Cash

Interesting, but one thing to keep in mind that despite what the author says, a correlation of 0.29 is far from "strong" - it's really weak. Strong enough that it probably does represent a real effect, but barely. 0.4 is also pretty weak. My point is basically that a good, but small, WR is still a better bet than a James Hardy type.

Yeah, Rochester typically gets screwed on this stuff. Blacked out whenever possible, but considered a "secondary" market. Meaning games on cable aren't simulcast on local TV, so Rochester folks couldn't watch NFL Network games while Time Warner was feuding with the NFL. I suspect it'll be a similar situation here - even though Carucci referred to "WNY/J'ville" as the local TV markets, my guess will be that only the "primary market" will be allowed to broadcast on local TV - meaning only Buffalo and Jacksonville proper.

It was that low, until his contract expired. It will be higher going forward. And they'd probably have to significantly beat the Bills' (or similarly QB-poor team) offer, because a young player like Taylor typically wants a chance to play, and potentially earn huge money. He won't get that in Baltimore without a serious injury to Flacco. The NFL actually got rid of the reserve clause some time ago, and have this thing where you have to negotiate a new contract from time to time in order to keep a player. And weirdly, the new contract is the one that counts against the salary cap, not the old one. And sometimes the new one is a lot higher than the old one, maybe too high for you to afford, especially when you have massive amounts of money committed to your starting QB. Bizarre, I know, but all true.

Very much hope we don't sign Harvin, and even bringing him in for a visit is puzzling to me. With the big money (for a FB) signing of Felton, plus Roman's history in SF, it seemed like we were going to be using a FB at least 50% of the time, meaning 2 (or 1) WRs on the field at least 50% of the time. I don't see how that fits with signing a slot WR type like Harvin. It would be nice to have *some* size at the WR position, especially now that Chandler's been cut. Even if we get Clay, he's on the small side for a TE, and not the best red zone threat. Watkins allegedly plays bigger than his size (I haven't seen a ton of that yet, but I didn't watch him in college), but his actual size is still pretty much average for an NFL WR. Woods is on the small side, and so is Harvin. Hogan is about average. Goodwin is tiny and would presumably be cut in camp if we sign Harvin. That practice squad guy we signed to a futures contract is big, but does anyone think he'll actually play in the red zone? I've never been all that impressed with Harvin in any case. His highlight reels are awesome, and I think that's caused a lot of people (including NFL decision-makers) to overrate him. I'm sick of hearing about how certain guys are "a threat to score on any play". As though if we collect enough of them, one of them will score on every play! How about we address the line a little bit, instead of signing more skill position players who will play <50% of the snaps?

I like this signing! And I realize it'll probably amount to nothing. But there's a chance that Taylor is decent or better, and that chance is worth taking.

Don't forget about practice. Chris Kluwe (former Vikings punter) says that with 1 guy doing all the kicking/punting, the practice workload would wear out his leg during the season.

Good catch, thanks. We traded FOR T-Jax, then cut him a year later, and Seattle picked him back up. Great deal for Seattle.

Negatives: 1.) Cassel is not good. In fact, he is bad. We've all seen him play enough to know this. 2.) It does kind of suck to give up draft assets (even bad ones) for a bad player, especially when there are similarly bad players available in FA. 3.) Seriously guys, it's Matt Cassel. Positives: 1.) As Dean explained pretty well a couple posts up, Cassel is probably the best of the bad QB options for the Bills. Plus, even though he's bad, he's not abysmal, and hasn't shown any signs of becoming abysmal. Just bad. Bad is okay - you can still win games with bad. You can't win games with abysmal. Most of the FA QBs (including McCown) have shown flashes of abysmal. 2.) Cassel only has 1 year left on his contract. The main reason I didn't want the Bills to sign McCown (besides the fact that he's not good) was that with the Browns in play, the "winner" would have to give him multiple years and a decent $$ guarantee. Count me out. 3.) He's a veteran. I continue to think the Bills made a huge mistake in 2013 when they first traded T-Jax, then failed to sign another veteran once Kolb got hurt. You can't have only rookie QBs on the roster; that's stupid. The main reason I've been against the talk of signing Jake Locker (besides the fact that he's terrible and will never be good) is that he's only been in the league 4 years and made only 23 starts. He's basically Manuel with a 2 year head start. If Manuel hasn't significantly improved in 2 more years of part-time starting, he'll be Jake Locker. Pass. At least Cassel has been in the league 10 years. I think Manuel (or any young/inexperienced QB) needs that kind of veteran presence around. Doesn't mean Manuel will turn it around, but helps his odds a little bit. Overall, I think it's about the best-ish the Bills could've done. I give it a solid meh.

