Cash

I hate it too, but the players' association likes it, because the top 5 picks wind up driving salaries higher because they set the market. Peyton Manning's new deal is going to have to be richer than Sam Bradford's.

I've yet to see anything from Maybin that suggests he'll do anything well against first-string NFL players. Plus he's not even a starter, although he probably will always be in on passing downs. The sack leader is more likely to be a 3-down player. Dwan Edwards and Chris Kelsay do seem the most likely candidates. (Remember that even 3-4 teams usually play a 4-man line in nickel & dime, so Kelsay will still play a lot of DE this year.) But plenty of people have already guessed them, so I'll go with a dark horse: Arthur Moats. Probably no chance of it unless he's moved to OLB (due to a rash of injuries, maybe), and even then, it's pretty unlikely, but not impossible. I'm thinking that the sack leader winds up with around 4.5 sacks, similar to 2 years ago.

Thank God we drafted a 3rd-string RB at #9. Now that our top 2 RBs are going to miss a game or two to start the season, we have a prime prospect to shoulder the load. Except that he'll still only play part-time because he's not built to handle more than 15 carries a game or so. So I guess the moral of the story is that we should've gone for a 4th-string RB in round 2.

That's hilarious. The "try to draw the opponent offsides, but otherwise don't snap the ball" move has worked like 4 times in NFL history. They might as well practice the Immaculate Reception.

Nice!

Good for Harris. Really liked him a lot, would've preferred he be kept instead of Ellison.

Trent sucks, but let's not get ridiculous. He needs something like 8 more failed chances to catch Jeff George.

I'm pretty sure that the only problem has been lack of continuity in terms of offensive coordinator. Give Gailey 5-6 years and Trent will be a stud, with Bell completely owning every edge rusher in the league. Anyway, our hands were tied this offseason. We had to go with 3-4 players early because most of our old players were bad fits for the new scheme. And we had no choice but to go for Spiller, because he's got game-breaking excitability. Did you see how fast he was on that 11-yard run? That was sick.

I like all of our backs, including Bell & Simpson. Definitely the strongest position on the team.

Our team would be awesome if we didn't have to play any games. Between Trent, Maybin, and Whitner, we're dominant on the interview circuit.

Well said. In order to get upset over a bad showing in a preseason game, you probably had to have some high expectations going in. Most of us have pretty low expectations for this year, so who cares about a bad preseason game? I'll admit that the first offensive drive almost got my hopes up, though. Almost.

What do we have to lose by playing ANY young player at any position? Are we worried that it might cost us a playoff spot? Let the young guys take the field, so we can truly know who's worth keeping around. Personally, I think Brohm is probably a total bust, but I would really like to have that confirmed or disproved by watching him play.

Given our personnel, we should probably run the Wing-T. Fred or Marshawn could play QB, the other would probably be a wingback, Spiller would play tailback, and Roscoe would probably be the other wingback.

I felt like the Bills did *not* come out flat. The first couple of possessions, they looked pretty sharp on both sides of the ball. Which means their total collapse afterwards is even more of a concern.

If Ralph dies before January, his family gets the team tax-free.

Great point. Wood seems like a solid starter, Lynch would be a solid starter on many teams, Whitner's at least an average starting SS, Evans is probably a better than average starting WR, and that's all fine. But you'd think a team would be able to find an impact player in the first round over the last 10 years or so. Especially since we haven't made the playoffs in that stretch, and thus have been generally picking pretty high.

Most of the major publications are going to be comically off with their Chargers picks this year. Norv Turner is still the coach, their best WR is holding out, their LT is holding out, their best pass rusher is holding out (and may not even be effective if he comes back, since he's off the juice), and they just gave a whopping contract to Antonio Gates, which makes the holdouts more likely to dig in their heels. There's a decent chance that 2010 Ryan Mathews will be an upgrade over 2009 LT/Sproles combo, but even if that's the case, I don't see it being enough for the Chargers. We'll see who's right, but I feel a lot of times these teams get picked by major publications because it's wishful thinking on the part of the reporters -- they're really hoping San Diego/Miami/Arizona, etc. will be good, so that they'll be sent there on assignment.

