MRW

How confident are you that the players actually understood the rule? (See: D. McNabb.)

I think I'm going to end up thinking they're both wrong. In fact, I think I'm there already. But I think in this scenario Turk is more wrong. If he really couldn't get behind what Jauron wanted, his responsibility was to resign. Otherwise, implement it, don't send signals to the players that it's acceptable to denigrate the members of the coaching staff.

I wonder how many of the people saying "no big deal, Walker sucked anyway" are the same ones who were saying "trading Peters is no big deal, Walker filled in just fine for him at the beginning of last season". But hey, the Bills didn't have to pay $10 million a year for an actual NFL-caliber left tackle and that's what's really important, so I guess the details don't matter.

Maybe you should apologize because your reply is not addressed at anything he said? Just a thought.

I think I've hit on a new way to improve the Bills' drafting.

We can only hope that BB is taking pointers from Turk.

Ostensibly Ruben Brown.

I don't think I agree with that. If you were going to use a high pick on a tackle and give him a huge contract, I didn't see the upside over just keeping Peters (well - to be honest - I never really did see a big upside for the Bills in the Peters situation). Trading Peters then turning around and drafting a tackle out of necessity is the quintessential example of treading water.

Well obviously, they're much better with the remaining 80% and should be able to run that with no problems. They're just trying to polish up that last 20%.

Depends how you look at it, doesn't it? If they start Bell because they're impressed with his progress, then that's a plus. On the other hand, if they're saying Walker can't cut it and this is a desperation move to find anyone who can man that spot, then yeah, it doesn't reflect well on them. I don't think anyone, from the FO to Walker himself, ever saw him starting at LT as anything but a stopgap.

Bruce got the benefit of the doubt because when it came to game day he went out and kicked ass on the field. If he had skipped training camp and come out and played like Chris Kelsay, it wouldn't matter whether he grew up with the team or not.

This is useful info, but could you give us Etukeren's 2009 stat line so we can compare?

Hey, thanks! Can you check the Internets and find a comparison of Solomon Emimian to Jon Corto?

Man, I know we don't like Mort but I don't think the team should knife his kid.

Seems pretty obvious to me that it was a joke. Might want to get those humor sensors calibrated.

Look, if you're saying that Pioli is mistaken about Cassel's value, then fine. I certainly think this has the potential to be another Scott Mitchell scenario. But what I was asking in my initial response was, Do you think that Pioli is sabotaging his own career by setting the Chiefs up for failure? Because that's ridiculous, and about 5 seconds of thought ought to lead you to the same conclusion. Your reply to me, by the way, did absolutely nothing to clarify which of these you believe.

So what are you saying, Pioli is sabotaging his career out of some kind of personal loyalty to the Patriots*? I've seen other people post this kind of conspiracy theory but it doesn't make any sense.

Did he mention which sport?

Thank you. This thread is pretty sickening.

Of course there's the possibility of a QB controversy because you have a guy who, for whatever reason, has not established a lock on the position. If he comes out and really struggles, there will be a controversy. But I think the majority of teams could find themselves in this position if the guy penciled in as the starter plays poorly. If we really find ourselves debating the merits of Edwards vs. Fitzpatrick, though... I think I'd have to sit that one out.

In fairness to Jason Taylor's mom, well, maybe top 5 is pushing it, but I bet there were a lot of teams kicking themselves for not spending a first rounder on him.

Thanks for the link. I have a hard time believing their predictions for the lineup when they characterize what's happened with the safeties as Scott "supplanting" Whitner. Everything else I've read indicates that the coaches felt Whitner + Scott was better than Simpson/Wilson + Whitner, but that tells us nothing about Scott vs. Whitner.

Where is this from? Rotoworld just pulled this info from somewhere, and without knowing where that is it's pretty useless. It reads like some kind of fantasy football blurb and I don't see any reason to take it seriously as someone with any actual knowledge of the situation as opposed to speculation.

Yeah, it would be one thing if the argument is Scott is a better choice to start at SS than Whitner. You can agree or disagree on that, but why is it that every anti-Whitner post has to mention his draft position? It really is 100% completely irrelevant to whether the team should keep Whitner and whether he should start.

I dunno, when the alternative is having him rush the passer...