Cash

At this point, even God is like, "Whoa, Tim, settle down with all the Jesus stuff. Try going 20 minutes without mentioning Him." I'll be at that game, and in preparation for all the miracles I'll be witnessing, I'll be sure to stock up on the blood of Christ.

Man, that is one sorry passing game, especially if Lee Evans is still hurt in this hypothetical.

There will never be a sure-fire great QB out there. Even Elway, Peyton Manning, and Luck carry a significant amount of risk in the draft. Free agent Drew Brees is probably the closest thing in NFL history to a sure-fire great QB being available, and he did have some injury risks. If you want a great QB, not just an average one, you have to take some serious risks. Trade for an unproven guy (like Matt Schaub or Brett Favre, or maybe more like Kevin Kolb or Rob Johnson), draft one high, or give playing time to a nobody in the hopes that he turns out to be Brady, Warner, or Romo. 95+% of the time that nobody turns out to be Caleb Hanie or Tyler Palko, though, and you lose a lot of games.

Caussin looked good in garbage time catching passes from Thigpen. I wouldn't read anything into it. Caussin is truly a replacement-level player.

http://blogs.buffalobills.com/2011/12/12/chan-understands-fan-frustration/ Gailey needs to realize that when you're on a 6-game losing streak, there are certain phrases you just shouldn't be saying. For example, "we're on the right track." I realize that he means in a big-picture sense, i.e., the team is better this year than last and he expects to improve again next year, and he might not be wrong about that. But still, when it's been almost 2 months since you won a game, you just can't go around saying you're on the right track. It also bothered me when Gailey recently said that the team is better this year than last. Yeah, it's technically true, but c'mon. It makes it sound like you kicked back and popped the bubbly once you got to 5 wins. PR counts. It isn't everything, but it does count.

How many starters did Houston add from last year to this year? I know of Jonathan Joseph, a very good CB. Any others? They also switched from a 4-3 to a 3-4 and lost their best player (Mario Williams) to injury in week 5. Their D went from pathetic the last few years to basically elite this year. Our DC is either the worst in the league or very close. The D is not as far away as it seems. We have players, but they are not being given many opportunities to succeed due to their incompetent management.

F the Bills. They've done nothing to merit our love in over a decade. Bills FANS, on the other hand, are the best. Much love to you all.

The Spencer Johnson situation is the most damning thing about our defense. It's unbelievable to me that even with Kelsay back in the lineup, Johnson is still starting and playing most of the time at OLB. At least 1 big play is given up every week because Johnson is too slow and too out of position to do anything about it, and yet the coaches keep trotting him out there over Moats or Coleman. Don't they watch film? Can't they see teams breaking huge runs to his side, even when he correctly reads the play, because he's just not fast enough to contain the RB? Are they surprised that this keeps happening? Do they think other teams are just getting lucky fluke plays over and over? GAH! By the way, no ill will towards Spencer. He's trying his best out there, and doing what his coaches tell him to do without (public) complaint. That's all you can ask of a guy. It's not his fault that his moron coaches think that a DT/DE hybrid should be playing out in space.

Started his stint with an 8-game losing streak, then went 9-6 over parts of two seasons, and is currently on a 6-game losing streak with a solid chance of losing each of the last 3 games. These are not good results. Having said that, I'd be very surprised if he was fired this offseason, and frankly, unless we lose out, I'd be against firing him. The DC definitely needs to go, but there was legitimate improvement from last year to this year. (This year's team has already outscored last year's and most Bills teams from the last decade, for example.) Don't get me wrong, I'm really concerned about how Gailey's offense seems to have been figured out, and I'm VERY concerned about Gailey's "I don't have the answers and don't know how to fix things" comments from a few weeks back. If things stop working and your strategy is to repeat those things, but hope they start working, that's not going to work out. But I'd rather give him another year and (hopefully) more talent on both sides of the ball and a competent DC, and see if he can start to adapt to changing circumstances. Caveat: In these blowout losses, the team really looks like they're giving up. That's a bad sign in general, and looks like the team is pretty close to quitting on Gailey. All else aside, if a coach loses the team, he needs to go. No ifs, ands, or buts. I don't think Gailey's lost this team yet, but if he does, he has to go no matter what.

