Last Guy on the Bench

I had an eye on that game at the sports bar. Washington looked pretty tough, imo. They were making plays.

CTV Toronto usually shows the Bills, but CTV Montreal mostly doesn't. It's always worth checking their website around Friday, though, cause a handful of Bills games will be broadcast (often the Pats games plus a few others). As for bars, the best place to go that I know of is Champs. It shows every NFL game, has two sections (so there are two main games with sound - last week's Bills-Jags game was one of them), and usually has a devoted handful of Bills fans lurking about. It's not overly crowded at 1:00, so you don't have to get there super early to get a seat in front of one of the Bills TVs (there are usually at least two) but it has good energy and will get crowded as the afternoon wears on. The food is mediocre bar food, but the beer is, well, beer, and the games are, well, NFL games, so it's all good. The address is 3956 St. Laurent, right downtown on the Plateau.

It was shocking to see the reporter in this article actually add value to the story by making phone calls. I used to devour all the stuff in the Buf News and D&C, but since we've had access to most of the press conferences, it's not worth it anymore. Almost all of the articles on the Bills are built on things any of us can see in the games and the press conferences. It's getting harder and harder to find a quote in an article that wasn't directly from a post-game/practice PC. Anyone here could transmit the information found in most articles, and some of the people here (e.g., Lori) could do it much more elegantly. What ever happened to developing relationships/sources over time so that a reporter could actually give us non-public insight into a team? Anyway, I would love it if more reporters actually bothered to do what this guy did. As for analysis, the major media are only about 5% better than the unreadable speculation on RealFootball365. I can get WAY more insight into football in general and the state of the Bills in particular by reading the posters on here who watch the game with attention, intelligence, and knowledge (e.g., Simon, Dave McBride, Badol, Kelly, R. Rich, Bill in NYC (who else is going to spend the entire game maniacally staring at the right guard?), etc.). Imagine a professional commentator who actually took the trouble to RE-watch games and look for things that aren't obvious at first glance. I already freaking know if the quarterback played well, even though I never played football and might possibly be watching the game somewhat intoxicated.

I like it a lot. Philly has been doing this kind of thing for years. Target young players who are progressing, and lock them in a couple years before they would hit free agency (when their (presumed) increased production and experience plus a higher salary cap plus market demand will make them way more expensive). It's hard for a young player to turn down immediate money and wait for two more years, even if he thinks he might be worth considerably more down the road. You save a ton of money this way and preserve team continuity. Of course, you have to be right on (most of) the players whom you target. Philly is. We haven't proven we can do that yet, but let's see. Imagine if we had done this with a player like Nate Clements. Even if you're wrong now and then, you're not breaking the bank. It's a lot better financially than being wrong in free agency. I agree that this kind of financial management and trust in your own evaluation abilities actually provides more room to sign people like Peters and Evans. In fact they locked Peters up in just this way, and now have leverage. (Don't get me wrong, when a young player - especially at QB or LT - explodes into an all-pro, you just need to suck it up and pay him. I think they should offer Peters the moon, but it's still nice knowing he can't walk away.)

I noticed the same thing. In fact, it took me a few minutes to realize #49 wasn't Harvey, since a lot of the pressure did seem to start with him. But all I've seen is the one highlight reel, so I'm not particularly informed. If we take him, hopefully those who are more informed (e.g., Modrak) are right. I do know that I would love a sturdy DE with some explosiveness on the left side, but whether Harvey is that guy I don't know.

I wasn't talking about overall ratings. Clearly, most draft rags have Willis rated higher. But you won't find many that don't single out Pos for his instincts. I was just saying that I weigh instincts extremely heavily when thinking about LBs in particular. Not saying I'm right - that's just how I see it.

That's a good point. I don't pretend to know how good Willis will or won't be. If we draft him, I'll cross my fingers and join his fan club. Those times just make me a bit nervous, because they seem so far behind so many people. He can't be the only guy with poor technique. That being said, the most important speed factor for LBs in particular is instinct and play recognition. If I run the 40 a tenth of a second faster than you, but you diagnose plays half a second faster than me, you are a hell of a lot "faster" than I am on the football field. Which is another reason I like Pos a bit better than Willis, since everyone says Pos's LB instincts are second to none.

