Cash

Thanks! I'll just add that 286 total yards is pathetic.

I picked Inability to convert 3rd downs and Penalties, and I'm writing in for Inability to stop the run as my #3. Shane Vereen is the only RB in the league with a 100-yard performance, and he didn't even start. Apparently Marrone made an excuse in the postgame press conference that we "held" the Patriots to 4.5 yards a carry, as though that's something to be proud of. Not quite as bad as Pos saying "we imposed our will" after giving up 300 yards on the ground (to the Jets, I think?), but still not what I want to hear. Honest question: do you think the offense would have converted additional 3rd downs by playing slow? Because I don't. The problem, to me, was just bad offense, not fast offense. I did vote for 3rd-down conversions up top, but in fairness, a lot of those were 3rd and long after 2 terrible plays. That's not so much "Inability to convert 3rd downs" as it is "Bad offense". Now, if slowing things down would have improved the offense, then I'm all for it, but I don't buy it at face value that huddling up will gain us extra yards.

Not a lot of throws to WRs in generally, and only 1 specifically directed towards Graham. What happened to him tearing it up in camp? I want to be encouraged by the positives from Week 1, but it really looked like the same old Bills to me, just at a faster pace. Lots of 3-and-outs. Lots of checkdowns. The rare deep shots were down the sideline and either underthrown or out of bounds. Very few intermediate throws. Just enough of a glimpse of what it *could* look like (2nd half opening drive) to keep us hopeful, but most of the time, it's drive-killing penalties or general ineptitude. Both backs are good players, but the run game wasn't very effective, particularly on 3rd down. No sacks allowed, but only 150 yards through the air. And to cap it all off, a disturbingly predictable heartbreaking loss. I'm sick of moral victories. I'm sick of teams that would be good "if they can just put it all together". I'm not writing this team off after 1 game, but I'm not very encouraged.

I can flip that around and say that a depleted/young receiving corps probably won't be able to get open if you drop 7-8 guys into coverage, but the hot read is always open against a blitz. Brady usually destroys blitzes. Then again, if our front 4 can't beat their o-line, he'll have all day to throw, and someone will get open eventually. In other words, it is hard to successfully defend against a good QB. But Pettine (under Ryan) has done it before; let's hope he can do it again.

Which ones?

Excellent news! Love it!

I love it!

Bummer, always liked him. Although I liked him a lot more as a FB/H-Back hybrid than as a WR/TE the way Marrone's staff has seen him. Edited to add that the Bills' roster exemption for Byrd expires at 4pm today, so they had to drop someone. Will be interesting to see if they make any other cuts today, or just save them all for tomorrow.

He was picked up -- by the Cowboys, if I remember correctly. But a couple of days after signing, he announced his retirement.

No, that's a ridiculous standard. You might as well say "shouldn't the best WR in the league be able to fly?" People who are the best at anything are usually the best because of a combination of natural ability, work ethic, and tons and tons of practice. You don't get to just say "he should be fine without practice because he thinks he's really good." He *is* really good, but even really good players need to actually learn the scheme they're playing and practice it in order to play at a high level.

He's been healthy. I've definitely seen him on the field in the second halves of preseason games 1-2 (didn't see any of #3, thankfully), and I've heard his name in a preseason report or two. Nothing super impressive, but he's been getting consistent 3rd team reps. When the news came out that he'd been switched to WR, I was sure he was a goner, and didn't feel much better when I found out the switch to TE was his idea, not the coaches, but you never know. We know Marrone likes speed, and Dickerson has it, and any coach likes a guy with versatility. I think ultimately he's pretty similar to Gragg, and Gragg is Marrone's guy, so Dickerson probably gets cut. I'm pulling for him, though, if only because he's a sick FB in Madden. (It takes a season or two of upping his stats before he can block worth a damn, but his speed makes it well worth it. He can take checkdowns 15-20 yards routinely.) I don't know the answer for sure, but my very strong guess would be yes, it is guaranteed. Full IR guarantees the salary unless an injury settlement is reached. Being on the opening day roster guarantees the salary for a vested veteran like Kolb. It would be pretty surprising if IR-return is a loophole that avoids guaranteeing the salary. Since they plan to keep Gilmore on the active roster, I think it's a guarantee that they keep at least 10 DBs to start the year. I can't remember the Bills ever keeping 8 healthy DBs to start the year. I think 11 is more likely than 10, honestly. I predict Robey makes the team, probably over Heath. I'm less confident after he screwed up that punt last week, but he's mostly looked good in preseason, supposedly was great in training camp, and looked (before last week) like a legit punt returner who doesn't also double as a full-time player the way McLovin and Woods do. Wow, didn't realize that. Although with our new D, I guess Mario, Hughes, Jamie Blatnick, and Kourtnei Brown are sorta considered linebackers. But whatever you call them, I think we're looking at 6 kept at the DE/DT/NT positions, 6 kept at "true" LB positions, and probably 3 of the above 4 at the "Jack" LB/DE/pass rusher spot.

