Cash

None of the 3 would be in if they got hit by a bus tomorrow, but all 3 I think have some sort of a chance. Dareus' is probably the highest, just because he's the youngest and hasn't missed any time due to injury yet. But the biggest factor for all 3 is team success. Playoff games give guys huge amounts of exposure, and none of the 3 have played in any. If Rex gets us something like 5 playoff games in the next 3 years, and our D-line plays well in the playoffs, you'd see their HOF chances go way up.

Great post. Sammy is legit, and I don't think anyone disagrees with that. He may or may not turn out to be the best WR in his draft class. ODB is very clearly ahead of Sammy after 1 year, though, and it's not even a debate. ODB had the best or second-best rookie WR season in history, depending on how you compare it to Randy Moss' rookie year. Yes, ODB was playing with a better QB and had better offensive coaches. Yes, if they'd switched teams last year ODB's numbers would've been worse and Sammy's would've been better. But on a per-game basis, their number weren't anywhere close: Sammy = 4.1 catches, 61.4 yards, 0.4 touchdowns ODB = 7.6 catches, 108.8 yards, 1.0 touchdowns There's no way to confidently say that Sammy is better based on anything we've actually seen. Not only did ODB put up crazy numbers, but he also looked like the best WR in the league at times. Sorry if saying that makes me a member of the No Homers Club. ("But you let in Homer Glumplich!")

There was a lot of content in 37 minutes. Some of what the OP listed was speculation and some was sourced. It was usually pretty clear which was which during the interview. Graham's initial description matched what he ultimately tweeted about it and the OP wrote, which makes it sound like Whaley is setting up and scheduling the interviews, and maybe gets to sit in on them but not actively participate. Graham later expounded a bit when the topic came up in a different question, and basically said that Whaley was probably asking a lot of specific football questions in the interviews. He also speculated that Pegula probably won't interview anyone that Whaley hasn't pre-approved as qualified for the job. Most of that was speculation on his part, because his source obviously just told him the basics prior to any interview actually being conducted - Terry Pegula is conducting the interviews and will make the hire, with the new HC reporting directly to him, Whaley is "coordinating the search", Kim Pegula is "sitting in" on the interviews mostly to learn, and Brandon has some kind of nebulous "advisor" role, which does seem to involve him sitting in on interviews. Again, whatever Graham's source told him pretty clearly came before the interviews actually started, so he was mostly guessing on how it is actually playing out. The answer to your question is no. They talked about a lot of things, and Graham threw out a few possible scenarios, including the one you listened to. Overall, it was a pretty good listen. Nothing really that new or earth-shattering if you follow Graham on twitter or read this board, but it was nice to hear him go a little more in depth on the stuff that's been going on. Good example being the Whaley coordination stuff above. His tweet and subsequent article about it made it sound like Whaley was pretty much on the outs, and only still involved at all because Polian spurned Pegula. From listening to Graham expound on the matter, I now think it sounds more like Whaley is deeply involved and will have a lot of input (but not final say) on who the next HC is. Of course, if he and that HC don't work well together, one or both of them will go, and Pegula is definitely set up to kick Whaley to the curb while keeping the new HC, but overall I'm a little more optimistic. I didn't want the HC hire being made with a true lame-duck GM, because what new GM wants to come in to a situation where the HC is already in place? Instead, I think Whaley is very much on notice (as is almost everyone in the NFL), but the default position is that he keeps his job for at least 1 more year.

Most of it seems pretty unremarkable, given Ralph's age at the time Marrone was hired. It's the no-offset aspect of where Marrone really made out like a bandit. I still find it kind of hard to believe the Bills agreed to that. But I think ultimately two factors made it happen: 1.) Sexton is a better negotiator than whomever pulled the trigger for the Bills (likely Brandon, Overdorf, or a combo of both), and 2.) Everyone on the Bills' side had Ralph Wilson's best interests in mind, and the clause could never cost him a dime. It's a lot easier to agree to a clause like that when you're only spending the next guy's money. Likewise, you can see why Ralph would sign off on such a thing. Now, obviously agreeing to it won't endear anyone to the new owner, but let's face it: most new owners wind up replacing the whole front office within a few years anyway. Their best bet for sticking around was building a winner in time for the new owner to come in. They thought (hoped?) Marrone gave them the best chance to do that, and so they got bent over a barrel in the negotiations.

