Dan

So this what it's come to? Hoping to sign a bunch of quality undrafted guys. Its pretty sad when you think anout what this team has done to us.

This thread is why the press is the way it is. We have a thread about the inaccuracy of someone's facts; yet, not a single fact is given or supported to demonstrate the inaccuracies. You obviously don't need facts to make arguments or generate discussion - which is what the majority of the press is about now. Throw something out there every day, generate "likes" and hits and such, collect ad dollars.

Assuming this isn't sarcasm... name all the teams that went from the cellar to a winning record by starting a couple rookies, a few low tier FAs and an UDFA or two. These new, unproven players are starting at fairly important positions, as well, like QB, WR, OL, & LB. Add to the second rate talent, that a college program is being installed and I'm afraid we have a recipe for failure.

I agree with just about everything you said. I'll add though, that Chan should have been forced to hire a real Offensive Coordinator or take the job and hire a HC. I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now... hiring a HC who is also going to be largely responsible for one of the coordinator roles is a recipe for mediocrity. I would have also drafted a a QB last year when there seemed to be a number of quality QBs for the taking, because I no matter how good Fitz may or may not be, we all knew he wasn't the long-term answer. Yes, changes needed to be made this off season. Afterall, we were coming off yet another losing season. However, what I'm seeing is a complete blow up of the team by the same guy that built it. That, in my eyes, points to a front office with no clear direction and no confidence in its decisions. And to now think we have to wait another 3 years or have any patience at all just to see if they finally figured it out, well I just think that's absurd.

I see you're point to a degree, but this team has dug this hole. Not the fans. Plenty of fans are and would be patient, if we had any semblance of a competitive team on Sundays. How long do you wait before making a change? For simplicity, lets just take the last regime. In 3 years, no winning record and an abyssmal division record. So, don't you have to make some change? You can't just keep status quo, can you? OK so fine, lets make some changes. But, now they're in wholesale, tear it down mode... new coaches throughout and a sifgnificant roster turnover. That tells me the last plan didn't work. OK. fine. But who's orchestrating the new turnover? The same people that did the last one. Now, why exactly should anyone have any comfidence that they suddenly know what they're doing? I agree, this team is a mess. But, I hardly doubt its the fan's hope for change that's at the root of it... rather its the team's inability to consistently win more games than they lose.

Seriously? Patience and 3 years to "rebuild" and become competitive? Nix has been here and been calling all the shots for 3 years already. I, for one, had patience and let him make the drafts and stuck by Chan and Fitz and the whole thing... well now Nix has aborted that baby and we're back to courting a new girl. And I have to wait 3 more years to see how this one turns out? I'm sorry, but that's just asinine. Nix and Ralph said 3 years ago, it was going to take time; they had a plan and it was going to take patience. I suppose it was a 6 year plan that required a lot of mediocre player movements and coaching changings. Whatever. For this fan, the patience has run out. Field a winning team or find someone that can, but I have zero confidence that there's any plan or ability to field a winning team within One Bills Drive.

win more games than they lose

There haven't been any. A pocket passer that happens to run well when forced to scramble, aka Elway, doesn't count, IMO. In fact, I don't think any running QBs have even made it to the Superbowl (does Tarkenton count?). But Tarkenton and even Steve Young seemed to be pass first and run only when I have to QBs (albeit with some designed runs thrown in). I would argue its because running QBs have grown up using their legs to bail them out and aren't very good passers. When it gets to the playoffs, its too easy to shut down the run game and force these guys to pass. Hence, they fall short. Sure they win, they make great highlight reels. But, in the end, the most consistent teams win and win it all with pocket QBs. Now, perhaps the worm is turning, but I think it'll take a running QB who is also an excellent passing QB, to really do something. Kap seems to be the better passer; hence, I give him a far higher chance of succeeding than RGIII for example. I suppose time will tell. But, if you're looking to build a long term winning franchise I would still prefer to go the tried and true route as opposed to looking for that first QB that can take a read/option spread offense to the SB.

There were a lot of bad and inconsistent calls in this game, many going in the Ravens' favor. The refs literally took the game over at times with their penalties and on field conferences, effectively slowing the game down and taking the Bronco offense out of its rythym in the first half. However, this call was perahps the worst one of the game. As I recall the ball began coming out as Manning was bringing the ball down, long before it got to his body and long before he put a second hand on it. That is, by definition, the Tuck rule. Essentially, as I see it, if the QBs arm is stationary or going backwards and he loses it -its a fumble. Once his arm starts going forward, its a forward pass - even if he loses it while bringing back to his body. This was text book tuck rule. And yet, the league was once again wildly inconsistent in its interpretation of its own made up rules. The more games I watch, the less I want to watch because more and more it seems as though the refs are doing their very best to dictate a particular out come. I'm just not sure... is it being done to follow a contrived "story line" or is it to follow a contrived betting line.

I can see that. The Bears have now interviewed 13 candidates! http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000120834/article/nfl-headcoaching-search-tracker I'm not sold at all on Marrone. But, 13 interviews and still counting?

