eSJayDee

Belinda? Seriously, I saw the game on TV so I don't really know, but it does appear that all WRs (EM, LE, JR, SA & BS) are getting on the field in roughly equal amounts, even in 2 WR sets.

Watching the game on tape & what I believe is our last possession of the 3rd qtr, the last play is a sack. (Wow, hard to believe, huh?) Anyway, my observation/comment is this - 4 man front, Jets send 6 or maybe only 5. The LDE & LOLB are coming in unimpeded, L.Smith 'pulls' from his LG position to pick of the innermost charging LDE, which still leaves the OLB w/ a clear shot at Bledsoe. (If there was a 6th rusher he comes up the left middle & is picked by the RB) Now what's worse than having Smith trying to peel out to pick up the DE, is that MW shifts to the inside & BLOCKS NO ONE ('cuz there's no one there). WTF?

You can add me to the list of silent minority that don't have an objection to the actual playcall. The way I look at it, there's probably 2 or 3 defenders that need to be fooled for it to work. Unlike w/ someone like Vick or JPL, if these guys aren't fooled, I assume there's next to zero chance that it'll succeed. If they are fooled (you gotta admit they probably weren't expecting it), I don't know. Could be an easy way to pick up 3 yards, maybe not. I do recall Manning (not exactly fleet of foot), burnt us for like 40 yards once, leaving the important party's completely fooled and flat footed.

Don't know whether you meant this as a serious question or more of a facetious comment, but I'll tackle it anyway. 1) At least speaking of myself, JPL is like 20 yrs younger & although probably not still growing, his bones aren't in the decay mode that mine are in. 2) Don't know whether there is a correlation or not, but I'd be willing to bet that he's one heck of a better genetic physical specimen than any of us. 3) He probably does get better medical care & rehab than any of us would. Also, possibly the goal of his treatment/rehab might be somewhat different. (i.e. going through the ordeal of having a plate installed & corresponding painful rehab as opposed to no urgency & letting it heal 'on its own'). 4) Finally, I can only assume that he's a far more dedicated and ambitious individual than most of us. Particularly w/ regards to his physical condition. This drive is what will make him more successful in his rehab.

Although I think that suggestion has a great deal of merit, I think one thing it has going against it is that we had so many screw-ups that the corresponding litany of excuses would take too long even given the extra time allocated to film study yesterday. Seriously, as a casual observer, I could come up w/ at least 20 (penalties, blown assignments). On top of that you'd have to include ever knows how many other things that aren't apparent to us and since some of them might involve miscommunication between players, substantial dialog might be involved.. Actually, let me reiterate that I think that it's a GREAT IDEA. Unfortunately, I doubt its feasibilty.

No. You need 3 solid corners for each game. Forget about injuries. On top of that, I think it would be tough both on TV as well as the rest of the 2ndary trying to make a transition like that mid-season. Just asking for trouble. (If we lost like 3 safeties that would be one thing, as it would probably be a better alternative to whoever we could pick up off the street, but that's it.)

YES!! He's our MVP & one of our best players. Also, it's indicative of the sad state our team is in when our punter is our most beloved player. (If it was the kicker, that'd be entirely different.

I think they made one step in the + direction, that is Evans a part of the offense. Shaw as the 3rd WR. JR stays on the bench. The 2nd thing I'd do is have TH & WM basically split time. TH can start, but have series where WM plays essentially the whole thing. See w/ whom we do better, the other one is relegated to 2nd string &/or spot duty. Unfortunately, I think we're stuck w/ Drew for a few weeks. Once JPL is healthy, I'd do the same w/ QBs as w/ the RBs. To heck w/ continuity. We're continuously inept. Another thing, not that it's a major problem, but Shelton shouldn't be on the field. Let Neufeld play FB when necessary or bring back Lawton.

I'm sure Leon Lett agrees w/ you. Actually, I don't know what should be the correct or fair thing to do. I admit it's kinda harsh in this instance to totally lose possession but then again if you just awarded the ball back to the team w/ last possession, I can see the potential for some abuses.

I ditto these sentiments. Was particularly surprised that he didn't make our practice squad. From my rather untrained eye, he was the most impressive of our FBs in PS.

Actually, FWIW I'm pretty sure Fergy started every game. It was his job to hand the ball to OJ or the FB (who together racked up almost 1000 yds to go w/ OJ's 2003). When it was necessary to throw more than 20% of the time, that was when Fergy was benched in favor of Shaw.

Actually, I don't think he did. IIRC, he took over for Arians w/ only a few games left, consequently he didn't get enough tries to make an accurate assessment. We let him go at the end of the year. Also, again IIRC, he didn't have a very strong leg.

I can think of a couple of relevant issues, both time related. As someone said (I think Stevestojan but the post reviews don't go back that far) DB & Co. have only had 2 real weeks in THIS system. To pull the plug at this juncture would be hasty. Further, SM has only been in town a few weeks. This put him considerably further behind DB in understanding the offense. If we continue to flounder on offense, in my opinion, by the time it would be appropriate to making a change, we'd hopefully have JPL available.

