Fake-Fat Sunny

I think the difference is seen not only in a comparison of the two individuals but more holistically of the whole situtation. The biggest factors to me in terms of performance is that there is a big difference from the AVP1.1 situation where this was a move from Jim Kelly to AVP, the move from RJ to AVP sen in AVP 1.2, or the move from JP to KH (for comparison purposes lets call this AVP 1.3). I think you are correct in asking similarity questions because actually the Bills experienced success with all three moves. However, I thionk the short-term success we had in moving to AVP in many ways happened to what I use to call the AVP effect. Opponents having knocked out our starter due to an injury would let down and even a plucky rag-arm like AVP would come in and make the opponents who were already thinking about who they would play next Sunday or how many girls they would bag that week pay for their inattention. There was simply a world of difference between the performance of an AVP coming in to drive the team for a TD against Pitts after Kelly got hurt, or almost beating Denver after they put up a big lead and knocked out Collins, or AVP coming in and driving the Bills to a winning FG after RJ got knocked out and the performance of AVP as a starter. I think it was 98 when poor performance by Collins and Hobert proving to be an idiot got AVP a start at home against NE and given time to prepare NE simply destroyed AVP and the Bills. Likewise when RJ flamed out and AVP came in against the Jets, the opponents were able to figure out that one could fool AVP will a well-practiced fake coverage and they picked him off a few times. The big difference with the JP to KH switch which makes it far more than AVP 1.2 is that the move from JP to KH is such a far more sigificant upgrade than even the move from the hapless RJ to AVP it isn't even close (RJ was actually a talented player who could throw the longball well and accurately as he did in games such as the one where SF challenged him by going single coverage with their CBs, the problem was that he was injury prone and seemingly a stiff wind would break his clavicle, separate his sternum or debilitate him someway which made him totality unreliable to depend on). The big difference here to the AVP situtations is that JP proved to be so disgustingly unproductive in our first 4 games and took away any productivity with the WRs in our offense that even with a downgrade in arm strength it does not matter is KH upgrades by even throwing with rag arm accuracy (his arm strength is not as good as JP but is at pro QB levels actually and I do not see us being DOOMED to a bad Nov/Dec simply because his arm strength is less than the powerful but inaccurate arms of JP and Bledsoe for that matter) to the WRs. Our O simply offers more threats because we now throw with some accuracy to the WRs and Moulds and Evans are now a big part of the game.

it's doubtful that any one player will be available that fits this bill, because our problems stopping the run do not seem to be linked consistently to poor play by any one player but due to the failure of several and multiple players on the D failing to implement our system properly. On the Martin long runs for example, they occured because of a failure by the DL (particularly the DTs) to stop him at the line, AND then the LBs were locked up and (particularly Crowell on one play), AND the secondary was taken out of of the play (Milloy was locked up and overran the POA and Clements was sent inside or lined up too far in). One could replace any one player and not only would he need to play better than the talent we have, AND he would need to be able to learn and pick-up our system better than a player who has played in it all season but it still likely would only make a marginal difference because the key to the TEAM stopping the run is all players need to do their jobs together. Just as it is clearly the case that moving from Spikes to Crowell is a definite downgrade in talent any way you cut it, this move made little difference in production because folks like Cadillac Wiiliams or Warwick Dunn and Michael Vick were picking up big or critical yardage against the D with Spikes playing, The better or more likely answer is that the D will oerform better against the run if the players played better together. The irony here is that they seem to have such chemistry issues when 10 of 11 players were back. I'd point to these factors as reasons why there is hope: 1. Despite PW quite often being replaced last year on many snaps (he took less than 2/3 of the snaps) players overcompensated for DL play and changes. I think this problem has gotten worse because they have even less confidence in Anderson than in a fulltime Edwards. Anderson ringing up a sack Sunday may help alot and if this team shuts down Lamont Jordan (a real possibility if Moss is not there to distract us) the confidence level will improve. 2. The injury to Spikes did not help (even though Cadillac running over him and plays like the one where Vick exploited the fact Spikes had his back turned to the line directing traffic and Vick hit a hot receiver running through Spikes area were indication of tough times with the run even with better players in) but the good news is that Crowell is getting better with experience and produced in ways that show up on the stat sheet (an INT and a sack) that may give him the confidence to not second guess himself and to demonstrate a will to win. 3. Milloy is older but at least the hand is healing slowly so perhaps he can be more effective. The bad game Clements had on Sunday perhaps will get him to play within his considerable talent rather than trying to do to much in his FA year. However, one of Clements strengths is his arrogance though and I doubt that even with the proof of needless PI call on him or his getting caught too far inside on a long run that this will get him to control his game and not make the requsite one bad play (trying to INT Smith last year instead of simply knocking the ball down or leaving a PR on the carpet against Pitts. There is more good than bad with Clements so I think we simply take the little bad with a lot of good from him.

