clayboy54

If they don't trade the King's Ransom to move up and get their guy, then yes. I'd draft one in the 21st or 22nd slot and another one in the 3rd or 4th. If, on the other hand, they feel strongly enough to move up, I'd live with Peterman as the backup.

If we take nothing else away from watching Tony Romo call games this year, we now should understand that it IS pretty easy to "know" what the next play will be. Romo repeatedly identified the plays BEFORE they were run. So, the argument that the Patriots (or anybody else) must have known the play calls is bogus in my mind. However, the ability to understand what's coming next is based on understanding their tendencies for specific down and distances, and knowing what's in their playbook for that week. This is precisely where the Patriots cheat the system. They have spies that watch for the plays BEFORE the game, in walkthroughs and practices. That way, they narrow the list of possible choices and make the tendencies much easier to predict. Whether they're filming them, or just watching them and reporting back. That is the cheat. Add in a little favoritism by the officials, and you have perennial contenders.

Probably right, Ed. The shame is that the Pats don’t have to honor the rules everyone has has to obey, in this case contract law.

Wouldn’t surprise me if Irsay sues him. They had an agreement, according to Indy media.

Maybe he was the guy who broke into Gronk’s house!

The Coke commercials were awful in my opinion.

When's the Eric Wood style press conference?

Trade up for their "guy". Use whatever draft capital it takes. Overpay if necessary. Fill holes with FAs for front 7 and OL.

You got to take the chance. If it doesn't work out, try again next year. Those worried about about the picks that didn't pan out in the past, perhaps part of that was due to the team that traded up for them. Perhaps it was because the front offices were high on their physical attributes but failed to recognize their lack of football intelligence or passion for the game. Perhaps it was just that those picks ended up on bad teams. The drought was caused in part by the lack of taking chances to get a franchise QB. If we had picked several top 10 QBs over that time, we likely would have a franchise passer by now. But, we didn't.

I live in Indiana. Irsay is a nut. Its not beyond reason to assume the Colts could do almost anything here. Even though Grigson is long gone, the team is known for their head-scratching moves. It wouldn't surprise me to see them trade luck for a couple of punters. LOL Seriously, if Irsay and his minions are enamored with a shiny new toy, they might just do it. Its clear that Irsay is NOT enamored with Luck.

After this past Sunday, you are using an example of why GMs are correct and have been correct in evaluating Keenum and other similar QBs correctly. They are career backups. They may be good backups, but they're still backups.

I guess the Browns want several more first overall picks.

The owners ARE the NFL. Why would the owners punish themselves? For some reason, they perceive what they do as the best way to increase income generation. We complain about Roger Goodell, but he is the go-between somewhere between the fans, the players union and the owners. He walks a slippery slope, as he tries to maximize popularity, increase revenue and appease the players union. Somewhere since Pete Rozell and before Roger Goodell, the owners lost touch with the golden goose, which is the fans. Free agency contributed to that. Then, exorbitant broadcasting contracts made them subservient to the networks. Lately, its become global expansion through corporate sponsorship. In the end, the fans' piece of the pie has become smaller and smaller. Its funny how greed blinds even great innovators. The golden goose has become so precariously small in the NFL's overall scheme, that they've completely lost tough with what got them to the dance. If the owners don't wise-up soon and see the errors in their ways, I can see a combination of the player's salaries and head injuries bankrupting a once glorious sport. All due to mismanagement and greed.

At least Hoculli won’t be working the Bowl.

Copenhagen!

If he put his efforts toward covering somebody, the Jags might have won. His soft coverage killed them.

Since when do football players have brains? LOL

In my estimation Kirby, the real decision here is where the Bills' braintrust sees the need at QB. Because, as others have pointed out, if they prioritize QB as a "must have" this year, then they WILL trade up. If, on the other hand, they do not prioritize QB as "must have" then they will pass in the 1st round. It's an either/or proposition. Not so much a "what if". So, for the sake of discussion, let's say that the Bills feel QB is "must have." IMO, they will make a deal to get the guy they want, or one of the guys they like. They will absolutely NOT stand at 21 and see whose left. Its as simple as that in my mind.

Hochuli guarantees a 4-hour game with lots of focus on officiating. Nobody will leave the NFC Championship broadcast without knowing who Ed Hochuli is. That's his MO. Maybe he's pushing for his own reality show!

Do you really think he missed those throws by mistaking the grass for his receiver? I saw what you saw. He was off his game because of our defense. Coverage was good and the pass rush was effective, if only that it disrupted plays. A number of those passes thrown in to the turf were clearly due to this disruption. They were swing passes and short timing routes, if my memory proves accurate. I really don't know what it is with Bortles, because he is clearly not a good QB, but to state that he in unable to hit the side of a barn, while he picked apart the Steelers, unprepared as they may have been, is the idiocy that you so often describe.

I'm pretty sure he's right up there with Stew Barber for best GMs in Bills history!

Quitters gonna quit.

Can someone be banned by IP address?

Goes to show you how little WGR knows about anything.

I commend you for your post! It isn’t often around here that we see someone as adamant as you adjust your position based on results. I value your perspective as such. That said, I believe you have missed the point of the Dareus trade. I agree we got basically nothing in return. I also agree that it would’ve been nice if McDermott could’ve motivated the guy. However, it is next to impossible to motivate a guy making that kind of money, without incentives based on performance. That’s why we see so many Haynesworth-like fails. I think McD tried. When it didn’t work, he moved on... plain and simple. In a coach’s first year, it is more important to deliver the message and get the buy-in than it is to keep the talent and win games. As it turned out, we won more than anyone expected. Let’s not lose sight of the original plan, which was to establish the new culture at any cost.