SuperKillerRobots

I expect him and Johnson/McCargo to split Stroud's nickel and dime (4 d-linemen) reps as a DT.

I agree with this thinking, even though I don't like what Kelsey does on the field. You know he's going to know the scheme, practice hard, and be a leader. Maybe when they get a guy to play that position who has some talent, he'll learn how to be a professional from Kelsey.

Good enthusiasm, but we still will have Chris Kelsey covering the TE and RBs out of the flat. Or at best, if you sign a guy to do that, we have some stopgap guy there. As far as I'm concerned this team goes nowhere unless they can get a OLB who has some athleticism and bulk. He doesn't have to be able to shut down Gates or Finley either - just keep them in check on a few plays a game so the other team can't go to them at will. I don't think you can trade back into the 1st round with 2 3rd rounders, but that's not the point I'm going to make. I don't think we're as bad at LT as we are at RT and I'd definitely, at this point, go OLB before LT or RT unless the value was way off.

Depending on how the QBs fall out, I think the first two picks (in no order right now) have to be OLB and QB. Before the season started the only player on the team I thought could stop us from drafting a QB in round 1 was Trent Edwards playing like Payton Manning. Little did anyone suspect that it would be Chris Kelsey's play that potentially forces us to take an OLB #1; he's just awful at what they ask him to do. Don't get me wrong - I want a new QB as early as possible, I just don't know if it makes more sense to go QB then OLB or OLB then QB. I think LT has fallen off the absolute needs list and onto the probable needs list, which puts two or three positions ahead of it. I actually think we need an RT before an LT. I think the asnwer is becoming yes.

I have been noticing the same thing with Bell - he actually looks decent. It's possible he works out after all to a some extent. Meredith on the other hand is a huge dissapointment. I guess there's no need to second-guess GB's releasing of draft picks.

I was thinking the second scenario would be that they purposely went into the season with the idea that one of the QBs ont he roster would have a great year and get re-signed or the team would tank and they'd get they're pick of players at the top of the draft in 2011. The early 90s Bills would never have been very good without all those bad years in the early and mid 80s. Also, I remember in the late 90s when we picked up a lot of good FAs every year. How can you say Ralph never did anything in FA? One of the best WRs in team history was an FA (Lofton).

Who cares what anyone is saying about the FO? Even of the people that thought we might do halfway decently (or dare I say, well), they had to know that it was at least possible that this scenario currently playing out could potentially play out. The entire team deserves what it gets at this point. And to answer your questions, yes it is Trent's fault that he sucks. Who else's fault would it be? Same for Maybin. I get the argument that it's the FO's job to pick the players where they deserve to be picked, but the player still has to show up and play - that's on him. These guys all have physical talent or else they wouldn't get drafted. It's incumbent on these players to try to get better and on the coaching staff to try to make them better (and the FO to draft them in the best spot). I just don't think any one (or two) aspects of the team deserves a pass. But I guess things might be different if we had traded for Jason Campbell to address our QB situation (there were so many options out there) /sarcasm

It's funny because Trent is the second best QB from that class.

I thought Sully has been calling fr Trent's head for the past two years. Now he gets benched, at a reasonably early time in the season, and Sully is going to have a problem with it? I wonder if the editors just force him to write these crazy anti-Bills articles to sell papers; he hates it, but loves the job too much to leave. It could make for some good HBO hour long drama.

I see what you're saying and respect the hell out of PK, but I don't think your point hold sup that well unless you come up with some sort of comparison to other teams in the league missing the boat on players/coaches.

I was kind of thinking the same thing. I thought Edwards played well enough last game to not get benched at this point. Those two INTs were both on the WRs - I wonder if Steve Johnson is getting the start this week. I had hoped to see more out of Edwards this year and after that first game I concluded that he just doesn't look like a top 15 QB in that he doesn't really add anything to the equation. He's good enough to get it done when he doesn't have to carry the team, but without a defense and a big stud WR/TE, he's never going to do anything spectacular. I would've been OK with giving him until the bye to sort things out, but if he isn't the QB that they want to move forward with, I get dumping him this early and just trying to win games as opposed to trying to develop him or another QB. I'm starting to think they didn't want a QB this year because they wanted to sort out the other positions on the team and not have to worry about getting a top draft pick killed. I think this scenario is almost exactly what would have worked to Edwards advantage had he come into the league in that sort of situation, not that it makes a difference now. By the way, is it just me or is Edwards starting to look like Losman out there? First the hair and the sideburns and then it seemed like whenever they showed his face in the first half he had that deer-in-the-headlights-JP Losman-look. I feel like we've watched two people (not just football players) be completely defeated - battered, bruised, and discouraged - over the course of 5 or so years to the point where they look like they don't even want to be football players so much anymore. Playing QB for the Bills this decade must be demoralizing.

To be fair on this, Ralph has never said his estate would sell to the highest bidder, just that his estate would sell. It's possible that there is already an agreement in place to sell the team based on a certain affrodable-in-Buffalo multiplier after Ralph passes. It's possible that Ralph thinks the league would push back on this type of setup if it were out in the open (and possibly pit the other owners against him even more), so he's keeping it quiet.

