Cash

Very good piece. I continue to be a huge fan of Dareus.

With Fred out, Gailey has come out and said that Spiller will get almost the full workload. However, he also said 2 weeks ago that Spiller would get 60% of the carries, and that was proved false. Also, Choice came in to replace Fred last week, and got a significant amount of work both this year and last when Fred wasn't able to play and Spiller was tearing it up. Most significantly, Choice was *always* the RB on the goal line last year, and most of the time this year. This year, regardless of whether Fred was healthy or not, Chan has shown a slight willingness to play Spiller at the goal line, but has generally taken him out of the game once we get inside the 20. So in advance of the game, here's your chance to predict what the breakdown will be. I included questions 1 & 2 because it's possible for Spiller to get 100% of the work, but still be grossly underutilized. Please vote for what you THINK will actually happen on Sunday, not what you HOPE will happen.

The bolded part is the most frustrating. We've really only been forced to pass in 2 games this year (Jets & 49ers). The first Pats game ended up a blowout, but we had a multi-TD lead in the 3rd quarter, and coughed it up quickly in part because we kept passing. The smarter teams, especially more recently, have been stacking the line, or at least sticking in their base/run D when we go spread. And then Chan responds by sticking with the spread and trying to throw the D out of their base set. The Houston game was probably the best example. I'll give Chan this -- the offense is at its best when we're running out of the spread against a nickel or dime D, which we seemed to do more of earlier in the year. But he doesn't seem to realize that the offense is at its worst when we're throwing out of the spread, whether we're against a run D or a pass D.

Serious question: When we got the ball with almost a minute to go and 2 timeouts, needing a FG to tie, what was your confidence level? I.e., what did you think the chances were that Fitz would lead us down the field to tie or win the game? Personally, mine was about 10%, and the only thing that surprised me was that he completed one nice pass. But I missed the first half, and maybe I wasn't being fair. So I'm curious where your confidence was at, since you're defending his game. And for the record, I think Chan puts Fitz in position to lose way too often. Let's put it this way: I don't think Alex Smith would be a significant upgrade over Fitz, and Smith went 13-3 last year and 6-2 this year (6-2-1 if you count the first Rams game that he was knocked out of). Our backs are better than SF's. Our receivers were definitely better last year, and probably still better this year. Our line is probably not as good, but not far off when healthy. Our D is definitely not as good, but it's hard to say how much of that is coaching. So I agree that Fitz is not our biggest problem. But just like Harbaugh switched to Kaepernick the first chance he got, I would like to switch to a QB that is a part of the solution, rather than just "not our biggest problem." Problem is, I don't know who that would be, and most of the options floated around are weak at best.

Fixed your punctuation/capitalization for you. And I would argue that with our backs and O-line, we should be much higher than just 7th in rushing. 1st is probably asking too much, but top 3 is reasonable. And our passing rank is very low despite us passing too much because we are bad at passing the football. When Fitz throws a lot, we don't get many first downs, and thus can't get many yards. The more he throws it, the easier things get for the defense, so even going to 100% passing wouldn't get us many more passing yards.

By that logic, no bad team should ever be able to get good. And yet it happens every year. Good teams have continuity because when something is going well, you try not to change it. Thus, continuity and winning go hand in hand. But it's the winning that causes the continuity, not the other way around. Do you really think that if we'd kept Dick Jauron for the past 3+ years that we'd have made the playoffs at any point? Chan Gailey is not a competent coach, is not young or inexperienced, and has shown very little tendency to correct his mistakes. No amount of continuity will transform him into a good coach.

If the Bills ran the Alex Smith 49ers offense (not the Colin Kaepernick 49ers offense), they would definitely have a couple more wins this year. Instead, they run the Tom Brady Patriots offense.

No, I am not glad, I'm quite disappointed. I actually had genuine hope this year, unlike the last few. I'm still dealing with those hopes being crushed. And watching the games with fellow Bills fans on Sundays isn't as fun once the games are meaningless. Yeah, technically still in the hunt, but c'mon. I think even the coaches and players realize how bad they suck at this point. I know I'm now completely hopeless and demoralized. So no, not glad at all.

You idiots don't know beans about the NFL. The run game won't be successful until your passing game forces the other team into a prevent D with 7 defensive backs 20 yards from the line of scrimmage. THAT'S when you hit them with the ground game, dummies.

