Sisyphean Bills

Not sure what you mean, Dave. New England is usually right up there. 10th, 4th, 6th, 9th, 7th... They were the sole top 10 defense the Bills played in 08 though.

I'd be more concerned about the offense. It did need to be fixed, but the moves (other than T.O.) don't look like clear cut steps in the forward direction. The Bills offense faced 7 of the bottom 9 defenses in the NFL and 0 of the top 9 defenses in 08 and yet only ranked 25th overall, 26th in total plays, and 23rd in points per game. That's simply atrocious. Assuming the defense and special teams remain static (not a good assumption), what have the Bills done to fix the offense? They signed T.O. A bold move to bring in talent despite the risk of migraines. They changed the backup QB position by signing a QB who had a worse season than Dan Orlovsky of the Lions. They changed the C position by signing another backup C in FA (see Melvin Fowler) and jettisoning both "IQ" and Fowler. They dumped Derrick Dockery rather than pay him his roster bonus. They dumped the "awkward athletism" of Robert "Hands" Royal. They traded Jason Peters for draft picks. They signed Dominic Rhodes after Marshawn Lynch got suspended for smoking pot with his pals in LA. They signed a few other backups and street free agent lineman. Well, that picture isn't as simple as "Turk and Hardy equals improvement". I guess one could say something lacking substance such as "the OL can't get any worse than it was" and hope that the Bills strike gold in the draft and the line comes together quickly. On the other hand, given that the offense was pathetic last year, replacing 4 of the 6 inline blockers up front with no-names, cast-offs, and backups might be a cause for a little concern. Couple that with a QB that can't stay on the field and was complaining of a worn out shoulder last year, a prima donna WR that isn't afraid to squawk his dissatisfaction at the drop of a hat, a mild mannered player's coach, and an offensive coordinator still cutting his teeth in the NFL. It's all good. In Brandon, we trust.

They pulled it off in spite of themselves, yes. But, "worked" can be relative. If Peters had totally dominated last year and laid down multiple flawless games, he'd probably have a $80-90M contract right now and the Bills might have gotten 2 1st rounders.

The point is to construct a coherent, logical argument and debate the issue like an adult instead of throwing a public temper tantrum and trying to attach a black label to anyone and everyone that doesn't agree with you. Why have a constructive debate on the issues? So everyone can learn something. Look C.Bisc, I don't put you on ignore because there have been many times that you raised excellent points on some issues. I don't agree with many of your conclusions and leaps, but that's OK. I enjoy the free exchange of ideas we have here. Everybody doesn't agree on everything; that's life.

How long have you been Kirk's wife?

Jauron seems to use an "incumbent" system. Once established as the incumbent, you're a made man. Even players that clearly suck will be given 2nd and 3rd chances.

There have been Bills teams every bit that bad.

Hey Mr. Smub, His goal was to get paid as the highest lineman in the game. He switched agents and held out. One strategy is to hold out of all the non-mandatory things to show the team your dissatisfaction but still show up for the mandatory stuff so the team can't fine you (and possibly sit in the hot tub and whine about your contract). A second strategy is to hold out and take the fines in a Walter Jones fashion. Walter Jones would show up after the last pre-season game and then start putting a whipping on people to show he was The Man. I wouldn't have advised the Walter Jones tactic to Jason with 3 years on his bargain bin deal and after he had limped off the scene the year before. Peters/Parker went the Jones route but Peters hurt himself by showing up unprepared. The Bills were lucky to get a 1st round pick at all, and Peters/Parker were lucky the Eagles were desperate enough to cough up $60M.