Did anyone else pick up on Nix's MMQB Club question and answer session when he was asked about comparing McNabb's vettern performance in the win vesus Edwards' skitish performmance in our loss? His answer started out with something about McNabb's completion percentage (being less than or right about 50%) and said that those stats won't win you many games. Then went on to say, "I'm not a Donovan McNabb guy." He then backtracks to talk about how McNabb is a professional and has done it for a while. I thought it was interesting that he said he wasn't a fan of McNabb, given all of the talk about trading for him in the offseason and how we were supposed to be after him. I wonder if that was true. I wonder if Nix thinks McNabb is past his expiration date so to speak.

My guess is that until Bell can prove that he can play a whole game without needing to be relieved, nothing will change. If they put Meredith on the right side, who comes in for Bell? Not to mention, I don't think Meredith is an upgrade over Green either. I think the ebst chance is either Urbik or Howard showing something in practice - enough to get them a chance. I don't think Wang will see the active roster this year at all. He's going to watch and learn.

I'm usually a glass is half full, optimistic type of fan and do spend time here coming to the defense of players and coaches (probably more than is sensical) when people start bashing them. I usually try to figure out the reasons for moves this teams makes and how those moves are going to help the team win. I'm sure you all know what I'm talking about, whether you agree with me or not. That being said, I thought it would make mroe sense for me to provide a list of things I didn't like than what I did, since that might be more interesting for everyone to read (it's like having a Republican strategist analyze the democrat's strategy - not to get political). Here's what I didn't like, keeping in mind that nothing I liked wiill be included in this post: - Trent Edwards: I've defended Trent in the past, probably mostly because I want him to do well more than I think he will. I have not given up on him completely, but to say I was dissapointed with how he played would be an understatement. He looked gun-shy. he had open receivers down field, but would not make the plays. I don't know why he didn't throw the ball to Steve Johnson in the first half when he was open on single coverage. I don't knwo why Roscoe didn't get more balls thrown his way. I get that a portion of this has to get blamed on Gailey for not callign the best plays, but Edwards needs to make plays that can be made and he didn't. It's not uncorrectable, just dissapointing to see that from him when he's supposed to be a "renewed" QB. Watch out for the 1st round QB next year - we run away with that game if we had even Matt Stafford playing QB. - Kelsey: I like Kelsey for what he does well enough and am probably in the minority or fans who are not terribly upset about his contract vs. production. I still even feel he has a place on this team, this year. That place however, is not as an OLB in coverage. he was pretty dreadful trying to tackle people in space (as he should be for someone who's never done it before). This guy should be primarily the DE in the sub package 4-2 and 4-1 looks - maybe even some 3-2 and 3-1 looks. He has no business playing OLB unless it's an obvious running situation or he's blitzing. Who knows though, maybe he'll get better as he gets more practice at it. - Offensive Game Plan: CJ should not have started this game or played as much as he did in the first half. Jackson looked pretty good running the football and was better suited to get the type of yards that were there to be gotten in that game. Ditto for Marshawn. CJ looks more like a change of pace, 5 touches - 2 big plays and a TD type of player at this point. He'll get better, but there's no need for him to learn on the job when it's costing the Bills wins or potential wins. Terrance McGee as #1 CB: Just let McKelvin take over the outside spot and draw the top WR from the other team. He's ready and more than able to do it. McGee is not a bad player, but doesn't have the size to cover anyone over 6'1" and 220 lbs. He gets pushed around way too much and isn't fast enough or quick enough in the short area to recover against bigger players. McGee belongs in the slot.

Normally I'm all about not being too hard on the whipping boy players on this team because they are all given far too little credit for what they do. I even share that opinion of Kelsey to a certain extent. That being said, you picked a poor week to post this because Kelsey looked terrible whenever he was 5 yards past the LOS. He also blew a few run assignments that were costly. I'm willing to give him a chance or two more, but he's not getting aa pass from me either. He sucked bad.

She's just the best, isn't she? http://www.yardbarker.com/m/5911/xl/ines-sainz3.jpg

You lie! I'd love to see you find a link to that quote because I know it doesn't exist. He said soemthing to the effect of it being mroe trouble for offenses to play against and guess where the pressure is coming from. I never heard anything about him thinking the team had the personnel for it.

I thought the same thing after the first half. I think it was a mistake to put everything on CJ's back right away. He should be used as a change of pace back at this point, so the team can let Jackson and Lynch do somethings. They both looked more decisive and patient than CJ. Still not sure why TE lasered that screen pass to Fred on the first series though. You'd think you either softly toss it to him or put another back in there until his hand heals.

I took the Bills and the points this weekend. It was against all my better judgement.

+1

The thing I wonder about is how this impacts the visiting team payout. In the NFL the gate revenue is split between the two teams playing that day 60-home, 40-visitor. I wonder how those tickets bought at .43 on the dollar are calculated into the gate revenue split.

Well sir, care to enlighten us to your second hand information?

This is sort of correct. One exception being that commercial short term loans are 1 to 3 years most of the time and long-term loans are never past 15 and usually for mortgages are 10 (with a balloon payment at the end that has to be refinanced). These loans would then be amatorized over a period of 20 or 30 years. Stadium debt is done the same way, except instead of 10 or 15 year loans, they get 1 to 5 year loans with amortizations of something like 40 years. This forces refinances, but also strings along the debt for a long time. It's actually a very inefficient way of doing business because of all the changes. This is why when the economy tanks, every team with a loan feels it because they are being forced to refi their loans every few years and deal with the current economic conditions.

No even number of wins, eh?