MDH

unfortunately when evaluating THIS trade those aren't the options to consider. It's would you rather have: Jackson & Spiller splitting time with Lynch languishing on the bench OR Jackson & Spiller splitting time with a 4th round pick (and 5th or 6th round pick) in next year's draft?

Even worse is that the Bills have spent 3 1st round picks on RBs in the past 8 years. And for all that drafting of 1st round running backs the starter next week is Fred Jackson, an undrafted FA. Had the Bills never drafted a RB with any of those picks the Bills starter next week would like be...Fred Jackson. This is a blueprint on how to build a loser. That being said I'm not upset with this trade, just the Bill penchant for needing to draft 1st round RBs in the first place.

I'm with you on most everything you say except this. While it would have been better to not draft Spiller at all and just go with Lynch and Jackson for the foreseeable future, trading Lynch doesn't compound the problem. The Bills already have a viable RB on the roster in Jackson - better than Lynch Imo. So it's not like the Bills are going with an unknown. Since the Bills have a better option in Jackson and a shiny new toy in Spiller Lynch's value to the team was nil (unless Jackson gets injured.) A 4th round pick, on the other hand, has value to the team (albeit future value.)

Problem is spending a top 10 pick on that RB. RBs are a dime a dozen and can be gotten in middle rounds or traded for for 4th round picks... Not to mention it's not a need that was immediate. RBs are the quickest to make the transition to the NFL, a RB could have been drafted a few years from now while another position player got his NFL feet under him in the meantime.

Exactly. The problem people are having is misplaced. They keep saying, "we only got a 4th for a former 1st round pick." They should be pissed off that the Bills organization keeps wasting 1st round picks on RBs. They should have never taken McGahee, never taken Lynch and never taken Spiller. What would the Bills backfield look like next week if they hadn't made these picks? Fred Jackson would be the starter - just like he's going to be anyway. In addition the Bills would have 3 other players they took in the 1st round (granted, they likely would have blown those picks in other ways had they not drafted RBs, but nonetheless...)

True - unfortunately for your analogy though Lynch isn't a 2007 Ferrari. More like a 2007 Ford Taurus. Dependable and does the job but doesn't get anybody excited or win any races. So we traded a 2007 Taurus for the ability to pick up another, newer model, Taurus next year.

I love that now that the Bills have traded him suddenly Lynch is a great back. The guy runs stiff, dances too much in the backfield and - most importantly - lacks vision. The reason Jackson is better than lynch has nothing to do with physical talent, he reads blocks much better, fits into smaller holes and is willing just to put his head down and fall forward to get the extra half yard instead of trying to bounce it outside. Lynch is a 1st round draft pick, but he's a 1st round draft pick who plays like an average player. The Bills traded an average player for an average draft pick - seems fair to me, particularly since we had too many backs in the backfield.

People don't care about that though. They just want to say, "we got a 4th round pick for a 1st rounder" as if trading the more productive player because he was a undrafted would have been better. I guess they could spin that as, "hey, what a shrewd move by the front office, we parlayed an undrafted player into a 5th round pick!" Production be damned. Jackson is hands down the better RB, if one of the backs had to go (and they did) I'm glad it's Lynch, I don't care when he was drafted. People are overlooking the obvious here, the mistake was drafting Spiller with the #9 pick last year. This move just helps alleviate that mistake a little bit. It doesn't erase it but it makes it a bit better, there is absolutely no need to keep 3 solid running backs on the roster.

Everybody keeps bringing up Freddie's age. It's mostly millage, not age, that is the cause of the RBs short shelf life. Freddie doesn't have that much millage - less than Lynch actually. I'm not going to argue that age has nothing to do with it but I'd guess that Jackson only has a a year or so less productive years than Lynch - and he's a much more productive player averaging a half yard more than Lynch per carry over their careers.

Freddie runs behind the same OL and averages quite a bit more per carry than Lynch (4.5 per carry vs. 4.0 for their careers). Yes, only the Bills would use a top 10 pick to draft a RB when they have two guys on their roster who have posted 1000k seasons and both average over 4.0ypc..

Lynch is one strike away from a year suspension. That takes away from potential trade value. A 4th isn't bad for a RB who lacks vision and who runs stiff. Then again, I'd have preferred to just to have kept Jackson and Lynch and used the 1st last year somewhere - almost anywhere - else.

