Matt in KC

7-9. Back in the saddle again!

I had exactly the same reaction. I saw the headline, skimmed the blurb (and didn't see a name) and said "c'mon Felton Huggins!" Then I opened the link and said "even better!"

I'm glad to see RF gettign stronger. I'm pretty concerned we didn't do anything notable to upgrade our o-line, and there haven't been any PR-puff pieces yet talking about Spiller's improved blocking, or how the TE position will be different this year. Fitz is going to take some shots this year and we're in trouble if he's out for more than a game. As Doc said though, strength doesn't seem to have been his problem, it's been accuracy and consistency. We all love his high-risk throws when they work out, and are more forgiving of the occasional "duck' he throwns up when the he's also getting TDs. It's nice to be going into the season with no reservations about supporting our QB. Unlike the past many years I'm comfortable with his decisions and leadership. I just wish he had more raw talent, which isn't something he can control. I'll be thrilled if the stars come into alignment and we have a really good year, but I'll still be convinced we urgently need another quality QB on the roster.

I understand and agree with you, FiC. At least this off season I haven't heard anyone going on and on about how we'll be better due to "addition by subtraction" (like we heard when replacing Jauron, Peters, Fletcher etc.).

Awesome! (I'm envious....) Yeah, I've thought of that too, and am having a hard time wrapping my head around the cap being "cash-based" in the new arrangement. If that's true, and to your points above, there would need to be at least a starting equalization across clubs. I have a hard time imagining that the bonuses will all need to count in the year they are paid. That just doesn't sound right and would push clubs to shift to yearly (roster) bonuses instead of up front signing bonuses, something the players wouldn't want. I read that one issue was clubs were adding unusual incentive clauses, supposedly to reach the cap minimum, that were never met nor paid. Perhaps the "cash" part of the new cap just means counting only money that is actually paid, and nothing that is not reached (or may not be reached). I think it would be fair to count the money paid/guaranteed a given year (at the start of the season) then add any incentives paid by end of year to the next year's total. It still seems like there needs to be some proration of bonuses though. Hallelujah!

"My goal is to help my team..." is so much better than a guarantee, promise, attempt at prognostication etc.. I was worrried what I'd read when I clicked on this topic.

There's an outside chance the Bills will sign more than one, so over 100% is okay. (...of course there's a chance they won't sign any of them too....)

/i think the article was updated. It says: I think the idea is for them to land a new high-$ TV deal for the Thursday games. It's interesting that it says 16 game Thursday package given the season is 17 weeks long. I wonder which week they'd leave off.

Great to hear! Keep your ear to the ground and keep posting!

Thanks for the clarification. I needed it after skimming this on a quick work break. Isn't dead money just counting against the cap money that was indeed previously spent on players but not amortized because the player left the team prior to the end of their contract? I don't see any way losing this accounting helps the Bills. If anything, wouldn't it encourage the rich teams to sign players to unrealistically long contracts then not have to count the "dead money" and be allowed to spend more on the next wave of contracts? Sorry if I'm setting the conversation back. If i've missed the boat again I promise to go back and read before posting more opinions/questions.

He used to post as Clumping Platelets and deserves all the praise we can heap on him for his cap posts and page he maintained/maintains(?) at Billszone. I just looked him up and don't see any posts on the "new" TBD, but don't know if he just took on a new screen name. I think the old CBA had the teams going to a 90% minimum eventually, but don't remember the details. I thought last year was 88-89% of ~$130, which would mean this year's change would be $2-3 million at the most for teams going from the old minimum to the new - - not exactly a huge change.

There's a certain poetic justice in this.... The cup doesn't like the heat. A real Buffalo cup likes to be outside, up north, or in a freezer!

I still think Manning is the better quarterback when discussing "best QBs of all time". But, the margin is getting a lot smaller than when I originally came to this conclusion. In my mind, the strongest arguments for Manning are his leadership, consistently high performance and longevity. The strongest arguments for Brady are his team results and his stats. Additional Arguments for Manning over Brady Many of the the Pats' team successes may be a reflection of a stronger team than Brady himself. Their 2008 Super Bowl season without Brady is evidence of this. (Then again, as mentioned below, Brady's flexibility allowed the Pats to put in an offense that wasn't specifically tailored to his skills/style). In contrast, the Colt seem mediocre at best on offense without Manning. Additional Arguments for Brady over Manning To what extent has Manning demanded the team be built around him? Brady has achieved most of his results with mediocre RBs and WRs supporting the offense (and was through-the-roof throwing to Moss). Brady has been more flexible than Manning, allowing his (evil) coach to implement specific game plans for each opponent Brady seems to still be improving. Another season or two like last year with 36 TDs and 4 INTs (an absolutely amazing number) will really deminish the argument that Manning is significantly better with regard to consistently high performance and longevity. Big game performance. Brady has come through in big games better than Manning. While this could be due to game-planning, team performance, or whatever else, it needs to be mentioned. Neither here nor there... Manning has been better at avoiding sacks (and along with it, time lost due to injury) than Brady Brady has been better at avoiding interceptions

The email they sent me about NFL ST said:

I considered this option last year. I think the catch was they don't pomise to post the games until midnight after the game. I don't know when they were actually made available, or if that's changed at all for this year.

