ax4782

With the rotation of four players we have at the position, and the fact that Buffalo relies heavily on rotational play, I don't see any reason why this group of four can't do very well this season. If Buffalo can avoid the injury bug for most of the season, I think this unit could be top-ten in the NFL.

Perhaps people haven't seen some of last season's games, or watched any of the video from the OTAs and practices, but I don't think you could characterize TE as having a "noodle arm." He makes all of the throws down the field that he is asked to make. Not to mention he does it with accuracy, something that Lossman never had. Chad Pennington has a noodle arm, in that he CAN'T throw the ball more than twenty five yards. TE can throw much farther than that, but the offense simply hasn't called that many down the field plays. For those who don't think he can, I submit the thirty five yard toss to JR in the two minute drill that was right on the money and the fact that he on at least two occasions overthrew Evans on fifty plus yard routes last year. There is nothing wrong with his arm strength. That argument is a loser.

I must start by stating that I also think that the two players deserve to have bigger contracts than what they have now, but I don't completely agree with your analysis. I think Evans has proved that he CAN be a top flight receiver, but the problem is, he hasn't been consistent. I think there are a lot of factors that have led to that, but the top receivers don't make excuses, they make plays. Double teams are a fact of life for big receivers and they still manage to make those big plays. Evans disappeared last year when we needed him most and he has not had good years for the past two seasons. I think he deserves a pay increase, but he needs to show me something during the season that he is worth it. Right now, I think he is a 6 mil a year receiver, but not an 11 mil a year like Fitzgerald or Boldin. Peters also deserves a bigger payday. However, he has only played one full season at tackle. I hardly think that demonstrates that he has "proved himself" as a top tier tackle. There have been too many one hit wonders in the NFL at the Tackle position for me to say that he has "proved" himself. Buffalo just renegotiated his contract, and I know that he is "only" getting 4 mil a year. However, that is due to the fact that he is still an unproven commodity at the position. He played well for a season and a half. He has three years left on his current contract, which is laden with incentives. I think he should play for another season, allow Buffalo to resign Evans and Crowell, who are in a state of limbo at the end of the season, and then worry about signing Peters to a higher paying extension. His actions right now are a bit selfish and doesn't say much for his concern for the team as a whole. I think he is a very good talent at guard, but I don't want to pay him some huge and outrageous contract and lose the ability to re-sign Evans, Crowell and our Rookies. Not to mention, this sets a bad precedent within the organization: you have a good year, you get to whine and cry your way to a higher contract. Evans and Lynch each had a great season in their careers. Should we have given Lynch a 6 mil pay increase after last season? Should we have given Evans a higher contract of 6 mil after his second season? No. Because they hadn't proven themselves to be consistently good at their positions over a long enough time at that point in their career. I think Peters needs to play through this season and wait in line behind veteran players who have actually earned their pay increases over time.

I have a feeling that his missing the mandatory camp is his shot across the bow and the front office will get the picture. Keep in mind, Evans said that he was interested in seeing how the FO handled improving the offense and providing the team the ability to win games and take pressure off of him. If Buffalo signs Peters to an extension with numbers in the range of what Dockery is currently getting, 7 yrs 45 mil, that would still leave the Bills at 24 mil under the cap for this season. If Evans wants 5 years 45 million that would leave us with 15 mil under the cap. That's more than enough to sign the rooks and give Crowell a decent contract. Problem solved. Buffalo has more than enough money to sign the players they need and still give us the cap space available next year to make a move or two. This team is close, and keeping the players that are getting us there will be the FOs top priority. I think we'll see Peters getting signed sooner rather than later.

Buffalo needed to get an upgrade at center. That was going to be one of our top priorities next year in the draft considering that Fowler is undersized and more importantly, overrated at the position. I like Fowler and I think he is pretty smart and does an adequate job, but he got run over a lot last year. Bentley is probably better than Fowler, though I doubt that Bentley is going to be at the form he was in NO. That being said, if he's looking for a team to pick him up that needs a center, Buffalo should do so. I also don't think he will require a HUGE contract to come in and play for Buffalo. He has injury problems and hasn't played for two full seasons. I don't even know that he is in playing shape yet. I woudl guess he would want a decent contract maybe four years 20 mil, just a bit more than Stroud and Mitchell are getting paid. That would leave more than enough money to address the now troubling Peters situation and give Evans and Crowell the kind of money they are looking for. After all, what good is being 30 mil under the cap if you don't use the money to improve the team?

