SectionC3

As best I can discern this is the plan following the events of this week. Perhaps the future of the Bills is linked with that of Kirk Cousins (and, arguably, a combination of Marcus Mariota and Jared Goff). 1. Cut the trio of Holmes/Davis/Ducasse (at this point none is essential) to secure extra third round pick in 2018. 2. Shop Ragland for mid-round pick. 3. Attempt to win in 2017 with Tyrod at QB. 4. Use 2017 to build culture; determine who wants to be here, who does not, and who are the bad seeds (if any) who need to be removed. 5. If Tyrod is not the long-term answer at QB, then attempt to secure QB through FA. Top (and perhaps only) targets are Kirk Cousins and Jimmy Garropolo. 6. If successful, apply 2018 draft capital in part to build team quickly, and in part to selectively move down to secure additional selections in future years. 7. If unsuccessful in obtaining QB through free agency, hope that (a) a team other than NYJ, Cleveland, and SF (all of which are likely to draft QB) holds one of the first three picks, and (b) attempt to trade for that pick using draft capital. Perhaps the Rams having an awful year, and Marcus Mariota playing well, is a reasonable hope for this. In the alternative, hope that Kirk Cousins signs in SF, or Garropolo in CLE, or both, and then attempt to trade for such pick using draft capital. 8. If neither path to a QB is available, and if not at the top of the draft, select perhaps a second-tier QB (e.g., Lamar Jackson, Mason Rudolph, etc.) with one first-round pick, hope for the best, and continue to build as outlined in step 6. 9. Win. A lot. And especially 2x year against NE.

Agreed on LB. What did you think of Hodges last night? From my vantage point in the stadium he moved well. But we definitely don't have a ton of speed there (or in our competent WRs, for that matter).

Locker room chemistry is a good point. Time will tell.

I'm not sure why there is this sentiment that the trade will cut our win total in half. Darby didn't play well last year, and Sammy missed much of the year, anyway. And, it's not like the replacements for either player are so poor that we necessarily will lose an additional three to four games. Come to think of it, I'm struggling to think of games that Sammy won for us over the years. Maybe the Vikings game during his rookie season, the Lions OT game, and perhaps the Jets road game a few years ago (with the abuse of Revis on the critical conversion). I guess I just don't see him as worth three to four wins a year. And I certainly don't see Darby that way.

At first I was unhappy. But, upon further review, I've come around to really like what happened today. Maybe Gaines is a better scheme fit than Darby, and it was best to get something of significant value for Sammy before what now seems like his inevitable departure. There are other variables, too. We don't know what the offensive scheme is going to look like this year. It may be that we want to stretch the field horizontally more than vertically, and that we didn't need someone of Sammy's talents for that. Besides, looking at Taylor's splits, he's most effective out of 2WR and 2TE sets. So maybe we were going to see "bigger" formations this year anyway with the idea of throwing off of play action and out of either 7- or 3-step drops. Not sure the speed element of Sammy's game is essential to that formula. We also don't know how Sammy and Darby were perceived in the locker room, so perhaps there is some addition by subtraction. And, given the positional inflow/outflow, this is not a tank move. If, on the other hand, we move McCoy, Incognito, and/or Hughes, I might feel differently. Finally, given how this regime (rightfully) values draft picks, I wouldn't be so comfortable if I was Holmes/Davis/Ducasse. Maybe we even see those guys get cut before they can get hurt to secure that extra third round pick. If accumulation of assets toward a trade for the opportunity to draft a franchise QB is the goal, then it makes sense to excise those players from the roster immediately.

It's really hard to call McCaffery a bust based on OTAs. In my view, at least.

It's possible but tight. From a lifelong southtowner: park off of California road (not at wings), hustle to the car after the game, turn right into southwestern and take it to rt 277 (orchard park road, then union) and take that straight to genesee street in Cheektowaga and from there to the airport. Visiting team busses have used that route to avoid thruway traffic. Good call. Careful on the Brompton turn, though. I've been stuck there trying to make the right for several minutes when I've used that escape.

I didn't have a problem with letting gillislee walk. Until we visited the idea of essentially giving Gillislee's money to Jeremy Maclin. It seems like the Maclin money could gave been well spent on Gillislee.

I'm so glad this didn't work out. Maclin is exactly the type of quick fix we don't need. I'd rather not pay a premium for a speed WR in his age 29 season. If he was a few years younger, and if he might be a replacement for Sammy if Sammy is out after next year, I might have felt differently.

This. Tentative​ and a fumbler.

"Let's get rid of him" is a bit dramatic, no? As far as I know the team's approach is more "let's make sure he's healthy" before we commit a tremendous amount of money and cap space to him.

