bobobonators

Now that Yankey declared, i think the absolute best scenario for us would be to trade down if possible and nab Yankey around 16/17. With Glenn, Yankey and Wood, the left side of our line would be absolutely set. Use the two 2nd rd picks to address TE/LB or WR/LB or even safety.

Though he just does mostly games i really like Gruden on TV. Hes energetic and speaks his mind a lot of times. IMO

S E C ! ! !

Sign me up!!!! NFL is my drug and I want more.

Wow I never wouldve predicted 44 pages. Imagine da'rick makes a game winning catch in playoffs? :w00t:

Good post. Saying that special teams needs more players is along the same stance as when chris brown said "there will be surprising" changes next season, inferring that if marrone doesnt feel he can win with some players, theyll be cut. AKA, its not my marrones fault that we went 6-10, its the players fault. Marrone is coming off as a hard-nosed clown. Hate to say it

All i want is for Yankey to declare. Our next Ruben Brown.

Ill just say it now, i dont like the job Marrone has done after a year. If im owner, he better knock my socks off next season, or i cut him loose. Average college coach, and so far a below average NFL coach.

1BillsFan: I don't see why you take it so personally. "EJ non-believers". LOL. I'm a firm believer in reality and not emotion. And reality states that we finished 6-10. Reality states that EJ missed 6 games due to 3 knee injuries. Reality states that Tuel shouldn't even be on the roster. Reality states that Thad, a practice squad signing, produced just about the same as our vaunted #1 pick last year. Reality states that our QB depth is below average. When a practice squad player performs on-par with your "starter" at QB, you have a serious production problem at QB on your team. You think hearing about drafting a QB is annoying? I think watching Tuel start for the Bills is annoying. I think watching Thad Lewis start for the Bills is annoying. I think EJ having 0 competition for his starting job is annoying. Manuel is nothing more than a "project". Nothing more. And how much do we actually have invested in this guy? Not much, relatively speaking. We traded down to get him so we didn't lose any picks. We obtained Kiko just by trading down for him. His cap number is 2 million in 2014. That ranks below the likes of: Brandon Weeden, Christian Ponder, Jason campbell, kolb, cassell, matt moore, Fitzpatrick, chase Daniel, Gabbert, Orton, Drew Stanton, Matt Hasselbeck, Mark Sanchez, Matt Schaub, etc. He's expendable if doesn't produce. We don't have to wait. NFL moves pretty quickly these days. Many college QB's are coming out more prepared than ever. It's simply unacceptable to keep waiting for project QB's to come around. EJ will of course get his shot next season at the starting job. I don't think anyone would be opposed to that. But if a solid QB is there in the 2nd round? Go for it. 3rd round? Go for it. By a miracle, Manziel or Bridgewater in the 1st? Go for it. I don't care about EJ's feelings if we draft another QB. We need production from the QB position, from anyone.

Boatdrinks: I hear what you're saying, but NFL players aren't dumb. They know who practices better. They know who produces better on the field. At the end of the day, produce on the field and no one can say anything. Period. People act as if we just have to put EJ at #1 and step aside b/c his psyche is made of paper and heaven forbid he have any competition. Maybe competition is a good thing? And trust me, I'm not arguing "stocking up the cupboard" with QB's at Buffalo. We TRADED DOWN to get a QB last year..and then ended up with Tuel and Thad behind an often injured EJ. Lets not act as if we traded the farm and jumped up to get EJ, and then took another QB in the 3rd round. I'm for getting a QB in any round, if the player has that high of a grade.

Spiderweb: Not really meant towards you, but I'm not sure why Hairston gets so much grief around here. I've seen many people comment on Hairston as if he's lazy and chose not to play this season and he's really not injured/or really does not have an illness. I'm sure word of that would've gotten out, and it still may get out...who knows. If he did have an illness, he's not required to disclose it specifically. So I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until I hear otherwise and hope he gets healthy. I'm counting on him being healthy in 2014..he's young and has the upside we may need either to play at RT or at G down the line. At a minimum, he can be solid depth.

