finn

If the Bills had won one more game, they'd be in the playoff hunt for real, and that would be sooo nice. If they had lost one more game they'd have a losing record and losses against the Packers and Patriots would have led to at least the possibility of a new coach and offensive coordinator. As it is, it's the worst case scenario: neither the playoffs nor a replacement for a coach hired because no one else would take a job with new ownership pending. So we're stuck with Marrone and (Can't) Hackett at least another year. I don't favor constant coaching overhauls, but Marrone contributes nothing to winning, and Hackett has actually impeded the Bills' chances. My best scenario for coaching at this point: promote Schwartz to maintain continuity and bring in a big-gun offensive coordinator. But that seems like a pipe dream. Why are we Bills fans again?

And Urbick was benched half the year. That was criminal.

You're not the only one, nor are you only one who is despised.

I had the same thought, but consider that they really did play well against Brady this year, only Schwartz inexplicably rushed three lineman and had Duke Williams cover Gronkowski, which borders on criminal negligence on his part. If they pressured girly Brady like they have Vick and others, they would have shut him down, or so I thought. The other thing is, they did play him well otherwise, but once again the Bills offense was lame as could be. Consider this defense with the Bears '85 or Ravens 2012 offense and you'll see my point. They would be number one in every category.

This defense, with this coordinator and this personnel, may be the best the Bills have ever had, maybe one of the best the NFL has seen in recent years. This view might be a consensus if they didn't have one of the worst offenses the Bills have ever fielded. With a competent offense (and coordinator) doing its part--making third downs, scoring in the red zone, giving the defense a rest and a lead so they could really be aggressive--these Bills would be ranked with the '85 Bears. The line, the linebackers, the safeties are all excellent, and the corners are above average. Am I wrong?

Do you mean patience for a project QB? Fans were patient with Kelly (who did have two years in the AFL), and i think they would have been patient with Dalton and Tannehill, both of whom have showed a lot more than Manuel. I have a pretty high opinion of Bills fans as a whole; they are pretty knowledgeable. For example, they know the value of a good offensive line, obviously far more than the current management. I'm not sure agree that fans would have reacted badly by keeping Fitz, if only because cutting him meant eating his huge salary for two years. I think cutting him only made Nix and Whaley's original mistake (signing him to a mega-contract) worse, as others have pointed out. Why pay Orton AND Fitz? No, I disagree with PTR. Even excusing him from the Fitz fiasco, I think Whaley has fumbled the QB situation here. And now he has fewer options than ever, with no first-round pick.

"Know for sure" is a pretty high standard for any pick, let alone a quarterback. I just think--guess, believe, based on his overall performance so far--Bortles will be good. My beef with Whaley is that he panicked and picked Manuel, a project at best, a bust at worst, with a first-round pick that could have used for a player (guard, anyone?) or used in a deal for a very high pick the following year (Bortles). You can defend him by saying his job was on the line, but that's hardly a defense. He did not need to choose a qb in that weak class. He should have bided his time.

Define "available." Whaley gave up the farm for a wide receiver. He could have done the same for Bortles, who I think will be terrific.

Or how about--gasp--a play-action pass? Even one would shock everyone, including our own players.

We've already seen this defense against Brady. The players showed up; Schwartz did not. Rushing three against Brady and covering Gronkowski with a second-string safety. THAT'S going to work.

I do think trading up at that price can be justified, even for a WR, but not in the most loaded draft for receivers in NFL history, and not when the team has no quarterback or line (or coaches who can help make up the difference instead of adding to it). The original poster is correct: the Bills messed up. They should have traded DOWN, picked up Beckam and picked up a quality guard. Instead, Whaley got cute. He fell in love with Watkins like the most sophomoric fantasy footballer and traded away a goldmine on the gamble that E.J. Manuel, Doug Marrone and one of the worst lines in the history of football would take us to the playoffs. Here's the thing: Watkins is the real deal, and every time he shows it fans will applaud Whaley. But Beckam and Benjamin are also studs, and we could have had one of them AND our fourth round pick AND our first round next year. (Or Evans at a much less steep price.) So don't buy the line that if Watkins is great Whaley was right. He wasn't right. He was wrong. Even a HOF career from Watkins won't justify this blunder.

