Last Guy on the Bench

I call BS on your complete reversal of the thread's premise (no offense). The premise of this thread isn't that we shouldn't put the best 11 on the field. Quite the opposite. I just don't get how Robey has fallen in the pecking order (if he has) BEFORE his competition (Brooks, Graham, Cockrell) has had a chance to show anything. It's a weird move to me. But of course, if there are other people that turn out to be better than Robey, they should play.

Dude, what else am I supposed to do in May? The World Cup doesn't start for two weeks.

I've been wondering why Robey seems to be rotating in so late, according to OTA reports. Joe B. is wondering the same thing: http://www.wgr550.co...4669?pid=405020 I confess that one of my biggest worries about the team is that Schwartz will reconstruct the defense according to his preconceived ideas. Couldn't really blame him, but it will still suck. Last years defense was dangerous and fun to watch for the first time in a decade, and I loved every minute of it. And Robey really stood out. He's a playmaker. In one year, as a UDFA, he cracked my top three or four current favorite Bills to watch. I hope they are not going to limit his playing time because of size or scheme fit. If he doesn't fit the scheme, adjust your bloody scheme. There is no universe in which Ron Brooks deserves to be playing ahead of Robey. The same likely holds for Graham and Cockrell, but we'll have to see about that. Free Nickell!

Quite right. Good call. The Rams were always in the mix.

Here's another vote for the 1970s. The hairdos alone would seal it for me. Plus the rise of TV and Monday Night Football with Howard Cosell. The Steelers/Raiders/Dolphins/Cowboys of that era are all time teams. And so are the VIkings to me. The Purple People Eaters - Alan Page and Carl Eller. Fran Tarkenton (favorite player as a kid), Chuck Foreman, Ahmad Rashad, Sammy White. Four Super Bowls no wins (an obvious mark of greatness). The OJ years for the Bills. It was an era that combined the tough play of the 50s/60s with hints of the aerial ballet that would emerge in the 80s/90s. A beautiful hybrid.

Sammy in high school:

I was just about to post that quote myself. It's amazing. Very Churchillian.

This is just highlights, so it is deceptive, but he really works through the trash and is a good tackler. There are a lot of pretty impressive plays in this.

Fair enough. I'm not saying he's Bruce, by any stretch. Just challenging the idea that a great DE doesn't win games. A great DE does win games. Not as many as a great QB to be sure. I do agree that that price is too steep. But I'm not as outraged about it as most. If you love the guy, and you're right, and get a 10 year all pro and HOFer, what then? (Again, no idea if Clowney could be that or not.) Would I give up Whitner, Maybin, Troupe, Hardy, and TJ Graham for that? Um, yeah. Would I give up Gilmore, Dareus, A. Williams, Glenn, and Goodwin for that? Maybe not, but I would think about it. For me it is less about the price than about how sold you are on the guy's potential greatness. If the Bills LOVE Clowney it is not an insane price (though loving Clowney might be insane - we'll see).

Bruce Smith disagrees. In all seriousness, I am agnostic on a move like this. I think people are too fearful and a little bit delusional about the value of draft picks. On the other hand, you never know if the guy you are moving up for will really work out. I think the idea that a move like this would doom the franchise for years is overblown, though. Teams survive crappy draft picks, so teams can survive giving away a few. And anyway, we've already been doomed for years. The last time we made the playoffs I was in my youth (ish).

These are my concerns too. I would love Donald. I think he has a very high floor (at worst he is going to be a solid, long-term pro) and a pretty sweet ceiling (difference maker, perennial pro-bowler). Great character. Great production. Great speed/strength measurables. I don't think he'll be there at 9, though. I could see several of the teams ahead of us grabbing him, or someone trading up with Oakland/Tampa/Minnesota. If he does happen to be there at 9, I would take him, but I think we would also be in prime position to trade down with someone like Chicago or Dallas.

I think the Falcons hunting down Julio Jones worked out well. They had a down year, last year, but I expect them to bounce back. I also think that the jury is still out on Washington with RG III. Looked like a great move year one. Last year struggled with injuries, etc. But he still may turn out to be a franchise guy. I agree that it is a big roll of the dice and probably works out less often than not. But I wouldn't say it is a guaranteed loser move. Also, how many times do teams blow the picks they could have traded on guys that don't work out anyway?

Awesome answer. I love the idea of having an old game on while you're puttering around the house. I am not a nostalgic person by nature, but I do get a little nostalgic over old Bills teams. Don't have the DVDs unfortunately. I do re-watch lots of games online, however. Old ones on Youtube when available. Newer ones on Game Pass (essentially Game Rewind plus Sunday Ticket for those of us out of the country - best thing in the history of everything ever). I watch in different ways. Sometimes I just want a fix during the offseason. Sometimes I do want to perk myself up, as with your EJ example. Sometimes I will just watch certain players or positions that I usually overlook. It's a good way to educate myself a little more. Lately, I've found myself watching the linebackers. It is striking how different the game looks when you focus on positions away from the ball. I do have a tough time re-watching losses, though I will do it if they played well (e.g., first New England game and KC games from last year). It is still kind of depressing, though, when I know the gut punch is coming at the end. The wins I can watch over and over again - especially the blowouts with lots of scoring (not many of those this past decade) or the ones with great finishes. Too much time?? Ha. I love it.

The great Wesley Morris didn't think much of it either. http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/political-footballs-draft-day-the-unknown-known-and-rio-2/ Sounds awful. (I'll still watch it, though, because . . . um . . . it's about the draft!)

You are probably right. I love this stupid team so much for some reason. Maybe even Trump couldn't change that. However, IF they had to move, I would actually like to see them in Toronto and I'm sure I would still root for them there. I love Canada. And the general Lake Ontario region still feels like home to me, so the team would keep some of the geographic connection in my mind. (Keep your pitchforks in the shed. I'm NOT saying I want them to move to Toronto. Just that if they had to move, that would be my first choice.)

