billsfan89

The Bills are the latest example of building up the rest of the roster while having no QB. The Jets were somewhat successful with Rex when he went to the AFC title game in 2009 and 2010 but fell apart soon after that. The Seahawks have had much more success with that, but Russell Wilson has shown an ability to make plays down the stretch of games much like Big Ben. The Bengals with Dalton have a mid level QB with a very good surrounding cast and can't advance in the playoffs. The Raven's use to do that with Joe Flacco who was a limited QB but he got hot in the playoffs a few years ago and has since developed into a more complete QB. If you look at the results of figuring out the rest of the team and then the QB, it's not that bad. The Seahawks and Ravens won Superbowls and are consistently in the playoffs (Of course their QB's developed into better than what they were) and on the other end the Bengals have been consistently in the playoffs and the Jets had a nice little run. Overall I think the premise of if you have 2 you have none is true. But the Bills knew that coming into the season. No one is shocked that the team's QB situation is a bit of a mess.

I think once people saw the price tag they were OK with Whaley not retaining him. The real criticism was they never brought in a proper replacement for him. Seems like they let him go and just never bothered to sign anyone at a critical position.

Hopefully they work it out. I would want to see it get taken care of soon. Dareus is the anchor of the defense, too important to not have him in there.

I do think EJ should get some time with the first team. The blocking with him in this past game was terrible. Right now I think it will most likley be Tyrod in a Russell Wilson type role (Manage the game make some plays with his legs and down the stretch) while EJ and Cassell are the backups. I do think that the team needs a legit look at EJ to see if he is a better option than Cassell.

A bit too over the top, but fun. Rex was really funny in it.

That sucks. He was going to be a huge part of the Panthers offensive attack. Fantasy wise I loved his potential as Newton only really had him and Olsen to throw to. As mentioned these joint practices don't seem to do anything but result in injury.

I had Shelton as the best defensive player in the draft. So I am not shocked that he got the best of Wood on a play, However Wood needs to progress, Incog looks like a capable guard, Miller and Cyrus seem to be progressing into solid players and Glenn is what we thought he was going to be. Wood needs to step it up a bit.

The team doesn't need the distraction. Just sign another player off the street.

I suspect if this was an injury that occurred in the regular season at most he would miss two weeks. But since it's week 2 pre-season why not just let it heal as much as possible and limit the risk of the injury nagging.

Really surprised Bryant was still a free agent. He is a very good run stuffer and versatile enough to play in a 3-4 or 4-3. A bit one dimensional of a player but hard to think some team coming off of a weak year in run defense wouldn't have signed him as a rotational player. Maybe he wanted to be part of a good unit? If he was waiting on a good situation he might have found one. Bills will both be a good defense and should have significant playing time for him.

Pre-season and camp injuries are the worst. You feel like your player got hurt over nothing. But players need to be able to get ready for the season, there has to be some sort of pre-season process. Sucks but it is what it is.

If Tyrod can manage the game while making a few big plays with his legs and towards the end of the game then the team will win with him esp if the younger players on the O-line are progressing.

week 1 non the less. At least in weeks 2 and 3 you get starters playing the whole first half and even into the second half. Week 1 is nothing more than vanilla game plans and just shaking the rust off of starters for a couple of drives. The Jags have some interesting skill position players and if they can develop Blake then they might have something in a year or two. But right now it's still a year away at the very least. And week one pre-season is the worst indicator.

Not the best pass rusher and 31 years old. I don't know if he is a 3 down linemen either. So a player who is a bit older and one dimensional might not be highly in demand. I still think for what the Bills need Bryant would be a great fit. As mentioned before they could use Bryant as a week one NT for Dareus and move Dareus out to DE if Bryant proves capable of holding down the NT spot. If not he would make for a solid rotation piece.

Boobie or Brown would be the odd man out. However Boobie was a valuable player on special teams last year. Might make sense to keep him as RB4 for his value on that end. Where Brown doesn't have too much value on ST.

Chan did a very good job scheming around poor talent. He was a good play caller for the limited talent he worked with. But yeah it was smoke and mirrors on an offense that needed it.

The team doesn't need Gilmore to be Revis. They do need him to be a capable number 1 corner. Right now it remains to be seen if he can be that guy you can trust to guard the best from the opponent. But he has the rest of the pre-season to work it out.

All three guys will get a good look over the next two games. I suspect Cassell starts week 2 and then they give Tyrod week 2 meaningful snaps, EJ continues mop up. Week 3 they give the start to EJ and the second have to TT.

The first pre-season game is always a bit useless. It's a very limited scope on what you can do to look at players when starters are out after one of two drives. Pre-Season games 2 and 3 are much more meaningful.

Two hens talking about something doesn't mean anything. It means two idiots had a conversation. It's not a sign of any trend.

Never punting is dumb. Gimmicky stuff in high school works because of the talent level and the disparity between teams. In the NFL even the worst team is fielding players who are still among the best players in college for multiple generations and now years older and their games are more developed getting coached by some of the best coaches. They are going to be prepared for or adapt quickly to gimmicks. I don't have a problem with teams past the 50 going for it on 4th down. But there is always a time to punt and you do your best to gauge the risk and rewards of it.

I just hope one of the three QB's emerges. I think Taylor has as good a chance as any.

I think a $15 minimum wage is a bit too high. It sounds like a good idea to have a liveable wage be the minimum. But increasing the cost of labor has a ton of unintended consequences. Automation and Globalization are the two drivers of economic stagnation in the western economies. By raising the cost of labor through a government mandate you are risking making it harder to start a small business and giving employers more of a reason to automate labor. I do support anyone looking through free market action looking to raise their wages. You can try, you might not win but I support your efforts. I do think they should raise the minimum wage but $15 is way too high. Something more in line with 9-10$ (While adjusting it for inflation every 2 years so you don't have to have this stupid debate) makes more sense. They raise it every 8-10 years in general. It last got raised in 2007 so it's not unreasonable to have it be modestly higher. If you adjusted it for inflation it would be about 8.60 so going to 9.50 or 10 an hour that wouldn't be a huge increase in the cost of labor (ESP compared to what states have the minimum wage at which is generally higher) and it would be good for the economy in general to put more purchasing power to those who would be most likely to circulate the money back into the economy. I am very interested in seeing how cities like Seattle and LA are going to do with their $15 minimum wages going up slowly over the next 5-6 years. What will the results be? It should be an interesting experiment, although I don't think it will have the results they think.

Also I don't understand what would constitue a "better" deal in terms of achiving the goal of keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Like what specifically in the deal is going to lead Iran to be able to get a nuke? People keep citing 24 days and being allowed to delay military sites from inspection. But 24 days isn't a long time to sterlize a site in atomic terms (It takes 6 months to full sterlize a site if you have the best people doing it). I don't see any other methods that they can use to get a deal. It's hard to justify the world holding Iran's own money indefinately to achive some vague definition of better.

Just because some !@#$ on Newsweek wrote an opinion piece doesn't mean this is actually a movement or something people are actually calling for.