Fake-Fat Sunny

I'll try to keep this short since reading obviously is exhausting for you. 1. MW has really been a big disappointment in terms of production for a #4 pick. 2. MW like all tackles gets beaten by speed rushes off the edge )ex. Schobel dusted Ogden last year in Balt) but by far the bigger problem in his career has benn coordinating with the RG next to him on stunts and when folks go inside on him. 3. Often edge rushers have to actually run around the TE lined up to his outside at RT so the edge rush has not been the major issue he needs to address in terms of improvement. 4. Last year working with Villareal rather than requiring him to "teach" the young Pacillo saw his best performance as a Bill. I have little idea where you have maufactured the fantasy from that I said he NEVER gets beat on the edge or why you demonstrate such a fundamental misunderstanding of OL play. I do not claim at all to be an expert but I do know what a TE is.

I think a grassroots movement to get the networks to experiment with an announcerless game as they did in the 70s might have some legs. The 70s effort was pretty unsatisfactory because they merely went with ambient noise but did nothing to effectively keep one aware of the time left or explain weird ref calls (thank gosh they did not blow the coin flip that game). However, with new graphic innovations like the marking of the first down point, fulltime score and time, and the crawl with out of town scores, the announcers are at least redundant mostly and just awful a lot of the time. The nerworks might bite on this idea because it would give them leverage in lowering the costs of paying announcers.

If this plan suceeds can you say Los Angeles Bills? The NFL has this region in a position where like most fans we have no economic leverage when the team performs badly and maybe a little when an area like Cleveland gets royally screwed by Art Modell and the political leadership in the town proves willing to take on a large capital holder and beat them. Beyond meaningless whining on radio stations like WGR or internet outlets like TSW which have little impact on the on the field game there are few outlets for fans and none that have a real impact. It may be tough but such is life under the American wat if doing business.

The key statistical point which you seem to be missing here (perhaps you might take off your glasses and see it) is that the game has a first half which counts on the scoreboard as well. If one is going to try to "prove" a players valyue by relying on an analysis of the teams statistics then one should really look at the entire team performance. Overall as a team MN should get the appropriate credit for beating one of the worse teams in the NFL on the road with a substandard offensive performance (the conventional wisdom is that a D needs to hold an opponent to 20 points or fewer to be considered as having a good game- As the ME O produced 13 points for the game and fortunately got the benefit of 7 points on an INT return, I think it defies both the stats and wisdom to call the MN O performance anything but substandard). MN deserves credit in this game for getting a W on the road. This is very hard to do. However, it seems fairly rediculous for any fan of the Vikes to feel good about their O performance in this game (and one would have to do a lot to indicate one should feel good about the performance of McKinnie and most other members of the Vikes O in this game. Vikes fans should feel great about the game result because they got the W and it cannot be taken away from them. However, it defies both stats and logic to try to feel good about a particular O player on this squad based upon their substandard O performance. The TSW motivation here seems to be a desire to find fault with or indict TD. This is a legitimate point and can easily and honestly be done as the W/L under his reign has been sub .500 even if you throw out the initial 3-13 season and blame that on Butler. Hoiwever, an attempt to make this point based on the assertion that TD should have passed on MW and taken McKinnie instead is just silly. MW sucks and has disappointed. However, McKinnie sucks and has disappointed as well. Last night McKinnie's performance in one half does not include a rational analysis of the entire game played by McK, needs rose colored glasses to even attempt to make this point using last night's Vikes O performance and needs glasses which obscure the reality of McK's play over his career, his interluded with the cops this year and his initial holdout. There are plenty of good reasons to find fault with and indict TD. It however is completely irrational to look at McKinnie's career and a selected look at his performance in part of one game to claim that TD was an idiot for picking MW instead of McKinnie. TD is an idiot but last nights game presents no evidence to show this however.