I don't disagree with this. I'll note that the bills have the meds - we obviously don't - and the language "if he is healthy." That's the rub. I don't blame the bills for hedging $3m-ish on his health. After all, the foot allegedly was fine last year, until it wasn't. Besides, as noted, this is a guy who is highly unlikely to risk playing out two tag years. If he does, and if he stays healthy, good for him - he wins, and the bills lose. But all things considered this approach was and is a "smart" gamble for the bills to take.

You miss the point. You assume (among other things) that he a) doesn't suffer a debilitating injury in the next two years; and b) plays under the tag for two years. My point was (and remains) that this guy is not going to risk playing under the tag for two years b/c of his injury history and the risk that another injury renders him unable to perform at a level worthy of what you characterized as $50m guaranteed. In fact, the reference to the $50m illustrates the point. Even if Watkins plays under the tag twice, the guarantee on that contract is about 35% of your $50m figure in each "tag" year. I agree that it would be bad business to let him play into tag year 2 and then to sign him to a contract as you suggest. But the point is that he is unlikely to go that route because of his injury risk and, if he does, we get two more years of his prime at 70 cents on the guaranteed dollar without assuming what for him is enhanced risk of significant injury. At bottom, the bills gambled about 23% of next year's contract as a hedge against his health. Like it or not, it is smart (football) business.

Think this through a little bit more. The upside to not picking up the option is that the bills aren't on the hook for $13m next year if sammy's foot explodes again this year. The downside to not picking up the option is that it waives a year of control over the player. But the bills still have two "tag" years for Sammy, meaning that he essentially would play year to year with relatively limited guaranteed money during such times. With his injury history, and with the massive contract he could command if he fulfills his potential, to not take the guaranteed money early would be an enormous (and incredibly stupid) risk. Mark my words - this is not a guy who will play under a tag for two years. Look at gronk taking guaranteed money early (albeit not under threat of a tag) if you need an illustration.

Rodak is wrong about the leverage. Sammy's injury history is the leverage. If Sammy has a great year he will get the tag and he will sign a long term deal. With that injury history (and the possibility he is one broken metatarsal away from irrelevancy) he highly likely to take the big guaranteed money as soon as he can get it. Another reason why this move by the bills is smart.

Which is exactly why this could be smart play. If (and this is a big if) his medicals are unfavorable, it may be that the bills don't want to commit massive long term money to a guy who literally is a step away from a career altering injury. a big year this year coupled with a tag might allow the bills to both get something back for Sammy through a trade a year before his first round class hits the market and to avoid the risk inherent in a long term deal.

As I heard the story it was that polian told her that he would see her next Tuesday. And that was that.

This. It sucks to read in the paper about a loved one getting fired. Even if it's a part of the business. I've been there, and I feel for the families of those affected by what happened today.

I don't know if any decision in the "other" qb besides Tyrod and peterman has been made, but to my eyes it looks as if McDermott is setting a tone and culture for the organization. Cardale strikes me as more of a "Whaley" guy -- immense physical tools that, to Doug, outweighed perhaps questionable discipline, whereas peterman might be more from the McDermott mold. Time will tell. For what it's worth, I'm with Kirby. Yates is what he is and, at least this year, were better off with two developmental guys than with Yates on the roster.

Well said. This is the final scene in a tragedy with too many acts.

I think the assumption is that the R2 tender would have precluded an offer sheet.

This. If our old RB1 goes down, would you rather have Jonathon Williams carry the mail (together with the benefit of the extra fifth round pick on the roster and the benefit of the cap space added following gillislee's departure) or have gillislee pound the rock (less the cap space and the extra body)? I'd take gillislee, but I could be talked into going the other way if there is a good plan for RB2 if gillislee leaves.

It does matter b/c of the appellate process. In New York State Hernandez could challenge his conviction on the ground that it is not supported by legally sufficient evidence. Essentially, the argument would be that, while there is "enough" evidence to convict of murder 2 (intentionally causing the death of another person; no special circumstances), there is not "enough" to convict of murder 1 (intentional homicide + special circumstances). If credited, the conviction would be reduced to murder 2, which, unlike murder 1, is a parole eligible offense. I don't know that Hernandez's appeal has been decided, and I don't know if Mass. law has a provision similar to what I just described. But it's safe to assume it does. So today was the first step in hernandez's longshot efforts to someday be a free man. He had to win today and has to win on appeal. Also, I assume the threat of appeal in Hernandez's first case caused the judge in this case to run today's sentence consecutive to the life term. Contrary to what florio said, the consecutive sentence probably wasn't spiteful or a commentary on the jury. It was insurance against a Hernandez appellate victory in the first case.

This made me laugh out loud. Well done!

Life is a matter of degree, but there is a big difference between being imperfect and being a double murderer. I would scrub the name from the wall. But even if the pegulas don't do that, they should (and surely do) recognize the difference between acknowledging oj and acknowledging oj's athletic accomplishments. Acknowledging oj the person is not going to happen. For what it's worth, coming from a guy who does this for a living, I don't know if I've ever seen a murder case with as much inculpatory evidence as the oj case.