Mikie2times

I'm no cap expert, so if we can't do it we can't do it. I am however familiar enough with the cap, and how it pertains to Williams in regard to us not being able to cut him, or trade him. As I originally said the rest of the line is economical enough for Mike not to kill us. Besides what choice do we have?

That's why I said give him some upfront money, as in signing bonus. We've done this with Moulds, and I think we can make it work with Mike. Most players want that guaranteed up front money because they know their one injury away from there last payday.

Very good post. Two logics seem to exist on weed, and both are extreme. One is an anal retentive look on things, basically thinking that somebody’s life is about to start on a downward spiral because they smoked a J. The other is that weed does nothing, isn't addictive, and everybody else is just needlessly hating on pot. Your post captured the middle area and that’s probably more reality then either extreme. Smoking weed on occasion is not the end of the world, it even has some medical, and psychological positives in certain circumstances. Someone while high, compared to someone wasted, is no comparison, the drunk is much more likely to instigate a problem. I still smoke, and that’s just how I interpret pot as a drug, and how it compares to alcohol effects. But what some smokers fail to recognize is a couple problems do exist to the weed is perfect argument. The fact is your driving is impaired while high, smoking does affect your reaction time. Smoke a bowl and play some catch and you'll figure that out soon enough, combine that with no immediate detection technology and it puts the general public at risk. The other common rallying cry is that weed doesn't have any negative effects, or isn't addictive. Weed isn't like nicotine; it doesn't have a substance that's known to make people crave it. But people still do crave it because it makes them feel good, and they associate that positive with being high. It's not hard at all to smoke everyday for a period of time if you let yourself. If it becomes that way you become lazy, gain weight etc. Those side effects aren’t positive at all, but many people just continue to do it despite the negatives. Like you said, anything in moderation is fine; it just needs to stay that way.

Looking at Mike Williams’s value compared to the rest of the team and he still isn't worth it. Looking at the entire lines value, including Williams in this scenario, and it would be worth it. With Peters at RT, Preston at C, Gandy at LT, and Vill at RG, the rest of the line would be relatively cheap. I look at us allocating a block of money to the different positions, and I would say that compared to the rest of the league our OL would be very affordable. Since we can't cut Big Mike we should try and extend him. Maybe give him some upfront money to motivate him to lower his cap hit over the next few years.

Your correct about it being the Counter Trey, and not only did Joe Gibbs use it heavily in the 80's, he invented it. The RB takes a jab step to the side the lineman are pulling from and when the T and G clear he follows them to the opposite side of the field. It was a powerful play back then, but has been gradually phased out of today’s game as offensive lineman have grown, and defensive philosophies have changed. Gibbs still uses it a little in Washington, and a couple other coaches still dabble in it from time to time, but it will never be the monster it was for the 80's Redskins. Much like the Packers power sweep of the 60's, the evolution of football has taken away the ability of an offense to build there foundation on one play.

In one post you trashed me for saying we have some decent players at offensive line, in another you say the same line has potential, which is it? Vill had a great year in 2004, and has been hit bad by the injury bug this season. He is still an above average run blocker, and is more then capable in pass protection. Gandy is certainly still developing at LT, in 2003 he started 14 games at LT, but then in 2004 he started 5 games at RG and none at LT. Making the position switch was enough to keep him under the radar in FA, the Bills must have watched enough tape of him at LT in 2003 to like his potential. So with such a short time spent at LT he is still developing, but rumor also has it that he was breaking threw at G in 2004. Either way he is a player on the rise with versatility, and came with a great price. My entire point of chiming in on this debate was just to say we have some strong players, so a complete fix is not in order. We can tweak this in the off-season a little bit, but as of now why not start this line (Gandy-Williams-Preston-Vill-Peters). Teague is gone next year, the writing is on the wall. If we can get this unit to gel as the year winds down, we will have a talented cost effective line for several years.

