tennesseeboy

I'll judge Nix and Gailey based on their win loss record next season. No honeymoon, no excuses. If they pick a qb (although I personally think that would be an awfully dumb move) and go to the playoffs...I'll love them. If they pick an OT (in my opinion the smartest move) and go to the playoffs...I'll love them. If they pick a frickin cornerback and go to the playoffs...I'll love them. Fact is I'm tired of coach's and managers failing to meet the bottom line. If they lose or fail to have a winning season...I'll hate'em.

Gilchrist had a total of six years and was all pro, first team in four of them. his rushing average appears to be close to 3.9 yards over that time. His entire nfl career covered six years, which should be enough for consideration. I think the only way we could justify him not being selected was that he played in the AFL. Now if he and Saban had kissed and made up in the year of superbowl 1, and the Bills, with Gilchrist, had played the packers and won.....hell.....there would be a wing of the hall of fame devoted to them!

puzzled me as well. Gilchrist was five times the running back he ever was.

yup...and if I remember correctly Kelly publicly blasted the rookie Ballard for his poor offensive line play which resulted in an injury to Kelly and also alienated Kelly from a lot of the rest of the team for a while. he came to a team with Devlin and Ritcher, and the makings of a good offensive line. http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2009/6/13/...-bills-no-41-ot One of the low points of Ballard's career was the days of the "Bickering Bills". Although he wasn't the hand that stirred the pot, he was part of the ingredients tossed in. Following the 1988 loss in the AFC Championship game, the team had high expectations and the pressure seemed to get to them early on. After a Week 5 loss to the Colts, Jim Kelly lashed out at his offensive line - Ballard specifically - citing them as the reason he suffered a separated shoulder. Ballard had missed a block on Colts defensive end Jon Hand, allowing him a free shot on Kelly. Marv Levy believed Kelly said that Ballard had struggled with Kent Hull's line calls, and hoped that he would benefit from the mistakes he made. Although Ballard went on to continue improving, the 1989 season was filled with turmoil for the team.

Kingston Trio? How about a Kum-ba-yah singalong?

lets look at some other "quarterback first" teams...like the Bills with JP Losman, the Lions with Joey Harrington, the Browns with Tim Couch, the Texans with David Carr, the Bengals in their first years with Carson Palmer. The qb without an o-line is an accident waiting to happen.

Ozzy Osborne and Black Sabbath? He could bite off a bat's head, which would be terrific if a Michael Vick led Buffalo Bills team were the AFC representative!

I see the optimal acquisition of a qb as a free agent signing, or a trade of Lynch and a possibly a lower round pick. Ifwe can get Vick (my choice) OR McNabb, we will be a better team next year. We will never be a good team without addressing the o-line and d-line linebacker issues (especially if we are going to seriously consider a 3-4). No high pick for a qb...either a rookie or trade. That being said Philadelphia looks like a good hunting ground for cheap good back to get us to through rebuilding as they are the most likely landing spot for Lynch.

good points...but as to sanchez and big ben...remember that the Jets has used two drafts to upgrade their offensive line before drafting sanchez. D'brick, Mangold, the acquisition of Fanaca were major upgrades (as well as getting some very good running backs) that helped Sanchez become successful. Pittsburgh always had good offensive line and good smashmouth runners, so Big ben was successful partially as a result of all the pieces being there when he came in.

You are right about him being thin-skinned..which is why he won't fit in as a modern day bill. Its like Tebow not fitting in because he cried when they lost. I don't think we need people around here who get upset when we lose. I love the present mindset that losing is not something to get upset about and we can carry on with stoicism through bad football, bad drafts and poor regard in the football world with class and equanimity. Come to think of it shouldn't we maybe put Dick Jauron on the Wall of Fame...the new motto of the Bills..."what the hell." Seriously we could use more guys like Polian if we were serious about turning this team around.

And Bill would have responded by asking who quarterbacked the team where the Bills won the superbowl? The point being...until we win a superbowl we should stfu. about how good someone who has the ring is. Especially when he is one of the primary reasons we actually got to play in four of them.