The OP uses a fact about the Pats' poor DB drafting to suggest that their FO is not as great as it's cracked up to be. The response to that was along the lines of, "they win all the time, so yeah, their FO is really good." The rebuttal went something like, "they only win because they have Tom Brady, not because of their FO." One poster (the one I was replying to) went so far as to say "They would be nothing w/o [brady]". I pointed out that they went 11-5 without Brady in 2008 after going 16-0 with him the year before, so one would think he's worth about 5 wins a year. The last 3 years they've gone 12-4, 13-3, and 14-2. Those are good records. Obviously Brady is their best player and plays the most important position, so he's the biggest factor in those records. But I don't see where anyone can say they'd stink without him. Be average? Sure. But if they started investing 1st-round picks into QBs instead of future-bust DBs, they'd probably find someone at least good enough to take the rest of the team to the playoffs. Honestly, the only thing the OP's stat shows is that the Pats are bad at identifying and/or developing DB talent in the draft. And they've been bad at that pretty consistently -- I think the current regime inherited Lawyer Milloy, Ty Law, et al, and supplemented them with free agent pickups like O-T-I-S Smith. Rodney Harrison was either a trade or FA. Aqib Talib was a trade. McCourty seems to be a good S, but was drafted to play CB. (Hi, Aaron Williams!) Dennard and Asante Samuel are the only 2 Belichick-era DB draftees that come to mind as being successes. On the other hand, they've shown to be consistently strong at identifying/developing talent in the defensive front 7 and on the offensive line. They've had mixed results at TE & RB, and have been pretty bad with WRs in the draft. And obviously they haven't needed much in the way of QB, but based on the limited data (Kevin O'Connor, Cassell, Hoyer, maybe Mallett), they don't seem to be world-beaters in that area. (Thankfully!)

No Rob Johnson on the worst Bills ever list. Egregious oversight. I almost registered for a Kinja account just to complain about it.

Nice post! I think there'll be 3 RBs for sure, and the 4th spot will come down to Summers or Dickerson. Dickerson is a better athlete, offers more versatility to play H-Back, TE, WR in a pinch, FB in a pinch. Summers only has one role -- true blocking/ST FB, but he's probably better at that role than Dickerson is at anything. Agreed. I'm surprised Antoine Caldwell never got a shot at this job -- he has more starting experience than Legursky, and on a much better O-line. As for Legursky, initial reports were that he signed a 4-year deal, which had my head spinning, but spotrachas him at 1-year, $900k, which is very cuttable. I'd be surprised but not shocked if he gets cut. Another option for Kolb could be IR designated to return, since Marrone has said that Kolb intends to continue his career. Doubt it, but we haven't heard definitively that he's out for the year, so thought I'd throw it out there. As for the other guys, I think the coaches will definitely want a veteran with the team, which probably means Leinart gets the spot over Thad. Hope not, though. I don't think he's the kind of veteran influence the team needs. EJ: "How do I tell if this LB faking a blitz, then dropping back to take away the quick slant?" Leinart: "Let me give you some advice, EJ. Don't ever make a girl go down on you in a hot tub. She has to come up for air like every 30 seconds, and it just winds up being frustrating. And if you sit up on the edge so she can breath, you get chilly. Just bang her instead. Does that answer your question?" The early cut of Rogers simplifies this a lot, since most people expected him to make the team on potential no matter what. Kaufmann hasn't played any special teams, so I think he's PS at best. I'd be surprised to see Smith cut now that he's re-done his contract -- he's a "team player" veteran influence and good special teamer, even on coverage units. The only way I could see us keeping 5 WRs is if Dickerson is kept as a 4th TE. I have to think our base offense will be K-gun style 3WR 1TE 1RB, and most teams with a 3WR base keep 6. I think both of these guys are safe -- can't keep less than 3 TEs unless you want to commit to spread formations at the goal line. Dowtin is Pettine's boy from NYC, and every time he's been mentioned by Marrone or Whaley, it's been in a positive context. I think he's safe. I haven't watched much of the preseason this year, but I really can't recall seeing Scott at all. Also don't remember hearing much about him (positive or negative) in practice reports. Weird. I think Butler is our starting LCB for at least 4 weeks. I think whoever gets cut will be a tough call, but not in a good way. Compounding things is that all of these guys have been hurt and missed time. Pretty rare to cut a 5th-round pick as a rookie, and someone else is likely to claim him on waivers. See Tank Carder last year. I think we keep 5 safeties, with the rationale that they play special teams, and both Williamses can play CB in a pinch. I wouldn't be shocked if Searcy winds up a surprise cut.