CKLAPKA: just so I follow. Under your scenario, in NFC, GB, SF, Hawks, & Eagles would be guaranteed a playoff spot this year. Got that. And then Saints/SF would make the "wild card"/or whatever we'd call it hereafter. Got that. So under your scenario, Hawks would be #1; Panthers #2; SF #3 (tiebreaker would have to go to Panthers since they won H2H); Saints #4; Eagles #5; and GB #6. So SF woulda played GB (in SF) and Saints woulda played Eagles (in NO). But what I don't follow is the logic of this on a whole. Because on one side you're saying, who cares about the division when ranking the playoff games (SF>GB despite SF not winning their division) but on other hand you're also saying we do care about division b/c we're excluding other teams from playoffs despite having a better record than a division winner (GB > Cardinals despite not having a better record than the Cardinals) That, in my opinion, would be not much different than the current system. It would still be flawed. Your scenario would be fine by me, but if we removed divisions and just had 2 conferences. The entire point of winning your division is obviously to get into the playoffs, but to also have at least 1 home game. Your scenario may take away from some divisional races towards the end of the season b/c you're removing any incentive to win the division other than the obvious: making the playoffs. Because there may be a scenario where there are 2 elite teams in a division and by Week 16 they may already know that regardless of W/L, they're going to have a better record than a 7-8 team who may only win their division at 8-8 and they'll get that home game over that 8-8 team.

CKLAPKA: Teams don't have exact schedules. If you're going to do what you state, you will then have to take into account strength of schedule if you really do care about "fairness". What would the point be to winnng a division? Might as well do away with them..which might not be a bad thing.

I'm not big on Pears for the very fact that he's average at best, and turning 32 this summer. He is what he is, and that arrow is pointing down. Whether it's Hairston or a FA like Saffold, that position needs to be upgraded (along with LG obviously).

Rubes: I don't necessarily disagree with you. Yes, we have holes, but how many holes do we actually have? Fact is, better play from the QB position this season (regardless of player - just production from the position) and one can argue that we're possibly in the playoffs. Of all the holes we have, lack of quality QB play still remains at the top of the list. Much the same way I can sit here and say we need to sign an O-lineman or draft a Guard, there are a bunch of young players on our roster that are still "unproven" and could end up filling a need on the OL. Of course we don't know what we have in EJ. Even more reason to make sure we have a viable replacement in place. Drafting a QB rd 1 this year won't prevent EJ from starting. EJ playing poorly will prevent EJ from starting. And if that's the case, we'll be ahead of the curve with his replacement. Again, not saying that we must take a QB; just saying that if a no-brainer is there at 9 (Manziel), it would be foolish not to take him b/c we "need" a LB.

At the end of the day, it's impossible to have a perfect system. Most reasonable thing to do is that division winner gets home game, regardless of record (SF @ GB for example). There are countless factors that go into a team's W/L record over the season and sometimes one could argue that the 9-7 team that won their division had a much tougher strength of schedule than the team that finished 10-6 and second place in their division. Not saying that was the case this year, but that scenario could occur and then would that really be "fair" to give the 10-6 team a home game over the division winner at 9-7? Not sure. At least this way, it's easily known: win your division and get a home game.

What really gets me about people who argue against drafting a QB in the 1st round again is the following: That group of people assume that by drafting another QB, we're automatically giving up on EJ. That's not the case. We're simply adding talent to a position (which just so happens to be the most important position in the NFL) where we currently lack QUALITY depth. The beauty is, the new rookie wage scale allows us to draft another QB early without crippling our cap numbers...something that wasn't feasible in the past. To me, the idea of not drafting QB's early in back to back years is an antiquated one. I'm not saying we have to draft another QB early, but if we did, I certainly wouldn't go nuts.

Jester: how are the playoffs "watered down"? That GB game was a fabulous game and came down to the wire. Looking at standings, GB should have lost by 20 against SF - that's what makes the NFL different than other leagues. Much the same way an "inferior" SD went to Cincy and clobbered them over the head and stole their lunch money.

26Corner: I'm already salivating at the thought. This makes too much sense not to do. And like someone else mentioned, reduce the preseason games from 4 to 2 and we're set! CAN'T WAIT.

and also how great would Weeks 16 and 17 be when you have one more wild card spot? Literally every game would have playoff implications.

This year, either Pitt or Ravens would've made it for AFC and the Cardinals for the NFC. I like it

I think I like it. Reason: Aside from 2-3 teams, there is so much parity in the NFL that there is very little difference between 7-9 and 8-8 teams and those that usually make the playoffs at 9-7 or 10-6. We'd see a lot of upsets, I'm sure. Which is entertaining.

The Wiz: though I agree a ten yd penalty for offensive holding sucks, I think the last thing this league needs is less penalty yards for the offensive side. It's hard enough to play defense in this league as is.

People love to complain about the NFL and that it's not what it used to be. The NFL is the most entertaining professional league in this country, hands down.

San Jose: completely agree. I suppose one possible positive in this respect is that if anyone should know something about the O-line, it should be Marrone. Hopefully he'll be able to find a couple of diamonds in the rough and turn that group around.