Buddo

I think you need to worry about there being a season first, before stressing out over the International games. TBH, I'm not sure how soon travel restrictions are likely to be lifted, regardless. This thing is global, and it's going to be very difficult to allow anything resembling free movement around the world, for some considerable time yet. Irrespective of how much you believe the Chinese figures, one thing has become apparent, in that many of their additional cases now, are from people bringing it into the country. Countries around the world will have taken note of this, and will be organizing their strategies accordingly, which will mean much more restrictive requirements for anyone who is travelling, whether it's in their movements once they get somewhere, or their medical clearances, before they are even allowed in.

My understanding was that he will be re-signing, but I may be wrong. It might be that due to a lack of physicals etc. the paperwork hasn't gone through yet, but I'm sure I've seen that he was going to re-sign. Just can't remember where off the top of my head. After hitting google, it appears I'm mistaken, but I have no idea why. Thanks for the correction. Can you remember where, or when that was? At least I wasn't imagining it.

In essence, you will now have a 4 way competition to start ar RT, between Ford, Nsekhe, Waddle and Williams. However it pans out, I believe we will see improved play from the position. It also gives us much more flexibility in respect of the inevitable injuries that happen. We definitely could have done with better depth at the tackle position last year, and with Waddle returning, and the signing of Williams, we now have that.

I think it's an interesting point. My best guess would be that teams who genuinely (note the genuinely bit) believe they are going to be contenders this year (they have to assume it's going to happen), will be much more likely to go after the immediate impact guys, while those who are in building, or rebuilding mode, will still go after the higher risk (and ceiling) guys. In an odd way, that could help poorer teams a year or two down the line, by letting them get some better talent that needs a year or two to develop. Back to the OP. RB is, quite simply, a glaring need. We do not have adequate numbers (or quality) on the roster at the moment. People seem to be missing the point somewhat. We need RB help. Where we may or may not get it, is the question that comes after, 'Do we need RB help?' Where we may get that help, is quite obviously through either the draft or FA. The 3rd round last year, where we got Singletary, represents pretty much a steal, and a number of the prognosticators about the draft, felt that at the time, not just with the benefit of hindsight. That being the case, should an equivalent talent come up, then imho we would be foolish not to take it, as it gives us the 1-2 punch we obviously want at RB - even if that is with our 2nd round pick. Failing that, or getting a later round pick the FO is high on, there is always FA. As a number of people have pointed out in this thread, some of the better veterans, (left) may not be readily available due to the lack of physicals being able to be done. It might be a blessing in disguise for the odd one or two of those vets, as they get more time to heal fully. I wouldn't necessarily rule out trying to add another one anyway, and the longer things go on, the weaker the market will be for them, so a potential bargain may be had. I'm sure that something will be done to address the need, as, as Shaw pointed out, there currently is no 'Plan B' at RB, and there are plenty of options for it to be done. Personally, I'm well in favour of drafting another good one, assuming there is one available to us at either our 2nd or 3rd round pick. Now we have Diggs, we can draft another WR at any point. Beane has said that the WR class is as deep as he's seen it, and I'm sure we will have draftable grades on WRs, all the way through the 7th round. We've made some very interesting additions to the D-Line, and while we definitely need to find a younger DE, I'm not sure rounds 2 or 3 are the ones to do it in. Seems like a big drop off from the top guys, who we won't get a sniff at. Next year, either with a 1st round pick, or FA, (possibly both) may be when we look to get younger at DE - sometimes you have to be realistic and understand that you can't do better than what you've got - even with future 'upside' as it were. The additions of Norman and Gaines make our CB group look more solid than last year - no disrespect to Kevin Johnson, who I thought did a decent job. With re-signing Waddle, and the addition of Williams, we've also pretty much covered the weakness at RT - may the best man win, with a possible 'perm any one from 4' competition. While I'd prefer it if we manage to acquire a decent vet (RB) before the draft, I'm not too worried about it, as there are still plenty around. My preference being because it does mean we can purely follow our board, with no potential distractions off of need.

Nothing to complain about with this. Good competition, and depth, no matter who starts opposite White. I'm really liking the way Beane goes about off-seasons. Fill as many gaps, or improve wherever you can, then head off to the draft to take whatever you fancy.

