BackInDaDay

the Bills have two distinct values. one is their worth in the Buffalo market. the other is their worth in another location which will make the franchise more profitable. if the Wilson heirs insist on holding out for the higher price, the buyer will have to have a deal in place with the league to move the team to an area that will allow them to recover their costs and re-price their product, asap. if the purpose of this fund is to make up the difference until they're cleared to move the team, what's the point? interest free loans, are not loans.. they're gifts. if the contract is to return the gift upon gaining approval to move the team, what was accomplished? a year or two of deferring the inevitable? in this scenario, all the fund really does is help the Wilsons get their asking price. now, if Ralph has made provisions that his heirs should try to keep the team in Buffalo - and that any sale of the team should be made at a discount if necessary, to achieve that goal. then the buyer will have their NFL club, but in a market where prices must be kept comparatively low. only someone, or a group of someones, with an allegiance to the legacy of the Buffalo Bills could find peace with such a deal, but in this case, the proposed fund could actually be a helpful means to a happy end. unfortunately, i believe the former scenario is more realistic, but who knows what Ralph's up to.

hmm.. a franchise with an asking price of about $900M - that for starters, must be moved to another market to give it a chance to generate any kind of a return on my investment? i'm out

i can understand why some fans who post here aren't comfortable with the level of commitment the Bills are making in developing Manuel into a successful NFL QB. but the fact is, such a commitment renders speculation of using early draft picks on young men to compete for EJ's position, moot. no offense meant to those of you who haven't yet accepted this, but a purported 'beat' reporter should have a clearer understanding of what's trying to be accomplished - and not come off like 'Tommy from Tonawanda'.

Yep.. Fisher and Williams were on Buddy's defensive staff when he coached under Jack Pardee. Both Williams and Schwartz were on Fisher's staff at Tennessee, This will be a good fit. The shared DNA of the Buddy Ryan coaching tree are aggressive defenses. .

the Buffalo Bills have above average talent on defense. Pettine's done a good job with them, and he'll do even better next year, if he's here. if he leaves, we must hire another coach who'll continue what he started. he should have solid experience game-planning for NFL offenses. like Pettine, protege DCs to defensive minded HCs with a couple years under their belt, are usually willing to make lateral moves to be 'the man'. for continuity's sake, we should be looking at the defensive branch of the Jack Pardee coaching tree - which began with Buddy Ryan, and has produced many excellent DCs - including Fisher, Williams, and the Ryan twins. this bunch is producing the next generation of coaches - including Pettine - who use multiple looks and attack gaps in an attempt to dictate where the O goes with the ball. ps - although it still has it's place as an 'up 2 scores' D, please - no base/Tampa2 coaches need apply. not with how the NFL passing game, and how it's officiated, have evolved over the last few seasons.

hmmm.. thank you,sir... in that case i'll head back to the bench

sorry to say, that like you, i'm living proof.. just don't understand what's accomplished from beating dead horses.. dead Patriots, maybe..

i doubt there are fans of any other team that could devote almost 50 pages of arguments to how we screwed the pooch on a UDFA, that no team - including the one he's playing for - thought enough of, to draft in the first place.. this place should have it's own reality show..

... so how many years of evaluations will you tolerate before you realize that NOW may mean NEVER? What you're signing up for is exactly what a 'sales' oriented front office has been selling you for years..hope and best intentions. If you think Whaley and Marrone can right the ship, then you have no alternative other than trust their judgement on the QB situation. If you have no faith in these guys, than crank up the music and get the merry-go-round started.

it's not a case of being 'good enough'.. there's no magic formula.. there's a very good chance that rookie X will have his own issues - regardless of his collegiate career. there's a very good chance that X's ability to adjust and thrive in the pro game may mirror Manuel's. then those options have you painted into the corner no one will disagree with that, but the key to what he's saying is having two 'starting caliber QBs' not two 'developing QBs'

