Fake-Fat Sunny

Thanks for the detailed analysis which makes sense as you explain it. However, it does raise a few questions which I look forward to having explained: 1. The Math- You have both Sam Adams and Phat Pat commanding a double-team. Its no wonder our D is cleaning house with 4 of the 10 players )minus their QB) dedicated to stopping only 2 of our guys. With our D playing 9 on 6 with a couple of these 2 of them split wide its no wonder we did well. Needless to say your description needs a little more detail to make sense. A. The double-teams a team employs are usually a little bit more variable than always assigning two players to on player. Sometimes the double will be the guard and the center while other times the dt may be the guard and the tackle. The center calls the blocking scheme on each play based on what he sees and calls out these assignments. B. The double teams have a time element as well as a location element. A blocker may double team by taking two assignments, his primary block aimed to send a rusher in a particular direction and then he lets him go to either another blocker or away from the selected point of attack and then he goes to his secondary block which is probably merely a chip block on the player he is double teaming. C. The selected point of attack is all important here as a player may get doubled if he heads for the piont of attack of the run but will be singled up if he is rushing away from the POA. In general, the O is dictating and trying to do its thing to command the field, and they couldn't care less if they command that point because their DT beats a player or if that player simply abandons the point of attack and all it takes is a single blocker to keep the defeneders weight going in the right direction. Sam Adams for example often commands a single blocker not because he is not good but because his rush is so strong to the side he is guessing, a single blocker (if he is quick enough to lay a mitt on Big Sam) can simply ride him out of the play if he is rushing in the wrong direction. Your explanation would be clearer if you talked about the difference point of attack selection by the offense made in the success of each ruin. Did opponents use their blocking schemes differently last year to create a gap at the point of attack than they do this year and what is the Bills response to filling that gap. 2. Were their many first and second downs you observed when Phat Pat did not play and assuming so what difference did this make? The Phat Pat being there for slightly under 60% of tje D snaos last year (58% of D snaps for PW is the number I remember) is significant because this likely means that PW was not out there on some first and second downs. If 1000% of th snaps were evenly divided between the 3 downs this would mean 33% apeice. Its not the case however, because opponents make first downs on some 1st and 2nds and there was no 3rd down in the series. There were more early downs to play and even if you took PW out on all 3eds, his total plays would be at 66% and actually significantly higher than that # (in general in the numbers I saw there was an allocation to ST for some snaps and I believe those were 4th down punts and FGs and the few plays which were 4th down D snaps were a small number). At any rate, what do you remember about the play selection and results which likely occured a couple or more times a game where PW was not in for a potential or likely running play on 1st or 2nd down. 3. Did you review any of the games where Edwards commanded significant playing time even beyond obvious pass plays and how did he do? My recollection of Sam throwing a hissy fit was not because he was benched because he blew the play, but he was benched on 3rd or other downs and was pised at the coaches for not putting him in all the time. My recollection of the Adams fits (which others mention in this thread) was that it was not a problem for the Bills but actually a great thing to see (particularly from a player who had a rep for taking plays off). The Bills stuck with their DL rotation because it was working, but satisfied Adams by making and effort to use him in the redzone on offense (along with Bannan) and it paid off by improving our redzone play and Big Sam making the Pro Bowl, The Adams hissy fits were misinterpreted by the announcers (imagine that) but did not strike me as a problem at all. Did you see anything?

The question is if this is generally a implementstion of the scheme issue why was it pretty successful last year? My answer is that by running essentially the same scheme for 2 years in a row with 10 pf 11 of the same players, opponents now have enough tape to get down to some pretty individual and minuscule tendency reading of our players so opponents can figure out what they are likely to do next based on the situation and how our players are lined up.

16 games last season with roughly 10 of our 11 starters (Milloy and Vincent failed to start a number of games last year) and 7 games so far this year with 11 out of 22 (minus Spikes on film. This adds up to 16-23 games.

While it was amusing to read the replies to your post where folks actually took you to task for the one semi-positive thing you said about Posey (no good deed goes unpunished), I am happy to respond to your particular responses to my post. There are two keys to any anti-posey rant which would make it the real anaylis that makes TSW great rather than simple whining and crying which is all to oten the usual fare on TSW: 1. Speciifc examples of plays which make a difference. Generally, I have found even your usually well thought out post to be simple mewling and puking about Posey because last season you were able to state your opinion (we are all entitled to our opinion regardless of whether we link it to objective evidence or not) that he turned the wrong way, did not attack enough or whatever. However, you did not that i saw link these views to any specific plays that led to the other team scoring points or even getting big gains of yardage because of these alleged player faux pas by Posey. In the absence of supporting specifics, my views fell back to overarching results and the facts were that statiscally the Bills were #2 in the league in terms of defense. If Posey was so noticeably bad this accomplishment is even more pjenomenal by the Bills as they were statistically productive even with this stiff at OLB. No one can claim that the Bills D was perfect last year (the team did not make the playoffs) but they were pretty good and in the absence of anyone being able to site specific examples of Posey's play resulting in givng up the TDs we gave uo last year or in the absence of folks being able to connect us giving up big yards to his play it seems a pretty reasonable assumption to me that his play was productive last year. 2. One can't reasonably claim the results are good this year and if he is to blame who do you replace him with. The Bills D sucks this year and Posey deserves his share of the blame and this share is substantial because he logs a lot of playing time. However, the key is who do you replace him with that is better. Some posters have advocated replacing him with Stamer. I do not see this happening because the coaches seem to have judged that Stamer has taken a step backward this year as he used to at least back-up on position play but now he is a pure ST guy. These posts do not seem to recognize this reality. Of more interesting note is that Haggan seems to have stepped up and not only is now on the depth chart backing up Posey, but actually is getting credit for some production in position play with tackles and pass break-ups. The key question to me and the point I would love to see folks opinions on is not the usual whining about Posey (he was a stalwart on a productive D last year so his lack of high profile stats of sacks or picks did not phase me) but whether folks see any objective or even semi-objective reasons for whether Haggan can become the playmaker we want in relief of Posey. I saw little problem with Posey not being a playmaker as long as the D was productive in the absence of anyone being able to point to specific cases of Posey giving up points or big gains. However, this D is now bad and if Haggan can be the playmaker we need to make the D productive again i am all for this. Posey has never been a difference-maker for the Bills but given the huge investment we were making in Spikes and Fletcher I had no expectation under the salary cap that we could afford more than Posey logging a lot of hours and being an adequate player on a productive D last year. However, this year we are bad and want/need things to be different. Is Haggan that difference-maker? Maybe and if so then sit Posey down. If not, i don't think Stamer can be or Ezekial is so we will have to make do with him not being a difference maker but not being bad (or at least as bad as Milloy -who with his broken hand and age is missing tons of critical tackles such as the one where Lamon Jordan scored on about a 16 yard run, not as bad as Tim Anderson who as a younger player was simply beaten at the point of attack several times on Sunday, and not as bad as the early play of Crowell -though he shows signs of getting better and got both a sack and an INT against NYJ as he got swallowed up by a few blockers. The focus on Posey was unproven and seemed misplaced last year and because we need a difference maker this year he can be easily replaced now but only by a player who has a shot at being a consisent diffierence maker at LB. Maybe this is Haggan and I am curious to hear whether your or others think he can be.