Sorry no cliffnotes here. I was thinking in print to prepare myself for watching the game with some buds tomorrow and I have a meeting to go to on St. afternoon so there is no time to summarize. Sorry There has been a lot of chatter about this point (which spikes after a loss bouyed by folks saying git rid of him). Folks are entitled certainly, but i think a lot of this chatter misses the point that the criteria for whether he has done well in the important aspects of being a GM for us fans (W/L %, making the playoffs, and ultimately getting to at least or winning the SB) are actually quite different from the criteria Ralph probably uses for judging whether TD has done a good job or not. By my criteria as a fan, there is a pretty good case that TD should be gone (I'm a little bit more charitable than many on TSW that I think he gets one mulligan and a little time to right the ship of state). However, it is easy for me to see why Ralph has given him an extension because overall he has been outstanding at meeting the criteria Ralph or most rational folks who own a team would use in assessing his work. This is my assessment if TD: Overall: C- (or a D on my nasty days) W/L- The game is about winning games and even if you throw out the 3-13 clinker when his job was to deal with the cap hell left by Butler he only has a W/L of 27-20 in his 4 years minus the throw-away season. If C is average (there should be at least some credit for putting a compeitive team on the field) then his performance is disgustingly slightly below average. I'm a spoiled fan due to the success of the early 90s but his overall W/L is below .500 in his time. Playoffs made- Zero. This is a direct outcome of the W/L but worth noting because playoff games simply mean more product and this failure is a big failure. I had to admit it, but I prefer a great/horrible team which makes the playoffs one year and sucks badly other years than a team which has the exact same record but which is consistently mediocre (my ultimate preference is consistenly good and making the playoffs each year- can't a fan dream). SBs appeared in and won- Zero. This worth mentioning because this is the ultimate goal. I consider making the conference championships to be a successful year (simply making the playoffs does not equal success in my mind particularly in the current National Football Lotto where not very good teams do luck into the playoffs each year). However, being one of the last 4 is success in my mind and merely making it to the SB is a real achievement even if you lose. It is this calculation that leads me to assess the early 90s Bills as one of the best team's ever because making it to the final game 4 straight years is a tremendous achievement and actually is one which I think is more than comparable to a team making it once like TB and winning and showing no signs of going back. However, winning is winning and losing 4 straight does not compare at all to winning a couple (or more if you are NE) SBs in the same time period. Team management- Here TD sounds like Charles Dickens in that his work reflects the best of times (draft management like picking McGahee, tagging Peerless and stealing a #1 to reolace the one acquiring Bledsoe, attracting good FAs like TKO, Fletcher and Adams here, good cap management signing these players to cap friendly contracts- those who pooh-pooh the speed with which he escaped cap hell as being a rote activity he was simply forced to do ignore the fact that teams like AZ or even SF somehow have found a way to deal with caphell badly and are not even competitive most years for a while) and other details of work. However, his hiring of GW who simply was not ready for prime time and passing on Fox and Lewis whom he interviewed and have gone on to successful HC work elsewhere is TDs biggest mistake IMHO. It is understanable and quite human that he hired a man who would have been a great administrative assistant whom he could beat unlike Cowher who ran him out of his last job. However, though this is understanable it is not condonable and TD simply sucked with this decision. The irony here is that I wish he were more directly controlling and that if he was going to hire this A-A with great lists and contacts, he had simply forced him to make good decisions rather than allowing GW to make bad ones like his inability to hire assistants who knew more than he did about offense (the Sheppard debacle) or when he finally hired a former HC who might replace him (Kevin Killdrive) he refused to discipline him to make him abandon the Killdrive style when it was uneffective. TD finally brought in his guy to revive the D (LeBeau) and he should have forced GW to use Pendry or something to force Killdrive to diversify his attack. He would discipline and override GW when he strayed into GM territory) the cut of Centers soon after GW announced he would be a Bills as long as he wanted to be) but he should have been invasive forcing GW to hire Clements instead of Kevin Killdrive (even if you hate TC now he would have been better than Killdrive) and really taken over this team even if it meant he might get blamed. Overall, he has done some great work on the draft where the MW foul-up is something that was bad but happens to all GMs who cannot produce a perfect record of picks. This is easily compensated by him doing some fabulous work getting WM (and managing the cap well to boot with his contract), reading the market well still getting Kelsay and stealing Denney off the phone from Pitts. Even the rap on TD which was initially reasonable that he did not do well on the second day of the draft has now been undercut by the reality of second day choice McGee making the Pro Bowl and some fine work by him identifying and signing some good UDFA. I also see the Bledsoe acqusition complaints as mostly folks getting their panties all up in a wad about a middlin pick-up rather than a bad one. Bledsoe was simply a wash for us with the intial pick-up as hiS Pro Bowl reserve first year for us was great and needed as we had to replace RJ. it was his second year meltdown which made his work for us a wash. The mistake was to extend him and the Bills paid for this by having to cut him and absorb a cap hit after last season. If we had smply cut and said goodbye to Bledsoe after his horrednous 2003 then having replaced the lost 1st with the PP steal from AT, I would have judged us as being ahead of the game even with his wash record of 2002 and 2003. In total his on field team building work has been beset with some problematic choices which weigh against some outstanding work. When you add in a bad HC hire you end up with a mediocre result slightly below average. Bits and pieces- This is my label for the details of the GMs work such as attracting good folks, cap management, drafting, hiring, and the business side like ticket availabilty, interface with Business Backs the Bills and training camp locale. With the gross exception of his making a horrible first HC hire he has done an extremely good job with the non-play side of the business and this to me is why he rightfully got extended by Ralph. i care about these things because a poorly run team is not sustainable and eventually these failings are reflected in the W/L. However, though i am aware of an care about these side issues, they are not a key for me so I am pissed that we do not make the playoffs and do not care about this stuff that Ralph does or must care about. In the end, its RWS who makes the decisions and not me. I think TD has served him well. I just wich as a fan he served me just as well.

Looking off the safeties is a great skill. I really began to take notice of it in the mid-80s when I began to first play fantasy football. It taught me the import and the consistency of the look-off in a weird way. In our league I was a few points ahead or behind (I don't remember which) of my opponent and I had Jerry Rice as my WR, but my opponent had Joe Montana as his QB. In the scoring our league used, while Rice got 6 points for catching a TD. Montana only got 3 for throwing one. Rice also got a point for every 10 yard gained while Montana only got a point for every 20 yards he gained throwing. Thus, i went into this game hoping that Rice would throw alot to Rice as essentially I got double points compared to Montana for each throw. Alternately, Montana completing possession throws to Dwight Clark just killed me. SF was playing the Redskins and my roomie was a Washingtonian who grudgingly accepted my watching the game with some bizarre rooting of sometimes yes and sometimes no for Montana passing, because my football knowledge was esoteric enough that I actually started the game rooting for the Skins to score and get a big lead. My figuring was that if SF fell way behind they were likely to abandon short possession throws and go deep to Rice more. However, as the game progressed, i really began to notice that whenever Montana looked right to start a pass play, he almost always through left to Rice and also vice-versa. My roomate began to look at me a bit oddly as I rooted for SFon pass plays where Montana looked right, root against him when he looked left and was quite happy when SF ran the ball as this did nothing for Montana's passing yardage and thus my opponent. The game got really perverse for my roomie when suddenly Rice got hurt. After some thingking, I then began to root even harder for SF to get a lead so that they would then go to the running game and burn clock. I refined my rooting further by yelling for SF's ST and D to deliver this margin so there was no risk of Montana getting valuable points to build this lead. Ironically, the Rice nick was minor and he came back into the game. It probably would have annoyed my roomie to see I was again rooting for SF to throw deep, but by then he had left to watch the TV in his room in disgust without me. Oh well, but one could clearly see that the great QB used his eyes to look away from where he was throwing and how it forced the opposing DBs to follow his eyes and open things up for his intended receiver.

