GA BILLS FAN

He wasn't better than the Pears of 2011, but is better than the Pears of 2012 and 2013. I don't like that he quit, but, like I said, I'd want to know more about the situation and what really happened. What ever happened to the NFL investigation and those findings, were they ever released ?

Yep, bad trade one made out of desperation since Bills decided, in spite of several more pressing needs to draft Spiller. It's revisionist history, but at the time Bills wanted to deal him badly and panicked. I'm sure a more savvy GM could have gotten more. Seattle gave up a 1st for Harvin last year, I'm sure that same crew would have given up a 2nd. Another notch in Buddy's "is he the worst GM in Bills history" belt.

No way on RI, he's not worth the trouble. Bills can get upgrade at LG in FA or draft, they don't need the RI hassle in waiting. As for Martin, I'm on the fence, I don't think any of us know the full story. Martin said he was okay with the traditional hazing but said it became racial and personal and about his family. To me, that crosses a line, even in football. If Martin's story checks out, I think he's worth a look. He would be an upgrade at RT over Pears and if Hairston never plays, he could start. Worst case, he backs up Hairston or a drafted RT.

I agree with you on the tag scenario -- if Bills repeat what they did last year, they are fools. Byrd / Parker would do exactly as you suggest and worse. Bills barely got their value last year. If Byrd does get tagged, it should be to facilitate a trade that the Bills know is out there. To me there are 3 choices, (1) tag/trade (2) sign or (3) don't sign and let Byrd walk.

What round ? There is a difference between not wanting to play in Buffalo and wanting to play for a winner, I'm not trying to parse my words or anything, but I believe Byrd wants to play for an organization that has a legitimate chance to win the Super Bowl. I don't think he hates Buffalo or the fans or anything along those lines or wants out of Buffalo. I think he sees this as an opportunity to not only get a big contract, but pick the best situation for himself with that objective in mind. As for his agent, they'll always push for the biggest contract, I get that, but in the end, they work for the player, not visa versa.

Do you think the Bills could find a trading partner if they tag him with the intent on trading him ?

You could be right and with most players your logic is sound. I think in this particular case you will see Byrd sign with a contending team for a contract that we'll all scratch our heads and say "did the Bills offer him less than that ?". Again, just a hunch based on listening to him the past couple of years and reading about the issue. In full disclosure, I have a friend who does have contacts within Bills organization that says the Bills are confident they'll resign him, so, again, I'm going against that intell as well.

I think you are misunderstanding my post. I think the only way the Bills will be able to resign Byrd is to pay him at or above what he could get in the market if he hits free agency. In other words, Byrd wants MORE from the Bills than he would get on the open market. I believe Byrd wants to play for an organization that is a consistent or proven winner, he is a smart guy with great football pedigree. I think he wants to win and compete for a Super Bowl and I don't think he sees that in Buffalo. In my opinion he won't sign with Bills because Bills won't pay that type of premium, nor do I believe they should. What will prove my point is if Byrd signs with another team that is a contender for a contract that is BELOW that of the top 2 or 3 safeties.

Agree -- attack, put players in position, simplify . . . .yada, yada, yada --- let's see what personnel changes are made this off season -- that will tell a lot !!

If Bills pay market it isn't a premium. I think Bills will need to make him the highest paid safety to get him to resign, that would be a premium as I don't see him getting to #1 paid safety on the open market. Byrd is a solid safety with exceptional ball skills that is decent in coverage, but he is not a game changing player like a Polamalu was during his prime and he has injury questions. I think it's a really hard decision for Whaley/Brandon, if they let him go, they are painted as guys not willing to invest to keep their own, but if they overpay to keep him, they create a spending issue that might force them to cut someone else. I think it's a can't win scenario.

Bills are in tough place, odds are that most assistants want to follow their promoted coordinator, because in the end, they get a promotion or a rung up in the pecking order of the coaching staff. In addition, odds are, they don't have a relationship with the new DC (in this case Schwartz) or visa versa, so, there is uncertainty at whether they'll mesh with scheme/style etc. So, the Bills will lose a good chunk of their coaching staff and they'll more than likely inherit a good chunk of Schwartz's Det coaching staff. That happens when a DC or OC leaves. Life goes on. I don't think it's a big deal. The BIG deal is whether Schwartz will be as good of a DC as Pettine.

First, I like the hire. Second, Schwartz has good track record as DC and defensive coach. Third, words mean nothing. Every DC says they will attack, simplify and put players in position to make plays. No DC says, we'll be passive, complicated and put players out of position. To start to get an idea of what we'll get, look at the assistants Schwartz hires and the player moves (FA, draft etc.) that take place over next couple of months. I suspect, we'll see a defense that sits in between Wanny's and Pettine's. A little more structure and discipline than Pettine, which should mean fewer big plays (i.e. fewer long runs, but fewer sacks/INT's). Not necessarily a bad thing, but, probably not as fun to watch.

