Cash

Hogan. Arguably Henderson. Arguably Dixon. Arguably Woods, but I would emphatically reject that argument. Woods has been nothing special considering 1.) He was drafted pretty high in a deep WR draft, and 2.) He was extensively billed as the most "polished", NFL-ready WR in his draft class. Not saying he sucks, just that he hasn't come close to outperforming expectations.

Yeah, the extra digit helps give it that "wow" factor. Could a strong final game increase his odds of making the Pro Bowl? I know most of the fan voting is over, but I don't think the players/coaches vote till after the season. I could see a big final (even if meaningless) game against Brady giving him the extra push/recency bias to get him in the game, or at least make him an alternate.

"Take the path of least resistance" is the typical translation of one of Zen philosophy's tenets. A good example IMO would be: When faced with 5 huge D-linemen stacked up in the middle of the line, don't run up the gut. Either run to the outside or pass right over those large gentlemens' heads.

I voted for Dareus and Hughes only. Short version of my rationale: I'd rather split that third salary slot among a few guys. Long version below. Spikes and Spiller are both part-time players who can be useful in specific roles. Spiller is better overall, but might be easier to replace - no one seems to want run-stuffing LBs that can't cover. I'd be fine bringing either back, especially Spiller, but I have a feeling that the money they'd want wouldn't be worth their production. Again, especially Spiller on the last one. I can't imagine he'd want to take a pay cut, and he frankly hasn't performed to the level of his rookie contract. A veteran QB sounds nice, but since this is a FA thread, I didn't consider possible trade targets. I think that makes anyone with any potential promise (Cutler, Eli, RG3, etc.) off-limits. I'd just as soon draft a guy in the 2nd or 3rd and have him battle it out with EJ & Orton next year. Not very promising, but I think I'd take it over signing Matt Moore. (And I LIKE Matt Moore.) A premier OL also sounds nice, but I don't think that's good team-building, for a few reasons. First, you have limited salary cap resources, and to get a premier FA to sign in Buffalo (or anywhere, really), you have to commit a lot of those resources to his position. An O-line is only as strong as its weakest link, and we're not 1 player away from having a great line. Second, despite his struggles this year, I like Glenn a lot, and I'd like to keep him around. But whether he stays or goes, the starting LT is going to want to be the highest-paid member of the line if he's any good, and if he isn't any good, then we're in trouble. Signing a big-money OG serves to increase the price tag for Glenn or whomever our LT is, or make him disgruntled. And third, the bigger the resources, the bigger the risk: if Iupati (or whoever) flops, we've just broken a basket with a lot of eggs in it. I actually think the Bills had it partially right when they signed Chris Williams this offseason - a guy signed to low-tier starter money can be a very good signing. Unfortunately, they picked a guy who stinks but happened to be drafted in the first round, and they were totally wrong about their ability to coach him up. (Whereas the Derrick Dockery & Langston Walker signings were doomed from the start, even if those players hadn't busted.) I'd like to see several signings at low-end starter money, and hopefully hit on all of them, which is unlikely. Maybe 2 on the O-line, 1 TE, and 1 LB (possibly Spikes if the price is right).

I agree with all of the above. I think we can all agree that neither the talent level on offense nor the offensive coaching is where we'd like it to be. I don't get how some posters seem very confident in their assessment of how much blame lies on one side or the other, or how easy/hard it is to find a better OC. (It seems like a lot of you have extensive rolodexes of NFL and NCAA offensive assistants, and know that most of them are nothing special?) The best argument I've heard for "keep the coaching staff, try to upgrade talent" is Maddog's that Hackett's offense is really Marrone's offense, and to change the offensive coaching, you need to fire the head coach. Marrone/the team has shown enough positives at this point that I don't want to have to start over with a new staff. Two-thirds of the team are really good, and one third is terrible. But firing Marrone could easily lead to another Gregggggggg situation, where he dismantled our elite defense because "fat guys" didn't fit his dumb scheme that mostly relies on luck to be good. Having said all that, I could see Hackett replaced this offseason, but I agree with Maddog that if Hackett is replaced, he'll be replaced by another lackey whose job it is to install/coach Marrone's offense. I'd be very surprised if Hackett was replaced by an offensive equivalent to Schwartz.

I agree that it wasn't a guaranteed TD - no way to know if Williams would've gotten there in time, or made the stop. (Would've been a diving tackle at a fast-moving elusive WR in the open field... not exactly a guarantee.) I feel like Nelson had already slowed down by the time the camera pans over to him, and it still looks like he's moving at least as fast as Williams, who is probably already at top speed. I'd give it something like 60-70% chance at a TD if he catches it.

I'm not as sure as you guys that Williams would've caught him. Could've, maybe. But Williams isn't particularly fast for a DB, and Nelson is a burner. Turning back, looking for the ball, and catching it (2 out of 3 ain't bad) slows you down, but if Nelson had brought the ball in, he would've been able to accelerate afterwards. Once he gets to top speed, Williams can't catch him. Williams was about a yard downfield of Nelson at the time of the drop, and looked to be taking a good angle, so maybe Williams could've gotten to him in time, but I'm not sure. Luckily we didn't have to find out. Agreed. Orton is bad, but even great QBs have bad plays and bad games.

