folz

Great post Yolo... It's preseason, so they're giving everyone an opportunity to take the next step...maybe they're thinking that Hogan is more of a traditional slot guy than Woods, so he's going to get the chance to take that job. And if he ends up beating out Woods at the slot, doesn't that just mean he is better at that position...which is a good thing. Also, who knows how they are really planning on using Sammy. He's not just going to run fly patterns. There will be screens and plays over the middle, etc. Which could mean that at times Sammy would play slot and you could sit Hogan and play Woods outside. Plus, there will be plenty of times when they put 4 receivers out there and there are also injuries. So, you want to have multiple options for any formation. Which all means that there will still be plenty of balls for Robert (provided EJ and the O-line play well) whether he is first man in the slot or not. And he's too good not to have on the field, so he'll get his playing time wherever it is. If Hogan can capably handle the slot, that's good because then the offense has so many options with different personnel groupings. So, I wouldn't read too much into it yet. They know what Robert can do and he already has good chemistry with EJ. The other three need more time, experience, reps with EJ.

What he said! I too never understood the hatred for Stevie...I wish him nothing but good luck with his new team. He was a good Bill!

THANKS RALPH!

My thoughts and prayers are with you Jim!

Some posters act like it's easy to just go out and grab an elite TE in free agency...it isn't. There are 32 teams in the league and only a small handful of elite TEs (maybe 5-6 of them) and teams tend to hold on to those guys. Now, by no means with this post am I saying Scott is up there with the elite guys, but someone said (rather than compare him to past Bills TEs) compare him to his peers. OK In 2 of the last 3 years Chandler was top 10 in TDs (7th and 8th). He had a down year last year, but think of who was throwing the ball to him. Last year he was 13th in receptions and 12th in yards (despite the low TD total). The year before (2012) he was 14th in yards. Percentage of catches to targets for the last 3 years compared to some elite guys: Chandler caught 65% of the balls thrown to him in 2013, 58% in 2012, and 82% in 2011. Graham caught 58% of the balls thrown to him in 2013, 62% in 2012, and 66% in 2011. Gronk caught 59% in 2013, 69% in 2012, and 72% in 2011 And yes, his fumble in the Atlanta game was huge, but he averages 1.3 fumbles per season. So, let's put to rest the "he can't hang on to the ball myth." And let's not forget, for as good as those elite TEs actually are, some of them also have a certain advantage: Gronk, Hernandez (Brady) Graham (Brees) D. Clark, J. Thomas (Manning) A. Gates (Rivers) Witten (Romo) Chandler (Fitz, Manuel, Thad, Tuel) Tony G. is probably the only elite guy that has done it without stellar QB play (although Flynn over the last 2 years isn't too shabby) And then there is opportunity. While Chandler was targeted 81 times last year, Graham was targeted 142 times, Gonzales 120 times, Witten 111 times, J. Cameron 118 times, A. Gates 113 times. If Scott had 30 to 60 more targets, his numbers would be a lot better. Again, by no means am I saying he is or ever will be elite, like some of those guys, but over the last 3 years he has probably hovered around the 12th to 15th best TE in the league (by stats). And what if he had Brady or Manning throwing to him instead? He'd probably be higher than that. Everyone would love an elite TE, but how many of those 10 or so guys significantly better than Chandler were actually available to upgrade with for next season? If we didn't resign Chandler, our TE position would definitely have been worse next year. Every position on the team can't have an elite pro-bowler, no team can afford that, so don't knock those solid guys in the top half or third of their position, we need them. Anyhow...very happy to see most people are positive on this resigning. Glad to have you back Scott!

Small correction: “Et tu” (pronounced: a too, with a long a like in "day') means “And you” But I totally agree with your point. Obviously Marrone sees something in Hackett, but also understands that he is still young and learning, so he brought guys in who have experience to help Hackett progress. But that doesn’t diminish what Hackett brings to the table or that he isn’t still the head man, he just has some senior advisors now (like a President often has) to help him get better faster and to have someone to lean on when he needs some advice.