One should not wish for debilitaing injury to any player (though I am pleased to see the Bills not the lights out on a key opponent and forcing him to the sideline for the rest of the game against the Bills). However. Tom Brady is playing so well and is so good that if he unfortunately is injured it is a little too much like catching lightening in a bottle for the Pats to figure that a move from Brady to their #2 would be just like their move from Bledsoe to Brady.. The fact remains that with the Bills a half game behind NE and NYJ and Miami as the competition that the Bills remain in the hunt big time because anything can happen and usually does in the NFL. It wasn't too long ago that only 1 NFL QB was able to start all 16 games in a season (Manning) and it is certainly possible that NE will run the table with NYJ, MI and our hapless Bills but not only is this unlikely it is not improbable at all that dame chance will have us facing a signficantly weakend Pats team over the rest of the season. This is not likely but is quite possible and thus reality makes it impossible to declare the season a wash already.

One of the great things about digital technology is that as long as the camera is good enough to get the resolution, one can actually film the total play and then zoom into look at a specific part of that total play in great detail and also very quickly as the time that used to be needed to chemically develop film is gone (and much of the Kodak Co. in Rochester as well). You see immediately on the sideline in games in the form of detailed still photographs which are circulated among the players on the sidelines to demonstrate, teach key points and make plans. I suspect that during games, these photos are generally of the full field, set-ups and schemes rather than detail about particular players. However, I have certainly heard interviews where particular players talk about reviewing the moves and details about specific opponents they will face and if the Bills are not studying opponents at the level of detail the technology allows they are likely giving up an advantage to an opponent who chooses to use better technology and is more diligent in their studies.

Regarding Phat Pat, I saw the stat a few places that he actually lined up for 58% of the D snaps last year, so I was inarticulate in leaving the impression he missed 2/3 when what i meant was he did not play 2/3 of the snaps (a 66% play rate). This number is significant because it means that his use was dictated by a bit more than him always being taken out on 3rd downs. PW also was taken out on some first or second down plays for use of other players. Inherently the team faced more 1st and 2rd downs than 3rds so PW would have more than 66% of the snaps if he was simply always remove on 3rd. He did start all 16 last year so the lower number is probably voluntary rather than enforced. Perhaps with the Bills forcing the opponents into passing situations by throwing the opponent for a loss on 1st down he was removed for a rusher on 2nd down but I do not think this explains the limits in the use of Phat Pat. My sense is that Gray/Krumrie felt the team was better often enough with Edwards or Denny manning the DT slot next to Adams last year and the results last year seem to bear this out. This is not to say PW was not a good player because he is, noris this to say that though Edwards was a good reserve last year that he was a good starter this year (some players like Sean Moran at DT for the Bills were great reserves, but simply not good enough to start because they had to pace themselves to last the whole game). Ultimately, I think it is a reasonable judgment that the Bills missed PW not because he is such a dominant player, but because he was adequate enough to give Edwards a chance to be a good reserve when he is not a good enough starter. I think folks view this too simplistically when they choose to judge a player as either being a total stud or a total stiff.

Remeber that a quick look at the last few weeks performances where QBs threw for over 300 yards were done by losing QBs. Not only are 300 yard throwing performances fairly rare in the modern NFL (2-3 per week) they usually are done by teams and QBs with bad Ds who are losing badly anf the QB is tossing the ball trying (usually desperately) to stay in the game. Certainly anemic QB work is a big reason why the Bills have been bad at QB (Losman's work this year is a prime example of this( but I think the main reasons why the Bills have such a long streak of sub-300 yard QB performances are: 1. The win streak last year meant for over half the season the Bills were running the clock and it would have been silly to pass. 2. The D until this year was very good and in closely fought games there was good reason to go deep a few times to stretch the D, but it would have been silly to commit to pass at the level necesary for the QB to ring up 300+ yards. 3. The last year and a half has seen the Bills have little reluctance to go with 2 QBs as JP did mop-up duty last year in both wins and the debacle in NE. This year saw not only JPs poor performances but no reluctance from MM to pull JP when we are losing so its unlikely even if he was throwing well but not for scores that we would get 300 yards. Certainly folks are correctly pissed because the tremendous streak of the Bills not throwing for over 300 yards coincides with the JP disappointment and ups and downs of life with Bledsoe, but this stat says more about how addicted folks have become to fantasy leagues and the fact they are looking for outstanding individual stats as much as they are for team Ws.

I think one of the first keys for anyone like me who thought the Bills D would be good (or if like Jerry Gray you said they would rival the 85 bears or recent Ravens squads) is to look at what you thought which was clearly wrong. For me one thing I thought which certainly was a part of me being error that the Bills D would at least be adequate was that I figured since 10 off 11 starters were returning this crew would perform substantially like last year's D. Clearly they have not. The obvious thing would be to figure that losing PW made that big of a difference. However, given that PW was not even in for less than 2/3 of the D snaps last year assuming he is gone is the reason does not make a lot of sense to explain it all. Particularly since a big problem this year is failure to stop opponents on 3rd down and Phat Pat was not even a part of last year's still inadequate but not as atrocious as this year's third down problems, I don't think losing PW explains our issues (not even taking into account PW has not revolutionized MN's play. Instead I think the reason for the surprising problems may actually lay in what I had figured would be a strength for this team that they returned this year virtually intact with 10 of 11 starters. The key to the zone blitz being successful is that the pffense cannot predict where the blitz is coming from. They cannot tell whether pass coverage is going to be done by a player from a non-traditional position like DE Schobel doing one-on-one coverage on a TE or if Denny is lined up as a DT perhaps he drops back in pass coverage leaving an LB unblocked at the point of attack. However, with a boatload of film of 10 of these 11 players lining up in a particular way or holding their body in a particular away, a good offense can read the Bills players and have a good guess as to what they are going to do that play/ A good QB will read the D and change the call to the best play given the personnel the Bills have on the field, the way they are lined up and a good well studied individual player may well be able to predict how best to take on a Bills player because he knows exactly what play the O called and has a pretty good idea from looking over film chosen from 16-23 examples of how this Bill is going to play a particular situation or a particular type of play. Ironically, the problem here may be that the Bills have not made enougn personnel changes or gone away from what worked in the past to make the zone blitz fool the smart opponent.

