BobChalmers

NO NO NO!!!! This is when our last uniforms started to look idiotic - when the players got it in their heads that they were meant to be mix and match.

What you quote here clearly indicates that it was a big no-no for Mayock to say the specific issue with Floyd was "struggling with alcohol". He realized his mistake the second time and stumbled trying not to repeat it. That wasn't good enough so they pulled the video.

If we get the actual Run DMC with that I'll take it! Dunno if they can play football, but we'd win every pre-game!

I agree with this - IF Kalil slips a little, I would love the idea of the Bills giving up a little to move up and get him. The latest from the (generally brainless) NFLN crew is that they think the Vikings will take Blackmon which could well cause Kalil to slip as the next few teams are set at OLT. If I remember correctly, Mayock was part of this "Kalil may slip" discussion, therefore I don't dimiss it entirely. What would it take to move up from 10 to say 6?

It is easier to find things amusing if you are drunk or stoned - I assume that's your issue here? If you're sober, there's nothing wrong with the notion that 4 of 5 positions are in good shape. The difference between needing to add 1 player vs. more than one player is not trivial.

You expect the Bills will have a lack of quality depth on the defensive line/pass rush? The loss of Kyle Williams, Shawne Merriman, and Chris Kelsay were among the top problems with the team past the half way point last year. I continue to object strenuously to the notion that "quality depth" has to include going 3-deep at OLT. The Bills loss of their 1st and 2nd string player on the same day is not something ANY team can expect to face. There's not a team in the league that has "quality depth" with a 3rd stringer at the game's 2nd most important (and expensive) position.

Right - at 32 mandated games that would leave very little flexibility to schedule better matchups as the season progresses. Every team will be IN at least one primetime game - there's nothing saying who's home/away to my knowledge.

We finished 23rd (that's why we have the #10 pick), despite a pile of injuries, one of the league's toughest schedules, and ignoring the additions of Williams and Anderson. Unless you think we are going to be repeating the same or worse level of injuries AND you think Mario Williams and Anderson will have no significant impact, an objective review would have to start us higher. It IS the sort of thing that's typically written by national media types of the same sort that write we don't have much at LB except for Barnett at _M_LB - IE, written in ignorance.

Someone like Tannehill still being available might be the thing that changed this. He doesn't "deserve" to be a top-10 pick, but someone will reach for a QB if they need one. Buddy's said more than a few times he's not big on trading down - but on the other hand, he's said, and continues to say, he's not big on bringing in outside FA's - this year was a stated exception. The counter-argument is, Nix ad Gailey really want another option at OLT even if they re-sign Bell. If only one guy they like (Martin, perhaps?) is stil there at #10, I am pretty sure they will be too be afraid to trade down and potentially not get him.

If Bell is not re-signed, we don't really have one, so yeah, it's a pretty huge need - hard to think of a position more so. Hairston with noone behind him is not a good situation. Moving Levitre to T was a disaster last year we don't want to repeat.

I think they gave up on Harrington way too soon. He was asked to do an awful ot with a bad team around him.

History of teams on Hard Knocks: Ravens 2001 - coming off the Super Bowl win, after the show they went 10-6, 2nd place, wildcard, won their first game, then lost in the divisional round to the Steelers. Cowboys 2002 - they were two years into their streak of 5-11 seasons after firing Gailey. They went 5-11 yet again after the show. The next season they went 10-6. Chiefs 2007 - coming off a 9-7 season, they went 4-12 after doing the show. The year after that they went 2-14 so maybe it's not the show's fault. Cowboys 2008 - Coming off a 13-3 season, they fell to 9-7 the season they did the show, then bounced back to 11-5 the year after. One of the most glaring examples arguing against being on the show. Bengals 2009 - Were 4-11-1 the prior season - they went 10-6 and won the division the season after the show. They dropped back to 4-12 the next year. You could argue the Bengals were helped by the attention. Jets 2010 - went from 9-7 the previous year to 11-5 the season they were on Hard Knocks. Dropped back to 8-8 last year. Bottom line - there doesn't seem to be any consistent trend you can draw from this - given the volatility in any NFL team's record from year to year, I don't think you can say Hard Knocks has any real effect. I guess you could argue Hard Knocks is bad for the Cowboys.

It would be interesting to go over the list of teams' records in the season immediately following their appearance on Hard Knocks and compare with the year before, maybe. Subjectively, the Jets did fairly well even though they looked like complete jerks. The Cowboys had a bad season after, I believe. I have no recollection of how the Chiefs did. It would absolutely be fun-and-a-half to have the Bills on and see the behind the scenes in so much detail, but I sure wouldn't want it to hurt their performance when it counts.