This isn't simply based on what I read but by some objective standards of results. Both what one reads about what shape he is and what one sees and jusdges his shape to be when we go to workouts are subjective standards. The objective standards are his performance on the field. is there anything objective that you can site which points to him showing up in presaeson out of shape year after year which adds to or counters. 1. His rookie year he was in shape well enough at the spring combine to produce obnectively good results which got his drafted 4th such as his results in drills even though he is a massive specimen. Perhaps you want to argue that he somehow got out of shape between mid-spring and mid-summer when he came to camp, but objecively he became an immediate starter and participated in a very effective O his rookie year. 2. His second year there are fewer objective showings of good production but again the results are adequate at worst since he was part of a productive run game. His pass pro game had some problems, but again objectively (and even subjectively) there is no record of the sacks he was involved showing signs of him being out of shape physically. he was repeatedly beaten on outside speed rushes perhaps this is the case, but instead he showed mental and co-ordination difficulties with Pacillo as the two of them were confused and ineffective on stunts. Again attempting to look at this objectively, if he reports out of shape and plays into shape one might expect to see more injuries and nicks early (as happened in his 3rd year when he did show up out of shape and injured his ankle trying to get back in shape and missed a couple of pre-season games) but he went uninjured until roughly game 10. Looking at this objectively in terms of results and subjectively in terms of reports of OL play in the first two games of that season (when allegedly MW is out of shape) in both games the O was effective in doing their job (even putting up over 40 points on MN) and there is not evidence either objective or subjective of MW producing badly in an a productive O. 3. His third year he did report out of shape as seen objectively in his pre-season injuries as he worked to get in shape and logically seen from his non-attendance at "vouluntary" practices. However, these objective showing and subjective observations that he did report out of shape this one year, points to it being quite likely false that he reported out of shape year after year. There is only subjective evidence that he was in great shape when he reported, so this has to be taken with a grain of salt. Yet as detailed in a couple of links provided above these testimonials actually went beyond saying that he showed up in OK shape but actually sang the praises of the results of his workouts as him actually being in great shape. I think that the view that he had shown up out of shape year after year is what is based on the subjective evidence of what is written or what less informed non-professional observers such as YOU AND I feel we see. However, a look at objective measures show him showing up in good shape his first year, probably his second year, not in good shape his third camp (though fortunately he dealt with this to have what many crtics feel was his best year as a Bill though the perfoemance still fell below or expectations). This season there are pretty commonly sited subjective reports that he showed up in the best shape he ever was in as a Bill. The objective output by MW does not add up to him being the best ever at anything this year. however, I think the evidence points to him being weak from working out toomuch if anything because injuries are clearly an issue for him this year. However, the thought that he shows up out of shape year after year seems contrarty to the objective evidence as he does seem to have been in good enough shape to produce adequately (though not extraordinarily well) his first two year. He was out of shape though it led to what was likely his best year as a Bill last year and subjectively he actually came to camp in great shape this year though this did not translate into good objective results. As far as him showing up out of shape year after year in his four years though subjectively you saw what you saw, ojectively what you saw simply seems incorrect.

From the reports I have seen MW has simply NOT shown up at camp out of shape year after year and unless there is something you know that other folks don't I think you are wrong on this point. Rookie year- MW was ing good shape bolstered by the workout one needed to do to perform well so you got a high draft pick and big contract. MW performed functionally well at the Combine having great numbers in tasks such as the shuttle run. The time between Combine and the pre-season is not incredibly long and he showed no particular signs of being out of shape at his first camp. Year 2- I have no specific recollection of his reporting in poor shape or great shape. However, his performance in games does not seem to reflect him showing up out of shape and then playing himself into condition. An outside observer Bills Daily did not site MW specifically but rated the OL work for the game as A work with the only problem being a couple of sacks he faulted Bledsoe on for hanging onto the ball too long. The second game saw the Bills rack up over 40 points on MN and the OL play was long and effective. MW did not start all 16 but the injuries occured in the second half of the season and do not seem consistent with the slow start you describe because he showed up out of shape. Year 3- This was definitely the year he showed up out of shape, but this specifically happened because of his unprofessional meltdown after his Grammy's death. One could see him being out of shape not simply through subjective observations but he ended up injuring himself and missing pre-season games as he struggled to get into shape. Ironically, he did get back into shape prodded by some threats from JMac and the Bills and had what many outside observers consider to be his best year as a Bill as he even got a gameball by midseason for his work. Year 4- The observations of outsiders completely contradicts your complaint that he shows up out of shape as it was reported this year that MW actually showed good signs that he worked out this off-season and he was in the best shape of his carreer. These subjective judgments are probably true as it came from several sources and the big boy did not look monstrously out of shape to me. However, ironically. this did not have any objective effects as injuries have been a real issue for him this year. Its easy for someone to know something I do not know (just ask my wife and she will tell you how wrong I can be) but the accusation that MW has showed up year after year out of shape simply does not fit the objective facts or even the subjective reports that there was 1 of his 4 camps where he showed up out of shape.

From overanalyzing your favorite team to putting together a fantasy league based on this fantasy entertainment much of NFL rooting is foolish so when i use the phrase it is certainly no indictment, just a statement about the foolishness we all love. Certainly one of my complaints about the game is that it is too complicated in its current form as coaches seem to rule. However, these complication are a reality in our NFL fantasy so I think this foolishness of blocking schemes and styles makes a real difference in peformance.

I agree that MW has been a big time disappointment to Bills fans, but this says a lot more about the CBA and his contract than it says about his play which has topped out as adequate and hopeful and bottomed out as mediocre as an RT at times and he sucked in his first game at LG. Overall, my sense of MW's career is this: Rookie year- pretty good and quite hopeful for a rookie, He was an immediate starter in the NFK and was adequate at worst and actually proved to be quite productive as a run blocker in a very successful O which saw his RB make the Pro Bowl, his QB and a WR make it as reserves and the other WR being left out with 94 receptions. The pass pro with MW gave up way too many sacks, but the prescence of an immobile QB and a pass-happy O were a bigger part of this problem than any rookie struggles for MW. 2nd year- Saw some definite struggles as the pass pro problems continued. This time part of the problem could be directly linked to poor play at times by MW, but the problem was not outside speed rushes but actually poor coordination with first time RG starter Pacillo. His RB again was a productive runner and the O has such general problems with Kevin Killdrive's refusal to change his system that simply faulting MW ignores too many other problems. One also began to see the lack of progress in MWs game as for the second year in the row his OL position coach had but 1 year of experience at the position and it was rediculous requiring MW to be the experienced part of his partnership with the RG. 3rd year- The lack of forward progress turned into a full scale remission as MW missed all the "voluntary" minicamps and then showed up for pre0season fat and out of shape. This poor performance was at least understandable as the Grandmother who had raised him died. However, though him being heartbroken is understandable his unprofessional reaction to this trauma is not condonable at all. Too many teammates depend on MW as well as a region and he is simply too well paid for him to have a meltdown even from this extreme stress. The good news is that he did finally react properly from some good stick and carrot coaching by JMac who both threatened to move him to guard and then oversaw him earning a gameball for his play by mid-season. Still, the damage was done as the Bills had drafted him in a slot which called for an LT size contract and it appears quite likely that TD chose him with the thought/hope of him developing well enough to slide to LT just as Jennings was going. MW's play and come back from a legitmate fear as the 2004 season began that he might be a bust provided some hope that if he continued to play in 2005 as he was developing overall in 2004 then perhaps he could make the switch to LT. 4th year- Be it injuries or lack of desire this season has not seen MW continue his progress and legitimate questions now reign as to how you might least painfully dump him (though his cap hit and contract may make that imposible at least for another year. He in fact merited a move, but it turned out to be to LG as the motivation in finding the best 5 OL players turned out to be a desire to replaced to flawed Anderson and to find a spot for the athletic Jason Peters. One ironic benefit of this move is that it may have lit a fire under Anderson who though the run blocking was still insufficent against KC, the pass pro for the mobile JP was much improved with Anderson in there after a concussion of Holcomb in part resulted in MW getting pulled. Still the bug-a-boo in Anderson;s game as been his constant penalties which if this was due to a lack of focus getting benched may well have added focus to his game. If this is true, MW may end up not being one of our best 5 OL players has folks have been impressed with Peters work in two games at RT. Overall, I think MW is headed toward being a bust. However he has proved to be adequate in at least 2+ pf jis nearly 4 seasons. However, adequate though not a bust like a Ryan leaf is not what we paid for and if he is not one of our best 5 he probably has to go. It ain't over until its over, so well see. In addition, it seems a bit rediculous to fault TD much in this case. It seems to be fairly true that really only about 50% of 1st rounders turn out like one hopes for most GMs. TD has gotten 6 players using the first round asset in his 5 years. In total, the 6 incude 3 choices that have worked out (Clements, McGahee, Evans), 1 failure to date (MW), 1 who its still too early to tell (JP) and the extra choice of Bledsoe is a wash in my judgment deservedly making the Pro Bowl his first year and then being a total bust his second. As far as 1st round choices I think TD is comfortably ahead of the 50% success rate in his 5 years.

