Cash

Link works for me. Good piece! I've never been a huge Woods fan, but this did a good job of showcasing his skills.

What you do in the bathroom is your own business, buddy.

Running the ball 70+% of the time on first down is insane, unless maybe you have a historically great running game. (Like maybe Dallas last year?) I noticed this just watching the games - it was incredibly frustrating to see us run the ball seemingly every first down. Obviously it wasn't literally every first down, but it seemed like it. Those first-down runs were generally unsuccessful, but we just kept on calling them over and over. I'm pleasantly surprised to see that, even during the run-dominated quagmire, Manuel's first-down passing was pretty good. His passing overall wasn't up to par, but maybe he can get up to average/passable just with improved playcalling. I.e., still be the wildly inconsistent guy we've seen through 15 games, but have more success just from being put in better positions. Of course, the big caveat is sample size - when you only pass 30% of the time on 1st down, there's not a lot of 1st down passes to draw a conclusion from. Still, better good results in a small sample than bad results in a small sample.

I voted small fine, but was sorely tempted by the nothing option. Definitely blowhard Goodell will declare that he had a meeting and that everything is fine now. Honestly, this level of cheating isn't nearly as concerning as the illegal taping or (unconfirmed) accusations of helmet radio cheating. So I haven't gotten too worked up about it. But it would be great if Goodell's ridiculous "I have to send a message via a ludicrously over-harsh punishment" mentality showed up for this. I don't expect it, because 1.) Goodell is essentially Kraft's henchman, and 2.) Brady is an overcelebrated white face of the league. Nearly all of Goodell's hammer moves serve to strengthen the league's reputation with the fox news set. This doesn't fit the bill.

Nothing is a violation if you put your mind to it! If we can draft Johnny Football after his freshman year, we should be able to figure out a way to draft Collins in the 7th round but pay him 1st round money. Here's an idea: since we didn't have a 1st-round pick on Day 1, maybe we could've used a 1st-round pick on Day 3. I.e., when we get up to announce pick #234, announce that Collins is the 33rd pick of the 1st round. Then the rookie pool gets adjusted accordingly and we're good to go. Too bad Whaley didn't have any imagination; I think this really could've been a winner.

Well, I didn't name names, because I think Woods might be more likely to get squeezed out than Harvin, but yeah, that's my concern. Not saying it'll definitely happen, but it wouldn't surprise me if we ran more 2+ TE sets than 3+ WR sets this year, or it was at least close. I think I remember reading about the 49ers still being one of, if not the, top teams in 1-WR sets last year, even though the strength of their offense should've been the 3-WR set with Boldin, Crabtree, and Stevie. Actually, I think I'm overstating things here. Let me walk it back a bit. I think most of the time in non-short-yardage situations, the Bills will have 2 WRs, 1 TE, 1 RB, and another skill position. I think, based on pure talent, the extra skill player should be a WR the vast majority of the time. (I thought that last year, too.) But I also think it's pretty likely that Felton and the #2 TE, will combine to play a lot more than the #3 WR. "The #2 TE" won't necessarily be one person, and same goes for "the #3 WR" - injuries, guys winning/losing jobs midseason, etc. I apologize if I'm coming across as all doom & gloom, because that's not my intent. I'm more just apprehensive. I can definitely see a realistic scenario where we're legitimately good this year, but I can also see a (to me) realistic scenario where everything blows up in our faces. We shall see.

Welcome back, Alex! Glad to have him back in the fold; always liked him as a player. Nice depth signing.

