Hplarrm

I have a question for you since you seem to be thoughtful and well researched on this. My contention on the Toronto versus Buffalo question is that for the NFL the clear choice is both. The Buffalo Bills are a known and already captured asst. If the franchise moves then the NFL is simply walking away from roughly 45,000 season ticket purchasers, several million dollars in local and collaborative business partners, 10s of millions of dollars in tax payer subsidies Erie County is paying, and likely myriad other assets the NFL and the Bills owner is simply abandoning. This is being done by the Toronto group and JBJ based on the hope and likelihood that all of these assets can be captured and then some in Toronto. The Bills actually did struggle to sell tickets during its recent test period, but my sense is with a true Canadian permanent franchise and better pricing that a Toronto franchise would be more remunerative than the Bills. However, it seems clear to me: 1. The NFL is far from maxed out in the # of franchises it can have and has spoken of a plan to somehow spread the league to new markets. 2. Toronto is an obvious place to add a franchise, but given its population size and the number of Canadian corporate HQs that Toronto can easily maintain its own franchise and in fact still have the Bills continue to attract southern Ontario while the Toronto franchise find followers to keep it going. 3. the fact of existence of the Sabres and the Maple Leafs demonstrates that while hockey and football are different sports and businesses to not recognize that they cannot be simply compared, still it is possible for two major league sports franchises to survive and prosper in the area. In fact, the Sabres and the Leafs do not do some things to encourage and profit from rivalry between the two entities. My sense is that it would be stupid for the NFL to throw away the significant profit it gets from Buffalo when it is simply a false choice that one needs to throw away Buffalo income to obtain Toronto income.

my sense is that quite frankly on is simply spinning the wheel no matter what one does at QB. For years I ranted and raved against taking a QB in the first round because for over a decade no 1st round choice won an SB for the team that drafted him in the 1st round. Dallas picked Aikman in the 1st late in the 70s and he delivered SB wins for Dallas. However, it took until Rothensberger won an SB for the team which drafted hm. I abandoned this argument when the facts changed (even the Peyton Manning 1st round pick paid off with an SB win the next year), but the factual evidence remained the same. Through the early 2000s when the game changed to allow young QBs to win it all, it was fine to get a 1st rd talent but there were lots of ways besides drafting them in the 1st to draft Tom Brady in the 6th, get a UDFA like Warner, trade for Elway, get a two-time loser like Brad Johnson or a 1st rd failure like Dilfer to QB your team to an SB win! There were far too many Akili Smiths and a Ryan Leaf for every Peyton Manning to bank on spinning the wheel correctly with a 1st round QB pick. My sense is that the game has changed with a bit more opportunity for pro style training for collegians, more willingness to adapt pro offenses to fit the skills of a Russel Wilson or Kapernick, and refs doing a lot to protect high profile QBs like brady that picking a youngster like a Eli Manning can payoff quicker than before that particularly under the clearer cost controls of the new salary/draft pick system picking a QB with a 1st can make sense. Still however, I think the reality is that as necessary as it is to have a quality QB it is far from sufficient. Even though the QB is of great importance simply because he handles the ball so much and is the initiator of most offensive plays, still the best TEAMs are that due to the the shared contributions of non-QBs such as Ray Lewis, Polamalu, etc. I think one can get a QB who is necessarily good enough from ample sources (mid to late round picks, trade, FAs and a key to winning is that it is also essential to build a quality TEAM. For QBs I am looking for: 1. My starter- must be a very good player, but can be found with drafting Wilson in the3rd more easily than drafting a Manning in the 1st. Even a Manning can be found amidst the FAs and trade if you want to find them and doing that is a more likely strategy than drafting RJ in the first. 2. My back-up- I hope to find someone in the Frank Reich mode whom I do not demand that I be lucky enough to only have to have him win a max of 3 starts. Even this is tough to find I am satisfied if my back-up does not have any starter chops but at least can come in credibly in mid-game and give the Bills a chance to win or be a guy who can give my starting QB a blow if needed (AVP is this type- cannot start but great as a fillin. 3. Development project

