Cash

By Nix's own standards, he should be judged only on wins and losses. "Show me the baby... and the baby is winning." So far, he's done poorly, to the tune of 10 wins and 22 losses. His critics will shut up when the team produces wins, which, according to Mr. Nix, is the only time they should shut up. That's that.

Well played, sirs.

It's cool, I was speaking more in the abstract -- not trying to call you out or anything. Again, I haven't even seen the dude play, so I have no prediction on when he'll be drafted or how he'll do in the NFL. You make a good point about the one positive of his advanced age -- a GM or coach looking for immediate impact is more likely to convince himself and/or his owner that a 28-year-old rookie will be more effective than a 23-year-old one. Personally, I don't know if that's actually true, because while the 28-year-old's physical skills give him an advantage over the youngster, I think experience/repetitions are a bigger factor in development, and if the old guy hasn't played much football, he might be at a disadvantage there. Again, speaking in the abstract, not specifically about Weeden. I don't know much about the guy, but now I'm pretty intrigued to see where he winds up going.

Pretty easily - that drafting strategy has produced records of 4-12 and 6-10. Strategies that lead to terrible records tend to be criticized.

That's kind of a mouthful. Wait, forget I said that.

No prediction as to what will happen, but teams definitely should be concerned about his age. A 27/28 year old man in his physical prime playing against 19-22 year olds who are still developing is not a fair fight. He may still be a legit prospect (I've never seen him play, so I can't comment on that), but his production was definitely inflated by the fact that he was almost literally a man among boys. How inflated is probably pretty tough to tell, but combine that with the limited upside presented by his age, and he's a pretty risky pick in the first round. It's probably a tough sell to convince an owner to draft a QB in the first round who'll be 32 by the time his rookie deal expires. He may well turn out to be a good NFL player, but the risk is too high and the ceiling too low for me. I wouldn't touch him in a high round. Age is usually not much of a factor in the NFL draft, because most draftees are around the same age, and a year or two doesn't make a huge difference in terms of football ability. But it comes into play in the NBA draft all the time, because a year or two makes a significant difference there, and you have draftees ranging from 18 (Euros only, 19 for American draftees) to 22 or 23 (seniors). And the older players need to have MUCH better numbers than the younger players in order to justify the same draft position. Late bloomers are a lot more common in the NFL, but the same principle applies when you're talking about a guy in his late 20s vs. guys in their early 20s.

Good point! I do wonder, though, what Modkins' duties actually are? Chan was very clear in his introductory press conference that while someone else may hold the title of offensive coordinator, Chan himself would be performing the function of the offensive coordinator. So what is Modkins actually responsible for? Obviously something, or he never would've been hired.

Spiller looked a lot better this year than last, to the point where he actually looked like a viable NFL running back this year. Having said that, I still feel that it was a terrible pick, and it would pretty much take an MVP season or thereabouts (a la CJ2K's 2010 season) to change my mind. If Freddie hadn't gotten hurt this year, Spiller would've been nearly useless. And he was totally useless last year. Not to mention the fact that picking Spiller necessitated the trade of Marshawn Lynch, who had a pretty good year last I checked. Drafting a RB in the top 10 is generally a bad idea, especially when you're at the start of a long rebuild and have needs all over the place. It's an even worse idea when you already have two proven NFL backs on your roster. My hatred of that pick at the time had nothing to do with expecting Spiller to be a bust, so the fact that he's not a total bust does nothing to make that pick look better in hindsight.

Trent Richardson, duh.

Um... isn't that the OP's point? That these rich white owners only want to hire white GMs and coaches?

Well, unsportsmanlike conduct is possible at any time (what if, God forbid, a player had something WRITTEN ON HIS SHIRT?! SHOCKING!), but as you say, it's pretty unlikely that one would be called between the coin toss and kickoff. Maybe if some nutjob captain decided to trash talk the opposing captains at the coin toss and either started a fight or got flagged for taunting. Again, hard to realistically imagine that ever happening. However, there could be a scenario where the first team to get the ball kicks a FG, but is assessed a 15-yard penalty after the play. Either a personal foul for a late hit or the like, or the rare FG celebration penalty -- maybe one of the Grammaticas comes out of retirement or something. Then a successful onsides kick outright wins the game, whereas a kick deep still leaves you likely to tie or lose. I still couldn't imagine any actual NFL coach taking that kind of bold risk and exposing himself to insane levels of criticism, but if you had a terrible D going against a juggernaut O, it might not be that bad of a tactical move.

Buddy specifically said they want to add TWO corners via the draft or free agency. Also praised Aaron Williams. Sounds to me like McLovin is gonzo.