1.) Obvious fix is to keep the cameras mostly focused on the field, and the players who are actually playing at the time. I'm really sick of seeing the constant QB reaction shot all the time. Every time Peyton Manning throws a TD, they cut to his reaction before we can even tell who caught the ball. "But the fans only care about the stars!" Well, I'm a fan, and I care about the actual game, not the BS celebrified human interest angle. 2.) At the very least, Brady should be placed on the Commissioner's Exempt list while this is all sorted out. Once it's settled, probably sometime during the playoffs, then he can start to be punished for this transgression.

The only problem with that hope is that Norv kept getting offered (and taking) HC jobs - meaning Schwartz would be on his way out again. (Bonus smart-ass comment: His win % is 36%, not .36%. He would have to lose over 8,000 straight games to get down to .36%. That's a VERY patient owner!) I think it's about 50/50 whether Schwartz stays or goes. He might feel like he's got so much talent on this D that they'll stay good enough to keep him in the HC conversation next year, so maybe he's more likely to turn down an unappealing job. But if an appealing HC job is offered, he'd be crazy not to take it. The idea of the lowly Bills losing DCs to head coaching jobs in 2 straight years is pretty crazy to me, but it really does seem possible. If it does happen, I have no idea whether they'd again look outside for another experienced DC, or stick with "continuity" and promote Donnie Henderson (I presume). I know Pepper Johnson is a popular name in this thread and others, but part of the reason he came here and switched to coaching D-line was to get more experience, since he'd only been a linebackers coach. I don't really think this 1 year of coaching D-line has gotten him the experience he needs to suddenly handle a whole defense. We all saw what happened with Raheem Morris, when a promising young position coach was given too much responsibility too soon.

IMO Rex has done way too much as a head coach to go back down to being a coordinator. Plus, if no one wants to hire him as a head coach this offseason, he can always do TV for a year or two.

Not sure exactly where the disconnect is, but the link you posted pretty much confirms exactly what Kirby and NoSaint are saying. Brees is going nowhere, but the Saints *are* likely to draft a QB in the 2nd or 3rd round, a la Garoppolo, Osweiler, Mallett, Todd Collins, etc. My personal "inside source" (i.e., a Saints fan) would be pretty alarmed/disgusted by the thought of the Saints trading Brees this offseason.

Good point, but to me there's really 2 questions, assuming CJ is able to play this week or next. First, whose roster spot does he take? I agree with the prevailing thought that Gragg or Wynn or someone is IR'd to make that roster spot. Second, if CJ can actually suit up, whose spot on the 46-man gameday active roster does he take? Based on early-season decisions, you'd think it would be Bryce Brown, but I wonder if Brown has shown enough to change that (doubtful) or if Marrone won't feel he can count on Spiller (more likely) and will choose to have 4 RBs active.

I'll go on record and say that if we lose this Sunday AND Orton has a bad game, EJ starts the last 2 games.

Yeah, I loved him in preseason. Had one game in particular where he perfectly timed the snap count like 3 plays in a row, which really caught my eye. I kind of expected him to make the team over Manny Lawson.

Yeah, I really think it's only contract value. Frankly I hope we don't get any comp picks this year, because I'd rather we keep our guys. But if we do lose Hughes, it might be worth trying to limit FA signings to ineligible players (i.e., they got cut rather than contract expired) and get a 3rd or 4th rounder.

What a bizarre response. Why would my feelings be hurt? Do you think I'm Jim Haslett?

I like that analogy! I'd have rather gone for the KO and risked getting knocked out, but some people seem to think that losing a decision is better than losing by KO. I respectfully disagree.

I agree. I was having basically this same conversation with some non-Bills fans during the game yesterday. My prediction was that Whaley/Marrone are retained, Hackett maybe gets fired (50/50 he's retained), and the QB competition in 2015 is between Orton (who picks up his player option), EJ, and a mid-round draft pick. Of course, a lot depends on how the team actually finishes. If we lose out and finish 7-9, I think Marrone is likely gone, especially if the team seems to have quit on him. If we pull off an upset and finish 9-7, then I think it's most likely that everyone comes back, and we get a bunch of positive spin about how the team is headed in the right direction, it's our first winning season since 2004, the young guys need to develop, we caught some bad breaks, etc. (In the unlikely/miraculous scenario that we finish 10-6, everyone is definitely brought back with lots of back-patting, whether we make the playoffs or not.) The most likely scenario seems to be 8-8, and that's an interesting spot. Sadly, that would be the best record we've had since 2004, and a 2 game improvement over last year, so there is at least some reason for optimism there. I tend to think that the Pegulas won't rock the boat just for the sake of rocking the boat, and that if they're going to clean house (i.e., replace Brandon and/or Whaley), it won't be until after the 2015 season. I won't be shocked if I'm wrong, but I think 8-8 leads to the scenario I predicted above. If the team doesn't improve in 2015, then Marrone is gone, Whaley/Brandon probably stick around, and we probably draft a QB high.