Agreed.

Very interesting piece, but I respectfully disagree with your take. Take a look at Fitz's numbers when throwing deep: http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/splits/_/id/8664/ryan-fitzpatrick They've been posted before, in other threads and on various Bills sites. I'm pretty sure that Fitzpatrick is dead last among starting QBs in terms of completions, completion %, and passer rating when throwing deep. Whereas he's actually been pretty effective with the short stuff: Only 1 INT this year on passes of 10 yards or less, compared to 11 TDs, with about 70% completions. Sanchez has thrown 5 TDs vs. 5 INTs with about 60% completions on throws of 10 yards or less. Unlike Sanchez, Fitzpatrick is actually pretty good at throwing the checkdowns and safe stuff, and (helped by our awesome RBs) tends to produce positive results in those situations. On the other hand, he's been absolutely abysmal when throwing deep, and if you look at previous years, last year was the only time he's been at all passable on throws over 20 yards. He's sub-par but not terrible on 10-20 yard intermediate throws, which are the real bread & butter of a good passing game. Sanchez is a little worse on intermediates this year. I think the best course for the rest of the year is to treat Fitz like Alex Smith last year -- run as much as possible, try to minimize risks, avoid INTs at all costs, be willing to punt, etc. If the D truly is rounding into form (and not just benefiting from playing bad offenses), I think Fitz is good enough at the dink & dunk stuff to supplement our running game.

123

It's a nice idea, but not really a useful comparison. Brady's is very low by default because he rarely gets hit, due to a combination of good O-line play and Brady being very good at playing QB. Vick's is high by default because he gets creamed a lot, due to a combination of terrible O-line play and Vick's play style. Looking at roughing the passer penalties drawn per QB hit taken would be a good start to analyzing whether there's biased officiating or not. (Hint: as long as the refs are human, there will be bias in their officiating, but it might be really small.) Still, thanks for posting. And for the record, I don't think Fitzpatrick gets jobbed at all, but I do think Brady gets outrageous calls that most other QBs don't get.

Levitre shifted to C only after Kraig Urbik got hurt. Urbik went from RG to C when Wood went down and Chad Rinehart replaced Urbik at RG. Once the Levitre experiment fizzled, I believe Colin Brown filled in at C. Colin Brown has been on IR for several weeks now. The C/G signed to replace him and/or Chad Rinehart (also on IR) is David Snow, and is expected to start at RG while Urbik once again fills in at C.

Interesting. Thanks for drawing these up!

Voted with my heart, not my head. I'm driving the Joe Webb bandwagon, but I doubt the Vikings would trade him with the way Ponder is stinking it up. I *do* think the Bills would be interested in him, though. I'd also be cool with a trade for Matt Flynn. If I voted with my head, I'd say I'm 50/50 between Fitzpatrick or a rookie we drafted. I think in all likelihood, Fitzpatrick starts the first game next year, but even if the rookie stinks (think Nick Foles), there's a good chance he starts at the end of the year, assuming we miss the playoffs. Note: If we win out, I reserve the right to be more optimistic about next year's team.

The map reminds me of how ridiculous the NFL's blackout policy is. (And the Bills fully endorse it, by the way.) The Syracuse affiliate is blacked out because a sliver of its range extends into the 75-mile blackout radius. The rationale behind the blackout policy is that if you're a local fan and the game's not sold out, you should just buy a ticket and go to the game. So yeah, someone in or East of Syracuse should just buy a ticket, hop in their car, drive 4 hours each way, and enjoy a great football game.

