tjprime

Agree with most of your post but my question about this is was Gailey posting W or L at the time. I know a few boosters for college programs and it's amazing how their tune changes with the results of the games. Win and you're great, lose and you're a bum kind of thing, so the not relatable to his players thing strikes me as a comment after a L

Exactly, plpus one, full agreement

I think you're reading to much into that quote. We have no idea what's happened behind closed doors. If you remember Easley last year they kept trying to get a quote or some info out of Gailey and he kept telling them to talk to the player about it, regarding his heart issue and being put on IR. I think this is a similiar situation where Gailey, being somewhat old school, doesn't feel right talking to the media about a players personal issue(grieving over his half brother's death), and he usually doesn't throw a player under the bus anyway. You can see that further in the quote when he talks about how they could all play better, and tries to get the focus off Dareus. You can see what I'm talking about a bit when the media presses Gailey about Williams and he tells them to talk to the player. He's hesitant to give out to much info and is choosing to let the player speak for themselves. But behind closed doors I'm thinking the Bills medical staff is giving him a very clear picture of what Williams wrist is and isn't doing

Even if they can use FJax for a few snaps, kind of like how the Pats had those wrinkles for Kevin Faulk or Sammy Morris to keep the Pats guessing. If my picks are either a 75% Fred Jackson or a 100% Choice I'm taking Jackson every time.

Especially when you consider all the ....cough..."experts"....cough...like Kiper..... who stated he wasn't and couldn't play LT in the NFL.

I'm thinking keep FJax around in a 3rd down back role, similiar to what the Patriots did for years with Kevin Faulk, or what Buffalo had years ago with Davis backing up Thurman. A guy that can step in as number one, but when put in fresh on 3rd down is practically unstoppable.

I think the other issue to go with the fact the second string was in for the fourth was the vanilla play calling on O and probably went prevent on D. I've got no problems with getting the back-ups playing time, but they still have to make KC earn it, rather than Chan being a gentleman and not running the score up. Hopefully Chan changed his mind about that with what Crennel did at the end. The game is 60 minutes, you play for 60. Hate to quote him, but it goes with what Belichek said a few years back when the Pats went 18-1 and were running up the score. You want us to stop scoring then you have to stop us.

Actually it is. http://en.wikipedia....able_to_performMcGee has not been full go all training camp

I think you're confusing PUP with the practice squad. McGee has an injury which is all the requirements for the PUP.

I'm thinking more the PUP where Bills retain rights til week 6 and then see how he is. Saves a roster spot til then, only problem is they'd have to figure out who to cut to bring him back to the roster, but it buys McGee time to heal up.

Still trying to figure out WHY some people thing it's a given that HAGAN makes the team. He's had his struggles the same as Martin and Easley. And usually at the depth spots you look for talent to develop/special teamers. All 3 (Hagan, Easley, Martin) play special teams with the edge going to Martin, he's an excellent gunner. But in the talent to develop I think Easley has more room to develop than either of the 7 year pros. Saturday's game should give us a better idea though, with the extra game planning we should see who is where when they go 5 wide.

And what did the 7 year vet(Hagan) alot of people are placing ahead of Easley have? He didn't even show up on the stat sheet while Easley had A run, A catch and A KO return, which is 3 more items Easley had on the stat sheet than Hagan. Not saying Easley is the next coming of Reed, but if you want to bust a guy on production you might want to look a little harder

<p> That's because Buffalo NEVER had a chance at Keuchly, he was taken before the Bills first pick,

Not so much as players, but as the current storyline goes, Yes. Buffalo was seen to be fine at punter with an aging Mohr who was replaced with a young gun in Moorman, a move that at the time many seemed to think was a mistake. The question now is it Moorman's turn to be replaced. And for the record I believe Mohr was 34 when Moorman was brought in. and thanks San Jose.

Seems to me this thread mirrors one from a different Bills Board about 11 years ago when Tom Donahue brought in an NFL Europe scrub that had failed to make Seattle's team 2 years running to challenge Chris Mohr. At the end of camp Mohr was sent packing for this scrub named Brian Moorman in a decision many said the Bills would regret. 11 years later I doubt they regret it.