Sisyphean Bills

Maybe cause Claussssen sucks?

Depends on what they want. Isn't Atogwe a FS? Whitner is looking for a pay raise, so he could be thinking $6M or more. Also, the team is self-admittedly a few years away anyway. They can rent a journeyman to man the position for a season or two, while they are getting the right parts for and molding a 3-4 defense. Upgrading the front 7 would be my priority at this point. Having a bunch of Deion Sanders clones out there for the passing game is only of limited value if anybody can run on you to the tune of 170 yards a game and your D has absolutely zero pass rush ability.

Thanks for the clarification. It sounded like you were saying Sanders was a ballhawk, which he has never been. They had better players and Tony Dungy coaching them. There are some similarities. Both are small SS. While Whitner hasn't been injured as often, he has been injured and as he gets older, the accumulation of injuries and his natural size do not play to his advantage. They are both box safeties that play the run. Though there are differences. Sanders is a dynamic player against the run and has great instincts and played hard and fast downhill. Despite his lack of size I have seen him stone larger ball carriers in the hole with leverage and great technique. His read and diagnose is excellent and in his prime he made many plays in the offensive backfield. The Colts defense was very good against the run with him on the field and very poor when he was out. On the other hand, Whitner's strength is playing the run but he is not as instinctive and not a dynamic player. He makes tackles after the play has developed and made yardage. He doesn't play downhill, takes poor angles, etc. Now as far as the passing game, neither Sanders nor Whitner are shutdown corners playing SS. Coverage isn't the strength of either player's game... Anyway, there are some obvious similarities between two guys of similar builds that play the same position in the same system. But there are also differences as well, which is really why the plus-side of the resumes do not compare. I figured most people knew that I was talking about the start of the season 2 years ago. Whitner absolutely was the starting FS and Scott was the starting SS. Whitner got injured and the LB group got decimated, so Scott ended up playing LB, Whitner and Wilson playing at SS, and Byrd at FS.

So, you're not Tony Dungy apparently. Are you joking? http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/6803/career This means next to zilch as far as your argument because Whitner and Sanders both played in the Tampa-2 at the same position. Sanders has played in 48 games in his career (according to NFL.com) and Whitner played 43 games at SS in his first 3 years. Since then, Whitner got kicked out to FS and then played in a lousy 3-4 hybrid last year where he accumulated a big number of tackles behind a front 7 that was constantly bleeding to death. Sanders won NFL Defensive Player of the Year honors at the position in 2007. So in roughly the same number of games in the same position in the same defensive system, how can you say one is the product of the system and the other brought the same thing to the field? Maybe a better comparison would be Sanders to Merriman? They've each had about as much success since 2007.

And here we thought he was just going to coast...

Certainly, no one is infallible and I don't think Nix was a huge factor in the Maybin pick, fwiw. Nix hasn't impressed me so far, but I'm obviously more skeptical and a tougher grader than some. That doesn't mean we're not both hoping he can put together a first-rate organization and that it will carry on in Buffalo well into the future. Hope and results often don't meet in the space of reality, though. <sigh>

No, I never suggested nor indicated he was responsible for Erik Flowers. I merely was pointing out that Nix was part of the organization at that time. A fact that is inarguable and which you never disputed (nor anyone else for that matter). Nix almost certainly scouted Tillman, Moore, and Black personally. He may have scouted or helped scout Morris and Larsen as well. So, the absolute statement that no one currently with the Bills had anything to do with the disaster of the 2000 draft is factually and technically incorrect. I've never blamed the fans for the state of the Bills. I've never blamed fans for the players the Bills select on draft day. The fans simply don't make the big decisions. Actually, I've always defended my fellow fans when they are baselessly attacked and blamed for causing a dysfunctional team. I did point out that some posters in their general zeal to cast a positive spin on the Nix hiring had quite intentionally praised him for everything that had gone right in San Diego (and some did reference his previous work in Buffalo as helping to build the Super Bowl teams). Some may think that is fair and that Nix was the "real brains" behind the Chargers organization, but I'm a bit more skeptical than that. Everyone has a right to their opinion on that point; I'm not claiming they don't. But there is an inherent hypocrisy in giving one person all the credit for everything that is considered good and another person all the blame for everything that is considered less than good all the same. Regardless, Nix is now the guy with his neck on the block in Buffalo. Maybe his own Assistant GM will even be able to save it for him. We're cool now.