Tbh, I expect the thinking is that they can pick up additional WR help, just about anywhere in this draft. Beane has already talked about how deep it is at the WR position. I wouldn't rule out a WR at our 2nd round pick, but the way they are going, it's going to have to be very good value above other positions on their board. I think the same will apply to anyone we take with that 2nd rounder tbh - it's going to have to be clearly BPA - so just about any position (probably excluding QB) is in play. I think taking a WR with our 2nd, is probably the least likely scenario. Mainly because there are so many of them, and so many who will have draftable grades. Other positions will have a much greater drop off than WR, so they will be much more likely to pick those, as there isn't going to be that much difference between a 2nd round WR, and possibly even a 4th round one

Dawkins is a decent LT, trending upwards. While it was early in his career, he never looked comfortable as a RT. When Glenn got injured, Dawkins immediately looked a better player at LT. Some guys can play either side effectively, but others can't. On what evidence exists, I'd say that Dawkins would never be as good a RT, as he could be a LT. It wouldn't have surprised me, at all, if Glenn hadn't been traded, that he would have ended up at RT, with Dawkins at LT. I wouldn't rule out an OT with our 2nd, but it would be strictly in line with what our board is telling us, and not from thinking it was a need particularly.

Even if there re no actual additions, I hink the FO has a certain mount of belief that the line will improve for the following reasons. Firstly, the all important continuity. As others have pointed out, last season was the first time those guys had played together. Secondly, I think that staying healthy will be something that will help - especially on the RHS. Last season, undoubtedly most (not all) of the line problems were on the Right. Some of them were due to a rookie learning curve, but there were a fair few that can be related to injury issues. Nsekhe was out at times, and it appears that Ford was carrying an injury also. When Morse missed time, it tended to be Feliciano who filled in for him, which also changed the RG position. Little wonder then, that things occasionally went pear shaped on that side of the line. Ford is likely to improve from his rookie year, and he did show distinct signs of improvement generally, later on in the year. Re-signing Waddle should help both with competition, and having another vet who can step in when needed. In effect, as he missed all of last season, he's a 'new' addition, yet one who knows the system. Giving Allen more weapons, is likely to help them too. Diggs is a genuine #1 WR, and I'm anticipating the addition of a bruising RB to complement Singletary. While I wouldn't be surprised to see a draft pick thrown into the mix - although I don't think it will be our 2nd round pick - I'm not too concerned about the O-Line as it stands, for the reasons outlined above.

I think we said the same thing last year. ? I’m loving their consistency. ?

Pleased on a number of different levels about this. Poyer is a good player, not elite, but good, and is finally being paid as such. Sends the right message to his teammates, i.e. perform, and you will get paid. This is the sort of thing that McDermott and Beane have been preaching, and I'm glad they are showing that they will come through, and pay the guys who do perform. You could argue similarly for Spain, in that he signed a 1 year 'prove it' deal, and then got a decent contract after he performed, although I think we got him relatively cheaply.

I take it you don't bother reading the titles much then - which includes the words 'reportedly' and 'rumor'. Want solid facts? Then don't bother reading any sort of speculation until the Bills announce their signing(s) in a day or so time, when FA is finally official.

DT has to be a possibility, so hopefully Reader is still in play. After that, a vet RB, so that particular hole is filled also. Another vet CB whoever it might be. In McDermott I trust there, even if it's someone I've never heard of. Another Edge guy, again because it rounds out areas where you can argue there are 'holes', or at least not enough improvement. Do all of the above, and the draft will be a walk in the park, of BPA, according to our board.

So the whole of the O-Line from last year will be back. Good for continuity, and better still, with Waddle, competition. Probably going to keep the 'Ford as G or RT' debate trundling along nicely.

Managed to look at about 7 pages of that thread, and didn't see anyone call it a decent deal. No surprise, as it wasn't, but even guys who thought they could see why it happened, simply couldn't defend the compensation, at all.

Never ceases to amaze me how often these sorts of things occur. Seems as though a lot of guys need everything explained in words of one syllable. Mind you, you would think that when permits do get issued, they would stress where they are valid, and where they are not.

Much depends on what happens in FA I would think. The Bills FO probably have a few 'targets' they will actively pursue. I'm sure they will get a couple of those, but should the 'best case' scenario happen, and they get all the guys they target, then I can see an extension for White not happening until next season. If they don't get to spend as much as they would have hoped, then I think it's more likely that they will do an extension for him this year. If the new CBA isn't agreed soon, I wonder how much of a 'feeding frenzy' there will be when FA actually opens. I'm pretty confident that White will be extended, but as to when is the best time to do it is still up in the air, imho. The one thing I will say about this FO, is that they will almost certainly let White know how they are intending to proceed, once they make the decision. i.e. If it isn't going to be this year, they will tell him, and also that they will be taking up his option, because they do want to do the deal next year.

