2020 Our Year For Sure

Anything after the first two rounds for the Bills (and most teams, I imagine) is purely value. Think about picks like Edwards and Dwayne Wright. Its comical how people write these posts saying, "...then we'll go tight end in the 3rd and center in the 4th and..." Ridiculous! The Bills don't sit there and plan out what positions to take the whole way through, because by the time these guys will be any good, the positional needs on your team will have changed. Anything after the 2nd round is simply about adding to your talent pool.

Basically, Skooby is better than all of us, and some people can't get over it.

Who was his left tackle when he became Kurt Warner again, after the Giants benched him and let him walk, and Whisenhunt thought he'd be better off starting Leinart?

C'mon prez, bring back Mike Novick. You know you want to.

Seconded.

I think he was, at times. Late in the year before he shut it down, to be precise. The conventional wisdom is that he was out of shape/practice early in the year due to the holdout and rounded into form as the season went on. But using sacks alone to form an opinion on a lineman's play is sketchy, in any case. To compare it to baseball, you're using errors alone to judge a player's defense, when you ought to use errors in conjunction with fielding percentage. There is no way to use stats alone to form a worthy opinion on a lineman's play...hell, its hard enough to do it with quarterbacks!

Sacks allowed is not a "fact," its an opinion. You can look at the play and say it was Peters, I can look at the play and say it was Dockery. It isn't like receptions; there's no disputing who caught the ball on a given play. The NFL does not keep sacks allowed as an official statistic.

Three decent players, one weak link (right tackle), and a highly-rated rookie. 'Pretty solid' seems accurate to me. It wouldn't be the best line in football, but it would also be far from the worst. Whether Peters is here or not, its up to Trent Edwards to become our Kurt Warner, allowing us to become the Cardinals: a high-powered offense, despite a mediocre offensive line. The skill positions are jam-packed with talent, and therefore set up perfectly to emulate Arizona. Peters would absolutely make things easier on him, but whether Peters is here or not, its up to Edwards. Early last year, when Edwards played well, and Peters was either on the bench or below his potential, Buffalo had success. When Edwards went down, Losman was awful, and they lost. Likewise, when Trent returned and was awful, the Bills continued to lose-- despite the fact that this is when Peters was supposedly back to his Pro Bowl form. Good quarterback play equals wins, lousy quarterback play equals losses...regardless of Peters' status. Again, it would absolutely help Edwards to have big #71 on his left, I wanna be clear on that. But Walker would be still be competent at protecting his blind side to the point that, if Trent is the guy, it ought to come shining through. We'll just have to keep our fingers crossed and hope he's up to it. Just one fan's opinion.

Please try to keep up. Gaming has already shed the whole 'geeky' stigma.

I wouldn't kill myself if the line was as follows: LT- Walker LG- Unger/Robinson? C- Hangartner RG- Butler RT- Chambers/Bell Its not as good as it would be with Peters, but it seems pretty solid, in my opinion.

Modern Warfare on 360 is the only video game I really play these days. Search and Destroy is my favorite game mode, as it requires more tactical play, but I play everything. I'm Boone Car on Live, hit me up. Lately I've been going MP5 with Stopping Power, Bandolier (Bomb Squad on S&D, though) and Steady Aim, works like a charm. And as Tomcat said, if anybody wants to start up a clan, count me in.

My question whenever people talk about the Bills getting a rush 'backer, is how are we supposed to use him? They typically can't cover the way we expect our LBs to cover, and they aren't strong enough to hold up as a defensive end. Thats why some of us usually tend to think of these guys as 3-4 system players. As San Jose Fan says, it would take some real outside-of-the-box thinking to take advantage of that particular skill set in this defense. I'm not sure we'd ever be able to take advantage of these players to the point that it would be worth the investment.

Bravo.

Hey, at least he didn't call this thread "Trader."

It isn't a matter of personally liking him. Whether you like him or not, he needs to play better than he did at the end of last year. Thats crystal clear, there's nothing subjective about it. Even the Church of Trent folks should acknowledge this. The guy is not there yet.

Is that the bottom line?

Forgive me...whats the rule?

Yeah, Flutie relied on the defense to win games...but Johnson could never win games, no matter what. Flutie, easily. He was mediocre, while Johnson was god awful.

I'd give them a third rounder. Its better to use the pick to get Scheffler then to use the pick on a guy we hope will someday be like Scheffler, is it not?

I wouldn't stop watching the NFL, but I'd become a casual observer, so thats my vote.

To argue against the Terrell Owens signing, you must argue at least one of the following: 1. Terrell Owens, on a 1-year deal, will do more harm than good. 2. Laveraneus Coles has more to offer this team than Terrell Owens. 3. Terrell Owens' signing somehow prevents the Bills from improving other areas of the team. In my opinion, none of these cases can be made sensibly. The Bills have plenty of cap room to add whomever they want, of players who are still out there. And we are definitely a better team with T.O. than we are without him. Therefore, Terrell Owens is a good signing, even if we can complain that he hasn't been accompanied by other good signings.

He said this Tuesday, in the midst of the Cook/Cutler rumors: link

Its also easy to criticize things that are stupid, on the other hand.

Get better soon, Ralph.

Pat Moran has been reporting for weeks on end that, according to sources, the Bills are DEFINITELY interested in Scheffler. For whatever its worth.