Cash

Right. I don't want to incentivize DBs to tackle WRs on bombs. When you have those jump ball deep passes that AJ Green specializes in, why wouldn't you just tackle him and take the 15 yards? Particularly if it's a late game situation and time is running out for the offense. Along with the other suggestion to make all holding a 5-yard spot foul, I kind of like this. I don't like the refs having to make a subjective call about the play's intent (what about holding on a toss sweep? that can easily get blown up for a 7-8 yard loss), and the NFL hates subjective judgments by officials too. But 5 yards from the spot of the foul kind of solves the OP's problem in an objective way. Currently, holding is a spot foul if it occurs beyond the line of scrimmage, but 10 yards from the line of scrimmage otherwise. If we make it 5 yard from the spot, it'll wind up pretty close to 10 yards from the LOS for most pass plays, and about 5 yards back for most runs. I support this. Easily solution: don't commit holding. If you don't have the automatic 1st down, then you highly encourage teams to hold on 3rd or 4th and longs. Be super-physical with the WRs, hope the refs consider it incidental or don't notice it, but even if you get nailed, they still have to deal with a 3rd and 20.

The only thing I like about the superconference movement is the idea that they'll soon form their own basketball tournament, which will rival/replace the NCAA tournament. The NCAA's revenue pretty much all comes from the TV rights to that tournament (which is most of the TV money for college basketball -- this is why schools only care about football), and they'd be hard-pressed to find an alternate revenue stream.

But a victory for Hart means that EA can't buy the "rights" to player images from the NCAA. The Ed O'Bannon lawsuit is a little more on the nose and likely to be wider in scope, but this one is interesting as well. Kill the NCAA and you kill most of the problems in college sports.

In Troup's defense, he didn't say anything along the lines of "I'm healthy" last year. In fact, he sounded really concerned about his back and regretful for having had the spinal fusion procedure. His comments were along the lines of "I'm trying to work through this and get healthy" I think. I still expect nothing out of him, but this isn't a Shawne Merriman situation, where every year we got to hear him say that he was finally healthy and in the best shape of his life. (Sorry to single out Shawne, because a lot of heavily-injured guys who hang on for a few years pull the same move, but I can't think of any others off the top of my head.) Right. Anything from Troup is an absolute bonus.

The thing is, I was never impressed by Troup even before he got hurt. Granted, he was a rookie, and rookie NTs don't always make much of an impact, but I didn't see anything on the field that made me think he was a guy with serious potential. I'm no scout, but I'm firmly putting Troup in the longshot/miracle category. I expect nothing, and if he produces something, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Not quite. I want Leodis to be both a CB and a PR. He is an absolute elite PR and a potential game-changer, and it's not worth taking a potential game-changing PR off the field to preserve his skills as a (hopefully) solid CB. Our next-best PR (Goodwin?) will probably be pretty good, but there's a big difference to me between good and elite. I don't see him as a good enough CB to justify that drop-off at PR. Besides, the risks of punt returning have historically been pretty low. Like I said originally, if Deion Sanders, Rod Woodson, & Tim Brown could return punts basically their whole careers, I think Leodis can as well. Another (minor) point I'd like to make is that unless McKelvin's CB play takes a major leap, it doesn't justify his contract. His CB play (at least last year) combined with his return ability does justify his contract.

2 problems with having him return kicks as well as punts. First is fatigue. It's tough enough to be a full-time CB (and even the nickel corner is essentially a full-time player these days), chasing around WRs on every play. Adding punts is arguably too much as it is. (I argue no, but it's a fair point.) Kicks on top of that is really pushing it. I'm hard-pressed to think of a full-time player who did all 3 and held up very long. Second issue is injuries. Kickoff returns are some of the most injury-prone plays in the game. And it's rare that the returner gets a chance to run out of bounds. Granted, this is less of an issue now that touchbacks are so much more common, but still an issue. The other factor that's specific to Leodis is that he's a good, maybe great KR, but an elite PR. Last year, he put up his 2nd-best KR average at 28.3 yards/KR (0 TDs), which is quite good. But Brad Smith put up 27.6 yards/KR (1 TD). The leader was Percy Harvin with 35.9 yards/KR (1 TD), followed by Jacoby Jones with 30.7 yards/KR (2 TDs). On the other hand, Leodis led the NFL in yards/PR with 18.7 (next best: 16.1) and tied for the league lead with 2 TDs. Plus Leodis was a better PR than KR in college.

