SoTier

Thank you. I was going to ask the same thing. Gordon's Canadian ... how could he possibly offend anybody? I think I've read exactly one article about him in the media in the last five years although I've seen a handful of announcements of concert dates in/around Western NY during that time. Hardly the stuff to say he "needs to go away"!

American Graffiti hands down. It captures the essence of what adolescence in rural/small town/suburban America in the 1960s was like.

I disagree with your interpretation of Dareus' reaction to Saban. I don't remember that interview but I'm assuming it was after Dareus had been a pro for at least a part of a season and had some basis for comparison between how coaches treated players on both levels. Successful big time head football coaches at major schools like Alabama, Nebraska or Penn State are gods who can do no wrong, and if college presidents won't stand up to them, how are 20-year-old kids going to do so? There's no NFLPA to stand up for them, either. I tutored Nebraska football players for one semester back in the early days of Tom Osborne's reign, and got to see some of the culture of big time athletics first hand while a starving grad student. I would never disbelieve any reports of wrong-doing in collegiate athletic programs, particularly those involving the exploitation of the athletes themselves, for that reason ... and the reprehensible conduct of Joe Paterno and his sycophants for years at Penn State underscore that. BTW, Saban failed miserably in his two year stint with the Miami Dolphins with his teams going 9-7 and 6-10.

I don't think anybody "knows" about our new D or the new coaching staff, except that they figure they can do better with what they've got than Rex Ryan, who was supposed to be a defensive genius, did. The Bills defense seriously under-performed during his two years here, especially last season. They were outright putrid last year -- almost as ineffective as they'd been under Chan Gailey despite a whole lot more talent -- and could never come up with the big play when they needed it.

Exactly this. I hope this report from Polian is bogus only in the Bills' supposed reasoning of why they want Dareus to be better. Winning teams aren't built using the logic of "well, we spent X on Y, so we can't afford to spend A on B" even though both are great players but play different positions. Winning teams are built on the premise that each player needs to play up to his potential or he's gone whether he's a first round draft pick, a super star, or a special teams player. Dareus needs to perform up to the level of talent that earned him his big contract, and having Watkins on the team is irrelevant since they don't even play on the same unit. Polian's description of the Bill's reasoning on Dareus reeks of the "put butts in the seats" philosophy that's resulted in 17 years of no playoffs. If both are playing up to their superstar potential, then the Bills need to figure out how to accommodate their big contracts under the cap while staying within the cap -- and without gutting the current team or mortgaging their future. Other teams manage to do it, and contrary to the claims back a decade or more ago, they manage to not only stay competitive for several years but to build dynasties as well. If one or both aren't producing, then they should be gone but on their own merits, not because of the stupid idea that there's already another expensive player on the team.

Actually, that might be Southern Tier eHarmony. There are a lot of Amish in Chautauqua and Cattaraugus Counties as well as across the state line in Erie and Warren Counties in PA.

What's work? Oh, yeah, that's the part of my life that I finally escaped on April 1, 2016. YEEE HAAAAWWWWWWW!

I would think that wool would make up a significant part of the income stream if you were to raise sheep with any intent to at least make some money on them, so hair sheep are probably not commercially viable in the US. I would bet that it's the humidity rather than the heat in NC that's the real culprit because Australia raises a lot of sheep for wool, and it's god awful hot in most of that country. Around here, alpacas have largely replaced llamas but most of the farms are small-scale hobby farms. I think alpacas are better tempered and their wool is more valuable, so people prefer them. Since they're also more expensive than llamas IIRC, people can't afford as many. For a while, a few farmers in the area tried raising ostriches for meat and then buffalo became the fad. The Amish have started to seriously raise sheep commercially in this area. It's not unusual to drive through Amish country and see pastures full of ewes and lambs when even five years ago, seeing a single sheep was a surprise.

Honey chile, how many economists and mathematicians do you know? Just cuz they claim they're not kooks doesn't mean they're right about themselves. I worked in academia for several years and then in IT for nearly 30, and paranoia seems to run rampant among a significant percentage of very intelligent, well educated people, especially those who deal with the theoretical rather than the pragmatic like mathematicians, software/systems designers, economists, etc. IMO, I think there seems to be a really fine line between genius and mental instability, not just among theoretical types but among creative geniuses in the arts as well. "Mad scientist" might be a silly fictional stereotype, but there's a kernel of truth buried in it.

You keep on circling the wagons and scapegoating anybody and everybody. Wade's been gone from the Bills for 16 years ... and he wasn't the guy who inked expensive contracts with aging stars to keep butts in the seats that put the Bills in cap hell or who traded a first round pick for Drew Bledsoe or traded up to draft JP Losman or filled the team with special teamers rather than first stringers ... Whatever his failures as a HC, his post-Bills career as a HC and a DC have demonstrated that he's both a good coach and a class act.

