Sisyphean Bills

Note my avatar.

No, Bill, "savior" is not an absolute. By absolute, I mean judgments such as always, never, can't, won't, etc. Specifically in reference to your own posts, I don't know if you ever called Trent a savior but I do know you posted thoughts last year that "this kid is going to be really, really good" and such. When you couple that with other people's thought processes that the only person in the game of football that matters is the QB, then you can see where "savior" starts. BTW, I know your position on the lines, so I'm not saying you have QB myopia. Hmm. The goal is to win a Super Bowl. Edwards hasn't shown he can beat a decent defense with anything close to regularity for me to believe that he is a capable of leading a team to a championship; pre-season games notwithstanding. I don't blame the entire enchilada on him, by the way. As I said, he does need some patience. But, I'm not as sold as you seem to be to me. BTW, what happens if he doesn't pan out? I can easily see fans going from be hoping for the best to condemning the guy and wishing him nothing but failure for "ruining their team."

Wasn't one of Ralph Wilson's arguments why Tom Modrak should be elevated to the inner circle that Modrak had reputedly been arguing for the Bills to draft Cutler? Cutler plays QB, right? And this was just after the Bills had faced the Broncos, right? Just saying, you might be on the something.

One reason to switch to the 3-4 would be so that Trent would see it on Fridays.

Ironic. Why call other fans names ("fanboy", "lover", "you have a crush on JP") when all they wanted was to see the guy play well because he was a Buffalo Bill when you felt the same exact way? That is the crux of the argument. Some people thought and believe that Trent Edwards was a better option after seeing him in 2 to 4 games last year and went of a jihad to claim Edwards was a savior, despite very little evidence. Lacking evidence they instead turned to ridiculing other Bills fans for saying anything not absolutely negative of the guy everybody knew was struggling and lacking in areas of his game from before he was even drafted. ("He sucks and he'll always suck." As if absolute slogans like that are arguable and defensible opinions.) The cold hard fact is that Edwards still hasn't proven himself and still hasn't shown he isn't injury prone, the latest being he was drafted with some problem with his throwing shoulder. I hope Trent works out. But, yes, I'm skeptical as he hasn't shown he can get it done. If he can stay on the field, figure out how to throw a deep ball, and how to play QB against a 3-4 defense, that'd be a nice improvement.

People threw JP under the bus after 20 games and anybody that said he needed to be given time was declared his homosexual lover. Well, guess what? Trent has had 20 starts and now you want patience? BTW, I agree that patience would be a good thing. Although, I'm not excited about Edwards brittleness ... reminds me of Rob Johnson in that.

He shows up and works hard every day.

Why do the Bills want a QB now that they could've signed a year ago for a song? Leftwich is an out-of-shape, unmotivated, injury-prone, slow blinker. Would anybody want him if he had been in Culpepper's shoes in Detroit?

And, if the Bills go 16-0 next season, he'll still be below .500 lifetime.

Shannon Sharpe really should take about a dozen marbles out of his mouth before talking.

I want to know why ESPN hires people that have such difficulty speaking the English language to do live broadcasting.

You realize that saying the fans call the shots for an NFL team is crazy, right? For starters, the fans don't agree about a damn thing.

The Chicago Cardinals won two championships in 47 and 48.

The Patriots screwed themselves by not beating the Dolphins. They lost out by losing.

I think he meant that anytime the opponent's QB gives you 6 turnovers, it is easy to look like a super-genius.

Jake Delhomme may have put heavy money on the Cardinals.

Let's complete the comparison. The DL in 2008: DT: Marcus Stroud, Kevin Williams, Spencer Johnson, John McCargo DE: Ryan Denney, Chris Kelsay, Aaron Schobel, Copeland Bryan, Chris Ellis So, we've exchanged Adams and Bannan (who is still an NFL starter for the Ravens) for Stroud and Williams. Ron Edwards exchanged for Spencer Johnson as depth. The DEs are the same 2 starters and primary backup. The scrub/special teams guys have been changed from Anderson, Jefferson, and Sape to McCargo, Bryan, and Ellis. Decimation? No. Much improved? No. More like treading water. Now, if the McCargo and Ellis draft picks had panned out (too early to say with Ellis) to their draft positions, then this unit does look improved over 05. But that's more treading water. People hoped and promised Anderson, Edwards, Jefferson, and Sape would develop into excellent players once upon a time as well.