The whole conversation seems o pointout that there is a difference (and often a contradiction) between being motivated by principle and being motivated by reality. The real answer seems to be that people and society as a whole are motivated by both and simply try to strike a balance, The solutions usually end up being something that at least bows to the importnance of both things, but totally satisfies neither. This then creates a situation where the easiest thing in the world is to point out the areas within the situation where some principle is not held to or where something unrealistic is done. Folks then seem to take the easy way out of citing these examples to dismiss the whole situation as being yet ANOTHER example of the stupidity of THEM. The most interesting arguments are those which advocate a real-world solution for striking a difficult balance rather than those which dogmatically hold to some principle without recognizing that like it or not we live in the real world and a balance will have to be struck. The irony of it all is that the way society does get to a balance is by having folks rant and be dogmatic and then the baby is split to give everyone some level of disatisfation.

Questions about the past and general approach seem to me to be a question of what should have been done differently (which fairly quickly devolves into a woulda/coulda/shoulda discussion which can be fun for a short time- if only we had drafted Tra Thomas/Tim Dwight instead of trading for RJ-) or simple mindless complaining (WE'RE DOOMED) which strikes me as no fun at all. If you see some other realistic alternative to these paths I'm all eyes. As far as what coul have been done differently, I look at it this way: 1. In essence winning the game is about running and stopping the run, we would have profited from a better focus on the OL and DL but this did not happen and it is why we are paying now. 2. The Bills braintrust can be correctly faulted for poor execution on the OL but I think folks are wrong when they claim that TD does not recognize the import of the OL to the team's fate. Every year he has been here they have used at least one oftheir 7 picks on an OL player and often/usually taken one on the first day; Of these picks none have become the new Tony Boselli but they have tried: 2001- They selected Jennings on the first day of the draft and he did provide the Bills with a starter at LT who was good enough to get a huge $ contract (actually too huge to make him logical to rsign given his history of injury) so overall this was an intelligent choice for whom it is difficult to find fault with the braintrust for selecting. Marques Sullivan was selected on the second day and was good enough to start for the Bills though in the big picture he simply was not a good enough player, I'd judge JJ as a B grade choice and though the Sullivan pick is an indicator of their effort he is a C- or D choice at best. 2002- Again the Bills devoted 2 picks to the OL (I think it is really hard for one to claim that the Bills have not at least tried to make this work and there simply is a difference between trying and failing or foolishly ignoring this issue as Butler seemed to do sometimes. By picking Mike Williams as the 4th pick overall, the Bills clearly indicated that they viewed OL improvement as a key for this team. I think that MW can be judged as being a big disappointment in his career so far with his recent injury being the latest bad real world outcome. However, I think it is incorrect to accurse the Bills of bad assessment here as the two reasonable choices for this pick were MW and McKinnie and of these two disappointing players they picked the better of the two. The better performer in the first round was the guy picked at LT in the 20s (Levi Jones I think) but this is total woulda/coulda/shoulda as I think there was a pretty clear concensus of McKinnie and MW being the class of the LTs. The MW pick did not work out which makes it a bad pick but it was not an unreasonable one for them to make without hindsight. The second day pick of Pucillo once again emphasizes the import the Bills put on OL and they did get some poor performance out of him as a starter, but the fact he ended up getting benched and cut after starting makes him a D at best. The final verdict is still out on MW but he looks like a C in terns of results. 