I still don't understand Bills fans (and I know that, surprisingly, there are a lot of them out there) who don't think Marv should be in the HOF. I really hope you/they read my entire post even though it is long. First of all, if it weren't for Marv (who was a former ST coach and focused a lot of practice time and know how to Special Teams) Tasker wouldn't have been the player he was. And as they always say, leadership starts at the top...if it is a major feat/accomplishment for a team to reach 4 Superbowls in a row, does the head man not get credit for that too? Any of his players will tell you that his talks and quotes from other great leaders, poetry, or just straight up Marvisms were totally motivating to the team. He was like Vince Lombardi in that sense (without the hardware of course). He helped build that family mentality and the perseverance that allowed that team to keep coming back and never give up. From most accounts, Marv was right in there in the planning of the K-Gun, but even if he had nothing to do with it concept-wise, he still made the decision to run it and run with it. He allowed his QB to call the plays. That was innovation. But, I know, it always comes down to the Superbowls though doesn't it? First of all, if Norwood's kick is two feet to the left he would have a ring. But, ok that didn't happen...yet, they lost by 1 point to two HOF coaches (in Parcells and Belicheck) and the NYG defensive game plan for that game is actually in the HOF...acknowledging that it was one of the greatest game plans ever...and still they only lost by 1 point. Superbowl XXVI, I still don't understand what happened against the Redskins, but once again the game was against another HOF coach. The 3rd and 4th Superbowls that team just willed themselves there...but they just weren't as good of a team at that point and lost to a bigger, better team with a coach who will also probably make the HOF. I mean Gibbs and Parcells are two of the greatest coaches ever. And let's not forget that just 5 weeks before that first Superbowl in week 15, the Bills beat that same Giants (Parcells/Belechick) team in the Meadowlands in a similarly hard-fought 17-13 win. So, it's not like he was out of his league (as some like to claim) being badly out coached. Against two HOF coaches that year, a 4 point win and a 1 point loss. The other excuse is that he was just lucky to have good players. What Lombardi, Gibbs, Parcells, Belechick, Shula, Landry, Knoll, Stramm, Walsh, etc. didn't have good players? Not only did he reach 4 Superbowls in the NFL, he also took his Montreal team to the CFL Grey Cup 3 times (out of only 5 years), winning two of them (with an entirely different team of course). Yes, he actually won two championships. I know the CFL doesn't count for the NFL HOF, but if you are saying he only won because of the players, his CFL wins say he could still win with different players. People may point to his unsuccessful run in Kansas City. He took over a horrible 2-12 team and they improved their record every year under Marv to a 9-7 record in his 4th year. His 5th and last year in KC was the strike of 1982 where half the season was cancelled and Marv was fired at the end of that year. The Chiefs, as an organization, were simply a mess at that time. Regarding that point, over the next 7 years (post Marv) the team only had 1 winning season (4 years after Marv was gone) and that stretch also included two 4 win seasons and two 6 win seasons. So, he didn't do that bad with what he had in KC. Marv had a 17-6 record against the winningest coach in NFL History (Shula) One of only 14 coaches to have more than 100 wins with one team One of only two coaches to appear in both a Superbowl and a Grey Cup (Bud Grant was the other) The only coach to guide his team to 4 Super Bowls in a row Even ESPN, who we hate, right? have him ranked as the 17th best NFL coach ever His 204 wins (NFL/CFL) ranks 7th all-time; when he retired he was the 10th winningest coach (NFL wins only) In a 9-year span, he had a record of 97-47, with 6 Division titles, 8 playoff appearances, and 4 AFC titles He was NFL Coach of the Year once and AFC Coach of the Year 3 times "Where would you rather be than right here, right now? "When it's too tough for them, it's just right for us!" "Fight on, my men, Sir Andrew said. A little I'm hurt but not yet slain. I'll just lie down and bleed a while and then I'll rise and fight again." (from a Scottish ballad) Marv is and deserves to be a Hall of Famer...no question in my mind.