Thanks for taking the time to post facts I already knew and had never questioned.

I did write a "part of" intentionally. On the other hand, other posters have argued that all the good decisions Butler and then Smith made over the years were orchestrated from behind the scenes by Nix.

Before he was 6? Were you his babysitter?

He's got a good golf game too.

Wasn't Trent Edwards last play as a Buffalo Bill a run out of bounds like that?

Actually, Buddy Nix was part of that front office.

It's kind of cool to see a highlight video where the OL is getting blown back on roller skates and with a Vanilla Gorilla rag dolling people. Talk about getting off a block.

His quotes seemed very inspiring.

You realize Cam Jordan and Cam Newton are two different people, right?

If or when your company loss money, should the owner be able to take away or slash your salary ? It has to work both ways. And that may be more the point, actually. The owners want more of a buffer as the general economy wobbles like global warming weather patterns, corporate sponsors go arse up, and they find themselves zillions in debt with new glitz and sizzle stadiums.

Did he send a shirtless picture to someone you know or something?

Sorry about that 50% thing; my bad, it was a typo. What I meant was 50% of the players are average or better by definition. What I was trying to convey is that being average is not a spectacularly high bar. In my original phrasing, I used the term "so-so" as I would even entertain the notion of, say, the top 60 or 65% of players in general as being "so-so". The Bills turn in their draft cards with players, using the term loosely, like Aaron Maybin and the draft class of 2007 in which not a single pick is under contract with the team. Not one. So, maybe it is asking too much to be average? PS: As far as the Steelers, I think you got my point: the Steelers actually played in the Super Bowl. They made the playoffs. They had a winning record. They were not 4-12. As The Godfather has put it for decades, "You can find receivers."

You have a point? The point is that the Packers had cajones. Those fools dared to be successful and took a risk. They moved on from the biggest star on their team because it was time to do so. There was no guarantee that Rodgers would even be mediocre 3 years ago, let alone win a Super Bowl. It is the perfect example of the point I made because if they had stuck with Favre, Rodgers would still not have much experience and Favre's diminishing skills (watch the tape of some of his 2010 games; he was horrible) would have destroyed any chance that the 2010 team, the team that won the Super Bowl, would have had. Instead, they turned the page and decided to mold a new, younger team. Dumping Favre on the Jets led to them being able to get Matthews, who is a young star on their team. It gave them more pieces to the puzzle and it paid of beautifully. (BTW, if you think Lee Evans has a bigger role as far as the Bills "success" than Brett Favre did with the Packers, you're nuts.) How does any of that proves that the draft is a "crap shoot"? Actually, the insistence on calling the draft a total roll of the dice and that a draft pick has as much value as a box of tape is sort of humorous. If you have a good scouting department, those draft picks will more often than not translate into good players. In fact, if the draft were completely random as you've said over and over, then the notion that a team should, or even can, build through the draft becomes a meaningless expression of toiling in futility and waiting for the deux ex machina to build a good football team. My point simply comes down to this. Building a championship caliber team is about building a team with all the right components at the right time so that the entire team can be successful together. It isn't really that hard to understand. Wow. Completely irrelevant. Oh, now I own a scenario? You are too generous. I don't own the concept. It's a tried and proven approach to building a team that many new regimes use. Trade the assets you have for the assets you want. Trades happen. I'll take that as an admission on your part that you don't have total confidence in Nix and Modrak. Well, you've conflated two separate concepts into a big pile of mud. 1) Lee Evans is an aging speed receiver that can be traded since the Bills are not poised to win a championship in the next 1 or 2 years anyway. 2) Your convoluted suggestion that you don't really trust the Bills front office and scouting to rebuild the team correctly anyway as evidenced by the insistence of calling draft picks nothing more than a box of tape and a roll of the dice. It is this second point as to which I asked exactly how hard it was to find an average football player that can contribute to a team with no talent. You see, two different points entirely. Neither point even suggests Lee Evans is a so-so player or anything remotely akin to such nonsense. Thus, the internal inconsistency is in your own head. Let's present the question again. How hard is it to find an average player in the draft when your team is talentless? We're discussing drafting players. Your rambling prose suggests that draft picks are worthless boxes of tape. Now, my question, though ignored, was and is directly plumbing your faith in the Bills front office and scouting. They have said themselves that their roster is full of bad players. That means that even an average (a "so-so") player is an upgrade, you see. So, all they have to do is find some average players to upgrade from bad. If they can't even do that, then you are indeed correct and draft picks are a waste of time. We'll never see another average player, let alone a good player, so we should by all means hang onto whatever players we have until the bitter end. On the other hand, by definition at least 50% of the NFL is populated by average or better players. That's roughly 1000 players. So, how hard is it really to find a player in the draft that can become one of the top 1000 players in the NFL in say 3 or 4 seasons? More red herring nonsense. I never said it was "essential" to trade Evans, and I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth. Speculation that Lee Evans could not be replaced by someone cheaper and younger is ridiculous. The Steelers dumped Santonio Holmes and it didn't ruin their team. The Patriots got rid of their deep threat and their offense actually got better. The assumption that it is a good idea to cling to yesterday's hero rather than take a chance and try to make a better team in 3 or 4 years down the road is understood. I simply don't agree that it is either the absolute "only move" nor even the best move. How does anyone even know what someone will offer for Evans if their stance is that they can't possibly make any deals involving him because, by damn, we might do worse than 4-12 next year without him? If one can't even hold the thought in their head, they can't possibly consider it from different perspectives. PS: The truth is the Bills might just be worse than 4-12 with Evans.