Did you watch the games? It's not about statistics! It's about effective plays. Good pass protection means that a QB consistently has time to throw the ball when the defense knows he's going to throw ...just like good run blocking doesn't mean occasionally breaking a 20 yarder but that the OL enables the RBs, even journeymen, to make first downs on thirds and short. The pocket was seldom there long enough for Taylor to throw first downs on thirds and long, and often it wasn't there for him to throw downfield at all because receivers need time to get open. Apparently, some people's standards are much lower than others. Brady consistently has "excellent" pass protection. You don't see him getting knocked on his butt every other play ... and when he does, the Pats struggle. Taylor has never had Brady's level of protection, especially last season. The Bills' pass protection resembled Pitt's the year that Roethlisberger got all beat to hell trying to stay in the pocket ... and the next season, the Stillers seriously shored up that OL so that their QB would survive. Taylor runs because he can ... Roethlisberger's too slow so he couldn't escape and got beaten up for his trouble ... The Bills need to improve their pass protection. Claiming it was "excellent" or "was there most times" is not only being in denial but it's scapegoating Taylor, the favorite past time of some Bills fans. Taylor is a decent enough QB if given some protection and some targets. Coming out of Baltimore, do you really think he doesn't know how to throw from the pocket? The last time I looked, nobody would confuse Joe Flacco with Cam Newton.

Exactly this. You don't gain much if you have to spend all your profit to get into another house ... and in the Bay Area, that's pretty much the case I think. If you were thinking of moving to an area with lower housing prices (most of the rest of the country), then now would certainly be the time to sell and move.

I hope that the new coaching staff is an upgrade, but I remain unconvinced until they prove it. Certainly this team has much more talent than any of the other Bills team had in the first year of a new coaching regime since Wade Phillips replaced Marv Levy. If McDermott is as advertised, then 10 wins are certainly possible. I'm just not jumping on the bandwagon at this time.

My point exactly. A lot of times last season, rushers were in on Taylor before he could even set up to pass, and he had to run. That's on the pass blockers not on the QB. Moreover, a good pass blocking OL will give their QB more than 2-3 seconds to throw with some regularity. That's what was missing last season. If Taylor didn't run, he'd have been sacked for big losses a lot more. The Bills' pass blocking has been mediocre at best, and too often putrid, going back to at least the days of Drew Bledsoe. They've improved significantly talent-wise as evidenced by their recent excellence at run blocking. Now, they've got to improve some on the pass blocking while maintaining their run blocking acumen. They're significantly better than they were but they need to get better. A more effective receiving corps would help, too. Taylor needs to get better as well, but no QB -- not Tom Brady, not Peyton Manning, not Aaron Rodgers -- can do well without protection and targets. If you put Brady, Manning or Rodgers under center on one of those god-awful talent-less Jauron teams, they would have done only marginally better than Losman or Edwards.

In order to throw from the pocket and have success doing so, there has to be one to throw from. The Bills in the last several seasons have not done all that well protecting their QBs. They seem to have gotten run blocking mastered, but pass plays remain adventurous undertakings for our QBs because of the OL's inconsistency.

Meh. I'd rather win the Bills saved up and won in the regular season myself.

I read Sully's column, and shockingly, I agree with it. All he's saying is that "we've been here before" ... In 17 years of losing, how many times have the Bills changed FOs and coaching staffs and lured fans into "Billieving" in a resurrection to come only to see the same failures come game day? NOTE: Technically it's not been 17 losing seasons since there's been 2 9-7 seasons and 3 or 4 8-8 seasons sprinkled among the losers, but at this point, IMO, missing the playoffs and/or failing to win at least 10 games equates to losing.

BBMB refugee here, too (since 2002) ... and I totally agree. This off-season has been nothing but deja vue all over again or another rerun of "Ground Hog Day", so what's exciting about it?

I agree! This Bills team has a lot more talent at this point than any other new Bills regime started with since the playoff drought began in 2000. Barring injury to key players, I think they should win at least as many games as last year (7) in 2017 and win at least 10 games the next year even if they don't make the playoffs. They need to do one of the other next year, and preferably both. Numerous teams have made the playoffs in the last 17 years with imperfect talent, including Bills' fellow perennial bottom feeders like Cleveland, Detroit, and Miami. Some have had great defenses and little offense to speak of. Some had defenses no better than what the Bills have fielded the last couple of years. Some didn't have NFL starting caliber QBs. Some had cobbled together rosters. All were flawed teams. Even the awful Bills teams from the 1970s and early 1980s managed to at least make a playoff appearance a couple of times a decade! No more excuses.

