Cash

Wow, very surprising. Makes me think we won't get Evans. But we shall see.

Pretty cool, but boxGATE? Really? And boxLIFE? Come on guys, you can do better than that.

Welcome! It's really nice to get a visit from a fan who DOESN'T consider the Bills depressing! I mostly agree with what Bandit27 said above, but would add/clarify that last year, we didn't actually blitz much, if you define blitz as sending >4 rushers. Doug Marrone even recently talked about this when asked about the changeover to Jim Schwartz, and basically said something along the lines of, "we wound up not blitzing nearly as much as we expected to, because our front 4 was so good." What Pettine did a ton of was classic zone blitz -- he'd rush 4, but it would be 3 d-linemen and the slot corner, or 2 d-linemen and 2 linebackers, or whatever. Very creative play design, and frequently confused the heck out the offense. I remember seeing a review this offseason of some of our better plays from last year, and it included a play where we rushed 2 guys and dropped 9 into coverage, but still got the sack because one of the 2 rushers was unblocked. That's serious confusion right there. If you guys really don't have much pass-rush ability on the front line, you might see more true blitzes than we did last year, because Pettine might need to bring 5-6 guys to get the kind of pressure he could with 3-4 in Buffalo. But I seem to recall that your D was already really good last year under Ray Horton, especially against the run? Will be interesting to see how your run D holds up. Ours was garbage last year, but that actually represented a pretty significant improvement from the previous 2 years, when our run D was historically bad. Some of Pettine's Jets teams struggled against the run as well. I do tend to think that his style of D lends itself to big/costly mistakes in the run game, because if one guy screws up, the runner basically has to be caught from behind. But we shall see. In any case, I think he's a really good defensive mind and coordinator, and I think you guys will field a very strong D next year. Best of luck, except against us!

Interesting. While that's not exactly shutting him down, it's definitely a cut or two below Evans' season averages. I continue to think/hope the Bills are targeting Evans. It would definitely be a cool post-draft story if they drafted both Evans and Cockrell.

Pass-rushers won't surprise Cordy Glenn, but his season blindsided Doug Marrone Pretty good piece. I would greatly appreciate it if some of you guys could maybe ignore the author for 10 minutes, and just focus on the content? Would be awesome, thanks. And regarding that content, I don't think there's many of us here who still have any doubt about Glenn as a LT, but I have seen a few posts here or there, and there's still plenty in the national media who don't pay close enough attention to realize that Glenn has been really good at LT. But these quotes from Marrone should really seal the deal, in my opinion. There's no way the coach would be this effusive about his LT, and then move that guy to a less-important position in the offseason. Obviously if Glenn's play falls off for whatever reason, then a position switch would be in play, but that would have to happen in actual games. Unless that happens, he's our starting LT as long as he's under contract. I don't think, however, that this closes the door on the Bills drafting an OT high, possibly even at #9. I don't think it's their preferred option, but if Watkins & Evans are both off the board, and someone like Mathews is, then I wouldn't be surprised if they took a guy who could upgrade the starting RT position immediately, while also serving as the backup LT in case Glenn gets hurt, and (down the road) serving as LT insurance in case they can't sign Glenn to an extension. But to me, there's zero chance that an OT drafted at #9 gets installed at LT with Glenn moving over to RT.

Agreed. Evans is the guy I want, and probably the only realistic prospect at #9 out of: 1. Clowney 2. Mack 3. Robinson 4. Watkins 5. Evans 6. Mathews I'd be quite happy with any of those at #9. I could live with Lewan or Ebron, but I'd rather trade down than take either.

It might surprise you to learn that Niklas almost doubled ASJ's yards per catch: http://www.rotoworld.com/articles/cfb/46280/349/out-of-the-box He's definitely an athletic tier below the top guys (Ebron, Amaro, etc.), but I fell like his blocking would make him a real asset. Probably more of a Heath Miller than a Jason Witten, but IMO definitely worth it in the 2nd.

Awesome. Can't believe I missed that or forgot about it since. That game enraged me for years.

Agreed, all this "look at me" stuff is offensive when I turn on my TV to look at these guys. It's almost like they think 70,000 people paid a bunch of money to come watch them play? I don't think a hair rule goes nearly far enough, though. For starters, we need to stop encouraging showboating and individuality by putting player's NAMES right on their jerseys. Get rid of those right now, and hopefully we can get rid of the numbers eventually. Even without a name on his jersey, everyone would still know #18 on the Broncos was Peyton Manning -- kind of defeats the purpose, you know? Once we get rid of the names, we can start in on all this listen to me jawing the players do on the field. I'd like to see a 20-yard penalty added for talking on the field of play. I'm sick of having to listen to these thugs yelling through my screen every 5 seconds. "Omaha! Omaha!" "43 is the MIKE!!" What kind of message does that send to the kids?