2003- Sobieski was the only OL pick that year and given the success the O had in 2002 focusing elsewhere and trying to make the significant early investments already on the team payoff was not an unreasonable strategy. Even still the team attempted to build the OL from this position of perceived strength by using a pick on Sobieski who was judged one of the most talented prospects around who had some problems with the injury bug. I think if you asked TD about 2003 he would have labeled this a speculative draft whose future success would be dictated by how the docs felt things worked out as much as anything. WMs hard work and good fortune make the braintrusts work here a success, but I think that they viewed Sobieski as also having the same context but it has not worked out. 2004- McFarland was the choice and though he did some PT as a rookie he has to be judged an F as he got cut. Still even in this context his pick and cut is a sign of how things have changed under JMac as the Bills are even more active in the FA market than under the biggest mistake the braintrust made with the OL which is hiring GW who was allowed by the passive-aggressive management style of TD to hire first his buddy Vinky and then the under-experienced Ruel to coach the OL. the fact this happened under the failed Sheppard and then Kevin Killdrive as OC also points to the prime OL development GM failing of TD. he simply pick a not-ready-for-primetime guy as HC and the meltdown at OL is where this failure has been apparent. 2005- Again saw he Bills devote 2 picks to OL development as Duke Preston looks like a winning pick and late pick Geisinger is too early to tell but may be on the McFarland track. Still overall it does not correspond with reality to claim the Bills have not focused properly in terms of OL development. It is a an appropriate priority for them. There is a hindsight assessment that their work has not suceeded, but this is all 20/20 and the accusation that they have not devoted a lot or appropriate resources to the OL is simply wrong. One can make the woulda/coulda argument their picks did not work, but given that the choices they made were reasonable ones (the failed MW over the failed McKinnie) I think it reduces harping against their choices to whining. 3. On the DL side of the ball I think there are two factors at work here: A. We Bills fans are spoiled as we judge and expect all DL players to meet the Bruce Smith level of achievement. its not surprising that all DL players are judged as having failed at this level of success. The actual more realistic standard of achievement is probably more the Phil Hansen or Jim Jeffcoat level. By the Bruce standard Schobel is a failure. by the Hansen/Jeffcoat standard Schobel has work to do and longevity is the big X factor but clearly he is on track for his career being judged a success. B. The big error here though from the braintrust was switching to a 4-3 from a 3-4 at the exact same time we were in the process of losing Big Ted and Bruce to the cap, losing Wiley to FA and Hansen to retuirement. The zone blitz is a good move because we simply do not have the horses on DL even after some good drafting produced Schoble, Denney and Kelsay and excellet FA work got Adams. This is a team which probably would be doing better stopping the run if in the woulds/coulds/shoulda past we had stuck with the 3-4 and built around what turned out to be one of the best LB corps in the NFL but hindsight is 20/20. The over-focus has instead been on the QB issue, but to me this is mostly about marketing and not about winning. Its hard to pick QBs as it is hard to pick any good players, but though I totally disblieve TD when he said good kickers are a dime a dozen and this is not true of any position, it probably is more true for QB than most positions. Despite the QB shortage, the fact remains that is has been iminently possible to find great QBs capable of winning the SB in the 6th round of the draft (Brady), from the cut reject pile (Johnson, Dilfer), from K-Mart (whathisname with St. Louis) and in fact virtually anywhere except the first round of the draft since the last QB to deliver an SB win to a team that selected him in the first was Dallas choosing Aikman in 1989.

