RJ (not THAT RJ)

Yeah, what he said.

Perhaps knowing this is what encouraged Andrew Luck to stay in school and get more practice...

There are at least two personalities behind ieatcrayonz—one is the "whee, look at me, I am so wild and crazy, I make stuff up and recycle a 30-year-old gag that worked for Emily Litella" person and the other is an obsessive fixator on individual points in discussion, which is supposed to indicate the depth of his thought. I think I will have to put both of them on ignore.

I think there is no reason why Newton cannot adjust. I am merely saying that he will have to if he wants to succeed in the pros. I also decisively reject your insinuation of racism. Doug Williams was a great pocket passer, as was James Harris. Both we ill-served for much of their careers. I would take the 2011 versions of either of them in a heartbeat.

I am not saying whether Newton is accurate or not. I am saying that if he will be a successful pro (which I do not discount) he will have to learn to stay in the pocket and make the throws rather than head off running. And yes, I am saying that Shaun King for Tampa (several years ago) was a scrambler. Or am I getting his name wrong?

I can think of HOF QBs who became so because they overcame the desire to scramble out of the pocket... Terry Bradshaw, for example, had to learn to settle down and make the throws. It took him several years.

I am enjoying this thread, in part of course because I agree with the OP. I would not presume to say that a Mike Vick (or a Cam Newton) can have no success in the NFL, because clearly they can in spurts. The big question, though, is whether, when faced with a pro D that actively takes away their scrambles (think of what Bill Belly did to Flutie in 1998-1999), they are able to stand in the pocket and deliver the ball. Kordell Stewart eventually failed there, as did Shaun King and, for a while, Donovan McNabb and Randall Cunningham. This usually comes out in the playoffs, and all the fun runs during the regular season against lower-level teams who lose contain are forgotten. A QB needs some mobility, but in the end he needs to be able to stand in the pocket and use the other weapons in the team's arsenal. As much as I generally dislike martial metaphors in football, there is an apropos one here. The commander of a unit is actually lightly armed; his job is not so much to fight himself as to lead and direct the others. He should neither want or need to do it all himself, because he needs to save himself to continue leading.

Good point dave. I vaguely remembered that there was some piece of bad fortune that had stalled the drive leading to the Lindell miss, but had managed to block that particular detail out. All of that is further proof of just how narrow the margin is. Now, one could say that the Bills should have not let it be that close, but the truth is the 2004 Stillers were a very good team, even with many starters on the bench.

Welcome to my nightmare.

Generally true... but. After Nate's pick-6 made it 17-16 Bills, Drew led the offense on a long, time-consuming drive. The Steelers were on the way to bus running... but the drive stalled, and Lindell missed a chip shot FG (this led to a high point in the "Lindell sucks... TD refuses to let him go because he is an egomaniac" meme on TBD). The very first play after the miss, which was hugely deflating, Wille Parker breaks a long run that leads to a Stillers FG. Instead of 20-16, it is now 19-17 Stillers. Then comes the Bledsoe sack fumble (the play that essentially ended any chance that he would be back in 2005) and the rest is history. It all hinged on 2 consecutive plays. So narrow is the margin between victory and defeat in the NFL.

I find all of this retrospective blaming of the Bills for partying to be misplaced at best. When the Raiders won Super Bowl XV over Philly, everyone talked about how great it was that Matuszak and company partied like crazy while the Iggles under Vermeil were too tight. It all comes down to how the game was played. I also think that the complaint that Kelly did not hand off enough is only partially true. Sure, TT could have run more, but that was also a function of how few plays the Bills ran. The tackling problems we all know about. If Andre Reed holds onto a third down pass after the safety, the Bills would have had more TOP, more plays, and probably more carries. In the end, it came down to one point and two feet. That's the way it goes....

That's what I think, and it would allow schools to show that they actually take their educational mission seriously. Whether an athlete takes advantage is up to him.

Disallowing and disabling unwelcome comments? Wow, Simon works for the Bills?

Interestingly, very few D1 football programs make enough money to cover the entire athletic program, let alone give any money back to the schools. Athletic departments find ways to make sure that money stays within the loop. The great unmeasured benefit is the degree to which big-time athletics increase alumni giving. I think two simple reforms would balance the scales. One is a small living stipend for athletes, which would remove the "he can't even fly home for christmas" issue. The other would be for schools to guarantee the student free tuition for an extended period after completion of his eligibility (say, six years total--two years after completion of eligibility), which would help deal with the problem that student-athletes have a hard time carrying full academic loads during their seasons. It would not be unlimited (one has to put some responsibility back on the student) but it would cut down on the number of students who are simply cut loose after their eligibility is up.

No, the kicker stumbled and hit an up man with the kick. It was dumb luck, which is what one needs to turn the momentum sometimes. A bit like Reich throwing a pass right through the hands of Eddie Robinson that somehow gets through un-tipped to Metzelaars on the same drive. What is fascinating is that one cannot blame the run-and-shoot for the Oilers choke. Things just went the Bills' way. After the pick-6, the bills score two consecutive TDs (onside kick in between), and the Oilers have two drives that end with a pick and a 3-and-out. After the Bills pull within 35-31, the Oilers then mount a very long time-consuming drive that ends with a messed up figgie try. More dumb luck, but I'll take it. It was a helluva game.

He could have thrown it sooner... or not at all. I certainly understand your desire to defend Brohm, but his performance revealed a vatiety of shortcomings, and lack of pocket presence was at the top of the list.

All our starters? Fitz was out. That is a big difference, as we discovered.

On the first INT, he saw a man coming right at him and did not unload fast enough.

Too true, Promo.

First of all, you cannot say where the Bills will draft until after all the games are played, so your premise is moot. Second, the team has enough weaknesses that there will be plenty of available good players. Third, winning beats losing. I do not expect to convince you, and you are entitled to your opinion, but I would strongly argue against the notion that there is only one logical position to take. Enjoy the game. Oh, and God Bills!

As if they are mutually exclusive....

Every football game is meaningless to a person with any perspective. It is all about the fleeting joy of a victory. Anyone who pretends that they are more realistic or sensible because they want to overthink whether it is better to win or lose runs the risk of being a self-important tool.

Draft position is a consolation prize, not the main goal. You play to win the game.

Well, if she graduated from the 'Cuse, she is worth at least two lesser women, right?

Excellent historical context! But your signature should read A Syracuse Alumnus (if male) or Alumna (if female). Alumnae is feminine plural. Signed, A Syracuse Faculty Member