CONGRATULATIONS ANDRE!!!!!!!!!!! Should have been in before Carter and Irvin, but that doesn't matter now...he's a HOFer! Most deserving...no one went over the middle like Andre! The comeback game! 4 Super Bowls! There was never a question that he SHOULD be in! Congrats to Ray Guy also (also well deserved)...and as others have said, there was no way they could induct Tasker before Guy. Let the Tasker campaigning commence. Cheers Andre!

I'm not saying this is the case, but maybe (despite how bad Crossman was), they don't want to fire him until they know they can secure someone better. Crossman stinks, but he has a certain amount of experience, etc. So, you want to make sure the next guy will be a definite upgrade, rather than fire Crossman immediately and end up with someone worse. Hilliard was a young coach in a lesser position, they know they can do better there. I'm sure there are a ton of good WR coaches out there, but probably fewer really good ST coaches. So, maybe Crossman will still be let go, but only after they have a commitment from a better coach.

How many years did we complain about the front office, saying they were just spinning their wheels, because we would let good players go and then have to replace them while we already had other holes on the team. Now fans want to create new holes by trading some of our best players away? What would this team look like without Freddy, CJ, and Stevie? Oh right, we'll just draft 3 rookies who will out-produce these guys in their first year, no problem right? Do you know how bad a high-ankle sprain can be? It keeps some players out all year, that's what CJ has been running on all year. Stevie will have a whole offseason for he and EJ to get better acclimated, and Freddy is just a beast, injuries or not. We probably have fewer holes to fill this off-season than we've had in 10 years. Let's fill as many as we can, not create new ones.

"1/3 of abused children will eventually victimize their own children"

With one argument about Graham being "he drops passes" vs. "He's open but not getting the ball," I decided to look at receptions against targets for each receiver on the team: T. J. Graham 18 (recs) 46 (targets) = 39% (success) M. Goodwin 16 30 = 53% S. Johnson 52 100 = 52% R. Woods 36 75 = 48% This season T.J. is only completing 39% of the plays thrown to him while the other 3 are all hovering around 50% Of course, this doesn't take into account the QB's throw, but over enough throws, you would think each receiver gets his share of good and bad throws. And again to compare Graham and Goodwin, T.J. with 16 more targets has exactly 2 recs and 11 yards more than Goodwin (and yet 2 fewer TDs). Goodwin should be getting more time and targets than Graham going forward and I think we'll start seeing that these last two games and on into next year. And Marquise can fly btw (just look at my avatar).

I have no doubt that Russ has done a lot of good things for this franchise, at least marketing-wise, etc. to keep us viable in such a small market. But an organization will always put the PR spin onto certain issues for certain reasons. I remember the organization talking about how expanding the Bills market/brand to Rochester was huge (after moving camp to St. John Fisher). Yet I grew up in Rochester in the 70s and 80s (years before Russ) and everyone was already a Bills fan (outside of those couple of friends who didn't want to be like everyone else, and so they became Dolphins fans). I went to tons of games at Rich Stadium and I-90 was bumper to bumper traffic from Buffalo to Rochester after the games...all Bills fans. So, I was a little dubious when they patted themselves on the back for gaining Rochester as part of the Bills market...it already was. But, as much as I hate losing a game to Toronto each year, if it keeps the Bills in the region, by bringing in the Canadian fans, I guess we can't really complain about it.

Sacks: Bills 37 (11 games) KC 36 (10 games) Ravens 34 (10 games) Bengals 34 (11 games) Seahawks 33 (11 games) Pats, NO, Rams 32 (10 games) So, if KC gets 2 sacks (possible) or Ravens get 4 sacks (less likely) we would fall to #2 Bengals and Seahawks have not had their byes yet either and I don't see the Pats, NO, or Rams getting 6 sacks in a game. So after our Bye, we'll still most likely be #1 or #2. INTS Bills 16 (11 games) Seahawks 16 (11 gms) Cards 14 (10 gms) Panthers 14 (10 gms) Bears 14 (10 gms) Broncos 13 (10 gms) Dolphins 13 (10 gms) Eagles 13 (11 gms) So, we only fall off the perch if the Cards, Panthers, or Bears have 3 INTs this Sunday or Broncos or Dolphins get 4 INTs this Sunday.

