Cash

Not voting because I disagree with the logic, but I'd prefer the Steelers to lose tonight because I think that makes a Bills win next week a little more likely. I usually don't care much about what non-Bills teams do, because for all the discussion about playoff/tiebreaker scenarios, the futility streak has mostly come down to not having a good enough record. If we go 10-6 and miss out due to tiebreakers, I can live with that.

Too bad for Reed. I thought he looked good in the preseason.

I think it depends on how Tyrod actually looks. EJ was certainly not good last season, but really wasn't as bad as the revisionist history says. I wasn't in favor of pulling him that soon, but I did see the argument, especially factoring in EJ's terrible 2014 preseason and Orton's hot start once taking over. Taylor (and Manuel!) had a good to great preseason, so that buys him some time in and of itself. If he comes out and is absolutely abysmal in the first 2-3 games - like a joke of a QB or something - then all bets are off in terms of benching. I don't see that happening. If Tyrod plays like 2014 EJ (not good overall, but with some ups and downs), then I'd be inclined to give him a decent while before making a move. One thing I'd like to see in that scenario is a trend of improvement as the season goes on. With Tyrod's lack of experience and lack of practice time with the backs & receivers, he *should* get better the more he plays. (Ditto EJ.) That was one of the things that bothered me about Orton last year - he got worse as the year went on. Shouldn't a guy who missed all of camp improve as he gets used to the offensive scheme and receivers?

Nope.

I would think that if 2 preseason games got cut, there wouldn't be any impact to the length of training camp. So you'd space the games out more instead of having 1 per week. My take is that you'd basically get rid of preseason weeks 2 & 4 and keep the HOF game and weeks 1 & 3.

I'm surprised they haven't added O'Leary to the practice squad. Has he cleared waivers yet?

Click on the link in the OP, broham. Depth chart has changed.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000517670/Cassel-scrambles-up-the-middle

Also a great beer!

But he's not listed as a starter currently on the official depth chart the OP linked to. Yes, but the comparison was to 2013 - 2 years ago.

Yeah, but the best case scenario is that Taylor plays almost as well in the regular season as he did in the preseason. That *would* give us a solid, consistent QB.

Maybe I'm just blinded by science homerism, but I see the ceiling as something like 14-2 in a miracle season, and more like 12-4 in a realistic best-case scenario. Dick Jauron's Bears went 13-3 one year, thanks largely to luck. This Bills team is better than that team IMO. And it's very feasible that Tyrod (or even EJ if Tyrod gets hurt or falters) provides better QB play than the Bears' QBs (mostly Jim Miller) did: 59.7%, 3,072 yds, 20 TDs, 16 INTs, 5.8 Y/A, 5.2 adjusted Y/A. (To be honest, I thought those numbers would be way better before I looked them up just now. 5.8 yards per attempt is terrible.) But, to be fair, probably any NFL team could go 13-3 with a historically lucky season. What about a more realistic best-case prediction, where the Bills are only medium lucky - i.e., no losses due to bad calls, no or few major injuries, etc.? I still say we could hit 12-4. That relies on Taylor stepping up and being at least league average, maybe a notch better. We can debate all day how likely that is, but in my mind, there's at least a realistic chance of it. There's also a realistic scenario where he falls flat on his face, or gets hurt then EJ falls flat on his face, so the 6-10 seems about right as the floor. I think that would also take some injuries on the defensive side, but that's not very far-fetched. Well, getting to play against backups in Week 17 counts as lucky... we were really 8-7 with a bye last year.

If he isn't ready to go, then cutting Jackson looks real bad.

Doesn't mean I'm happy about it, but I don't think it was a move to save face. I think the FO ultimately went with a younger & cheaper player in Brown over Fred. OR it's possible that neither Brown nor Fred makes the team, and they decided to release Fred first out of respect for him - i.e., he has a better chance of catching on elsewhere now vs. in the last cuts.

Cam Thomas is on the Steelers, isn't he?

I totally support the Bills' QB, but I don't believe in pledges. They usually don't work out anyway.

Boooooooo!

Not really any new info in here if you read the articles following his departure. This reporter even says as much. ("What was reported"). Best quote of the article IMO: "Marrone may not be missed or liked in Buffalo,..." Yeah, pretty much.

Easley has looked good at WR pretty much every preseason. Hasn't yet translated into anything in his very limited regular season action at WR. But maybe it will someday.

ABC. I voted for TT. My first choice personally would be EJ, but I think TT has probably been a little better overall. I just like EJ I guess. Will be very happy with either one starting.

I only want Cassel around so that there's a real vet on the roster - something that was sorely lacking in 2013. My hope is that he never gets into a game. I'm one of the last few EJ holdouts, but I think Taylor is definitely ahead of him right now. I'm cautiously optimistic about the prospects of Taylor as our starter.

Agreed. He leads Palmer there, Palmer's liable to get killed by the S coming over. Pass hit the hands.

EJ finally allowed to throw on first down - and both the first two go for firsts! To be fair, the throw on the screen was not good. But the third throw was!

MDFan is correct - if Taylor plays 50% of the snaps this year or next, the last year is voided. Realistically, if Taylor starts the whole year this year, he'll be given a new contract. Having him under contract for 2016 would give the team some leverage in negotiations at that point, though. The other way the 2017 year can void, according to Spotrac, is if Taylor is "on active roster 5 days after 2016 [super Bowl]". Anyone know for sure what that means? I.e., does that mean it only voids if we've made the Super Bowl, or (more likely IMO) does it mean that if he's still on the team at that point, 2017 voids? In the latter case, Taylor's deal is 100% a 2-year deal, because the only way to keep the 2017 year from voiding is to terminate the contract before then. This isn't unheard of; I remember Nate Clements' famous "8 year, $80 million" contract was really a 7 year, $64 million contract, with the 8th year guaranteed to void no matter what happened.

Would, has, and will continue to do so for at least a few more years.