The big advantage which Watkins appears to bring is that it sounds like his diverse talents simply demand a double-team. What this means is: 1. When the Bills line up in a standard set (Spiller and Jax at RB, Watkins split wide and Woods on the other side probably the TE or strong sideside ) the opponents need to make a choice about committing a a safety toward the Watkins side. Watkins job is likely to immediately get separation from the CB who is likely on top of him and force the safety to concentrate on him The Bills now can do a lot of work on the other side of field ranging from a hand-off to Spiller or Jax who pick a hole made by us really having an extra blocker at the point of attack or even better, have the RB (particularly Spiller) cutback and really have one tackler to beat as Watkins has drawn two players down field to dt him. Manual has a pretty easy read to make as he simply has to judge which way the free safety dting Watkins is leaning outside (to get Watkins if he is gets good separation on the CB likely doing press coverage) or inside to be there to support run stopping if Jax or Spiller runs inside. If the safety cheats in, the Watkins and Manual make the simple read and Watkins does a fly pattern aganst one-on-one coverage. If the safety is cheating outside the hand the ball off to an RB who is running toward Woods side. There are lots of other options created with Chandler or the TE working as far downfield as they can depending on the quality of coverage of the strongside LB (Chandler almost never likely sees safety coverage as the opposing safeties have their hands full with the Watkins dt or run support and he is a big boy anyway). Even better, as Spiller has wideout potential, and Jax game is all around runner and pass catcher, the Bills can either run a standard set (2 RBs and a likely run) or even run an empty backfield with both Spiller and Jax split out. If this is the set-up then Manual/WR need merely read who is the worst cover guy in our 5 wide set-up and Manual throws to the guy he thinks will most easily beat his cover guy off the line. I like what I see from Watkins skill set.

Some get confused it seems because they see the truth that the NFL always does what the market says because that is how they make the most money. However, many fail to understand that the market is not primarily the local gate, but the market is the TV audience which provides 2/3 of the cash the NFL takes in. The NFL has been going through changes since the days of Art Modell when an owner could simply take his team wherever he (or Georgia Frontiere)wanted but now all the individual teams have contractually agreed that they will not override the fiscal interests of their partner owners for their own benefit. The Bills are worth more to the rest of the league allowing them to sell membership in a club with an original AFL team than sell new franchises to join a club which is running away from its past. Even worse. Ralph has done us the favor of setting this up so any new team owner will have to commit to remaining in Buffalo or endure up to 7 years of death march as we Bills fans whine about losing our team and launch protests like the empty seat protest suggested here. Do you really think that the new Bills owners will be a Toronto group which simply lies to their new partners, lie to the people of and then zip out of town (probably under cover of night) to set up shop in Toronto. This would be the worst possible advertising for the true NFL market which pays the bucksto the NFL, the TV networks. I really doubt the team leaves as this would be walking away from 45,000 folks who spend real dollars for their season tickets, another 25,000 folks who will buy tickets for a winning team, all the business relationships with local advertisers and 100s of millions in taxpayer subsidies for the potential (good but not certain) of marginally bigger $ in Toronto. Aqain, given a choice between making a lot of money(from Buffalo) or even more money (from Toronto) the NFL will actually choose both. They do not need to choose between the two as arguably the Toronto population based and # of corporate HQs is more like NYC in population and corporate HQs than Buffalo. Toronto might be able to support 2 teams on their own and dividing the Greater Toronto Area market into two between the Bills and a Toronto team probably makes sense. It actually takes more time to drive to Toronto and park from Hamilton, ON than it takes to drive to Orchard Park. The Bills ain't going nowhere. The NFL does not like to walk away from money (ask the Cleveland Browns and the Baltimore Ravens or even the Houstin Texans).

Actually, I think the opposite argument from your view better fits the facts. Rather not meriting a slot on any other team's roster, Lewis has made the rosters of not only the Bills but 2 other NFL teams in his brief career. Rather than making the false claim he would not be on anyone's roster, Lewis is better seen as a journeyman who might be on anyone's roster as a back-up but pretty clearly is not a starter anywhere. Like it or not he did QB the team to two victories last year and even if they were both against the hated fish, he won a game for this team on the road. This is simply more than can be said of many #2 QBs in the league and he easily could be on the roster of many teams and in fact has been on three rosters in the recent past.

