KingRex

Back in he real world we have been able to find a 1st year starters in the OL like Henderson in the 7th round and even found a Pro quality OT as a udfa. I am not sure where you got the stat from that one's chances of quality starter 2 years hence at QB are higher than finding an OL starter with the 50th pick but this theory does not strike me as supported by the facts. Again looking at the actual players, the consensus I hear regarding the scouting assessment of G Tomlinson is that this 4 year starter in college is not only a likely starter as a rookie wherever he goes but may well be there at 50. Further, another OL option likely to be there at 50 is projected rookie starter at T Fisher. The scouts may be wrong, but they also have the two probable QB starters Mariotta and Winston long gone in the 1st and likely QBs available at 50 true question marks whether they would ever deliver as pros even with time. Picking a QB at 50 seems to be a pretty high risk move at best.

The price for replacing Gilmore if we did not extend him is that also we would be playing the market and also having the market play us. Gilmore demonstrated his value to m when a ding took him out of one of games last season and the opposing QB/OC picked on his back-up Brooks. Gilmore is worth being the highest price CB w have cause he is best CB on this team.

You know that. I know that. Bills fans with even half a brain knows that. However, the professional media as shown in recent articles on WGR's site and in the Rochester D&C advocate taking a QB at 50 or with our third rounder. I can see why they would promote such bad football choices because what they are all about is advocating the team draft a QB, then demand he be used before he is ready, and then sell commercials and fill column inches whining about how the team pr4ofessionals are idiots. I also saw one poll of what I assume were casual fans where 44% of answerers to this non-scientific poll called for drafting a QB with the first pick. Too many people do not seem to understand that if you draft Hundley, Petty, Grayson or any QB with a snowballs chance of being there at 50, these admittedly talented players are not likely at all to be ready to contribute on the field til 2016 (if we are lucky) and likely 2017 as they fight for time as they share time with and likely force us to cut 2 of Cassel, Ej, Taylor, and Tuel. Add to this not only do you have this benchsitter QB and WGR selling arguments but you forgo a likely starter G, RT in this OL deep draft and/or a back-up tE with a Roman OL that wants 4 TEs and we have three.

Interesting take for those with the usual psychotic addiction to a QB. Maycock's general rating (my understanding is that his top 100 is his raw player quality rating and is NOT where he thinks a player will be picked. Based on his assessment which has not been bad the last few years, my sense is he would suggest the Bills hold pat at 50, but the QBs available at that point will not merit a 50 pick. Even worse for the Bills a QB pick would simply not pay off for a year or three while lessening our chances for getting a player who contributes to the team right away (OG or back-up TE in a Roman O which can use 4 TEs.

Exactly. Do you think any QB we can get in the 2nd (in fact any QB besides the first two choices) is someone ANYONE likes for 2015? NO! IF the Bills were to choose Grayson, Hundley or whomever in the 2nd or 3rd, they would be choosing to pass on an OL player who MIGHT start this year or a back-up TE who would allow them to use multi-TE sets in exchange for a QB who actually probably would not even be so-called insurance in 2016 and maybe 2017. If one wants a QB who is gonna (Or even possibly) beat out Cassel, Manuel and Tyler its gonna be an FA and not a second or third day pick. If you disagree, name the name and make the case.

This MIGHT be true if: The 15 Bills are content not to take the best possible run at the playoffs this year. There is NO (ZERO, NADA, ZILCH) QBs who can be taken at 50 (or in fact outside the top 2 that anyone sees as a serious possibility to lead his team this year. If the Bills take a QB with one of their two picks they are confidently making the run with serious questions at least on the OL, back-up TE (when Roman likely goes 2 TE a lot,) a lot of depth issues. I do not see the Bills not taking the best run possible at not going 16 years + with no playoffs. A QB draft pick on the second makes a bad 2015 more likely in exchange for a remote possibility that we will get a franchise QB from pick 50 or 81.

Is the NFL conspiring against the Bills? Doubtful. The NFL routinely does things so badly that if they had decided to conspire against us we would likely win a SuperBowl.. One thing the NFL does well is make $ from the TV nets. My GUESS IS THE bILLS have been unfairly scheduled by the networks, but this simply a side effect of the Bills producing such bad teams in our small market.