I want Gibran Hamdan to wake up and be John Elway.

I wonder if Edwards is confused by legit pass coverage because of what he sees in practice. Specifically, we've all seen opponents going against the Bills pass defense and throwing balls to receivers that are completely uncovered. Not just open, but lonely. Without a Bills defensive player within 10 yards. If the D plays the way they practice, then Edwards may very well see his receivers completely wide open and not have to anticipate or force the ball in narrow, closing windows. From all that speculation, we could further speculate that Edwards' troubles when teams drop 8 might stand to reason as the wide open looks disappear and without the anticipation, he just holds the ball vainly trying to find a lonely receiver that isn't there. Pure speculation, obviously...

Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, Adjourning. 5 words to summarize states that a small group goes through. It's just 5 states to capture group dynamics. If we assume a worker has only 2 states on the job, then a small group of 3 people has more than 5 basic states. Thus, it is an oversimplification. People are not computers and they belong to many different groups concurrently and their various relationships can affect other relationships. For example, you may be in a very productive relationship with your co-workers working on some project. But, let's say the boss just lost his dog, his wife is divorcing him, his daughter is pregnant, his mom is sick, and he starts drinking heavily as a result. Is the team still performing? In the real world, groups change, people change, interests change, the job changes, the market changes, the goals change, profits change ... there are a lot of factors involved. People still use it because it captures the basic gist of what a group goes through. There is a honeymoon phase, then people realize that they really have to work with the people in the next office and they may not really know what is expected of them and what to do. If they are mature and interested they'll work to define responsibilities and build up competence within their environment. And, hopefully, the group starts humming like a well oiled machine. It's a good way of teaching a newbie manager that they have to react in different ways in different situations with different people. It is not flawed and wrong, because it is a simplified model of human nature to explain the stereotypical stages that most small groups must go through to achieve success. That's a problem right there, because it is a small group theory and applying to an organization is forced. The Bills organization is very dynamic with people coming and going all the time. It thus has 1 state: forming. I was answering the OP's primary question at the top of his thesis post -- "I'm curious to see if anyone else here finds it applicable to the development of The Bills in the Jauron era." No, I don't think it has anything to do with it. It's being misapplied and, while it can be a good tool to understand small group dynamics in a broad sense, it can't be used to explain precise interpersonal relationships and where a small group is headed. So there is no misunderstanding, Big Cat is obviously a big fan and spent a lot of time thinking about this and working on his application of the Tuckman theory. I don't agree, but I do acknowledge that he went to a lot of effort. Thanks for sharing your thought, Big Furball.

