dpberr

The difference between RF and TE. For Fitzpatrick, the football field extends beyond 5 yards.

Probably would become a Packer fan. Small market, blue collar, one of the original franchises, and it's owned by the fans. Plus, the fans withstood an astounding 24 years of losing, from 1968 to 1991 when things turned around. And they were still there.

ABE.

...and with Jacobs becoming available in NY, at probably lesser of a cost, you now have competition.

New England would be in full out revolt, the likes of which hasn't been seen since 1775, if the Patriots lost to the Bills on the heels of losing to the Jets.

Haynesworth only has value in a 4-3, and even then, it's when he's allowed to just rush the quarterback. He was at his best when the Titans just told him to get at the quarterback. There are things the Bills could do without any massive trades, but they won't. They won't bench Edwards. They won't bench Green. They won't bring in guys like Tony Ugoh and Tony Washington for a look-see. They won't bring in any UFL guys that might have some left in the tank. They probably won't trade Lynch.

Vick was good, no doubt, Sunday. However, similar to the Seahawks and Pete Carroll in week 1, he benefited greatly from the Lions not having any tape on him for four years. You can't glean a thing from his spot starts with the Eagles. The Lions were limited in game planning Vick with very little to go on. Should Vick start next week, his stats will look different. Just as Seattle looked different with the Broncos having a week of film to study on Carroll and Company.

At least make it interesting for fans...new quarterback every week. Open game-time to all free agents available. You could see your Colt Brennan, Jeff Garcia's in action. Each QB gets a game to light it up. Seriously though, I agree with you USA. Changes need to be made. Now.

You can't fault Gailey for your QB running out of bounds on a 4th and 11. The barometer on Gailey is whether he benches Edwards this week. Other quarterbacks around the league got benched in Week 2 for being less crappy than Edwards has been. I am done with Edwards. That 4th and 11 play was the last straw. I do fault Gailey for the bizarre game plans so far. They look nothing like what we saw in Preseason, and in no way adequately uses the weapons we do have.

You can't fire Gailey after two games. Or even 8. Not after suffering through years of Jauron. That being said, Nix/Gailey must do something....I don't know if that stops at benching Edwards. If I were Nix, I'd be scouring that waiver wire for line and lb talent, and exploring every trade opportunity. It's all hands on deck time. I think going 3-13 or worse would be a disaster for Buffalo, especially if there is no football in 2011. If I were Gailey, I know Edwards and Green aren't the answers and get them the hell out of there. I'm with other posters on the board...QB changes can be a difference maker.

The Bills could win 31-3 and the media will have the excuse of GB not having their starting RB.

These "are" the games Buffalo either wins or makes it too close for comfort.

IMO, I think Lynch is available for trade. However the Bills are working another deal. Announcing Lynch is available removes leverage and potentially scares away the other team from the table. Right now, the Bills trade partner is exclusive, and that has benefits for both teams. My guess for the other team: Minnesota.

I'd like to know what top, marquee free agent refused to come to Buffalo *when* the money offered by Buffalo either matched or exceeded a competing offer from another team. Free Agents don't come to Buffalo because the Bills get outbid by other teams. It's about money. If it makes people rationalize it better by comparing cities, weather, winning or losing, that's ok. But it has, and always will be, about the money.

Or Shanahan.

+1. The excellent players were RFAs which would have required a king's ransom to obtain.

I'm with Zow. I don't think GB is as much of a powerhouse as the national media proclaim them to be. The shaky offensive line and losing Grant are big deals. GB is probable to win, but it won't be a blowout. Might be more evenly matched than most believe.

I'd be careful grouping "Stacy Andrews" and "good" in the same sentence. He was the Cornell Green of Philly's offensive line.

I don't buy the rejected trade rumor. Why? It's too much for Lynch. A 3rd *and* a player? I don't see any team offering that specific package for a RB. That's an NBA sort of deal, not the traditional NFL trade. Just doesn't look right.

Hey, I'd be up for the idea. Why not. It'd be fun to watch. Or strictly use the playbooks from video games, past and present. If It's in Madden, it has to work, right?

A.J. Hawk has the same problem, that ironically, our very own Trent Edwards has. Great athlete, can memorize a playbook, but lacks the instinct for football.

Haha. Actually, I had the LA Rams/Indy/Buffalo trade of 87 in mind when I was writing that. I just don't see Green Bay having anything of value to offer besides draft picks...and Marcus McNeil is sitting there...lonely, waiting to play...

Need a three way trade with Green Bay, Buffalo and San Diego. Green Bay gets Lynch, Buffalo gets McNeil and San Diego gets some draft picks (Green Bay's conditional 3rd, Buffalo's 3rd).

Ryan Grant is out for the year, so somebody's plan is already underway.

1. The Bills sign Adalius Thomas, Derrick Burgess, Jon Jansen and Justin Hartwig and send them into battle. No more of this "inactive to learn" nonsense. These guys might have little left in the tank, but it's all hands on deck time, especially to generate a pass rush. And really, what's to lose? 2. Gailey's announces at his press conference that he watched the film, learned from the mistakes, and has made adjustments. 3. Green Bay makes no adjustments to it's porous offensive line.