When I was young, QBs came into the league and sat for 2 or 3 years before they ever saw the field (except for rare occasions). I know it's a different league now, but I just don't understand people's impatience with rookies of any position. A rookie comes in and if he's not a pro bowler by mid-season of his rookie year, fans now are ready to label him a bust and get rid of him. For every Andrew Luck or Kiko Alonso, who play well right off the bat, there are dozens of guys who don't play well or don't see the field their rookie year, but eventually go on to have productive careers. Some guys need more time, especially in positions like OL or QB where there is a lot to learn and get acclimated to. Yes, EJ looked bad after coming back from the injury, but what are you people expecting? The kid has played a total of 6 games in between two knee injuries. I don't know if he's our QB of the future or not yet, but to write him off already is just stupidity.

I'm not saying Tuel will be good or that he won't make rookie mistakes, but I was pretty impressed with him in preseason. Yes, of course that was against lesser talent, but he showed some poise as a QB. I don't think he'll be as bad as in his first playing time. I mean, to be thrown into your first regular season game as an UDFA, in the third quarter, against a good defense, without having taken the starters snaps for the week. That's a tough situation for a young guy with no experience. I'll hold off on any judgements until I see him play again. If the defense can shut down KC pretty well and Tuel manages the game, it could still happen. If we fall behind, and Tuel has to comeback, well I wouldn't be so confident in that.

My bad...you're right, the hitting a QB below the knees rule was created after Carson Palmer's injury. And then the rule was clarified after Brady's injury to not allow a player on the ground, who wasn't blocked, to lunge at the QB below the knees (what some in the media were calling the Brady rule). http://www.boston.co...nees/?page=full I was wrong. But that doesn't discount everything else I said. And at the time the original rule was instated, a lot of people we're calling it the Palmer Rule and saying it was because he was a "star" QB...so it's kind of the same thing anyhow. http://answers.yahoo...15154143AAInZ81 Obviously our perceptions differ on this issue, I feel there is some bias and you do not. That is fine, but if you stopped listening to everyone who ever made a mistake, you'd soon find yourself in a very quiet world.

That article bases the entire argument on one stat only, actual number of flags thrown for roughing the passer. So much more goes into it, such as calling or not calling holding calls on the offensive line. If say Brady's and Peyton's lines are allowed to hold more, give illegal shots to the face and helmet, and generally get away with more, then fewer defenders are going to be getting to the QB on a consistent basis, therefore the lower the oportunities to get a roughing the passer call. So, that stat does not even come close to telling the full story of the gripes about protecting star QBs (particularly Brady). As the Jets player said, you can't ignore that the NFL did instate the below the knee rule right after Brady is out for a season due to a knee injury. And yet when Wilfork nailed JP in the knee on purpose, he doesn't even get a flag. I stopped watching the NBA about 10 years ago because of the star treatment and unbalanced calls. And I hate seeing the NFL go in that direction, but it does look that way despite the apologists. I think for the most part the officiating in the NFL is pretty good, even in most Bills games. But one or two calls a game can make a huge difference in a game or season. Say a star team is down in the 4th quarter, they have a 3rd down that if they don't convert they may lose. A lineman gets away with a blatant hold that the announcers don't even comment on and the QB completes an 11 yard pass to continue the drive. They may not score and still lose the game, but they're given that one extra opportunity. Even one missed or bogus call a game or every other game over the course of a season may allow a team to pull out a few extra wins. You can see that type of thing every Sunday, especially for the star QBs and star teams. It's not blatant, but its pervasive. No doubt those guys (Brady/Manning types) win because they're damn good and future HOFs but they and they're teams definitely get the benefit of the doubt more often than other teams/players. And they do get more protection than non-household name QBs.