If an O-lineman wins OROY, I'll eat my beard.

In Choice's defense, he may be slow, but he makes up for that by having no moves and no experience at returning kicks. I would like to see McLovin remain as the punt returner, but not be on the kickoff return team. I don't think he's good enough to justify his price tag as only a corner. Plus, he's not just a good KR/PR, he's a difference maker. I'm willing to live with the added fatigue/injury risk in order to get the benefit of his punt returning. With the ability to fair catch, the risk is minimized somewhat, whereas KO returners basically have to take a monster hit every time. If Tim Brown, Rod Woodson, and Deion Sanders could return punts their whole careers, so can Leodis.

If I thought my 2 realistic options were between 1.) getting $6.9 million to play a game, with no guarantee of anything else if I get hurt playing that game, or 2.) getting $9 million to play a game this year, with an additional $9 million guaranteed even if I get hurt playing that game, I wouldn't feel great about #1. Not saying Byrd is right to hold out, or even that he will hold out, but I don't blame him for at least attempting to get Dashon Goldson's contract before signing the franchise tender.

We shouldn't get rid of a perfectly good barrel just because we can't hire a coach. Seriously though, the above is a valid point. From all appearances, the Bills simply couldn't attract a legitimate NFL head coaching candidate, and had to opt for a fired offensive coordinator who'd been unemployed the previous year, but who did have head coaching (and playoff!) experience. However, the flip side of this argument is that part of the reason the big names turned us down is because they wanted more control over personnel decisions. Shanahan essentially hired his GM in Washington -- it was very explicitly reported that hiring Bruce Allen was a condition of Shanahan's. Cowher & Gruden have cushy TV gigs and probably won't come back unless they have total control over football operations AND a QB already in place, or the chance to draft one right away. With Nix already hired as GM, the Bills couldn't offer the kind of control/power that the big names are capable of demanding. Had Nix not been hired (and the GM job been vacant), maybe Shanahan goes to the Bills instead of the Redskins? Overall, the 2010 Bills coaching job was very unappealing, and that's a big reason why we got stuck with Gailey. But doesn't Nix deserve part of the blame for that? For a prospective HC job, the 3 biggest factors have got to be owner, GM, & QB, right? If Buddy (a first-time GM at the age of 70) was an inspiring figure, he might have been able to scrounge up more interest in the job. After all, there's only 32 NFL head coaching jobs -- it's the pinnacle of the profession, and highly sought-after. Good post. As I said a ways upthread, Buddy's legacy can be greatly helped (repaired?) if he nailed this last coaching hire/draft. And really, it all comes down to Manuel. If he becomes a top 5 QB, we're in the playoffs basically every year he's healthy, Marrone has a great W/L record, and Buddy looks good. If Manuel's a total bust, Marrone is probably fired after 2-3 years, and only the craziest of crazies will defend Buddy. If Manuel is good-not-great, Marrone is probably fired after 4-5 years and maybe 1 playoff appearance, and Buddy still looks pretty bad. If the plan was to get back to mediocrity in 4-5 years and become a real contender in 5-7 years, Buddy shouldn't have said "we're not that far away" in his opening presser, or went into his backwoods "show me the baby" bit. So I have to think that Buddy was in over his head his first year or two on the job (understandable, since he'd never been a GM before), and may have also been hamstrung by some factors beyond his control, namely Ralph/Littman/Overdorf. Nonetheless, people have short memories, and if he went out by selecting a winning QB/coach combo, his tenure will mostly be regarded as a success. Except by the people who think Whaley was pulling the strings the last few months.

The Bills are big fans of telling us how they do things differently than everyone else, or disagree with the consensus opinion. The implication is that they're smarter than everyone else. And yet, they keep losing.