KH- I think the record last year indicates that the conclusion you initially reached on Gray just doesn't match. While "lightening" it a bit in this post to ackowledge he makes effective in game tweaks while you still find not bad but overrated, I still don;t think your analysis points toward the real issue here (if he is overrated this is not his fault its the stupid observers and why them overrating him is leading to the Ds problems this year doesn't make sense since the Bills problems aren't caised by bad pundits but is rooted in something the team is not doing. I start with questioning your assessment of Gray as a tweaker doing small in game fixes because I had this same concern myself when the Bills chose to keep Gray instead of LeBeau, but I think the key leading point which Gray demonstrated last year was that in fact he was more than just a play caller but had a good strategic sense. Gray demonstrated early on that the fear of a lack of strategic ability on his part was not a problem and this is seen in the game results. While the Bills were going 0-4 the D gave up 13 point, 13 points, 31 points (a definite clinker to the SB champions though it might be noted the Bills were actually going for the go-ajead TD in the 4th when the Pats D scored on a Bledsoe fumble and Seymour rumbled to a long score which cannot be blamed on the D) and 16 points. The low point totals yielded to the opponents in these losing causes are an indication of Gray putting together a D STRATEGY which proved capable of holding most opponents below 20 points even when we were losing. If you want validation of this point beyond my rantings, it was this performance which earned Gray a contract extension as seen in the following quote in Bills Daily: "The way this offense was playing you have to take your chances. Jerry Gray showed why he deserved the contract extension he got this week. He made adjustments and shut down the Ravens in the second half." Of particular note was that in this losing cause it was far from tweaks that Gray designed and implemented but large changes in how the Bills were playing the Ravens which made a big difference in the game. This came after the Miami game where the minor tweaks you mention resulted in Sammy Morris dropping from 81 yards gained in the first half to 10 in the second half (are you sure it was mere small adjustments that did this?) This was followed by the Bills beating up Arizona leading to Bills Daily saying: "Jerry Gray once again made the right adjustments in the run defense holding them to 31 yards rushing after halftime" While Bills Daily is not the be all and end all of judgment, it isn't just me that remembers "adjustments" by Gray which may have been minor tweaks from your point of view but these changes had major impact on the game. After this game the winning streak was on and Gray's results were for the most part the same. In addition to the game results last year not being adequately (at all) described by your conclusion, the concept of Gray being mired in his system also doesn't fit reality. If one remembers those horrid days under GW, Gray's system was actually the GW system which we did not have the personnel at all to run (a Kearse and a Blaine Bishop). One might accuse him as you do of being committed to his sytem even though ineffective, however, he switched on a virtual dime and learned and adopted the LeBeau system so effectively that he could make the correct calls with a new system to the extent the D results improved dastically that year thanks to LeBeau's strategy as implemented by Gray. If he is so mired in one system why did he not switch back as soon as he got the reins and LeBeau left. Instead the unit improved in its performance with this "non-strategist" at the helm alone. This post only focuses on this one aspect of disagreement but I am drawn to it because the conclusions you draw simply are counter to reality as I see it. This surprises me because usually I like and learn from your views.

When a team "prepare" for a game it is not simply that they are preparing to face a particular player but for the approach the other team takes. This preparation is not simply one of feel but particiularly in the modern information age and the modern NFL is the tendencies of a particular team at certain down and distances of specific plays they call. In general, I think that preparations for Holcomb and preparations for JP will be the same for most teams. 1. A player will study the tendencies of the player they are likely to face and how to beat that player (ex: a DT is going to face Anderson or Villarial with Teague helping out and it makes little difference in his prep whether JP or Holcomb is calling the plays). 2. The Bills will tend to run at a certain down and distance and that runner is likely to be WM. Whether it is Holcomb or JP handing off to him the prep is the same and how the blockers move or are leaning is probably the key to whether the tackler reads a run or not based on the down and distance. Which QB will make a bigger difference in prep for the D in that Holcomb does a far better job. Obviously Holcombe because he has command of the Bills playbook at JP level plus. JP just does not throw to the WRs as often and does not go through his progression as quickly and efficiently as the vet Holcombe does. However, prepping for the Bills will be pretty much the same regardless of who is QB, There would have to be a whole lot of plays there for one QB that are not there for the other. I doubt there is much of a difference.. There tendenices are somewhat different but the plays are the same.

It seems to be the popular conventional wisdom right now for even the Bills faithful to wail and lament about the loss of Spikes near halftime of game 3 and to try to pin the huge failings of the run D on having to depend on Crowell, but though I think Spikes was certainly a legit and deserving Pro Bowler last year. I actually found his play (and the rest of the D) really lacking in game 2 where Cadillac and the rest of TB ran over Spikes and our D. Before his injury against AT, there were a couple of plays where I found Spikes performance actually downright embarassing. The prime example was the play where Spikes got so busy using his brain to direct traffic he forgot to use his talented body to make plays. He had his back turned to Vick as he directed the set and Vick got off a quick snap and hit the receiver breaking through the space where Spikes was standing flat-footed as he turned and got a critical first down. 2-1/2 games do not a season make but between the way he and his colleagues were used and abused against TB and the double digit runs peeled off by Warrisk Dunn before Spikes went out, this team;s run D problems did not begion with the loss of Spikes but preceeded them. having the young Crowell foes not make things better and obviously losing a Pro Bowler for a third year guy with little more than ST experience is a drop-off in play. However, good teams suck it up and deal with losing good players so this is not a good excuse even if Spikes had been performing well, but he wasn't in his last game and a half (like all players he had a good game against the hapless Texans, but even in this game he did not put up the gaudy stats one expects from a Pro Bowler. Like it or not, Spikes ain't comin' back this season so the only option is to deal with it. Crowell has not been adequate yet, but this youngster is getting better with playing time and having roughly split time with Spikes as far as PT, it is a good sign to already see him lurching ahead of Spikes in INTs produced, equalling him in sacks produced in 2005 and getting lots more tackles than Spikes produced in the same number of starts. Its tough to lose Spikes and difficult to "replace" a Pro Bowler but I think that he can be substituted for and this team can be as productive without him as with him. In fact, w were so bad in production against the run with him it yesterday's debacle against Curtis Martin is about the same as had become the norm for the D this year.