Overall, I think the answer to this question lies in what we want from a back-up QB. first off. I think our demands of the back-up QB are pretty limited. Our # 2 QB will need to: 1. Be able to step into a game and be ready to be productive immediately. The Bills model for this was AVP who several times came off the bench to lead the team to a TD (against Pitt in a playoff game and then Kelly who had needed help getting to the locker room actually re-entered the game after getting cortisone or some upper, against Oak, TC got knocked out and AVP almost pulled a win out of his hat as the Raiders letdown their guard having knocked out or starting QB, against Miami AVP led the team to a gamewinning FG), This is the minimum we want from a #2, but in a better world we hope he is more of a Frank Reich quality able to credibly start up to 3 games if the #1 goes down. However, if anyone expects our #2 to step in and lead the team to the plyoffs if Manuel goes down or simply disappoints your expectations are way too high. Its either Manual or bust for QB this year. Of the two, Lewis has proved he is capable of leading his team to a sub victory. Tuel may have upside and should get a good look but he sucked in his shot last year and we'll see about #2 for this year.

Word from outside observers are: 1. He has demonstrated an ability to get fast separation from opposing coverage guys. One of the things which allowed Stevie Johnson to make the production he accomplished here of multiple 1000 yard seasons was his difficult to measure ability to get separation. Watkins also apparently has that ability. 1a. I was actually quite impressed with comments he made in a recent Peter King article where he talked about how he varies his method of starting out a route to produce this separation. He seems to be thoughtful about making an effort to get an opposing DB to adopt a pattern of covering him tight but he then runs a stop and go or to when the opponent gives him space he then is more likely to fake the fly but turn the route in. He will need to develop chemistry with Manual so they make the same read. 2. He has shown very good hands so far in practice making one handed grabs routinely 3. He has also apparently shown an excellent sense of timing going up well for the ball and making the top of his jump coincide with arrival of the ball. Even though he may be shorter than the gargantuan player he demonstrated an ability in college to make plays. These are all aspects which make him special apparently that may not be reflected in the measurements you mentioned.

I think you are WRONG if you have made the conclusion that it will be decided by the Toronto group where the team will be located. From what I see, many of us are making the assumption that the rich individual that owns the team rules and can make the determination virtually on their own where the team is based. It is understandable that someone draws this conclusion because this was the way the NFL operated primarily back in the day of George Halas. However, this ain't your Grandma's NFL anymore. Since the day Pete Rozelle was hired to run the NFL and publicly began to lead the NFL toward a world where each individual owner has realized (and has voted accordingly)that they own and produce the product they sell together and that taking the advantage of their individual control would actually produce less profit for them. I think the key episodes were: through the mid-80s- The NFL (and many major sports) were producing money hand over fist as the growth of TV changed the market teams were profiting from local appeal and ticket sales to a national (and potentially becoming international) market. As individual player notoriety grew and the NFLPA became more organized, the NFLPA engaged traditional AFL-CIO leadership in an attempt mano a mano threaten a post regular season strike which would see the players having collected all their per game salary but the owners not having collected their playoff game linked payments from the TV nets. mid-80s job action- In what turned out to be a last gasp for conventional individual capitalism, the team owners simply beat the crap out of the plodding AFL-CIO style leadership by locking the players out before they got their per game pay checks. The owners instead brought in "replacement" players and the public remained interested enuf (the play level definitely dropped, but not so much that it wasn't interesting to stare at like a car crash on the highway for a few weeks) and without individual paychex the NFLPA crumbled as enuf high paid players crossed the line. late-80s- however, once the AFL-CIO style leadership collapsed, a few of the players were smart enuf (like Gene Upshaw) to ally with some smart NYC lawyers and amid the heap of the collapsed union got enough of the savvy players to agree to threaten the NFL owners with decertifying the union. This would have forced the NFL team owners to actually operate and individual teams to compete with each other signing individual players to personal service contracts. Under a total free market system, the owner able to attract the best players (usually the highest bidder)would build the best team. Howe4ver the ultimate result of such a free market would be difficult to predict at best and would depend on a chunk of teams being bad at building teams and going out of business. A total free market in theory in forcing teams to get better (invest more)would produce the best teams. However, interestingly it is doubtful that a total free market would produce the highest profits or greater team stability for individual teams (the TV nets are most willing to invest big bucks for a stable marketplace). Afraid of the uncertainty caused by a real free market, the team owners instead were more than willing to form a partnership with the NFLPA reflected in a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA. All in all the individual owners recognized that they would make more $ in a system depending on a social compact than they would in a free market system. mid 00s- The CBA came up for revision and things had progressed enuf that even before negotiations, Upshaw announced that the final agreement must give the players over 605 of the total NFL take. It did. The key point of all this is that in the new NFL the players are the majority partners and the partnership dictates results over individual team desires. It does not matter what the owners want in terms of location, it matters what the NFL as a whole wants. My guess is if the NFL wants the Bills in Buffalo then the team will remain here

