SuperKillerRobots

You sir have summed it up nicely. He's more established than any QB on the roster now, but he could never actually play QB - he was more of a runner. Also, I don't think he'd do anything to end our ridiculously long streak of games without a 300 yeard passer.

Awesome

With a first round pick - or any pick for that matter - you have to judge the guy on his career. So by your logic, if Maybin goes on to play for ten years and makes one pro bowl (for argument's sake), but Orakpo has one more decent year and then does nothing, Orakpo was still the better pick? Or what if they both turn out to be the two best DEs in the game within 3 years. Does that mean Maybin was still the worse pick? I haven't seen anything to suggest Orakpo is a Dwight Freeney to this point, so he's just accumulating some stats on a poor team. Fair enough on Freeney, but Orakpo isn't putting up those types of numbers, so maybe your looking at the exception instead of the rule. What about Mario Williams? He was certainly stellar his first year, wasn't he? I guess another anomally to support your argument would be Peppers who had over 10 sacks as a rookie, but I think he had a down year 2. All I'm saying with my original post is that you can't expect these guys to come out like gangbusters in their rookie years. As far as expectations go, I don't think it really matters wha tthe fan expectations are for a player, only the teams expectations. So while a fan might think that because of the team's situation last year and high first round pick, that player should come in and do something immediately. Maybe the team didn't see it that way when they drafted him. It's not like he was the concensus top pick and labeled as the next Bruce Smith.

Calling the poor bastard a bust after only 8 games! Come on! I get the feeling that if Orakpo was playing on the line at DE in all situations he'd be doing exactly what Maybin is: nothing. That stand up position at the snap can't be discounted, as well as the odd fact that the coaches haven't seemed in a hurry to get Maybin involved as much as he could be. The guy played LB in college and even after 5 of the Bills LBs go down to injury, they still insist at him being an end. That to me is the biggest reason Maybin hasn't put up stats. No rookie DEs have good years.

$185k per year is a ridiculous amount of money, but you'd have to think that if he hit FA, he would have gotten that from anyone and probably played on a better team. Maybe Moulds told him the grass isn't always greener.

Not in our offense he wouldn't.

I think the problem with the list is that you have too many rookies from this year's class. Everyone drafted in this past year is most likely going to survive a regime change (or at least all of the top guys - Maybin, Byrd, Wood, and Levitre), so I don't think they're valid players to put on the list. I also don't see how you build anything around a punter or kicker, so though they might stay, you aren't really building anything with them. Outside of them you have about 11 players that are worth consideration: Evans Lynch Edwards Jackson McGee Poz Whitner Stroud Schobel McKelvin Williams And maybe in a stretch: Kelsey Reed Of all of the above 13 players, all the players I'd like to see stay are primarily on defense. I'd bet that Evans and the RBs at least would make it through a regime change however. The more I look at these types of posts, the more I am starting to realize that I kind of like the defense and would really like it with a little more talent.

I don't think coaches look at that job in Washington as a real good one. Snyder is coaching/managing that team and anyone he hires will just be the scapegoat when it inevitably blows up again. When they hired Zorn, they basically did so because they couldn't find a real head caoch.

I actually was saying the same thing to a friend of mine a week or two ago (minus the position coaches). I definitely agree that you keep Brandon and hire a "football" guy like Polian. I think one of the important things to look for in said "football" guy is you get him from another team that does well currently and has not had their front office picked over. It would have to be someone from a team like the Giants or Colts who haven't lost many FO people, so you have first pick from thier decision makers instead of third pick (or worse, depending on how many have already left for other jobs).

In hindsight, I would not have traded that pick for Carolina's frst next year, nor would I have taken E. Brown. When you hit on a pick, you hit on a pick and there is no guarantee that any player drafted next year is going to pan out. Neitehr Wade nor Butler "came to town" - both were apart of the team the year before. Also, they were charged primarily with getting the defense changed from a prevent to an attacking style. It could even be argued that they would have been better served drafting a LT instead of Cowart in that first draft.

On Lynch: On a few plays yesterday (maybe two that I can think of) he actually hit the hole quickly and went through it without dancing. On those plays, he looked like he was shot out of a cannon. Anyone who thinks that he isn't the more physically talented/gifted back is in denial. His biggest problem seems to be his tendancy to start dancing as soon as he is handed the ball, which negatively impacts his speed to the hole. If he would take the ball, cut once, run through the hole, and then dance to aviod defenders after that initial 3 to 5 yards past the line, he would be a much better player. Jackson's a more decisive and patient runner, but isn't anywhere near the talent of Lynch.

I noticed Nic Harris make some pretty good hit s afew times in the game yesterday. Not saying that he's ready to start and become a Pro Bowler, but he more like a LB than a S while he was out there. I think he might actually be our biggest LB and he looked like he could hit.

I can't root for my team to lose and don't really understand how any fan of a team could. Don't get me wrong, I want them to win and get better from this point, but rooting for them to lose doesn't exactly get me psyched up for next year. I don't think DJ can survive this year unless they make the playoffs, so as far as that goes, I believe he is out after the last game of the year no matter what. I just can't see them retaining him after the offense being this bad - I understand that there are excuses to be made (injuries, o-line, etc), but nothing can account for being this pathetic besides just not being able to do it from a coaches standpoint.

