SectionC3

Not as annoyed as I am after a decade plus on a pair of season tickets and more hampster wheel nonsense.

That was my first thought. Then I thought about Boldins obvious inability to play outside. So I'm not sure of the catalyst for the retirement. In any event, it seems odd to me that his desire to promite social justice is the only impetus for retirement. I suspect he probably had those views before signing, saw the "show" against the eagles, and realized that he could better spend his time pursuing his (incredibly admirable) social goals as opposed to slugging through a mediocre campaign here. Finally, maybe there is a bright side. Boldin's departure might make it easier to sit Tyrod. I'm not on the peterman bandwagon yet, but another game like the last one might put me there. Anyone with eyes who watched the eagles game realized that Tyrod looked awful, anquan looked shot, and peterman ... made types of throws we haven't seen around here since Bledsoe or maybe Flutie. This. Can't get the QB you tank for killed. Mike Schopp should read this.

Fugly. That is all.

I'm part of the madden generation. Not sure if you're targeting me, but there is nothing ridiculous in my analysis. For what it's worth it appears to be the path our team is taking.

So I'll pose the question: suppose that the NYJ and SF draft 1 and 2 next year, that neither team likes a QB in the free agent class/trade class, and that there are only two franchise QBs in the draft. Do you really expect either of those teams to trade out of their respective spots? Along those lines, I know a guy who rented in the Main-Seneca building downtown. It recently was purchased by a guy whose redevelopment plan relied on the purchase of the parking garage next to the baseball stadium and adjacent to the seneca one tower. The developer was "going to" purchase the garage -- he assumed he would get it -- until Doug Jemal came along. So much as the developer shouldn't have assumed he would get that garage, we shouldn't assume we will be able to trade into a position to draft a ranchise QB. What this really comes down to is if cousins plays lights out, or if somebody falls in love with garrapolo, and if we aren't in position to draft one if the top QBs, it's reasonable to suggest that a team in position to so draft might like the idea of cousins + the bills' draft bounty better than darnold, etc. and no draft bounty. A team in that position that takes cousins might come out of next year's draft with six good new starters -- free agent QB, two bills firsts, two bills seconds, and own second. That might be our best path to a franchise QB -- without tanking this season.

Why is that?

You miss the point. Assuming the redskins don't tag him again, the better cousins plays the better shape we're in. He might be the key to the whole "thing."

Does that change the fact that a good year from him helps us? What if Kyle Shanahan prefers him to Josh Rosen next year, signs Cousins, and wants to deal out if the two slot? With our draft capital, win for us if we believe in Josh Rosen (and can get him at 2). Another point - says cousins (or garrapolo) is a "B+" QB and singable by bills in FA. Would you rather have "B+" and a shot to build fast with our draft capital? Or would you prefer to spend the capital in a shot at an "A" QB and see what happens from there. I might take the former option, but ultimately I'm undecided myself.

Makes sense to me. And if SF feels the same way, and drafts top 2 next year ... to paraphrase Young MC, there's one more QB you won't be getting.

What if there are two "can't mss" QB prospects and the two teams at the top of the draft want those QBs and refuse to trade out. Then what? All the better if SF has a top two pick this year. But what if cousins has a down year and SF prefers a draftee to him? Point of the thread is that the bills have options that improve if the FA QBs play well.

I'm not a fan, either. I'd rather have Tyrod. But with what they've done in the past few months they can afford to swing and miss on a guy like that. McD and Beane are smart and, provided they draft successfully, we are well-positioned for the future.

As best I can discern this is the plan following the events of this week. Perhaps the future of the Bills is linked with that of Kirk Cousins (and, arguably, a combination of Marcus Mariota and Jared Goff). 1. Cut the trio of Holmes/Davis/Ducasse (at this point none is essential) to secure extra third round pick in 2018. 2. Shop Ragland for mid-round pick. 3. Attempt to win in 2017 with Tyrod at QB. 4. Use 2017 to build culture; determine who wants to be here, who does not, and who are the bad seeds (if any) who need to be removed. 5. If Tyrod is not the long-term answer at QB, then attempt to secure QB through FA. Top (and perhaps only) targets are Kirk Cousins and Jimmy Garropolo. 6. If successful, apply 2018 draft capital in part to build team quickly, and in part to selectively move down to secure additional selections in future years. 7. If unsuccessful in obtaining QB through free agency, hope that (a) a team other than NYJ, Cleveland, and SF (all of which are likely to draft QB) holds one of the first three picks, and (b) attempt to trade for that pick using draft capital. Perhaps the Rams having an awful year, and Marcus Mariota playing well, is a reasonable hope for this. In the alternative, hope that Kirk Cousins signs in SF, or Garropolo in CLE, or both, and then attempt to trade for such pick using draft capital. 8. If neither path to a QB is available, and if not at the top of the draft, select perhaps a second-tier QB (e.g., Lamar Jackson, Mason Rudolph, etc.) with one first-round pick, hope for the best, and continue to build as outlined in step 6. 9. Win. A lot. And especially 2x year against NE.