Some fans are complaining (whining actually IMHO) about MM being surreptitious about who is going to start at QB for us on Sunday. Some folks argue either: 1. It makes no difference because it is obvious JP will start, or 2. It makes no difference because as a DL player simply line up and play regardless of who is QB, or 3. I'm a fan and I have a right to know (so there). I think these are most other reasons are actually short-sighted and really selfish in some cases. My sense is that a lot of the key to this question is one of whether there are significant different blocking schemes and styles for JP vs. Kelly Holcomb. If there are, then I think that too the degree that the opposing D (players maybe and coaches definitiely) have to spend time preparing for both QBs, if prep work is different if there is a real possibility that either may play it complicates prep alot and adds to the opponents work. Personally, I feel it is quite unlikely that Holcomn will start on Sunday. However, the main reason i make this judgment is not based on the quality of JPs play or even a sense that even if he is bad he must play to get better. I actually think we are more likely to start JP because concussions are such an odd injury and are getting heightened concern, scrutiny and action by NFL teams, If Holcomb were Vick and the drop-off to his #2 is significant then I would expect my #1 Vick to start unless he is really hurt alot. However, given JPs good play last week and Holcomb's ineffective play against NE and intially against KC, given that Holcomb was still having some woozinness on Monday, my sense is he sits. However, no one off the team really knows his condition and MM has shown that he is fine shifting his QBs around as starter. I can see a player making a decision only to review his opposing blockers work with JP starting. However, the smart coach is going to prepare for both knowing that if KH can play even if he does not start he likely will see some time on Sunday. In fact, if my D is successful as I plan on it being I defitinitely will be seeing a bit of KH on Sunday (assuming he is healthy) because MM will need the spark. The key to how much of a pain this is will be how different the rushing schemes and style of play will be with a different QB. I have not compared the two and how thier OL plays to each other, but if someone has the time or the memory it should provide useful info. My sense is that the greater mobility of JP and the faster release of Holcomb (as JP learns to make reads and because JP will run for his life and throw on the run more than KH, the blockers probably block differently for each QB knowing they will have to hold their blocks longer with JP and that they will have to be aware he moves around alot. If in fact the Bills OL blocks differently for these two QBs, then likely it not only will add to the opposing coach workload but also that of opposing players who watch a lot of tape to prepare. It makes sense to me that MM will wait as long as he can to tip off our opponents. As one who envourages him to lie to me if fooling me also fools the enemy, I have no problem with this.

Actually, his attempt to run back the punt which can be correctly described as a cluster f**k did make me say wow. It would have been great if the wow was because of some glorious score but it did not and at that point in the game it would have been silly to expect that. However as he ran all over the field sideways for little forward gain, it provided a glimpse of what he might produce once this rook gets more time and learns: 1. what is to be a pro- a task which took Evans half a season under better circumstances. 2. develops chemistry with his teammates- again something Evans has now seemingly developed with JP with devastating impact on the opponents Sunday. 3. the coaches learn how to utilize him, he has some success so the opponents shift to cover him (which actually will be the primary benefit we get from Parrish in that he makes life easier and more productive for Evans/Moulds rather than he scores TD after TD on his own and he learns to be productive with how he is used. The problem here is not with the seeing of the facts (he hasn't scored yet well dduuhh) but with understanding what the facts mean. The key to answering the question posed in this thread is: Was he on the field even for either or both of the Evans TDs? If he was, then Parish may already be cobtribuing to the Bills as on the first one the deep safety was late getting over to Evans and even though the ball was underthrown he still got the TD. On the second one, he singled, JP thre a perfect pass and Evans concentrated and made a great catch. If Parrish's speed altered the coverage or reactions in either case his presence was part of a win for us. I don't know, but folks should look a little deeper before they declare someone a bust or even a disappointment. He may disappoint some fans because their expectations have little to do with reality.