Nothing about adding runners, and not much about injury status at TE. However, I found it interesting that at different times, Buddy: 1.) Talked about team needs for next year, and did not mention TE or allude to TE (i.e., nothing about "pass catchers" or "receiving options") -- Buddy was very specific on offensive needs, which was a Megatron-style WR and an OT or two. 2.) Was asked about Chandler, and while he did say that the Bills want Chandler back, he didn't sound nearly as assertive about it as he did with Stevie. A lot of talk about bringing him back at the right price, hoping that Chandler wanted to be back at the right price, etc. Brought up how Chandler had 1 career reception heading into the season, and said that guys like that are maybe more valuable to us than anyone else, and hopefully they see it that way, too. Definitely didn't sound confident that a deal would get done.

Because most of your pass-rushing (regardless of down) happens in the nickel or dime, when you use a 4-man line. Von Miller is a LB in the Broncos' base D, but plays DE against pass sets. I do think the Bills will be closer to a true 4-3 next year, but the real problem wasn't what label was put on the scheme, but the poor quality of the scheme.

At least 10, maybe closer to 20.

Mario Williams, but I didn't get the same vibe from his comments as you. I heard it as a purely hypothetical "we'll spend if a guy's there," without any implication that a guy actually is there. Sort of. To paraphrase Buddy, don't worry about it. Said 47% of snaps this year were with a 4-man line anyway, pointed out how often Wade Philips "the granddaddy of the 3-4" (actual quote) uses a 4-man line, mentioned that a 4-3 base will still sometimes use 3-man rush, etc. Was a little peeved (in a friendly way) when reporters brought up Buddy's pre-draft quotes from last year about scouting for a 3-4. Buddy's looking for a little more than just size -- his quote was something along the lines of "he's open even when he's not open." Specifically mentioned a Calvin Johnson type. David Nelson is 6'5", but he's not the kind of guy you can just throw it up to and he'll go get it. I think Buddy saw one too many highlights of Andy Dalton throwing a wounded duck floater into double coverage and AJ Green catching it anyway. But whatever the reason, count me in.

Why is everyone giving Gailey a pass on enacting such a dumb rule in the first place? What's next, anyone who gets a false start has to sit out a quarter? Ultimatums are stupid, because if someone violates it and you don't follow through, you completely undermine yourself, but if you do follow through, all you do is compound a problem with another problem. And especially when the condition for the benching (celebration penalty) is one of the most arbitrary and capriciously officiated rules in sports. If you're going to demand punishment for such a thing, at least keep the threat vague enough so that you can adjust the punishment to the situation. Benching Stevie for a series or two would've sent a plenty strong enough message. To sum up: I like that Gailey followed his own rule that he arbitrarily made. I don't like that he arbitrarily made a terrible rule that was likely to hurt the team, and wasn't smart enough to realize this in advance.

Who is going to shift focus away from the NFL PLAYOFFS to talk about a defensive coordinator change on a 6-10 team? Head coach or GM change, sure. DC change? Very minor news to non-Bills fans.

Terrible comparison. Griffin and Young aren't remotely comparable. Here's proof: Griffin Young See? Okay, on a serious note, I'm pretty much all in on RG3. There are only 2 real concerns I have at this point. First, it's hard to succeed in the NFL if you're actually a well-rounded person with real life goals like RG3 is. The best players tend to be obsessive cases who are consumed by football and have nothing else to fall back on. Will Griffin put in that extra hour of film study, or will he spend that hour reading a law journal? This wouldn't keep me from drafting him, because he's plenty smart, seems to work very hard, and (I'm sure) will be very motivated in the NFL, and there are plenty of exceptions to the "football maniac" rule, but it's still a concern. You could even see a situation like Robert Smith, the Vikings RB, who was really good, but retired early in his career to go to med school. Wouldn't shock me if RG3 plays for 6-7 years, then retires to enter law school. Second, his build is pretty slight. There's a reason that Vick gets hurt every couple of games, but Newton and Tebow combined for 248 rushes this year without a single injury between them (Vick had 76 rushes, FYI). Griffin might bulk up some as he plays, but that would cost him a lot of speed. (Vick hasn't bulked up, but some guys have -- Jake Plummer comes to mind. Unfortunately, Jake wasn't really a good enough passer to do much without his scrambling ability.) Then again, Griffin's not much thinner than Aaron Rodgers, who hasn't had much injury history in 3 seasons as a starter, so we'll see. Again, this concern wouldn't be enough for me to pass on Griffin As for his delivery and technical points like that, I won't pretend I'm a good enough scout to know anything about the details. I just look at the big picture: With that kind of athleticism, putting up those numbers in a strong conference (especially the accuracy!), and with his intelligence and character to boot, I think he'll be a massive success.

I don't care if Maybin breaks Bruce's sack record, I will never fault the Bills for cutting him. If he really turns it around*, good for him. He's a little brash, but otherwise a good guy and a hard worker, and I bear him no ill will. But there's no way he ever would've figured it out with the Bills. Better for both sides to part ways. *Personally, I agree with the many who think his sacks for the Jets are basically a fluke. Rex Ryan's excellent at designing erotic blitzes, and Maybin is pretty fast, especially when he rushes against the slower RTs of the league. Put those together, add in the fact that the Jets have other guys the O needs to worry about before Maybin, and you get a handful of sacks. Good job by Ryan of utilizing the skills of his player. Doesn't mean he'll develop into something more, and definitely doesn't mean that he could've had similar success with the Bills.