Seems to me like a solid approach - find out if you think they can do the job you want them to do, then look into the other character stuff etc. if that first part is a positive. I don't think there's a need for psycho-babble at that stage. If, as they say, someone is trying to BS their way through, then it becomes pretty obvious, and is a red flag to start with. Doesn't necessarily mean they get shifted off the board, but it certainly warrants further looking into as regards character etc.

No, it's actually from the NFL. Works pretty good, and while not particularly cheap, if you get the whole package, you get all games,from all teams, and the all 22 etc. There is an option just to have Bills games, but tbh, especially for yourself (reading between the lines), the cost differential is relatively small to get the whole shooting match. You obviously need a decent net connection as well, but it doesn't have to be excessive. Sky Sports are the provider for the majority of NFL games shown in the UK, and are a satellite based service. You can get their stuff through cable TV suppliers though, obviously at an additional cost.

You will almost certainly need Game Pass. There will be some occasions when you can get to watch games in a pub/sports bar, if it's a 'featured' game. Last year, including the playoff game, I think there were 4 games shown. Game pass won't let you watch those live as they are shown by a satellite provider with exclusive rights to show in the UK. Part of the problem you might have, is that the Bills games being generally 'early' (6 pm over here), is that they might clash with a soccer game, that will be given precedence. (by the pub/bar). You may, however, find that you end up paying for those sports channels, through a TV provider, in which case you can watch those games at home.

You are going to be very pissed on a regular basis then, as the FO mantra is one of 'continuous improvement' and that implies development. In any given year, it could be assumed that the only team that doesn't need development, are the Champions. Guess what, it took KC 6-7 years to go from a rebuild to the SB champs. If the Bills do the same, I won't be unhappy. You will probably still be pissed, about something .

TBH, I think the contract would have been around the same wherever he chose to go. His production warrants it. I also think he could have been a significant upgrade for us, even before we have FA and the draft. While I believe he would have done well here, I can't say that I blame him for choosing Seattle. Ultimately he's going to a team that has a QB who already has a ring, and is a consistent performer at a high level, rather than to a team that is on the rise, but may still need another year developing, to get over the hump, and win a playoff game, with a young QB who hasn't shown quite enough consistency yet.

Even last year, his production total was more than our lot combined. I think that represents something of a likely upgrade. I'm not sure why people are getting so bent out of shape about this generally,with lots of 'too old' too slow' types of takes. The bottom line with Beane and McDermott, is seeing how they can improve the roster, anywhere. Signing Olsen is exactly that, imho (should it happen), and should be a 'no brainer' attempt, irrespective of the Carolina connection. Don't get me wrong, I like both Knox and Sweeney as potential long term players for the team, but there are still clearly issues and experience needed. Knox needs to catch a lot better, and also has to improve his understanding of the nuances of the position. He certainly has the potential to be an all round TE for years to come, and a good one, but whereas Smith might be useful helping him with his blocking, we still need someone who can show him how to get open regularly. Olsen might well have lost a step, but tbh, when you watch him it doesn't matter so much, because he finds the soft spots in coverages on a regular basis. Hence the roduction that exceeds what all of the Bills TEs managed last year.

Fwiw, the big mention of cutting Sweeney is the OP for the 'using spotrac tool, releases and solutions'. As regards Norman, if his former HC isn't interested in retaining him, I'm not sure we should be interested in signing him. While I don't watch many other games than the Bills, I do pay attention to what people say about players around the league, and my impression is that Norman hasn't lived up to his contract, and by a decent margin. I wouldn't say the Bills won't have some interest, as iirc, McDermott was key in both drafting and developing Norman, and he obviously knows how to get the best out of him. I will say if they do look hard at him, it will be for cheap money (relatively speaking). The way it appears we set up our zone coverage, is that you want someone like Tre, who can play man well, so you can mix lots of other coverages up. The only way we get two top 'man' corners, is through the draft. We will, I'm sure, pay White as a top corner (he obviously is) because he gives our D more flexibility. Aside from Tre, the rest of the guys will be getting something much more in line with the reduced salaries paid to 'zone' corners.

I doubt it does, but it should.

I don't see that, at all. Likewise I don't see him getting tagged, there just isn't the value in doing it. While there's always the possibility of 'smoke and mirrors' around this time of the year, Beane's comments regarding guys who have 'earned the right' to find out how FA values them, strike me as being pretty honest. Phillips could be a classic example of a guy who gets overpaid due to a team having a glaring need, but there isn't a team in the league who would both pay him and also give up a pick, or picks.