I think it's very smart to trade up 8 spots to #1 overall for a RT.

To answer your first question, "to save money." The Bills have a history of not paying starter salaries to backups, and cutting former starters after they're beaten out in camp or during the season. I agree with everything you said in your last paragraph.

Interesting if true. Most likely scenario is that it doesn't happen, and quite possibly this is just a fake leak from the Texans to drum up more interest from teams in the top 8. But it's fun to speculate, so let's pretend it's real. There's a lot of speculation that the Bills like Evans a lot, and given Marrone's very uncertain comments about Hairston, I have to think they're interested in the tackles as well*. But I don't think you move up to #1 to draft Evans or one of the tackles, especially if you're planning on playing the OT at RT for at least 2 years. So who would they move up for? QB is out. The OTs are out. Watkins is a possibility, but all the way to #1 for him? I dunno. That leaves Clowney and Mack, either of which would make sense. The only thing about Mack, though, is that he's probably a run-package OLB (nickel DE) in a 4-3, and Whaley sure sounded gung-ho on Keith Rivers being a full-time starter. You don't trade up to #1 to draft a part-time player. So I think it's really Clowney or bust in this scenario. *Here's my logic: Pears had a down year last year AND is in the last year of his deal. Whaley said "the plan" is for Pears to continue starting this year, but didn't sound super confident in Pears. I feel like if the Bills can upgrade the RT spot, they'll probably cut Pears in training camp, but if they can't upgrade that spot, they're willing to roll him back as the starter next year and find a replacement next offseason. As for that upgrade, FA has been picked clean, so that's out. If Hairston was already medically cleared, then it would make sense that he'd be looked at as a possible upgrade, but according to Marrone, that hasn't happened yet, so they can't possibly be counting on him at this stage. That leaves Thomas Welch as the only other tackle on the roster, which is very light for this time of year. All of their young/cheap/developmental/deep backup linemen are interior guys except for Welch. So I can definitely see them being interested in one of the top tackles, because he could probably start at RT right away, serve as the backup LT if Glenn gets hurt, and (from Whaley's perspective) provide insurance against Glenn leaving in 2 years.

You know there's no way we'll get a comp pick for Byrd, right? If we'd let Byrd walk but signed someone like Louis Delmas or Ryan Clark or whoever for half the money, I think you'd see more fans and writers praising the Bills for shrewd management. It's the combo of letting him walk and seemingly planning to replace him with a mid round rookie who barely played last year that's the problem. (Or replacing Aaron Williams, for those fans who insist that Williams is Byrd's replacement. Point is, there's an open starter at S, and the Bills are publicly saying that Duke Williams or Meeks will fill that role. That doesn't inspire confidence.)

Seems kind of nit-picky to me. What if the new owner pulled an Irsay or a Modell and just up and left? Erie County could sue the Bills for breach of contract, and would win, and would presumably get the $400 million liquid damages specified in the lease. Kryk's supposition (or more accurately, his source's supposition) seems to be that a new owner "can't" leave without first getting prior permission, but people break contracts all the time without first getting prior permission.

Sad to see Mr. Wilson go. RIP.

Knowing how Winslow II's career shook out, would you take him at #9 in this draft? I definitely would not. And Lande is trying to pump up Ebron by saying he's not as good as Winslow II. Not saying anything about Ebron, just don't think Lande is very persuasive.

Money quote: "He is the best tight-end prospect I have evaluated since Kellen Winslow Jr.," Lande said. "...he is a rare talent who could be better than Jimmy Graham." Someone should tell Lande that if you're trying to pump up a prospect, you should compare him to someone who panned out. Or does Lande think that Winslow II was better than Jimmy Graham?

Wow, good deal for the Bills. Very surprised he wound up getting less than his last deal. Definitely like this re-signing!

I'm against taking Lewan at #9, but I'd be okay with either of the top 2 OTs. Not in love with it -- would definitely prefer Evans or Watkins. I'd be okay with Ebron as well, but he doesn't really wow me.

Strongly agree, although I'd be against Tue/Wed games. The main revenue driver for the NFL is the national TV deal, which has been skyrocketing and presumably will continue to do so, since live sports are one of the few TV programs that are DVR-proof. A 16-game, 18-week regular season doesn't give you any added ticket/parking/concessions revenue, but it does give CBS/FOX/NBC/ESPN another week of games to broadcast, and doesn't dilute the quality of those broadcasts very much. On top of that, you don't have to pay the players any more in this scenario*, as opposed to increasing every player contract by 15% or whatever. *Okay, technically you would have to pay the players more, because the salary cap is defined as a percentage of revenue, and a bigger TV contract would result in a higher salary cap and salary floor. But there wouldn't be any change to existing contracts, which is something that would have to happen to increase the # of games in a season.