Players who should be cut/benched/traded: EJ, Chandler, A. Williams, Spiller, Freddy, Marcel, Kiko, Leonhard...they all suck... Oh wait, we won the game and these guys all contributed? Never mind.

Unlike Bills defenses of the past few years, most good teams stop a lot of runs. A lot of 1-3 yard gains and a few for a loss. For most of the game the Bills were doing this today (despite Carolina not running a lot). One reason for it is coaching...players held their lanes and filled their holes. They were where they were supposed to be. But at one point in the game I realized that Kyle and Marcel were totally clogging up the middle. The two of them were outstanding against the run today and they both were able to get some pressure on the QB as well. Dareus might not show up big in the stat sheet for this one, but I thought he played a really solid game.

A first year head coach who is trying to change a culture of losing does not have the luxury to keep a guy who isn't working hard based solely on potential. First off it's a bad message to send the rest of the team and secondly, you can't afford the roster spot. And most of the really talented guys who had attitude or other problems but still made it in the NFL, were actually hard workers...look at T.O. Always working hard to be the best despite his other issues. I don't think anyone stays in the NFL long if they aren't working and playing hard consistently.

I don't think I've heard anyone give a shout out for DT Jay Ross. Granted it was later in the game, against 2nd or 3d stringers, but he blocked 3 passes and was generally very disruptive on the line.

Honestly, you people do not know what you're talking about. You were either too young to watch Marv as a coach or you're so disgusted with Bills football of the last 12 years that you're just ragging on everyone. I think too many people discount how good of a coach he was because of his lackluster outing as a GM. Marv was a great coach!!!! Do you really think it is just a fluke that he is in the HOF and still considered one of the 20 best of all time? Oh right, it's just because he got lucky to have great players... What about Shula having Unitas, Griese, and Marino Or Jimmy Johnson having Aikman, E. Smith, and Johnson...just for a start Any team that makes a Super Bowl has great/all pro/HOF players. If you say that for Marv, you have to say that about every other Super Bowl coach Walsh...Montana, Rice, etc Knoll...Bradshaw, Greene, Stallworth, Franco, Swan, etc. That is just such a bad argument. That Bills team was full of egos...Marv united them, made them a family. It was war, us against them, being accountable to the other men in the trenches with you. He inspired that team. Do you really think without Marv's leadership they would have gone to the Bowl 4 times? No, that team would have been at each other's throats (remember the bickering Bills) and imploded. They persevered because of what Marv instilled in them. They didn't achieve in spite of him, they achieved because of him. He may not have been the architect of the K-gun/no-huddle, but he definitely had a hand in it (if you remember how it came about---after the Cincinatti game) and he had the final say on using it, how they would use it, allowing his QB to call the plays, etc. and ended up overseeing one of the most prolific offenses ever. And it was due to Marv that Special Teams became important again league-wide and made a name for Steve Tasker and Mark Pike. What? Marv was only a .500 coach in the NFL before coming to Buffalo?...Well, Bill Belichick was under .500 in 5 years at Cleveland and 1 year in New England before Brady took over. Marv also coached in the Canadian League. In 5 years up in Canada, he was in the Grey Cup (their Super Bowl) 3 out of 5 years, winning 2. And although, his time with the Chiefs wasn't completely successful, he had inherited a horrendous 2-12 team and each year they improved to 4, 7, 8 wins, then 9-7 in 1981 (before a strike shortened season). The reason we failed in the Super Bowls was because the league was changing at that time to bigger, beefier offensive lines and our small 3-man front couldn't stop the run consistently enough against those new O-lines (Washington and Dallas). And sure the Giants (Parcells and Belichick) had a good game plan in SB XXV to use a time sucking ground attack to keep the Bills offense off the field, but it's not like he was severely out coached, we lost the game by 1 point for Christ's sake and if Norwood's FG goes through we would have won. And don't forget, in week 15 of that same year, we had beaten that same Giants team in the Meadowlands 17-13. Those teams were so evenly matched and those were two hard fought, close games. Marv is the only coach to go to 4 consecutive Super Bowls (do you know how hard that is even though they lost them)? He was also the coach of the greatest NFL comeback of all time. In an 8 year stretch, his Bills won the AFC East 6 times. He was Skyline Conference Coach of the year both years he coached at the University of New Mexico. He also won Southern Conference Coach of the Year awards 2 out of 5 years he was at William & Mary. Won the Annis Stukus Trophy (Coach of the year in the Canadian League) in 1974. Was NFL Coach of the Year in 1988 and AFC Coach of the Year in 1988, 1993, and 1995. One of only 2 coaches (Tom Flores was the other) to have a winning record (17-6) against the winningest coach in the history of the NFL (Shula). One of only 14 coaches to win at least 100 games with one team. One of only 2 coaches (Bud Grant, the other) to appear in both Grey Cup Championship and the Super Bowl. Over a 10 year span (1988-1997), an entire decade, the Bills won more games than any team in the AFC and 2nd only to San Francisco in the entire NFL (I'm sure coaching had nothing to do with that...right?) I just don't understand this revisionist history. Give the man his due and have some respect for not only one of the best Bills coaches ever, but one of the best of all-time. "Where would you rather be than right here, right now" "When it's too tough for them, it's just right for us." Come on Man!

