Ozymandius

If a QB draft is weak, it gives you MORE reason to draft lots of QBs, not less. Let's say we ignore QB this year for the most part -- maybe draft a 4th-rounder or something -- and build up the rest of the team with shrewd draft picks at LB, etc. Then Fitz leads that team to a 7-9 record and the #12 pick in the draft next year. How the hell does that help the Bills? Are we going to be able to draft Manziel with #12? If the 2014 draft is strong at QB, the Bills should try to suck in 2013 to be in the best position possible to get their QB of choice from 2014. That means using every pick in 2013 on QBs. Draft a QB in every round. Hell, maybe we even hit on one and don't have to worry about it anymore. Put it this way. A lot of people thought that it'd be stupid to tank a season to get Luck. Or to trade away so much to get RG3. Do you believe Colts fans and Redskins were satisfied this season? Playoff teams in their rookie QB's first year. If the 2014 draft is supposed to be much better at QB, then we better start positioning ourselves properly to take advantage of it.

Stop the mindset that we have to "commit" to a single QB from this draft for 3 to 4 years. The NFL has a rookie salary scale now. We should take a chance on several QBs this year and, if it doesn't work out, there's nothing to stop us from drafting more QBs next year. Even using first-rounders both years, because the money impact isn't that great anymore.

We should spend at least 3 picks in this draft on QB (including #8) and then at least 3 next year if this year's trio don't work out. Getting a QB is just too important. No need to put all eggs into one QB basket. As I've mentioned before, I would be okay (nay I'd recommend) using all 14 picks over the next two drafts on QB. Just do it until you get it right. Once you get it right, everything else falls into place. As we've seen over and over and over again with other franchises that find their QB.

Is this a big deal? Not sure. http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/50587199/sports/player_news

I have zero concern about Ryan Nassib becoming a top 7 pick. In fact, if it happens, I'd probably be a little bit happy.

By almost all accounts, he's been the best QB at the Senior Bowl. We should draft him at #8.

Neither of these teams are going to have anything left in the tank next week. Houston needs to upset NE tomorrow, or it's another Pats Super Bowl appearance.

Also that long FG attempt into the wind at the end of 1H, giving Baltimore great field position John Fox might be a good coach - I don't know. But he's had a horrible time with game management in this one.

Marrone is going to be fun. As others have mentioned, if you parse his press conference statements, Hackett fits exactly what Marrone was looking for in an offensive coordinator -- "someone who has been in the NFL." I will expect the defensive coordinator to have a lot more experience though based on Marrone's words. This is a coach that enjoys playing with words, e.g. "Syracuse WAS my dream, you see, but I continue to have dreams..." I think, in turn, we'll enjoy parsing his statements.

Every pick in every round should be a QB. I'm dead serious. Nobody disagrees anymore that finding a good QB immediately turns a franchise around, right? So why even waste a pick on another position? Instead, let's maximize our chances of finding a good QB. Let's say 6 of the 7 QBs we pick suck but the 3rd-rounder turns out to be Russell Wilson. That would be a great draft, we're going to the playoffs next year, and the franchise is in great hands for the next decade, right? So why even mess around? If we go 0-for-7 in this weak QB draft, then fine, we repeat the same strategy next year in what should be a stronger draft. What are the odds of going 0 for 14 in picking a good QB? I mean, I don't put anything past this pathetic franchise, but even for us, the odds are pretty low, right? Drafting all QBs in the next 2 drafts (and that's only assuming we don't hit in 2013) is the only path I can think of that would make me say: "I am confident the Bills will find a good QB within two years." Let's ponder the alternative. Can you honestly say with a straight face, "I am confident the Bills will find a good QB by using ONE high pick in the 2013 draft."

She's even vaguely reminiscent of Gisele, right? I'm starting to buy into the McCarron is a young Brady line of thought.

Kelly probably would've been something like 37-15. I'm that much of a believer in his system at the college level. Even in Year 1, he would've won games just by shocking opponents with his pace of play. BUT, having said that, Kelly being a better college coach than Marrone doesn't mean he'd make a better NFL coach. In fact, I'm pretty sure Kelly would've failed. From that standpoint, and from the standpoint that I know nothing about Marrone, I'm happy that we hired Marrone instead of Kelly. I'd rather have the coach I know nothing about than the coach I think would've failed. I apply the same logic in liking Marrone over Lovie, Horton, McCoy, Gruden, and Cowher, some of the names we've seen interviewed and/or mentioned here.

Stop with the Lovie regret. The guy probably will never be the head coach of an NFL franchise again. Tampa-2 sucks. It's done as a viable defense in the league. It'd be like hiring Wannstedt all over again.

Warner did nothing for Arizona for two years before Whisenhunt arrived. It was the combination of Warner and Whisenhunt that revived Warner's career and Arizona's franchise. Obviously the Bills need to find a good QB for Whisenhunt. But that would be true with any coaching hire.

Gruden was fired. There are zero NFL coaches that either haven't been fired or will not get fired in the future. Nature of the biz.

Personally, I prefer Whiz to Lovie. No more Tampa-2 defense wearing down as the season progresses. Chicago fans know all about that, and so do we.

Additionally, Warner was with Arizona for two seasons before Whiz arrived, and the Cardinals were a nifty 3-12 in his starts. Remember, Leinart replaced Warner under Denny Green as a rookie and almost upset the heavily favored Bears on Monday Night in his first start. That was the famous "The Bears were who we thought they were" game. When Whiz started his tenure in Arizona, there were zero Cardinal fans asking for Warner to start over Leinart. It made sense to see what they had with the first-rounder.

Well, he DID post a win at Gillete Stadium against Belichick this season, more than those last 3 coaches combined.

If Roethlisberger didn't throw the perfect pass and Holmes make the perfect catch / toe tap in the corner of the end zone between like 4 defenders, we're not even having this discussion.

Look at it this way. Arizona has had 3 winning seasons in the past 28 years. 2 of those seasons were with Whiz.

Actually, it sounds like you have an issue with his candor

Whisenhunt is about as good as we can expect. People are dreaming if they think a hot coaching candidate like Chip Kelly (who might end up being worse than Wiz) is coming here. Heck, I'm not sure Whisenhunt wouldn't turn us down.

So it's basically a non-story story. Russ gets more control b/c Ralph is old (duh). The Nix-to-Whaley transition will happen (which we always expected). Nothing to see here. New head coach? That's news. New QB? That's news. This? Eh.

He would be a cancer. Just because he has a beard doesn't make him a good guy, doesn't make him tough. People are too easily fooled by someone growing a beard. The person growing a beard is usually compensating for lack of toughness, lack of manliness. Fitz has probably never picked up a wrench in his life. Anyway, no 30-yr-old man faking toughness with his beard is going to become this "good soldier" who "mentors" someone who just took his job. If he were 60, maybe he'd do the "mentoring" thing. But he's 30. He's going to be a cancer. Cut him.

We should trade for Kellen Moore. I was so disappointed in Glennon's performance. He just holds onto the ball too long.