How can you project that he'll have an injury-plagued career? He has three years in the league - twice he broke his arm in the first three games of the year and once he played all 16 games. If he were in and out of the line up all year, every year I'd agree, but two broken arms does not an injury-prone player make. This year, he broke his arm, he's still playing, and you're suggesting he's injury-prone!

If they use 15 yards, I think that validates the statistic and Simon's point even more. Most people want to say that it's not the "deep" balls, but instead the 10 to 25 yards passes that they wish Trent would throw more of. This statistic should capture that information pretty well, assuming you are right that they consider anything over 15 yards to be "deep". Personally, I would just like to see Edwards throw over the middle and down the seam more, while also looking more to his WRs. I wonder if it is the play-calling, since it seems that more WR short routes are being called with Fitzy in the game, while when Edwards is in, it seems like all the patterns are down the sidelines for the WRs, which means he isn't hitting them short.

We're we going to start new posters off with a probationary period or something?

Gotta love the trash-talking after you get beat. Not that he's that far off base or anything, but the next logical question is, "So, you lost to a team that runs a pop-warner offense, what does that say about your play and the rest of the defense?" These ego-manical asses have to prop themselves up when they get embarassed instead of just taking it as a learning experience or something to build off of.

I think that's the ticket. Ever since Ko was traded that had to be what they had in mind. Byrd picking off passes and Whitner stopping the run. Byrd looks like he knows hwo to hit people and even Whitner has looked decent in pass coverage so far.

This is kinda what I was thinking when I posted. I feel like the coach talk is premature and that we really need a guy who is going to stay with the organization for 10 years as the lead football guy to instill a different culture into the organization.

It occurs to me that after this year there will be changes with the Bills. All the talk of new coaches coming in and who wants what coach got me thinking of what the best route to go as far as hiring is concerned. I think most people can agree that both the coaching and FO need to be overhauled in some way. With that in mind, would you like to get a vetern coach and give him a large amount of control over the personnel process, possibly even letting him hire his own scouting guys (coach/GM Option)? Or would you rather hire a GM-type guy who would then be in charge of all football operations, which would include hiring his own coach? The basic scenario I'm thinking of, is would you take a guy like Cowher or Gruden to coach the team and essentially have full control over the personnel side, or would you rather have someone like Chris Polian (or another second in command guy from a successful franchise come in and be the GM and hire his own coach? Personally, I don't like the idea of giving one person the coaching and GM job a la Gruden, Cowher, etc. I'd rather take the number two guy from the Giants or Colts, or another successful team that hasn't lost many people from their FO and then allow them to hire a coach and personnel department. I'd like to see this happen and I'd like the coach to be another coordinator instead of one of the "proven" coaches.

You are very right with your calculations, but I think you overestimate the affect of no cap. It's tough for the Bills to stay in the financial picture in the NFL when you compare them to the top teams, but I do think that is a fair comparison because we have a potential for ownership change, which makes us a target of this type of talk, whereas Cinn, Cleve, etc aren't in that much better financial shape, but do have committed owners who are staying put. I think that having no cap will actually benefit the owners, since there will be no floor. This will take money away from the players and put it in the owners pockets, which should curb their desire for squeezing as much team-related revenue as possible out of each team. You will see the top clubs finance-wise spend money, but it'll also be harder to get free agents in their primes due to tighter FA restrictions that will come with the no cap. It's not going to be like FA is now without spending limits. Basically what I see the owners doing is taking money away from the players one way or another after the new CBA comes out.

None of these guys. It's not enough to be worth the total amount of the share they buy, they'd have to be worth about 4 tiems what their share in the team is worth in order to make it happen. No one is liquid in total.

Bingo!

There's a difference between Rush and other owners. First of all, it's not necessarily politics that is the problem, it's the way he goes about pushing his politics. How many other owners give an insite to their personal political views? Or more importantly make statements in regards to them? The next difference is that a lot of owners were successful businessmen before they got NFL teams. Successful businessmen for the most part don't give a damn about most of the hot-botton issues - like abortion or healthcare - outside of how those situations affect their business. For the record, I've been on the left ever since I made made the unforgivable mistake of voting for Bush in 2000 - it was my first time voting for Pres and I didn't know any better. that election actually made me want to study politics in college so I woul dbe mor einformed and wouldn't be involved with electing an idiot again.

Unfortunately I think I would be upset. I hate that fat hypocritical bastard. All politics aside, if he wasn't going to shout propaganda at the fans and basically stayed in the background (and of course had a winner), I would probably get over it. On a more general note, I think that any individual with a bold political agenda (right or left) would be tough to stomach and wear thin if that person made it a point to use the team as a pulpit to make those statements. I hate when football gets patriotic - it's a hypocritical media play when you consider that they want the public image that they are patriotic, but would gladly lobby the government to ensure that their best interests are covered, regardless of how it would affect the country. It goes the same for me for any company that tries to identify with patriotism.