But we have to draft Manti Te'o! Trade up if necessary! Drafting an inside linebacker high fixes everything! In fairness, it was disingenuous to leave out Patrick Willis just because he was drafted #11. That's not functionally different from a top 10 pick, and he was certainly worth hit. I'd like to point out, however, that this year his fellow SF ILB Navarro Bowman has arguably been better, and Bowman was drafted in the 4th round. Willis is a big-time outlier in terms of a non-pass-rushing LB drafted high who ultimately justifies the pick. Even Mayo, who's a really good player, hasn't really proved to be worth his draft position. Despite having Vince Wilfork up front, the Pats have fielded some incredibly bad defenses with Mayo in the starting lineup, even against the run. Don't get me wrong, Mayo's probably not part of the problem. But the idea behind a high first round pick is that you draft a guy who's part of the solution. A foundational player that you build around, not just a guy who develops into an okay starter at a position of moderate importance. This was a lot of the problem with Whitner as well. He was a solid starter for us, but to justify his draft position, he needed to be an impact player/difference maker, and he never was. He's finding more success in SF, because there it's understood that he's just another quality starter on a stacked defense. Willis, Bowman, and the Smith brothers are their foundational guys. Sorry for the rant, LB-philes. I don't want to turn this thread into a Manti Te'o thread, because maybe he is the next Patrick Willis, and there's already like 5 threads discussing him, so let's just take it over there if you want to fight me on this. And even I get the value of a true 3-down ILB who can hold up against the run, play deep middle in a Tampa-2, and run with TEs man-to-man. Having Willis & Bowman lets the 49ers play base defense against the pass, which is very valuable. My main point is that if the 49ers could only keep Willis/Bowman or the Smiths, they and every other team would choose the Smiths without hesitation. Back to the topic at hand, I'm against claiming McClain on waivers. I'm so-so on signing him to a lower-salary contract if he becomes available as a free agent. I don't think the Bills have the kind of strong leadership and powerfully positive culture needed to straighten out wayward personalities like McClain. Plus it's very unlikely that he'd unseat Barnett or Scott in the "nickel" (really a dime) we play, so he'd only be able to get on the field for 30-40% of snaps anyway. If we think Sheppard isn't getting the job done in those snaps, wouldn't it be easier to just bench him and activate Kirk Morrison? Still, McClain is young and has a lot of natural ability. Maybe he'd be worth it just as a marginal upgrade over Sheppard. In any case, I'm interested to see if any team puts in a waiver claim. I predict no.

We have no business laying 6.5 points to anyone, even at home. I predict a close Bills win -- take the points!

I think it's more likely that the Jags move Blackmon and/or Shorts into the slot and he/they tear it up. Opponents have been putting their #1 guys in the slot and killing us all year. All of Fitzgerald's damage was from the slot, most of Andre Johnson's success was from the slot, ditto Reggie Wayne.

Good piece. For all the talk of accountability when Nix was hired, which was then repeated when Gailey was hired, there hasn't been any thus far, and that bothers me. It's bad enough to endure these losses, but then to hear Gailey talk like everything is going fine, it gets really frustrating. 37 passes vs. 21 runs. 22 total touches for the two best offensive players on the team (w/ apologies to Stevie, I still put Fred ahead of him). Yet Gailey doesn't acknowledge that, and seems to think that the problem was a lack of execution -- which means he was fine, but the players effed up. And of course they did, especially Fitz. But that's because they're not that good. When does he think this magic wand is going to be waved that turns Fitzpatrick into Aaron Rodgers? Gailey's comments regarding passing so much were ludicrous and borderline incomprehensible. The best interpretation I could get was that Spiller was very effective, and the Bills were having trouble with the pass rush, so therefore the Bills wanted to throw the ball on first down to avoid getting in third and long situations. Which is stupid. Not to mention that when you go empty backfield on first down, the defense still knows that it's a pass, and can treat it like a third and long! Did he not see Robert Mathis killing Chris Hairston all day? Yet he continues to go empty backfield over and over. Anyone except the coaching staff can see that the run game is way, way better than the pass game. But any opponent can take away the Bills' run game just by staying in base defense. Gailey will never deign to take Ruvell Martin off the field and go down to a 2 or 3 WR set. In his mind, everything needs to come from the spread, and if the opponent isn't matching up against your 4 WRs, the only option is to burn them in the passing game. Then he is repeatedly stunned that the pass game isn't good enough to burn them. "That was a fluke," he thinks. "It'll work next time." I'm just looking forward to Buddy Nix giving Gailey another vote of confidence. Can we sign him to a 5-year extension already?

Not just 7 All-Pros, 7 All-Pros whose skillsets mesh together very well. Good job by Barbarian, I think he's built a front 7 that can't be beat. But how is he gonna fit them all under the cap?