Apparently Joe Flacco from Delaware is one hell of a QB. Apparently he is going to lead this team to 11 victories this season. Gee, that sounds EXACTLY like what every Rookie QB in his first season as a starter does. And man, Kyle Boller is a baller. He could easily lead the Ravens to the playoffs. There's just a ton of talent at the QB position for the Ravens. Anyway, as to the two articles from Sporting News, one saying 5-11 the other 11-5, they're just hedging their bets, which is typical. If we make the playoffs, they can be one of the ones saying, "See, we told you" and if you don't they can say, well "See, we told you." Only time will tell which prediction was right, but I do think that we will be far better than either the Rams or the Ravens.

Dude, I don't know what forum you generally contribute too, or what team you cheer for, but you need to tone down the higher than thou rhetoric. First of all, I don't think anyone here or anywhere else is condoning what ML did. Leaving the scene of an accident where a person was injured is a serious issue. However, in the State of New York, it is a Misdemeanor. The police and the DA decide if and when a person is going to be arrested for an offense. Perhaps you are unaware of how the criminal justice process actually works, or you are just blinded by your obvious rage on the issue. No one here can answer for BPD or the DA's office. They will make the call that they need to make, but if they are going to do anything they have to have their ducks in a row. The fact is, regardless of what you think about the player personally, objectively, he is NOT going to get jail time. At most, for a guilty plea on a misdemeanor of this nature he is likely to get a term of probation and an order to pay restitution for her medical costs. There could be a civil action later, but that will be up to the woman he allegedly hit. Now, as to the suspension from the NFL, it is, again, like it or not, unlikely that he will receive a suspension. Lance Briggs was apparently involved in a similar type of incident last year and that was his first offense. The league gave him a 0 game suspension; i.e. they did nothing. And as I responded to your post on the other page, lets try that motto judge not lest ye be judged. I think that all of us have done very stupid things in our life that we would love to take back, and I'm sure the Lynch feels the same way about this incident, so please, keep that high and mighty rhetoric to yourself. It's annoying and, frankly, no one wants to hear it. Not to mention, every team has a player that seemingly gets caught up in a stupid illegallity every year. It's not good, but I think fans should try and stick to criticizing their own problems before going out and attacking others. Particularly the other team's fans on a message board.

Right on.

If the league is consistent and punishes Lynch the way they punished Lance Briggs last year for his Drunk Driving stunt, Lynch will get a pass from the league. Usually for first time offenses of the misdemeanor variety the league gives you one free-bee. Lynch will likely face no punishment from the league. And though I don't agree with CJPearl all that often he is right on with his assessment. I too have clerked at a Prosecutor's office in my law school days and for a misdemeanor like this, he'll get short term probation and be forced to pay restitution to the victim for her medical bills and that will be the end of it. Felonies are different, but this isn't that case.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that it was clearly a forward pass. Look at the direction that Dyson is moving when he catches the football. He is leaning DOWNFIELD and his hands are OUT. If the ball had been backwards or on a straight line, he would NOT be leaning DOWNFIELD with his hands moving out in that same direction. He would have been stationary or moving BACKWARDS. And I swear, that was the most poorly officiated game in the history of the NFL playoffs. The Bills were playing 17 guys on the other side of the ball. The Titans and the six refs who had their heads up the Jeff Fisher's -ss. The worst part about it was, Buffalo likely could have made it to the Super Bowl that year, and I think we would have had a very good chance against the Rams. Why do all of these crappy plays end up going AGAINST us. The Music City Pile of Sh-tty, No Goal 99, Wide Right and the list goes on. And the worst part is, if that game had been played in Buffalo, I guarantee that is ruled a forward pass and the play is taken back, Buffalo wins the game. The fact is, that shouldn't be true either. The refs need to make the call based on the facts not on the home crowd and a fear that they might get pelted on the way out after a call they made. I just have to reiterate, the tape shows Dyson moving DOWNFIELD, or FORWARD, to catch the pass. There is NO PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE WAY the ball could have been thrown BACKWARDS, and have him moving downfield to catch. Certainly, if Wycheck had been thirty yards downfield and throwing backwards, that would be different, but he wasn't. He was on the same yard line and was fifteen yards away. THAT WAS A FORWARD PASS and the refs f-ing blew it. Granted, the STers share some of the blame for not making a play, but at the same time, that play should have never counted. What a load. Why did someone feel the need to bring this up?