I think the answer is more clear if one is making a judgment based on popularity (JP is the man because he did well last weekend and Bledsoe sucks because ..well he is Bledsoe). Cliff notes begin: I vote for JP in my own poll thought I am impressed and pleased with Bledsoe's performance in 2005. I think we made the right move for us and ironically for Bledsoe as well who really will make himself a stone cold lock for the HOF if Dallas continues on the same track they are on which has produced a 6-3 record. Cliff notes end. However, when one looks at the football issues this is an interesting question to me. Overall, I think that Bledsoe is having a fine year. The bottomline for me is really measured by the number of Ws a team puts and whether a team has a successful season producing at least a winning record and actually not being a real success in my mind unless they make it at least to the conference championships that year. By this measure, because it is such a rare thing for players to be part of a successful team that I think Bledsoe already was quite likely to make the HOF given that he: 1. Led a teams to the SB where they lost under Parcells (merely making it once and even winning it does not make a player worthy of the HOF but it is a measure of successful play). 2. He played an essential role on an SB winner playing QB and even throwing the winning TD in must-win game for NE in the year they won the SB with Brady leading the way most of the season. Bledsoe did not lead the team on the field the way he did before when he worked with Parcells to get to the final game, but he did play QB successfully in the majority of a must-win game and deserves credit and the ring for that. 3. He has been declared dead not once (by NE when they cut him) but twice (by the Bills when they cut him. Both times he answered these rejections by playing QB on far more productive teams the next season than they produced without him. He made and deserved his Pro Bowl reserve status with the Bills in 2002 as we moved from 3-13 to 8-8 and the production of Ws by the Boys so far has included some nie play by Bledsoe (along with his typical brain farts like his INT yesterday) and god and bad, the team is 6-3 so far after a horrendous losing season last year. Bledsoe the occaisional (almost once per game) brain cramp and all has simply QB'ed this team to a very good record and only those who make judgments without regard to facts would overlook this. 4. He has put up some very glitzy career statistics. It matters little that his near the top of his field numbers like yardage gained are in part due to his lasting a long time, as simply lasting a long time in the NFL is a fear in itself. Again his % of succes does not indicate he is one of the best, but it cannot be denied that his raw absoultue numbers are among the best. This record will likely get him into the HOF and the lead factor will actually be who he will be competing with as an eligible player when he retires. Unless he and Favre retire the same year he may well equal Kelly in getting in his first year of eligibility. Still. despite the fact I think a look at the cold football fact means Bledsoe is likely headed for the HOF, I think from a football perspective the Bills did exactly the right thing cutting Bledsoe and looking elsewhere at QB after 2004. There is a reasonable case to be made that after QBing the team to a 9-7 record last year that Bledsoe might be kept to go for the extra game and the playoffs this year, but quite frankly, I was disappointed they resigned him after the 6-10 debacle in 2002. While the buck stops in GW hands and he certainly deserved to be let go at the end of his contract (actually the buck stops in TDs hands and he should have hire Fox or Lewis instead of GW, but the GM does get a mulligan and do over on his first HC hire as long as he shows good skills in other aspects of his job and TD easily demonstrated some excellent achievements in: 1. Managing the business side of the Bills which has GM only he can do and the team really moved into the 21st century under his guidance and for Ralph's benefit. This was the primary reason he got extended since it certainly was not for leading this team to the playoffs. Though that is my primay concern it ain't Ralph's only concern by far. 2. Atracting good front office and on field talent like Modrak, old buddy LeBeau to overhaul our D, now Mularkey after the GW debacle and some good scouts and beancounters. 3. Doing some niftly contract and draft management from getting quality FAs like Takeo and Fletcher to come to our small market, negotiating contracts kind to the Blls cap like TKO and Adams. Some folks pooh-pooh is cap maangement as a rote easy thing to do as he we moved out of cap hell. However, if this is so easy, look at the poor management and mistakes of teams like SF and AZ and tell me that anyone can make the cuts necessary and still produce even our non-playoff qualifying record and get us out of cap hell so quickly. TD has ultimately been a failure in the result i care most about as his teams have not made the playoffs. 4. Doing some extraordinary draft managment in the surprising pick of WM, the surprising tagging of Price and trade for the WM pick, trading away (except for the mistake of WM and the good pick of Evans) the first rounder as their slotted salary makes 1st rounders generally a bad investment. He has suffered the usual level of hits and misses with picks, but he clearly reads he market extraordinarily well as he not only made the WM pick in a way which allowed for good cap management of a 1st but we still got the DE we needed in the 2nd and he traded up to steal Denney off the phone from Pitts. I can see why RW extended TD eevn though he has not accomplished the thing I want most from a GM. However, I would be a fool not to recognize that his record of failure does include a 2002 improvement in record which was almost one of the best ever and that this team did come within one game of the playoffs last year. The team failed last year, but this does not mean that TD has done nothing and deserves to be sacked. Between his off-filed accomplishments for Ralph's business and him getting closer than other teams in cap limbo when he took over like SF and AZ him being exended makes perfect sense to me as Ralph's criteria for success and my crtiteris are quite different. It\s Ralph's criteria that rule the roost because it is his money. At any rate, back to the QB judgment, there is a case to be made for keeping Bledsoe after last year even though by ny judgment he should have been gone after 2003. However, JP did show some solid improvement as he moved from being out of control and running for his life in NE in his first appearance through his mop-up appearances at the end of 2004. JP moved from getting a silly delay of game penalty which fortunately he recovered from to keep handing off to a TD. He then improved to having to take an unnecessary TO but at least he avoided the dumb penalty and went from there to be quite sucessful in moving the team. He really began to show in his final performances last year some production that gave some hope he would be more like RoboQB in Pitts with a strong running game and very good D that Eli Manning making mistakes as he learned to QB in the NFL. It seemed clear to me that Bledsoe could stil QB a team to a winning record in the NFL if the rest of the team picked up the slack (like the Williams INT coupling with a nice pass by Bledsoe to Glenn and a critical pass to Keyshawn to produce the winning margin). However, though he is destined for the HOF, I really do not see Bledsoe carrying a team to the promised land on his play. Even worse, in the best case, with a stud D and ST this year, we make the playoffs this year, but as Bledsoe gets older it is probably even less likely he is the QB of the future and present in 06/07 etcetera so the question of cutting him was not if but when. As far as JP, though his performance at the end of last season was good. it really provided little more than hope that he would be adequate this year. As shown by the play and then production of folks like Carson Palmer and Eli Manning (and even Peyton Manning who moved the Colts from 3-13 to 3-13 as a rookie woth his play) it takes some play and for a QB to produce in the NFL. The RoboQB example with Pitts last year provided some hope a rookie could be carried to good production with a good team. However, it was pretty outrageous to assume or expect that JP was going to be productive with the team this year. Our surprising failing has not been that JP was simply bad from game 2 through his deserved benching, the surprise was that our D which was among the best the last two years is really among the worse (if not the worst when it comes to run stopping) this year. It made perfect football sense to me to cut Bledsoe and to go with JP. If anything, there was a reasonable question as to whether you switch from Bledse/JP/Matthews to Holcomb/JP/Matthews rather than starting JP right away. His play in pre-season and the first game and Holcomb saying he was fine and ready being our #2 made the JP as starter move a reasonable one to make. However, no one thought JP would suck as bad as he did and tt really is a great thing that JP rebounded so well from what actually is not atypical as a path for QB development. JP will now have the right to keep and earn his spot on the field with production. This will invovle careful management by MM/TC as they need to be willing to go to Holcomb still when he is ready and if we are still in the playoff hunt. However, a good QB needs to be able to make mistakes and go for it without fear that he is going to be benched for any error in team production whether he made it or not. I almost certainly give Holcomb another wek off after a concussion, but motly because I think this will be another good development chance for JP to play and produce without the immediate fear of being benched if one of hisWRs drops the ball or even if he makes a houng QB mistake. Though it will be a loss not to have Holcomb as a back-up. i actually do have confidence in Matthews to play the game if JP simply sucks. Matthews will NOT win many (or any) games for us with his play. However, he is enough of a vet that I think he will not lose a lot of games for us if called upon as our back-up and he may well be productive in a reserve role as a park plug if he gets what I called the "AVP effect" where he would come off the bench after the other team destroyed our starter and AVP would prove to be very effective. I think this happened not because AVP was such a great QB (in fact when AVP then got the start and the opposing teams and coaches got tape on him and prepared for him he could be undressed as a QB not ready to start in the NFL) but because the opponents would simply let down after cutting through our starter. Matthews may get this benefit if he gets a shot (which I hope he doesn't). At any rate, congrats to Bledsoe. I think he will actually go far this year in the befuddled NFC East and conference. I think he can QB a team to wins if the team is led by a stud like Parcells and the D and ST play in ways that supplement and lead the O to wins. However, I think it was the right move for the Bills to cut Bledsoe after last season and in fact they should have let him go after the 2003 season and moved on.