None taken. But that's not what I said. I said personally I couldn't cheer for a Trump-owned team, whereas I could cheer for a re-located Bills team under certain conditions. If you asked me, however, if I were given the choice in some magical universe, would I rather have Trump buy the Bills and keep them in Buffalo or have someone else buy them and move, I would pick Trump, because of what the team means to Western New York, where I grew up. But I would be making that choice based on community interest, not from my own personal rooting interest. I root for the Bills for fun, and like many people on this board, I spend a LOT of time doing it. I wouldn't have fun if Trump were the owner, so I think I would turn my attention elsewhere. Of course, it is also possible that I am wrong, and that my 30-year love affair with the team would prevail, even over Trump. Maybe I just can't quit them, who can say? When I started muttering over the laptop about abandoning the team if Trump ever bought it, my wife said she hoped he did buy it in that case. (She took it back after one glare.)

I doubt this happens, but if it did, I seriously think I would dump the Bills. I don't think I could enjoy supporting them anymore. Trump is a complete tool. And I'm one of the apparently few people who would definitely still cheer for the team if they moved to Toronto, or even London or Mexico City. Trump is my breaking point. There is a better chance I would root for the Los Angles Bills (shudder) than the Trump-owned Buffalo Bills.

I would also do it for a once-a-decade defensive player. If you think that's what Clowney is, it would be worth it. Whether or not he is that, is another story. Even assuming you'd hit on your original 1-2-1 picks, would you give up a Gilmore, Dareus, and Glenn for Lawrence Taylor or Ray Lewis? I would, even though those three are really solid players.

Man, for a QB Whaley and co. would have to be SO sold that the guy was way better than EJ. I don't see it. I don't think they can be sure what EJ is yet or what any of these draftees really are. If it was someone like Luck, maybe.

With the depth at OT and WR in this class (ruling out Watkins or Matthews/Robinson as a tradeup target, IMO, at least at one), it is hard to see this being about anyone but Clowney. Even Mack, while I think they would grab him at 9 if by some chance he were there, really seems like more of a 3-4 LB. But Clowney slots in beautifully with Dareus and the Williams brothers. I don't know if you can move from 9 to 1 without giving up next year's first. If Houston would take 9 plus this year's second and next year's second, or something like that, you'd have to think about it. That may not be enough though. Interesting rumor, anyway. Keeps things lively in the loooooong six weeks leading up to the draft.

If I understand this correctly, the 400 million is due by the team to the city/county/state (not sure which) if the team wins a nonperformance battle against the city/county/state. If the team just up and leaves the 400 million is not pertinent. The team would be in breach of contract and the city/county/state could sue the team for whatever it wanted to. Billions if they could make the case for those kinds of damages. Also, as others have said, the NFL is unlikely to approve a move involving a straight up breach of contract (which is different than a negotiated buyout clause). So I read this as extremely good news.

I'm loving these stories. Thanks everyone. Tonight, thinking about Jim, I was trying to explain to my wife how special that team and those guys were. There have been lots of great teams in lots of sports. But very few develop that long term connection to each other and the community that our Super Bowl Bills teams did. I won't say they are unique, but they are rare. You can hear it for example, when Bill Polian talks. Here's a guy that has been gone for 20 years. Spent longer in Indy than in Buffalo. Won a Super Bowl. But you can tell he has a kind of love for his Bills that is different than his love for the Colts. Anyway, hang in there, Jimbo. And keep the stories coming, gang.

It's definitely a good thing I'm not a GM, but not for the reason you give. The idea that winning the Super Bowl is the only way to judge team management is pablum. And I said nothing about how much to pay players. The original argument was that a great QB, once they get the big contract, can hurt your team. I was saying, not so fast. I'm more inclined to agree with you that I would happily overpay one of the elite QBs and scramble to fill out the roster every year. I think that might give me the best chance of consistently making the playoffs and therefore the best chance of bringing home a Lombardi trophy or two. Exactly.

I get that line of argument, but I think you can extend it to making the playoffs as well. If Brady's contract is a definitive restriction, why does he keep making the playoffs? Basically, since the Pats' winning or losing was basically determined by one or two plays, the end result of the game doesn't tell me all that much. Brady could easily have lost the early ones and won the later ones. More generally, the idea the best team wins the Super Bowl is often nonsense, and pretty much everyone will admit this. So I wouldn't say the best GM is the GM of the team that happens to win the Super Bowl. You could take the same 12 teams from any given year and replay the playoffs/SB and get wildly different results every time. Which suggests that the distinction between a Super Bowl winner and an also ran is at least partly mythical in terms of talent level. The Hawks this year do seem like they were the best team, but they could easily have lost to the 49ers. In other years (Ravens, Giants, etc.), the winning team has an even less convincing claim to being the team that is best put together.

Interesting, but it's a little too skewed to winning the Super Bowl, which requires a whole lot of luck (plus talent) and leaves you with a small sample size. I'd like to see some data for the age of QBs getting to the playoffs and advancing through the different rounds. Older Brady lost Super Bowls he could easily have won (i.e., that turned on a handful of plays). Manning was back in the bowl last year at a ripe-old age. For me a team's long-term goal should not be to win the Super Bowl except in the most abstract sense, since there are so many factors that go into that, many of which are beyond management's control. The goal should be to build a consistent winner - which maximizes your chance to win a Super Bowl. And even if you never win the big one, you can have a great, entertaining, profitable team (as we know all too well from the 90s). It's possible that even sustained success is threatened by too much money invested in a QB, but I'm not so sure. A lot of the old guys seem to make the playoffs pretty regularly.