WhitewalkerInPhilly

Those are an insane number of sacks for such a short period of time. I particular, right around the time he got injured he took 9 sacks in the game before us, and then 6 against the Bills where he got knocked out for the season. 27 sacks in 6 games is INSANE. In the end...maybe he can be a little better at getting the ball to TJ, but TJ is going to have to get MUCH better at route running.

Exactly my logic. The Bills have worked out Matt Barkley, Jeff Tuel, Matt Scott, Geno Smith, E.J. Manuel, Tyler Bray and Landry Jones. I refuse to believe that not a single one of them will available at #41, especially Scott. I'm increasingly interested in Scott, who appears to be possibly the most physically gifted, but NEEDS more polish and is a higher risk. Even if there is a run, I'm happy with our current options. Besides, if Kolb is as bad as all the naysayers seem to think, we're set a get a QB in the next draft...

We are indeed taking the hit. But, from what I have heard from reports at the time of the release, is that when taking into account the projected increase in the cap next year, it would level out and have less of an impact. From what I remember at the time of the release of Fitz, they made an offer where he would have made $3 million base, with up to $7 million a year with incentives. The guaranteed money was the real clincher, and Fitz apparently said "no way". It seems clear that Nix is planning to take a QB in the draft, and doesn't want to be handcuffed to the idea of starting him right away. In this scenario, Kolb has the Fitz contract we wanted. What this is saying to me is that we want to give a rookie a chance to start in 2014, and by the time Kolb's contract is up our books will be almost completely clear to give him (or whoever we draft in 2014 if said rookie doesn't pan out) the same FA treatment we're seeing Miami take. This. Thank you for running the numbers.

I like the idea of taking Patterson at #8. I think you could put Patterson on the outside with Brad Smith or Graham or and put Stevie in the slot next to him and suddenly have a pick your poison scenario. This works well no matter who is throwing the ball next season, especially if you get Spiller and Jackson in the mix doing slants and screens.

To me, it's getting back to square one, only with it costing less cap space for next year and a QB who is a better fit for the new system. I'm not jumping for joy, but I'm happy to have options again. We still are, but Fitz was never going to restructure, and that $10 mil is way too big a hit to take for someone who is competing for a backup spot. While we have yet to see all the numbers for Kolb's contract, I suspect that his cap number is going to half of that, and have all its guaranteed money up front. That way, between the June 1st designation on Fitz's release and the expected cap increase next year we get a quality alternative to a rookie as starter without the continued cap hit from Fitz's monster contract. If I'm right, Kolb's impact on next year's cap will be minimal.

I was particularly defending the choice of Warner as a journeyman who had success after years of struggle, in this case spending a very long time being passed over, and having uneventful years before a resurgence two teams after his SB year. If not, coming back to Superbowl after getting cut from the Rams, passed over for Eli Manning on the Giants and having to win the job back from Matt Leinhart of all people certainly does.

I completely agree on that one. Look, I'm willing to entertain the idea that Kolb surprises us all. I would welcome it in fact, and it does seem that the Bills put some effort into getting him to sign. But there really is no excuse to forgo have a rookie being groomed behind Kolb in the likely event that he gets hurt, or isn't the QB of the future.

I would still argue that Warner was a journeyman. After his great Superbowl year he slumped and was cut, went to the Giants and lost out on the job to Eli manning, went to the Cardinals, lost out on the job to Matt Leinhart, and then led them to the playoffs in '08 and the Superbowl in '09. If that doesn't speak to being a journeyman, I don't know what does.

Ahh, I misunderstood. Thank you for setting me straight.

Seems like. I won't rule out the possibility of someone we think is a starter at QB dropping into our lap at #8, but I'm thinking that the Bills are looking at Manuel, Nassib and possibly Wilson at #41, with an eye out on Barkley if he drops and possibly Matt Scott if we think we can wait until round 3 or 4.