Maybe the issue is that some aren't truly confident in the draft genius of Nix and Modrak? It is inarguable that not every draft pick is going to be a great player, but how impossible is it to find players that can even contribute at a pedestrian so-so level to a team that the owner has declared "has no talent"? Another example: Packers trade

Maybe they all want to wish each other "Happy V.D." tomorrow?

Seriously, absolutes are ridiculous. He's very tradeable. That doesn't mean he's a bad player. That doesn't mean he's a bad human being. That doesn't mean fans can't comprehend what he does on the football field. It means, he can be traded. The Bills are going nowhere in the short term. If you don't believe me, then ask Ralph Wilson and Buddy Nix. They've flat out said so. They are pretty close to the situation and might know something about it. Now as far as calling the trade of older players "foolish", I submit Bill Belichick's approach in New England. He does not keep around aging veterans out of a sense of obligation or paralysis of fear if he can get something for said player. Why is that? Because he can find and develop younger, cheaper talent and continuously reload his roster and reinvent his team to fit his talent. He's not veteran adverse necessarily, but he's shown more than once that he's quite willing to take a longer view and turn the page. Do you really think Lee Evans is going to be running 9 routes all game long with 4.2 speed at age 34 and 35? I suppose he could be as blessed as James Lofton was, but then again, Lofton is a Hall of Famer for a reason. And, yes, you keep him if you can't get anything but a box of tape for him. But, if that's all you can get for him ... well, that might tell you something too.

Well, since this is entirely ad hominem, it's in black and white that you've got nothing. Thanks for the debate. The simplification of "I suck" was meant to be a joke. Pos isn't the worst player on our team and I never said he was. As far as what Pos said, he's right and I've made the same criticisms before. He and others need to get off blocks better. They need to play downhill more. They need to tackle better. They need to play better. It's undeniable; they were the worst run defense in the NFL. He's also right that the scheme is just the scheme; it's not inherently good or bad. It's the players. Now, it is questionable that the players the Bills had were the best fit for this scheme, and the results do suggest that they were not (which I wrote before opening day). Was he completely honest that the coaching was fine? That is probably a bit of a stretch since his own coach was fired, but Bob Sanders is a well regarded, experienced coach. It's fine by me if Pos is your hero or whatever. Hey, I thought the guy would be a stud when he was drafted too.

Lex parsimoniae. It's easy to cast blame far and wide and smokescreen. On the other hand, Poz did say that he sucked, and he's a big boy that knows his mistakes are all on film. Is there really a point in denying the undeniable if you're not in marketing?