This is the one thing the optimists have been right about in the past 10 years, "It's going to take time." When people complained during the Donahoe/Williams era we got, "give them a chance, it takes time with a new GM and coach." When fans wanted a better product during the Donahoe/Mularky era we got, "new schemes to learn, it takes time." When we wanted more wins during the Levy/Jauron era we got, "it's going to take a few years for a new GM/Coach to turn things around." And now, with Nix/Gaily they say, "it's going to take time" once again. Well, you guy are right, it is going to take time. So far it's taken 10 years to get us - perhaps - the first pick in the draft. Let's all be patient and just give them a little more time. I wonder, will 10 more years be enough time or would fans still not be justified in expecting the Bills to field a winning team by then?

Just out of curiosity Promo, are you every critical of moves the Bills make? It seems you're only ever critical of the fans but the Bills always get a free pass. I'm not sure what's wrong with fans being critical of some moves and supporting others.

I'm really tired of people calling Edwards "Captain Checkdown" as that name is already taken! Holcomb was the original "Captain Checkdown" so Trent would have to be v 2.0 or we could just go with his other nickname, "Trentative" which also fits.

They had more than preseason to go on though - they roughly 20 career starts to see what we've all seen the past few years. A few preseason games wipes away all those regular season games that they saw? Hell, they didn't even have a real competition, they anointed Edwards the starter. How many starts did Fitz get in pre-season to make his case?

It wasn't his balls that got him into trouble with those INTs - it was his footwork. The guys he was throwing to were open but unfortunately he put the ball 7 feet over their heads. I'm not blaming Fitz though, the offense looks much much better with him at the helm. The D could use some work on that so-called "pass rush" though...

We all knew what Fitz brought to the table before this game. We knew he'd put up more points but we also knew - with his accuracy problems - that he'd have more turnovers as well. We got what we expected and Fitz is never going to be better than that - he is who he is. That being said, he put the Bills in a position to win - and then helped put them in a position to lose - but I'd blame the D more than Fitz if I was going to start doling out the blame. Fitz does deserve his portion though. I'm not too upset with the Bills yesterday, that's the team I thought we'd see this year. One that is more exciting to watch but just doesn't have the horses to beat good teams (particularly on the road.) I can stomach watching the team we saw yesterday. I'm not sure how much more of the team we saw in weeks 1 & 2 I can stomach...

Yeah, it's a turd pile but I'm not happy with Gaily's pooper scooper technique.

The offense will just suck in a different way. Instead of having a QB who can't make a decision with the ball and who ends up checking down on most plays we'll have a QB who can make decisions, throw it (generally) to the correct place but will skip it or overthrow it half the time. This will lead to more turnovers but likely lead to more points as well. We'll lose just as many games this way but at least I won't have to sit in my living room every Sunday yelling, "THROW THE DAMN BALL!" as I watch the porous offensive line allow guys to get to the QB in under 2 seconds. I will instead be yelling, "WHO THE HELL WERE YOU THROWING THAT BALL TO?"

I agree that Fitz gives me more hope at the QB position. While Fitz is a bad QB he's a better bad QB than Edwards. The disturbing thing is Gaily's decision to go with Edwards after watching a career's worth a film and having a "QB competition" only to pull him after 2 weeks. Either he saw something in the study of Edward's career that made him believe he could field a competitive team with Edwards at the helm or he didn't. If he did he needs to give Edwards more than 2 weeks before giving him the hook. If he didn't then why the hell didn't he hold a real QB competition during the pre-season with the other guys getting pre-season starts and lots of first team reps? I'm not too pleased with how the Gaily era is starting off.

No matter who the Bills kept it would have been the "wrong guy." Both QBs aren't starter quality and trying to debate between them is pointless. But if I had to choose between them, yeah I'd got with JP. At least when he holds onto the ball he's actually looking to make a play down field and will throw the ball to the WRs - which makes the game a bit more exciting, even in defeat. Both are incredibly frustrating to watch though, so the "entertainment" factor with either isn't very high.

And in a workplace, any workplace, it is unacceptable. So the NFL's reaction is also normal - normal for a company who is trying to protect its image and prevent litigation in the present and future.

Wow, those rankings are putrid. I love that the "experts" ignore what happens on the field when one team beats another. San Fran ranked in front of a Seahawks team that destroyed them? Same thing goes with Houston below Indy, KC below SD, and Washington below Dallas. If those teams are indeed better the season will bear it out but for the time being there's no way the rankings should look like that. Thankfully, unlike college football these ridiculous rankings have no say in the ultimate outcome of the season.

Nothing short of a plane crash would make me pick the Bills to win. But anything can happen, a 7 turnover day by the GB offense could have Berman yammering, "thats - why-they-play-the-game!" Without a massive turnover differential I see no way for the Bills to win though...

He wasn't on the list because nobody outside of the Buffalo and Miami media watched the game. Seriously, if you aren't a fan of one of those two teams, why would you tune in?