Dawgg

Here we go again. You can go back to 1996 and 1997 all you want but when a player doesn't get a chance, there is really little he can do. Marv Levy did not like Moulds one bit and kept him cemented to the bench. The minute Wade took over, he installed him as the team's #1 receiver and he went onto flourish. You might say he had a ten cent head, but I say he wasn't given a chance. The reality is that it was probably somewhere in between. Look at Larry Johnson. He rotted on the bench for 3 seasons watching Priest Holmes put up all-pro numbers and was in Vermiel's doghouse week after week. Vermiel even tried to tangle him in trade talks. Now, he's the toast of the town. Did he really belong in Vermiel's doghouse or was he not given a chance? I think it was the latter.

If I were Eric, I would have left this team a long time ago. Playing for a team that can't settle on a long-term QB, changes its offensive philosophy ever 2-3 years, places little importance on improving the blocking up-front and has been putrid on offense year after year would take its toll on a receiver. If he were to play for a team like the Rams, Eagles or Colts, he'd flourish, even as a #2.

First of all, Wade did want Flutie. He got sick of RJ very early on in his coaching tenure. It was Ralph who forced him to start RJ for the Tennessee playoff game and that was one of the major reasons why he was fired... because Ralph wanted the next coach to play Johnson while he wanted to keep Flutie. Afterall, it was Wade who installed him as the starter the moment the team started to win. The quote you refer to about the Phillips-Johnson era was made on the day we signed RJ to a long-term deal... he quickly changed his mind after watching him play. As for Pendry, he wasn't all that great a coordinator. But I think he managed to do well with what he had. And would I take him over Clements? You bet.

You're a bright guy, but this post doesn't reflect that. So you're telling me an accurate depiction of Wade Phillips is WITHOUT Doug Flutie? What the heck kind of logic is that? That's like saying an accurate measure of Marv's performance as a coach is without Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas and Bruce Smith. That has to be one of the worst arguments I have seen on this board. His record as a head coach speaks for itself. The only reason he hasn't gotten another head coaching job is because he is not a prototypical young star like Greg Williams and Mularkey. And they have done soo much for us haven't they?

Up until that point, Brees had shown nothing and rather than stand pat and spin a rosy picture the way our GM does, AJ Smith decided to do something. He took the best player on the board. Having done that, Brees ended up playing at a high level and they will now trade Rivers. Having 2 good QBs on the roster is a good problem to have. In Buffalo, they could have done exactly what you propose... and remained faithful to Rob Johnson. But that agressiveness brought Doug Flutie into the fold and that's the reason you at least got to enjoy a few good playoff seasons in Buffalo. But of course, like most posters here, you'd probably say: Doug Flutie sucked, he was lucky (despite a 29-19 record)/ Wade Phillips was a horrible head coach (despite no losing seasons and a few playoff appearances)

This defense is being exposed for what it is. Last year's defense performed well against piss-poor teams. It got beat hard by any team that was remotely good.

Yes, from an absolute percentage standpoint, this represents a very small percentage of our plays and I fully support trying trick plays for a small percentage of the plays. However, you seem to imply that all plays are created equal. I tend to disagree. A fourth down play in a must-convert situation, in my opinion, is not the time to execute these "tricks." I really don't see this on any other team... I have seen my share of trick plays, but not in the most critical of situations.

"I have a dream..."

No that is not a gadget play. However, when the runner involved in the aforementioned play has played in the NFL for 6 years without having a single carry, that is a gadget play. Nobody expects it, and to a certain extent the player doesn't even expect it. If you don't have the confidence in your franchise back to get a yard on 4th and goal, kick the field goal. But I know... had they "made" it, then fans would be calling him a genius. Perhaps true, but such titles are only short-lived. These types of plays speak more to an approach than anything else. All too often when it's 4th and short and you want to make a statement, you do that by employing what you do best. You don't pull out tricks and hope they work. Case in point: Last season against NE at home: Mularkey calls for a Drew Bledsoe QB run. Ridiculous (you might call it innovative) This year at OAK: 4th and goal, we give Shelton his first carry in 6 years. Ridiculous (you might call it innovative) This year vs KC: 4th and short we call some gimmic fake QB sneak... it was blown up for a huge loss. Ridiculous (you might call it innovative). Using the argument that fans would love it if it worked is a futile one. Why? Simple: they don't work.

