Typical TBD Guy

E-mail your hero, Tom Donahoe, and find out.

This is all the proof you'll need: NFL regular season records since 2001 (playoff appearances in parentheses): 1. Pats: 53-20 (3) 2. Eagles: 52-21 (4) 3. Steelers: 51-21-1 (3) 4. Colts: 49-24 (3) 5. Packers: 46-27 (4) 6. Rams: 45-28 (2) 7. Broncos: 44-29 (2) 8. Seahawks: 42-31 (2) 9. Bucs: 39-34 (2) 10. Chiefs: 39-34 (1) 11. Falcons: 38-34-1 (2) 12. Ravens: 38-35 (2) 13. Jets: 37-36 (3) 14. Titans: 37-36 (2) 15. Fins: 37-36 (1) 16. Bears: 35-38 (1) 17. Chargers: 34-39 (1) 18. Saints: 34-39 (0) 19. 49ers: 33-40 (2) 20. Raiders: 33-40 (2) 21. Giants: 33-40 (1) 22. Panthers: 33-40 (1) 23. Cowboys: 32-41 (1) 24. Vikings: 32-41 (1) 25. Jags: 32-41 (0) 26. Redskins: 31-42 (0) 27. Bengals: 31-42 (0) 28. Bills: 30-43 (0) 29. Browns: 28-45 (1) 30. Cards: 24-49 (0) 31. Texans: 17-40 (0) 32. Lions: 20-53 (0)

1. It may still be a little too early to call MW a bust at RT, though I acknowledge that time is quickly running out on him. Maybe the move to LG was a temporary one made because of his gimpy ankle (or even the potential seen in The Jason Peters Project) more so than MW's inability to play RT. 2. It's ridiculously early to call MW a bust at LG. 1 bad game after an entire college/pro career at tackle and on the right side of the line doesn't make him a bust. 3. If you think Mike Williams is the biggest bust in Buffalo Bills history, you need to learn more about Buffalo Bills history. It goes back way before the Flowers drafting in 2000.

Tuesday morning bump, playoff standings after 10 full weeks: DL1. Colts: 9-0 DL2. Broncos: 7-2 DL3. Steelers: 7-2 DL4. Patriots: 5-4 WC1: Bengals: 7-2 WC2: Jaguars: 6-3 7. Chargers: 5-4 8. Chiefs: 5-4 9. Bills: 4-5 10. Raiders: 3-6 11. Dolphins: 3-6 12. Browns: 3-6 13. Titans: 2-7 14. Ravens: 2-7 15. Jets: 2-7 16. Texans: 1-8 Help needed for division title: 1 Pats loss (not including our Week 14 game against them). Held needed for first wild card slot: 2 Bengals losses (not including our Week 16 game against them), 2 Jags losses (assuming at least one of them is against an AFC opponent), and 1 Chiefs loss. Help needed for second wild card slot: 2 Jags losses (assuming at least one of them is against an AFC opponent) and 1 Chiefs loss. Week 11 Schedule: 1pm Sunday games: Saints over Pats (H) Titans (H) over Jags Browns (H) over Fins Redskins (H) over Raiders Ravens (H) over Steelers 4pm Sunday games: Bills over Chargers (H) Colts over Bengals (H) Broncos (H) over Jets SNF: Texans (H) over Chiefs NOTE FOR THIS SUNDAY'S GAME: Only 5 teams besides the Bills have yet to win a road game - Jets, Texans, Ravens, Cards, and 49ers. Not exactly good company... So aside from the playoff implications of falling further behind the division-leading Pats and of losing a critical 6th game in the Wild Card race (my opinion is that 6 losses eliminates any AFC team for Wild Card contention this year) and of allowing our old AFL rivals (Chargers) to run away from us in the playoff standings, our Bills team also needs this first road win simply for the moral boost. It's going to be pretty tough to justify any playoff talk when you're totally gutless outside your home...