Bennie would be gone, along with Teague. What exactly has Gandy done that says he's average at best? This guy is still raw and at the very least has brought the LT position a solid cost effective player. CV has been hurt all year, last year he was a great addition, now he sucks? Obviously the Bills want to try Peters out at RT, in one game he played he did a great job. A guy that’s played 1 game at RT his entire life, and plays that well probably has decent potential. This isn't Madden, the Bills can't or won't just switch out all 5 starters, nor should they. We have a couple bad apples, and it just happens when you have a bad apple on the offensive line it makes the entire line look bad. We need to keep some cohesiveness, remove the bad apples, and replace them with guys that have a history, or potential to perform. Give or take a couple off-season additions and this line is not as bad as it looks.

Well said, it would have been an uphill battle but it was possible. Wasn't the game we smoked Indy in one that would of clinched home field for them? I think that’s a pretty strong statement about how good that team was.

Williams makes a lot for a RT, or a LG, but when you look at the overal investment in the line the Bills will still be in great shape. Of course we hope he takes a pay cut, but I'm just trying to point out that it won't kill us if he doesn't. I would also like to add that Mike Williams (When healthy) is the Bills most dominating lineman. We often lose sight of that becuaes of his draft position, and large contract. I hope eventually we can just renegotiate him to a long term deal, one that provides some major up front cap relief. By the way did anybody see what happend when he was injured? Most guys would be done the year, the guy is truly banged up.

With Fluffer Deon Branch looking on, Tom Brady finishes the Cleveland Steamer on Rodney Harrison in the third quarter Monday Night. Crap really captured the performance of New England against the Colts, as they lost 40-21.

My apologies if this was already posted. Linky

The entire point of this post was that it was extremely unlikely that this would happen given the schedules, and that it's beneficial to go with JP for those reasons. You've been implying this entire time that were in "good" shape for the tiebreakers, but only now are saying that if we keep winning, and the Patriots keep losing, we'll be in good shape. I never factored that assumption in my logic, because my entire argument was we couldn't do what you think we can, and what have we done to show you we can? We have 3 wins against teams with a combined record of 6-18. Now all of a sudden you think this team is capable of winning 3 of 4 against teams that are a combined 22-11? At the same time, we still have to beat the Patriots, and hope they go 1 in 3 against teams that are 12-13, with two at home, and TB without their QB? The only other option is hoping we beat New England, sweep the Jets and Dolphins away, and get one loss by NE in any of the four Jets/Dolphins games. Either way in both scenarios we must make up a game on NE as they play the 28th most difficult schedule over the last 8, and we play the 2nd most difficult schedule over the last 8. As for the Jets last year the situation was we needed either Denver or the Jets to lose, and for us to win in the final week. Denver ended up winning, the Jets lost, and so did Buffalo, but had Buffalo won we would have been in a three way tie at 10-6. Since we split the series with the Jets, and had identical 3-3 division records, the common opponent tiebreaker would have then been used to separate us and the Jets as division rules are always used to separate division teams. The Bills would have then beaten out the Jets having a better common opponent record.

I don't think the playoffs are nearly as attainable as people think. The Patriots got worked last night by the best team in the NFL, that was as motivated as a team can get. Now all of a sudden their going to go 8-8 or 9-7? They have a ton of holes, but are still the most talented team in the east. Name one other team in the east capable of going 4-4 at the break when playing, @ CAR, @PITT, SD, @ATL, @DEN, and IND. Christ we would of lost every one of those games and be 2-6 at the break. Our only wins this season have been at the hands of the Dolphins, Jets, and Texans who have a combined record of 6-18. But now right when we get to face what NE had to, and a virtual murderers row of running backs, were supposed to make our run, while NE falls back to us playing the cupcakes we did our first 8 games. In order to win any tiebreakers with NE, we must sweep our two away games with the Jets and Dolphins, beat NE, and hope NE loses 1 of 4 with the Jets and Dolphins. If we don't overtake NE in the division game tiebreaker, we will lose the next tie breaker which is common opponents. Right now in common games, (not counting division games because that is a prior tiebreaker) Buffalo is 0-4 in games NE has played or will play, while NE is 2-3 in games Buffalo has played or will play.