One thing I'd like to add w/ respect to mobile QBs & why they get sacked more frequently. In some instances, instead of throwing a ball away (or trying to force it somewhere), they opt instead to scramble. In some instances, the successful scramble results in them taking off & running for + yardage. In other cases, they are able to buy time so as to throw a better pass, However, a certain amount of time they will be unsuccessful in eluding the rush which will result in a sack whereas someone like a Marino or Manning would have throw the ball already. Someone above made the very valid point that some of those sacks are results of them scrambling OB behind the LOS (a la RJ); something that a less mobile QB would not be able to do. (Bear in mind, that if someone big & fast is chasing you, it's easier & more importantly SAFER, to continue to run toward OB than to slow down to throw a pass.) But basically my point is that for every scramble opportunity a QB takes relative to immediately throwing the ball, X % will result in a run, but Y will result in an otherwise not occurring sack. (note that X + Y <> 1.0) Also, BTW, I recall that Randall Cunningham was one of the most sacked QBs. He was pretty mobile.

Wow, hard, I mean difficult to believe. Heck, I was a punter & I wore one. In fact, I think it might have been bigger than my shoulder pads It felt awkward, but I don't think it was hampering. Would think it would be the same for running - uncomfortable but not detrimental to speed. I rather have minor discomfort for a whole game than a few minutes of severe , ah, discomfort. Tell you what - I'm definitely gonna think differently about all the 'nasty stuff' that goes on scrumming for a loose fumble.

Be forewarned: I had a rule book until the dog ate most of it (I now have about 1/3 of the rules.) 1st, the book is written in a very convoluted fashion. For instance, unless you were VERY familiar w/ the book, I bet you'd spend 30 minutes trying to figure if we were entitled to a safety or not. The other problem, at least when I got one a feww years ago, is that by the time you get the book, the rules have changed. It's probably the case that the most current rules available to the general public were those implemented for the 2002 season. They change the rules slightly every year & I'm pretty certain that you're not gonna get the 2004 rules. That being said, it is still worthwhile to satiate your curiousity. For instance, what prompted my purchasing this book was there was this rather controversial call pertaining to whether or not a pass was forward or not

Rich Gannon seems to be doing quite well. He's like what, 5 yrs DBs senior. Let's not even bring up old man midget.

When I 1st read the post title, I thought you were being facetious, but under the assumption that you seriously think that (if not then fools on me) let me defend. He's had what, like 10 punts? That means that every 10 yds of a punt changes his avg 1 yd. So if he had 1 bad punt (which he had at least 1 vs Raiders), that costs his avg 2 yds. If he's called upon to pooch punt more than usual, that can easily cost another yd. Considering he's only had like 10 punts, the #s just aren't statistically relevant. Just 20 or 30 yds in total distance could easily move him up or down 10 places in the rankings. See where he ranks after a few more games. For that matter, didn't he avg like 44 . something the 1st game? So he had 1 subpar game. He's one of our best players. For that matter, he is undisputably our best passer!

Not as well. Seriously, w/ the exception of assigning a 'spy' to him, just the same as Drew. Blitz and try to confuse him & the blockers (including mixing and concealing coverages).

Geez, I remember Newman use to run over 300 lb guards! Unfortunate, that was some wasted talent.

What, you mean ESR, the Entirely Sabres Network? I guess it's unfortunate for us out-of-towners that they're in such poor shape financially. Granted, I have a very biased perspective, but I would think that the out-of-town market for Bills news that they capture is far greater than local interest in say girls high school lacrosse and this is what they should try to concentrate on both in contentl & advertising.

YES Cordless & optical is the way to go. The one drawback is that they go through batteries like nobodies business. They unfortunately give little warning that they're about to die. The solution is to use 2 sets of rechargables & have the one set ready to replace the ones that will wear out in 2 or 3 weeks.

Well, 1st of all let's hope we're only like 1-5 instead of 2-10 when JPL is back. At which point, if our offensive production is still offensive, DB is on a short leash & yes, I'd like to see what JPL can do.

There's a 1st time for everything. What about when they 1st started to go w/ only 1 RB, opting instead for a 3rd WR or TE. Only using 3 DL. I could go on. The game evolves. Off the top of my head, I recall us using Jamie Mueller, a FB. Basically the same principle. For that matter, does it really matter where he lines up? I'm assuming the design is for him to be the escort. Last year we had Brown take like 90% of the returns. Presumably, we just used 2 'wings' back there. This year, we only have 1. It only makes sense that he's therefore responislbe for covering more ground. Of all the screw-ups we've seen it the 1st 2 games, having someone who appears to be doing a good job in position to makes plays certainly is well down the list of things that need improvement.

"Well, coincidentally, this is also the position I'm in when my alarm clock goes off in the morning"