The Civ games are great (especially Civ 4), but why the hate for RTS games? Pick up something like Warcraft 3 or Starcraft, and you may feel differently. I almost prefer RTS over turn-based sometimes because of the idea of having to make strategy decisions under time pressure (speeds up the game, too, so you're not wasting the entire day playing ).

Interesting observations, AKC. I agree with a lot of what you said, particularly about our TE, Mark Campbell, who I think gets undeservedly bashed around here. He's a good blocker, and while he's no Tony Gonzalez in the passing game, he's not too bad either (see: 2003 season). The problem, as you alluded to, may be how the coaches have chosen to use him. The only thing I disagree with is your evaluation of Trey Teague. He certainly showed up to play against the Patriots, but do you also think he has played as well in our previous 7 games? I don't for the most part, but that's just my opinion - one that admittedly could have been tainted by Bennie Anderson's lapses to the left and CV's injuries/absences to the right. Either way, I think Teague is gone next year and Preston is in the plans for a new 2006 line like this: LT: 1st round draft pick LG MW C Preston RG CV RT Peters backups: Gandy, Geisinger, another draft pick, another free agent (Teague if he wants to re-sign for cheap)

Or if OGTEleven wants to delve into the scientific side of his question, there's chaos theory, the physical arrows of time, and any of the Theory of Everythings (the most promising being Ed Witten and crew's superstring). They're the closest "answers" to this question that one will find in one's lifetime.

But on the bright side, maybe this will force everyone in this country to stop resorting to oil as our first energy solution and start getting serious about alternative sources (wind, solar, organic, nuclear fission, research into nuclear fusion, etc...). How does that popular TBD analogy go? "Something or other" is like rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic? Well, drilling for oil in Alaska is also like rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic (the Titanic, in this analogy, representing gas prices). The rising oil demand from India and China ALONE are going to make oil simply unaffordable in the coming years, no matter what we pump out in Alaska. The sooner we unanimously realize that, the better off our American economy and American lifestyles will be in the future.

Dear French apologists, The irony will only get juicier in the coming decades. France's birth rate is too low to sustain itself, not without Muslim immigration. But since the Muslim immigrants prefer to live off of welfare instead of finding jobs and paying into the system, at some point within the first half of this century France's government will find itself unable to support all of its social programs. Motherment can be a real b!tch sometimes, can't she? Sincerely, - KH, your internet neighborhood pal (and registered Libertarian).

No problem. Quit school, quit your job(s), dump your significant other, erase all numbers in your cell phone, close the shades to all your windows, relocate your fridge closer to your computer, place a #1 and #2 bucket adjacent to your seat, choose a topic to crusade about (ex: Clements is too pass-happy, Fletcher is too short, Losman is too gay, ), and get cracking SON! Don't worry about spelling, logic, facts, etc... that sh-- will only slow you down!

I voted for Holcomb because I want to see how he and the entire team (especially the veterans) respond after whatever changes they hopefully made during the bye. But if the Bills lose to the Chiefs at home, then it's proof enough to me that they're not playoff material, and I will then be all for starting Losman for the rest of the year. And if the team beats the Chiefs but still loses to the Chargers in SD (which would make them 0-5 on the road in 2005 ), I will also be for Losman starting for the rest of the season. But if the Bills under Holcomb make it to 5-5 (meaning a 4-2 resurgence after JP's 1-3 start), I will continue to support Holcomb until the Bills are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs.

If you want the best 5 on the field, I would think you'd bench Teague and keep Gandy: Gandy-MW-Preston-CV-Peters But apparently Preston doesn't have the experience yet to make such a mid-season switch.

Maybe. Maybe not. Either way, our players could use the playoff experience for next season's run! And this franchise needs to break that 5-year streak without playoffs and 9-year streak without a division title....badly.