Re: the bolded - not to defend the likes of Chris Williams, but why did the 2 good starters - Glenn & Wood - get worse under his coaching? And why did it take him so long to play Urbik, who proved to be better than Williams or Cyril Richardson at LG? I don't think it's as simple as "the players were terrible." Good post! It's tempting to demonize Marrone now that he's gone, but there were always some good aspects of him as a head coach. I'm not very sorry to see him go, and I wasn't very excited about the future with him as HC, but he did get the team to a winning record, which is something. And the team genuinely liked him and played hard for him, even if they didn't always play well for him. He was generally also good about taking responsibility for problems/failures, or at least paying lip service to it. He always deflected all offensive criticism away from Hackett and on to himself, which I liked. (Although I'm told that he more-or-less through the O-line under the bus after the Oakland game, and was basically taking shots at the FO for not getting him good enough players. I don't know; I didn't watch or read his post-game comments. That game was too depressing to wallow in.) Marrone is something of a mixed bag. He strikes me as a decent (but not great) head coach, which sadly was a significant upgrade over Chan. I also tend to believe the abrasive/stubborn/egotistical/etc. accusations against him, because they've come from a variety of sources, including one or two on the record from people who worked for him. The only on-the-record defense of him I've seen was from Greg Gabriel, who (to my knowledge) has never worked directly with Marrone, and whose article IMO was not at all persuasive. But you don't need to be a good person to be a good head coach. And I think he is a good head coach, depending on the definition of "good". Top 10 in the NFL? Doubt it. Top 20? Probably. We've done a lot worse over the last 15 years.

Agreed. Marrone was clearly stubborn and seemed to have a large doghouse. Kraig Urbik is probably the best example. He's been a decent but unremarkable RG for us for a few years. Marrone benched him, and allegedly wanted him off the team. (The Bills reportedly offered him around the league in trade, and were allegedly considering releasing him if he couldn't be dealt. Obviously the latter didn't happen, but I tend to think in hindsight that Marrone wanted him cut, but was overruled by Whaley.) We all understood why newly-signed Chris Williams was starting at LG, even if most of us (correctly) thought that he stunk and it was a terrible signing, but things got confusing once Williams got hurt. Cyril Richardson started for 4 straight games, and was abysmal in each one. Not only was he awful, but he wasn't getting better from game to game. And yet it took 4 horrible starts before Marrone finally put Urbik in. Once he did, Urbik was... not great, but not horrible. Kind of what we were used to when he played RG. I don't see how anyone can argue that Marrone 100% "played the best players" when he very clearly didn't in the case of Urbik. To Marrone's credit, he did eventually get Urbik on the field, although it was seemed to be out of desperation more than anything else. Now, the FO can't be blameless either - for example, Chris Williams was a horrible signing, as was Doug Legursky before him. But I feel like, given what we know about Williams/Richardson/Urbik, there was probably at least a couple other guys who SHOULD'VE been playing, but never got a real chance, because Marrone was as desperate at that position as he was at LG. Maybe Kouandjio was one of those guys? Or maybe he's just a bust or a slow-developer, I don't know. I just find it hard to believe that Urbik was the only guy who found himself in the doghouse, sitting behind an inferior player.

Hmm, 4 verticals didn't work that time? Let's switch it up and run 4 button hooks. If that fails, back to 4 verticals!

Interesting but not very surprising. Hopefully Hackett gets a chance to show his stuff at his next stop. I agree with the consensus that he'll be let go from the Bills. I suppose there would be a slim chance of retaining Hackett if Schwartz was promoted to HC, but I'd still be pretty surprised by that.

Good question, and it's for that reason that I'm hoping for either an offensive-minded HC who keeps the defensive staff intact, or Rex Ryan. In Ryan's case, I don't think there would be many problems either in terms of selling the new coach/scheme to the players or in terms of actual performance. The D was mostly the same personnel in 2013 and 2014, and Ryan's disciple Pettine did quite a good job with it in 2013. I won't exactly be excited if Schwartz winds up as the HC, but I won't totally hate it. He certainly deserves to be a candidate after the year his defense had. He did at least make the playoffs once in Detroit, and unlike Jauron, I think that was a legit playoff team, not just a lucky string of victories.

