Sisyphean Bills

I think it involved an improperly discarded banana peel.

Where is Rusty Jones?

You obviously don't understand the question. Yes, an idiot can understand that the definition of a trade is an exchange between parties of things they value. The Bills exchanged their rights to McCargo to Indy for an undisclosed draft pick. The question is not whether or not they made a trade or whether or not they are happy with McCargo's production. The answers to those questions are obvious to everyone. The question is that the trade should be evaluated in both a short and long term context. In the longer term, the Bills would have received a draft pick. Again, no brainer, stupid obvious stuff. In the short term, what was the plan? Why dump McCargo? How does that improve the Buffalo Bills football team right this fuggin instant? Is he such a fug up that they are better without him? Did they have a plan to bring in somone else? Did they even fuggin have a plan for the short term? McCargo may be a backup and an underachiever, but he did make the 53 man roster and in the event someone goes down, he would be forced into a contributing role. Trading him with no plan on how to replace him with anything other than hot air isn't a plan.

Not saying that you did. And just where did I say it was a "bad decision"? Hint: nowhere. That is a strong statement. Of course, Anderson (started 12 games in 05) and Jefferson were holdovers from the year before. Adams, Bannan, Edwards, and Sape were goners. Or maybe not. Tripplett was the veteran 3-tech guy that they hoped would step up. McCargo was drafted as a 3-tech guy that they could rotate. Again, if you look at the talent that walked out of the building, the Bills needed help at the DT position because they didn't have near enough bodies. But that doesn't mean that they were interested in building the team through the DT position. They drafted 3 defensive backs in their first 4 picks, which is an indication that the secondary was more of a concern than the line. At the time, the McCargo trade up and pick was explained as the Bills felt there were 3 "1st round" DTs in that draft, 2 of them had gone off the board, and the next batch of DTs had nowhere near as much upside. So, they pulled the trigger and moved up to snag the last "Stud DT" in that draft. As it turned out, they mis-evaluated McCargo. You answer your own question. They charted one course and it was a !@#$ up. So, they charted a new course with different players. Note that this overhaul at the DT position happened just 2 years after the first overhaul.

And the worst of these, by far, was Mike Williams. (Although, Ferguson is nipping at his heels as a Sponge Tackle Rag Bob.)

It is interesting that McCargo is back after the failed trade just like nothing ever happened. One might think that the trade was made because He was becoming a problem/distraction He was demanding a trade and refusing to play or practice They had an upgrade/replacement all ready to sign and bring aboard Any or all of the above It's sort of befuddling that this trade happened and un-happened like it did.

Some scouts may have felt that way, but other scouts did not. The real concern with Ngata was his knee. FWIW, I think Ngata is a rare freak athlete at the DT position and as such could play very well in most any system. Again, trying to extrapolate that he'd not be able to play in a Tampa-2 defense to further suggest the intrinsic goodness of the Whitner pick rings hollow. Too many "if"s and "but"s for me. Here is a straighter question: "Why Whitner?" The Bills wanted a safe pick in that draft. (Definition "safe pick": someone that was a very good football player, who had little in his game that needed to be "untaught" and re-coached, who was not a combine freak athlete or otherwise had "unlimited untapped potential", and finally someone that played a position and system in college where the evaluation of his translation to the Pro game was straight-forward and contained minimal guess work.) They wanted a character player: hard worker, self-directed, motivated. They had needs everywhere, so position wasn't as important. They had purged their veteran leadership and needed guys that showed leadership potential and a willingness to lead. Finally, Jauron is a defensive coach and his priority was to rebuild the defense first. Now on the system: the Levy/Jauron tandem approach to the DL was quite Gregg Williams-like initially. The Tampa-2 is a vanilla system where, if everyone simply plays their role, the defense can be decent. A potential superstar DT was likely not a big concern in 06 to the front office as to some on TSW: they just wanted to field a rotation of DL players that could plug running lanes and generate some pressure. That approach didn't work out: they dumped Tripplett, tried to trade McCargo, traded for Stroud, and signed Johnson -- a massive course correction if there ever was one.

Sounds like the QB that said, when asked about his 3rd major knee injury in 3 seasons, "Of course, I'll be back. I want to play. I'll get a nice wheelchair when I'm done."

He can only get better.

I'm not convinced that Ngata is quite so one-dimensional as he is being made out in this thread. The Ravens system is built around a DL that eats blockers and lets its LBs, especially Ray Lewis, fly to the ball and make plays. Ngata has shown he is capable of playing in that system. On the other hand, Ngata was a dominant DT in the Oregon system which asked him to penetrate and be a disruptive force. The guy was so cat quick off the snap, and powerful, that he was a constant threat to single-handedly penetrate the LOS and block field goals and extra points. The Whitner pick needs to be justified or not on its own terms and not by trying to paste labels on other excellent players.

