Cash

Cam Thomas is on the Steelers, isn't he?

I totally support the Bills' QB, but I don't believe in pledges. They usually don't work out anyway.

Boooooooo!

Not really any new info in here if you read the articles following his departure. This reporter even says as much. ("What was reported"). Best quote of the article IMO: "Marrone may not be missed or liked in Buffalo,..." Yeah, pretty much.

Easley has looked good at WR pretty much every preseason. Hasn't yet translated into anything in his very limited regular season action at WR. But maybe it will someday.

ABC. I voted for TT. My first choice personally would be EJ, but I think TT has probably been a little better overall. I just like EJ I guess. Will be very happy with either one starting.

I only want Cassel around so that there's a real vet on the roster - something that was sorely lacking in 2013. My hope is that he never gets into a game. I'm one of the last few EJ holdouts, but I think Taylor is definitely ahead of him right now. I'm cautiously optimistic about the prospects of Taylor as our starter.

Agreed. He leads Palmer there, Palmer's liable to get killed by the S coming over. Pass hit the hands.

EJ finally allowed to throw on first down - and both the first two go for firsts! To be fair, the throw on the screen was not good. But the third throw was!

MDFan is correct - if Taylor plays 50% of the snaps this year or next, the last year is voided. Realistically, if Taylor starts the whole year this year, he'll be given a new contract. Having him under contract for 2016 would give the team some leverage in negotiations at that point, though. The other way the 2017 year can void, according to Spotrac, is if Taylor is "on active roster 5 days after 2016 [super Bowl]". Anyone know for sure what that means? I.e., does that mean it only voids if we've made the Super Bowl, or (more likely IMO) does it mean that if he's still on the team at that point, 2017 voids? In the latter case, Taylor's deal is 100% a 2-year deal, because the only way to keep the 2017 year from voiding is to terminate the contract before then. This isn't unheard of; I remember Nate Clements' famous "8 year, $80 million" contract was really a 7 year, $64 million contract, with the 8th year guaranteed to void no matter what happened.

Would, has, and will continue to do so for at least a few more years.

I hope Doug Marrone was sitting down before he saw that headline.

Ah, that makes more sense. Yeah, I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Good stuff. Thanks for posting! I continue to think that non-Clay TEs will wind up playing more than either Harvin or Woods, and I'm not very psyched about that. But I'm otherwise tentatively optimistic about Roman as OC. Not much to add on the the defensive side, because 1.) we're loaded with talent, 2.) Ryan/Thurman have a long history of success, and 3.) most of our talented personnel played really well in a similar D in 2013. So not a lot to concern oneself with until the season starts.

I tend to agree somewhat with this logic. Points are a little more luck-dependent than yards (particularly yards per play rather than yards per game), and also (I think) more dependent on offense and special teams. The obvious cases are a pick 6 or special teams TD, both of which count against the D but aren't the D's fault. But in general, I would think that an offense that turns the ball over more would lead to more points scored against. With an elite D, maybe it's mostly field goals, but it's still extra points being put up. I also think that an offense with more 3 and outs would lead to more points given up as well, although that's not as clear-cut. My takeaway is that if you look at points allowed, you're sort of begging the question - the top 3 defenses in points allowed are almost guaranteed to have had "safe" QB play, if not "good" QB play. And I think the much more interesting question is: Can you make the playoffs with a great D and a not-good QB, even if that QB isn't taking care of the ball and playing the "game manager" role? From what OP posted, it looks like the answer is yes. At this point in preseason, we are in no way guaranteed "safe" QB play in 2015. I think a lot of posters would gladly take a guarantee of safe QB play even if it also guaranteed no chance of good QB play.

Great analysis - thanks! I certainly am not alone in being bummed that we appear 3(!) times on the list already, and could be headed for a fourth. But it's good to know that at least there is a realistic chance, even with all our QBs being what they are, that we could make the playoffs.

Didn't realize his ADP was as low as 17. That's actually about right, I think. I wouldn't touch him in the first round if I could help it, but mid/late second? Well worth it.

There's currently only 4 OTs on the camp roster, and one of them is a rookie UDFA, so it would be very shocking if Henderson was cut.

It used to be insanely low. Now it's just low: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/12/josh-gordon-will-be-suspended-10-games-under-new-drug-policy/ Note that in the study linked above, there were multiple positives at 20 ng/mL and one positive at 50 ng/mL. "However, positive tests are likely to be rare, limited to the hours immediately post-exposure, and occur only under environmental circumstances where exposure is obvious."

Moderately surprising, but not shocking. Good for Hunter knowing when to hang it up. The Bills almost have to sign another OT for camp. I wonder if it'll be more of the "cheap veteran" or UDFA type?

I thought about them, but I don't feel like they've existed long enough to be that high up the rankings. Plus, they had a couple decent runs of success, first with Brunell, then with Leftwich/Garrard. Besides, don't you have to have fans to be in the pain rankings? Seriously though, I could see them lower on the list, but with only #2 up for grabs, I'd be surprised. We shall see.

Watching the highlight video, it's even more galling that Marrone insisted that Henderson graded out as our best lineman last year. I'm glad to be rid of Marrone.

Painful to read. Obviously Cleveland is #1 at this point. But who's #2? I think cases could be made for the Jets, Eagles, Cardinals, or Buccaneers. I wouldn't rank any of them ahead of us, though. Eagles have generally been pretty good, even if they don't have any titles to show for it, and haven't had a ton of truly heart-breaking losses. No one cares about the Cardinals enough to feel pain when they lose. Similar for the Bucs, plus they won a Super Bowl in the last 20 years, so most of their fans got to enjoy that at least. The Jets are probably #2 based on their market/following, and they probably belong on the list, but at least they won a Super Bowl. One of the most famous ones, too. Granted, not many of their fans were around to see it.

I'm in Boston, and dealing with Tommy from Quinzee is the worst. I probably wouldn't hate the Pats nearly as much if I didn't live in this area.

Well, that would be cherry picking, if that's what the author was saying, but it wasn't. You seem like a pretty reasonable guy, so I'm guessing you either misread the article, or stopped reading after the intro, and (wrongly) assumed that the author was basing everything off the first 2 games of 2013. He actually bases it off a lot of things, but one of the most significant is that Manuel has consistently been good on first down, even when only allowed to throw 30% of the time. 2013: 2014: I've watched the same EJ Manuel as you have the last 2 years. He's shaky and inconsistent, but even though he hasn't been very good overall, he has been pretty good on first down. If he'd had competent playcalling the last 2 years, he could've still been the same shaky guy, still miss open receivers too often, but nevertheless moved the ball much more effectively. Or maybe not. 74 passes is not a very large sample size. But it's all we have so far, and at least the early returns on first-down passing are good. And frankly, it syncs up with the eye test as well - for me, anyway. Just going from impressions I've gotten while watching the games, Manuel's seemed to be most effective when the D has to respect the threat of the run, and even better on play action. When the D knows he has to pass (like on third and long), he's usually been pretty bad.