One of the things I like to look at with draft picks is, "if he's good, who does he replace?" And when I say replace, I mean something along the lines of replace in terms of playing time. With Darby as an example: if he wins a starting CB job, he won't be replacing Ron Brooks or Ross Cockrell, he'll be replacing McKelvin, with Brooks and Cockrell staying at the bottom of the depth chart. Is that an upgrade? Probably not this year, but probably yes in 2016 and beyond. I didn't particularly like that pick, but (if he's good), I get it. CB is always somewhat of a need, and most rookie CBs struggle, so you're looking at him as a starter in 2016. He's part insurance against Gilmore not re-signing, but mostly an attempt to maintain McKelvin's production for a few more years at a much cheaper price. Not sure where Graham fits in, but not too worried about it. For Miller, it looks pretty good, because he was picked at a real position of need. If he's awesome, he replaces one of our mediocre starters. If he's just good, he replaces Cyril Richardson or whoever the last OG on the roster would otherwise be. If Miller develops, he could be a starter in 2016 or 2017. I like this pick! With Karlos, it's fairly murky. A lot depends on how many backs they keep. There's a strong argument for 4 even without considering Karlos. If he makes the team outright, a case could be made for any of the 3 non-Shady backs being cut instead. Boobie is probably the guy who is closest to Karlos in terms of size, running style, and special teams play, but I'm with most others as thinking Brown is probably the likeliest cut. We shall see, but regardless, if Karlos makes the team, a pretty good player gets cut. I don't like that, because there's still some pretty bad players on the team at the back end of the roster. Steward has basically no chance to start or play a significant role on defense without injuries coming in to play. And we don't have a lot of backup LBs on the offseason roster, and the ones we do are similar pedigree-wise to Steward: 7th round picks and (veteran) UDFAs. Add another guy to the mix, and hope for the best. Good pick. O'Leary has a great chance to unseat Gray or Gragg as the #2 or #3 TE, and could be in line for a lot of playing time accordingly. A definite need pick, and if it pans out, he'll be upgrading one of the weakest "guys who actually play a lot" on our team. Love it. Our 7th-rounder has basically no chance to make the team, but there's really no such thing as a bad 7th-round pick, and he could be a good practice squad addition. Presuming Harvin is gone next year, there could be a spot on the active roster for him.

So it sounds like you think McKelvin will be cut and/or Graham will be moved to safety? Both of those are definitely in play, whether Darby wins the starting job or not. I can't see McKelvin making the team as a backup without taking a huge pay cut. Overall, I'm pretty unenthused by this draft, but I don't really watch college football, so I won't kill the Bills unless/until the guys they draft turn out to stink. (These days, I do all my "scouting" after the draft, so I don't waste my time on anyone the Bills don't pick.) But I am somewhat concerned about the design/building of the team, particularly on offense. This is more of a feeling than a prediction, but I worry that, similar to last year, we're going to have a disconnect between the talent on the roster and the talent on the field. To address Kelly's question up top, I actually think Maxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Williams would've played a lot if we'd drafted him in the 2nd. (I'm glad we didn't, because I think he'll be a bust.) In fact, I kind of think that our #2 TE will play more this year than our #3 WR. I base that on 1.) Everything I've seen breaking down SF's offense under Roman says that they played the most FBs & TEs and the least WRs in the league, and 2.) Whaley has made a few comments about how much Roman likes TEs - most recently, "we have a tight end-centric offense" in one of the draft press conferences (presumably the overall recap, because Monos was the one who directly followed the O'Leary pick). If I'm right, I'm worried, because TE is one of the weakest positions on the roster. Clay is pretty good, and definitely seems to be a fit for what the Bills want, but after that we have a 6th-round rookie, a 7th-rounder from a few years back who's done nothing, and a mid-season signing who caught 2 wide-open passes and turned them into great gains. I'm not a huge fan of either Woods or Harvin, but either of them is WAY ahead of our backup TEs in terms of NFL talent. I'd say both Hogan and Goodwin are still quite a bit ahead of our backup TEs. If we wind up with Gray & Gragg & O'Leary playing more than those WRs, then that's 2 straight coaching staffs (staves?) that had a disconnect with the front office. There's not much point in amassing this super-talented roster if we're just going to keep playing crappy TEs all the time.

1. Jameis Winston - Tampa Bay Buccaneers 2. Marcus Mariota - Tennessee Titans 3. Amari Cooper - Oakland Raiders 4. Todd Gurley - Arizona Cardinals 5. Brett Hundley - New York Jets $10 Bonus - Who the Bills pick. - Laken Tomlinson

Is Sammy ever gonna get/stay healthy?