I actually wish the Bills would go back to that helmet, or the red one with the white buffalo. They were really awesome. That being said, there's no way any reasonable, or slightly unreasonable, person could argue that those f-ing creamsicle Bucs helmets were the second best all time. That's just ridiculous. C'mon. Those were the absolute ugliest uniforms in pro-sports history, even worse than those horrendous throwbacks the Steelers wore for parts of last season. That posting lacks pretty much any credibility.

If only season ticket sales were directly related to actual on-field performance. I do, however, think that the Bills are primed and ready for a breakout year and the schedule, at least on its face, is favorable for a successful season. I was hoping to get some individual game tickets this year, but I don't think that is going to happen. Oh, well. I'll be enjoying the season from my local Bills Backers Club here in Detroit.

This may have been the most rational and well stated position on the argument that I have seen. Well said. I completely second your statements and analysis, as seen in the post I submitted that you quoted. Very nicely put.

Too bad people around here don't look at facts more often. Rather they are more concerned with spouting their dislikes or unhappinesses rather than engaging in legitimate discussions concerning a topic. That is unfortunately the problem. When you confront emotion with reason, you can't win. Many have a dislike for Jauron, for whatever reason. Maybe they wanted another person for the job and are still bitter. Maybe they think they could have done better than 7-9 with a secondary made up of PS players who gave it their all. Maybe they just don't understand that the coach is not the one who makes the plays. Or they forgot that Steve RUN RUN PASS Fairchild was the coordinator last year and was actually the one running the offense. But none of that matters. To many who dislike Jauron, the only thing that matters is that the team was 7-9 and since he was the coach, well, that must have been completely his fault. Perhaps we should get another coach, and implement a new offensive system. That should only set us back another three years. And by then, well, the fans will be tired of that coach and we'll have to get another one. Change and competitiveness in football have to do with consistency at the helm and having a solid core of players than they do with having a superstar coach. By the logic of many on this board, Buffalo should have never hired Marv Levy based on his performance in KC, Bill Belicheat should never have gone to the Patriots after his performance in Cleveland, and Brian Billick should NEVER have become a coach with the Ravens or any other Team. All of those coaches, however, were given an opportunity, and after taking charge and reshaping the team to their requirements, they saw a lot of success. Jauron and the Bills are fielding our best team in years this season. Could we please stop and give the team a chance to succeed before we start piling on the coaching staff. Another change at the helm, what would be the fourth in ten years, is only going to set us back. Before we doom ourselves to three more years of defeat and become the Detroit Lions, let's see what this season brings.

I see. So outside factors do matter in evaluating a coach, so long as they are the factors that you are primarily concerned with? The fact is the realities of football, like injury and overall team talent play a huge role, not only in the team's overall success, but also in the decisions that a coach reasonably has open to him. To suggest that Jauron is completely responsible for every bad team he has been forced to coach is ridiculous. I think being able to get that team last year motivated to play as well as they did speaks volumes. Not only did he get them to play, they were in the playoff race until Week 15. Not too many other teams with that number of injuries would have been able to say that. And IMO, all of you who think that Jauron is such a terrible coach, I wonder what you would have said had they actually made the playoffs last year, hypothetically speaking?