So we can safely expect an announcement within 16 days.

SJBF puts it best when he says that just about everything comes down to the HC and QB acquisitions. It's hard for me to demonstrably say the non-QB talent on the team is significantly better or worse than when Buddy was hired as GM. I'd say that the lines are better, even with the loss of Levitre, but the defensive backfield (including LBs) is probably worse, as is the WR corps unless 2 of the rookies break out. Some (not all) of the Nix defenders seem to want to give him credit for Jauron-era additions like Stevie Johnson, or credit their development to Gailey, while simultaneously blaming all of his failures on Gailey. But the bottom line is that Nix is directly responsible for Gailey's record, and it sucks. And Nix inherited a roster with Trent Edwards, Ryan Fitzpatrick, and Brian Brohm as the QBs, and didn't bring in a credible challenger for the job for 3 years. These are monumental failures. I think some of the people defending Nix sound like opposing coaches after a RB kills their team. "Take away those 4 long runs and we held him to 30 yards." Yeah, but unfortunately the 4 long runs still count. Take away Buddy's HC hire, QB acquisitions/lack thereof, and W/L record, and his tenure as GM looks fine. Unfortunately, the things being discounted are by far the most important aspects of a GM's job. Now having said all that, Buddy's tenure will basically be redeemed if Manuel is awesome. It's unfortunate that it took him 3 full years to bring in a QB, but if he got the right one (and the right coach to develop him), the team will be in fine shape going forward. Let's hope so. Go Bills!

The only real surprise is that both Buddy and Russ Brandon went nuts talking about how Buddy was in for the long haul post-draft... if they knew this was coming, why go overboard saying it isn't? And if they didn't know, then what changed?

But then that's pretty unfair to Evans, because rookie (and often 2nd-year) WRs rarely put up good numbers, even if they get tons of playing time. I don't think the lack of PT in years 1-2 was necessarily Stevie's fault -- I don't buy into the argument that Chan made him into what he is -- but it's still a fact that he was on the team but not contributing very much. I think the reason for that was out of his control -- no way Jauron was going to give him PT over Hardy, TO, Roscoe, or the Great Josh Reed -- just like horrendous QB play was out of Evans' control during the Edwards years, or Moulds' control during the RJ years. Anyway, to this date, Lee Evans has definitely contributed more to the Buffalo Bills, but it's really not a fair comparison. Stevie's on pace to pass Evans in a couple years, but who knows how he'll fit into a new offense, with a new QB or two? I did find it worthwhile to break down their numbers like that, though. We all think of Evans as the ultimate burner/deep threat guy, and Stevie as a possession guy, and that is reflected in their numbers somewhat, but it's closer than I expected. Their top 3 years produced almost identical yardage totals, and while it did take Stevie more catches to get there, they're only 2 yards apart in yards/catch. That's a significant difference, but not massive or anything. And for their careers, they're about equally good at getting into the endzone. I'd be interested in comparing their RAC, but those numbers aren't readily available. Thank you. I've seen worse QB play as a Bills fan (Hiya Rob!), but it's hard to top Edwards for sheer frustration. I remember starting a drinking game at the bar where you drink every time he attempted a pass to a WR. Those extra 2-3 sips per quarter didn't make much of a dent in the beer, though. I liked Evans a lot, and continue to like him. I'm not sure why/how he turned into such a whipping boy around here, but I never cared for it. He wasn't as good as Moulds or Reed, certainly, but he was a good player who got a really raw deal in terms of QB play. I like Stevie a lot, too, but I'm a lot less confused about the complaints about him.