What, you don't think at times it would be OK to spend all of your day one picks and half your payroll on DBs? I don't either, generally, but I do think paying a superstar CB and a superstar Safety on some teams make sense (e.g., Chris McAlister and Ed Reed.) I think paying two superstar receivers almost never makes sense, though the 2006 Colts and the 1999 Rams seem to throw a wrench into that argument. As for Nate, yes he was one of our best players, and I was sad to see him go, but I think it made sense for two reasons: 1) It wasn't because we wanted some other shiny new corner (e.g., Samuel); it was because we were shifting priorities and money to other parts of the team (OL). A totally different thing. 2) Like most of our big name defensive players, Nate was outstanding in a lot of ways, but not really a gamebreaker. This defense has driven me crazy for the last few years, becase it was full of players who played great in the middle of the game and great when we got a lead, but almost never made a big play at the end of a close game to stop the other team. Spikes in particular is like this - get a lead and he's an animal, but when has he ever closed a tight game out with a big play (something seemingly every freaking New Engalnd Patriot does consistently)? I think the defense got a little better in this respect last year, and I give Jauron and Fewell a lot of credit for that. Im sure you can come up with a few game-saving plays over the last several years, but overall, the leaders on this defense have been a big disappointment to me in the fourth quarter when the game has been on the line. And that includes Nate. Our backfield will be worse without him, but I'm hoping that Levy and Jauron can fill this team (over time) with defensive leaders who know how to close out games. Whether those guys are currently on the team remains to be seen.

Those times actually make me think more about Willis than Pos, and I don't mean that in a good way. I already like Pos a lot, and would be fine with him at 12, but Willis was not only less agile than Pos, he was less agile than LOTS of the LBs that were tested. An LB with great straight-line speed, but limited agility, makes me very nevous, especially because that's just the kind of package that can take you a long way in college but make you a bust in the NFL. I would take Pos straight up over Willis at 12 or anywhere else. I like a lot of things about Willis, but I'd be more nervous if we drafted him (not totally pessimistic, just nervous) than if we drafted Pos. My personal semi-realistic board (i.e., no Johnson or Thomas) looks like this: Peterson (trade up with AZ or Wash) Branch Pos Okoye Lynch Beason Willis I know there aren't too many around here who would agree with that board. I guess we'll see in a few years.

Though it's a tempting thought, I don't think I'd take Johnson even if happened to have the 1st pick in the draft. I do think he's the best player, but it would throw our payroll way out of whack and result in our losing Lee Evans. Lee's going to be up for a monster contract in a few years (I think he has three to go on his original one). There is no way we could re-sign him and carry a contract like Johnson's at the same position. I don't think you can spend that big a chunk of your cap on just the WR position. Perhaps Johnson will be better than Evans (everyone seems to think he'll be an all-timer, but we'll see). But is he better than Evans AND say Adrian Peterson (or fill in any other big name draftee/free agent superstar)? I doubt it. It's tough to overspend on any one position, but at times it may be worth it along the lines or in the defensive backfield. I don't think WRs have enough of an impact on the game to carry two superstar contracts. I'm sure there are many that would happily let Evans go in two or three years if we had Johnson. But I think that's a fool's game. It hurts the psyche of a team to jettison your best players just because something new and shiny comes along. I know this is all hypothetical anyway, but I say we should be working to keep Evans in a Bills uniform into the twilight of his career and spread our other big contracts around to other positions. (That being said, I'd be as excited as anyone to see what Evans and Johnson could do together for a year or two.)