Not to hijack the thread, but I did want to answer your question. I think the T.O. move was a bold step and I see it mostly as a positive football-wise. T.O. is a great athlete and a great WR and I think he still has some left in the tank, although he is on the downhill side of his career. He can run the entire route tree but may have lost something of his vertical threat. (Not that the Bills would use it anyway, mind you.) I am not a card-carrying Lee Evans cheerleader, so I think T.O., even a declining T.O. will be the Bills primary weapon even at this late stage in his career. The Bills have needed more talent in their aerial game for quite some time, so this is a move in the right direction because it addresses a fundamental weakness on the team. Unfortunately, it looks like this T.O. experiment may be bad timing. T.O. signed a 1 year deal and regardless of what happens, I think the chances that he won't go to the highest bidder next year are vanishingly small. In other words, he is not a long term solution and the Bills have to basically be planning now to replace him. Which is odd, because he just got here. But beyond that, the offense has other issues that have come up such as losing Royal, Peters, Dockery, and "IQ" on the front wall and losing Lynch for the first 3 games. So, T.O. is not walking into an offense that was starting to gel and is only a player away, but rather an offense being blown up. Over half of the starters opening day will be new. I'm not big on Rhodes; he's strictly a backup. Jackson is having a contract squabble. Finally, I'm still "jury out" on Trent. I blame him at least as much as the "bad WRs" for our lack of a passing attack the last year plus. Indeed, he seems almost the polar opposite of Tony Romo for long stretches, where he is unwilling to throw the ball out there and let his guy make a play. We'll see what the Bills do this weekend, of course. But, the condition of the front wall on offense at the moment is downright frightening. Trent might best be talking to Llyod's of London...

Dave, sorry you took it as a slight on your post. Let me try again. You stated a real argument and buttressed it with real evidence. You deserve your kudos for that "half full" take. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. My criticism wasn't with the quality of your argument -- really, I thought that was well done. My criticism was simply that it was a singular point. T.O. was signed and he's a great player (I'll leave the debate about that aside as I was offering a meta-comment about the debate in this thread only), but as far as a general "half full" platform that is a singular point and not completely compelling on its own. Sorry, my attempt at brevity didn't come off well.

Let's start with the Bills are a below average team. Let's make the assumption that they want to improve. How do you do that? Do you improve your team by getting rid of all the average or worse players at once? Really? Sounds like change for change's sake. PT Barnum would love it. Back to my original question: can a team successfully rise up from the lower third of the NFL if it jettisons every player that squawks about not wanting to be a part of the team? Who do you fill your roster with? For example, do you think guys on the Lions really want to be there and associated with the black stain and stench they laid on last year?

I find it morbidly fascinating that a "glass half empty" post like Badol's can enumerate numerous evidence and football-related arguments as to why the team is headed in the wrong direction, while many of the counter posts contain very little football-related argumentation or are completely devoid of such arguments and amount to "shoot the messenger". Some of the arguments for "glass half full" are: We are not the Lions, we went 7-9. Edwards is the best QB that Jauron has ever had. T.O. is a Hall-of-Famer and he'll carry the team single-handedly from the WR position. Surely, there is more to be positive about. One of the "half full" fans can surely put together a more coherent argument than the one that amounted to "coaching [line play] is overrated unless it is a team other than the Bills".

Yes, as I said a few times before, the way Peters/Parker handled it was not the best precisely for this reason. A long term holdout and showing up disinterested and out of shape did not increase Peters value at all -- it only served to lessen it. He was lucky that the Eagles were still interested and still willing to take a chance on his 'tude. Peters has all the physical tools to be one of the greatest of all time; but, unless he dedicates himself to that goal, he could be just another might-have-been.

Where does the carousel of "the players just want to leave" stop? That is surely the road to oblivion.

Ross nailed it. Again.

With all the needs on this team, do you think blowing up the entire draft to get Curry is going to put the best team on the field?

Russ? Is that you?

I think Jauron and Wilson go down together, just like Wilson said. But the main football argument for keeping Jauron was that the Bills were building something and they wanted Jauron to maintain that continuity. And then the Bills blow up their OL and rumors start swirling that a number of players are on the trading block. There is no continuity if the team purges its roster and only keeps its head coach. But, then, some suspected Jauron was kept because of the money all along.

T.O. was right. The Cowboys passing game went through Jason Whitten and not him.

Yeah, the average draft class has ~30 good players that'll have a good career in the NFL. I like it. Trade everybody! Continuity be damned!

Have to make a roster spot for an extra DB.

Kind of interesting that they point out that Dockery consistently gave up the B gap ... on his right was Duke "IQ" Preston. Coincidence? You decide.

None of which helps the Bills win.

If the Bills vasoline up and bend over, I'm sure the Pats* wouldn't mind.

Tom Modrak wanted Cutler.