Or written a book? You don't think that book would be worth millions? I am not asking anyone to PROVE something is fixed as much as convince me it is even POSSIBLE. Convince me that refs who suck during a meaningless NFL game in October suddenly can get together and coordinate the outcome of a playoff game with the world watching game without screwing it up. Convince me how it was better for the NBA that the San Antonio Spurs and boring Tim Duncan won titles over the Knicks one time and LeBron James another, for instance. How was that better for the league? And then convince me that despite these league-wide master plans carried out PERFECTLY by hundreds of people, including some on the losing team I can only assume, not a single person has ever talked. Sorry, I think a much more resonable explanation is, "The refs just suck."

Really? Interesting ... playing them IN Kansas City, I agree, I feared that ... but to me it was the other teams that were scary because of the Hall of Fame quarterbacks ... it was difficult to ever feel comfortable with Marino or Elway or even Moon on the other side .... I know KC had Montana in 1993 but he was at the end.

It might not be the biggest, but my favorite gaffe in Bills history was when Lonnie Johnson caught the pass on the fake punt, forgot about the punt returner, and got lit up while looking back over his shoulder.

I have to agree with those who pointed out that Bradford and Locker at least will be long gone before the second round unless Bradford can't lift his arm above his head. Tebow MAY be there, but not sure you want to rebuild around him ... I love a lot of what he brings attitude-wise, but I think he is a project as far as an every-down QB in the NFL. He may get there but you need a veteran bridge QB who is still adequate but close to the end like Jake Delhomme or maybe even Hasselback ... someone like Kitna was in Cincy for Palmer, although Tebow may take more than a year. Also, on the off chance (please please please please) that Ralph eats the rest of jauron's contract and brings in a new coach, there is at least a 50-50 chance they switch to the 3-4, which changes the DT and LB targets ... for instance, I love Gerald McCoy but he couldn't anchor a 3-4 line at the nose. The scariest thing that these mocks illustrate is that there are HUGE holes at very important positions and there is no way they fill them in one draft.

If he is nothing more than a good return man (which I agree with), and everyone knows they are desperate to deal him (I am assuming you agree here), why would anyone pay a 4th-round pick or higher for him? They have no leverage and are trying to trade a guy who plays about 10 plays a game ... if the Bills traded a 4th rounder for a guy like that wouldn't you say they overpaid?

If Cowher ends up in Carolina, we could do a lot worse than John Fox ... doesn't slove the GM problem, of course, but ... he'd probably be more in Ralph's price range compared to the others ...

This is about 90 percent right ... OK, it's 100 percent right, but in addition to all this, adding to the problem is that Ralph also has a little Al Davis in him and thinks he knows football and whom to hire ... so when he gets lucky and hires someone good, the Bills get good for a little while. When hires the wrong guys over and over, he gets defensive and sticks fans with this stuff about how we are so lucky to have a team. It all may be true, another owner certainly may have moved the team by now ... but that doesn't make it OK the way he is running the team now.

Jauron should be fired ... those of us saying it won't change anything just have ZERO faith in Ralph (and let's not kid ourselves, it will be Ralph and Ralph alone) hiring the right guy to replace him. Given the list of names out there without jobs, this is the perfect year to fire your coach in-season and bring in a big name who is out of football (Cowher, Shanahan, Gruden, Billick, Holmgren, etc.) before any other jobs are open. Of course, that wouls still require paying way more than Ralph ever will, but at least there is no bidding war. But even if Ralph does fire Jauron, he will surely just promote April on an interim basis and then choose not to get into a bidding war after the season ... it's an ugly cycle that isn't going to change as long as he is calling the shots. EDIT: OK, so Jester said it way faster and less wordy than I did

I would not say that I hate him, but I hate when he is right ... and boy, is he right. Well that puts it on par with his HoF speech ... and pretty much everything else he has said in the last decade.

Evans and Beebe do not even belong in the discussion ... Lofton and Owens outside with Reed in the slot ... Lofton is in the HALL OF FAME, I do not understand how he gets bumped when you are playing 3 receivers.

If Peter King's MMQB column today is to be believed (and I think it is accurate), I think you are wrong on the guys who will be free agents ... here is the link to the page where he talks about it, toward the bottom ... http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ.../23/mmqb/1.html Part of the deal with it being an uncapped year is that players will not be unrestricted at 4 years ... it's will be SIX ... so McNeil, for instance, will not be unrestricted. Also, apparently teams will get to use a franchise tag AND a transition tag (I think currently they can use only one or the other) ... so between the extra 2 years and the guys who will be tagged, it's won't necessarily be a free agent bonanza, especially for a team like the Bills that doesn't like to get into bidding wars for the few big names.

Of those guys, I'd want Cowher probably, but any of them will be infinitely better than whomever the Bills actually hire. You better add a few names to the list that will cost a LOT less if you want this to be at all realistic. All those guys will not only cost way more than Ralph will ever pay a head coach, but they will also want far more control than he will give them. For instance, none of them will stand for the owner sitting in the draft room overruling scouts, one of Ralph's hobbies.