Git 'er bumped....standings, end of Week 9, w/ playoff tiebreakers in effect: DL1. Colts: 8-0 DL2. Bengals: 7-2 DL3. Broncos: 6-2 DL4. Patriots: 4-4 WC1: Steelers: 6-2 WC2: Chiefs: 5-3 7. Jaguars: 5-3 8. Chargers: 5-4 9. Raiders: 3-5 10. Bills: 3-5 11. Dolphins: 3-5 12. Browns: 3-5 13. Ravens: 2-6 14. Jets: 2-6 15. Titans: 2-7 16. Texans: 1-7 AFCE division title race note: still need 1 more Pats loss before we can control our own destiny again (stupid new division tiebreaker rules...where common opponent record now takes precedence over AFC record ). Wild card race note: 2 games and 4 teams stand between us and the final wild card spot. WEEK 10 SCHEDULE: Sunday, 1pm games: Bills (H) over Chiefs - ! Dolphins (H) over Bruschis - ! Ravens over Jags (H) - Wild Card relevance Texans over Colts (H) Sunday, 4pm games: Panthers (H) over Jets - ! Broncos over Raiders (H) - Wild Card relevance SNF: Browns over Steelers (H) - Wild Card relevance AFC BYES: Titans, Bengals, Chargers - note that the SD away game next week will be our 3rd team this season we've had to play coming off a bye (Miami and NE were the other 2). IMO, no team should have to play more or less than 1 game per season against a bye opponent. Have we stumbled upon another anti-Bills conspiracy here??? SUNDAY OUTLOOK: I know the "must-win" term tends to get thrown around casually, but this upcoming game is dangerously close to being truly a "must-win" situation. A 6th loss (especially to the Chiefs) would essentially kill our Wild Card dreams. Now couple that outcome with a probable NE win in Miami, and the division title would start looking unattainable with an effective 3-game disadvantage to the Pats.

Because no matter what anyone says, the new Cleveland Browns aren't the old Cleveland Browns. The Baltimore Ravens are the old Cleveland Browns. The 1995 Browns roster and 1996 Ravens roster were nearly identical . Buckeyemike, that's awesome that you're a fellow Bills fan now. But you're either a Lake Erie loyalist or a glutton for let-downs! Because Ralph Wilson may not last another decade, and neither may the Bills in Buffalo .

I like Angela's report... "Employer: UNEMPLOYED." Sure didn't take too long for the Panthers to fire her, huh?

What about "There's Something About Paulie?" That episode was awful. But I hear ya. Family Guy is much better than Simpsons right now. Even so, I have a hard time saying anything bad about the Simpsons. Family Guy owes a lot to them, as do all other sitcoms that followed. BTW, my nomination for best Simpsons episode ever was the one where Homer was accused of sexual harassment . EDIT: Anyone watching the War at Home? Terrible. Just terrible.

