Cash

1. Given how much of a turnover machine Cassel has been this year and the last 4 years or so, I don't think it's very safe to assume he would've taken care of the ball against Jax. 2. EJ played us out of that game, then played us back into it - which, sadly, is just who he is. Cassel is capable of that first part, but not the second part. I'll take the guy who is sometimes terrible and sometimes good over the guy who is sometimes terrible and sometimes just slightly below average. 3. Anyone bemoaning this trade has not been watching the Cowboys since then. It's no coincidence that the Buffalo News writers shut up about Cassel real quick. If he'd done anything worthwhile at all, Gleason and Carucci would be writing "Cassel>>>>>>>>>>>>>EJ" articles every week.

He's fine. A good player, but nothing special. Not particularly big or fast, an okay but not great athlete for the position, hands are fine, and allegedly he's a good route runner. (I can't pretend to know anywhere near enough about route running to evaluate anyone on that front.) Good blocker in the run game, which is nice to have, but not typically how WRs make their money. Also a bit of a hothead, which I'm not a big fan of. I think you could do a lot better as a #2 WR, but you could also do worse, and he's competent enough for a starter who's not one of the focal points of the offense.. Unless he's willing to sign dirt cheap (which would surprise me), I'd be fine with letting him walk after next year. But I wouldn't want the Bills to do anything stupid like cut or bench him.

Seriously. I didn't think he was hurt, and didn't see any reports of him signing elsewhere. I liked him a lot and am kind of surprised he hasn't been signed back yet.

Very sorry to hear that! Best wishes for a full recovery!

Bingo. I have no idea what Tyler Dunne or several of the posters were seeing on that play, but the throw was fine. Back to Sammy, at this point, I think he's injury-prone until he proves otherwise. All offseason, we heard that he played hurt all last season, and that now that his ribs were healed, he'd be way better. This year, he's missed 2 games (about to be 3) and gotten hurt in 2 more. So he's had 2 healthy games and 4 (going on 5) injured games. Not a great ratio. And FWIW, he missed basically the whole preseason due to injury, and missed time in training camp while recovering from offseason surgery. I'll believe in the legend of Sammy once I see it. In the meantime, we can all take solace in those training camp Vines of Sammy schooling 6th-string DBs during drills.

Yeah, as far as some quick googling told me, as of yesterday Davis wasn't on any active roster or practice squad. Very surprising to me.

Handoff to McCoy (left) for 3 yards. Total Bills first downs: 15.

1.) I've always liked Joe Webb, although that playoff game where he utterly bleeped the bed knocked him down quite a bit in my eyes. I was definitely one of the guys who wanted to take a chance on him. Low cost, high upside - kind of like Tyrod! 2.) Regarding EJ... PTR sums it up well. I've been trying to be hopeful about EJ since he was drafted, and that was a LOT tougher job last preseason than this one. He looked really bad. This year, he looked really good, with only a couple of bad plays. I'm not promising he'd still look that good in the regular season (obviously his numbers would be worse no matter what), but I think it's a real sign that he's gotten significantly better since last year. And that's good! It also stands to reason that if he's gotten better since last year, he might keep getting better this year, and maybe that improvement will be faster with playing time. If Tyrod wasn't around, I would definitely be pulling for EJ to start over Cassel. Cassel is already at his ceiling, and that ceiling isn't very high. Tyrod & EJ are both well below their ceilings, and both ceilings are much higher than Cassel's. Will either one ever get there? I don't know, but I'm glad we're at least rolling with a guy who *could* wind up a top 10 QB.

Agree to disagree on how good Wood looked. Didn't look bad to me, but I didn't see anything special. And "nothing special" RBs are a dime a dozen. I'm much less concerned about developing a possible 3rd-string RB for next year than I am about developing either a backup for this year or a potential starter or 2nd stringer down the road. RB is a very heavy injury-risk position, and maybe they want to build in a lot of rest days for the 4 coming off injuries, so I guess I get it. But I'd still rather see Andre Davis, who really impressed me in the preseason, get that spot. I don't expect Harvin to be around next year, Hogan will be an RFA, and Goodwin is far from a sure thing at this point.

True, but a team is going to prioritize its own rookie draft picks over UDFAs like 99% of the time. See Dez Lewis getting a practice squad spot over Andre Davis, for example. But given the lack of pass-rush and D-line depth, I'm surprised it was Reed who was let go, rather than Noel or Cierre Wood. Especially Wood, come to think of it. We already have 4 halfbacks on the active roster - why do we need another for the practice squad?