Not much. He looked pretty bad this year before getting hurt. If they're willing to part with him, it probably means they don't think he's the answer.

You stay classy, London. Granted, he's probably right, but that's still a pretty harsh way to go about saying it.

I still agree with Marrone and the 4th down bot on the 4th and 6 call in the first quarter, but I think punting is a lot more defensible there, and won't argue this one. In fact, fivethirtyeight recently put forth some evidence that punting to Peyton Manning can be a good idea: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/skeptical-football-sizing-up-the-inevitable-patriotspackers-super-bowl/ (Scroll to "How to beat Peyton Manning", although the charts might not make sense unless you read the first section as well.) I think you meant this one? http://nyt4thdownbot.com/play.html?gameid=12072014_BUF@DEN&playid=20141207007542

And I see where you're coming from, but to me, knowing this offense, I didn't see any way we could score twice in 4 minutes or so. Not that I thought it was very likely in 6 minutes or so, but the TD drive we eventually mounted was about the fastest I think this offense can actually manage. So I'm not looking at it in a vacuum at all. Put another way: I have no problem trusting the D to try to get a 3 and out, but I really feel like it was irrelevant. Knowing our offense, we didn't have time to score 2 TDs, even if the D got the quick 3 and out. And that's exactly how it played out. And that's my problem with the decision -- it went about as well as anyone could reasonably hope, and still resulted in us needing to recover an onsides kick with under a minute to go, then need to drive about 55 yards in about 50 seconds with no time outs. And that's after the 3 and out AND a 3.5 minute TD drive that included a 4th and 16 conversion. I don't think our offense can really do any better than that. I think we probably would've lost either way, but IMO, the better chance would've been to go for it the first time. Worst case, the game is over, which is what ultimately happened anyway. Best case, you execute that same 3.5 minute TD drive, score just before the 2 minute warning, then have the option of trying for the onsides or kicking deep. If you kick deep and get a 3 and out, you get the ball back at roughly your own 30 yard line with something like 1:45 to go and no time outs. That would still be a tall order for our offense, but a lot more manageable than what actually happened. (Which, again, was the best case scenario, not the most likely scenario.)

The 4th down bot didn't kill Marrone for that one, but mostly because our chances of winning were very low either way: http://nyt4thdownbot.com/play.html?gameid=12072014_BUF@DEN&playid=201412070073504 Personally, I think it was an indefensible move. The reasonable best-case scenario* is a quick 3-and-out followed by a punt, and that happened. Result: we got the ball back right where we started, but with about 2 minutes fewer on the clock. And guess what? We still needed to convert a 4th and 16 to advance the ball the next time! If we can pick up a 4th and 16, why can't we pick up a 4th and 2 from about the same spot? *Obviously a muffed punt recovered by the Bills, or roughing the kicker penalty, or CJ Anderson fumble would've been better scenarios, but those are very unlikely and not something a coach can really plan on.

Articles/opinions like these come up every few years. I find that they're mostly begging the question, i.e., assuming what they're trying to prove. "Running quarterbacks can't succeed" because they only define "running quarterbacks" as QBs who can't throw. Steve Young? Not a runner apparently. Neither was Elway, Tarkenton, Rich Gannon, Jeff Garcia, etc. Look at Aaron Rodgers' or Andrew Luck's running stats sometime, but neither one ever gets counted as a "running quarterback". Race seems to be a factor as well, but I think it's mostly just begging the question. Russell Wilson doesn't count anymore, because he "learned to play in the pocket". Nope, he plays the same style now that he did last year, and the same style the year before as a rookie. It's pretty much the same style as Ben Roethlisberger, except with read option runs added into the mix. There's also somewhat of a moving target in terms of what counts as success. Someone up above pulled out the old chestnut of "Elway only won once he stayed in the pocket", which is ridiculous. He went to 3 Super Bowls as a young scrambler type! That counts for nothing all of a sudden? Those Denver teams around him were garbage! Early-stage super-athlete Elway was awesome, and late-stage pocket-passer Elway was still really good. Similar to Randall Cunningham, who tore the NFL apart with his athleticism early, and tore it apart as a pocket passer late. What's my point? It bothers me when people beg the question. If your criterion for "running quarterback" includes an inability to pass from the pocket, what's the point? Bad passers don't succeed in the NFL? Wow, big revelation! Who are these straw men arguing that we need a great athlete QB who can't throw? I don't see anyone cutting Tom Brady to pick up Dennis Dixon. Those aren't typically the choices a team has. It's more like Jordan Palmer vs. Dennis Dixon. In that case, I'll take the guy who can at least do some damage with his legs, since neither one can do much damage with his arm. (As for my ideal QB? One who can kill you from the pocket, who also has escapability AND the ability to burn you with his legs when things break down. I.e., Aaron Rodgers.)

I think that actually is our offense. We run 4 verticals about 10 times a game, and most of the other plays I see broken down on all-22 have at least two fly patterns in them. I personally think it's a contributing factor to our red zone struggles - our whole offense is based on sending WRs deep to stretch the field vertically, and that can't be done in the red zone.