Like virtually every other Bill on this D his work has sucked this year (this was even true of TKO for the most part until he was hurt). However, i think you are missding the boat in asessing Posey's play and value to the team with his work in 2004 and 2004. I think you are really missing the boat calling for Josh Stamer to replace him. Stamer has been a good player on ST and made a couple of good plays as a back-up last year. However from what I have seen he does not have the speed, is a couple of inches too short and does not seem to make the reads quick enough necessary for him to be a credible starter. I don't know for sure since both you and I are amateur outsiders, however, it does speak loudly that an MLB player Crowell was plugged in to back up Spikes at OLB rather than his back-up Haggan rather than OLB Stamer and then in games it is now Haggan who sees position play before Stamer in games. I understand folks getting on Posey because the positives of Posey's game which were more apparent when Posey and the D as a whole were producing better do not show up on stat sheet. If you look hard at the game you will observe what I have seen and other Bills watchers such as TSW poster CD Nittan have seen that Posey's strength are his reads and he tends to back off in coverage or play the line either at the point of attack or rushing the passer about half for each. Yhe closest thing to a back-up for Posey that the Bills use in their zone blitz attack is actually Ryan Denney playing an OLB position that is more like a DE and playing it in the zone blitz rushing the passer sometimes, playing the run sometimes and dropping back into zone pass coverage the rest of the time. Posey like the rest of the D has not performed consistenly or well this year, but just becuase his name is not being called by the announcers does not mean he is no doing his job. He definitiely did his job well last year and this year the lack of good results is probably better pinned on Milloy for missing a bunch of tackles he should have made, the young Crowell getting effectively blocked a number of times when he first took the field, Spikes for having his back turned to Vick while he directed traffic and Vick called a quick snap and ran a play right through Spikes' area than to blame all or even most of this on Posey's inadequate play.

J- I am gooing to go back to that draft and check and see who were the OL and DL players we passed on to pick Parrish because the thought that we should have looked to fill the clear needs there makes no sense without someone saying who we should have picked instead. If Duke Preston was the highest OL guy on the Bills board then picking Parrish makes perfect sense as the Bills got Preston anyway. The only suggestion I seen in this thread was Adam Terry and I will check on him and other ideas. Regarding Mike Williams the same thing is true. This was a mistake only i there is someone else specifically you suggest we should have picked. McKinnie was available when we chose Williams but he has all the signs of being a bigger bust than Williams. Are you advocating that we should have picked him? Maybe you are advocating that we should have passed on LT altogether and picked someone else. In hindsight I am sure that is true, but the Bills had devoted far too little attenition to taking the big draft risk on OL or too long and I can't see anyone advocating we take a run at some other position than getting an OL player. Mike Williams (like 50% of all 1st rounders did not work out, but it is hard to fault the Bills for trying even if one can corrctly fault them for being human. The other option is that one can advocate the Bills should have traded down and picked up an LT at #20 or so. That is correct, but it takes two to deal and if what was required to trade down was of limited value or a giveaway I would not advocate that the Bills had done that. So I like everyone else agrees that MW was a bad pick who has not worked out, but so what who should be credibly have pickeed instead.

I think the personnel issues are more complex than that. The Bills do not have their players playing the same way and role everytime, but i think that opponents now have enough tape of these dances that players can diagnose what the Bills are doing each time and can choose from several options for how to combat and beat what they are seeing. Ex: If Sam lines up this way or has his weight set forward he is going to rush and try to blow the gap and you need to try to beat his first step. However, if Sam is lines up this other way and has his weight set back his jog his to clog the gap and you need to hit him on this shoulder so you are between him and the point of attack. The irony here to me is that the advantage I thought we had because 10 of 11 starters were back on D (and the 11th PW did not even play on over 1/3 of the D snaps last year and seemed imminently replaceable) has actually become a disadvantage as: 1. Teams have a lot of tape on how these players play in this D and can study individual photos to figure out what we are going to do on a particular play based on how we are lined up or their opponents first move. 2. Lebeau provided a roadmap to the Pitts O last year on how to run effectively on the scheme he developed for the Bills and opponents have built on that and their success this year. 3. Personnel problems have excerbated this for the Bills as TKO is gone (though he was getting beaten up and outfoxed before he went out), we have not developed an effective replacement for PW and the age/inexperience balance is allowing opposing WRs to take on out secondary effectively (Milloy is going out, McGee ain't there yet and who knows what Clements issues are).