A bit surprising -- I think Matthews is stud and will be a 10-15 year fixture at LT for some team --- Lewan's stock really took hit from past season given team's weak Oline and some injuries -- he might be steal in later part of round 1

All games count as a home game for one of the team's --- the only option would be to rotate the game each year -- one year it's a Bills home game, the next year it's an opponents home game --- highly doubt that will happen as most teams covet their home games and don't want to lose any --- which is exactly why we all want this ill-fated Toronto series to end in the first place --- as for Byrd -- I agree, I don't think he wants to stay in Buffalo --- I think he's had it with the multiple DC's and multiple HC's and multiple rebuilds ---- Bills are in tough place, they either pay premium to keep him or let him walk or try to muster 2nd, 3rd or even 4th round pick via tag/trade --- I think the one thing Byrd wants Bills can't give him, consistent winner and chance for SB ----

Bills might now be the favorite for the Thanksgiving game over the Dolphins with the Schwartz going back to Detroit angle.

I think Jerry paid off his palace already -- he sold over $500M in suites/licenses in year 1 and he keeps all that money as it isn't part of revenue share !! . . . I believe he spent approx. $700M of his own money on the palace --- so, given he's had 5 years operating the place, I'd say he is either free and clear of debt or pretty close

Agree, but if you believe Kiko should slide outside and you have Lawson, I think Bills would prefer Mosley a pure middle vs. Mack --- I think Mack might be the better talent --- Barr is the most versatile of the 3 and I believe he'd fit Pettine's D the best with it's constant shifting and changing --- so, a lot will depend how set Schwartz is on alignment vs. disguise

Like the Schwartz hire, he'll bring same philosophy as Pettine (aggression, attack and disguise), whether the defense scheme is identical is less important to me. Not crazy about the Downey hire, I like that we have a QB coach, would have preferred someone with a better recent track record. Stafford's mechanics were awful this year. It's all about the QB so I have concerns.

Seeing is believing. I can't in good conscious give Brandon the benefit of the doubt. He was too much a part of the decision making apparatus of this franchise over the past decade that has failed miserably on the field. This off season I want to see the Bills go after a couple key FA's (WR, TE, ILB, LG and/or RT) and I want them to extend a couple talented young players before they hit FA. Glenn, A Williams, Spiller and/or Hughes are all heading into the last year of their contracts. The Schwartz hire is a positive step to replace Pettine. I need to see others to believe. Ideally, Brandon would announce the cancellation of Toronto series in a few weeks, then you'll see me post, it's a new day. Stay tuned.

I wasn't sure about this idea at first, but the more I've thought about, the more I like it. Not sure why the extra point was ever added in the first place when you think about it, it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Having said that, I think the idea of creating a 2-point try (losing one or adding one) provides additional options to HC's and allows games to be tighter, longer, which I like. I think the thing I don't like is the virtual elimination of kick returns. I know the NFL says it's for player safety, but it tends to get ridiculous and kick returns are some of the most exciting plays. I'd like to see them move the kickoff back 5 yards

This is great information (I don't have the patience to analyze and digest it all) so, let me offer another hypothesis on whether there is a correlation or not -- take Seattle, this year, most analysts have said that they have a short window, because several of their key players are over-performing their contracts (Wilson, Sherman the most obvious) and once they have to pay those guys, they will have cap issues. Take a look at Dallas, spent a lot and made poor football decisions now they are $25M+ over the cap and will have casualties. A lot of times teams win and then have to spend to keep the core group together, perhaps that clouds the data. I will also say that teams that win consistently spend efficiently. That is critical. I would never suggest the Bills do another Dockery/Walker/Kelsay/Schobel type of off-season. The Patriots seem the best at efficient spending and knowing when not to extend a guy or trade someone right before the downside hits. What I am suggesting for the Bills (this is a clarified position) is for them to OPTIMIZE their spending. Spend smart, on the right people at the right time. I don't want this team to give Fred a 5-year extension or throw big money at a backup QB. I would also hope (and I know Bandit insists it was the case) that the Bills spare no expense to hire the best football people to make those critical decisions.

BTW, anyone who wants to continue to argue the point that it is okay or irrelevant to under spend the cap and win in the NFL, I'll set up an ESPN Fantasy Football Auction League next fall and be happy to allocate all of you 25% less money to bid on players

You are missing my point. I will try and be clear. First, I said you need smart football people AND money. The former is more important than the later. Of course you can find teams that spend and don't win and visa versa. Looking at the correlation is irrelevant, all that proves is that there are a lot of teams that spend and don't make good decisions, I'll acknowledge that. What I am saying is you need to do both to win consistently because there are several other teams that actually do both and those are the ones that consistently win. I don't care if the cash to cap was high, it's irrelevant to the point I'm making which is that the Bills don't maximize the spending they are allowed to make under the CBA. They self limit their spend and fail to optimize. Again, decisions are critical, but, the Bills hamstringing their football department by not allowing them to spend to the cap puts them at a disadvantage. The Bills made horrible football decisions and spent a lot of money 7-8 years ago, no debate. Right now, it appears they are making some good football decisions and failing to spend, not good either.

+1. It's a nonsense argument to argue that having less money is good. Can you win with less money, of course, but it is HARDER. Why is that so difficult to comprehend ?

Bandit -- I agree that you can spend all the money in the world and still suck, BUT, others things being equal, if you spend more you will win more. The decisions you make with your money are inherently more important, but being willing to spend the money to support good decisions is critical. This is a game of inches and having smart football people and giving them $120M to spend and having smart football people and giving them $100M to spend, I'll bet on the guys with the extra $20M EVERY TIME. The Bills DO NOT spend to win ! This is not a debate, this is a fact. The Bills set a budget based on ensuring they make a certain profit and that budget is BELOW the cap. Do I know this for a fact ? NO. But, ALL the evidence points to that as accurate.