RJ (not THAT RJ)

indeed he was: overweight, under motivated, etc. That opinion extended well into his second year as well. As the team improved, his reputation rose, leading to a fawning SI article in 1987 about "Buffalo's New Bruisers," which combined Bruce, Biscuit, and Conlan.

Clowney had a great season in college, but then the following year, a combination of schemes used by the opposition and nagging injuries made him seem a lot more ordinary. It's too early to call him a bust, but he's already shown that he isn't the superman people thought he was in that junior year.

I am still amazed that Doug Marrone thought he was going to win a battle with Whaley over the future of the team.

Lil Roger's Reign of Error rolls on....

Interestingly, the Buffalo News is often cited as one of the strongest opponents of a downtown stadium in the debates of the 1960s. Back then the idea was t put the stadium pretty much exactly where the FNC is. The owners feared the impact on their business and other property holdings, and thus they were delighted when Ralph decided on the OP site. So I'm not all that surprised the News is spreading skepticism now either.

But did he go back.... and to the right?

They also never hold. Or commit offensive pass interference.

Ha! Nice spotting of the blog whoring!

I was in Pittsburgh this week, and like how Heinz Field looks. Also like the Linc in Philly and M&T in Baltimore. All of those are good models for open-air stadia in downtown areas.

This is a crucial point. One could have thought/hoped that Buffalo would grow down toward OP when the stadium was built, but it has not happened. I could see the team deciding to keep the practice facility there. Lots of NFL teams have practice facilities that are separate from their stadia. But any new stadium will most likely (and, to my mind, should) be in the City of Buffalo.

He'll be down to card tricks soon.

Too true. Most lists are taken from the top of the semi-informed twenty something intern's head. I had no idea the Pack gave up so much for Hadl. I know that they made the playoffs in 1972, and probably thought a top-flight QB would get them back on top. Instead, the 1970s and most of the 1980s were a long frustrating dry period for Green Bay. which is also something few people remember.

Polian was not his "pal," and his criticism of the Bills FO, along with all the leaks about his dislike of EJ and his opposition to the Watkins trade, combined with his failure to make even a token positive gesture toward Buffalo have combined to make him look bad. This is his own doing. Ha. Ha. Ha.

I stand corrected on Knox, thanks for the trip down memory lane. Ugh. (I do have my beef with how Knox had lost the team during the strike, and how they had a habit of coming up small in random weeks which suggests coaching problems, but that's for another discussion another time...) The question of whether there is something wrong with the organization--or people in it--is worth asking, though one can always argue about long- vs. short-term problems. Mularkey, for example, was antsy because Donohoe was being fired, which had something to do with Donohoe and something to do with Ralph and Co. I would also say Donohoe, who had almost complete control over the operations of the team, was responsible for the Williams debacle (both the beginning and the end). The Saban and Knox situations were more on Ralph and his coterie. The arrival of new ownership cleans the slate. The Pegulas are now free to make all their own mistakes.

Sort of. Malarkey did resign, and his fate is the sort that Marrone should have considered. Do you see Mularkey on anyone's list of hot coaches to hire? Lou Saban was a lunatic who got more loony as he got older. He quit on lots of people. Chuck Knox didn't so much quit as walk away after the end of his original contract. All of which is to say that if you quit before the end of your contract as a head coach, you will get a reputation for being unreliable. The Bills definitely have had plenty of front office problems, but Marrone is in danger of facing the fate of Mike Mularkey. At least he was smart/lucky enough to get that $4 million.

Ha!

It was indeed. I apologize for misreading your comment. As a response to others who objected to my historical observation, I'll note that I was not saying that was a reason on its own to reject Shanahan, but simply one of my concerns. I have many more reservations about Mike Shanahan that go beyond that. And of course it is possible, even likely, that someone in the future will break that streak. Life is funny that way. But if history has any value (and I think it does) it is in helping us to be careful about our future choices. Not as hard and fast rules, but as reminders and caveats. The fact that no coach has won a super bowl with two different teams is the result of a lot of variables--such coaches, for example, are often less patient in subsequent jobs, less willing to work with staff or take suggestions than they were before they reached the top of the mountain. Those are basically the criticisms leveled against Parcells, Johnson, and Shanahan after they won Super Bowls.They also may not be quite the same geniuses when not coaching great players (Jimmy Johnson was less of a genius with Jay Fiedler than Troy Aikman, for example.)

That is my inclination: to go with a first- or second-time coach. You have more potential for improvement, and less chances of diminishing returns on the scale of Parcells, Johnson, etc. Here again, though, Bills history makes one worry about the chances of picking the right up-and-comer. That's why they play the games, right? Not a terrible argument, but 17 years of middling success since John Elway retired (and at least one hilarious takedown of his self-importance by Gregg Easterbrook) have made me skeptical about the Genius of Shanahan.

My concern about Shanahan is historical. Although there are several examples of coaches who went from mediocre in their first HC job to winning a SB on their second, and a couple of examples of Super Bowl coaches taking a second team to the big dance, up to know not a single SB-winning coach has managed to win a Super Bowl with a different team. Playoffs, sure, and an SB appearance or two, but no victories. Do we really think that Mike Shanahan will buck that trend?

For some of us, this is not a surprise at all. Signed, RJ Canisius High School, Class of 1985

How can anyone hate parfait? Parfait is delicious!

I for one do not want the Bills to be the rock bottom of the Bill Parcells Law of Diminishing Returns NYG: 2 Super Bowls NE: 1 Super Bowl appearance (loss) NYJ: 1 Championship Game appearance (loss) Dallas: 2 playoff appearances, No playoff wins MIA: 1 playoff appearance, no wins When he had the chance to buy the groceries, the meals were mediocre, and got progressively worse. And his attention span got progressively shorter.

I am loving that we have such threads as this. Marrone is an idiot for keeping Hackett, but will automatically become a genius coach whose loss is a killer if he takes his opt-out and walks. And it will probably be the same posters making both arguments.

Do you suppose their fan pages are loaded with folks complaining about the meaningless win?

A moral defeat, apparently.