Cliff Noters begin- LeBeau does deserve credit for greatly improving the Bills D with is arrival in 2003. However, there are clear indications of further improvement under Gray and with LeBeau gone which Gray deserves credit for as Lebeau was gone and these episodes of improvement were done by the folks here. Specifically, 1. The Bils made mid-game improvements last year like when they shut down Sammy Morris and a successful Miami run attack in the second half of a game which was not LeBeau doing. 2. The Bills D had a strategic approach for each opponent in 2004 which in cases like Miami mentioned above could and was improved but during the win streak generally it was the D performance which kept the Bills in the game unil WM wore them down or the ST made plays to give us a lead and LeBeau had nothing to do with 2004 game statagey. 3. The team implemented changes of the leBeau's designed D in the bye week last year which improved performance in sacks and turnovers where Gray gets the credit as LeBeau was not here. LeBeau's most significant effect was probably not the design which the Bills did not improve in his absence, but actually from whatever help he gave to the Pitts O last year to run all over the Bills in the last game and opponents have built upon that and we have found no answer yet to this problem. However, the Bills did improve on the LeBeau design last year in ways which are clearly separate from what lebeau left. Cliff notes end. While I think that the Bills current run D issues are probably linked to how Pitts exploited the run with Willie Parker last year (I would not be surprised if some deep analysis shows that Pitt's DC Lebeau helped the Pitts OC to exploit the Bills zone blitz he designed and other teams have built upon the methods which worked in that game and then through this season to beat out scheme). However, I would disagree with the notion that we owe all good things about this D to leBeau and that Gray has done nothing well with this D. The facts do not indicate this at all. 2001-2002- The D fails miserably with Gray as DC but the lead reasons for this is my mind are Gray and GW's adoption of the Titans 4/3 scheme that they succeeded with while the Bills had run a 3-4 and were in the midst of losing the DL studs we had (Big Ted, Hansen, Wiley, Bruce). In addition to this basi DL personnel issue, the situation was made worse by the injury to Cowart at the same time we were extending and then cutting Holocek. The team which desperately needed Blaine Bishop like talent at S also erred in extending then cutting Henry Jones, figuring Raion Hill could do the job and then figuring that Jenkins had something left and could start at SS when he couln't (forcing us to go to the not ready for SS Wire). On the good side, this D actually performed better than I expected (which gives one an idea of how bad I thought they would be_ in 2001 but really could only maintain good play for 3/4 of a game until opponents wore them down, made gamebreaking plays in crunch time or our bad O could not compensate for the bad D play. As far as Gray goes, he seemed to be learning how to be a DC on the job after moving up from being a secondary coach under GW with the Titans and I blame defensive guru GW for our overall crappiness as the buck stops with him. 2003- LeBeau comes in and as an old buddy of TD suddenly available because LeBeau proved not be up to the HC job in Cincy and got canned. However. implementation of his zone blitz immediately improved the teams D as we finished 5th in the league statistically on D. Player personnel made a big difference here as TKO joined the team and our LB corps of Fletcher (who has led the league in tackles the last 5 years as a whole), Posey (who I think is better than folks give him credit for as he was learning the switch from a 3-4 to a 4-3 in 2003 and our expectations were too high early in 2003 becauseof his sack numbers for the Texans) and TKO became a Bill. Also add to that the acquisition of Milloy and the leadership of Krumrie and personnel made as big of a difference as LeBeau to the improvement of the D. The Gray situation is interesting as he kept the title of DC and actually had individual play call responsibilities in 2003. If he did not retain this position then it would be a huge indictment of GW as he had already fired his first OC (Sheppard), his second OC (Kevin Killdrive) clearly hit the wall in 2003 and refused to chnage his patterns in 2003. Given that his ST performance under his coordinator was mediocre at best, if his DC pick got canned to when LeBeau came aboard its hard to not declare GW a bust heading into 2003. However, Gray pretty clearly seemed to perform well in 2003. You do not get the 5th best statistical ranking for the D purely on scheme and personnel. If a team makes bad play calls and the scheme is not properly implemented and the players are not put into the best positions for them to make plays it likely all falls apart. Gray pretty clearly demonstrated he had learned and has potential to master the LeBeau designed run blitz. I think this was not faked as it was also clear that LeBeau was chafing a bit not having play calling responsibility so Gray was responsible for something worthwhile on this D. I think the accusations against Gray that he is committed to only one system are simply shown to be wrong by the facts on the ground. He ran and implemented a GW system (which it is reasonable to say was based on the bears "46" model though it was different) and then ran and implemented the LeBeau zone-blitz scheme (which is different from the46 though they both are high-risk attacking schemes). 2004- Gray surprisingly to me was chosen over LeBeau to run our D and as LeBeau flew the coop to Pitts, this pretty squarely put Gray on the hotspot to prove himself on the obvious question for him. Did the improvement of the Bills D in 2003 come mainly from Lebeau and the personnel and could Gray show strategic ability on his own. I think the 2004 events indicate the answers to this were yes! Gray showed good strategic ability in 3 ways in 2004- 1. He diagnosed. designed and implemented changes in mid game for the bills successfully in 2004- One could call this tactical, but given the breadth anf success of these changes I think calling them strategic is more accurate. In several games with the first game against Miaimi being the best example, Gray led changes in the Bills D which really change the nature of the game and performance. Sammy Morris runs all over the Bills in the first halfand in the second they shut him down. This situatiion is borne out by the overarching stats as the Bills D performed incredibly wellin the 3rd quater of games last year in terms of points given up and yardage allowed. Gray clearly demonstrated last year that he could not only make the right calls at the right time as he did under/with LeBeau in 2003 but in 2004 he could diagnose problems, design changes, and get the implemented with on field results. LeBeau did not make these changes as he was not here so gray deserves credit for these improvements. 2. He gameplanned for each opponent- Clearly, the gameplans could be improved as Gray led these improvements overall throughou the season. However, particularly during the streak, the Bills were at least holding their own with the D performance until WM running wore the opponents down or the ST made big plays which got us a lead. Gray demonstated an effective ability to strategically plan for opponents from game to game in 2004 and LeBeau was not around to do this. 3. He made switches during the bye week- Its hard to see what these were as we were effective with the D both before and after the bye week. Howerver, this team really put the pedal to the metal after the bye during the streak and improvements in sack totals and turnovers are indications of good strategi changes and fixes where what LeBeau left was improved. This year is the real quandary and certainly the Bills have not found an answer for it so gosh forbid that a couch potatoe such as myself (and the vast vast majority of posters to TSW) have an answer. Gray has simply not shown the same success he had in the last two years and though the buck stops with MM, it passes through Gray's hands and he has to take a lot of the blame for the D problems. However, I think the events on the ground draw a pretty clear line between the turnaround and success which came with LeBeau and the even greated success which came post Lebeau. As this success was almostcertainly in part vested in events which LeBeau could not influence not being here (mid-game improvements, individual 2004 game strategies, and 2004 bye week improvements) and all of these improvements are clearly reflected in the stats last year. it does not strike me as correct to give LeBeau all the credit. LeBeau is obviously a factor, but mty sense is that his biggest impact is likely that he showed in the last game last year by helping the Pitts offense to prepare how to exploit the Bills run D and folks have built upon that this season.