I don't think the owners are rigging the game, but the game is not as fair as most people think. First, refs are in fact biased because they're human and are subject to the same pressures everyone else is. You can find a persuasive account of how in a book called Sportscasting. Second, some NFL refs may be corrupt. I'm not claiming it's true hands down, but corruption in the World Cup tournament is so endemic that you can't rule it out in the NFL. These NFL guys are not full-time refs, and like everyone else they're susceptible to blackmail and other persuasive measures. When huge money is on the table, integrity is not high on everyone's list of values. I'm sounding cynical, but I think the only factor holding back big-scale corruption is fear of losing the whole enchilada: big greed is trumping small greed. For now.

Why "stubborn"? Why not "inept" or "incompetent"? Between last year's left-guard debacle and this year's idiocy, I don't understand why Marrone gets any support at all. What's to like? Really, I ask in earnest. What has he done that any NFL position coach, chosen at random, could not do? At best, he's like Orton: he won't lose you games. But can't we do better than that? Imagine a coach that actually helped WIN games. Am I missing something? Do you really think scenario, even if true, absolves Marrone? Do you mean to say that it's worth playing a rookie not close to ready--and suffer badly for it--just to make a point about effort in training camp? Maybe you bench the better player for a game to make your point, but not half the season. A competent coach doesn't need to hurt the team badly to motivate players.

I'm with you. I would give Orton the extension and go all in on the O-line, the only serious weakness on the team. Yes, it would be gamble, but what is the alternative? E.J. Manuel, Take Two? Another vet? A second round developmental project? With a strong running game and excellent protection, you don't need Orton at his absolute best to make the Bills a top-ten team, especially with this defense and wide receiver corps. They're ready now, in fact, except (a huge except) for what might be the worst line in franchise history. It's a stretch to hope that this coaching staff could pull together a line with what they have to work with (although I fantasize about a Hairston-Glenn-Wood-Urbick-Kujo scenario), but between free agency, the draft and maybe some development of the young guys, it's reasonable to think they might pull it off next year and go deep into the playoffs. But, yes, it starts with resigning Orton.

I've had similar thoughts. Look at Gilmore's almost-break up of the pass in the endzone a few games ago. Does it really make sense to say, as many commentators did, that a great DB breaks that pass up and a not-great DB doesn't? Gilmore arm was between the receiver's arms--it was an extraordinary exhibition of athleticism on both players' parts. Now, maybe his not making the play and the WR making the play shapes how each of them develops from that point on, but I don't agree that Gilmore's failure to break up the pass makes him any less of a player than a DB who does break it up. I think I'll be in the small minority on this one, however...

"Drafting Sammy Watkins, and giving away next year's 1st and 4th(note the proper use of math, logic, the dictionary, and grammar in saying that precisely, and therefore: correctly." You're using the colon incorrectly, bub. I only correct people who are being deliberately obnoxious about other people's grammar. The "Oxford comma" is also questionable to some, and you didn't insert a space between the "4th" and the parentheses, which is another error. In short, why don't you stick to substance, and, while you're at it, tone down the self-righteousness, prickly, self-satisfied tone. Resolve your insecurities elsewhere. As for the substance of your comment, Whaley's move was definitely debatable at the time and probably will remain so for another year or two, maybe more. It is hardly "nonsensical" to challenge it as wrong-headed or reckless, especially in light of E.J.'s face plant this year. Since you have your dictionary handy, I suggest you look up the word. As Inigo Montoya would say, I don't think that word means what you think it means.

They're top to BECAUSE they played Buffalo.

Whaley admits the Hughes trade fell into his lap and said it was a no-brainer. So give him credit for not not having a brain but I wouldn't go further than that. As for the Rivers pickup, it's a lot like the Chris Williams signing: a top draft pick who has under-performed for his career. So we sign both and get...mediocre vets. They may not be awful, but they're not very good, either. I do give him credit for the Graham signing, which was astute, and the Williams pickup, but not so much for Spikes, who is an uneven player. Meanwhile, as others have pointed out, he has left yawning holes at guard. On the whole, I would give Whaley an average (which is to say mediocre) grade if it wasn't for the Manuel pick and the Watkins trade. Both reek of recklessness and haste. Two first round draft picks wasted, and this by a franchise that hasn't been in the playoffs in 14 years.

This is the kind of quality post/response that keeps me coming back to this site. Thanks. I'll look for the Muth posts.

