Sisyphean Bills

Are there any stats that support the idea that Trent elevated the play of his offensive teammates at Stanford?

Uh, hell no, Adam. I'd bleed 'em to death. What I'm poking at is who's profound decision was it to do away with taking shots down the field almost completely? Even when we had a noodle armed Collins and a rag armed Van Pelt under center and other holes, Dan Henning didn't just lie down in the middle of the tracks and wait for the train. The point is that even if you suck, you are a professional and it is an obligation to at least try to do the job. There is no shame in emptying the tank and failing. Far worse to pack it in and wait for a sunny day.

The way I understand it, Losman didn't have audibles in 06. The Mike Martz offense, the one Fairchild installed, doesn't have audibles. That means the Rams won a Super Bowl without any audibles. So you are contending that Jauron doesn't know what is going on in his practices? That instills confidence.

You mean when JP Losman was the starting QB?

Snickers.

None of the above. I'd get a couple of cornerbacks.

I think it is unlikely that the Bills switch it up much as well. But, this is what I was thinking. Evans is the smaller guy and he (supposedly) knows this offense. It might be easier for him to flop to the Z. Also, that lets him become the motion guy. With his speed and quickness, that might help him get freed up and allow the offense to dictate coverages to some degree. Bottom line: it's not like what they did last year worked or was well suited to Evans.

My answer is "I have no idea" if the O is going to improve from 32nd best in 08. Sorry, but the arguments you present that the offense will improve are weak. Schonert is automatically better than Fairchild? That's just not a given as offensive performance is not determined by simply drawing names out of a hat. There is no evidence that Schonert is better or even knows what he is doing. He could be another bad experiment that just goes haywire. A rookie WR will force defenses to adjust to the offense based on his height but you don't expect him to be even as good as Peerless, who was below average (and missed most of 07 with a broken neck). You realize that Jauron likes his veterans because they represent fewer mistakes than rookies, right? And finally Edwards and Lynch will automatically be better than last year because its a new calendar year. Let's hope so, because a sophomore slump for either of those two could spell a long fugly season.

Bills punting avg was 28th, but net avg was 10th. Andre Davis, ex-Bill, helped lead the league leading Texans in KO returns for TD.

He played the X at Indiana ... at least the very little that I've seen of him. They may be better served to break him in by leaving him there and move Evans to the Z, with Reed/Parrish in the slot. Not saying they will, of course... PS: Actually, considering the history, Hardy will most likely be an afterthought until he can prove he is demonstrably better than the veterans, whether that is by injury or by stellar play when he does get his chances.

Try this one. http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?arc...amp;Submit=Find

Bill likes making easy money, too.

Before the Bills closed out the season going 0-3, every team in the NFL had a chance at the playoffs except for the Jets and Dolphins. Big whoop.

And whether he pan out or not, it's a good bet the Bills will be drafting another one in an upcoming draft soon enough.

The mechanics and quick release, especially when compared to the unpolished play of JPL, are a big factor in the "poise" argument. He's just so fluid, he's got to be a good QB. Not much changed when Edwards got to the pros -- how good a pro he'll end up being is still uncertain, and some suggest the fault lies with the other 10 guys on the offense (or the illogical notion that the problem is the backup QB's fault). Well, one way to keep a brittle QB on the field is to not let him get hit. How did the Bills do that? They leaned on the running game (built around another rookie and a geriatric) and ultra short passing game. Edwards quick release and reliance on pre-snap reads fit well in an aerial game designed to stretch the backfield horizontally. The Bills offense had almost no vertical passing game (IIRC, it was less than 20 plays) to speak of and certainly were no threat to stretch, making Fairchild's comments that they "couldn't get teams to back off" not exactly profound. Does this address Edwards decision making? His INT% of 3.0 isn't horrible, but it wasn't fantastic either (8 INTs/7 TDs). Considering the passing system employed, one could make the argument that a 3.0 is poor for a QB that took so few chances down the field and sacks. The "decision making" is further muddled by the heavy reliance on pre-snap reads and quick, minimal routes. Edwards just wasn't asked to stand in the pocket and go through his progression and try to make plays in the defensive secondary. Was that because he was a rookie? Was it to keep him healthy? Was it because the Bills receivers suck? Was it because the line sucked? Was it because Edwards wasn't ready and didn't know the offense well enough? Let's go back to Fairchild's comment. "We can't get them to back off of us." Superficially, this comment is profoundly dumb. Fairchild is calling conservative plays, runs and very short passes. How did a guy that can't put the cause and effect together here get a job as an NFL football coach? Are we to believe that the Bills hired a knuckle-walking drooler such as that to outsmart Bill Belichick?!? Is there any other reason for Fairchild to so baldly state the supremely obvious and even implicate his own role?

What is the over/under on him getting injured before October?

How about this? "Of course, it is the players that are drafted that matter; and, obviously, certain positions have higher value than others." For example, drafting a Hall of Fame caliber QB is a good thing for a team. OTOH, just drafting a sequence of QBs that play 1-3 years and bust out is not so great. Having a franchise QB has a higher value (because they are scarce) than, say, drafting a first round DB or WR.

Ostroski's promotion from rotational depth to the starting lineup at RT was the harbinger of the Fall of the Golden Age for the Buffalo Bills. I think he was an average player. While he had limited athleticism, he worked hard and usually played smart. It's hard to say he wasn't willing to go the extra mile for the team; putting him out at RT and then at C where some god awful coaching decisions and bouncing around the line didn't allow him to focus on and improve at a single position. To be fair, the Bills just didn't help themselves out any. Butler claimed that a good OL was "easy to put together; just get a bunch of fat guys." Marv Levy claimed that OL play was going to become a commodity position, where teams had 7 or 8 fat guys and just cycled them in and out at various positions to keep everyone fresh. Tom Bresnahan fell in love with the idea of drafting OL for size on the goofy premise, "it takes longer to run around a bigger guy." The Bills went away from what got them into the Golden Age -- exceptional athletes at the OL that could literally sprint up and down the field in the hurry-up offense and kick the defender's asses play after play. They started going for fat guys like Marcus "Jabba" Spriggs, Jamie "I got winded getting out of bed" Nails, Robert "Huge" Hicks, Victor "He can't play but he's big" Allotey, ...

Whitner.

So much for the "we're not changing the system" comment.

Yet, Jauron is considered an excellent coach. I was critical of Webster the day he was signed. I saw him play in SF and Atlanta and didn't see how the change in the uniform colors was going to turn him into an NFL CB. (If anybody gets anything out of him, it will no doubt be Billy B. though. <sigh>)

Can't get more subjective than that. I assume this subjectivity is to address the fact that the number of starters drafted is meaningless, since a below average player, who wouldn't even make most rosters, can be drafted and start for a bottom feeding team. What might be more telling is the number of Pro Bowlers drafted. Or taking the number of starters acquired through the draft and weighting them by the number of games started and scaled by the number of games won. A player that starts 160 games straight, goes to 8 Pro Bowls, and is a member of a team with a 0.667 winning percentage and 3 Super Bowls appearances is much more valuable, one would think, than a guy that started 5 games in 4 years, has never heard of the Pro Bowl, and who's team won to the tune of 0.250.

He's a great pop. Ask anybody on a Pats board.

You mean it only seems like forever? The secondary has some talent. Unfortunately, they didn't have much of anything on the first 2 levels, so it was sort of hard to evaluate the 3rd other than by a thumb in the wind... or out the window of a car going down the Thruway.

"We're going to be talkin' non-stop about blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah." Commercial. "Before we get to that, I'd like to say something about [insert new topic]."