Conversely, I've never completely understood the pro-TD movement. I know that it's based partly on his ability to fill seats at RWS, but haven't WNY football fans always been among the most loyal in the NFL? Maybe behind only a few teams like the Packers, Chiefs, Steelers, and Skins? The "genius" behind TD's regionalized marketing of the franchise outside Buffalo actually belongs to that well-known TBD pariah, John Butler, who initiated this process in the late 90's. And everyone around here seems to love how TD came in here and began managing the cap, but how hard was it really to cut guys like Holecek, Fina, Ostroski, and Brown while electing not to re-sign overrated/oft-injured/old/greedy guys throughout the years like Cowart, Jennings, Winfield, and Pat Williams? Most fans who post here would have been making the exact same decisions had they been Buffalo's GM. Oh, and another puzzle is figuring out why the pro-TD'ers love him for all the quality free agents he's signed (Spikes, Adams, Milloy, etc…). Look at EVERY pro football roster - yes, even the crappy ones like the Cards - and you'll find star free agents on them as well. If you show them the $$$, they will come. One more issue that bugs me regarding the TD love-fest are all the various “Hollywood-esque" wheeling and dealing of which the homeristic pro-TD'ers can't get enough. I won't type here like an idiot and try to convince you that the Price-McGahee result wasn't brilliant (it was), but sometimes for every McGahee deal there is a Bledsoe deal or (so far, and yes I know this is entirely premature) a Losman deal that negates some of the other good work. If TD loves making deals that grab headlines and exude brilliance, why couldn't he do so once in a while for an OT or a DT? Instead of QB's and other offensive skill position players? I'll admit that one perfectly acceptable reason (to me ) for liking TD is that Ralph Wilson is the real man behind the puppet in a lot of the franchise's poor decisions over the past 5 years. But even so, supposing that one can actually PROVE that Ralph has been meddling in TD's GM affairs, you can't blame ALL of this team's overall failures on Ralph alone, can you? Who knows. Oh yeah, and as for understanding the anti-TD movement...among other things, it is based on: A. The team's 28th ranked overall regular season winning percentage since 2001 (.403), ahead of only the Browns, Cardinals, Texans, and Lions. B. Not making the playoffs since 2001, which only 7 other teams have also failed to do (Bengals, Jags, Texans, Redskins, Saints, Cards, and Lions). C. An 11-25 record against opponents on the road since 2001. D. A 5-21 regular season record against playoff teams since 2001. E. The hiring and firing of Gregg Williams, which set the team back several years. F. The trade for Drew Bledsoe and the renewal of his large contract, which not only set the Bills back longer but also helped propel the division-rival Pats to a dynasty. G. Generally poor OL drafting, highlighted by the fact that no offensive lineman has been drafted on the first day since Mike Williams in 2002 (who is, along with possibly Duke Preston, the only TD-drafted lineman currently worth anything to the team). H. The drafting of no 1st round defensive linemen (compare that to the Pats ), mediocre 2nd round DE's unable to generate any consistent pass rush on their own (Schobel, Denney, Kelsay), truly sub-par 3rd round DT's (Edwards, Anderson), and total schitt beyond the 3rd round. I. The joint decisions of hiring Mularkey and trading up for JP which, at this early point in TD’s 5th year, don’t look too promising. If the 2005 squad ends up underachieving like they did in 2003 and in 2004, the Mularkey/JP combo could (and should) be the nails in TD’s coffin come this January or no later than next.

Camera eater: Kerri-Elma? Thief: Laura-Buffalo? Uni-breaster: Rebecca-Getzville?

Same way I judged Gates - not considered a "good reserve" yet since he hasn't done much, if anything, on the field.

My dissenting opinion: A. For several guys on your list, you are being quite liberal with the use of the term "good reserves." Guys like Denney and Preston are good reserves. Guys like Euhus, Wire, Fast Freddie, Aiken, Bannan, Gates, etc... are either inactives or actual liabilities on the field. B. Not sure why you listed Dan O'Leary. He never even made the 2002 Bills roster, and was completely out of the NFL after 2 seasons. C. Keeping a lot of your draft picks can also be proof of "draft cronyism" more so than proof of good drafting, especially when the team's overall record has been piss-poor likes ours has been in the past 5 years. D. Look at the day 2 picks in those 5 years, and you'll find only 1 current starter - Terrence McGee. This has got to be below the average for NFL franchises drafting since 2001. E. Look at the day 1 picks, where you would expect some starters to be found, and you find 11 players who have started games this season. But looking more closely at their production, you'll see that while 2 are among the top players at their position (McGahee, Clements), 3 are ho-hum contributors (Schobel, Kelsay, Mike Williams), 2 are career backups who are only starting because of injuries (Tim Anderson - yes, I think he'll never be good - and Crowell), 1 is on IR now and won't be in the league next year (Ron Edwards), 2 are having major sophomore slumps (Losman, Evans), and 1 is a chronic injury problem taking up a lot of cap space on another team (Jennings on the 49ers). I can only count 6 day 1 TD draft picks who I think have a better than 50% chance of starting for the Bills by Opening Day 2006 (Clements, Schobel, MW, McGahee, Kelsay, and Evans; I personally have strong doubts that Losman or Everett will be starting by then). That, I'm guessing, would also be below the NFL team average for the day 1 drafting period of 2001-2005. F. Tom Donahoe sucks.