We will make a credible run threat behind top flight 2013 season rusher McCoy backd by Bills spiritual and former credible #1 Bills RB Jax backing him up under past successful ground and pound OC Roman. Howewver this credible threat should create huge opportunities for a receiving game difficult (if not near impossible) to match up with given the talents of Watkins, Harvin, Clay and even Woods (when we decide to go 3WR or empty backfield sets. Off the top, opposing DCs will wantto commit at least 7 (if not 8) of 11 defenders to stop the run, but if Harvin, Watkins demand 4 or a commitment to single cover them, the D will simply be a man (or 2) short in matching the Bills.

Moulds is the best example of why it can be foolish to declare a player a bust even after two-su8bstandard draft and second years. His case is extreme, but even among seemingly average players or other positions there are many examples of QBs that got cut (Brad Johnson got asheaped twice and then QB'ed an SB winner) declared busts like Trent Dilfer who got lifted to the SB with a superb D and merely adequate play by him, or even QBs drafted in the 3rd (Montana) or 6th round (Brady) who became among the best. The best hope for the Bills "simply" to make the playoffs is NOT for EJ to play like the vet he isn't, like Cassel to play like did before 10 years of hits and a couple of severe injuries, or tyrod and Brad Wildcatting us to glory. The key is D.

I have no prob with EJ being taught by a guy who did not have an HoF career as the saying those who can't do sometimes teach is actually based in reality. In fact, I think an HoF QB like Steve Young, John Elway or other stars I would never naturally see as EJ useful instructors as thy succeeded in part by consistently doing things that EJ or no mere mortal could ever do. EJ likely has the most to learn from a marginal talent like Deberg who grasped the game well enuf to overcome his limitations

Agreed that this will be decided on the field of play where it should be.

Yep, my apologies for the name miscue. the winner of the QB competition will be the one who can best digest and execute the offense by opening day - and who shows the most promise in building around as the season progresses.. if that QB is good enough to make the anticipated plays needed to sustain drives and scores points before turning it over - he will be a good QB, regardless of the myopic perception of many fans. I think on of the

The bottomline is that the future direction of this team on o is likely set with the personnel we have on the roster right now (the biggest possible exception would likely be if we chose a guard high in the upcoming draft who for some reason proved capable of starting as a rookie (and I do not see any Seantrel's- a rookie talent who drops in the draft and the Bills revive him but it is possible). Its hard to imagine anything more in the rearview mirror than Merrone's legacy. If any former Merrone hire still with the Bills is focusing any of their time and attention on impossible woulda/coulda/shouldas about DM it likely is sooner rather than later they are done on this Bills team in terms of what is happening on the field, what fans are worrying about and likely even what the media is talking about. The key pieces of good news about the Bills are: 1. The Bills had some significant O weapons last year, but nothing that kept an opposing DC up late trying to figure out a scheme that would support players who cannot realistically be asked to simply step up their individual play to always watch Watkins or devote special attention to Spiller on some plays. The talented but still about rookie level Manual, the .500 over his career Orton or Tuel needed work only to figure out how to exploit them not live in fear of them. As far as QB it is the same this year, but frankly if you care about the Bills who QBs them is a secondary (in fact tertiary concern because: A. Second year Watkins comes off one of the most productive seasons ever for a Bills rookie WR and actually did this while playing through some painful injuries and mediocre QB play (2 of 4 games with EJ and at least half the time w/ Orton). As a second year he should be better (one wonders about the numerous injuries but he played through them and was productive last year. so I am not worried about this unless he loses more PT). However, this potential gamebreaker is joined by: B. Harvin. This mercurial blinding talent simply demands a dt. If one consistently singles him chalk up one or 2 TDS. Combining him Watkins whose speed and hands demand an over/under dt then the Bills will simply see a lot of zone in 15 which means: C. Edwards entering his third year has shown great precise route running with youngster and average vet QB play at best. Even with a still inadequate though marginally improved as a third year vet QB, Edwards is the player who I think might benefit most from Watkins/Harvin forcing opposing DCs to put at least 3 or their top CBs on W/H. I think the first relatively simple reads by any Bills QB be it Manual/Cassel/whatever is gonna be whether in 3 WR sets with W/H split wide is Edwards singled. A simple pick play by the TE or a cross with a wideout leaves a simple throw to Edwards. D. The addition of pass catching talent but still capable blocker Clay adds another threat that either gets an LB (Clay runs a fly) or a safety (Clay gets an inside throw and muscle's a late closing safety and tries to make him miss. Even worse, the DC cheats the safety toward themiddle and now either W or H gets singled on a fly or stop/go. E. To make things totally sick for the opposing DC, Bills OC Roman's rep is actually pound and ground and he gets the NFL 2013 rushing champ McCoy backed up by proven #1 level RB Jax as his back-up. If he gives the Bills the 8 in the box demanded by this ground and pound he gets killed by passing, if he dts then the run shreds him. I think he Bills and Ryan are totally correct in the open battle of three QBs and let the best man win Because the best man does not to be a good QB to make this O effective.

