Sisyphean Bills

As well as can be expected, if you don't expect anything. Sure. The implication that Peters never wanted to play in Buffalo is obviously false. Nobody forced him at gunpoint to sign with the Bills as a UDFA. He came to Buffalo because they were his favorite team. Peters not wanting to stay in Buffalo was not the cause of him asking for a pay raise. He asked for a pay raise because he saw they spent top dollar on average (being generous) players like Dockery and Walker. Brandon then told him in no uncertain terms that there was no way he was getting a new deal. It is also false that they couldn't have made him happy. They could have paid him what he was worth and not overpaid guys that play similar positions. People need to get over the notion that Jason Peters "owed" his employer absolute loyalty regardless of what his employer chose to do. That's ridiculous and only someone with a total absence of self-respect would subscribe to that. If there are two burger joints across the street from each other and the manager of burger joint A hires the two hot cashiers from burger joint B, pays them 3 or 4 times what he pays his best employee (we'll call him Dan), and then tells Dan there is absolutely, positively no way Dan is getting a raise because he's trying to woo another hot chick from the coffee shop to work for him then there is a pretty good chance Dan will be angry. Then say the manager is heard yelling, "Get the fug out, Dan. Get back to work and clean out the men's bathroom. Some kid just blew chunks in there." To say Dan should be loyal to the manager because the manager "took a chance" on him and that Dan should just set aside his last ounce of self-respect is a real stretch. Who does that? A slave? Really, Dan would be a complete and utter tool if he didn't go across the street and talk to the manager of burger joint B about a job and a possible raise. That's not to say that the situation between Peters and Brandon was exactly like the analogy above, but it reeked of great bitterness and to insist that it was all Dan's fault because he wouldn't mop out the men's room -- the only thing we could see from the outside -- is a one-sided viewpoint.

Do you really think Walker would be saying things like "what other choice is there?" if Bell was nearly ready to be a starting LT in the NFL? Applying Occam's Razor to Walker not being happy: who would be happy to be put in a job were you have a giant target painted on your chest, have no choice, and have enough experience to know what it takes (not talks) to be adequate?

We're reaping the brilliance of the psychologists/educators social experiment of the past half century...

You would not be alone. The Bengals didn't move Munoz to RT because Esiason was left-handed. True. There were concerns about Fat Mike, specifically his maturity and commitment to the game. Turned out those concerns were extremely well placed and throwing a wheelbarrow of cash at the guy did nothing to motivate him -- quite the opposite.

Well, then defensive coordinator Jerry Gray did bop over to Austin and ask a couple questions.

About time someone stepped into the vacuum.

I'm not sure I'd go that far -- I don't remember anyone saying he was the next Jim Kelly, though it wouldn't surprise me at all. There was the usual cast of front office apologists that rushed the board praising the move as a brilliant master stroke and huge upgrade to the backup QB position with the standard tripe and non sequiturs such as, "They get paid to make these decisions so they know exactly what they are doing." Apparently. The Bengals passing game last year with Fitzpatpatsack under center was horrible. In fact, it made the Bills look good in comparison.

Whatever, Brian.

Sorry. Everyone can go back to the Skooby threads.

Interesting that you say that since I never offered my opinion on the matter.

Here is some context: Dick Jauron told the media, when questioned about preparation through training camp and pre-season and how Lynch's 3 week suspension would impact his preparation of the team, "It won't change a thing." Another NFL coach, asked about a similar situation, answered, "Of course it changes things." The contrast is pretty self-evident. Now, we could say Dick is the one that's right and the other NFL coach is a moron, of course...

On the bright side, don't have to worry about anybody getting a bunch in their panties over a little competition this year.

Kind of ironic that posters were complaining that some players needed to get in camp and get reps with the starters and at the same time don't mind a guy that isn't going to play for the first 3 games taking the reps from the guys that will be. Good to see nobody sees any problem with it.

But, he looked so good throwing the ball like a 16 pound shotput in Cincinnati.

Langston looks pretty athletic there.

Whatever happened to "the guys work hard here in Buffalo"?

Good luck with that. Ad hominem rebuttals are part and parcel of what you get here. Not sure the "without any heart" applies to Gholston either. When one drafts an undersized one-dimensional player, they get what they selected. No need to be surprised.

Is giving Marshawn the first team reps through camp the best approach to getting this team ready?

John Butler, the guy that historically got all the Bills draft picks signed before camp, is dead.

Jason Peters says, "Hello."

Nice day weather-wise.

Super Bowl!

Yes. Yes, it is. Never claimed it was not a generalization. Of course, saying it was a generalization doesn't mean it isn't valid and germane. Teams in the late 80s and early 90s used various offenses like the run-and-shoot and the hurry-up, but none of them ever won a Super Bowl. Now, every team incorporates elements of those schemes into their own offenses, because some of those ideas were very good ideas. Even the highly successful West Coast offense, which did win Super Bowls, has been changed over time and uses elements of other systems these days. The relevance is that the NFL is and has been a copy-cat league. The coaches copy the things that work and jettison the stuff that doesn't. The fact is that there is no current NFL team that uses a no-huddle offense exclusively or in the frantic pace that the Bengals and Bills did nearly 20 years ago. The Colts come the closest that I can think of, but they are not always in an up tempo and trying to wear out an opponent with superior endurance. Besides, there have been rule changes over that time. To the point of this thread, if there was an offensive system (and there is not) which could successfully hide weaknesses and limitations of the OL (that is roughly 50% of the offense) then it is highly unlikely that other NFL teams wouldn't know anything about it and not be using it. What team wouldn't want to play an overweight guard at LT or be able to drop free agents and rookies into their lineup and be highly proficient and productive? That would be like your competition in the market finding a way to cut their costs at building widgets, be able to switch suppliers whenever they wanted to, and still bring better widgets to the market. If you don't adapt to a threat like that, you go out of business. In NFL terms, your team is the Lions. The assertion that a no-huddle will "fix" the unknown problems with the rebuilt line is nothing but wishful thinking at this point. It's not a plan. Frankly, if an offense can't execute its fundamentals, then no amount of gimmickry and self-appraised cunning is going to matter.

Against today's smaller, quicker defenses, being able to pound the ball down the field is not a bad formula. Schonert is showing his true colors as a Sam Wyche disciple now, looks like. I was skeptical that he was anything else. Good point. Not sure why some profess unquestioning confidence in Schonert and/or Kugler. Preston (and Fowler) were simply terrible and couldn't anchor. Dockery regressed under Kugler but was never as good as his hype -- likewise Walker. Neither of those guys physically dominates the line of scrimmage week to week. I like Butler's nasty streak but he's not the most gifted lineman. And, I don't think anyone disputes that Peters regressed last year. Still, that line was together and mostly intact for 2 seasons, and despite a record low number of sacks yielded in 07, they were never able to exert their will in the running game consistently enough. The 3rd and short failures are often discussed...

Quite true. If running a no-huddle offense meant that the offense would be more effective (to the point of being able to paper over potential disadvantages that encompass ~50% of the players on the unit) then we'd see a majority of teams necessarily running no-huddle offenses in order to keep up with the efficiency gains of their opponents.