Agreed. The cynic in me thinks that he's very likely to be a training camp cut this summer.

I know no one's asking me, but I'll take a stab anyway. I don't like a straight linear ranking, though -- how big a difference is there between the 16th and 17th best guy? So I'll go more tier-based: Tier 1 Jimmy Graham Gronkowski (significantly lower, but only due to health concerns) Tier 2 Witten Vernon Davis Julius Thomas Jordan Cameron Tier 3 Gates Olsen Jordan Reed If He Stays Healthy Charles Clay Heath Miller (only b/c he's a very good blocker. As a pure receiver, he'd be a tier or two lower.) Tier 4 Martellus Bennett (borderline Tier 3) Dennis Pitta (borderline Tier 3 if healthy) Ladarius Green (I think he'll be Tier 3 or 2 if anything happens to Gates) Brent Celek Pettigrew Delanie Walker Chandler Fleener Ertz Kyle Rudolph Jared Cook Garrett Graham Gresham Tier 5 Zach Miller Brandon Myers Owen Daniels Ed Dickson Jermichael Finley (always been overrated, and now has major medical concerns) Tony Gonzalez (dude, Gonzo retired. You can't count retired players. That bumps Chandler up to 23rd in your ranks.) So I'd put 11 TEs clearly ahead of Chandler, to the point where they'd be very significant upgrades. I'd probably rather have some of the Tier 4 guys than Chandler, but at what cost? We haven't seen the details of Chandler's new contract yet, but the old one was for peanuts. I definitely think Pitta or Bennett would be an upgrade over Chandler, but either one (esp. Pitta) might be making double what Chandler is making. I don't think either one is $2-3 million/year better than Chandler. Pettigrew is fairly close, but based on blocking alone, he might be an upgrade over Chandler even though he's a Robert Royal-esque receiver. I'd definitely rather have Chandler at (guessing here) 2 years, $6mil than Pettigrew at 4 years, $16mil. Pettigrew is not so much better than Chandler that he's worth 50% more per year. Now, if we're paying Chandler something like 2 years, $10+ million, I will absolutely change my tune. For now, I'll assume he's making significantly less. If the money was equal amongst all Tier 4 guys, I'd probably put Chandler something like 18th overall, but again, without much difference between #14 and #24.

Yeah it does, actually. That's kinda how it works. Did I just get trolled?

Overall, I'm mildly happy about this signing, assuming the $$ was comparable to his last deal. I get Kirby's point about upgrading the position and all that, but 1.) I'm not as low on Chandler as he is, and 2.) I firmly believe that you upgrade positions by keeping your decent+ players and adding to them, not by changing names at the top and leaving the garbage below untouched. In other words, to get better at TE, we should be looking to get rid of Lee Smith and/or Chris Gragg, not Scott Chandler. Now, having listened to Doug Whaley's interview on WGR, here's my very subjective take: First off, when they asked if he was set with TEs currently on the roster, he did technically say 'no', but immediately spun that into the 2 classic clichés of "we're always looking to upgrade at every position" and "it creates competition". Later in the interview, he spoke lovingly of all 4 TEs currently on the roster, saying they have different strengths: Smith - Blocking (Toad) Gragg - Speed (Princess) Chandler - Size (Luigi) Moeaki - Combo of all. (Mario) Q: "Are you planning on [Moeaki] being a *big* factor on this team?" Whaley: "That's the plan." (Then went right into more cliché about competition.) So my (again, highly subjective) takeaway from all this is that there's zero chance they sign another FA TE, and Ebron at #9 is very unlikely. Wouldn't 100% rule out Ebron, especially in a trade down, but given that Ebron is a pass-catcher with questions about his blocking, he doesn't seem like a great fit next to Chandler. I think Plan A is Chandler & Moeaki compete for the starting job, and the loser probably still plays in 2-TE sets, with Moeaki being more of the blocking TE in those sets whether he starts or not. I think Plan B is Moeaki flames out, and we run back the TEs we had last year. I think the Bills will be open to drafting a TE in round 2 or later, but would only do it if they really do value a guy above where they're drafting. I want Troy Niklas, but I have difficulty thinking they'd take him in round 2 over whatever of WR/OT they didn't take at #9. (FWIW, Whaley did mention how deep the OT class was, for those of you who want or expect the Bills to pass on OT at #9.) If Niklas or AS-J was there in the 3rd, I think the Bills might pull the trigger.

Yeah, and once they're in cap hell, they might spend a few seasons going 6-10 or worse. If they were smart, they'd be going 6-10 with cap room to spare, like we are.