I thought that was what you were saying when you declared in an earlier post that giving a female a shot at being an NFL ref was not necessary. Looking at your previous posts you also interpret me as saying that potential women refs are going to be better than the best NFL refs. Nope. To make this argument would be silly. I only argue that women refs MAY be better than the WORST NFL refs. It is actually necessary to give women a shot because the goal is to get the best refs possible. I simply argfue the best way to do this is to increase the pool of prospects. Do you disagree with this?

There is no formal ban on women as NFL refs that I know of but though there is no formal ban the real world practice is that there are no women refs I know of. This practice makes no real sense I can see (please correct me if I am wrong). Women should be quite capable of bringing the same and likely far better judging from the abilities women have shown to well fill non-traditional roles like fighter or airline pilots. I have heard nothing but Jimmy the Greek type troglodyte arguments that woman would be fine refs. Most women (like most men) would be lousy refs. However, there is a talented tenth (probably less) of women who I think would be more athletically appropriate than 64 year-old Ed Hoculi and would not make fundamental errors like Phil Luckett blowing a coin-flip. I see no reason why one would not give women a fair shot at competing for an NFL ref job. Do you need a reason to be fair?

Reason #1- Video reversals are a statistically clear demonstration that even the best refs in the world get things wrong and are not perfect. Reason # 2- Easily each season has a memorable worse call (in fact virtually every game) that in fact are not even subject to review. I keep mentioning the blown coin toss because it is a memorable and obvious real world example, but there are other memorable blown calls like on against the Pats where they ruled a Pats WR in bounds when he was obviously out and routinely where replay shows a dirty play but the refs miss it but see and penalize the retaliation. Reason #3- One of the primary structural flaws in how the NFL handles the ref situation is that rather than taking what relatively is a small chunk of the $8 billion NFL pie and hire fulltime refs who focus on nothing besides improving their ref roles, the NFL instead uses part timers whose primary focus is on their real jobs as stock brokers, pilots, or whatever. By expanding their pool of folks competent to ref they might actually be able to hire like adults and employ the full time refs the game deserves. Reason #4- You cannot possibly think that women are incapable of having a skillset which equals that necessary to do the job. While I am quite confident that there are no women who could physically be able to play like Richie Incognito, I also have few doubts that many women likely have the skillset needed to be a good ref. Do you really want to argue they can't. I feel fine about women being the fighter pilots who protect us, about a few women being able to muster the strength to be firefighters, and handle any number of jobs conventionally thought of as men's work. I see no reason why anyone would logically claim that there are not some women who with a little training and being given a chance could not supplant the lowest 10% of the best refs in the world. Even silly arguments that have been proven wrong by our now gender mixed military that the presence of women would demolish unit cohesion have been proven wrong. Smart strong me have nothing to fear from competing against women!

The best male refs is not the issue at all. The question is whether expanding the talent pool of potential ref will allow you to fire and replace the worst refs. As is the case when a particular group like all blacks are barred from jobs like HC or QB simply because of the whims of the good ol boy network, the game simply gets improved a lot quickly if the effect of expanding the talent pool is that the worst of the current crop loses their job. Do you think there is something inherent in women that somehow makes them unable to do the ref job? I see no reason why women cannot run as fast and as long, their eyesight is just as good, their judgment is just as good as a man's in terms of doing ref work. A woman can miscall the coin flip as easy as Phil Luckett can. Many could probably run 64 year old Ed Hoculi into the dirt. And knowing the rules a'int brain surgery. The question is not whether there is zero reason to assume they are better than the best ref, the ? is whether an expanded pool of the most talented women is potentially better than the worse male refs. Some refs are clearly so bad or so old that its not hard to think that the handful of women with some experience are better than the worse.

Good so far so I giv him a B. You gotta win something to be any kind of an A.