I tried to post the following in the "Evans or Stevie" thread that got locked. Apparently, this is the only thread that allows player vs. player discussion, or maybe just WR vs. WR discussion? Honestly, it seems like the mods are slacking, because I'd say at least 90% of the threads in this forum fall under the topic of "Buffalo Bills Discussion", yet less than half of them get locked or merged. Anyway, I put too much work into my reply to let to dissolve into the ether, so I'm posting it here: ----------------- [Evans vs. Stevie] Not really a fair question. Evans played 7 years for the Bills, Stevie's only played 5, and was a non-factor for the first 2: Lee Evans w/ Bills: 109 games (102 starts), 377 rec., 5934 yards, 43 TDs, 15.7 yards/catch, 54.4 yards/game, 0.4 TDs/game Stevie's first 5 years: 64 games (46 starts), 249 rec., 3235 yards, 25 TDs, 13.0 yards/catch, 50.5 yards/game, 0.4 TDs/game Evans' first 5 years: 80 games (73 starts), 296 rec., 4745 yards, 32 TDs, 16.0 yards/catch, 59.3 yards/game, 0.4 TDs/game Stevie in years 3-5 (2010-2012): 48 games (45 starts), 237 rec., 3123 yards, 23 TDs, 13.6 yards/catch, 65.1 yards/game, 0.5 TDs/game Evans in years 3-5 (2006-2008): 48 games (47 starts), 200 rec., 3159 yards, 16 TDs*, 15.8 yards/catch, 65.8 yards/game, 0.3 TDs/game* It's definitely Evans so far, but Stevie's career is (hopefully) less than half over. If Stevie's next 3 years are comparable to his last 3 years, he'll overtake Evans. Then again, if Evans had been able to keep up his early-career production, he might well still be a Bill. This is why I don't like comparing an active player to a retired player, especially a guy who's in his prime. There's no way of knowing how long that prime will last. Even if he stays healthy, some guys just tail off. *Evans' best 3-year stretch for TDs was his first 3 years (2004-2006): 24 TDs, 0.5 TDs/game. 2008 was his second-best statistical season in receptions & yards, but his career-worst season for TDs as a Bill with only 3. Then he had a pretty bad year in 2009 (44 rec/612 yds), but bounced back to 7 TDs. Go figure.

Much thanks for the summaries!!

Because not all bets are equal. If 9 Pats fans each plunk down $10 on the Pats -7, but I put down $100 on the Bills +7, 90% of the bets are on the Pats, but 53% of the money is on the Bills. For what it's worth, from what I've heard, Vegas is willing to take a stand some of the time -- i.e., bet against the majority of the betting public because they think they're smarter than the betting public. And they're almost always right! In any case, very few individual games are very close to 50% money wagered on each side. I don't know if Walter's sources are reliable, but he always posts the % money bet on one side in his weekly picks. If his numbers are accurate, almost every game has at least 60% bet on one side, and several games a week are over 80% on one side. Vegas makes their money via the big picture -- they can afford to take a loss on a given game or a given Super Bowl winner (1999 Rams, e.g.), they just need to offset those losses with wins. Since every bet carries a vig of some sort, they make money in the long run as long as the public doesn't win all the time. And since Vegas is almost always smarter than the public, they win a lot more than they lose.

Could anyone summarize? I'd be very appreciative.

The one thing you can say in Evans' favor is that he was more consistent/better at finding the endzone than Moulds. This despite being a significantly smaller guy and having generally worse QB play during his Bills career.

I'll be shocked if CJ winds up on any of my teams this year, because I expect him to be over-drafted. Like top 5 overall. And while you can certainly make a case that he deserves that ranking, there's too much uncertainty there (Fred might share time, we don't know how good the O will be, Marrone/Hackett used 3 backs at SU) to justify that high a pick for me. In my main league, they laughed at me for drafting Spiller in the 4th round last year. Didn't keep laughing very long.

To be fair, it's really the headline that's misleading. The content of the post says things like, "who will b, under center for the Bills..." and, "Bills fans... do not have much confidence in Jackson." But the headline is directly wrong. I don't know if ESPN's NFL Nation blogs follow the traditional journalism model where editors write the headlines, or the typical blog model where the author does everything himself, but if it's the former, the headline isn't Walker's fault.

I thought the idea was that "Buffalo Bill's Football Team" meant that the team belonged to Buffalo Bill? If not, then who the hell is that old geezer in the owner's box?

Seriously. I'm supposed to be outraged that a father doesn't see his son's faults?