Thanks for the correction. Todd was the #2 QB behind Green under Vermeil and did see a few snaps in 12 games over that 5 year span. It was the 3 years prior to that where he did nothing but carry the clipboard. I still think he sucks.

Well, if you only consider Holcomb's entire career as his brief fling in Buffalo. Holcomb had very good success in Cleveland with a very ragtag collection of talent. Enough success that he was considered a viable veteran backup plan by the Bills as insurance for Losman. Bottom line: Holcomb's career was mostly as a 2nd string QB that could come in and play in games. Collins spent virtually his entire career as a headset wearing exemption to the inactive list. I even recall one year when the Chiefs were beset by injury at the QB position and Vermeil said something like, "Well, maybe Todd Collins can step it up," in some interview and then the Chiefs went out and found another QB to keep Collins glued to the bench. Before we get all worked up about last year, know that Collins, who should be well suited to a west coast offense -- a shallow, precise passing game that takes some mental acumen -- never materialized as a legit threat to take Campbell's job. A good thing for the Redskins, as Campbell has been care-taking the offense rather well so far. We'll just have to agree to disagree on Todd Collins as potential does not equate to value.

I think you are thinking about Bunkley. The real concern on Ngata was the knee that he blew out and that he was an early entry. His work ethic should have never been in question: he came back from major knee surgery on schedule and stronger and more dominant than he was before.

No worries. It's a minor semantics quibble. I would just say that banking on Collins to succeed and lead a veteran, playoff caliber team was a seriously big gamble. Gambles are not "reasonable". They are just risks taken and this one did not work out and led to some rough times for this franchise. If I was Marv or Butler, I wouldn't have "assumed" he'd have been successful. Now, it may have been the case that no veteran QBs were willing to come to Buffalo at the time, so they were forced to double down with their bets and take another flier on another unproven QB in Billy Joe Hobert. Still, the Bills were a playoff team and a contender at the time, so it seems unlikely that nobody would be interested at all. Either way, whether they were forced to take the risk or they wholeheartedly jumped at the chance, it did not work out, and it not working out was actually the most reasonable consequence given the statistics of such situations. There is no inconsistency at all. I never said Kelly "Noodle Arm" Holcomb had a better arm than Collins. I said he was a better QB. Holcomb had some success as a starter in the NFL. I can't cut so fine a distinction. What good is a QB with "ability" who doesn't show the leadership or moxie to want to get on the field and play? Not much at all, in my book. That's why Holcomb is a better overall QB, as was Kordell Stewart, Kerry Collins, and Steve McNair to name some off the top of my head.

That and that he is a stud DT.

Clearly, they should have.

Again, I disagree with the phrase "reasonable assumption". The right approach when giving a young and totally unproven NFL player (college football is a great game, but the play at the QB position simply does not translate well to the pros) his shot is to make sure that there is an insurance policy in place -- in this case a veteran QB -- so that the other 52 guys on the team aren't hung out to dry. It is hardly a secret that QB in the NFL is a difficult position to play with competence, let alone with great success. Furthermore, young QBs mostly fail. That is no slight to Collins; it's just reality. Thus, it is not a "reasonable assumption" to assume that your young QB prospect will simply be successful because you drafted him high in a draft. I'd put him lower than 3rd. Kelly Holcomb wasn't even drafted and was a better QB.

I don't like that definition of "reasonable". A reasonable choice should not be based completely on some stiff's draft position. Collins is a student of the game and is a good practice QB, but his career is all but a blank slate when it comes to actually playing the game -- he's a career 3rd stringer. The coaches wildly underestimated the value of having a QB that could make plays and had enough arm to keep the forward pass an offensive option in the not uncommon bad weather of Buffalo, NY in the fall and early winter. The fact that Collins was flip flopped and eventually lost his job to an out-of-shape Alex Van Pelt (who sported a damaged throwing shoulder at the time) and that the Bills seriously considered Billy Joe Hobert says it all.

True. He was a good athlete on a defense with some great athletes. There was never any question about that. There were a number of big arguments about whether he was a reach in the draft and if the Bills had made the best move by trading up to take him. The fact that he was only in Buffalo for 2.25 seasons, injured for much of that time, and traded for future considerations is overwhelming evidence that he was a reach and that the Bills did make a mistake on him. It is concerning that the Bills drafting of lineman, both offensive and defensive, hasn't been much to write home about under Modrak. Maybe it is just bad luck, but one might easily wonder if the Bills evaluation of lineman in particular just isn't all that and that process then precipitates and forces the team to overpay for flawed lineman on the free agency market.

Because high character is a geographic phenomenon.

Can we have a subject line update?

Dumb people get injured more.

Hmm. I thought McCargo was in the group of players that "can only improve." I guess his undeniable improvement will occur somewhere else. Masters of building from the steeple down...

Manute Bol played C and he was one fuggin tall dude.

Herm Edwards has a higher approval rating than George W. Bush. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/sportsnation/ratings