Several posters have said they think Richardson will be good, even very good, with time. Why do you say that? He may be big, tough and play hard, but from what little I've seen, he's constantly being beaten. It looks like he simply isn't quick enough and doesn't have good enough balance to play guard in the NFL. Only when someone runs directly at him does he seem to do ok. But I haven't seen the all-22 reviews, so I defer to those who have or who have paid close attention to line play. Is there really reason to hope, or is it more of the "E.J. has all the tools to be a hall of fame qb" type pie in the sky? I'm a little more hopeful about Henderson, since he plays low for a huge man and does seem to have good balance and lateral movement. When he gets beat, it seems to twists and stunts. He looks clueless, but those plays are hard to defend and depend a lot on good communication with the guard next door, which happens to be the worst tackle in the NFL, according to PFF. Anyway, I'd like to hear why folks are up on Richardson.

Nicely summed up. The best he's done is to rise to the level of adequate. Then everyone is excited: "He's adequate! He's adequate!!" EJ apologists point to a game here, a half here, but this qb has never, not once, flashed greatness or even above-averageness. He's a mediocrity with only the slimmest chance of developing into a very good quarterback. The only question now is when the front office will move on. Given the politics, the answer should be after the season. Worst-case scenario: the "it's too early to judge him!" or "It's his line! And WRs! and...and" sentiment will prevail and we'll be having the same exchanges about his ineptitude for another season, with Promo the Robot intoning that it's too early to judge him. Give him another three seasons. God, it sucks being a Bills fan.

This is more or less the observation I was going to make. The two have made built a pretty good young roster, but they put all their chips on EJ and rushed him into the lineup....all while having had two--count 'em--veteran qbs on the roster, paid for and ready to go, in Jackson and Fitzpatrick. In my view, they (and Nix) have gotten nowhere near the heat they deserve for first signing Fitz to that huge contract then letting him go one year in, meaning that they have to pay him without getting his services in return. They messed up signing him, but why did they then cut him, doubling the mistake? I don't buy the "he'd be a distraction" argument, because a much more plausible explanation is right at hand: they made a mistake and wanted it to go away fast. And it worked. How often do you see this crew flamed for their appalling double mistake--I mean giving Fitz a huge contract then cutting him, burdening the franchise with enough dead money to have signed Byrd and more? Neither qb is the long-term answer obviously, but having one or both would have allowed EJ to learn from the bench--or, far, far (far) better, bought them time to bring in one or more qbs with more potential than EJ. The qb position is just too important to put all your chips on one player. We've seen it a sickening number of times here, and we all know the litany. Yet this is just what these two have done. So no Fitz starting while the coaches have time to develop and evaluate one or two young prospect. No long-term plan to stockpile picks in order to move up in the next year's draft to nab a player with more potential. Whaley is praised constantly on this board for the moves he's made. But it seems to me these moves are all about his own career and making himself look good. Usually that self-interest coincides with the franchise's, but cutting Fitz, drafting a questionable "franchise" qb now versus a more sure thing later--and (doubling down) giving up two first-round picks for a wide receiver (hey, if it means the playoffs, great, if not, Whaley figures he'd be out of here anyway)... those are not the moves of a GM thinking long term and putting the franchise first. He's a talented guy, and it might be best for Pegula to sign him to a long-term contract so he can put the Bills first instead of himself.

This back and forth is getting old, guys. "E.J. sucks"; "Yeah, but he's had only 12 starts" in every variation, with lots of hyperbole on both sides. Can we agree that a) it's too early to judge him definitively, and b) he is awful on bad days and seldom more than adequate on good days? How about an acronym to speed things along: IKIEBHRS: "I know it's early but he really sucks?"

No, I was referring to the backlash I've been reading and hearing in many places charging that the negative reaction to the beatings amounts to political correctness or a lynch-mob mentality. Maybe that's what we call widespread responses that we don't like. But I like to think that virtually all of us can agree on some things, like beating a 4-year old bloody is wrong.

Thanks for posting the video. This is the kind of thing a lot of parents need to hear, directly about their own behavior but also indirectly, about their own parents'. Carter's message is that someone you love can be simply wrong; acknowledging they're wrong doesn't change your love for them. You know, the NFL is all about fun and enjoyment, for us, anyway. But. like any public forum, it's also a means of reinforcing--or, on rare occasions, changing--behaviors. Maybe this outraged response will make a few parents think about what they do to their kids. I wouldn't call the outrage a "mob mentality"; I would call it consensus. You don't do that to a child. Period.