My sense is that the one thing which is usually true about the NFL is that the owners will do the thing which makes them the most money. In that light the answer to the question of whether the NFL wants either the potential of huge $ with a Toronto franchise or still big but smaller market of a Buffalo franchise, the clear NFL answer will be: why choose, we want both! The question really is whether the NFL could have working and profitinhg franchises in both places before they would have to pick and choose between the two. My sense is: 1 Toronto is a huge metropolitan area In 2010 its population was a shade over 6 million and it has only grown. The actual real question is whether Toronto is really more like NYC and theoretically could support two franchises. Given the precense of corporate HQs I think it might flat out and that actually an approach which took advantage of the existing ties the Bills have would make a standard Toronto franchise and the Bills still exploiting a southern ON market would make this the approach to take. 2. It is my sense that the NFL is all about exploiting the marketplace and the market is defined by where the money comes from. The actual NFL market is simply not a combination of the individual franchises. Actually 2/3 of the NFL gross receipts come from the TV networks not from individual franchise ticket sales or marketing. The real future money for the individual current teams is not that team's 1/32nd of the new Toronto franchises but instead their portion of the of the tv money adding several franchises an expanded league with teams in Toronto, Mexico City, Stuttgart and even Tokyo and Bejing would bring. The NFL will lean toward being able to sell joining a partnership with an original AFL city like Buffalo. 3. The current Bill take is smaller in Buffalo than the potential of Toronto, but my sense is that the default would be not to throw away 45,000 existing ticket base. The NFL would want to both. The Leafs/Bills existence both. 4. The NFL is really just an entertainment story. It would be such a sad story of Buffalo losing the Bills that it seems doubtful the NFL would subject themselves to the sad deathwatch of several years while the Bills leave. This will not be good commercials for getting new municipalities to embrace new teams. 5. My sense is that what JBJ really wants is to own a team, he does not need that team to be in Toronto. It would not surprise me if he is taking a run at the Bills because even if the bid fails it is good for him to take a run at assembling the bid. 4.

Also, as big a priority as his level of play is do not get hurt.

I think you are actually posing a chicken/egg quandary in that you must have a chicken in order tolay eggs, but you also needs eggs to hatch to become chickens. Which comes first? Its generally an insolvable problem if one is forced to reply using mere logic. The game is played on the field and simply how this oddly shaped bounces is ultimately gonna determine whether EJ is a success or not. He is good but not great is gonna betold. My sense is that Manual is a good player but not great. However, good will be more than enough if the TEAM plays well enough around him. If CJ and Jax continue not only to be the productive runners they have been but actually elevate their production because of better OL play (I like the addition of 1st round level talents like Cujo and Seantral then EJ will have easier throws to make and he can make them and then be perceived as great. If Watkins does succeed in getting the separation his talent seems to indicate, simply being a good but not great QB should be enuf for the Bills. If instead we must rely on EJ being the next coming of Marino or the next Peyton Manning then forgit about it. Ironically even were to be as good as Manning he would only have 1 SB to his name or if he is Marion he easily could have 1. The team comes first in my mind and I hope they make EJ great.

Many thanks for this post. For those of us not able to attend, this piece provides some good observer presentations (how Watkins looked, but more important why he looked good - getting immediate separation- and better reporting getting a quote from Watkins about what he was trying to do which explained why he was getting good separation). I also liked the reporting as to Spikes showing great motivation. King's views about what the true challenge for the 2013 Bills to become a better 2014 Bills also seemed to be a sound analysis. The challenges facing a team which is without 3 of its starting 11 on D (particularly when 2 of these three were Pro Bowl quality players) is a fundamental challenge when the team uses virtually all of its draft picks on O players. I wish the article went into more detail about these specific challenges. The article leaves me with these questions as hopes: 1. I actually feel pretty good about the DBs even with the loss of Pro Bowl talent Byrd. I feel good enuf cause: A. I think we should be good at safety with Aaron Williams demonstrating with his play he may be ready to step up his game and also Searcy/Williams are not certain starters but not unreasonable to hope for more. I loved hearing his observation Gilmore's good play stood out. B. However. I have great and potentially fatal questions about potential concerns about our DL without Dareus. C. Our depleted LB corps really needs 3 Pro Bowl quality DL players to do well at LB and DB. King does make me feel hopeful about the role Spikes might play to lead/force his D colleagues to be better players. We need Spikes to play the motivator role Ray Lewis played for the Ravens. 2. You gotta love the fans!