Unfortunately PFW has proved to be such an unreliable reporter, one needs confirmation from a real source before taking what they say as reasonable. PFW does get it right from time to time, but this mostly seems to be like even a broken clock being correct twice a day.

I definitely agree about the lack of good entertainment from football for the most part this year. I actually do not have a philosophical problem with parity. I love a blowout when its my team that is winning, but in general I find close games more entertaining if I have little or no rooting interest. However, the big problem this year is that the game as has gotten so compliacated and systematic (and big money pressured) that the games seemed filled with poor execution. I don't know about most folks but the first half of the Bills game may well have been one of the least entertaining games I have watched in years. The game was not even a funny comedy of errors, but simply was mostly a pathetic series of effors where each team seemed to want to top each other in making foolish mistakes and failing to capitalize on those errors. I have no problem and in fact enjoy watching a good defensive stand where a team gets the ball deep in the redzone and a goaline D makes four good plays to stone the opponent with 0 points to show for their effort. However, to see teams drive down the field while opponents seemingly whiff on makeable tackles and then suddenly the D learns to tackle and the O makes stupid play calls (like the fourth down fake dive, aborted pass, and then a sack), There was also the play where KC drove and fumbled (Fletcher made a nice play to shake the ball loose though) but Posey rumbled back only to be hauled down short of the endzone and the Bills looked feeble in the redzone only to give the ball away so the whole interlude was full of sound and fury but amounted to nothing. However, the worse in entertainment and good football was to have both teams drive, get stopped, and not once, not twice, not three times, but four times see the kickers then miss the FGs despite their solid records before was just bad football. Sunday's 1st half fortunately turned into the goodness of a win, but I found it symbolic of a season that has simply feaured poor execution. Whether it was a game like th NE gig where we best them all over the field but could not cash in or last week where we got beaten all over the field but they could not cash in, the game is simply not a good game. I don't see parity as the central problem here, its just poor execution in game which has gotten too complicated for its own good.

It really has ceased to surprise me (though it did initially how widespread the selfishness is) that some alleged Bills fans get PO'ed if they are not kept fully informed of every aspect of the HC's decision making. Hellp bueller. Even if there is only a slight chance that the enemy will be semi-distracted by Bills secrecy or trickery I say lie to me. As a fan, i care a lot more about disadvantaging enemy tems that my "right" to know.

I agree that continuity for an OL is important and quite useful. However. one should also recognize that though a good useful thing it is not essential. Ironically enough the key case that shows this was none other than the work JMac did with NYG in recent SB year. I'm not sure about the terms of service of the whole OL, but it prominently featured former Bills Dusty Ziegler and Glenn Parker (good players but no one you would mistake for Pro Bowl talent) leading the OL in their first years and under JMac design and tutelage. Continuity is great but not essential to very good OL performance and actually if you are replacing not ready for primetime OL coaches like Vinky and Ruel it is not even essential for their to be a drastic upgrade of the OL from pathetic and inconsistent at best in 201. 02, 03 to agequate and much better in 04.

There's a lot of stuff in this post of interest, so in my hopes of continuing to post shorter posts than many of mine (and actually even less rambling than this one from you) I will focus on one issue that I think is of import and I have a different cut than you. I agree with you that one of the big TD mistakes (and I think the biggest mistake by far actually) was his hiring of GW as HC. However, I disagree that TD hired this below average HC (IMHO) because he wanted to drive the car himself. In fact my major complaint about TD is that he did not drive the car enough during the GW tenure. 1. He let GW hire a coaching staff that initially did not include anybody woth HC chops or past SB coaching experience or success. He was allowed to hire a bunch of young guns and personal buddies of GW like Vinky who simply quite quickly proved to be not ready for primetime such as Sheppard who got canned with time on his contract. GW hired an O staff without the ability or experience to do better than GW and his defensive skills and we paid for this immediately. 2. When he canned Sheppard, there apparently was a disagreement between GW who wanted damaged former HC Kevin Killdrive and TD who wanted Clements. Rather than drive the car himself, TD relented and regardless of how you feel about Clements, Killdrive was not the answer and ended up getting fired with time left on his contract when GW went bye-bye. 3. GW had to admit the error of his OL management ways and take Vinky off of of OL duty, but instead he hired the equally inexperienced Ruel to take Vinky's place. I do not know how TD felt about this hire, but Ruel was one of the coaches under contract who was let go when GW left. 4. Who know exactly what went on inside. but TD certainaly seemed to go out and get a few of his owm buddies after the second GW season like LeBeau and former OC whats his name as RB coach. Yet, though we had this former OC on the roster and Killdrive's O was clearly unproductive by mid-2003, TD nor GW forced Killdrive to diversify his approach or simply can an unsuccessful OC as NYG had done recently. My sense is not that TD wanted all the credit, it seems more to me to simply want to make sure he insulated himself from any blame and to protect himseld from getting fired by an HC he hired. GW certainly slept in the be he made, but TD seemed to have a power and the knowledge to force GW to make a better bed and he seemed to allow GW to screw up as long as TD did not share the authority and thus the blame for the situation. I wish TD had in fact hired a different HC (Fox or Lewis would have been better choices in retrospect) and if he was going to hire a half HC like GW i wished he had been more controlling using him and his list and contacts as an administrative assistant and forced Clements on him and gotten as close as he could to JMac level experience at OL earlier.