I could be wrong and/or out of date, but my understanding is that incentives are either classified as likely or unlikely to be achieved. "Likely" incentives count toward the cap right away, and if they're not hit, you get a cap credit the following year. "Unlikely" incentives don't count unless they're hit, and come off the following year's cap when they do, so they can't immediately put you over. If I recall correctly, there have been a few instances in the past where the NFL gave a team some pushback because the team was trying to classify incentives as unlikely that really weren't. I would assume that if it's close to 50/50, the incentive is supposed to be classified as likely.

Not voting because I disagree with the logic, but I'd prefer the Steelers to lose tonight because I think that makes a Bills win next week a little more likely. I usually don't care much about what non-Bills teams do, because for all the discussion about playoff/tiebreaker scenarios, the futility streak has mostly come down to not having a good enough record. If we go 10-6 and miss out due to tiebreakers, I can live with that.

Too bad for Reed. I thought he looked good in the preseason.

I think it depends on how Tyrod actually looks. EJ was certainly not good last season, but really wasn't as bad as the revisionist history says. I wasn't in favor of pulling him that soon, but I did see the argument, especially factoring in EJ's terrible 2014 preseason and Orton's hot start once taking over. Taylor (and Manuel!) had a good to great preseason, so that buys him some time in and of itself. If he comes out and is absolutely abysmal in the first 2-3 games - like a joke of a QB or something - then all bets are off in terms of benching. I don't see that happening. If Tyrod plays like 2014 EJ (not good overall, but with some ups and downs), then I'd be inclined to give him a decent while before making a move. One thing I'd like to see in that scenario is a trend of improvement as the season goes on. With Tyrod's lack of experience and lack of practice time with the backs & receivers, he *should* get better the more he plays. (Ditto EJ.) That was one of the things that bothered me about Orton last year - he got worse as the year went on. Shouldn't a guy who missed all of camp improve as he gets used to the offensive scheme and receivers?

Nope.

I would think that if 2 preseason games got cut, there wouldn't be any impact to the length of training camp. So you'd space the games out more instead of having 1 per week. My take is that you'd basically get rid of preseason weeks 2 & 4 and keep the HOF game and weeks 1 & 3.

I'm surprised they haven't added O'Leary to the practice squad. Has he cleared waivers yet?

Click on the link in the OP, broham. Depth chart has changed.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000517670/Cassel-scrambles-up-the-middle

Also a great beer!

But he's not listed as a starter currently on the official depth chart the OP linked to. Yes, but the comparison was to 2013 - 2 years ago.

Yeah, but the best case scenario is that Taylor plays almost as well in the regular season as he did in the preseason. That *would* give us a solid, consistent QB.

Maybe I'm just blinded by science homerism, but I see the ceiling as something like 14-2 in a miracle season, and more like 12-4 in a realistic best-case scenario. Dick Jauron's Bears went 13-3 one year, thanks largely to luck. This Bills team is better than that team IMO. And it's very feasible that Tyrod (or even EJ if Tyrod gets hurt or falters) provides better QB play than the Bears' QBs (mostly Jim Miller) did: 59.7%, 3,072 yds, 20 TDs, 16 INTs, 5.8 Y/A, 5.2 adjusted Y/A. (To be honest, I thought those numbers would be way better before I looked them up just now. 5.8 yards per attempt is terrible.) But, to be fair, probably any NFL team could go 13-3 with a historically lucky season. What about a more realistic best-case prediction, where the Bills are only medium lucky - i.e., no losses due to bad calls, no or few major injuries, etc.? I still say we could hit 12-4. That relies on Taylor stepping up and being at least league average, maybe a notch better. We can debate all day how likely that is, but in my mind, there's at least a realistic chance of it. There's also a realistic scenario where he falls flat on his face, or gets hurt then EJ falls flat on his face, so the 6-10 seems about right as the floor. I think that would also take some injuries on the defensive side, but that's not very far-fetched. Well, getting to play against backups in Week 17 counts as lucky... we were really 8-7 with a bye last year.

If he isn't ready to go, then cutting Jackson looks real bad.

Doesn't mean I'm happy about it, but I don't think it was a move to save face. I think the FO ultimately went with a younger & cheaper player in Brown over Fred. OR it's possible that neither Brown nor Fred makes the team, and they decided to release Fred first out of respect for him - i.e., he has a better chance of catching on elsewhere now vs. in the last cuts.