Personally, I would embrace such a reaction from him, as it would signify a sign of life. I'm never one to criticize someone who gets fired up upon a benching. While many criticized Travis, I was actually glad that it pissed him off when he was replaced. I like seeing Sam Adams pissed off when he gets benched. And I would love to see something... anything... light a fire under Mike Williams because I feel that is the only obstacle preventing him from being a good player.

Not really, and that has a lot to do with his conditioning. People like to listen and read tot he crap that comes out of OBD... of course they are going to pain a rosy picture about their $50M investment. I don't necessarily think Big Mike was the wrong pick because from what I heard about him in college, he was a badas$ with attitude. However, no such attitude exists now. He has lost it. You can tell by his reaction to his demotion. He couldn't care less.

How about performing this two-step approach: 1. Watch the game from last week again and see how much MW played. 2. Watch this week's game against San Diego You will notice that Mike Williams, as indicated by his playing time (or lack thereof) is a second string player. If you continue to believe that he is at the top of the depth chart, then there is no other proof I can offer at this time, as it appears the Bills have not updated their "official" chart.

I think Gray has done a great job, particularly with the young players. The fact that Crowell, Sape, McGee, and Greer are solid contributors when players go down is a testament to his coaching... it's not his fault that he doesn't have a particuarly good defensive line.

http://www.billsdaily.com/depthchart/ There's a link for ya.

That article speaks to nothing regarding his motivation. He came into camp looking lean and mean? That's the biggest horsecrap I have ever heard because he sure doesn't play mean. He has the ability to be a top 10 tackle in this league but simply doesn't apply himself. Any player who miss all of the voluntary minicamps in ANY season doesn't have a whole lot of desire. Holding out for a better contract? Not Big Mike. He just didn't want to play the game because of problems he was facing off the field... he hasn't been the same ever since. So yes, I think it is reasonable to say he's a slouch looking to collect a paycheck.

He deserves it. Great guy, great coach, players love to play for him. I know him personally and wish him well.

Go by what you read, but that's pretty much all it is: what you read. The bottom line is that Mike Williams has not been in top football shape for a while. I have gone to camp on numerous occassions and noticed it myself. He's slow, both mentally and physically during camp and as a suffered mental lapses during games at critical junctures. It does not reflect well on Bills management to tell the media year after year that MW has appeared out of shape -- it was convenient to do so during year 3 because he missed all the OTAs. The real shame here is that MW in my opinion "could" be a great player if he had the desire. He simply doesn't.

Nope, but he was quoted as saying that by an unnamed source. In fact, Peter King of SI reported that last year. But I don't need a report to tell me that. You can tell by his uninspired play. You can tell that he has no fire inside him whatsoever. And you can tell by the fact that he shows up to camp out of shape year after year. If you need it to come directly out of his mouth in person, that won't happen. And no, I don't think it's overboard...

MW may have been a good pick at the time. He has all the ability in the world. Here's the problem I have: the great majority of his problems stem from a lack of desire. He doesn't care about being a good football player, rather he is more concerned with cashing his weekly checks. Now that's an attitude problem. If any organization (sports, corporate, whatever) is going to make a $50+ million on an individual, it is the responsibility of that organization to perform a thorough background analysis and character assessment. One can only wonder if those mental issues would have been apparent had more research been done.

The horse continues to get beaten. GET OVER THE OBSESSION.

Chemistry? I didn't see any evidence of chemistry during their past two games.

but as McNabb would say... at least they lost as a team. My as$. If I'm an Eagles fan or player, I want TO in there jerk or not.

OK now you two are being fags... really... Wait that wink was pretty gay too... dammit. I give up.

I think it's more of a timing issue rather than an effort issue. Even before the season, EM and JP acknowledged that they needed to put in some extra work on their timing... and you noticed when Holcomb was in there their timing was much better. It'll come with time.

Agreed. I think benching JP was the best move the coaching staff has made in their two years here. It gave him a chance to clear his head, watch and learn... and you saw a different QB today. If he played like this against Atlanta or New Orleans, both games could have been wins.