The injury excuse was a blaring anthem this past off-season and used as the rallying cry for why Dick Jauron was not just a good coach but maybe even a great coach and deserving of consideration as coach of the year for going 7-9 with so many devastating injuries. Here is a list of the players that went on IR last year and some of the dates. December 14, 2007 placed defensive back George Wilson on injured reserve December 6, 2007 placed running back Anthony Thomas on injured reserve. November 14, 2007 placed tight ends Kiwaukee Thomas and Matt Murphy on injured reserve November 8, 2007 Placed tight end Derek Schouman on injured reserve. October 5, 2007 placed linebacker Kevin Harrison on injured reserve. September 25, 2007 placed linebacker Paul Posluszny on injured reserve. September 13, 2007 Placed cornerback Jason Webster on injured reserve; September 11, 2007 Placed safety Ko Simpson and tight end Kevin Everett on injured reserve. Peerless Price (WR) Jason Whittle (G) Al Wallace (DE) Coy Wire (S) Ryan Denney (DE) Aaron Merz (G) Copeland Bryan (DE) There were four opening day starters that went down to injury. 3 on defense and 1 on offense. So 91% of the offensive and 73% of the defensive starters were not on IR. The loss of Webster actually allowed the emergence of Jabari Greer, who is a much better CB. Posluszny was replaced early in the season as well by DiGiorgio who anchored the MLB position the rest of the season. The injury to Peerless Price allowed Reed more playing time. The injury to Anthony Thomas allowed Fred Jackson to get on the field and show he was a better player. So, yes, there was a lot of injuries and certain positions like TE and FS were hit quite hard. Then again, it's the NFL and teams have injuries. The better teams are able to regroup and keep going because they are better teams and pull together as a team to overcome the adversity. The Baltimore Ravens have 19 players on IR this year, a rookie QB, and a rookie head coach and yet they keep right on winning and are playing this weekend.

Yes, and all 17 of those guys were starters and likely Pro Bowlers before injury. Meanwhile, the Patriots lost Tom Brady in the 1st quarter of the 1st game (he really was lost for the year, unlike some of the 17 that got stashed on IR in week 17) and still managed to field a top 5 offense. With a guy that hadn't played since high school even.

In 2007, the Bills defense was 31st in total defense, 31st in total yards, 18th in points allowed, 29th in 3rd down defense, 29th in passing yards, 25th in rushing yards, and 29th in sacks. In 2008, the Bills defense faced the 31, 29, 28, 27, 24, 23, 20, 16, 12, 11, 5, 3, 2 offenses. That's 3 offenses in the top 10, 6 in the bottom 10, and 4 in the middle. Maybe it helps to face more bad offenses?

Not letting the score get out of hand is Dick Jauron football. On offense, they play it close to the vest by running the ball, a short, conservative passing game, and minimizing mistakes. Keep the clock moving and punting. On defense, they are rarely aggressive. They play a shell defense to force the opponent to put together long, time consuming drives that move the chains down the field, and hopefully the opponent bogs down with a mistake and has to kick the ball. Keep the clock moving, minimize the number of possessions, keep from giving up (or taking) quick scores, and watch the total points per game decrease. Yawn. The Bills defense produced very few turnovers (tied 5th fewest). Another interesting stat is that they were #1 in the NFL in terms of penalty yards against on defense. The big yardage penalties on a defense are usually by way of pass interference. Since many passes are completed without a Bills defender even in the frame of the TV camera, there was little chance of PI calls going against them. BTW, if the Bills give up 1 more TD on the year, they fall from 14th to 17th. 1 TD less moves them up to 13th. 17 more points drops them to 21st. 17 fewer points they move up to 10th. So, this points standings in the middle are very tight data points and, like many single data points, hard to draw conclusions from. A middling defense isn't a bad thing for a team aspiring to be 7-9.

Sorry, not directed at you specifically. Some want to make out that he handed out fat contracts to average players like Dockery and below average players like Walker and Kelsay as evidence he's not a skinflint. But, according to the CBA he has to spend a minimum on players. So, I'm wondering where that leaves that argument. (I'm not making blanket statements such as "Ralph is cheap" or "Ralph is generous", fwiw.) I never said there were not inequities in the formula. I've never denied the data. The claim was that the Bills are stuck in sucking/mediocrity because of their revenue stream. The data just doesn't support that as Pittsburgh, San Diego, and Indianapolis are similar markets and all they've done is win. FWIW, the Patriots are a high roller these days, but for much of their history they were not and struggled for community support. Now they are very successful financially. On the other end, the Lions operated at a net loss in 2007. Is that mere coincidence? Does anyone else remember a game in the 90s when the announcer was talking about his chat with Ralph Wilson and that Ralph had said something like he had discovered that paying to bring in premier talent was actually a good business decision and that the franchise was doing better and staying in Buffalo seemed like a viable business plan, etc.