Interesting, but one thing to keep in mind that despite what the author says, a correlation of 0.29 is far from "strong" - it's really weak. Strong enough that it probably does represent a real effect, but barely. 0.4 is also pretty weak. My point is basically that a good, but small, WR is still a better bet than a James Hardy type.

Yeah, Rochester typically gets screwed on this stuff. Blacked out whenever possible, but considered a "secondary" market. Meaning games on cable aren't simulcast on local TV, so Rochester folks couldn't watch NFL Network games while Time Warner was feuding with the NFL. I suspect it'll be a similar situation here - even though Carucci referred to "WNY/J'ville" as the local TV markets, my guess will be that only the "primary market" will be allowed to broadcast on local TV - meaning only Buffalo and Jacksonville proper.

It was that low, until his contract expired. It will be higher going forward. And they'd probably have to significantly beat the Bills' (or similarly QB-poor team) offer, because a young player like Taylor typically wants a chance to play, and potentially earn huge money. He won't get that in Baltimore without a serious injury to Flacco. The NFL actually got rid of the reserve clause some time ago, and have this thing where you have to negotiate a new contract from time to time in order to keep a player. And weirdly, the new contract is the one that counts against the salary cap, not the old one. And sometimes the new one is a lot higher than the old one, maybe too high for you to afford, especially when you have massive amounts of money committed to your starting QB. Bizarre, I know, but all true.

Very much hope we don't sign Harvin, and even bringing him in for a visit is puzzling to me. With the big money (for a FB) signing of Felton, plus Roman's history in SF, it seemed like we were going to be using a FB at least 50% of the time, meaning 2 (or 1) WRs on the field at least 50% of the time. I don't see how that fits with signing a slot WR type like Harvin. It would be nice to have *some* size at the WR position, especially now that Chandler's been cut. Even if we get Clay, he's on the small side for a TE, and not the best red zone threat. Watkins allegedly plays bigger than his size (I haven't seen a ton of that yet, but I didn't watch him in college), but his actual size is still pretty much average for an NFL WR. Woods is on the small side, and so is Harvin. Hogan is about average. Goodwin is tiny and would presumably be cut in camp if we sign Harvin. That practice squad guy we signed to a futures contract is big, but does anyone think he'll actually play in the red zone? I've never been all that impressed with Harvin in any case. His highlight reels are awesome, and I think that's caused a lot of people (including NFL decision-makers) to overrate him. I'm sick of hearing about how certain guys are "a threat to score on any play". As though if we collect enough of them, one of them will score on every play! How about we address the line a little bit, instead of signing more skill position players who will play <50% of the snaps?

I like this signing! And I realize it'll probably amount to nothing. But there's a chance that Taylor is decent or better, and that chance is worth taking.

Don't forget about practice. Chris Kluwe (former Vikings punter) says that with 1 guy doing all the kicking/punting, the practice workload would wear out his leg during the season.

Good catch, thanks. We traded FOR T-Jax, then cut him a year later, and Seattle picked him back up. Great deal for Seattle.