I tend to agree that accuracy is the most important trait for a successful QB. However, I haven't seen much from Trent. He completes a high percentage of his passes primarily because he throws so many short routes where accuracy isn't an issue. On medium and longer routes, where QB accuracy is often the difference between a completion and an incompletion, Trent rarely puts the ball on the money. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a case where Trent hit a guy in stride on anything other than a fly pattern.

If both practice Saturday (which seems likely), then whoever actually signs last is just academic.

Agreed. I actually liked the fact that they didn't go after a #2 WR. Johnson & Hardy have both shown serious potential, but they need PT. You have to play the young guys to find out whether they'll be good or not. But when it comes to promising but unproven young players, the cupboard is pretty bare at both QB and OT. In hindsight, I kind of give them a pass on the QB issue. They went after McNabb, and they didn't like any QB as a franchise guy except for Bradford. It's unfortunate, because that just pushes our rebuilding back at least 1 more year, but if they really don't like a guy, they shouldn't draft him. Your QB is the face of your franchise, after all, so you should be prepared to give him your full support. LT is a different story, though. I just can't understand how they could look at the film from last year and decide that Bell, Meredith, & Chambers put them in good enough shape to 1) sign no LT free agents, 2) trade for no LTs, 3) prioritize LT in the draft so low that they didn't take one before the 5th round.

Isn't that kinda like when a movie studio won't let film critics see a movie before it comes out?

Week 1 Buffalo vs. Miami LOSS 0-1 Week 2 Buffalo vs. Green Bay LOSS 0-2 Week 3 Buffalo vs. New England Patriots* LOSS 0-3 Week 4 Buffalo vs. NY Jets LOSS 0-4 Week 5 Buffalo vs. Jacksonville Jaguars WIN 1-4 Week 6 BYE DRAW Week 7 Buffalo vs. Baltimore Ravens LOSS 1-5 Week 8 Buffalo vs. Kansas City Chiefs WIN 2-5 Week 9 Buffalo vs. Chicago Bears WIN 3-5 Week 10 Buffalo vs. Detroit Lions WIN 4-5 Week 11 Buffalo vs. Cincinnati Bengals LOSS 4-6 Week 12 Buffalo vs. Pittsburgh Steelers LOSS 4-7 Week 13 Buffalo vs. Minnesota Vikings LOSS 4-8 Week 14 Buffalo vs. Cleveland Browns WIN 5-8 Week 15 Buffalo vs. Miami Dolphins LOSS 5-9 Week 16 Buffalo vs. New England Patriots* LOSS 5-10 Week 17 Buffalo vs. NY Jets WIN 6-10

Wow, what an excellent post. Thanks!

Evans, Parrish, and Spiller are all gonna be lined up in the slot? I'm not really into these 5-wide formations, unless you've got a QB who's a threat to run.

Defense is switching schemes & formations - every defensive front 7 holdover has to learn a new defense and a new position. New DC's resume is less impressive than Fewell's, so a possible downgrade on that front. Bell is coming off an ACL tear, and thus likely to be even less effective than last year. With Cornell Green's penchant for penalties, there's a decent chance that he's actually a downgrade from the turd sandwich we had at RT last year. This year's schedule may wind up being tougher than last year's. You want to give us credit for close losses, but then you need to also take away credit for close wins. The Jets threw 6 INTs and we still only barely beat them in OT. Jauron's no-balls style was very bad at winning games, but it did have one merit: it made it very tough to lose games. By not taking chances, playing as conservatively as possible, playing bend but don't break on D, etc., Jauron put the team in a position where it was usually a close game at some point in the 4th quarter, even though we were usually getting outplayed. When the other team screwed up, Jauron-ball often led to wins. A more aggressive (which would be better, don't get me wrong) style, where the team played to win instead of just playing not to lose, is also riskier, in that you're more likely to get beat badly, even if the opponent makes some mistakes. A steady diet of checkdowns and runs up the gut won't lead to a lot of points on either end. Actually trying to move the chains and score touchdowns can lead to a lot more turnovers.