Stability is usually better, but not if that which is stable happens to also be incompetent. And change for the sake of change is almost always bad, but well-calculated, carefully planned change can be good. Very good. TD has given us some solid players at the skill positions, but soon it may be time to find a new GM with different opinions and talents and strategies that will help us jump over our current playoff hurdle - and hopefully beyond. More specifically, I'm looking for a GM-to-be (a proven, reputable ex-GM or scout or maybe even coach or player) who has a unique eye for linemen talent and can finally deliver the run-the-ball, stop-the-run, never-give-up, take-no-prisoners identity that this Bills team has been sorely lacking since the Polian Era. Oh, and speaking of Bill Polian, how did he come to be as Buffalo GM? Also, for what it's worth, I think 5 years is more than enough time to prove competence as a GM in today's NFL. If that makes me a reality TV-watching, MTV-watching, Hot Pocket-eating, generally impatient person in your eyes, then so be it.

Nope. Stussy109 was just being optimistic. The Bills' run D has been consistently awful ever since Game 2. Corey Dillon would have easily had 100 yds last Sunday if he had played all 4 quarters and if the Pats had the ball longer than 20 minutes that game. Our defense has made Curtis Martin (week 6) look 10 years younger and LaMont Jordan (week 7) look like a top 3 NFL RB. The difference between the Bills D of last year and this year? It's slightly complicated, but the loss of our former DT run stopper Pat Williams (free agency, to the Vikes) and our defensive MVP (Takeo Spikes, season-ending Achilles injury) hasn't helped. Oh yeah, and to make things even easier for your offense, the only decent DT on our roster (Sam Adams) may be benched for the Bills-KC game. I'm not sure why, but it has something to do with him being a big giant pu$$y.

My best guess would be 10. Here's why: Ralph has essentially given Teflon a full 6 years with that 1-year contract extension of his in the offseason. But KH will be playing this 2005 season up until the final 2-3 weeks or so when the Bills are likely to be mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, thus leaving JP with an insufficient amount of game experience for next season. So basically, Teflon will get a mulligan for the 6th year because of JP's "rookieness." But now the end of the 2006 season (Teflon's 6th) is when a bunch of veteran starting players have their contracts run out, especially on defense (Adams, Fletcher, Milloy, Kelsay, Posey). And this, my friends, is Teflon's excuse for Year 7 being a failure - too many key players gone and not enough time for any of the new players to develop proper team "chemistry." By the end of the 8th year, Mularkey and Co. (Clements and Gray) will get the blame for failing to develop a team that can make the playoffs. So Teflon will again shift blame to the old coaching staff (a la Year 3's conclusion with Greggggo) and hire a new one, thereby regenerating a tried and true excuse for sucking in Year 9 (a rookie coaching staff). By the end of Teflon's 10th year, I think Ralph Wilson will finally realize that something has been tasting funky with the Banana Rasberry Kool-Aid that Teflon keeps serving him. I'm not quite sure why I think the Reign of Terror will end after Year 10, as opposed to 11 or 12 or more. Maybe it's something about the number 10, which represents a full decade gone by, that will start RW thinking, "Stevestojan! This has gone on way too long!" So that's my best guess . Tell me yours! P.S. If I were Ralph Wilson and had my way, Teflon would be fired at the end of this current season if the team doesn't make the playoffs. After Drew was cut last year, Teflon stated that this team could already take the next step with JP. And when that proved to be untrue, KH was promoted instead of letting JP get more game reps because we were told that the rest of this team could compete NOW for the playoffs. And if they don't make the playoffs this season, that would be 3 straight years running in Teflon's tenure where we were told we could compete NOW and didn't. So there.

That's what I thought, too. When both CV and MW are healthy, they're above average. I'd be OK with this starting OL in 2006: Peters - Gandy - Preston - CV - MW. But I'd prefer: Day 1 draft pick - Day 1 draft pick - Preston - CV - MW. Either way, as long as Anderson and Teague are no longer starting.