let's play GM. you want to use a high draft pick on rookie X, and have an open competition for the starting, backup, and 3rd string QB positions - but you have to examine what options the results of such a competition will leave you with, in order to reach an acceptable comfort level in going forward. would you make the decision to draft the QB if the resulting competition will leave you with the following options? only a few options where both your 2013 1st round pick and 2014 pick get a chance to practice, let alone play.. and each of these requires you to use an inexperienced backup. most of the options will force you to either put the development of one of them on hold, or release one, or risk losing one. here are the results and options the above summary is based on: what happens if Manuel earns the starting position, and.. 1. X earns the backup role 1.a. X will get practice reps during the season with the 1st team offense, but you have an inexperienced backup 2 X earns the 3rd spot 2.a. X won't get practice reps during the season, but he can run the scout team against the 1st team defense 2.b. X can be placed on the 'practice squad' where you risk losing him 2.c. X can be kept on the active roster 2.d. X can be released 3 X doesn't earn the backup or the 3rd spot 3.a. X will be released what happens if X earns the starting position, and.. 1. Manuel earns the backup role 1.a. Manuel will get practice reps during the season with the 1st team offense, but you have an inexperienced backup 2 Manuel earns the 3rd spot 2.a. Manuel won't get practice reps during the season, but he can run the scout team against the 1st team defense 2.b. Manuel can be placed on the 'practice squad' where you risk losing him 2.c. Manuel can be kept on the active roster 2.d. Manuel can be released 3 Manuel doesn't earn the backup or the 3rd spot 3.a. Manuel will be released what happens if neither Manuel or X earns the starting position, but Manuel earns the backup role, and... 1 X earns the 3rd spot 1.a. X won't get practice reps during the season, but he can run the scout team against the 1st team defense 1.b. X can be placed on the 'practice squad' where you risk losing him 1.c. X can be kept on the active roster 2 X doesn't earn the 3rd spot 2.a. X will be released what happens if neither Manuel or X earns the starting position, but X earns the backup role, and... 1 Manuel earns the 3rd spot 1.a. Manuel won't get practice reps during the season, but he can run the scout team against the 1st team defense 1.b. Manuel can be placed on the 'practice squad' where you risk losing him 1.c. Manuel can be kept on the active roster 2 Manuel doesn't earn the 3rd spot 2.a. Manuel will be released what happens if neither Manuel or X earn the starting position, and neither Manuel or X earn the backup role, and Manuel earns the 3rd spot.. 1.a. Manuel won't get practice reps during the season, but he can run the scout team against the 1st team defense 1.b. Manuel can be placed on the 'practice squad' where you risk losing him 1.c. Manuel can be kept on the active roster 1.d. Manuel can be released 1.e. X will be released what happens if neither Manuel or X earn the starting position, and neither Manuel or X earn the backup role, and X earns the 3rd spot.. 1.a. X won't get practice reps during the season, but he can run the scout team against the 1st team defense 1.b. X can be placed on the 'practice squad' where you risk losing him 1.c. X can be kept on the active roster 1.d. X can be released 1.e. Manuel will be released

great job.. now, let's get some agile / mobile / hostile guards to pop our RBs free and move with our QB. if Manuel has the O line - and our OC tightens up our receiving corp - then there'll be no excuses for failure. here's to a good Whaley led draft.

who doesn't like shooting stars? they're made for wishing, and i'm guessing the northern nights are filled with them

i'm going to be 58 in April, and think some of you guys are wrapped too tight.. but hey, that's just my opinion.. "different strokes for different folks"

lighten up, Francis..

thanks, buddy - i guess i walked into that one

if this is the worst thing these kids are into, who cares - unless 'posterizing' turns out to be a 'gateway' abuse!

no offense meant to the OP - this is a solid analysis of the importance of having a good QB - but here are some numbers.. wins losses ties 370 426 8 record from 1960-2013 - in 54 seasons we won 46% of our games - 70 - 26 - 0 record from 1988-1993 - in 6 seasons we won 73% of our games 300 400 8 record from 1960-1987 and 1994-2013 - in 48 seasons we won 42% of our games other than a 6 year span where we fielded one of the most talented teams ever assembled, we are a historically bad franchise. why? because we lunge toward each season in awkward bursts, without long term plans. our front office has shown the discipline of a small child with an attention deficit disorder, quitting this for that in fits of lapsed judgments.. all the while profiting from the sale of an inferior product to consumers compelled to buy in, year after year. maybe i'm the worst sucker out of all of us, but for the first time in a long time, i believe a young GM with some football chops has been given an opportunity to grow the culture of this haphazard club into something better - something cohesive - something that might last awhile. but here we are, less than one week removed from our latest failure, an ineffectual mob of grown men who - for some insane reasons we can't even fathom - need this team more than they need us.. here we are.. storming this wobbly castle.. ready to burn it and all it's cursed inhabitants down to the cold, cold ground.. again. i'm willing to give this GM and this coaching staff one more year to win. i'm willing to give this QB one more year to win. i'm willing to watch other bad clubs hitch their creaking wagons to the next generation of projected saviors without envy, because i think we're building something solid here, and now.. and i'd like to see what the football men in the room can do before the sales department tears apart their plans in response to the mob. be careful what you ask for

you're welcome.. it took a half hour to write, and twice that to 'proof' read it. i just felt the need to understand why my gut was telling me that throwing guys at the job, for the sake of hoping someone sticks, would have it's consequences.