I certsinly agree that he penalty assessed against TO is far more severe than the penalties leveled by teams and the NFL against player transgressions of much greater severity in terms of the impacts on society, the team or other people. However, though it may be unfair using those criteria, believe it or not life is not fair. Overall, even if one can judge that there are "punishments" which will accomplish the primary need of the Eagles in this case which is to separate itself from this cancer of a player totally by simply cutting him now, this punishment would certainly be a gift to TO in that he would be able to garner a huge fiscal benefit from some desperate or competitive team right now on the free market. The Eagles would actually do their team discipline and marketing harm if they simply cut TO right now and though by a particular measure this punishment is not fair, I simply say suck it up and get over it TO as you will simply just have to make do with receiving millions from the the Iggles this year for doing nothing and you will be able to operate in the free market next year. Likely the $ you will receive on the free market will be lower next year than you would have gotten than if the Iggles simply cut you (and perhaps even lower than what you were due under your current contract with the Iggles but I doubt it) but this seems to be a product of bad marketing strategy and action on your part as your self-agrandizing and undisciplined speech will lower demand for you. You have a right as an American to free speech without government restriction. However, this right does not insulate you from the market effects of that speech and you will simply have to sleep in the multi-million bed you made. Boo-hoo.

A post which contrasted the Pats drafting to the Bills in terms of going for size in the trnchers, a post which said we need 3 DTs and the usual rants of folks looking for the next Peyton Manning (Ryan Leaf), Phillip Rivers (Drew Brees) or whatever (Akili Smith, Andre Ware, Rob Johnson, Billy Joe Hobert, etc.) triggered a thought for me. I think that the best strategy for the Bills is one which unfotunately for us fans who are into glitz and glamour that the team should really emphasize quantity versus quality in the draft. Unfortunately, picking the best seems to be at best a 50-50 proposition in terms of assessing who is gonna work out and who is gonna be a bust. When you add in that even those players who ultimately produced a good career may not be on a timeline which is relevant or even workable for a draft expenditure and the unpredictable natuire of injuries, the best shot to me seems to be an emphasis on quantity versus quality. A team seems just as likely to find a star that steps up (in fact I would not be shocked if there are numbers which indicate this occurence is more likely over an entire career) who signs for a cap manageable contract who develops into someone worth a bid investment based on what they produce on the field, rather than throwing the dartboard at college prospects. The best teams are in fact TEAMs which are notable because some unknown stepped up to fill in for the highly drafted player who got graunched (Bledsoe/Brady) rather than picking the highly touted guy who generally disappoints (MW). It has been the occurence in real life that even the highly touted guy who proves to be a great player (Manning) is simply not enough to win it all in this league (or even get there to lose so far) and actually is a drag on building a good TEAM because of his cap hit. My sense is that the best advice to TD is to trade down and trade down particularly in the 1st. The biggest blot on his drafting has been when he made the commitment to reverse the several years of OL mismanagement under Butler and draft MW (if folks want to advocate that instead he should have taken McKinney feel free to waste our time with this post) when in retrospect the best thing he could have done for this team and the position was to trade down. This 20/20 hindsight is meaningless in the specific but it does underscore the general approach that high draft choices generally are not worth it and when they do work out, there are cap costs to this "good" move which are not linked to producing the best results.

The other item to figure in here is the slotted contract a 1st rounder will get. Factoring this in I think TDs work in the draft looks even stronger as trading the 1st rounder for value seems by far to me to be the best thing to do looking at the chances for success. 2001- Trades down the 1st pick and gets an extra pick which he uses on a player who made the Pro Bowl. Even better, he still gets the first CB chosen with the lower pick (who now gets slotted at a lower cap hit) and that choice ends up making the Pro Bowl. 2002- By far the biggest draft mistake TD made picking a player who may well end up being thought of as a bust. Given that the other LT deemed a rational pick here looks even worse, the 20/20 hindsight best move if you want to fill our LT need would be to trade down again and pick Levi what's his name if you can. The best thing TD did with a #1 pick this year was trading the 2003 #1 for Bledsoe who even though he sucked and deserved to go for his horrendous 2003 made and deserved his Pro Bowl berth for his 2002 play which we got for nothing lost in 2002. 2003- Perhaps TDs best draft work as he again turned nothing into something taggin PP and got a replacement 1st out of AT. He again manipulated this pick masterfully as he used it to take McGahee whose injurt allowed TD to negotiate a cap friendly deal and even better he read the market perfectly and got our need DE in the second round. 2004- Evans was an outstanding pick his rookie year (despite his sophomore jinx in the first half of this season. Even better he traded the 2005 1st for a pick he used on Losman who clearly was ranked better than the QBs available in 2005 and who needed )and needs the work of being picked before we needed to use him. 2005- no pick. I think overall the stats you present and the experience of the Bills under TD shows why drafting a player in the first is quite likely to be a mistake and that by trading of this pick a team can get great value.

I think Teague did show up in several regards: 1. The running attack has been quite good buoyed by McGahee- While WM obviously deserves many of the kudos himself (and clearly has not been perfect all the time) it would be incorrect to give him all the credit alone for his 6 good or better performances along with the couple of clinkers. It was quite obvious to see Teague's strong role against NE since the team was effective up the gut, but Teague has blocked effectively and made good line calls to help WM run effectively. Lest folks get too gooey over simply WM, Shaud Williams has also been relatively effective running chnage-up plays with Teague at center. 2. The pass blocking has not been good, but I think it would be incorect to see the primary problem here as a Teague issue- There are too many examples of poor performance which can be attributed directly to individual OL players (1 on 1 missed blocks in space, untimely penalties like false starts or illegal use of hands) where it would be a stretch to blame Teague. 3, The QB rating with Holcomb is so markdly different that the QB rating for JP that again one can more reasonably look elsewhere than C for the problems, 4. The Teague cap hit of $3.6 million is not unreasonable for a starting C in the NFL. He definitely is not great but his cost is not great either. I would not advocate paying an arm and a leg to hold unto FA Teague, but he is player who can usefully be kept by us if the market price for him is right. I hope Preston steps up and can take the center position as it would free Teague up to compete with Gandy, Peters and Mike Williams for the two tackle slots.