Negatives: 1.) Cassel is not good. In fact, he is bad. We've all seen him play enough to know this. 2.) It does kind of suck to give up draft assets (even bad ones) for a bad player, especially when there are similarly bad players available in FA. 3.) Seriously guys, it's Matt Cassel. Positives: 1.) As Dean explained pretty well a couple posts up, Cassel is probably the best of the bad QB options for the Bills. Plus, even though he's bad, he's not abysmal, and hasn't shown any signs of becoming abysmal. Just bad. Bad is okay - you can still win games with bad. You can't win games with abysmal. Most of the FA QBs (including McCown) have shown flashes of abysmal. 2.) Cassel only has 1 year left on his contract. The main reason I didn't want the Bills to sign McCown (besides the fact that he's not good) was that with the Browns in play, the "winner" would have to give him multiple years and a decent $$ guarantee. Count me out. 3.) He's a veteran. I continue to think the Bills made a huge mistake in 2013 when they first traded T-Jax, then failed to sign another veteran once Kolb got hurt. You can't have only rookie QBs on the roster; that's stupid. The main reason I've been against the talk of signing Jake Locker (besides the fact that he's terrible and will never be good) is that he's only been in the league 4 years and made only 23 starts. He's basically Manuel with a 2 year head start. If Manuel hasn't significantly improved in 2 more years of part-time starting, he'll be Jake Locker. Pass. At least Cassel has been in the league 10 years. I think Manuel (or any young/inexperienced QB) needs that kind of veteran presence around. Doesn't mean Manuel will turn it around, but helps his odds a little bit. Overall, I think it's about the best-ish the Bills could've done. I give it a solid meh.

The Bills continue to think the solution to all their problems is to invest heavily in the RB position. I had thought that that was a "Ralph Wilson" thing, but it turns out it's really a "Buffalo Bills" thing. Not enthused by this at all.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. My hopes for EJ are pretty low at this point, but not zero. I'm willing to suffer through a terrible season with EJ proving conclusively that he's a bust in order to take the (10%?) chance that he'll actually turn into a really good QB. Because in terms of FA options, that chance is 0%, and for rookies in this year's draft, it's probably something like 5%. Focus this offseason on building the line and getting a TE, plus re-signing our own guys where we can. If Manuel turns it around, awesome! If not, we part ways and probably have a high pick to draft another QB with.

Good call. Per Adam Schefter, he's also going to be a hot commodity next year, which should be factored in as well. I think maybe a 2nd this year and a 2nd in 2016 would be fair. I know the comp picks usually don't start till the 3rd round, but I think an exception is warranted in this case.

A lot of "if you don't like it, go get another job" sentiment in this thread. I.e., if someone has it pretty good, they're not allowed to complain about the negative aspects of their job or life. I don't agree with that sentiment, but I get where it's coming from. I just wish that the people who feel that way would apply those same standards to the owners, especially the ones who inherited their money. I'm really sick of common people leaping to billionaire owners' defense when those owners start a lockout to get more money (or a longer season, or more drug testing, or whatever). The owners, on the whole, have a MUUUUUUUUCH better deal than the players. And yet they're the ones who keep asking for more money - sometimes from the players, and sometimes from the public in the form of taxpayer-funded stadiums. Anyway, I thought this was a very nice article by Darnell Dockett, and the thing I like best about it is him calling out the media. Most sportswriters are very professionally lazy - a lot of these guys just keep writing the same "I don't like Player X because he doesn't play ball with the media" story over and over. Lynch happens to be the current target, but it's irrelevant. It's boring and pointless. I don't need every sports columnist to be conducting hard-hitting investigative journalism, but there are interesting topics to write about out there, if they're just willing to try something new.

Wow, great piece - thanks for posting! My answers to your questions: 1.) Yes, although I wouldn't be surprised if he's downplaying his drinking - "social drinker would be an exaggeration", etc. But I believe 100% of what he says about smoking pot (which is fully backed up by his testing history), and I believe his general point that he's not an alcoholic. 2.) It's extremely well-written, and I have to assume he had a ghost writer - which is fine. I'm way over the "OMG ghost writer HE'S A PHONY!" mentality I had when I was younger. Gordon had something interesting to say, but expecting a 23-year-old pro athlete who grew up poor to also be a talented writer is asking too much. Politicians use ghost writers for their books all the time, and not only are they older and better educated than Gordon, their jobs actually involve convincing people of things with their words. So my answer is, "No, but I don't care." I'd rather read a well-written piece that effectively conveys the "author's" ideas than a ghost writer-free piece that obscures all the interesting ideas with clunky writing. 3.) Absolutely yes, but I don't think we'll have a chance.

Definitely Ballghazi, which cracks me up every time I hear it, read it, or say it. It's time to stop the nonsensical -gate suffix.