Why do you want to make it mandatory? If you think that that such a dictate is going to make it more likely that a player like Dareus or Mike Williams comes to camp being a lean mean fighting machine I doubt a contractual mandate will succeed in reaching this goal as other issues (Williams seemed to be a more tender person than the Bills concluded and the death of the grandmother who had actually raised him like a mother seemed to drive his meltdown. A mere contractual mandate would almost certainly have done little to change him into being a responsible person. Likewise Dareus whose inter personal drama seems to be driven by substance abuse. Logic seems to be way down the list as a motivator for these men/boys so if you want to succeed in getting different results I think relying on logic of greater simple fiscal punishment MIGHT make a marginal difference in performance here but these problems seem a bit beyond logic. Perhaps such a mandate would make it easier for a team to simply walk a way from a player, but actually I think a clearer measurable mandate might simply fall into the hands of the self-obsessed player. If the Bills were in fact to cut Dareus right now it would be a great fiscal reward for him. If I was Dareus and you suddenly made him a free agent as a recent pro Bowler, he would score big time. He would get to choose where he wanted to play. Violating the mandate would likely make it tougher for him for a team to roll open the bank vault for him in a signing bonus, but he would likely score an even bigger contingency in his new contract which would further mandate he play to pay. However, his new team would benefit from him actually meeting a mandate and the Bills would simply get nothing for providing him with a object lesson. The Bills and the rest of the NFL simply need to be adults in dealing with these talented men/boys and not really rely on some one size fits all mandate which makes it easier for them to make a bad draft choice and escape salary cap punishment for this bad choice by the team.

I think the real question is not should they but instead WILL the NFL expand? The answer to that question is unequivocally YES! This true for several reasons: 1. The current NFL team owners will make (and actually maximize the money they get by expanding the league. The more eyeballs that watch the more commercials get sold and the NFL collects more $ gfvrom by far their largest cash source the TV nets. The NFL wants the game in Mexico City, in South America and actually in different timezones like Europe and even the big kahuna China wiith its a brning free market. 2. The reality in life is that if one does not grow one dies. The goal of the NFL is to remain the $1 sport in America and to try to rival soccer as the #1 sport in the world. The NFL may not make it to command more eyeballs than soccer but does anyone out there think the NFL plan is to try to be #2.

Why cut any of the three? One knows that contractually you likely want to make a choice after the regular season to lay out the bucks from 2 of3. Your decision is gonna be based on unknowns like who gets slowed by injuries and in CJ and Jax's case how does Brown. There is a ton of good info you get by keeping them, and there is no contractual reason to panic and cut one right now.

The thing which will determine who gets the bulk of the plays or even who leads the team in running yds, but actually, my expectation is that CJ and Jax will remain #1 and 1A. Brown will see the bulk of the time because he actually has the most to learn about being a Bill and most important CJ and Jax are gonna be saved for real games. It seems a near certainty that either CJ or Jax is gonna get slowed by the not atypical nick during regular play and at that point (it is to be hoped it never happens) then Brown really plays. My guess is that we a lot of Brown actually as he has the most to learn about the Bills O. CJ and Jax will see some time but probably not as much as Brown, however, because CJ and Jax are likely to be coddled Brown gets the bulk of the work but sits when the #1 and #@ are named. The fight for the remaining (possibly 2 but unlikely) is actually gonna best play or Summers adding red zone versatility and not running yardage at all. ST play and blitz pick-up ability will say a lot more about who stays after the 1st 3 than their time running the ball. Just like 3 or so years ago when someone whose name I forget was a UDFA who led the team in pre-season rushing yds, but much to the surprise of many of us outside observers, he got cut. Who gets the bulk of the running plays may be an indicator that player gets cut.

one of my favorite retorts tries to make a case that Sherman earns twice as much as the combined salaries of two CBs from the old days offered up as better CBs. Yeah right. The higher pay of Sherman (and any other modern player) says a lot more about the skill and intelligence of NFLPA ED and the smart lawyers he an the other player leaders hired than it says about the quality of play by Sherman.

42!

OK godloss it is.