Look, for some perspective, if the Bills had gotten Romo for the same price that they just got Kolb, how stoked would everyone be right now? I would be pretty happy. Really happy. Tony Romo is a good quarterback, a damn good quarterback. What he isn't, is a good field marshal. How many times did we look at Flacco and go, "what the hell do the Ravens see in him". Remember when we looked at Eli Manning and said "Man, what a bust"? What these guys have is the ability to go up and over their limitations when it matters, as opposed to Romo who regresses. Romo is a good quarterback, but that's Super Bowl winning money. That's "Flacco has you by the short hairs after having the greatest playoff performance since Joe Montana and it's the last year of his contract" money. Tom Brady doesn't get that deal. Aaron Rodgers doesn't get that kind of deal. Romo doesn't deserve it, but I don't mind seeing the Cowboys overpay for him.

While I don't agree with the idea that "it's a lock that we don't take a QB at #8", I think that the logic is that the Bills no longer have to run a rookie as a starter no matter what. The Bills can pick someone who is physically gifted like EJ Manuel or Matt Scott, and give them a year to polish. After all, even Kaepernick only started after an injury in his second year, and suddenly everyone is going on about how brilliant the 49'ers were, even though they were perfectly content with Alex Smith at the helm. Of course, if there is THE GUY at #8, whoever that is, the Bills can take him, and with the incentive laden contract we suspect Kolb got offered we don't have to scream about how we're paying a fortune to a backup. Ehh, maybe I'm Kool-Aid drinking. And, to be honest, I don't need great from Kolb. I would be happy with "serviceable" . I would be thrilled if he somehow became the exception to the rule, if indeed the source of his troubles were a bad O-line and non-existent running game, but right now I see him as the wily vet who chases off the rookie for the starting job at first. After all, he's never finished a season, so I think this really just places us as the same situation as with Fitz...only paying less money to a guy with more experience in the new coaching staff's system, and with a bigger arm. Thanks coach! Warner is pretty much the perfect example.

You know, I thought there would be no chance in hell of us taking him. He clearly doesn't seem ready to start, even if he has the physical tools, and the Bills were definitely in the market for a starting QB. Now though...Kolb is a starter, even if he isn't a top tier one, and if the contract is structured like we suspect, we won't be behooven to him is something better comes along. I can see Matt Scott being brought on, and given a year or two to get his head about him before getting a shot.

There, fixed it for you.

I don't know if Moore has had any experience playing a WCO. I would rather have Arizona's castoffs than Miami's anyways... Well, that's what you get for skimming the Wikipedia article...entirely my bad. I'm sure there's someone who bounced around for a while before getting really, really good. Still, I think Kolb fits Hackett's system much better than Fitz, has the arm for Buffalo weather that Fitz doesn't and is taking the money Fitz wouldn't. I'm willing to be proven wrong about the guy, especially if we're sticking with a run first system which takes pressure off the guy, and with an offensive line which (hopefully) doesn't give up 58 sacks a year.

This is pretty much my point...though I can guess you can argue that we have a QB now. Am I completely sold on our CB corps? No. But a reasonably priced sure thing for #2 or #3 CB gives us some much needed depth, especially considering what Pettine has been talking about with a nickel base defense. Considering how often our CBs are injured, I would happily take some insurance before taking someone in the late rounds.