I don't know of any other team that uses a rotational system at the CB position. That being said, we have four very capable guys that can start at the position. McGee and McKelvin could rotate at the LCB and Greer and James could rotate at the RCB. Then, you are also covered in the event of a serious injury (knock on wood). So, I could see them using that scheme, particularly with James where Buffalo plays against tall starting receivers. James is a very good match up against Randy Moss due to James' size. However, I am excited to see how McKelvin fares against him if he gets reps in that game this season.

Big surprise that the Cheatriots and their fans just want to move on to next season. The fact is, they got off pretty easy. They lost their first round draft pick. Their #32 choice. They still drafted ahead of the Bills and they were in the Super Bowl for crying out loud. And big woop. Bob Kraft had to pay $500,000 of his billions in a small fine. I guess you can buy championships in this league. The team cheated in at least one Super Bowl, with the Rams, and instead of having their titles stripped or getting the asterisk in the books next to their names, they paid a little fine and off they went. I think it is disgusting that teams could get away with this. The fact that they downplay knowing what the other team was going to do before the ball was snapped is silly. If I know what play the other team's defense is going to run, I am at an immense advantage in terms of calling audibles and making reads and adjustments. Then Belicheat ATTACKS Matt Walsh's character on TV, saying "he didn't know anything about football." Yeah, well, clearly Belicheat didn't either since the only way he could call games was when he knew what the other team was going to do. Perhaps his records in Cleveland are more indicative of his real abilities as an HC. After all, he wasn't having games taped when he was coaching the Browns.

JP is that you? I suppose not. The fact is that you are right about one thing. ALL of the blame cannot be placed on JP. Just as it cannot be placed on the coaching staff. Yet, I think JP said it best when he put the onus on himself before the Jacksonville game, calling it do or die for him. Well, he went lame and his career as a starter in Buffalo ended. He didn't play well last year. He has started over thirty games, totalling two full seasons, and his record is abysmal. Trent showed a lot of upside last year and I think has earned his chance to play. That being said, I'm glad we have Losman on the roster in the event that, God forbid, something did happen to Edwards during the season. That being said, the Offense seemed to pick it up in the OTAs as the week wore on and they started to look pretty good by the time it was over. And I would note that Josh Reed displayed REALLY good hands during both sessions and I think he is going to be a heck of a #3 receiver for this team. I see his numbers improving from what they were last year by a significant margin.

Ah, the old, when someone lines up reality and logic against your argument, dismiss and ignore them as if they didn't exist. The problem is, P-Girl is right. There are a lot of coaches who, by your logic should never have gotten a second chance to coach in the NFL. I'm not saying that Jauron is the next Belicheat or Marv Levy, but let's see what he does this year with his best team in years on the field. If Buffalo tanks, and there aren't really a lot of injuries, then it is certainly legitimate to criticize Jauron and call for his head. Until we see how the team he has put together performs, it's a bit early to judge. To address the original post, I think TE's play will dictate how the season goes. I think if he can be an average starting QB this team can win 9 games. If he plays just a bit better than average, we could win 10 or 11 games and make the playoffs. I expect the D will play well. Jauron's decision making the play calling strategy of TS will also dictate. I think you hit the issue right on the money. I do, however, have that same feeling that the Bills might surprise some people this year and make the playoffs.

If they lose Evans they are right back where they started with the WR position. Hardy was drafted to be a tall target to take the heat off of our top WR, LE. Buffalo has already offered him a contract and they are in negotiations. If worse comes to worse, they can franchise him next season, pay the bill and negotiate a little longer. I think they can get a six year deal for forty five mil, maybe up to fifty with twenty two mil in guaratees. That would be big numbers, but we are way under the cap and could probably still be in good shape after re-signing him. Lee is a huge part of what will make this offense work in the passing game, and without him, I don't think we can be half as effective as we are with him.

We have a ton of money under the cap and could make both of them a deal. However, look at the deal that the Giants just gave to their rookie left guard. He had played for a couple of seasons and had done well. They gave him an increase on his salary, which was comparable. Buffalo can pay them both and keep this newly fashioned offense together. We need both of these players or we are going to lose a huge part of the plan that we have put together to get this team back to competitiveness.