I really do think that the offense is chiefly Marrone's, and that there's not a lot to be gained by firing Hackett anyway. Maybe a little. I'm VERY interested to see what we do at the QB position next year. (Also what we do to the front office.) I wouldn't be surprised if we jumped into the trade market. Could make the draft extra-skippable for Bills fans.

Yep, I was trying to back you up. Hogan is a definite hat rack. Henderson and Dixon are maybes, although Henderson/Kouandijo kind of evens out. (Henderson has performed about how you might think a high 2nd-round OT might perform at RT, and Kouandijo has performed at about the level of a 7th-rounder.) That's out of 2 QBs, 4 RBs, 1 FB, 4 TEs, 5 WRs, & 6 OL who have gotten significant playing time this year. That doesn't strike me as very good. Guys who seem to me to have regressed or failed to live up to expectations under Marrone/Hackett: EJ, Spiller, Glenn, Wood, Urbik, Pears, Mike Williams, and Goodwin. On the defensive side, I'd say that Bradham, Brown, Jairus Wynn, Graham, Searcy, and Duke Williams have played above expectations. (If I didn't give the O Marquies Gray, I don't think it's far to give the D Baccari Rambo.) That's only counting this year, so guys like Kiko, Hughes, Robey, and McKelvin are excluded. That's out of 8 DL, 5 LBs, 4 CB, and 4 S who have gotten significant playing time this year. And I wouldn't say anyone has really regressed or failed to live up to expectations, except maybe Keith Rivers. My expectations on him were already pretty low to begin with, though.

I used to think Manuel, until a day or two ago. The reason I wanted him to start was just to see if he's gotten any better while on the bench. But a few threads on here with solid rationale ultimately convinced me that anything we see out of Manuel, bad or good, won't ultimately mean much. So Marrone is better off sticking with Orton for the last start. However, I assumed that Orton will be as bad this week as he's been the last couple months, and in that scenario, I would like to see EJ come in off the bench.

Bingo. I will in no way defend our QB play this year; it's been atrocious. But I don't get Big Cat's dogged defense of the coaching staff. I don't think the coaching staff is incompetent on every play, and there are definitely some good plays and good play calls in every game. But I also see a lot of head-scratchers, and I think that we fans have every right to call out where there's room for improvement. And there's lots of room for improvement in the offensive coaching department. I don't necessarily advocate any firings, by the way. Firing Hackett probably won't do much without also firing Marrone, and there is some downside to firing Marrone. (Primarily that it'll be tougher to maintain the excellent defense.) The upside of keeping Marrone is that Marrone/Hackett are both relatively young & inexperienced for their current jobs, and it's reasonable to expect them to get better. How much better, and how fast? I have no idea. But I'm fairly okay with the idea of trying to get internal improvement on the coaching side, and bringing in external sources of talent on the player side. That play was completely heinous, and completely indefensible. Nothing about it worked, and the design itself was crappy. Any play can work if it's well-executed enough. That doesn't mean that they're all good plays. It also doesn't mean that play-calling is irrelevant. And in this case, we had a VERY important 3rd and 1, and the play-caller had to know that we'd be punting if we didn't get the first down. (If Hackett didn't know that, then Marrone should be fired on those grounds alone. That would be an inexcusable lack of game-day communication.) There's not a lot of game left at this point, so it would seem that now is the time to bring out one of your best plays, if not your very best. That play might not be the same against every team, but part of your job is to scout the opposing team's tendencies and figure out what will work best against them. Another part of your job is to know your own team's abilities and figure out how to exploit your strengths. Hopefully there's something in your playbook that takes advantage of both your strengths and your opponents weaknesses. Hopefully a few things, really. And in this situation, you probably want to dial up the one with the highest percentage chance of success. No play will ever have 100% success rate, of course, but some are better than others. If I met Nate Hackett, I would ask him if he thought that play had the best chance of success, and why. Assuming he answered honestly, if he answered "yes", then I'd know he's deeply incompetent, because I've seen MUCH better plays than that piece of junk. Even in the same game, he had a few nice plays. Plus, a number of his short yardage plays work off of each other - like the Frank Summers/Lee Smith TDs in the first Jets game - so it's hard for the D to snuff it out even if they've seen it on film. If Hackett answered "no", then the "why" would become very interesting.