Its reaction to this positive because it is a reversal of past practices by the NFL which has resulted in ref decisions which run the gamut from normal fan whining to clear cases where the refs blew it (fortunately many of these ref mistakes are now reversed on video, but some are just stupid (like blowing the call on a coin toss). We're all just human so mistakes will happen. However, the NFL has left itself open to fan complaints about legit human error by not creating the largest pool of comptent refs possible. this move DOES NOT as you falsely and demonstrably came because the NFL has no record (zero, nada, none) of having slightly more than half of all humans compete for ref jobs. This record in the real world raises the real question of why they have not found even one woman to compete for a ref job. I doubt that suddenly we will have a 50/50 gender balance of refs, but I also find it hard to believe there are no women out there who could even purport to learn the game, run faster and longer, have better eyesight and even better judgment than some of the current geriatric types who probably should have been retired as working NFL refs long ago. How can you oppose increasing the size of thee talent pool NFL refs are drawn from.

Are you arguing that sexism and racism are thus more likely to go away if we would simply just ignore these issues? Boy, we could have saved John Lewis a few concussions if he and MLK had simply understood that walking across the Edmund Pettus bridge was the worst thing they could do to call for equal rights for blacks.

+1 as hiring more women is a pretty clear route to improving referee talent. IF (there is a question of how big of an IF this is as competency does not appear to be the biggest factor in the good ol boy NFL world) then adding women to the talent pool means that the first hires will be the most competent women and the first fires will be the least competent men. Just as was the case when the NFL had zero or near zero HCs or QBs of African-American descent, the first hires will be the Tony Dungy's and Doug Williams' and the first fires will be the Ryan Leafs and Doug Marrones. Are there women capable of not blowing the call on the opening coin toss as NFL ref Phil Luckett did on a nationally televised game a couple of years ago? Hiring the best women refs is one of the quickest ways the NFL can improve their talent pool!

Its actually going to be more about the read than the formation. A good formation is anyone which presents a clear action (we are going to run this down your throat or we are gonna throw the ball deep). When the formation makes a clear statement then the D is forced to react. The Bills then need to have the QB make the proper read that the way the opponent has reacted now leaves them vulnerable to a particular type of attack (if the FS cheats toward the LOS so that there are 8 defenders in the box, then all the WRs (and maybe the TE) run fly patterns or stop and go's deep. Alternately, if the reaction of the Dis is to dt Watkins, or Harvin, and in particular both, then the Bills either audible to or simply runs the play called and McCoy if the D is covering deep. The other thing to remember here is not only does the QB need to make what actually should be a simple read (I am pretty confident all our QBs should be able to make the needed read) but also the WRs and other O players will need to make the same read. If not the pass will simply fall in complete if the WR cuts his route short.

+1 =1

I think the major difference is that Mr. Ralph is gone. Tons of props to him because without him the Bills likely would be in LA, Balt, or elsewhere. Ralph imho was the primary factor in the Bills continuous flailing in searching for the next Jim Kelly. this addiction led to a series of desperate reaches, stupid contracts and failed teaching and management at the QB slot. Ryan has experience of not only playing competitively (and even making the playoffs with Sanchez) with QBs who turned out to be inadequate. Ryan has laded up with 3 QBs who likely are not great but has acquired weapons around them which I think/hope can get this team into the playoffs.

Sully seems to be doing the easier thing which basically is to second guess a team which has produced an unsurpassed record of failing even to make the playoffs for over a decade and a half. I guess his stick was new 15 years ago, but over time with the failure by him to provide much in the way on new insights or attitudes his work has proceeded into Wednesday Morning quarterbacking, then Thursday morning "fresh" insights and after several years of failure has lapsed into simply providing old news. This contradiction is why I think many readers simply find his work a pathetic read. Could/should have he have done something different? Yes, if he was good at his work. Felser was the usual young upstart as a young writer who made his bones through his tireless work, he showed some willingness to point out problems with the Bills approaches in the 80s and 90s so that he as seen as an independent agent but also maintained his inside contacts. Felser ended his career gracefully as a grand l man. Carucci also found a different path he also began with making tough analysis but seems to have migrated (matured?) to a "personality" focus. He co-wrote books with a # of Bills stars. his career path saw him move out of town until he returned. Sullivan on the other hand has mostly seems to try to remain an angry young man and really has offered no new insights as a writer. His one foray into presenting something "different" was merely a foray into coping with middle-age by taking up golf. In general. I think this came off as selfish navel gazing rather than good reporting. In the end, Sully comes off as little more than a TV test pattern and makes a good argument for newspapers simply having one guy who sticks around (Felser) but they would have done Sully and his readers a favor by firing him.