The Bills continue to think the solution to all their problems is to invest heavily in the RB position. I had thought that that was a "Ralph Wilson" thing, but it turns out it's really a "Buffalo Bills" thing. Not enthused by this at all.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. My hopes for EJ are pretty low at this point, but not zero. I'm willing to suffer through a terrible season with EJ proving conclusively that he's a bust in order to take the (10%?) chance that he'll actually turn into a really good QB. Because in terms of FA options, that chance is 0%, and for rookies in this year's draft, it's probably something like 5%. Focus this offseason on building the line and getting a TE, plus re-signing our own guys where we can. If Manuel turns it around, awesome! If not, we part ways and probably have a high pick to draft another QB with.

Good call. Per Adam Schefter, he's also going to be a hot commodity next year, which should be factored in as well. I think maybe a 2nd this year and a 2nd in 2016 would be fair. I know the comp picks usually don't start till the 3rd round, but I think an exception is warranted in this case.

A lot of "if you don't like it, go get another job" sentiment in this thread. I.e., if someone has it pretty good, they're not allowed to complain about the negative aspects of their job or life. I don't agree with that sentiment, but I get where it's coming from. I just wish that the people who feel that way would apply those same standards to the owners, especially the ones who inherited their money. I'm really sick of common people leaping to billionaire owners' defense when those owners start a lockout to get more money (or a longer season, or more drug testing, or whatever). The owners, on the whole, have a MUUUUUUUUCH better deal than the players. And yet they're the ones who keep asking for more money - sometimes from the players, and sometimes from the public in the form of taxpayer-funded stadiums. Anyway, I thought this was a very nice article by Darnell Dockett, and the thing I like best about it is him calling out the media. Most sportswriters are very professionally lazy - a lot of these guys just keep writing the same "I don't like Player X because he doesn't play ball with the media" story over and over. Lynch happens to be the current target, but it's irrelevant. It's boring and pointless. I don't need every sports columnist to be conducting hard-hitting investigative journalism, but there are interesting topics to write about out there, if they're just willing to try something new.

Wow, great piece - thanks for posting! My answers to your questions: 1.) Yes, although I wouldn't be surprised if he's downplaying his drinking - "social drinker would be an exaggeration", etc. But I believe 100% of what he says about smoking pot (which is fully backed up by his testing history), and I believe his general point that he's not an alcoholic. 2.) It's extremely well-written, and I have to assume he had a ghost writer - which is fine. I'm way over the "OMG ghost writer HE'S A PHONY!" mentality I had when I was younger. Gordon had something interesting to say, but expecting a 23-year-old pro athlete who grew up poor to also be a talented writer is asking too much. Politicians use ghost writers for their books all the time, and not only are they older and better educated than Gordon, their jobs actually involve convincing people of things with their words. So my answer is, "No, but I don't care." I'd rather read a well-written piece that effectively conveys the "author's" ideas than a ghost writer-free piece that obscures all the interesting ideas with clunky writing. 3.) Absolutely yes, but I don't think we'll have a chance.

Definitely Ballghazi, which cracks me up every time I hear it, read it, or say it. It's time to stop the nonsensical -gate suffix.

I tend to agree. To my eyes, Fitzpatrick regressed significantly after Lee was hired. Not necessarily Lee's fault, but I certainly didn't see any noticeable positives. And the Jets' QB play has been undeniably horrible the last 2 years. Again, not necessarily Lee's fault, but still doesn't inspire me with confidence.