Hogan. Arguably Henderson. Arguably Dixon. Arguably Woods, but I would emphatically reject that argument. Woods has been nothing special considering 1.) He was drafted pretty high in a deep WR draft, and 2.) He was extensively billed as the most "polished", NFL-ready WR in his draft class. Not saying he sucks, just that he hasn't come close to outperforming expectations.

Yeah, the extra digit helps give it that "wow" factor. Could a strong final game increase his odds of making the Pro Bowl? I know most of the fan voting is over, but I don't think the players/coaches vote till after the season. I could see a big final (even if meaningless) game against Brady giving him the extra push/recency bias to get him in the game, or at least make him an alternate.

"Take the path of least resistance" is the typical translation of one of Zen philosophy's tenets. A good example IMO would be: When faced with 5 huge D-linemen stacked up in the middle of the line, don't run up the gut. Either run to the outside or pass right over those large gentlemens' heads.

I voted for Dareus and Hughes only. Short version of my rationale: I'd rather split that third salary slot among a few guys. Long version below. Spikes and Spiller are both part-time players who can be useful in specific roles. Spiller is better overall, but might be easier to replace - no one seems to want run-stuffing LBs that can't cover. I'd be fine bringing either back, especially Spiller, but I have a feeling that the money they'd want wouldn't be worth their production. Again, especially Spiller on the last one. I can't imagine he'd want to take a pay cut, and he frankly hasn't performed to the level of his rookie contract. A veteran QB sounds nice, but since this is a FA thread, I didn't consider possible trade targets. I think that makes anyone with any potential promise (Cutler, Eli, RG3, etc.) off-limits. I'd just as soon draft a guy in the 2nd or 3rd and have him battle it out with EJ & Orton next year. Not very promising, but I think I'd take it over signing Matt Moore. (And I LIKE Matt Moore.) A premier OL also sounds nice, but I don't think that's good team-building, for a few reasons. First, you have limited salary cap resources, and to get a premier FA to sign in Buffalo (or anywhere, really), you have to commit a lot of those resources to his position. An O-line is only as strong as its weakest link, and we're not 1 player away from having a great line. Second, despite his struggles this year, I like Glenn a lot, and I'd like to keep him around. But whether he stays or goes, the starting LT is going to want to be the highest-paid member of the line if he's any good, and if he isn't any good, then we're in trouble. Signing a big-money OG serves to increase the price tag for Glenn or whomever our LT is, or make him disgruntled. And third, the bigger the resources, the bigger the risk: if Iupati (or whoever) flops, we've just broken a basket with a lot of eggs in it. I actually think the Bills had it partially right when they signed Chris Williams this offseason - a guy signed to low-tier starter money can be a very good signing. Unfortunately, they picked a guy who stinks but happened to be drafted in the first round, and they were totally wrong about their ability to coach him up. (Whereas the Derrick Dockery & Langston Walker signings were doomed from the start, even if those players hadn't busted.) I'd like to see several signings at low-end starter money, and hopefully hit on all of them, which is unlikely. Maybe 2 on the O-line, 1 TE, and 1 LB (possibly Spikes if the price is right).

I agree with all of the above. I think we can all agree that neither the talent level on offense nor the offensive coaching is where we'd like it to be. I don't get how some posters seem very confident in their assessment of how much blame lies on one side or the other, or how easy/hard it is to find a better OC. (It seems like a lot of you have extensive rolodexes of NFL and NCAA offensive assistants, and know that most of them are nothing special?) The best argument I've heard for "keep the coaching staff, try to upgrade talent" is Maddog's that Hackett's offense is really Marrone's offense, and to change the offensive coaching, you need to fire the head coach. Marrone/the team has shown enough positives at this point that I don't want to have to start over with a new staff. Two-thirds of the team are really good, and one third is terrible. But firing Marrone could easily lead to another Gregggggggg situation, where he dismantled our elite defense because "fat guys" didn't fit his dumb scheme that mostly relies on luck to be good. Having said all that, I could see Hackett replaced this offseason, but I agree with Maddog that if Hackett is replaced, he'll be replaced by another lackey whose job it is to install/coach Marrone's offense. I'd be very surprised if Hackett was replaced by an offensive equivalent to Schwartz.