The last GM that Ralph didn't personally know when he was hired was Donahoe. That suggests that Whaley would be the choice. Of course, it's maybe 50/50 that Ralph is the one doing the hiring by the spring of 2013.

Well then I apologize. Without the benefit of tone or facial expression, "what's to like?" came across as snarky. Sorry.

I voted "other" = RG3.

6'6", 264, sub-4.5 40, only 3 years of organized football experience. Lot of upside for a guy on a minimum contract with little to no guaranteed money. Would you prefer leaving the roster spot open to save Ralph a few grand? Or is there some other street free agent currently available that you'd have preferred? No, Onobun will probably not turn into an impact player for the Bills, and easily may never even get into a game. But I'm sure some a-hole on a Chargers board dumped all over the team when they signed Antonio Gates as an undrafted free agent. And I know there were plenty of a-holes on this board who dumped all over the Scott Chandler pickup last year. Sure things are not available on the waiver wire, chief. Save your whining for the offseason, when our GM is asleep at the start of free agency.

SF also lost their excellent NT Aubrayo Franklin to free agency this past year. He was probably their 2nd-best defensive player last year. I think there is already some real talent on the Bills D when healthy: Williams, Dareus, Barnett, Wilson, and Byrd are all very good, and Edwards, Sheppard, maybe Moats, Kelsay when he plays DE, Davis, Morrison, maybe Carrington, and most of our corners are serviceable (remember how good our pass D was the year that Schobel, Kelsay, & Denney combined for 25.5 sacks?). You don't need beasts at every position. We are definitely at least 1 pass-rusher short, and that should be something we focus on, but otherwise, I think the coaching is the biggest problem. George Edwards is probably a nice man, but he seems in way over his head as an NFL D-coordinator. The Cam Newton comment is spot-on; they'd probably be in the playoffs with even a mediocre defense. But the Bradford comment is way off-base. The OP's basic argument is that we should be trying to build an elite offense moreso than trying to build an elite defense. Nothing about "bring in a great QB, that's all we need to win". And even if you accept that Bradford is a great QB (not yet, but he very well might be in a few years), the fact remains that the Rams' biggest problem is lack of offense. They've scored 140 points in 12 games this year. That's under 12 a game! They scored 31 in an outlier win against the Saints, and otherwise their best output was 20 against Arizona's terrible defense. Their other win besides the Saints was 13-12 over the Browns. Their D is also bad, being 25th in points allowed, but only a field goal per game away from the Jets and Packers (which are the two middle teams in points allowed). For the Rams' scoring to match Oakland/Philly (the two middle teams in points scored), they'd have to score about 11 more points per game. The Rams' D is WAY ahead of its O, although it's still pretty bad.

Way over my head, but I'm not ashamed. Here's a workout video of our new stud TE: I like the signing.

Lack of size is NOT the Bills problem on D anymore. If anything, they need to get smaller, especially at Spencer Johnson's position. There's a reason most teams don't line up a 300+ lb. DE/DT hybrid at OLB. The way I see it, the Bills' defensive problems stem from: 1.) Scheme - playing D-linemen at LB is killing our run D. And when was the last time we ran a blitz or stunt that got a free rusher? I can't remember one. 2.) Lack of talent at OLB 3.) Kyle Williams' injury

Ditto. I always liked Bryson, from the day we drafted him. Fastest player on the team!

