Rocky Landing

I guess I agree with all of this. But, given the choice between Hogan and Goodwin, I would rather have Hogan's short yardage reliability over Goodwin's occasional big play potential, since we already have at least two players with that type of downfield advantage in Watkins/Harvin. Some on here have made the point that Goodwin has better hands than Hogan. The stats completely contradict that notion (44% to 66%), although I understand that Goodwin has been used in a very different way, and perhaps (as you suggested) misused by Marrone. But, there's no denying that Hogan has made quite a few more first downs than Goodwin. I would consider that more valuable for someone lower down the depth chart than an outside chance at a big play. But, I would also rather have Lewis over Goodwin. As far down the chart as Goodwin would be, I think it's more valuable to have one tall wide receiver who can highpoint the ball-- as I have read, Lewis highpoint ability is one of his strengths. We got one big play out of Goodwin last season. What could we reasonably expect from him this season? At this point (and, obviously, my opinion could certainly change between now and August/Sept.), I'm more interested in seeing what Lewis has to offer, or what his potential could be.

He averaged 42 YPC last season. But, I think we could both agree that that is quite the misleading stat.

This post is puzzling to me. On what do you base your assumption that opposing teams game plan around Goodwin-- who caught one out of nine passes, last season-- and don't game plan around Hogan? Hogan was third on our depth chart last season, and was on the field a lot more than Goodwin. Not debatable??? Granted, the one catch Goodwin had last year was for 42 yards. But, that was out of ten games played. I don't think there are too many DCs losing sleep over that. If I'm a DC, I'm going to be more worried about the guy that gets thrown to a lot more. I'll take dependability over an occasional (very occasional) big play any day.

This is a troll poll.

There has always seemed to be a lot of love for Goodwin on this site, and never much for Hogan (IMO). But, Goodwin caught one ball last season. One out of the nine times it was thrown to him. Hogan, on the other hand, got significantly better from '13 to '14, and appears to have continued that trend coming into '15. I have a hard time seeing any reason why someone would consider Goodwin more valuable than Hogan, especially with Harvin, and Watkins on the roster, who are both significant down-field threats. Hogan has been far more productive than Goodwin. Regarding Lewis, I think there is good reason to believe he should make the final 53. With the amount of depth we have at WR, we can afford it, and we don't have a serious contender over 6'1". Lewis is 6'4". Whereas Goodwin's strength (speed) is extant in other players, Lewis' height makes him unique in our WR corp. And, as a rookie, I don't think he needs to "blow the competition out of the water" to be considered a worthy project. If he performs well throughout TC (and early indications are that he should, no?), then putting him on the PC would likely mean he would be gone.

Hogan, Goodwin, Lewis-- Pick two. Of the three of them, I think Goodwin gets cut.

Easley, Goodwin, Hogan, Lewis. All four of those guys aren't going to make the team. Who do you cut?

Just ask Tampa Bob.

Apparently, that was Fred Jackson's fault.

Because he might be arrested for felony hit and run?

Nothing personal, but you're Hitler...

ouch...

Ahhh, Monday. Everyone's back at work posting on fan sites...

I'm wondering if the NFL is considering further sanctions?

Other than run with a football, I seriously doubt you have any idea what a running back does. (damn.. there I go... I went for the bait...)

That's really only the case if he's not guilty, or there isn't enough evidence to either convict him, or suspend him. A hit and run involving injury is a felony in California. Not sure about Mass. But, signing him now might very likely be tantamount to giving up a roster spot.

The entire premise looks like trolling to me. Why would CJ Spiller, or any other RB, even consider being "coached" by another team mate with whom they are competing for a starting job? And, why, on God's green Earth, would we hold FJ accountable in any way for the production, or lack thereof, of another player on the roster? What Fred Jackson has been is one of the most popular players in Bills history, and, unquestionably, a respected team leader. And, he has been a consistently productive RB through some of the Bills' darkest days. I think that makes him at least a candidate for a coaching position.

I think the example you might be looking for is Matt Cassel. Took the Pats* to the playoffs, and made the pro bowl with the Chiefs, both behind a good O-line. But, as we've seen elsewhere, take away the good O-line, and he fell flat. But, I think the question of QB vs O-line is a bit of hair splitting. Carucci answers the question, "Quarterback," but in his explanation, implies both. I think, at least in the Bills current situation, we are going to need both positions to step up, or it's going to be a frustrating season.

I think it's more accurate to call it "branding."

Essentially, you're placing EJ fourth down the depth chart?

If congress succeeds in removing this line item from the military's budget, I would fully expect that either these events stop happening, or (more likely) we will hear announcers saying things like: "Please join us in honoring our military, brought to you by Oscar Meyer, and Verizon Wireless..."

Wynn? But, I seem to remember a while back speculation that Mario would be the only one dropping back, and that Jerry would remain on the line? Not sure where I read that.

Look at it this way: There are over a million people actively serving in an all volunteer military. As the economy improves, low wage jobs are created, and minimum wages are increasing around the country, it's going to become harder (and more expensive) to fill those boots. A big part of any marketing campaign is referred to as "branding." And, clearly, it is a big part of the American Military brand that in America, soldiers are honored-- constantly. At sporting events, during holidays, state-of-the-union speeches, awards shows, in the cinema, on the news, free meals at Denny's, free upgrades at airports, free drinks at bars, and most certainly during the Super Bowl. I wouldn't be surprised if right now, there were a military marketing executive talking to John McCain and saying, "what the hell are you trying to do? Put us out of business???" Edit: btw- I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Mets, or Yankees received money for events honoring first responders in NYC. It must have been hard to recruit firefighters, and police officers after 9/11, and I'm sure those organizations have marketing budgets, as well.

I'm not sure you do. Marketing campaigns encompass far more than billboards, radio, television, and print ads. There are literally companies that pay warehouses full of people in foreign countries like India to click on produced media to force if to go "viral," so that the ads that accompany the page will be seen. If you see someone on your favorite TV show drink from a can of Pepsi, or get into a cab with an ad on the side, that product was placed very deliberately. Even the cars that actors drive in movies represent sponsorship. There are companies that scour social media sites and mine individual's data so that your personal computer will display advertising tailored to your personal preferences. For that matter, I would submit that there is very little that is "honest" about standard advertising. Why would we expect the military to be any different? Very well stated. Thank you.

There are a lot of reasons to not sign Vick. He wouldn't come cheap. He is injury prone. He would add controversy to the QB competition. If they decide to trade EJ (certainly a possibility), Simms makes sense as a third stringer. In that situation, he would be a better third stringer than Tuel. And, considering how the QB "competition" went in Jersey, it doesn't seem like Rex thinks very highly of Vick. I would imagine they were considering him when they decided to sign Cassel. Really, rather than Simms, the more apt question would be, "why Cassel over Vick?"