Actually there is a pretty clear history of athletes having undeniable Olympic speed but they were disappointing football players. Even the best achievers among players with Olympic speed, Renaldo Nehemiah and Willie Gault were in the end disappointments as football players as their NFL dominance never matched their track performance. I actually feel better about Godwin showing success in field events as his medal ability as a jumper than if he merely showed sprinter speed. He appears more likely to be able to elevate for catches than a "mere" sprinter. However all these undeniable athletic accomplishments do not speak to whatever success he might have pulling in a catch or getting up from taking (making) a big hit.

I think the important thing about this decision would be for the coaching staff to understand that what should dictate how much he plays is reality and NOT some best guess (at best) which I declared at this point. the real answer is that EJ should start enough to enhance his chemistry playing with other Bills (particularly the WRs) and to give him more looks at NFL opponents D looking over the center's butt. However, the Bills should be judicious in exposing any star players to risk of injury or overuse. This actually will vary not only from game to game, but play to play. I have little interest in seeing EJ used late in a pre-season game or even after a first successful drive to win a pre-season game. If he and his teammates are doing well in practice and the team is successful in an initial drive under EJ then its fine with me to sit him. Why would anyone insist on playing him if there is clear evidence that he and his teammates have chemistry and he has command of the O. I doubt that will happen without some pre-season play in a few games, but does anyone really insist that he play without regard to reality?

The question actually may not be whether Kiko would win games for us (you are probably right he wouldn't win any on his lonsome. The question more likely is whether a lesser player like Bradham lose for us? It would be stupid to simply give up after losing one guy but this ain't good.

Again, its not simply about punt ability. One of the biggest contributions Moorman made to putting actual points on the board was Morman's partnership with Carpenter. Moorman was nearly flawless in fielding sometimes pretty errant long snaps in rude Buffalo weather and getting the ball set for PK. Part of the reason there is little competition for Mormann is the Bills do not want to risk something that works well for putting points on the board for a team which had to settle for FGs too often.

I think your judgment of Welker is overated. First, lets see if in fact he finishes in the top 10 recievers before we declare that he is in the top 10- Particularly in today's NFL where a player can be a concussion away from ending his production, giving him that accolade so prematurely defines overrating. Besides even if he were to finish in the top 10 for receptions look at the wait which Reed had to bear before he got voted in the HoF and he finished at #3 when his career ended. Not only has Welker not finished his career in the top 10 yet, but even if he is lucky enough to log in at #7 or #8 he likely will equal the judgment HoF folks make of Tasker of always the bridesmaid and never a bride. You also seem to demonstrate a lack of knowledge about reality with the claim it was an offhand comment by Kelly which is the basis for Tasker's fame. He did change the game in several specific ways. 1. In general, a coaching staff did not spend any time gameplanning for an ST player (unless it was for something like kick the ball away from Hester or Deion) but what Tasker bought to the game was that he was such a good gunner, opposing teams began to assign two blockers to him. He changed the gamplanning. 2. One of the most impressive things about Tasker's play is actually seen in the statistical evidence of ST accomplishment by Mark Pike. Pike was just another good but OK player til he teamed up with Taker, but what happened when Tasker began to draw attention like having two players assigned to him, this I,proved the game of folks like Pike. Tasker gets a lot of credit not only for his play but for demonstrably improving the tackle total of teammates like Pike. 3. One of the key examples of changing the game was that when other teams began taking steps like assigining two players to block him as gunner, Tasker responded by going out of bounds to get down the field but was quick and savvy enough to run down unimpeded (he would go out on the Bills side) to get back onto the field and make the tackle. Tasker not only changed games he was in (ala your Hester observation) but he also changed games he was not in as the NFL was forced by his innovation to change the rules and ban players from going off field to get downfield. You sing Hesters' (and also Welker in your overrating of him) but can you site an example of how either player changed games they were not even in? 4. Finally, also remember that in Canton it is not simply the Hall of PLAY but it is also the Hall of Fame. Tasker will get credit from the voters not just for his game changing ST play but also my sense is that he continues to build his FAME through being a constant now as a color-guy and booth analyst on TV. I know that there are those who only want to think about on field play, and this is certainly a legitimate point of discussion. However, it is simply incorrect for anyone to think about whether a player gets into the HoF has only to do with player production and nothing to do with the abstract non-objective of fame. Ironically, I think that Tasker will join Reed, Kelly. TT. Smith and even Lofton in the HoF eventually because of every hand he shakes when he travels from NFL town to town each week. If Welker is lucky and does not get hurt and follows his version of cultivating his fame after he retires then others may overate him a much as you do and he will get in the HoF.