Yes their is a definitive answer, and I apologize for coming off so harsh, I just thought everybody had this figured out with the same situation between us and the Jets last year. What this says is that common opponent is after Division games, so that means for common opponent to even come into effect you’re already assuming a tie in games played within the division. Your point was that the Bills hold a major tiebreaker advantage with the Patriots, even if they do tie NE in games played within the division. If we both finish with the same division record, we won't win the common opponent tiebreaker. Here is a list of the common opponents we both have Oakland- Patriots Win, Bills Lose Carolina- Patriots Lose, Bills yet to play Chargers- Patriots Lose, Bills yet to play Atlanta- Patriots Win, Bills Lose Denver- Patriots Lose, Bills yet to play New Orleans- Patriots yet to play, Bills lose Tampa Bay- Patriots yet to play, Bills Lose Kansas City- Patriots and Bills yet to play Bills 0-4, Patriots 2-3

Please read NFL tiebreaking procedures before you begin to tell me what I don't know about. Why the hell would you include division games in the common opponent record if division record comes before common opponent? You include the record of the Bills and Patriots in games OUTSIDE the division that both teams have or will play. As I stated the Bills are 0-4 against teams the Patriots have, or will play, and New Bruschi (We're not worthy!) 2-3 in games the Bills have, or will play. I even posted the remaining games to show how unlikely it is we overtake the Patriots in that tiebreaker.

That’s just not correct, if anything it's the other way around. What it comes down to it in order to win the division record we would need a sweep of the Dolphins and Jets away, beat New Bruschi (We're not worthy!) at home, and hope New Bruschi (We're not worthy!) loses 1 of the 4 games between the Dolphins, or Jets. If we tie in division standings and overall record, AND beat New Bruschi (We're not worthy!) the tie breaker will still go to the Patriots. AFC conference record is after common opponents in breaking up division ties, this rule was instituted with NFL realignment. Right now our common opponent record is Bills 0-4, Patriots 2-3, even worse is we now take the leagues best teams, while New Bruschi (We're not worthy!)’s has already accounted for them. The rest of our common games sound like this KC, @SD, CAR, DEN, while New Bruschi (We're not worthy!) are NO, @KC, TB, to have any chance of tieing NE in common opponents we will need to win 3 of those games, and hope New Bruschi (We're not worthy!) only wins 2. Again we don't match up to New Bruschi (We're not worthy!) in any tiebreaker scenario, are already a game back, and play an infinitely more difficult schedule. Starting JP is the best decision the Bills can make at this point.

In order to win the East we need to either have more division wins then the Patriots or beat them with our overall record. A tie won't cut it even if we beat the Patriots the second time around because they will win the common opponent tiebreaker. Here's a link called Football Outsiders, they break down games by tallying up performance in the most critical areas of football. For explanation go to the site, but the point I'm trying to convey is these rankings are about as accurate as they get. They also run baseballprospectus.com, which is baseballs best prediction publication, like I said these guys know their crap, and it's free. According to them the Patriots have established their 4-4 record against the 4th most difficult schedule in the NFL, and that doesn't count the Colts game. This SOS is calculated by their overall team rankings which are even more significant performance indicators then W/L. Conversely Buffalo has tallied their 3-5 mark against the leagues 29th ranked schedule. For the final 8 games the Patriots and Bills schedules take a drastic flip flop. The Bills play the leagues 2nd hardest schedule, while the Patriots play the leagues 24 ranked schedule. Unlike last year we don't have a cake walk in the second half, and if we couldn't tie the Patriots threw 8 with the schedules we played how the hell are we going to make up two games when the schedules flip flop against us? The never stop fighting attitude showed by some on here is admirable, and many of you feel that that attitude can only be conveyed if Holcomb is starting, but this is a time that the %’s drastically favor us getting our young QB some reps on the field. If he starts to have a Palmer like game or two towards the end of the year at least we know we have something, and can take that into next season. If he crashes and burns, and shows no signs of progress then at least we know what we don't have, and will get an early pick in the draft. Either way its better then missing the playoffs, and further clouding our QB situation next year.