The saints hardly got "thequarterback first"..Look at their draft history for the four years preceding their superbowl victory... http://www.databasefootball.com/draft/draf...=NOR&lg=nfl Lots of offensive and defensive linemen. They got their quarterback by a trade for a bargain and Drew had already been an All Pro at the time. I guess negotiation for McNabb or Vick might or might not help somewhat but first and foremost great teams are built from the trenches back.

http://blog.denverbroncos.com/jsaccomano/l...okie-gilchrist/ He really should be in the hall of fame. He had success in Denver as swell as Buffalo, made a significant impact on the civil rights movement, and played any number of his prime years in Canada. I think he makes a far better case for the hall than someone like Andre Reed or even Steve Tasker. The only comparable running back (fullback) before or since was Jim Brown.

I see Bill Polian reading the TBD posts as he always has since leaving Buffalo and he would love to respond..... You Bills have done shyt since I left and using your judgement have become the scrap heap of the NFL. I'm really shocked that you would whine about my decision not to have my first team gytch slap your gang of clowns in the last game of the season. However I should really listen to you clowns now as you all have a wonderful history...of losing superbowls. Let's see...which one of us has a superbowl championship ring?

I kind of had to vote for sneak into the playoffs, but don't think it would necessarily be a "shouldn't have" situation. I am giving Gailey the benefit of the doubt to fix the offensive line. I've always maintained that we would be pretty good if we fixed that line and hold by that position. I also think he'll be adding something to the run defense, maybe even going to a 3-4 but that would pretty much tie up our draft or free agency situation. I think the potential is there to be a major improvement. I'm not necessarily expecting too much from the present coaching group, but I've got to give the benefit of the doubt and believe they will address the most obvious problems first and foremost with the available resources, the draft, free agency and judicious trades while keeping the better players that we already have in the fold.

Not really...Mike Leach was extremely successful with the spread offense with quarterbacks who really weren't all that good, at least judging by later performance in the NFL. in fact one might argue that the Texas Tech spread was designed and implemented in part because Leach knew recruiting in that part of Texas would be a challenge and he had to make do with less than great players (at lest in the beginning). Now if this were the design I just don't know why we wouldn't have moved heaven and earth to get Mike Leach as OC. Gailey used the spread at KC as a last desperate attempt to get the team to a position to win a few games. I'm not sure he's a huge advocate of the system.

Michael Vick? hmmmm...I hadn't thought of him. Boy we should consider bringing him in as our qb.

uhhh....ok.....let's shut the board down until the day before the draft.

Laugh now..when Debbie wins us the Lombardi trophy you all will eat your words.

He may not make it to nine...Oakland may take him at 8. In fact there is some belief that Kansas City might take him. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/332057-...ind-of-al-davis

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...not-trade-vick/ NFL Network's Michael Lombardi reported Tuesday night that the Eagles, suddenly, plan to keep quarterback Michael Vick. Lombardi says the Eagles feel as if they're "in a luxury position" with regard to their current quarterback group. They have Vick, probable future starter Kevin Kolb, and five-time Pro Bowler Donovan McNabb signed through 2010. All are also entering contract years. We're not buying Lombardi's report. Even in an uncapped year, are we really supposed to believe the Eagles will pay Vick the $5.25 million he's due next season to be a third-stringer who only has value in rare, package-type situations? Are we really supposed to believe that Vick will suddenly regain the explosiveness he lost after 18 months in prison as he goes on age 30? Are we really supposed to believe that the Eagles believe any of this? Our guess is that a member of the Eagles' organization told Lombardi the team won't trade Vick with the intention of driving up his trade value. If the Eagles appear less desperate to unload the overpaid non-contributor, teams interested in Vick may be less inclined to wait for his release as the March 5 deadline for his $1.5 million roster bonus payment approaches. Time will tell if the Eagles' strategy works. But don't expect Vick to be on Philadelphia's 2010 roster barring a sizable pay cut. I think this is a far more likely interpretation than an intent to actually keep the three qb's.

having sex in the bathroom? Do we shyt in the kitchen? eat in the bedroom?

Most of the bills are there right now!! I saw a lot of former bills there on tv, and another passle of former bills are actually going to be playing... Oh...you the team itself actually going and playing a football game at the superbowl? If the present version of Bills management knows what its doing and takes appropriate action in the next two drafts, keeps our better players, has a little effective movement in free agency, I see us in the 2013 superbowl, assuming the world doesn't end in 2012.

I'm not afraid of them sinking as much as I'm very afraid of Davis and Bulaga rising above nine. If both of them are gone and McLain is left even I would go for McLain. There are some good tackles who will be available in the second, although either Bulaga or Davis would be the best solution.