I was a little luke warm on the initial post about Repsaj (~may he bless the Bills~), but I really enjoyed this one. Do you think Repsaj has anything to do with the extreme weather (tornados etc.) this Spring?

It's called usury. I bet the person who took out the loan was Jarvis Jenkins!

And on the flip side, if Darius doesn't perform well in the NFL for whatever reason, it does not mean he was a bad choice, or wasn't BPA. Then again, absent a reason, like injury, the scouts should have a pretty good idea how college players will perform in the NFL, on their team. That is exactly what scouting is. For Spiller, he's had a single year. Give him a chance. It's way too early to say he was a bad pick. He could still be one of the all time great Bills. (...or be out of the league in 3 years. )

Yes he was. His injury crushed me. He was my favorite Bill by far at the time. I have no idea if his injury with the Bills was a factor in ending his career prematurely (though obviously it didn't help). Point taken, though it's hard to argue with Cowart's stats in 2002 and 2003 after he left the Bills. Over 90 solo tackles each year is better than solid. He seemed to be back to his old form. Spikes never got back to his old form, though he had a great year last year. I think you have to conclude that players need to be judged on a case-by-case basis to see if the risk is worth the potential reward.

Both Sam Cowart and Takeo Spikes (who someone else mentioned) went on to be solid players after getting hurt on the Bills, it just took a couple years to fully heal. These are both horrible arguments for why Merriman isn't likely to bounce back. Sam Cowart Did you know he recorded 127 tackles for the Jets the year after leaving the Bills (two years after getting hurt) and 140 tackles the next year? I know tackles are not official stats, but it's clear he was playing at a high level.

NFL Week one on schedule (OVER=After or not at all) Over CJ Spiller 800 yds RUSHING Under CJ Spiller 1500 yds from scrimmage Under FITZ TDs 23.5 Under # Fitz game winning drives 1.5 Over Stevie Johnson TDs 8.5 Under Terence McGee missed games due to injury 2.5 Over Chris Hairston starts at RT 3.5 Under Michael Jasper games dressed 2.5 Under Wang starts 2.5 Under Merriman sacks 3.5 Under Bills wins 6.5 (optimism is high right now) Over Agree with earlier poster, this is a good number. My guess is 7-8 wins if there is a full season Division wins 2.5 Under Moats sacks 4.5 Under Defensive Total Rank 18 (under is better) Under # home wins 4.5 (Oak, PHI, WASH-TOR, DEN, TEN, MIA, NYJ, NE) Under Easley yds 475 Under Easley tds 3.5 Under # Games Dareus makes tackle for loss 6.5 Over # Games K Will makes tackle for loss 9.5 Over Maybin sacks .5 Over Fitz beard length week 17: 1/8 inch (will he grow one again?) Over Bills Probowlers 2.5 Under # rooks start by game 5: 2.5 (williams, dareus, shepperd, hairston, searcy, white, white, jasper, rogers) Over Overall what guided most of my answers is a belief the defense will be much better, but a guess that the offense will slip. I suspect Fitz may get beat up and miss time, and I don't like our odds at producing if he's out.

Which either way would mean the Bills are picking 6th either way. 5 Year ranking Rank Team Wins-5 1 Detroit Lions 18 2 St. Louis Rams 21 3 Oakland Raiders 24 4 Cleveland Browns 28 5 Kansas City Chiefs 29 6 Buffalo Bills 31 3 year ranking Rank Team Wins-3 1 Detroit Lions 8 2 St. Louis Rams 10 3 Cleveland Browns 14 4 Kansas City Chiefs 16 5 Seattle Seahawks 16 6 Buffalo Bills 17 [Edited to correct pasting error (and the conclusion drawn from it)...]

Reason #401 to like Jasper: He seems to have abandoned his twitter account since the draft started.

I just watched this highlight reel. It shows all of White's plays from a few games. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6uR2827H8o&feature=related He looks like he has great hands and runs with urgency, something that's been lacking from our last 3 "homerun hitters" (Spiller, Lynch, MGahee). Edit: Crud, I see others already posted this. I followed a different link and liked this better the original one I checked out.

I didn't see a link either. Of course, I clicked on it 20 minutes after this thread said the interview was schedueld to start.... Did anyone listen? Anyone have a summary?