Agreed on LB. What did you think of Hodges last night? From my vantage point in the stadium he moved well. But we definitely don't have a ton of speed there (or in our competent WRs, for that matter).

Locker room chemistry is a good point. Time will tell.

I'm not sure why there is this sentiment that the trade will cut our win total in half. Darby didn't play well last year, and Sammy missed much of the year, anyway. And, it's not like the replacements for either player are so poor that we necessarily will lose an additional three to four games. Come to think of it, I'm struggling to think of games that Sammy won for us over the years. Maybe the Vikings game during his rookie season, the Lions OT game, and perhaps the Jets road game a few years ago (with the abuse of Revis on the critical conversion). I guess I just don't see him as worth three to four wins a year. And I certainly don't see Darby that way.

At first I was unhappy. But, upon further review, I've come around to really like what happened today. Maybe Gaines is a better scheme fit than Darby, and it was best to get something of significant value for Sammy before what now seems like his inevitable departure. There are other variables, too. We don't know what the offensive scheme is going to look like this year. It may be that we want to stretch the field horizontally more than vertically, and that we didn't need someone of Sammy's talents for that. Besides, looking at Taylor's splits, he's most effective out of 2WR and 2TE sets. So maybe we were going to see "bigger" formations this year anyway with the idea of throwing off of play action and out of either 7- or 3-step drops. Not sure the speed element of Sammy's game is essential to that formula. We also don't know how Sammy and Darby were perceived in the locker room, so perhaps there is some addition by subtraction. And, given the positional inflow/outflow, this is not a tank move. If, on the other hand, we move McCoy, Incognito, and/or Hughes, I might feel differently. Finally, given how this regime (rightfully) values draft picks, I wouldn't be so comfortable if I was Holmes/Davis/Ducasse. Maybe we even see those guys get cut before they can get hurt to secure that extra third round pick. If accumulation of assets toward a trade for the opportunity to draft a franchise QB is the goal, then it makes sense to excise those players from the roster immediately.

It's really hard to call McCaffery a bust based on OTAs. In my view, at least.

It's possible but tight. From a lifelong southtowner: park off of California road (not at wings), hustle to the car after the game, turn right into southwestern and take it to rt 277 (orchard park road, then union) and take that straight to genesee street in Cheektowaga and from there to the airport. Visiting team busses have used that route to avoid thruway traffic. Good call. Careful on the Brompton turn, though. I've been stuck there trying to make the right for several minutes when I've used that escape.

I didn't have a problem with letting gillislee walk. Until we visited the idea of essentially giving Gillislee's money to Jeremy Maclin. It seems like the Maclin money could gave been well spent on Gillislee.

I'm so glad this didn't work out. Maclin is exactly the type of quick fix we don't need. I'd rather not pay a premium for a speed WR in his age 29 season. If he was a few years younger, and if he might be a replacement for Sammy if Sammy is out after next year, I might have felt differently.

This. Tentative​ and a fumbler.

"Let's get rid of him" is a bit dramatic, no? As far as I know the team's approach is more "let's make sure he's healthy" before we commit a tremendous amount of money and cap space to him.

I don't disagree with this. I'll note that the bills have the meds - we obviously don't - and the language "if he is healthy." That's the rub. I don't blame the bills for hedging $3m-ish on his health. After all, the foot allegedly was fine last year, until it wasn't. Besides, as noted, this is a guy who is highly unlikely to risk playing out two tag years. If he does, and if he stays healthy, good for him - he wins, and the bills lose. But all things considered this approach was and is a "smart" gamble for the bills to take.

You miss the point. You assume (among other things) that he a) doesn't suffer a debilitating injury in the next two years; and b) plays under the tag for two years. My point was (and remains) that this guy is not going to risk playing under the tag for two years b/c of his injury history and the risk that another injury renders him unable to perform at a level worthy of what you characterized as $50m guaranteed. In fact, the reference to the $50m illustrates the point. Even if Watkins plays under the tag twice, the guarantee on that contract is about 35% of your $50m figure in each "tag" year. I agree that it would be bad business to let him play into tag year 2 and then to sign him to a contract as you suggest. But the point is that he is unlikely to go that route because of his injury risk and, if he does, we get two more years of his prime at 70 cents on the guaranteed dollar without assuming what for him is enhanced risk of significant injury. At bottom, the bills gambled about 23% of next year's contract as a hedge against his health. Like it or not, it is smart (football) business.

Think this through a little bit more. The upside to not picking up the option is that the bills aren't on the hook for $13m next year if sammy's foot explodes again this year. The downside to not picking up the option is that it waives a year of control over the player. But the bills still have two "tag" years for Sammy, meaning that he essentially would play year to year with relatively limited guaranteed money during such times. With his injury history, and with the massive contract he could command if he fulfills his potential, to not take the guaranteed money early would be an enormous (and incredibly stupid) risk. Mark my words - this is not a guy who will play under a tag for two years. Look at gronk taking guaranteed money early (albeit not under threat of a tag) if you need an illustration.