OK, to be honest I was ready to bust every blood vessel in my body last night when I heard. But as the morning comes, and I've had the chance to sleep on things a little I have to say that it's not a bad move. Granted, I *want* a rookie to come in and surprise us all, and win the starting job but in the end I think Kolb may be a better QB than Fitz and we're getting him for less money...a lot less money. The phrase "$13M maximum" and the phrasing that was in the contract Fitz got offered makes me think that it's incentive driven. If the Bills don't see a rookie they like, oh well, there's next year. Kolb somehow becomes the next Drew Brees Kurt Warner, a journeyman who bounced around as a backup before slowly earning his stripes as the starter, we have him for one more year at a ridiculously reasonable contract. If the Bills find a guy they like, but want to give him a year or two to develop, same thing. If the rookie knocks us off our feet, he's in an affordable contract for a backup and we can let him hit the open market, or let him see what the value is for a 29 year old who wasn't started in two years. In the end, we no longer have to consider trading valuable picks to get Geno Smith at 8. We don't have to talk about trading Flynn from the 'Hawks. We can feel comfortable waiting for round 2 or 3 to pick a developmental QB, or even skipping QB completely if they think that Kolb, a WCO QB, is great in the system. Hey, I'm willing to let myself be completely surprised. Edit: Ok, I've been shown that my original comparison is wrong, and have substituted a much better one. Let's move on.

Well, I guess it's not too bad. Kolb will be injured pretty quick and we'll the rookie in there soon enough. There's going to be a rookie, right? Right? ... Excuse me, I need a freaking drink.

DOOOOOOOOOMED!!! Well, I hate it. I'm not even going to sugarcoat it, and everyone here damn well knows that they didn't want this. Even if he's not starting, it's still additional drain on the cap, and the man is not going to be our savior. If we are resigned to suck TJax can do that all on his own.

I am wondering if they would want him back at Safety. That way, Sheppard, Bradham and anyone who we pick up would be the ILB's. People have been saying that Pettine likes three safeties, so I wonder if he'll want Scott to fully embrace his role as tweener.

And now that we've Rule 34'rd it, there is a website that combines the two.

OK, now that I have a moment... As I've been thinking about it, I keep wondering if Scott is intended to be put back as a Safety. It was technically his position before getting moved to LB last year, and this would help alleviate concerns with our thinness at SS. With that, Sheppard and Bradham (or whoever we add in the draft) will be in the ILB spot. I really don't like having Anderson or Williams anywhere except OLB, and even then I would have reservations with having more than one on the field at a time unless we knew it was a passing down. Mario showed that he could stop the run, but Anderson has a lot to prove. I do suppose that Lawson might be able to work as a MLB, which would help the situation, especially if the WLB can be done by Bradham with backup from Scott. I really am curious to see what Pettine has cooking. Thanks. I'm surprised and happy to see that people seem to be enjoying it.

I may not have clearly mentioned it, but in this scheme the setup is 2-4-5. As such, there is no true tackle and you really stick with the NT and a DE, or two DE's. I can believe you can also run a 3-3-5, but then you have questions over who will be the NT, and what do we do with Mario Williams. Admittedly...yes. Yes to both. I am rather happy to have Byrd back, and happy with Gilmore. I think Seacry is pretty close a swap for George Wilson, so we're ready to go there, and I think that between Williams and Brooks we can get a decent NB, but without some reinforcements we are quite thin. The problem is that there don't seem to be any stud stutdown players in the draft past Milliner and I don't see any in free agency so I think we're stuck with it either way. And yes, the nickel's primary weakness is against the run. However, another subpackage out of the 3-4 is the 46, and we could play it with a lot of the same personnel. This would primarily act as our previous 4 man D-line front, with Lawson coming in for run support. It's not perfect, but I think you can argue that in the increasingly pass-centric league it makes more sense to gameplan against that first. I will get back to JBoy when I have time later today, as I'm enjoying all the Defense Talk too

Nice catch. I agree that if the Bills have a weak link in their front seven, it's at the ILB position, whether or not we go to a 3-4 or stay in 4-3. Now, I wouldn't hate getting Kevin Minter or *wince* Manti T'eo, provided that they dropped to 41, and still walked away with a decent QB option but I'm increasingly convinced that QB and WR will be first on our docket.

Well, we are talking about Two Bills Drive here. Whenever have you needed a reason? And yanked straight from the article I was stealing from referencing...but hey, it does the job. If it's good enough for SB News...