Sisyphean Bills

"We can rebuild him."

This is true and not true. Graham is the only one reporting the current struggles between the old guard and the current Whaley/Marrone football side of the house. But it is wrong to imply this is the very first time this sort of news has come out. Do you remember Buddy's explanation of the Lee Evans trade? In a word, weirdness. The guy with the title of GM mentioning that he wasn't really part of the trade, didn't know the details, and there were things he couldn't discuss. Mike Mularkey quit, stating that the team wasn't structured in a way for him to succeed. The last guy to get Ralph's keys to the organization, Tom Donahoe, reportedly went on at great length about the restrictions and limitations that were imposed that made his job impossible. It goes on, but this is not the first whiff of smoke here.

A reporter's job is to get people to talk. And, people talk. And, Tim Graham is a reporter. Just sayin'.

Yep. On the other hand, I'm not sure anyone would write an article putting himself directly in the cross-hairs. That's all I was saying, BC.

Well, I was talking to the inference. Do the specifics all add up neatly? Maybe not. But, Marrone might get a bogus update or three before going in the room.

The awkwardness coming from him not writing the reporters' articles for them.

Looking at the same coin from two sides. There was obviously change in middle-management. There has also been little substantive change on the "lifer" side of the equation and, according to this report, the real power structure. So both are true.

I gather that is exactly the inference we are to make. If Marrone is told he is not supposed to answer questions about X and Y, then he is asked those questions, he has to dance around them. Then, when the truth comes out anyway, he looks like a clown. Thus enmity arises between him and the SID, who reports to ?

No. I take it that Graham is at the combine and got some of the "new guy" faction to talk to him a bit about how things are run within the organization. Doug Whaley spoke on the record about the on-going process, in fact. If you read what he said carefully, it is completely consistent with what Graham wrote.

Tim Graham reported "team sources" not people outside the organization. Fabricating sources is unethical and can get a reporter terminated, ruining their career.

Where do we get our pitchforks and torches?

On the other hand, how many teams go through an NFL season injury free? Perhaps it isn't that there are injuries as much as there isn't the sort of roster depth to adequately compensate for the injuries that are, statistically-speaking, inevitable.

It's an opportunity cost, even if you don't like the individual player. Making holes in your line-up, scheming around them, losing individual battles, losing games, spending future draft pick(s), and all so as not to have to pay a player a "today" contract (where "today" is a bargain compared to any future top-paid contracts at the position) comparable to what he can get elsewhere.

In fact, they should pass a law that all employers can restrain the labor market whenever it's useful. I mean, if I have a key guy in my company, I don't want the competition to hire him away and it doesn't serve my stockholders' competitive advantage to pay him more.

They spent some big money to gear up for the Wannstedt philosophy to play defense behind a dominant front-4. The way it played out, it was like investing heavily in saddles a couple decades after everyone else in town is cruising around in their new Aventadors. PS: So the Bills have the second highest amount of dead money and yet are $25 million under the cap. http://forums.twobil...-under-the-cap/

Mark Anderson was a big, recent flush of cap money.

Well, they won the 2004-05 cup on my cousin's friend's Xbox. And, what of RG3? Is he on or off your board? Or would you pull the trigger on Trent Richardson to complement Locker?

Let's make up a hypothetical here. Let's pretend the Colts drafted Jake Locker in 2011 and still ended up with a top 5 draft pick in 2012. Would that mean Andrew Luck and RG3 are no longer on their draft board?

The thing is that Manuel is still unproven. Even if we don't agree with Tim Graham, what if he is right? What if Manuel regresses? What if Manuel slips on a rubber mat? Would a healthy Murray-look-alike be "useless" in the case Manuel bombs or can't go?

Right. Putting all your eggs in one unproven basket is what it is: a big risk. The question is can the Bills find a backup QB that is better than that 2-3 or whatever? Maybe even someone that can push the competition up a notch? And if so, how is that a "bad thing"? I get the "cheap" aspect, but the irony is the Bills paid Kolb more money than Manuel last year and got nothing out of it. But, that's the context again. If you have Jim Kelly as your QB, what you want in a backup QB is very different than if you have ? at QB and more ? as backups.

I don't really care how you want to partition it. You can call it 2-4 for the "backups" and 4-10 for the "starter" or quibble further. Like I already explained in the last post, this was not a shot at EJ Manuel despite what you may think. [And, yes, I realize that the thread is an EJ Manuel thread; hence, my attempt to make it clear.] It was pointing out the flawed logic using an anecdote in a different context. Here's another reason: if your "starter" is playing in at least 14 games a season, then your "backup" being .500 capable means you only lose 1 game per season with the "backup". On the other extreme, if your "starter" is only playing 2 games a year then you are losing 7 games per season with the "backup". So, the anecdote is nice, but meaningless. And, obviously, I disagree with it. At this point, the Bills do not have a proven commodity at QB and should not be settling for a backup QB situation that is a group that can go 2-4 or 2-5. The last thing this franchise needs is another coaching staff that treads water for 3 years at 6 or 7 wins and blow it all up again.

What? The math is pretty basic. You got 6 wins and 10 losses. Whaley said the backup was 2-3. That means the backup was .400. That also means there are 4 wins and 7 losses going to the starter. That's .364. BTW, I'm not really interested in quibbling about what's 4/11 or qualifiers. The point is that, while this is a nice name drop for John Butler, it is faulty logic. Having a backup that can go .500 is all well and good when he's backing up a guy that is a Hall of Famer and can take you to the Super Bowl every year. Having a backup that can get you to .500 when he is on par with (or possibly even better than) your starter, is a recipe for losing.

Looks like another moderator edited my post. No, I did not. I was using the numbers from the quote. 2 wins and 3 losses. That's 2/5 which is 0.4.

Well, when you're setting the low post with Muggsy Bogues and got AJ Burnett on the mound, anything can happen.

Somewhere, Al Davis is all smiles.