thanks. i agree that there's no certainty that Manuel will reach his projected potential as "playing the NFL QB position at a high performance level", but i think the results are in on Kolb and the assortment of other veteran FAs which will be available in 2014. i don't see any evidence that any of them have performed at a high level. personally, i think the only QB worth the risk of deferring Manuel's chance to develop for, is Cutler. he's a dynamic thrower, for sure - but he's shown a propensity for coming up short, with better teams than ours. but there's no other FA out there that we haven't already had on our roster - both figuratively and literally. i'd have no problem with him as our starter, with Manuel gettings reps as backup. that scenario would probably result in keeping Lewis on the active roster as our emergency starter, unless Tuel or a draftee knocks him out. anyway, balancing the risk / rewards of any moves we make should be based on winning. i think we've been victims of too many moves made for the benefit of the marketing team. it's time to get the horse before the cart. i'm hoping Whaley and this staff has a wide enough berth to navigate the way they want.

Great post. They got to our 2nd level in a hurry - with numbers. Of the 40-something rushes the Pats attempted, our D linemen only got involved in half of the tackles. They ran past us. I think we expected more pass attempts on 1st and 2nd downs, and the Pats were ready for the combination of our rush schemes and our coverage personnel we lined up by going against their tendencies. Guess we should have seen that coming, with all the talk about them needing tp protect Brady. and yes.. we definitely need to improve our agilty on our O line.

Thanks.. i think your points 3 and 4 are well taken. There are consequences to allowing an open competition dictate terms to the team. actual fairness in evaluating talent may be superceded by the perception of fairness, in order to skew the results and thus, the options. Ask Sciano if he would attempt to influence Freeman's election to captaincy again. Anyway, that's why I added this before laying things out.. "I’ll let the reader complete their opinions of the given options with their knowledge of where they believe the organization prioritizes a player’s origins – such as whether he was drafted (and what round), undrafted, or picked from the PS. For those of you who believe this influences the decision making, where rookie X is drafted may skew the options. Personally, I don’t believe any option that involves the release of Manuel or a ‘high draft pick’ X is realistic, but Darwin would have insisted." a more realistic set of options could be gained if the resources competing were 'weighted' by other relevant attributes such as financial and developmental commitments. I just considered results based on how the players impressed with their skills. Of course, Lewis'practice squad status had to be taken into account to accurately portray some of the options that factored into.

thanks, i think it's very possible that we would draft a project to compete with Tuel. our coaches and GM though well enough about Tuel to protect him on our active roster, so with other needs to fill, it would have to be an impressive draftee at a low round. one thought of highly enough to take Tuel's spot.

i have to disagree there.. i'm not talking about hindsight. i'm talking about deriving a sound plan based on a finite set of resources, requirements and expectations. we know our resources - Manuel, Lewis, and Tuel. we know what we have to have entering the season - a starter who gives us a chance to win, a credible backup, and a project with potential. we know what we expect - that our #1 pick will start and continue to progress, that our 4 year vet backup will be productive when called on, and our young project will continue to develop. you may be right about the Bills being interested in keeping Kolb around, but as i said, he could only supplant Lewis. he's no better that the other FA QBs out there, and he's definitely at a disadvantage to Lewis in terms of executing the offense. i believe Manuel and Lewis have more potential than Kolb, so i wouldn't waste time with him. if he's going to have a comeback year, god bless him, but have it somewhere else. we're better off introducing a drafted project to compete with Tuel than threatening Lewis' role with Kolb. i see no point to that. as far as practice reps go - 3rd stringers don't practice with the first O in season. so any young QB with potential you want to keep around for a rainy day as your 3rd - whether it's Tuel or rookie X - will die on the vine unless he's given the scout team to run. at least there he can work against NFL defensive starters, and get a feel on how DCs in the NFL defend NFL offenses. i only put the 4th QB in my mix for arguments sake - there's a possibility that some 4th stringer would capture the staff's imagination enough to keep their #3 on the active roster and place #4 on the practice squad. but then what do you do? take turns having 3 and 4 run the scout team? no way. so that's just an unrealistic option thrown in to emphasize who might be banished there under certain results. "they're killing me, Whitey!"

no problem Dibs, sorry for jumping to the conclusion that you were being dismissive. I'm aware of the attention span of most of us.. frankly, i only read the damn thing to 'proof' it.. i doubt i would take the time to digest it again, otherwise. please feel free to edit if you think you can draw the point out better than i could. no wonder they canned me at Reader's Digest!