I don't know that there's any "prescription" for finding a good/great QB. Even in truly great QB crops, teams missed, and in mediocre years, teams hit. My thought is that maybe teams should look more at the individual's "intangibles" like leadership and attitude rather than just arm and size, but that's obviously not enough. If I had any real answers, I wouldn't be posting here. I'd be sharing my expertise with the Bills!

I generally agree with your post but I think you are wrong about the 2014 QB class in that I'd rate only 1 of the 5 QBs you named as a "hit". Only Carr has developed into a decent starter. That's not saying he's a franchise QB yet but he's probably worth more than the 2nd round pick the Raiders spent to get him, something that can't be said all that often about QBs taken in the first two rounds of the draft -- or the other QBs in his draft class. Bortles regressed badly last season, something that's an ominous sign. It suggests that he hit his peak back as a sophomore and isn't going to improve significantly, so he's probably done. The only QB since the merger who started out well, regressed, and then continued on to have a stellar career was Drew Brees. Count Bortles as a miss IMO. Bridgewater is probably finished because of his injury, but even before that, his game had serious deficiencies, particularly his apparent unwillingess to go long. Maybe he would have overcome that as Tannehill seems to have done, but it's likely we'll never know. I hate to count him as a miss but he's a question mark at best. Garoppolo hasn't proved squat yet. He started 4 or 5 games in his NFL career. If he was that good, Brady would have had a harder time getting his job back or maybe not even gotten it back at all. Remember, it was Brady who took over for starter/Pro Bowler Drew Bledsoe in 2001 and never looked back. The chances are that Garoppolo is closer to Brock Osweiler than to Tom Brady. Another question mark but likely a miss. Manziel shouldn't have been drafted in the first round at all ... and probably not until the third round at best if not the third day of the draft. The red flags on him were well known. A big miss. Generally speaking, over the years, drafts have yielded about 1 decent starting QB. Occasionally, 2 decent starters will emerge (2008) and sometimes all of them will be duds (2007 and 2013). Usually there will be 1 or 2 decent backups/low quallity starters who come out of the later rounds, although often first rounders will stick around as mediocre starters and then backups for a while. This seems to hold true whether there's 1 or 2 QBs taken in the first round or 4. The best QB draft EVER was 1983: Elway, Kelly, and Marino were all HOFers and Ken O'Brien was a decent starter for several years. Still, KC took Todd Blackledge before Kelly and NE took Tony Eason before Marino. The next best class was 2004 when Eli Manning, Rivers, and Roethlisberger -- all likely HOFers or considered for HOF -- were taken in the first round. Of course, so was JP Losman. Matt Schaub, taken in the 4th round, started out as a useful backup and had a couple of years as a decent starter. 2012 seems to have been the best QB class since 2004. It's yielded one definitely special QB in Russell Wilson, who was not even taken in the first round. Andrew Luck has definitely been successful, although it seems that he's been a bit of a disappointment recently as he's not improved his game as much as one would hope. He was expected to quickly progress to the level of Brees, Brady, and Roethlisberger, but he doesn't seem to have made the strides he needs to reach that level; he still makes a lot of mistakes that he made as a rookie/sophomore. Is it coaching, maybe? Still, most teams would welcome him to their roster if they got the chance. Ryan Tannehill has also become at least a decent starter, perhaps even more, after a rocky start, and Kirk Cousins has come out of nowhere (the 4th round actually) to be another decent starter. It really doesn't matter how these kids are rated by draft gurus or even by organizations. It matters how they adapt and play the pro game, so if 5 QBs are rated higher in 2018 than any of the guys taken in 2017's first round, it means squat unless they turn out to be successful NFL QBs.

Agreed. A lot of the posts cheering the new FO sound like the ol' Yogi Berra saying, "deja vue all over again". Every time there's a regime change, things are supposed to change, but aside having different scapegoats, making different excuses, and finding different ways to lose football games, especially key football games, not much really changes. In the last decade, the Bills have won 4 games, 8 games, and 9 games once each. They've also had 4 six win seasons and 3 seven win ones. That's 6.6 wins per season. I'll believe there's been a real change in the team when I see it, which means it needs to start consistently winning football games, especially the ones it's expected or needs to win, and making the playoffs more than once every quarter of a century. Until I see some results that say differently, I'm not buying the spiel.

Totally agree. Right now, I'm not optimistic. I just can't invest in this team emotionally any more. It's too painful. I'd like them to do well -- and I certainly wouldn't root against them -- but I don't have a shred of hope that they will do any better this time around than they've been doing for the last decade ...