The Patriots might have a ton of injuries, and are not nearly as good as last year but they won't lose 4 games with what they have left. NE has 4 losses during the first half, and have played @CAR, @PITT, SD, @ATL, @DEN, and IND. For the second half, they play 5 games against the rest of the AFC east, then they play both NO and TB who are struggling badly. The only real difficult test should be the game at Arrowhead which I expect them to lose. Perhaps they lose one more between the AFC East games, NO, and TB, but anything past that is a stretch. They won't get anywhere in the playoffs against the AFC more talented teams, but with this remmaining schedule the New Bruschi (We're not worthy!) (We're not worthy!) are still easily good enough to go 10-6.

In theory it sounds like solid move, and I'm all for shaking things up, but it might take him awhile to get adjusted to Guard. If he switches we need to be patient, of course patient’s sucks with a player making that salary, but expecting great performance out of a career T right away is a bit premature. I think all of us have come to terms that MW will never be a LT, and of course we want him to restructure, but we could have a lot more $ allocated to the line then we do right now. Even if he doesn't restructure, Villareal, Preston, Gandy, and Peters don't make a ton so the overall investment in the line would probably be around average or less. Of course this is all assuming he can stay on the field, and be a solid player at either RT or G.

I just checked on the betting pattern on my sportsbook, KC has taken 87% of the side bets. The books are really letting the public hammer KC without the line moving, BEWARE!!

This isn't last years Eagles namely because TO wasn't acting like this last year. This years Eagles are doomed either way, they went 4-3 with him, with a miracle win against the Chargers, and are 0-1 without him.

If what you say is really how it is then TO wouldn’t be a problem, but obviously NFL players don't just ignore players like TO, it does effect them. Perhaps it shouldn’t with the money they make, and I'm not disputing or arguing with that, but it does, and both teams he played for admitted that. If a team had a ton of cap space and was one player away, I might sign him to a one year deal, anything longer then that and he will kill your team.

Wow I was off, but that doesn't efefct my point. TO is obviously a big help to a team when he is not on one of his tirads, but when he is, he's not worth what it does to the team.

Your right, because the simple addition and subtraction of TO is the reason for the rise and fall of the 49ers and Eagles. The Eagles dominated for years in the NFC, and GOT to the Super Bowl last year without him. Hell they played more games without him then with him last year. But also worth mentioning is TO being relatively quiet as he was injured, so that really didn't affect the Eagles as they went without him on their way to a NFC championship. He had a great super bowl, but they lost, and proceeded to begin calling out the Eagles most respected leader. This year Philadelphia was a whopping 4-3 with TO, and 0-1 without him. It wasn't until this year TO started his tirade, and not coincidentally the Eagles are off to their worst start in 5 years. After his fiasco the Eagles claim irreconcilable differences, TO will be gone at the end of the year. The 49ers have the least talented team in the NFL the last two seasons. But again we have some striking similarities with Philadelphia. Happy TO and the 49ers go 22-10 between 2001-2002. But that was before TO became the TO of today, after he started the tirade the 49ers inexplicably dropped to 7-9. After a his fiasco the 49er claim irreconcilable differences, TO will be gone at the end of the year. You starting to see a trend?

The motivation it takes to play football, and to be a team, cannot be captured with dollar amounts. A big difference separates a player from trying hard, and trying his best, and when you have a player like TO around it effects the motivation of players and the cohesiveness of your team. Sure they get paid, but these concepts are emotional concepts, money doesn’t motivate it, or promote it. The disparity in teams in the NFL is razor thin to begin with, and when you have a team that has leaders, and believes in each other, and is motivated to play their best, those are the very teams that seem to excel in the FA area. What recent Super Bowl champion didn’t have a team identity? Or didn’t have intense motivation, and leadership? TO severs the ability for those things to exist, and his talent doesn't make up for it. San Francisco saw this, Philadelphia saw this, why can't you see this?