Hows this for controversy. There certainly have been numerous voices on TSW declaring NC a god and demanding that TD resign him now (which I do not see happening because if I am NC I do not think the Bills cap situation allows them to even give me the contract I deserve and will get from them once a new salary cap is set next year). Despite his seeming Nate giveth (his INT return for a TD against Pitts last year was great) and Nate taketh away (his leaving a PR on the carpet last year against Pitts was part of a general meltdown with Lindell missing a chipshot FG, the D giving up over 100 to Parker and a TD druve ti Maddox and Bledsoe proving once again to be capable of carrying this team that led to this lose) many Bills partisans have clearly anointed resigning Nate as job 1 and job 1+ fpr TD to just git her done. My first thought though was that the great KO returns this past weekend and his KR leading #s this season made this one a close call. In fact, Clements has lost the PR job to Smith (and likely to Parrish even if Fast Freddy goes down). Further, Clements having a pretty bad game as CB on Sunday (exemplified by him getting a PI when he failed to play the ball on one endzone toss by Vinny right after McGee had played the previous pass perfectly) actually makes a good case for giving nod to McGee on this. NC is clearly a better CB than McGee. Even despite the occaisonal CB adventures by Clements like the PI this weekend, McCarreins lighting up both CBs this past weenend, and the ill-fated and much lamented Clements failures against Jimmy Smith in the first game against Jax last year, NC is a better CB in my book. Though both were Pro Bowlers last year, McGee was there because of his return and not because of his CB play which saw him seemingly get burned for at least one long pass in every loss last year. NC did slide into the Pro Bowl due to an injury but he is as close to a shut down CB as we get and in addition to being a good cover guy is a ferocious tackler. However, upon even further consideration of the logistics of contracts and the CBA rules, I do not think this is even close. McGee is by far the more important player for the Bills to extend right now. This is a debatable point when it comes to quality of play and contribution to the Bills. Both are Pro Bowlers but the McGee contribution is making our KR game lethal and Clements is our shut down corner. I think most TSW folks do not value ST high enough as i really think that like a performing O and a stout D it is a necessary but not sufficient part of a winning team. However, I too value a shut down corner more than a productive KR guy. However, i don't think that McGee has reached his peak yet in development of his CB game and he actually is at or only a little behind the same level of production at this point in his career that Clements was. 1st year- McGee was a benchwarmer and learning the game, Clements was a starter at CB but was clearly not as good a CB as Winfield and opposing QBs went after the weaker Clements with some effectiveness. However, even as arookie, Clements showed some of the playmaker ability that is a strong part of his game as he picked off none other than Peyton Manning for an INT return in the flat. 2nd year- McGee had an early coming out as a player getting derved Pro Bolwer acknowledgement for his kick returns. he even began to show his development as a position player as an injury o Vincent forced him into starting duty. He clearly was far weaker than Clements as a CB and he routinely was targeted by opposing QB such that in the games we lost last year he had was usually picked on for at least one long pass per game. However, his play did improve with the experience of getting toasted as the season went on. Clements really progressed in his second year. He was still picked on because AW was still generally judged to be a better player (and in my view he was). However, he tirmed passes getting thrown his way a lot into 6 INTs and showed some outstandings on the field. he could still be picked and fooled from time to time like any young player but seemed clearly destined for great things. 3rd year- That is this year for McGee and 6 games into the season is leading the league in KY return average and though he has not scored yet he has demonstrated that his Pro Bowl KR performance was no accident. Further his play at CB has continued to improve and though NC is still a better CB (IMHO) it may well be simply a matter of time until McGee also is reasonably judged a shutdown corner. He makes good tackles also on ST (though he is not the force to be reckned with on coverage as he us is on the return game). At 5' 9" McGee is a bit short for dueling with taller WRs, but AW had already demonstrated that if a short player covers like a glove and is a fearsome hitter he can hold his own against the tall guys. Clements third year was not a horribly impressive one as the Bills D improved but struggled anyway on a bad team and for example his INT numbers dropped though he still got his share of highlight reel INTs (ex. he did return an INT for the only TD we got in our ill-fated 1st game against Miami, though I was actually fa more impressed by his first INT in the game where he correctly read that MI and lined up no one to his side, he communicated quickly with Milloy to watch if the TE or anyone crossed to his side and the he freelanced out as a centerfielder and whe Fiedler did not recognize the switch and went deep on AW into what he thought was one on one coverage, NC came underneath for a clean pixk-off which was downright coverage artistry to watch. Clements went on to have a career year in his fourth season as he took in 6 INTs even though opposing QBs often went after the young McGee. He continued with his PR duties and put up a long missing for the Bills TD as a PR guy. He put up a career year in tackles and has continued to be a fearsome tackler in his 5th year (though no where near the AW standard for feared CB tacklers. Even though he slimed in due to injury he clearly deserved the Pro Bowl honor and will be the most sought after CB in the free-maket (well somewhat free this off-season. Nevertheless it is actually the rules surrounding the market from the CBa that makes McGee a much more important target for the Bills to extend than Clements. The Bills leverage on McGee is clearly high. As an RFA, if the Bills make a semi-substantial but easy to do qualifying offer for him they can match any contract offer he recieves and if the decide to let him go they get substantial compensation from the team which signs him. Occaisionally an RFA will leave a team when the acquiring team offers him a contract which the orginal team cannot match for cap or Wil Woolford reasons but it is rare and almost certainly the Bills could keep McGee next year on a one year deal. The Bills leverage would allow them to extend McGee for 4 years or so at a far lower contract than FAs get today because the deal would allow McGee's ship to come in a year and half earlier than the CBA contract calls for On the other hand, as an FA Clements does have the right enter the free-market and likely he would get a huge offer from an opposing team the Bills cannot match. The market for him is likely to be so huge that it made no sense really at all for NC to sign this past off-season. Even the biggest contract the Bills could offer Clements under the current cap would necessitate Clements getting a split bonus so even with proration the Bills could match what the market will likely give Clements under a greatly expanded salary cap next year when the TV contracts kick in. NC could make himself immune to injury by signing a segmented or smaller deal with the Bills, but no one has ever accurately accused NC of being a scaredy and lacking confidence in himself so my sense is that while TD would have loved to have judt gotten a deal done it was actually NC that would have found it dumb to sign. This may even prove to be the case when FA starts, but the Bills are in the strong position that they can simply give Clements the franchise tag and get him for another year at the tiop 5 CB average pay. The fact the cap will go way up next year will allow them to likely easily absorb the problem that the payment to NC cannot be prorated. NC on the other hand would likely get more $ upfront from the bonus payment than the average of the top 5 salaries and he would have to risk injury yet another season and simply live with the uncertainties of playing the free-market yet again in 2006. I think it is probably the most cost efficient and puts both players on the field next year as Bills if the extend McGee and either extend JC or simply tah him. McGee is my top priority to resign as my leverage over him goes down overtime precipitously while it remains fairly stable with Clements for a couple of years until the top 5 CB average edges up to catch the expanded team salary cap. I think this pressure actually probsbly forces NC to sign with us long-term. The Bills CB situation looks very solid to me is not a panic at all.