I like all the baffled questions you throw out there, like there's no possible solution to this crazy problem. Except that college has had this in place as long as I've known - if you return the PAT try (whether via blocked kick or fumble/INT return) all the way to the other end zone, you get 2 points. The team that scored the TD still kicks off as normal. The team that scored the TD can also waive the PAT try, which happens when a team scores a TD to go up 1 or 2 with no time on the clock. I would be fine with the NFL adopting this rule, but I'm also fine with them keeping it as-is. And for the record, both teams can score on punts and kickoffs. In the specific instances of muffed punts and onside kick attempts, it's pretty tough for the kicking team to score, but still possible according to the rules. A lot easier on a muffed punt - if the returner muffed it on the 5, and the ball went back into the end zone, the kicking team could score a TD by falling on it. For an onside kick, the kicking team would need the receiving team to clearly possess the ball after it travels more than 10 yards, then fumble, then the kicking team would have to recover the ball and run it in for a TD. Unlikely, but possible. I love the current OT rule, and would hate to see it changed. I was rooting for Green Bay yesterday, but felt no sympathy when they just let Seattle waltz in for a TD like that. I hate the college OT rule and don't even like watching college OTs. It's artificial suspense created by spoon-feeding teams the ball on the 25. Doesn't really look like football to me. It's a lot like PK shootouts in soccer, but with more moving parts. Once the ball travels 10 yards, it's the same rules-wise as any other kickoff - the receiving team can advance and either team can possess the ball. It's true that the kicking team can't directly recover the ball and advance it - they just get the ball at the spot of recovery in that scenario. But like I posted above, once the receiving team possesses the ball, a fumble is then fair game for either team to score off of. I'm not sure on what the rule is if the ball goes >10 yards and is touched (but not possessed) by the receiving team. I could see it going either way as to whether the kicking team could then advance it or not. But ultimately it doesn't matter, because there's already a way for both teams to score on any kickoff, onside or not.

Yeah, almost constantly. Could be very frustrating. Hard to say whether Manuel is bad at making those reads or whether he was being coached to hand it off unless the other side of the field was wide open or something. I would guess mostly the former. That's one thing Russell Wilson doesn't always get credit for - he's GREAT at correctly making the read of whether to keep or hand off on the read option. If your QB makes that read correctly, he can keep it 5 times a game and probably get hit no more than once. Especially if he's ready & willing to slide once he's gotten 5-6 yards.

Those are the kinds of flashes that EJ has shown that leave me with some hope left for him. Those are more than just size/speed/arm strength plays - they're instinctual and skilled.

He must be really smart to be able to pay no taxes on a salary of $4 million.

I'm interested in them.

Eric Decker is pretty good, but it's a bad thing when he's not only your best receiver, but no one on the roster is within 2-3 tiers of him. Re: your sig - technically Ryan's win ratio is indeterminate right now, not .000. Until he's actually coached a game, it's 0/0.

But what about all those reports in late December that Marrone would be a hot commodity if he opted out?

I voted for Bradford, but that's a total wild guess. I will go on record as saying that we won't bring in Sanchez.

Bobby April III, who is a different person than our old special teams coach. Was an offensive assistant for the Jets last year.

I'm overall pretty happy with the hire - not sure we could've done better, honestly. Maybe Trestman? Then again, Trestman's offensive success in the CFL mostly revolved around having the greatest QB in CFL history, and his 2 years in Chicago were a mixed bag, so it's not like Trestman is a sure thing. The thing that gives me maybe the most concern about Roman is this: I've seen a number of comments from Bills fans or reporters looking at SF's offense last year that basically said that most of the problems were due to the QB missing reads and/or missing open receivers. But according to many of the all-22 reviewers for the Bills, that was exactly our problem last year. I still have some hope for Manuel, but not a lot, and he certainly has missed his share of reads/receivers in his young career.