Fully agree with both of these takes, as well as your earlier statement that Glenn would go top 10 in a re-draft. My track record on guys I loved pre-draft isn't that great, but this was a definite hit for me (I was campaigning for the Bills to draft him in the 1st for a while). Glenn was arguably the steal of the draft. Probably not the #1 steal, because he still went high 2nd round, but still, to get a legit starting LT outside of the first doesn't happen that often. Re: Gilmore, I'm not certain that he'll turn out well (I thought McLovin looked promising his rookie year as well), but I've liked what I've seen so far. I especially liked that in the second half of the Houston game, the coaches started having Gilmore follow Andre Johnson all over the field, rather than just lining up at RCB no matter what. Round 1 is debatable. I'm still comfortable with Gilmore (see above), but it's not like he's been lights-out. You could make arguments for Bruce Irvin, Quinton Coples, or Chandler Jones, but even with the benefit of hindsight it's tough to justify adding another DE in the first round. And none of them have been so spectacular that you'd have to take them over Gilmore, at least not yet. You LB-lovers could argue for Donta' Hightower, but he hasn't blown anyone away, and CBs are way more valuable than inside LBs. I haven't really seen the Bungles this year, but their D is decent. If Dre Kirkpatrick is playing better than Gilmore (is he? I have no idea), then you'd have to say that was a mistake. Lastly, Doug Martin's been really good, but drafting another RB in the first round would've made my head explode. Round 2 is not debatable, we made the best pick we could have, and probably the best pick of the Buddy Nix era. Case closed. Round 3 is easily debatable, just because Teej hasn't done much, and hasn't even gotten much playing time, despite a few injuries at his position. In terms of who would you rather have, there's a couple candidates. Russell Wilson is the obvious name. I didn't want him before the 5th round on draft day (although I did like him), but since we're using hindsight, I would definitely rather have him than Graham right now, even though he probably wouldn't have played a down for the Bills this year. Looking through the 3rd round, the other name that jumps out is T.Y. Hilton. Granted, TJ has plenty of time to out-do TY, but to this point in their careers, it's no contest. TY has been way more productive, despite being the 3rd WR at best. (The Colts' official depth chart lists 3 starters at WR, and Hilton isn't one of them, but I have to imagine he's gotten more playing time that Dwayne Allen.) And yes, Luck is the highest-rated rookie QB prospect since Elway, but compare his season numbers to Fitz's, and you'll see that they're worse overall, so I don't want to hear about how much better his QB is, and that's why he's outproducing Graham. I also don't want to hear about how much defensive attention Reggie Wayne draws, because it's no more than Stevie draws. Listen, if you want to preach patience and say that Graham has plenty of time to develop into a quality, productive WR, that's great. But that's not what this thread is about. Given what we know right now, there's no argument for Graham over Hilton. They're both undersized speed WRs playing in WR corps with 1 good starter and a bunch of nobodies. One is having a really nice year, the other is virtually invisible. I'm not cursing the Graham pick, I'm just answering the OP's question.

I'm an SU fan that doesn't watch as many of their games as I'd like to, but I've seen a fair amount of Nassib's games over the years. He's somewhat intriguing, but it's hard for me to see him as a starter in the NFL. I wouldn't think about drafting him before the 3rd round, but I also wouldn't mind if we drafted him. He's had a really nice year so far this year, and I like the guy.

I dunno. Based on age, you'd almost have to, but Bradford has been very underwhelming since his rookie year. Granted, he still has terrible talent around him (SJax excluded), and I don't know how great his coaching is/has been, but... I mentioned those offsides jumps by the Jets earlier. Two of the three were on hard count by Bradford. Good job by Bradford to induce the D into jumping offsides, but then doesn't finish the job and have the C snap the ball. What gives? That's a significant red flag to me that something's not going right upstairs for Bradford. Furthermore, his arm didn't look great in this game. Some poor accuracy, an inability to move the chains despite having a pretty effective RB, and I saw a deep out on the TD drive that just hung... in... the... air... forever. Great decision b/c the WR was open, but the pass took so long getting there that it probably should've been picked. As it was, it was still an incompletion. I don't think Fitz is the long term answer, particularly at his age, but I don't know that Bradford is the answer either. If you're the Rams, he's too young to give up on -- you have to get him more offensive talent and hope he gets better -- but with nothing invested in him, I'd prefer to roll the dice with a non-Barkley rookie. And I'm fine with Fitz caretaking for a year or two if necessary.