I agree that it wasn't a guaranteed TD - no way to know if Williams would've gotten there in time, or made the stop. (Would've been a diving tackle at a fast-moving elusive WR in the open field... not exactly a guarantee.) I feel like Nelson had already slowed down by the time the camera pans over to him, and it still looks like he's moving at least as fast as Williams, who is probably already at top speed. I'd give it something like 60-70% chance at a TD if he catches it.

I'm not as sure as you guys that Williams would've caught him. Could've, maybe. But Williams isn't particularly fast for a DB, and Nelson is a burner. Turning back, looking for the ball, and catching it (2 out of 3 ain't bad) slows you down, but if Nelson had brought the ball in, he would've been able to accelerate afterwards. Once he gets to top speed, Williams can't catch him. Williams was about a yard downfield of Nelson at the time of the drop, and looked to be taking a good angle, so maybe Williams could've gotten to him in time, but I'm not sure. Luckily we didn't have to find out. Agreed. Orton is bad, but even great QBs have bad plays and bad games.

1.) Obvious fix is to keep the cameras mostly focused on the field, and the players who are actually playing at the time. I'm really sick of seeing the constant QB reaction shot all the time. Every time Peyton Manning throws a TD, they cut to his reaction before we can even tell who caught the ball. "But the fans only care about the stars!" Well, I'm a fan, and I care about the actual game, not the BS celebrified human interest angle. 2.) At the very least, Brady should be placed on the Commissioner's Exempt list while this is all sorted out. Once it's settled, probably sometime during the playoffs, then he can start to be punished for this transgression.

The only problem with that hope is that Norv kept getting offered (and taking) HC jobs - meaning Schwartz would be on his way out again. (Bonus smart-ass comment: His win % is 36%, not .36%. He would have to lose over 8,000 straight games to get down to .36%. That's a VERY patient owner!) I think it's about 50/50 whether Schwartz stays or goes. He might feel like he's got so much talent on this D that they'll stay good enough to keep him in the HC conversation next year, so maybe he's more likely to turn down an unappealing job. But if an appealing HC job is offered, he'd be crazy not to take it. The idea of the lowly Bills losing DCs to head coaching jobs in 2 straight years is pretty crazy to me, but it really does seem possible. If it does happen, I have no idea whether they'd again look outside for another experienced DC, or stick with "continuity" and promote Donnie Henderson (I presume). I know Pepper Johnson is a popular name in this thread and others, but part of the reason he came here and switched to coaching D-line was to get more experience, since he'd only been a linebackers coach. I don't really think this 1 year of coaching D-line has gotten him the experience he needs to suddenly handle a whole defense. We all saw what happened with Raheem Morris, when a promising young position coach was given too much responsibility too soon.

IMO Rex has done way too much as a head coach to go back down to being a coordinator. Plus, if no one wants to hire him as a head coach this offseason, he can always do TV for a year or two.

Not sure exactly where the disconnect is, but the link you posted pretty much confirms exactly what Kirby and NoSaint are saying. Brees is going nowhere, but the Saints *are* likely to draft a QB in the 2nd or 3rd round, a la Garoppolo, Osweiler, Mallett, Todd Collins, etc. My personal "inside source" (i.e., a Saints fan) would be pretty alarmed/disgusted by the thought of the Saints trading Brees this offseason.

Good point, but to me there's really 2 questions, assuming CJ is able to play this week or next. First, whose roster spot does he take? I agree with the prevailing thought that Gragg or Wynn or someone is IR'd to make that roster spot. Second, if CJ can actually suit up, whose spot on the 46-man gameday active roster does he take? Based on early-season decisions, you'd think it would be Bryce Brown, but I wonder if Brown has shown enough to change that (doubtful) or if Marrone won't feel he can count on Spiller (more likely) and will choose to have 4 RBs active.