MRW

I don't remember ANY outcry about Jennings leaving.

Yes. You're missing that "sacks allowed" is a stat that fans like to throw around that means absolutely nothing to any halfway decent FO.

To me that's the bottom line. I don't understand signing TO to a one-year deal if you're just going to turn around and throw a patchwork offensive line in front of Edwards. I don't see any way the Bills become a better team this year by getting rid of Peters.

RB could become a dire need, or Lynch might wise up and stay out of trouble. Unless you're ready to unload Lynch and make plans to move forward without him, I don't see the wisdom in investing scarce resources to hedge against him getting in trouble again. The problem is, is there really a need to bring in a "name" guy who will serve as a third back once Lynch's suspension is over? I'm not seeing it. So yeah, things could go wrong but I think you could say that about any number of other positions. And I agree with you on the TE, but on the other hand, I think the addition of Owens for a year could paper over the gap here and allow the team to get a decent prospect to hopefully step up next year.

I would largely agree with what seems to be the thread consensus so far: LG and LB are critical needs that should be filled in FA. DE and TE are big needs as well (and I'd say critical in the case of DE), but I don't see clear-cut upgrades out there in FA. So I'm resigning myself to continued subpar play at those positions while players we draft get up to speed. Hopefully we can get some good players who can contribute in a year or two, but unfortunately we're kind of stuck. The situation with Peters needs to be resolved, but that seems like a separate issue from getting help at need positions. I don't see the need for additional help at RB.

Do they offer treatments for diabetes at leukemia centers now?

Here's the optimistic take on having TO here for one year. James Hardy and Steve Johnson were rookies last year and did not do very much. With another year where they are able to practice and contribute in limited game situations, we will have a better idea if between them we might have netted a viable #2 receiver. There won't be huge resources tied up in an aging player at the #2 spot so the team can look for assistance if it appears that neither will pan out, but if one of them steps up they won't have to languish on the bench. As I said, the optimistic take. I'm not sure I believe it, but there is definitely a chance that something along these lines could happen.

Thank you! Can we please drop this whole "The Pro Bowl is a joke because Ruben Brown got in so many times" "argument"? I would've thought that the last 5 years of crappy LG play would've clued people in that hey, maybe Brown was actually a good player, but apparently not. Instead let's go merrily on our way creating another hole on the team.

But the Bills would once again be creating a weak spot on the team. I guess I'm not seeing the point in signing TO to a one-year deal if you're setting things up so that Edwards will be flat on his back half the time. I shudder to think of what defenses will throw at him if the Bills go with untested players at both LG and LT.

I don't see how any rational observer puts the Jets in front of the Dolphins. They have no QB and lost a good receiver.

I dunno, if you've been following the talk around TO it seems to me that there's an emerging consensus that he needs to keep his mouth shut and not stir up drama. If he starts in with trashing the team and city I think he's going to get a very chilly reception. No one will take him seriously if he starts trying to blame things on the team and fans with his track record.

I like reading threads about FAs who are still out there who might help us, prospects in the draft that look good, things like that. Even though we won't get them it's fun to read about and think about what the team would look like with them on board. But someone posting about how bad the team's management is tells me nothing I don't already know. I don't have to look any farther than the team's record over the last 10 years to see that. The Bills are (or are supposed to be) entertainment. We're posters on a message board, we don't have any control over what the team does, so let's at least try to get what entertainment value out of the team that we can.

I checked the final score. But I wasn't watching the games, for pretty much the first time in my time as a fan. As long as the Bills are in Buffalo I will follow them. I just couldn't stand watching them anymore after the SF game, so I stopped. And although I don't expect much from them next season - 5 wins is about where I have them pegged too - I just don't see the point in posting about it constantly. It is what it is, I'd rather see new ideas on how they could improve instead of just pointing out what I already know, like the DJ is a bad coach. It's true but it doesn't advance a conversation. Heck, I'd rather see 10 "bring TO to Buffalo" threads than one more "the FO sucks" thread.

I guess that would be my question as well. I don't even disagree factually with a lot of the negative posters. I'm not optimistic about this team's prospects. What I don't get are the people who post incessantly about it, who seem to take no pleasure in watching games or following the team, and yet continually torment themselves by remaining hardcore fans. I love the Bills but when they were stumbling around, unable to get out of their own way, in the second half of the season, watching games gave me zero pleasure and instead just aggravation, so I stopped watching. There's plenty to back you up if you want to make negative posts about the team, what I don't understand is posting negative comments every day or week.

Am I missing something? Dungy was not Indy's HC when Manning was drafted, unless I'm completely misremembering.

Doesn't Brown's career after he left here give you some pause? He was a fixture at LG for the Bills and went on to play well for the Bears. Meanwhile the Bills subbed in a revolving cast of has-beens and never-weres to try to replace him. Just because you're stuck with the talking points of 2003 doesn't mean the rest of us need to be there with you.

I wish he'd written "Win the Super Bowl" on them.

I'm not trying to argue that Steve Johnson won't be a good player, I really have no way of knowing. But the examples you give show pretty strongly that even guys who went on to be successful might not show much until their third or fourth year. To me that makes relying on Johnson pretty dicey and I'd like to see the Bills put some effort into getting a guy we can be pretty confident will produce this year and next.

Those little kickers get tired out after kicking off and running down the field covering it, so they need someone to return them to their spot on the sidelines.

Look at all the examples you've given where guys didn't do much in their second or third year. And this is your support for the idea that the Bills should rely on Steve Johnson as the second receiver? At least try to find examples that strengthen your point, not undercut it.

I don't really want to poke fun at anyone who believes Johnson is the answer at #2, I hope he's great, I really do. And I hope he gets a chance to step up and contribute this year. But 10 catches and 100 yards, and all of a sudden we have the luxury of passing on a proven receiver like Coles? I'm not saying Coles is definitely the answer, but the FO had better have a better solution in mind to improve the passing game than relying on a 2nd-year 7th round pick who caught half a pass a game.

Why? I just don't get this. Why the boundless optimism year after year for our seventh round receivers?

Looking at the line situation now, after release of Dockery, I'm really hoping they will make an effort to bring Preston back. I'm hoping they have some kind of plan at the center position that involves a better player than Preston, but right now there is a huge hole in the middle of that line and it would be nice to not have to fill backup positions as well as starters. Edit: I just saw the pickup of Hangartner, so this may not be as crucial. Maybe see if you can get him at the minimum; if nothing else he knows his way around the facilities.

That's great, but where is this hypothetical tall receiver coming from? Of course, all things being equal, you'd rather have a tall guy who can play the position, but I think it's foolish to pass on a guy who's a proven producer simply because he doesn't meet some arbitrary height criterion. Frankly, I'm astonished by the number of people who are content to stick with our corps of Evans and a bunch of #3 receivers simply because Coles is "short".

I hope so, because at this point I'm just confused. I don't have a hard time believing that our inexperienced front office would make a blunder like this but a lot about the story just doesn't smell right to me.