Curious why you think he can't play MLB. Please elaborate.

Regarding your statement I bolded, I think it's worse than that. My biggest issue is that the plan is a 4-5 year rebuild, and that's assuming everything goes according to plan. It's already been 2 years, and Ralph is saying that it'll take several more years? That's the best-case scenario? That's pretty insulting. This is pretty disingenuous. Obviously there's nothing the Bills can do until the offseason (unless you believe some of the posters here who think that a mid-season firing of George Edwards will somehow help things), but Ralph is specifically preaching patience for several years, not months. I think if the context of his call for patience was something like, "Please be patient, we can't start fixing our problems until the offseason, but we'll do everything we can as soon as we can," then the fans would be pretty excited about that. Instead it's more like, "Please be patient, because we're not going to be good next year either." There is a massive difference between those two requests. I'm not sure of your point. The Bills have also gone through many regimes and years of drafting near the top. And this regime is the worst of the last 4, based on record. Are we as fans supposed to be cool with that? Are we supposed to count Matt Millen's terrible high picks for Detroit, but not count Marv/Brandon/Jauron's terrible high picks for us? Does the rebuilding clock keep running for Detroit and San Fran, but reset every time the Bills hire a new coach or GM? I don't get it. Even if you do reset the clock for the Bills, we're still nearing the end of year 2. That's 2 offseasons and 2 regular seasons. Asking for a playoff-contending team in year 3 is hardly the same as thinking great teams are built overnight. For me, being a Bills fan used to be about the team, but now it's morphing into being about the community of fans. I love Bills fans and Western New Yorkers in general, and tailgating together or gathering in bars to watch the games on TV gives us a shared experience and something to bond over -- makes us a community. But I can't really say I love the Bills anymore, because the Bills do so little to return that love. It's been so long since they've been good, a return to prominence doesn't look likely anytime soon, and it looks to me like any future success will be largely luck-based and unsustainable. I would like very much to be proven wrong -- seeing the Bills lose still hurts very much -- but I won't believe it until I see it. I don't want to get into a larger discussion about the other guys (I agree with a lot of what you have to say, FYI), but this one is way off base. Evans and Johnson don't play the same position, and Johnson was never a replacement for Evans. Evans played split end or "X" receiver, Johnson plays flanker or "Z" receiver. They both started at the same time and played together full-time in 2010. Evans' replacement was Donald Jones.

Freddy's under contract next year anyway. As for Stevie (or dealing with a possible Jackson holdout), "get him some better players" doesn't exactly translate to "keep the guys we have." I'm sure the Bills will attempt to bring Stevie back (after all, they were in negotiations for half the season, and only recently broke them off), but if it was a lock, he'd have already been signed to an extension. Instead, the negotiations got to a point where Stevie's camp announced that he'd be testing the free agent waters. Clearly there is a price point at which the Bills let Stevie walk. And if someone else meets that price point, I imagine Ralph or Nix or whoever would justify it by saying that Stevie drops too many passes and we need someone with better hands -- like Donald Jones! He's healthy now and ready to break out! Buy some season tickets already! Okay, I'm exaggerating a bit there, but I've seen enough "let Stevie walk, he's not worth the money, he costs us games with his drops" posts on this board to know that the Bills would be able to spin letting Stevie walk about as well as they spun the Evans trade. Not everyone would be okay with it, but enough would that it wouldn't kill them at the box office. I think keeping Stevie and paying Jackson, then adding a stud WR in the draft, is what the Bills SHOULD do, but I won't buy it until I see it. In recent history, when the Bills try to "get better players," that means letting their best player go, and bringing in a new "best player" to replace him. I agree with your draft logic, though. Look for an offensive playmaker to "make Fitz's job easier." I know there's no proof that Ralph sometimes or always makes picks, but there's enough circumstantial evidence that I believe it. At the very least, I think he sometimes recommends guys that he likes, and his underlings choose to make their boss happy. I definitely think he had a major hand in the Spiller pick, and based on the quote in question, I think he'll have a major hand in this pick as well. Luckily for us, drafting a stud WR to help the offense is a good idea for football reasons, not just a stunt to sell tickets.

Didn't/don't want Barkley, but I was hoping he'd come out, b/c he'd be almost a mortal lock to go in front of our pick. I really want RG3, but based on Ralph's latest comments, it looks like no QB will be an option for the Bills this year. Still, Barkley in the draft would've given us a better shot at "our guy", whoever that may be.

Plus he's a good locker room presence... er, that is, he has a big presence in the locker room. And by presence, I mean honker.