Many thanks AKC for some great work which I think benefits us all. You not only win the post-length title from me, but I am pleased to say I am not worthy to you in terms of content. I amj a weaker fan than you as I was so disgusted by the NE game (and also have been ouit of town for a work gig) that I simply have not been able to bring myself to put in the tape and revisit this debacle. As your cut on thins seems detailed and generally agrees with some of my thoughts (though they are heretical thoughts like the one Teague is not that bad really) I am pleased to take your word on the analysis and move on. In general my comments on your observations are: 1. I'm not surprised at all that most fans ignore Campbell's TE work and think of him as a bad player. I think this is because the typical fan measures a player based on glitzy huigh profiles stuff like catches and do not make judgment on work in the trenches where I think most games are won or lost. Overall, I think Campbell was a great pick-up by the Bills as we had no quality player at TE at the time and Campblee who was acquired for a minimal cost (a 7th round pick I think) stepped right in to start. The assessment of him right from the start was good blocker/no pass catching. However, he has always shown a good ability to block and has been gutsy a couple of times catching passes over the middle. However, he has not been able to be a reciving threat on a consistent basis and actually took a step back with his ACL tear last year. I think he is a quality blocker and this is indicated strongly by WM rushing effectively with him as a blocker (and underlined by Henry even rushing effectively back in the pre-WM days with Campbell being a key part of runs to the right. However. though he is not nearly as bad as many fans seem to feel, the Clements/MM O is still missing a receiving threat at TE and this is wny they have devoted significant resources (and an unusual amount for NFL teams where TE seems mostly to be an afterthought with teams searching for a player so they can forget about the position for the most part) to find their TE having used a 4th on Euhus last year and stepped it up to use a 3rd on Everett and despite the clear commitment to JMac using Peters still have trouble getting away from using him at TE and even throwing a TD to him. I like Campbell as well and am pleased as puch this old man came back so quickly from an ACL injury requiring surgery while Euhus unfortunately seems to be earning the label of being injury prone. However, I do look forward to the day when we get to see a more full version of the Clements O with a TE who can at least acceptably block and also is a receiving threat. 2. Likewise is great to see some analysis which confirms good play by Teague. I think he has gotten a bad rap from folks most of the time he has been here and rather than cutting him I hope we resign him and actually may not be able to resign this FA because others may outbid us. It is true that Teague too often ended up on his butt in 2002. However, rather than this happening because he was a bad player as the casual fan observed, i think that this happened because in his first year at center, he had problems mult-tasking. He could block the big DT, he could make the line calls, he could deliver quality snaps (particularly the shotgun) to Bledsoe, however, he had problems doing 2 or more of these things at the same time. When you add to this Kevin Killdrive became so pass-happy that opposing DTs and LBs could sell out completely to blitz and Teague would too often get steam rolled. However, i think these are the good points regarding Teague: 1. He is an athletic player who moves well for an OL guy. Probably honed by his LT responsiblity for Denver he plays well in space and to some degree may be miscast as a C. 2. He recovers well from injury having comeback from an ACL tear in Denver and a nick which cost him 4 games or so for us last year without a lot of loss of his athleticism. 3. He plays multiple positions as I am comfortable with him as a tackle since he was not great but held his own at that position for Denver and should benefit from his C responsibilities in understanding the jobs of all the OL guys. Its hard for the Bills right now as continuity on the OL is essential for this team. However, i think the good play we see from Preston does not mean to me that we can comfortably cut Teague, but that next year I am interested if Teague is resigned that out putting the best 5 players on the field potenetially means thinking about choosing among Gandy (not a bad year so far), Peters (shows a lot of promise) and Teague as our two tackles. 3. The Mike Williams thing has me confused actually. I think that JMac did not advocate MW as a guard right from the start as some have said in this thread. but actually raised this as a threat after MW showed up out of shape and not ready to play after he missed "voluntary" camp last year when the woman who raised him died. The move to LG makes sense in the mode of putting the best 5 OL players on the field since Bennie Anderson is too inconsistent to be one of them and if we can resign Teague, i see three candidates for the 2 tackle spots even without MW. However, his contract which came with his #4 slot shows once again why the smart moveis to trade away your first round draft pick to get a Pro Bowler in addition to the CB you want (ala Clements in 2001), to get the QB you need o replace RJ (ala Bledsoe in 2002), when you make the pick using it on a contract friendly future consideration like WM and reading the market to still get the DE you need in the 2nd round (ala WM in 2003), and to trade it to get a QB who needs training particularly when there is no QB available in the first round in 2005 (ala JP). The future is now so I am pissed, but I do like our OL prospects for next year.

My recollection is that the NFL and NFLPA have figured out this dodge and agreed within the Collective bargaining Agreement to make this illegal. If teams had the ability to reduce plaer salaries by simply cutting them and resigning them it would provide a method which cuts against the general approach of the NFLPA to have salaries grow and grow. From the NFL standpoint,they do not like any systems which tends individual teams into trying to game the system for competitive advantage. The NFL has tried to minimize their having to make judgments between teams which create friction among its individual members. The CBA creates a level playing field in which all the teams compete with each other under the same rules and a deal where a player and his team collude to avoid the rules such as an agreement to cut and resign with same team are frowned upon and in fact banned. The CBA is a complex document which can be found at NFLPA.org. The language somewhere in pages 130 or so govern these types of situtation and my recollection is that if a team cuts a player they cannot resign him for a certain period of time which would force the team to hold open a roster spot and this is enough of a disincentive to players or teams trying this little game.

Its interesting that you offer the Colts as a contrast. If you wanted to site the biggest difference between these two teams it probably starts with the longevity of the relationship and play developed between Manning, Harrison and James. 2. the longevity and relationship developed by the OL with the quick release of Manning, 3. the building a performing ST unit helped by the skills of Vanderjagt and some good cut rate GM moves and acquisitions by Polian, and finally 4. them getting the best D HC in football to fill in the missing D problems and deal with it in a cut rate manner because of the cap weight of Manning/Harrison and James. Overall this view would judge TD to be on the right track given how much time needed to achieve this level and they still have not appeared in an SB with this quality unit.