First off, I clearly said that if there was enough evidence to show that he pulled the gun on his father with malicious intent that was wrong and he should be punished. You are not the person reading the police reports, or the prosecutor who is making the charging decisions. Those two persons determined there was nothing there. No offense, but I am going to defer to the Indiana county DA's judgment over yours. As for "violent reactions to stressful situations" there is one "known" incident for which the charges were dropped concerning his girlfriend. If he hit her, that was wrong, but it was up to her to press the case. She did not, for whatever reason. As for this incident, no one knows what happened, but the police and the prosecutor for that county aren't moving forward with any criminal charges. One cited incident is not a history. I he had three or four cited incidents of violence, I would agree, but he doesn't. He has one. He grew up in a tough neighborhood without a father and a mother. I can understand that he has some problems in his life that he is still trying to work out. That is no reason to suggest that he is going to go and off someone. People should try and reserve judgment until such time as it is legitimately rendered. Give the guy a chance for god-sake before you run him out of town. Just because someone takes a wait and see approach on a guy who isn't clearly guilty of anything doesn't mean I take "homerism" to a new level. I didn't support Anthony Hargrove when he was doing drugs and getting into fights outside of night clubs. Then again, he pled GUILTY to those charges and it was clear that he did the crime. Could you perhaps stop being so judgmental about a person before we know any real facts, or have and opportunity to see what he can really do. I think getting away from Indiana is exactly what the doctor ordered. I think that once he gets into town and has a chance to connect with his mother's family who lives in the area, his life will start to calm down. Not having to deal with his father will likely also help.

You are clearly unacquainted with the criminal justice system and the individuals who move through it every day to suggest that an incident, on which we have no understanding of the true factual basis, such as this means a person is going to leave "a trail of dead and injured." You clearly have never met a person who has killed someone. Brandishing a firearm, if it actually happened is a 93 day maximum misdemeanor. It's a long way from a misdemeanor to a person being shot or killed. I may work have worked in a prosecutor's office, but I'm willing to say that if the cops weren't even interested in writing up a report, the incident is of little consequence. I think before you start defaming someone's character and start suggesting that they are a murdering thug, you should consider the statements you are making, and try and substantiate them with some facts. If the police and prosecutor in the county where Hardy lives don't think there is enough of a case to move forward, odds are, there wasn't much of a problem. Hardy was dealing with a guy who had basically abandoned him for his whole life who has now shown up and now wants to collect on the money that his son is about to make. I can't say that I blame Hardy for being upset with his father. If Hardy pulled out a firearm, it was wrong, but at the same time, he is a far cry from Pacman Jones and trying to shoot people dead in the street in front of night club, or throwing 8,000 dollars on the stage and blowing his fortune on useless vices. Let's give the kid a chance before we start pre-judging people. That is particularly true when you and everyone else are completely in the dark about what actually happened. The only people who were there and making the reports have a darker and shadier past than Hardy. Take what they are saying with a grain of salt.

To actually respond to the original post concerning Hardy, you need to consider that a person is innocent until proven guilty. First off, Hardy was never convicted and never pled guilty to the charges concerning his girlfriend and his child. Thus, suggesting that he in fact did that, when there is no record of it actually happening is rather judgmental. Until Hardy comes out and states that it happened, or his girlfriend comes out and stands by the story she told the police in the first place, it is a bit judgmental to go after the guy. A lot has been made of that alleged incident, but without a conviction, no one knows what actually happened. As to this incident, the fact is, no one knows the facts about what happened. The only persons who were in that backyard were James Hardy II, his "father" and another person the police are refusing to identify. What we know is that the father is not pressing charges and the police have indicated that they are not pursuing the investigation. What that means in legalese is that the police don't have enough evidence to meet even the probable cause standard to proceed. As a result, people suggesting that Hardy was a bad guy in this situation are being a bit judgmental and likely are the same people who didn't like him to begin with. Pulling a gun on someone is a serious action and can be criminal in the right set of circumstances. We have no idea what happened in this case and from the reports it seems to have been a bit overblown. What we do know is that Hardy's father was gone for most of his life, and by gone I mean in jail with no way to help raise his son. Now, after his son has become a successful athlete ready to make it big, he shows up. I think that would be enough to make a lot of people angry. I'm not condoning the supposed action that he took, but if the police aren't charging him, it's got more to do with a lack of evidence and a very reluctant witness who probably realizes that he was at fault. I'm not condoning what Hardy may have done, but it seems like the situation may have been blown out of proportion. That being said, if there was enough evidence that he should have been charged, that's what should have been done.