oops acidently sent message in mid-stream) rule specifically banning this practice because Tasker used it so effectively. Few players has the tackling ability and the speed to pull this off. Also, as a cove guy, Tasker was par excellence as getting downfield and not only hitting the receiver immediately if he did not call for a fair catch, but if he got out of the way downing it within the five and in a couple of cases where Mohr kicked it high even getting downfield and with his sure hands after a forty yard sprint and with is back to the ball even make the catch of the punt. Kick Return- Tasker was simply phenomenal at coverage but he was good on the return game to. It mostly spoke to the Bills never having a McGee/Donte Hall like return threat on their squad and Tasker was not at that level as a player However, he did the first job of any return guy (a difficult one in the dicey and variable high level Ralph winds) that he could be counted upon not to fumble. Add to that he was not only a reliable kick catcher but he did have the offensive skills to break a return for good yardage. Back-up position play- Tasker proved to be such a productive WR that at the point when the Bills suffered multiple injuries to A. Reed and the rest of the crew and Billy Brooks actually had to step up nicely to be our #1 WR, there was also some lobbying to make Tasker our permanent starting WR because of some very productive games he had at this position. His play here was a direct translation of why he was a dangerous player on kick coverage. I like McGee and am pleased to hear that extension talks for this RFA are getting serious. He actually is a higher priority to me to resign that Nate C who for right now my plan would be to franchise him anyway. However, McGee simply has a longway to go in terms of demonstrating the quality range of his play not to mention longevity before he can seriously be mentioned in any comparison to Tasker. Overall: 1. McGee KR ability is phenomenal but only this year are we beginning to see it is long-term and not an episode. Tasker was phenomenal on the kick coverage side of the game which equals this in my mind. The ability to put up 7 because the McGee threat is gamebreaking in and of itself rather than Tasker covering kicks phenomenally required the D to make good on the opportunity he created gives McGee a nod here, but Tasker's work was useful for more than a couple of kickoffs per game but on every punt as well as kick so he gets this nod. In terms of the best part of their game I give a slight nod to Tasker. 2. The best part of the Tasker ST game was coverage but he was also a threat on returns. The best part of McGee's game are returns and he does not do much or anything on coverage duty so Tasker gets the nod for the second best part of his ST game. 3. Tasker was a reliable back-up at WR but McGee is a starter at CB and at least is talked about as one day possibly being our #1 and a shudown corner. He is not there yet, but he clearly has improved from last year where the injury to Vincent forced him into a starting role. He used to get burned for a long pass at least once a game and now though it still happens he is a better CB. The two plays where McGee defended nicely on an endzone throw from Vinny turned and played the ball well followed by NC failing to turn to see the ball and getting a PI was interesting to see giving the hyperventilating many are doing about resigning NC. McGee gets the nod over Tasker here and the talk of McGee also being a weapon on offense is intriguing and if it happens (and it lasts for a long time) then perhaps it will be true that McGee even exceeds Tasker. However, not to date by a longshot.

Mcgee is an exciting player and exceeds Tasker's abilities to return kickoffs for TDs by a longshot as best as I can tell. However, Tasker excelled at so many parts of the ST game AND added a quality contribution as a back-up position player that its McGee who has a long way to go (add longevity to quality of play) before he even reasonably be talked about in the same breath as this potential HOF player. Specifically, Tasker brought to the game: Cover Teams- Tasker was simply the best in the league as a gunner going downfield to cover kicks. He revolutionized the game with is play here and got the great claim to fame that they had to change the rules of the game in a couple of cases to take his play out of the game (for example, they changed the rules of the game during the midst of Tasker's careerto prevent anyone but the two outside cover guys from going downfield before the kick passed the line of scrimmage and the gunner role was born. KR teams took to putting two blockers on the gunners to delay them and give the return guy a cleaner shot. Tasker took to actually running downfield out of bounds to avoid the blockers and was fast enough to still get downfield and make the tackle. The NFL put in a

Keep 'em coming Lori this is great stuff! I see no reason why TBD can not simply have a hotlink to your pinned columns so you both get the advantage of more prominent display and also the message board form and commentary.

If the NFL was only about (or even primarily about) promoting excellence in performance over the course of a full season then there would be a comsiderably higher cut-off for winning percentage for making the playoffs (the .625 suggested above or a more arbitrarily cut-off of .666). Baseball has shown (and educated a traditionalist like me) that allowing at least one second place team into the playoffs as a wild card has some value to the product as a whole) but overall, the NFL is about providing an entertinment product rsther than promoting a meritocracy or excellence in play. Under the framework of reality where what used to be a sport that also happened to be a business is now a business that happens to be a sport, the rule is and is likely to be in perpetuity that the randomness of "any given Sunday" applies and rivalries will be promoted and a division winner makes the playoffs where anything can happen regardless of the quality of play of individual teams. The L in NFL stands for Lotto in many ways and part of the American way will always be if you don't play you can't win and underdogs being redeemed and getting a chance at winning it all even if they do not deserve it will be part of the game.

You're right in that I overstated the case saying we are in great shape, but i think I went a little bit manic in my description because though we will not really be in great shape until either NC resigns or is franchised (I think that the franchising option will essentially force him to sign a deal if one can call shoveling someome a likely $20 million or so bonus forcing) or for some unknown reason he is let go and we sign a new FA to replace him. Edit my claim to instead say we are in very good shape rather than great. We will almost certainly end up in great shape even if Clements leaves because we are very deep at CB and will have the cap room and the budget allocation to sign the best possible FA. In my view, there simply is no crisis at CB as we have a potential #1 on the roster in McGee (not there yet but improving before out eyes and already having joined the NFL elite through his ST work. We have two at least possible candidates for a #2 in Greer and King and I feel fine about either as a nickel. We have an injured player who before he got hurt was a legitimate contender at nickel. In a pinch (Thomas is injured out and both our #2 candidates fail we have a former Pro Bowl CB at S who in a pinch can make his drop from being a #1 CB be duty at @2 instead of dropping back to safety. In addition to all this if NC goes we will have the cap room and budget to but the next Ty Law who becomes available to play starting CB for us. I simply do not see why this is such a big problem and we are DDDOOOMMED.

My guess is that one of these games is likely to become either a debacle like last year's NE game there or (it is to be hoped) a laugher where between good ST performance and a stout D there is mop-up duty to be done. I think JP likely sees his next action this year in a mop-up role in a huge win or loss and he will begin the process of trying to prove on the field what he has learned from getting benched (as Steve Young, Brett Favre, Terry Bradshaw and even John Elway (who sat in favor of Steve DeBerg early in his career), learned from additional practice running the scout team and learned from watching Holcomb play the game effectively when he sucked. This is a different question that when does he start. He starts when Holcomb proves ineffective at starting or when the season is over. of the next games: OAK- quite winnable since they have sucked NE- really doubtful that we can win on the road and JP probably gets his next shot there. The good news for him is that it will be hard to do worse than the last time he entered an NE game. Even with his piss-poor play this year he is a far better QB than the rookie who entered that game. KC- We have a bad history with them, but they are so up and down this year and we are home that this game is also quite winnable (particularly with the advantage coming off a bye while they travel). SD- Given their play so far this year, us having to go to CA and facing LaDamian Tomlinson with the performance of this run D this looks as bleak as our NE prospects where we are reduced to the fact that any team can win on any given Sunday. Carolina- This game is also quite winnable as Delhomme giveth and Delhomme taketh away. Besides 4 games and a bye make this one a world away so predictions are indicative but far from conclusive at this point. Right now I think the Bills are either 3-2 or more likely 2-3 in this patch, but my guess is JP begins to work his way back in at QB in one of these games and probably as soon as NE.