Great draft. I totally agree about 2nd round RBs. If we don't land Peterson or take a flyer on Lynch, everyone will panic, because of our RB hole. But I don't see great value in any of the 2nd round RBs. We'll be able to get some committee help in round 3. The only "2nd round RB" I like this year is Michael Turner. I've actually started feeling pretty similar about LBs. Good values in the 1st round and probably in the 3rd or 4th, but I'm not sure about the LBs who would be available to us in the 2nd - maybe David Harris, but he could be in there in the 3d anyway. So for me, it's 1st round or 3d round on LB/RB (and I'd be happy to see one of the two DTs in the 1st, as well). Which leaves the 2nd round for WR or DB, because I think there will be real value at those two positions there. (Note: I don't even care if we draft any WRs or DBs in the abstract. But if you look at the specific players who might be there in the 2nd like Hill or Rice at WR or Hughes or Jackson (I don't think he lasts until the 3rd) at DB, they could be real impact players. I wouldn't panic and grab any old RB/LB just for the sake of it. - Now if Marv and gang love a particular RB/LB in the 2nd slot and do feel he is much better than the 3rd rounders that will be there, then that's another story. But from the couch at home, I don't see it.)

Sept. 9 DENVER BRONCOS WIN Sept. 16 @ Pittsburgh Steelers LOSE Sept. 23 @ New England Patriots LOSE Sept. 30 NEW YORK JETS WIN Oct. 8 DALLAS COWBOYS WIN Oct. 21 BALTIMORE RAVENS LOSE Oct. 28 @ New York Jets WIN Nov. 4 CINCINNATI BENGALS LOSE Nov. 11 @ Miami Dolphins WIN Nov. 18 NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS LOSE Nov. 25 @ Jacksonville Jaguars WIN Dec. 2 @ Washington Redskins WIN Dec. 9 MIAMI DOLPHINS WIN Dec. 16 @ Cleveland Browns WIN Dec. 23 NEW YORK GIANTS WIN Dec. 30 @ Philadelphia Eagles LOSE

I just don't understand how you can continue to look so favorably on that administration. TD and gang had a five year run. While not a long tenure, it is certainly not short by NFL standards, so I don't think you can accuse Ralph of pulling the plug crazy quickly. I also don't see how you can ascribe our mediocre record over five years to just the Bledsoe decision. I agree it was a killer (both bringing him here in the first place and then re-doing his contract). But the coaching hires were worse IMO, and the general adminstrative atmopshere (though I admit this is based on rumors, ex-player comments, and pissed off press people, so it can't be totally true) may have been the most troubling factor of all. I do not demonize Donahoe, Bledsoe, Mularkey, Williams or anyone else. They all had their strengths and weaknesses, but the overall picture seems clear: a franchise that was treading water at best and didn't have a real spark to it. I readily acknowledge your football insight (in all sincerity), but I really don't get how you can be so critical of the new gang so soon. I feel humbler about them myself and mostly curious. (Also very optimistic, but that doesn't mean much, because I'm always optimistic.) I don't think anyone pro or con has enough real material to judge Levy and Jauron just yet. But how can you think Donahoe's five years was too soon to pull the plug, yet be ready to write off Levy and Jauron with such gloomy predictions after only one year?

Looks to me like we could easily start off 2 and 5 or so and then go on a nice streak of wins. I predict we end up 10 and 6 after a 2 and 5 start. From the @Jets game on, every game looks winnable to me, except maybe for @Philly. That would be a roller coaster. People would be suicidal around here in October, but it would be worth it for the fun of an 8 and 1 finish after everyone had decided that we stunk.

Yeah, I'd be happy with him too, especially if he could move inside. Before the Kelsay signing, I thought there was a good chance the Bills would consider him. He's a man among boys at the college level.

Well, first of all, I'm not obsessed with avoiding skill positions. I like them. Give me Peterson, trade for Turner, I'm happy. Draft Lynch, I'm cautiously optimistic. Secondly, unlike many of you, I don't think there is only one way to look at this draft. I can see a reasonable case for a lot of positions and a lot of different players. I don't think someone who wants to draft an RB or LB or even an OL (Bill in NYC) is crazy. I think those would be nice upgrades to have. I just think creating one dominating unit is the way to go, and if I had to pick one unit to focus on, it would be the DL. Whatever. Third, I don't think that is true about Branch. I think he will fit any kind of defense. As for the motor, that's what people are saying, and it might be true, but if it weren't there would be ZERO chance he was available at 12 (and even now there is only a small chance). Rotate him in for half of the plays. I guarantee no one will run on us. And the guy playing the other half of the plays at that spot (probably Williams, maybe McCargo) will be all fresh and pretty good as well. And finally, I'm not predicting the Bills will do this. I have no idea what they are thinking. I just think it might make sense.