MICHAEL IRVIN STABBED A TEAMMATE IN THE NECK

Agreed. Although I thought it was a bit puzzling that the Bills instantly IR'd Fred Jackson when they were still very much in playoff contention. The timeline on his injury would've given him a shot to come back for a hypothetical playoff run. Even the quotes from Gailey at time sort of acknowledged this by saying "regular season" instead of just "season." On the other hand, we kept Lindell on the active roster for what, 3-4 weeks? before IR-ing him, and probably about the same for Kyle Williams.

Again, I think you're going too far here. This logic is kind of BS. If your defense is bad enough, it'll give up a TD on every possession. Which is better, your ridiculous hypothetical of a 0-0 tie every game or my ridiculous hypothetical of a 56-56 OT game where the coin flip truly decides the winner? Both. Your Q&A is absolutely correct, and something that is sometimes underplayed. The ONLY way to win is to finish the game with more points than your opponent. That means you want to score points for yourself, and prevent your opponent from scoring points. A top 5 offense combined with a bottom 5 defense will probably net you about a 9-7 or 8-8 record. Suggesting that our legitimately bad defense should be ignored is just silly. I think you make a good point if you stay away from the hyperbole. I'm also not super fond of the old-school/contrarian fans who insist that winning games 13-7 is 1.) the perfect recipe for sustained success, and 2.) the pinnacle of entertaining football. There's probably a lot of overlap between these fans and the "bigger is always better" crowd, who constantly demand increased size as a panacea for the O-line and defensive front 7, even though our biggest problem on run D is playing a DT/DE hybrid at OLB. (Seriously, re-watch the Jets game. Almost every good run of the Jets happened because Spencer Johnson is way too slow to play LB, both physically and instinctively. A healthy Kelsay isn't as bad, but still woefully out of position. Replace that guy with a real NFL OLB and you'll see leaps and bounds in the run D. But I digress.)

#1, I'm totally sold on RG3. Count me in. Second, I love the bizarro world that is college football. In real life, RG3 is a grad student. In college football, he's a junior. http://packersnews.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20111207/PKR01/111207162 http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/139573-graham-harrell/

Your general point (bolded)is not wrong, but it seems to me like you're taking it to too much of an extreme. Your Colts example is a really good one -- they've never had what I'd call a classically good defense with Manning. But what they do have is Freeney and Mathis, which translates into a very nice pass rush. Their whole D is built to protect leads, and it does a pretty good job of that. Of course, when Manning goes down and you never get a lead, the D looks really really bad. Anyway, my point is that you need *something* on defense to complement your awesome offense if you want to go anywhere. The Packers D isn't great, but with Raji, Mathews, and Woodson, they've got playmakers who frequently make big game-changing plays (sacks/fumbles, big INTs, etc.). I agree that an elite offense is a better goal to build towards than an elite defense, but my point is that an elite offense with NO defense will still be an also-ran. An elite offense with an average defense needs a little luck in the form of turnovers, but can definitely win it all, and should contend year after year.

Easterbrook constantly cherry-picks to "prove" his points, and frequently bashes teams in hindsight for weak reasons, and he does so in the most haughty, pompous way possible. Good example: he frequently calls out teams for having too much turnover in the front office/coaching staff, and points to Indy's stable FO/coaching situation as a reason why they're always so good. So what, if the Bills had never fired Gregg Williams, they'd be a perennial Super Bowl contender by now? No, dum-dum, winning teams have continuity *because* they're winning, not the other way around. No one gets fired after winning the Super Bowl. The worst is, Easterbrook is smart enough to know better, and not use such garbage arguments, but he keeps doing it anyway. I used to be a fan of his, but once I caught on to his game, he got tiresome really fast.

+1. Every team has injuries, they're a part of the game. Once in a blue moon you'll get lucky and stay pretty healthy in a given year, but those injuries will be back next year. Ask the 2010 Packers about injuries (including our new friend Nick Barnett). Besides, if anyone can B word about injuries this year, it's not us. It's Chicago, then Indy, then Houston, then Oakland, then KC.

I've never seen any iron sharpeners. Usually it's a stone of some sort.