I'm not sure where you went to law school, but you clearly didn't learn anything about the second amendment. The fact is that the wording of the amendment is ambiguous, not clearly defining under what circumstances a person may keep and bear arms. The question is not whether persons can own firearms. The individual state constitutions in 44 states have a much more clearly articulated individual right to keep and bear arms. As for the decision in U.S. v. Miller, the court neither stated affirmatively that an individual has the right to keep and bear arms, or that the right was purely collective and only allowing for the right to be exercised only in the context of the militia. One should not that ten of the twelve circuit courts have determined that the right is exercised either collectively or under a "sophisticated collective rights model." Furthermore, even if the Second Amendment does in fact convey an individual right to keep and bear arms, there is nothing stopping the states or the federal government from placing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of that right. For example, it is likely that the Felon in Possession laws will be upheld, along with the CCW certification requirements. A collective right to keep and bear arms would not mean that no one could own a firearm. What it means is that under the federal constitution, and thus only in territories or states that do not provide for a clearly articulated right in their own constitutions that provide for a more significant individual right, the Government could restrict more severely the types of weapons that the people could own and when they could have access to them. The fact is, anyone following the case currently in the Supreme Court, that being Heller v. United States, formerly Parker v. United States in the D.C. Circuit, knows the likely outcome. The court is likely to find an individual right, but is not likely to incorporate that right to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. They are likely to uphold the reasonable restrictions that are currently in place and to find that a complete ban on handguns, like the one that is currently in place in the District of Columbia, simply goes too far. The arguments that the history of the amendment clearly demonstrate that the right is individual are unfamiliar with the history of the amendment. The fact is the Senate hearings and debate of the amendment were conducted in a closed session and there is no record in existence as to the positions or findings of the Senate. The House reports are ambiguous as to the positions of all of the legislators. Further, you cited Aymette v. State from Tennessee for the proposition that there is an individual right. However, the historical positions of the states are not clear. Take a look at State v. Buzzard from the same time articulating exactly the opposite position. For a good synopsis of the positions presented by both sides I recommend Akhil Reed Amar's book "America's Constitution: A Biography" which has a good explanation of the logical positions concerning the position's of both sides. As to U.S. v. Miller, the case does not cite a lot of cases that construe an individual right. The case is purposefully ambiguous, and fails to clearly support either position. The precedents that the court cites are to cases from the late 1800s that avoid the question of whether or not to find and individual right in the Constitution AND further, determine that any right construed in the Second Amendment that potentially belongs to the individual is not going to be incorporated to the states. There is a lot of ambiguity in the case law here. The fact is, if Miller were as clear as many on this board believed that it was, there would be no basis for the super majority of the Federal Circuit Court's to have found a collective right. For those who are curious some of the cases from those circuits are as follows: U.S. v. Haney (10th Circuit) Sklar v. Burns (7th Circuit) There are also prominent cases from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th Circuits holding that the Amendment grants some form of a collective right. Many of these cases cite U.S. v. Miller for the proposition that the Amendment construes a collective right. Sorry, but I trust the opinions of 27 Federal Circuit Court of Appeals' Judges over someone whom I don't even know has a law degree. People enjoy the right to bear arms, because their State constitutions allow them the right to do so. Many people don't realize that the states have the right to grant more protections to their citizens than are afforded by the United States Constitution. The right to own a gun in your individual capacity may be one of those additional protections, or it may not. The Supreme Court has yet to definitively take a position on the issue.