Nope. That's because I'm uncoordinated, legally blind, and 94 years old. (But I have good character.)

Fair point, but it's not that unusual to carry nine DL. As for dressing them, probably not, but I could see dressing only 3 DEs or sitting out one of the DTs (there are always injuries anyway) and dressing 8 altogether. You could still have a nice 4-DT rotation on game day (and Denny can swing inside as well), and have a good chance that all 4 are pretty fresh and healthy (since you can sit the one who is most banged up at any given time).

Exactly. I'm like most people in that I don't find a DT pick particularly exciting. A shiny new LB or RB would be more fun. But I think the team would see the greatest improvement by turning the interior DL into something to fear.

Can't promise that, but I can promise to take your incisive response into consideration as I continue to muse on this matter. You make several good points and present them very logically, but your post is a lot to take in in one sitting. Perhaps after I've had time to digest your argument, I'll come around to your point of view.

I know DT isn't our weakest position, but I keep thinking about what could really help the Bills make the leap this year. The number one answer is that JP improve as much this year as he did last year (i.e., basically move from middle of the pack to a top 10 QB). But I think turning the middle of our D line into a freaking shark tank is the next most effective maneuver. I think Branch will be long gone at 12, but a lot of people see him slipping a bit. If he were there, I'd take him without pause. He may be a little lazy, but he can play any DT position in any defense. If you have a rotation of Branch, McCargo, Triplett, Williams, and Walker, with no one playing more than about half of the snaps, by the 4th quarter the interior of the oppponents OL will be DONE. Won't be able to run. Won't be able to maintain a pocket. And our dudes will be fresh. Everyone else on the defense will look better. With that kind of DL interior, guys like Ellison and Crowell can really use their athleticism without having to fight through too much traffic, and you could pick up Buster Davis or HB Blades in the third round - two guys who could also use their great instincts to dominate in the kind of space the DL would create. (They're probably not physically gifted enough to play well behind a mediocre DL.) Okoye would also be good (and I know they might both be gone), but Branch is my current draft dreamboat. I think you improve your team more by having a dominant unit or two (particularly DL and OL) than you do by spreading your best players around at various positions. And to save all you witty bastards some typing, yes I am smoking very good crack as I ride the short bus to the park where I have a season pass on the retard roller-coaster.

I normally don't like trade ups, but I just have a feeling that Adrian Peterson will be a Bill (though I'd be happy with Turner or Lynch or even a lower round, decent RB). They won't get AP at 12 no matter what those mocks say. So, I think, in a very risky move, they give Washington their first and second picks and take AP at number 6 (assuming he is still there then). 1-AP, RB 3a-Hughes, CB 3b-Buster Davis, ILB Not sure either Hughes or Davis will be there, but that's my prediction. Overall, I am not feeling that picky, and would be pretty stoked getting Willis, Poz, Okoye, Branch, or Lynch in the 12 slot. Maybe even Beason. All this reach stuff is crazy, as if people know exactly where a guy will be and should be slotted. All the mocks are wrong. All the predictions on how good people will be are wrong on the whole. If you like a guy, take him. That being said, I don't want to see a DB or WR in the 1st round. DB has been discussed ad nauseum. And WRs take too long to develop and are too iffy. A middle round WR - even a 2nd rounder, if we don't make my Peterson trade - would be fine with me.

The John Calvin of the NFL. (I completely agree about Lynch. I'd be very happy to have him on the team, both in terms of talent and in terms of character.)

Oh my God, Bill. I've been watching football fairly religiously for almost 40 years, and I'm pretty sure that that's the greatest catch I've ever seen. My wife just looked over at me wondering why I was staring at the computer screen muttering "Holy !@#$" over and over again.

Well, as long as you're "quite sure," I guess I'll back off.