Wow, nice breakdown. Certainly a candidate for worst series in sports.

Doesn't 2008 prove that Brady was worth 5 wins to the Patriots? 16-0 in 2007, 11-5 without him in 2008. And Matt Cassell sucks and always has. Brady is very good, and I hate the Patriots very much, but I would hardly say the Patriots would be nothing without him.

Standpoint.

Yeah, now. But they lasted all of 2012 on NFL rosters.

Past Maddens have often had a coaching slider to dial up or down the aggressiveness of the defense. If that still exists, you may want to try sticking with the default playbook and just upping the aggressiveness to 70-80%.

We actually had a few of our cuts picked up last year -- Mark Asper, Tank Carder immediately come to mind, but I think there were 1-2 more as well... We've heard this spiel about "it'll finally be tough to make cuts" before, in fact we heard it last year. I'll buy it when the team starts winning.

I like it! Over/Under C.J. Spiller- 1500 yards rushing UNDER E.J. Manuel- 20 touchdown passes OVER Robert Woods- 60 receptions UNDER (but close) KIko Alonso- 110 tackles OVER Mario Williams- 11 sacks OVER Leodis McKelvin- 20 plays where he looks in position on a play and then the pass is still completed haha, UNDER Stevie Johnson- 2 fines for inappropriate touchdown celebrations UNDER Dustin Hopkins- 3 kickoffs out of bounds UNDER Matt Leinart- dresses for 3 games Unfortunately, this will be way OVER Wins- 7 Even more unfortunately, this will be UNDER.

What's the default D (and O) for us?

NoSaint, thank you for fighting the good fight in this thread. There are some spectacular leaps of illogic floating around with regards to Fitz's dead money. (And I would also add in Mark Anderson's dead money.) My only hope is that there's some cap rule I've never heard of where teams can absorb next year's dead money into this year's cap at the end of the year or something like that.

Agreed. The dropoff from McKelvin to whatever chump we roll out there if he gets hurt is, in my opinion, much smaller than the dropoff from McKelvin to Woods or Nickell Robey. To my knowledge, Goodwin hasn't been used as a PR at all in preseason or even in practice, so I don't think he's a realistic option.

Thanks for providing that! It's literally the first "report" I've seen suggesting that. So maybe there is something to it. But I have to wonder who/how accurate his source is. Most of the stuff I've read, whether local or national, whether early in the process or very recently, has made it very clear that the author has no insight as to the particulars of the negotiations. Whoever Benigni's source is doesn't seem to have talked to anyone else. Or has talked to other reporters, but they chose not to use the info because either they didn't find the source credible enough or couldn't verify with a second source. I haven't made any guesses about Byrd's demands during this process, because I can't claim to know. It's very plausible to me that he would want to be the highest-paid safety (or maybe just FS) in the NFL, and that the Bills wouldn't meet that demand. It's also very plausible to me that he'd be willing to accept a hair under what Dashon Goldson just got, but the Bills wouldn't meet that demand because they feel like the franchise tag gives them enough leverage. It's been a while since the Bills re-signed/extended one of their own players to a top-market contract. (They've re-signed/extended a lot of players recently, but I don't believe any of them were top 5 contracts for their position, and I wouldn't be surprised if none were top 10. Stevie was probably the closest.) Now, it's fair to point out that the Bills haven't exactly had a ton of top-value players to re-sign in the first place, but that doesn't tell us much. If Stevie had demanded top-five WR money instead of mid-tier WR money, would he still be a Bill? I dunno. What I do know is that I'm concerned about what I've heard from the Bills since Byrd signed. On one hand, you have the Bills trying (and failing) to get a roster exemption for the first 2 weeks of the regular season and Whaley talking about how great extra roster spots are. On the other hand, you have Marrone talking about how little time it'll take Byrd to get up to speed and how he can't wait to get him in the lineup. Why the disconnect? These roster exemptions are typically for 2 weeks, so why did the Bills request a 4 week exemption? I hope this isn't the case, but it really does strike me as a putative attempt to cost Byrd a couple of game checks. If that's the case, it would have had to have come from up high -- above Marrone and probably above Whaley as well. Candidates would be Brandon, Ralph, and (if the rumors are to be believed) Littman/Overdorf. I'm reminded somewhat of Angelo Crowell being placed on injured reserve right before the 2008 season, with the alleged reason being that the Bills needed a roster spot for week 1. (Note that Crowell's recovery from surgery did wind up being longer/more serious than first believed, but at no point during the initial round of explanations did the Bills suggest that Crowell would be out more than a couple weeks. I'm convinced that Crowell was placed on injured reserve to "stick it" to him for the timing of his surgery.)