I aggree we want to sign both of them and with a new salary cap which we blossom with the new TV contracts in place and TD managing both the amount of contracts well and the FA resigning needs of the Bills we should be able to have both under contract next year. However, I don't think that we should feel we are DOOOOMED if we do not resign Clements for some reason, while many teams begin to struggle at CB when they put the nickel on the field, we actually have sevral reasonable candidates for the 2, 3, and 4 slots. McGee would likely have to step up to be a #1 shutdown corner and though this is not a stone cold lock it is easily possible given his production as a pro to date. Draftee King struggled this pre-season but now seems to becoming a productive player and looks like a definite nickel next year and poaaibly (though it is still a bit early to declare this likely will compete for #2. Greer showed some very good stuff this pre-season though opponents success on 3rd down is a challenge out current nickel must meet, but he also is at least a candidate for a #2 slot. Kevin Thomas is clearly damaged goods and should not be counted upon, but given the recent wonders performed by modern medicine ranging from WM rehab to a quicker comeback than I expected from Campbell he cannot be counted out as a nickel candidate either. In a real pinch Vincent is no longer the #1 CB that made the Pro Bowl but we are talking about making it work in a pinch here and both the nickel and even the #2 CB roles are a downsizing of demands on this former #1. Add to all of this that if Clements were to go for some reason (I doubt he will since it probably would be a financial boon to us under the new cap to give him the franchise tag as there will be a lag between the coming of the new cap and the top 5 CB salaries rising to inflate the tag salary level. This potential alone is likely to force Clements to sign) then the Bills would likely be the lead team in the market for any available CBs with mondo $ under the new cap and already having budgeted for a resigning of Clements. I have little doubt we would be able to sign at least competition for McGee to be a #1 CB or attract a player on the market if there is a Ty Law available as there was this year. I think we are in great shape at CB right now and for next season.

This thought crossed my mind as well but upon consideration I considered it unlikely to hold Parrosh out until NE if he is ready to go. As I see it, Parrish could potentially have two impacts on the game. 1. He plays well and adds yards and points to our totals. 2. He forces NE to gameplan for his speed and warps opposing Ds creating more opportunties for WM, Moulds, etc. I think both aspects are probably enhanced by him playing. On point one he is a rookie and rookies sre not vets until they play. I think we see a better Parrish with a game under his belt against NE than we see in his first start if it is against NE. On point 2, the real benefit from Parrish to the Bills comes not simply from his play but if he proves to be a speed threat, Evans may get a slower player covering him, Moulds may not get doubled as much or as well and in 1 backfield sets the safeties and nickel lean toward Parrih's side giving WM an extra step when he runs the other way. BB does game plan for everyone, but he will not gameplan to cover Parrish to Mouldss/Evans advantage unless there is a more proven reason to do so. Its possible that he simply looks so good in practice thatMM could get some advantage from springing him fresh on the world in NE, but it is doubtful and i think he plays better and cause more issues if he proves himself to be a danger in OAK.

There is no doubt that we would be better off with out current #1 and #2 CBs as our number 1 and 2 CBs for the forseeable future. However, all I am saying that I don't feel like we are doomed with an FA situation where: 1. McGee continues to progress at the current rate where though he was lit up filling in for Vincent last year, he learned from the trial by fire and has already pulled into a position where is CB play is stable enough that his ST role which won him a Pro Bowl start is not diminished at all by his play (unlike his partner NC who is a better cover corner generally, but his consistent boneheaded play per game makes you like him because the good outweighs the bad). I think he shows the athleticism and talent to cotinue developing so he can become a shutdown corner. Height is his major drawback here but if he watches old AW films and can replicate his cover like a glove work. 2. The question is one of whether King can show enough to challenge for the #2 role next year. Probably not, but though he did struggle in pre-season I do like what I am seeing so far and if he continues wth the sane speed of development he showed from pre-season to now, i certainly feel comfortable with him as my nickel and give him an outside shot at being a #2 who does get lit up from time to time but this the NFL. 3. Is Vincent done as a CB. He seems to feel that is so and its why he moved to safety. Still I feel good about this as he obviously is a thinking man and I do not feel bad about him being essentially my nickel from his safety position. His presence is one of the things which makes me feel more comdortable that Hills may develop quickly. 4. Where does Jabari Greer fit in? Again, he is a player who has shown good signs with how he broke on the ball for a couple of INTs and also with some good ST tackling to be a player up to nickel duty. However, as this nickel back gets the call when the O goes into a 3 WR set which often happens on third down, the Bills horrendous record at stopping the opponent on 3rd down means Greer's play deserves some special scrutiny. I must admit I have not look closely at 3rd downs yet so I do not know how much of our poor record on this down in Greer's fault. Either way he will need to pick it up a lot next year if we lose Clements. If he is not at fault for the 3rd down failure or his play improves the rest of the year he will likely compete for the #2 job though I doubt he can do it. If he is at fault he will need to step up his game merely to be a credible nickel. 5. Which brings us to Kevin Thomas. It does not look good from an injury standpoint. My understanding he had a second surgery which has cost the season. Not a good sign and he is probably done as a player and certainly is not one you should count on. However, we have seen with WM what modern mecdical science and hard work can do. I think Thomas is a UNLV product so unless one counts staying up until the wee small hours at the Blackjack table as hard work this is probably not his middle name. Yet just as he should not be counted upon he should not be written off either. he was thought of as good enough to be *you guessed it) our nickel back. At any rate, the reason I do not feel bad if this is what we have in place for next year to find three positions, we start with 5 possibilities (just merely possibilities but all are possibilities ranging from a good possibility to one day be our number one like McGee to a possibility at best to even play the game again like Thomas. The reason I feel pretty good about this though is that with the new salary cap and with the money set aside to sign Clements, and little else in terms of FAs of note to as must resigns (even when/if we go big for WM signing him will be allocated so the intial cap hit should not be huge) if Clements does not return we will certainly be one of the lead candidates to sign whatever the best available FA CB talent there is. it would be a shame to lose Clements but not a death blow at all to this team.