I'm trying to keep an open mind. But, this feels like the same old same old. Yeah, its new guys.. young guys. But, we currently have a young HC Who just hired his college buddy, with next to no NFL experience, to run our offense. How is it different from the sub par staff that Gailey or Jauron or Greg or.. put together? Sure this time it may work, but based on past experience with the Bills and other teams; it headed for mediocrity. I'll keep watching, hoping... but for now color me far less than impressed. This was the new HC, the young HC, the inexperienced HC's first big decision and its less than stellar to say the least.

This would be exactly the type of uninspiring move that would suck. We don't need to recreate a so so college program; we need to build an NFL team. I truly hope this turns out to be wrong.

This is my 3rd. I have no idea how people say he cold be a first round pick? This must be a horrible QB draft. He's got alot of work to do to be an NFL QB, IMO.

Is this supposed to be a highlight reel??

Discussing this point with a buddy of mine today and that was essentially my point. The running, read option QB and offenses designed around them seem to be all the rage. They put up points and make highlights. But, look at the playoffs this year and in recent years... when the games get big defenses shut these offenses down and force these guys to pass. And more often than not, they fail. QBs need to pass first and run last, IMO.

I was saying the same thing! No way he should have still been playing... his career could be over with a blown knee. Just bad.

Gotcha. I will add this... given the rumors circling around Kelly, I'm really feeling better about the Bills being no where near that guy right now. So, maybe Maronne is the better hire of those two. Still doesn't get me all excited by the selection, but I guess it is what it is.

I thought that was Chip Kelly? Seriously, I'm not trying to be an ass; I'm just trying to separate what we want to believe from what we know.

Is it really being reported that way?

I haven't read all the posts here... but many. I've also read the couple of articles about Marrone. I'm hesitant, as well, to comment much because I know little about him other than he seemed highly sought after by several teams. I still don't really get why though. At this point, I see little to be excited about and little to justify him getting so much attention, let alone an NFL HC job. But, I agree, ultimately I think his success will depend upon what Coordinators we can bring in. Heaven forbid we get more Modkins type hires. I also agree, all we can do is wait and see. But, I'm really getting tired of the "wait and see", lets rationalize marginal results as good, blah blah. It's been nearly a decade since our last winning season... let alone the playoffs. If we have to give this guy 3yrs to get his system in place and yada yada, I'm not sure I have that patience any more. And based on many of the posters here... I'm not alone.

I fully expect Nix to step down later this spring after the draft. By all accounts, he is turning over the GM duties to Whaley. This hire definitely smacks of Brandon/Whaley. I don't know that I agree with it at all, but it definitely signifies a new direction for the franchise.

I see your point to be similar to the OPs linked article, in that new helmet designs can help prevent some concussions. IMO, that's not trivial at all and you'd think the NFL would be all over it. But, I also agree with K-9, no single design will preent all concussion and there are other things that can be done to help prevent concussions as well. Hence, my suggestion of incorporating several new approaches that when combined may very decrease the risk of concussion.

As in most instances in the real real world, a proper solution is likely a combination of measures. Why not include the technology to measure impacts in real time, along with improved helmet design to lessen blows and decrease their weight, along with replacing helmets after the technology registers a certain level of impact, along with in-game penalty enforcement, along with a few other things we haven't all thought of yet? An integrated approach actually addressing the problem from multiple angles seems more rational and sensiible than stupid ideas like eliminating kickoffs to reduce the number of hits. The goal should not be to make the game "safe" or eliminate all concussions, it should be to reduce the risk of concussion and preventing as many injuries as reasonable while still preserving the integrity of the game. Because the only way to eliminate all concussions is to stop playing the game.

Sure, in the strictest of sense, nothing is permanent and will have to be reworked again at some future point. But, I think of "kicking the can down the road" solutions as being more short-term oriented. That is, solutions that need to be re-addressed in a couple of years. With a potential back out in 7yrs, I would call this somthing that needs to be re-adressed in a couple years. Again, however, I don't think that's negative or bad in any way. In fact, I see it as exactly what the team needed. They've ensured that the Bills aren't an option for a relocation to LA while laying the groundwork and timeframe for a new stadium to be built, with a new owner. Maybe I'm wrong, but I would think having a newly signed 20-30yr lease is just another hurdle to cross in trying to get a new stadium - something I would bet money a new owner will want.

In many ways, I agree. This lease is in essence kicking the can down the road. However, I don't view that negatively; rather its a necessity. With a 94yr old owner and no clear new owner on the horizon, you don't want the team tied to a facility for 20 or 30 years. Yet, you need a lease on the current stadium - you can't operate without some agreement. The time seems appropriate to me. In 7 years, we're very likely to have a new owner, unfortunately; and that owner will want a new stadium or at the very least negotiate a lease to suit his/their interests without the baggage of an existing 30year lease they have to break. I think the push will be to build a new stadium with funding from the NFL which is exactly what the Bills and Buffalo need. Does this all mean that the Bills are guaranteed to stay in Buffalo? Of course not. The ONLY way to do that is to have Ralph live another 50 years. But I see this as the first step in the transition to a new ownership. It ensures the Bills will not be going to LA in the near term, and allows for the next owner to negotiate a new lease or stadium deal that will secure the franchise here for the long term. Whether or not that happens will depend upon a number of variables, not the least of which is the City's ability to get a new, modern facility built for the team.