MPT

There is a third option. If a team gives him a contract that we don't want to match, we get nothing in return. Giving him a higher tender means that we would get a draft pick in return. And we still don't risk anything because his offer sheet was obviously going to be similar to the tender price. We literally can't lose if we give him a higher round tender, and we get a draft pick if we don't match. In this case, we get nothing if we don't match. Again.

Okay, this argument is becoming so absurd. First of all, most of the free agents we signed have not made our roster better. Secondly, we gave up draft picks to sign them. Acquiring draft picks is the best way to improve the roster in the long term. It's really that simple, guys.

It's not an either / or situation. There are teams that stockpile picks and gain an advantage from doing so. There are also teams that have been good regardless of compensatory picks. We are neither. Why not take advantage of a system that is in place to help teams who lose talented players? Especially when we eschew that advantage for players who aren't worth the picks they replaced. If we had signed Alshon Jeffery, A.J. Bouye, and Tony Jefferson, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

All of those teams except the Lions have been to at least one Super Bowl since compensatory picks started. Most of them have been to more than one. Obviously compensatory picks are not a prerequisite to being a respectable franchise, but it's an undeniable advantage that the Bills could have easily utilized this year. Where is your source for the list of compensatory picks you're referencing? It is indeed puzzling that so many people are pumped about signing backups in exchange for losing draft picks when we don't have many picks to start with.

The fact that you think the NFL hands out compensatory picks in an arbitrary manner that isn't based upon a formula teams can follow in order to maximize their draft potential really illustrates the ignorance of the people in here who are completely dismissive of gaining free draft picks. It's like you guys would be perfectly happy filling out our roster with journeyman scrubs by trading away all of our draft picks. That's not how good teams are built. Yes, we have a lot of holes to fill. That would be a lot easier to do if we had two extra picks every year like quality teams do. Retaining compensatory picks also does not prevent us from signing players after June 1 without penalty. Nobody we have signed would be worth the draft picks we may lose, and they would be easily replaced by players who can be signed after June 1. If Whaley had managed to sign any of the top tier free agents we were led to believe they were targeting, maybe you guys would have a leg to stand on. But he didn't sign anyone valuable and he is also risking losing valuable draft picks. Free agency isn't over, so we don't actually know if we will still get compensatory picks, but as of now we have given up two quality draft picks and we still have a lot of holes due to poor management. I don't see how some of you are so accepting of this repeated behavior that has resulted in 17 years of futility.

Right on. Being a fan for life does not preclude one from disagreeing with management. So your definition of fandom requires unquestionable loyalty with no dissent or disagreement with the powers that be?

And just put down grass seed. Can't have people kneeling all over it.

He knew his assignment. He also knew the safety's assignment and knew that the safety blew it. I hated his reaction of giving up on the play and blaming his teammates, but his talent and football intelligence should not be in question.

No, we will be mocked relentlessly when Gilmore gets a ring and Hogan gets his second. Gilmore is a consensus top cornerback. If we had tagged him, we would have been commended for retaining top talent for once.

Exactly what I was thinking. I don't see why free agency should be any less disappointing than the regular season.

Belichick can stockpile picks because he values compensatory picks instead of throwing them away on a 30-year-old backup lineman. If you're going to risk losing picks for depth, at least do it at a position of need.

That's the point. You shouldn't be spending all your time in the break room while you're at work. Must be nice to have a TV and couches at work though.

Can we please stop saying that RB's are easily replaced? If that were true, every team would have a solid #1 & #2 for less than $5 million total. Some teams can't even find a true #1, and the good ones earn close to $10 million. All of the big name free agents are one wrong pivot away from retirement (as is Shady), and drafted players are a crap shoot. An extra $900k wouldn't have prevented us from re-signing anyone, and a 2nd round draft pick is exponentially more valuable than a 5th round. This was a layup and Whaley botched it. After watching Hogan tear it up in New England, one would think he'd learned his lesson. I hope Gillislee is back in Buffalo this year, but I'd also be happy if another team picked him up and made Whaley look like a fool again.

That all depends on our GM being able to find talent in the draft, which he has not been able to do consistently. That sentiment is also the reason our team is a revolving door of talent.

Atlanta's RB's are both on rookie contracts. Freeman is about to get paid like a top back and Coleman will be right behind him. In two years their combined salary will be over $10 million. Blount is happy with $1 million because he knows any scrub could run as a complement to Brady. $3 million isn't that much for a guy who could be a starter on a team without a true #1.

Considering McDermott's defense went from top five to bottom ten after losing Norman, I don't think that argument holds water.

New England already has Beyoncé, and Kelly Rowland still has a couple Grammy's.

I just need to preface this by saying that I disagree with pretty much everything FireChan says because of statements like this, in which he displays an absurdly overconfident view based on dubious assumptions. However, in this case I need to agree with part of his argument about Whaley. Although he's acquired several key pieces through free agency, we don't have a single "blue chip" player acquired through one of his drafts. Darby, maybe? Watkins is hurt too often to be included in that category. It's too early to evaluate the 2016 draft, but if at least a few of those guys don't make an impact in 2017, I'd consider Whaley a failure. GMs have to be able to find talent in the draft in order to build a sustainable team. Whaley hasn't proven that he knows how to do that.

Yeah, that list is very replaceable. There are maybe 8 guys they should hang on to, and combined they cost less than what we've spent on Dareus' missed games.

I just want to state that I read the title of this thread as "Remaining 2017 Buffalo coaching staff vaccines" and I thought that was some pretty thorough reporting.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The only way to lead the league in rushing and rank 25th in TOP is with a defense that can't get off the field. Opposing running backs literally set records against our defense this year. Even the league's best run game couldn't match the historic ineptitude of our defense. This fact is completely independent of QB play. Also, Tyrod had one of the lowest turnover totals in the league. Please explain how a QB who protects the ball and contributes to the league's most effective run game is responsible for the TOP deficit. That is a paradox.

Ignoring the asinine nature of these statements, they still have no merit with respect to this debate. The Saints, with their HOF quarterback, scored more points than 30 other teams. They still did not make the playoffs. Therefore, quarterback is not the only important aspect of the game. The Bills scored more points than SIX teams that made the playoffs this year, and they tied with one team that made the playoffs and also boasts arguably the best WR and RB in the league as well as a HOF quarterback. So, if you were going to choose one side of the Bills' game that DOESN'T need to change, it would be the offense. If you paired our current offense with the defense that Rex inherited before he mucked it all up, we would easily make the playoffs and probably win at least one playoff game. I am not part of the COT, but I acknowledge that we could do much worse and I realize that he is not the reason why we're now at Year 17. And yes, Alpha already whooped you up and down your own thread. I just couldn't resist piling on.

McDermott seems to have a pretty solid reputation. However, is everyone overlooking the fact that his defense went down the drain when Norman left? I need someone to explain why this isn't a red flag.

There are a few things wrong with this argument. First and foremost, the Bills needed a win (not a loss or tie) to keep their playoff hopes alive. You don't give the ball to the opposing team with four minutes left in a sudden death game when winning is your only option. Second, the latter paragraph assumes a lot of best-case-scenarios. Getting the ball back at the 40 with two minutes left would only happen if the Dolphins went three and out AND we got a sack. And that all hinges on the Bills having a "decent defense," which is laughable. So no, that was absolutely not the right play.

The Raiders game is still too fresh. Please refrain from making jokes like that.