Whn doing this CB figuring don't forget: 1. The salary cap is going to change big time next year by agreement as the new TV contracts will kick it and under the CBA this will be part of the defined gross revenue from which a huge % (above 65%) will be dedicated to player salaries. NFL teams MUST pay a higher wage to their players and one is going to see an explosion in the wages of the best players who are on the market like Clements. Champ Bailey took in a $20 million bonus and he probably won't even be in the top 5 CB cap hits when all is said and done. 2. The folks who were ranting at TD to "Just git it done" and lock Clements up were fooling themselves in terms of the real numbers. While there was a remote (real remote given his arrogance that makes his a good player) chance that Clements might have caved and taken a sucker deal from TD to guarantee that he had the maximum the Bills could pay in hand, it was actually Clements who needed to be pressured to sign as he almost certainly would have been foolish to do this. Unless he suffered a near fatal injury even if he was hurt, he will make more than the Bills could have paid him under the cap this year by entering the free market. 3. Clearly the Bills were in no position to resign AW regardless of whether they wanted him or not. AW was a done deal as a Bill when Lawyer Milloy entered the marketplace and the Bills used $ they set aside to try to entice AW into a long-term deal on Milloy. AW not only found a better deal in the free market than the Bills were willing (and ultimately even able) to offer but he found two. Remember that the Jets thought they had him signed and sealed, but the Vikes actually made a blockbuster offer to AW that stole him from the Jets before he was delivered. The Bills simply could not have matched what the Vikes offered as NFLPA.com has his 2005 cap hit at over $12 million and we are complaing about MW getting his mere $9 million. I think the Bills can potentially resign Clements as we are in pretty good shape in terms of available FAs next year and the new cap will offer an opportunity to pay a huge amount to Clements. You need 2 starting CBs and actually a pretty good nickel CB so paying through the nose for Clements may be the thing we have to do. Nevertheless, there will be all sorts of psychotic deals out there because the NFL by agreement will have to distribute a bunch of money to the players and TD may be best off by franchising Clements and using the $ to sign McGee long-term. As many teams have already locked up their highest paid CB, it may take a little while for the top 5 franchise # at CB to creep up there and franchising Clements next year may be a very cheap thing to do (and if so he will likely sign a longtem deal with us and get big bucks and security instead of simply bog bucks). Even still, i do not feel bad about a CB corps for the Bills which consists of McGee, Vincent doing the best he can, Eric King who seems to be developing into a player and a rehabbed Kevin Thomas as our options for finding 3 players at CB. Indeed, if Clements is gone we will then have not only the huge cap room of the new salary cap, but whatever we planned to spend on Clements and we will supplement the McGee/Vincent/King/Thomas base by signing the best FA CB available. Cornerback is one the areas where I think we are in better shape coming into the new FA period.

Need still rules the roost though the Bills have done better going for the best player available rather than stick strictly to need with their first choice (ironically the pick of MW at #4 probably deviated from this "rule" and the oick has disappointed) so its hard to say right now who they will pick. If anything, the TD MO has been to recognize that few early picks and even first rounders are worth what that slot is going to pay and the drag this pick will put on the team. In the past he has used our first rounder to: 2001- Trade down with a great result as we still got the 1st CB drafted and he has made the Pro Bowl. 2002- Used our first rounder to fill a definite OL need with disappointing results. 2003- He traded this first rounder for Bledsoe who provided great value for nothing with his 2002 Pro Bowl reserve performance (though he made this good a wash with his stinky 2003 performance), however, he managed to again create somethng from nothing by getting a 1st rounder for tagging PP and again manipulated using this pick for both value on and off the field by getting the injured WM who rehabbed to be a top 5 talent picked up with a #18 pick. Add o this that TD addressed a clear DL need by reading the market incredibly well so the run DL players allowed him to get Kelsay anyway with our #2. 2004- He made a good need filling choice for Evans who has been developed into a productive Pro. He again turned something into nothing as he traded the 2005 #1 for JP who needed to develop (and unfortunately still does). 2005- I'd label this a need pick because we needed a QB if we were gonna get ridda DB andits pretty clear that even with the poor performance of JP he is at the level of tge other poor performing QBs who were abaliable in the 2005 draft. Despite the non factual claims of those who want to believe the Bills refuse to devote significant draft resources to the OL, the Bills problem has been making choices who have not worked out rather than not being willing to draft OL players. The facts are these: 2001- In Jennings and Sullivan the Bills started with 7 picks which they increased to 12 but used to get two OL players who eventually started one of whom they spent a valuable 1st day choice on. 2002- Again they felt OL was important enough to acquire 2 players using the 7 picks they started out with. Again OL was deemed a high priority as the bad season the year before allowed them to spend a #4. There was a clear consensus that the two mostly highly rated LT prospects were MW and Bryant McKinnie. Though lower ranked LT Levi Jones has turned out to be a better choice few argue the Bills picked the wrong guy between the two lead choices. They may be faulted for not trading down but who knows for sure what deals were offered or not offered for this pick, Once again the Bills can be faulted for MW and later pick Pacillo not working out, but they did get two starters from these two picks and no one can credibly argue they do not value the OL, they can only argue correctly that hiring GW and allowing him to hire Vinky and Ruel was a bad move. 2003- Once again the Bills valued OL over the numerous other position they could have drafted and took Sobieski. he was seen as one of the most talented OL players in the draft though he had clear injury issues. This "long-ball" strategy was actually a pretty reasonable one given that the Bills were coming off a surprisingly productive O performance that saw Bledsoe, Moulds and Henry all make the Pro Bowl and PP fail to make it with 94 catches. Sobieski did not pull off the rehab of fellow draftee McGahee and is a failed pick, but again it makes little sense for someone to claim the Bills have no focus, commitment or plan on OL, simply that fairly reasonable moves have not worked out. 2004- Yet again the Bills devote one of their precious draft picks to the OL picking McFarland (and once again the player failed to perform as he was cut this year). However, the biggest Bills OL improvement was to move beyond the Vinky Ruel debacle to acquire JMac as OL coach. As JMac himself says he is no miracle worker and our problem is the OL needs a miracle to perform adequately. The good news for Bills fans is that virtualy a miracle came to pass as JMac cut the failed Pacillo and somehow got a somewhat credible starting performance out of a Ravens PS player Smith. Even more miraculous he inherited from the Vinky/Ruel mismanaged crew a MW who went even more toward bust status by understandably being shaken when his Grammy who raised him died, but unfortunately he dealt with this loss in an unprofessional manner. JMac engineered the replacement of Ruben Brown with Villarial, ran a good cop/bad cop development game on MW and squoze some good pass coverage out of Smith, found away to deal with his redzone failings with good use of Bannan and Adams and had WM's prescense revive the run game. I think JMac did a phenomenal job last year. 2005- JMac has disappointed us by the OL not getting continued growth in OL production. In fact, despite having a huge number of horses to work with it is pretty arguable to this point that the OL has taken a step back. Nevertheless, again the Bills showed that in the draft OL is a top priority as once again they used the 6 picks they had to acquire two OL players. One of those two, Preston is actually a well-regarded sub on this team and a starter for Villarial when he went down. The bottomline is that it is clearly demonstrated by real world events that OL is top priority for the Bills (If you disagree then who would you have passed on taking Clements, McGahee, Evans or Losman and if you did what OL player would you have taken instead). Second, though the Bills efforts at making this priority commitment have failed to date, their attempts were not unreasonable one to try make wiork (if you disagree with the MW pick would you have gone for McKinnie instead or do you advocate trading down in some 20/20 hindsight woulda/coulda/shoulda kind of way). The complaining about the Bills OL is really reduced to meaningless whining unless the complainer says fairly specifically what they would have done differently that would have been realistic, forseeable and would have worked.