What's in a name? Goodwin vs. Los(s) man, I think we're finally heading in a good direction (at least name-wise) E(J)manuel is translated as "God is with us" in Hebrew Marcus "can" Easley get things done Tashard "is" Choice Marcell Dareus the great (Darius the Great was a king of the Persian empire) Arthur "cross the" Moats to storm the castle Eric "laying the" Wood Robert "fightin' his way through the" Woods Dustin "that kid's got a lot of" Hop kins Freddy "Action" Jackson, of course Jarius "free as a" Byrd (or in regards to his contract, maybe "A Byrd in the hand is worth two in the bush") "Gimme" Da'Rock Rogers Not sure what to say about the team having 4 Smiths' and 5 Williams' or 2 T.J.s, a C.J., and an E.J....but anyhow Great vids, thanks for posting

I'm with the OP...it is exciting that EJ is so happy to be here. Fitz wasn't all that happy when he first came to Blo, and if you asked Edwards or Losman before the draft which team did they hope to get picked by I guarantee you the Bills didn't even cross their mind. Yes, all 3 were happy to be a Bill when it meant getting a starting job and Fitz and JP definitely embraced the City once here, but this kid hoped that the Bills would draft him. What? Before the draft, I was leaning towards trading down and then nabbing Barkley the in 1st or 2nd...but I couldn't be happier with the EJ pick...everything about it feels right. I may be wrong (I have been many times before) and maybe it doesn't work out, but when he was on the stage at the draft after embracing Goddell, I blurted out...this kid is a star. Just my gut reaction. And he's excited about coming to Buffalo. Screw the he could've been had in the 4th round crowd...as Buddy himself has stated, we missed on some QBs in the past for waiting too long. We don't know where he would have gone if the Bills didn't take him, I'm just glad they got the guy they wanted. Remember Buddy was really high on Cam Newton and Colin Kaepernik and EJ is in that same mold. Interesting tidbit...I tried to catch all of the Gruden QB camps on ESPN but only ever saw an edited down version of the EJ interview that focused on Gruden talking about how bad EJ's ball security and sleeves were. The other day I finally watched the full segment on Youtube, its crappy quality because its some guy taping his TV, but Gruden gushed all the way through it. EJ looked real comfortable dissecting plays on the board, and at one point as they're watching tape and talking about the draft, Gruden says to EJ (looking at EJ on film), "Why aren't you the first pick in the draft". It wasn't a what's wrong with your game that makes teams shy away from you type of question, it was rhetorical, like he was saying I can't figure out why this kid isn't gonna be the first QB off the board. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkRIqTUzCwk Anyhow, I'm on the EJ bandwagon as far as it rolls.