They removed at least one need at OLB by switching to a 4-3, and probably both. LB is not a need except for depth. It's OLT (particularly if they don't get Bell back) and WR. Backup QB for sure.

Press conference at 8:45pm... (just kidding)

It has to be the salary. Same reason they couldn't keep Mario.

LaCanfora and Lombardi are talking late round pick is all Denver wants - can't tell how informed they are or if it's entirely speculation. Why not pick him up as a better Brad Smith for thh WildCat? And if Fitz went down - who would you rather play - Tebow or Thigpen?

This is an important point. I will admit that Nix and Gailey seemed to not catch on to what they had right away in evaluating the roster they inherited - but they've made adjustments. I'm just going to stand firm against arguments that last year's team was not much better than Jauron's string of 7-9/7-9/6-10 based solely on their final record. Yeah we all know they ended up 6-10. We also all (should) know how they got there when they had been 5-2. Cincinnatti figured out Gailey's scheme? Maybe, but they were also a playoff team we lost to on the road by three. That other loss of the first two was to the eventual SB champs, again by 3, again on the road. Unitl the injuries hit this was a playoff-bound team by any objective accounts at the time. THE big problem was lack of pass rush. Other elements weren't perfect but they were good enough. They were at or near the top of the league in rushing, interceptions made, and fewest sacks allowed - and that was after playing good teams. Regardless - as I said early int the thread - Buddy Nix agrees - they need to produce wins this year. My OP wasn't how great is Buddy's record so far, it was Buddy gets the fans - including that part - we expect wins now - and so does he.

Because he heard from Brady last year about all the great hotels!?

Well - the closest match to the current uniforms were the late 70's early 80's threads prior to the red-helmeted attempt to get Ferguson to stop throwing it to the wrong team. THOSE uniforms _did_ feature blue pants with the white jerseys - I suspect that was considered but they opted for the white/white to connect to the older throwbacks that were so popular. As for what's better - all I can say while remaining unbiased is that the new uniforms are rated nationally at or near the top of the list. The previous threads with the bright red clown hats were rated near the bottom.

I believe the O-Line was already fixed to the extent that they stay healthy. Run defense wasn't nearly the problem last season that it was the previous. Nix said publicly "you can only address so many needs in one season" - this was the year to address the pass rush. They admitted to everyone last year they hadn't addressed it yet. Both Dolphins games were AFTER the injuries had destroyed the O-line, etc. After Fitz had his ribs cracked. After Merriman and Kyle Williams were gone (and I believe George Wilson?). Bills play them in week 4 last season instead and they would beaten the fish as badly as they beat the Broncos and Chiefs. Hypothetical, I know, but I believe that. The real consequence of how dysfunctional the Dolphins are - multiple player sources referring to the GM (Ireland?) as someone who "doesn't always speak the truth" etc. In other words, exactly the opposite of what's been evident about our GM. Turns out having a straight-speaking good-ol'-boy at the helm has a positive effect on the players, both already on the team, and FA's.

I believe Nix agrees with you. THIS is the season they believe we should be in the playoff hunt to the end. That belief is why they justified the big FA expenditure on Mario. Obviously if we get screwed (yet again) by over the top injury counts, there's only so much to do. Barring that I'll be very disappointed by anything less than 10-6.

From Peter King's article... It didn't hurt that it was 70 degrees and sunny when his fiancée came in and they toured the city. "Almost like it was destined that he come here,'' said Nix. "A couple times during the process I thought, Why'd we get into this? The downside was huge. If we lose him, I don't know how long it'd take for our fans to recover. They wanted him so bad. But you know, you've got to step up to the plate to have a chance to get a hit. Buffalo's got an inferiority complex. That's why it was so important we get Mario.'' Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/03/19/signings/index.html#ixzz1pc6j4VYt

C'mon - don't project Dick (former pro-bowler DB) Jauron's history on to the new regime. It means nothing. Buddy's already said he's going to add a OT - just a question of who he likes and what round. I'm definitely thinking it's with the #10 pick though.

What in Hades is it that gets into people's brains and make them think football is a 1-man sport?? Sanchez is not very good - but here's the funny part for this "wins == good QB" mindset - Sanchez had his best year so far this LAST season. He sucked out loud his first two years - his defense made it to 2 AFC Championsips IN SPITE of his play. Nice - I misread the first time. I tend to agree.