RuntheDamnBall

Everything you say makes too much sense, which of course calls it into question. OK, then, but isn't it saying a similar thing if an OL scheme makes a player look better than he may be on another team, or if a defensive scheme and supporting cast makes a pass rusher look better? It's a good question to ask. I think "is Jerry Hughes replaceable in this defense" is a pretty good candidate for this kind of question. Personally, I think he's been a boss since he came to Buffalo and it says that Indy wasn't using him right, but people could argue that he looks this good because of Dareus, Kyle, and Mario.

It's playing in front of Travis Henry that should worry anyone. That's a good way to end up with child.

I don't think I can take another game without Aaron Williams. Dude, get well.

I definitely think he should have been a Bill. It'll be interesting to watch the beginning of his pro career.

I think that's the episode of Beavis and Butt-head where they go to barber school.

You'd have to be pretty god-awful, like more terrible than this year's Raiders, who have their FRANCHISE QB™. With the "worst QB" that half this board has ever seen, this year's Bills would already have been losing that race since they won two games with him. Then you have to hope that this fictional QB of the future, 2015 edition is actually worth that #1 overall pick. That's a lot of ins, a lot of outs, a lot of what-have-yous.

Oh, dude, it went kaboom, with post #1. This was part of the pre-post routine: Clown question, bro.

Even though he wasn't late?

I didn't vote as, in the words of Maude Lebowski, the plot is ludicrous.

I guess I just can't see how anyone would say they wouldn't trade all of those players, and there was no way in a million years that the Colts were not using that pick on Luck. They earned that thing the hard way, expressly for the purpose of selecting him. Luck was viewed as the surest thing since Manning, maybe surer. The whole question just seems preposterous to me. My answer is of course yes. A great QB elevates everyone, even if the overall talent level were to be lower as a result.

ol dirty bastard might have been able to play on the 2009 Bills.

This will only work if we can arrange a prior trade to send them some of whatever you're smoking. holy straw man.

Thought you were saying was cut! Phew.

I'm a little worried that Harvin will do for Geno what Tavon Austin did for him at WVa. The jets receivers to this point have been awful.

OK, got it. That doesn't make the trade a failure at this time, though. It simply means that Watkins is a Bentley that's been given to a guy with a learner's permit.

But Wood is still here, as is Urbik. Though Urbik must both possess nude photos of someone and have slept with someone's wife. There isn't an explanation for why he's still here AND isn't getting to play.

Agreed. Also, KO Pro: calmer in the high pressure situations. Does not seem to get rattled as easily. KO Con: cannot move at all.

Because Kelvin Benjamin (with Cam Newton as a starter) has comparable stats in year one as Sammy Watkins (with Manuel and a no-training-camp Kyle Orton), through week 7, the trade is a failure? That is several hoops of bad logic and reactionary response that you're jumping through here, with a pretty damn small sample size to boot. You can look at the Watkins draft trade for what it is, but you can't judge it after half a season. We don't know what Benjamin can do without Cam Newton, so there is no apples-to-apples comparison here.

Levitre could get moved. He is expensive and hasn't been good since signing with Tenny though.

Interesting stuff from Bill Barnwell at Grantland, whom I don't always agree with. It feels like we dodged a bullet with Levitre -- though maybe he would have been a different player had he stayed. Maybe he would have regressed just the same, with Marrone not seeming to do as much with OL talent as we would hope for a former OL coach. Regardless, we may have guards that suck, but at least we don't have EXTREMELY expensive guards that suck, right? Funny stuff given that the team was lambasted for not overpaying Levitre. I was in favor of keeping both him and Byrd. Right now, if faced with the same results with these players on their roster, the Bills would be borderline crippled this season. Sometimes, the FO is right. All the same, would you bring in Levitre if it just meant eating the salary? I'd entertain the idea in hopes that a change-of-scenery / return-to-familiarity would help. I imagine Wood would feel a lot better with Levitre by his side than with Richardson or Kuandijo right now. There are other interesting candidates on the list like Cook, and I'd at least think about Gerhart or Brown if they came for dirt cheap, though both kind of suck.

"love fest"? For a guy who just suffered a really sh---y season-ending injury and possibly a very sad end to his Bills career, and has by all accounts been a good soldier? You don't have to like his play, but this is totally a crusade. People are allowed to discuss the likable traits of players and they'll still know where you stand on CJ Spiller. Seriously, do not worry your pretty little head about this.

I really miss Chewbacca right about now.

No doubt. I was just saying that I don't think that EJ's success - when there in fact was any - and the run game clicking are mutually exclusive.

Well, that seals it. I am going to get strung up for this, but I think that EJ sells the play action better than Orton does and that this does in fact help with the run game. This, along with running in general, would be one of the few things he does better right now. Orton should be the man -- there is no question. The question is, why does it have to be "haters" vs everyone else? That's no fairer than "fanboys" vs. "realists." Orton is the best QB the Bills have right now, he might always be better than EJ, and he is a flawed QB -- like most anyone who isn't in the top 5-8. His flaws will be exposed at times and so far the team is fortunate to be 2-1 with him, but he has definitely played a big part in the cause for victory and in making it as close as it has been.