Not so fast wih the conclusions you draw I'm afraid. Not only do some of them not line up with the facts and events of this season and the past two (A hallmark of Gray's game last year was his ability to diagnose early problems, design a change and implement the switch effectively and quickly last year as overall their 3rd quarter D production last year was huge and in examples like last year's Miami game where Morris ran all over us in the first half and they shut him down in the second half was merely one clear example of Gray making a big switch last year this year the switches work in the 3rd but we get overwhelmed in the 4th quarter- in addition the run D sucked both with and without Spikes), but also the key here does not appear to be geared to one player being bad, but the team failing as a unit on big plays. I'd say he key here is not found in episodic diagnosis but opponents having figured out how wo exploit the zone blitz unless we do everything well. It just ain't simple and I for one am still trying to figure this out and I know less than gray )or LeBeau have forgotten about how to make this work. Overall, my reaction to your thought are: A. The loss of Pat Williams- PW would have been great to keep at an affordable salary, but not worth the full time freight this part time player (he took less than 2/3 of the D snaps last year) got to play D in the failed MN D. How do you explain the Bills D being quite effective in the 1/3 plus plays (far more than him simply sitting out thrid downs) he was not on the field last year if his prescence was so essential. PW is good but no world-beater. B. Schobel being an overrated football- I agree that Schoble has lacked strength at the POA and thus against the run, but this is why he is utilized in the zone blitz so much by us in short zone and even man-to-man pass coverage. Maybewe need a new scheme, but his is not the run problem because we do not use him thi way. C. The loss of Takeo Spikes- as i said this is a problem but if we play well as a team we can deal with this instead we are simply being embarassed. . D. Our LB's having a serious case of Arrington-itis- I agree thety are trying to do too much an make too many plays and this is part of our problem. It is a true irony that I think if they dialed it back a notch they would be more effective. E. Milloy his one...maybe age taking a toll?- I think it is age. F. Jerry Gray's mediocrity and stubbornness as a DC- I think you are wrong on this one, the surprise to me has actually been that Gray had proved to be a superior strategy guy and not merely a tactician after LeBeau left. His willingness to change was actually a big part of our success the last two years. I think this years problems have not been because of rigidity but because if anything he is beingtioo clever by half and the team is trying to do too much. If anything like last year;s O which improved when they took away Bledsoe's ability to audible and simplified things, I think that our run D might profit from simplifying a little bit.

Exactly. We've got huge issues which go beyond position. I think part of the Bills problem this year is that opponents have 2 years of film on our run-blitz scheme and after some experience with it they can see how to exploit it. I think the run-blitz as designed by LeBeau and run by Gray was incredibly effective as opponents could not figure out what we were going to do on a particular play. However, Pitts and LeBeau provided a road map last year on how to evoke specific responses from the Bills D based on their reacting to exploit what the opponent is giving them and then how to take advanatage of that Bills response to rip on us. Its hard for us mere mortals to even figure out what the heck the Bills are doing with this D (our traditional 4-3 and even 3-4 labels do not seem to apply) but all signs point to opponents having figured this out or at least what plays work against it and we have problems. I think a couple of critical points are coming up: 1. NE and BB will get us after their bye week and I do not look forward at all to seeing how they attack us with an extra week to plan. Gray may well want to change up out approach to run D entirely in week 8 because quite frankly we can't do much worse if a series of good runners from Caddilac to Martin are going to rip us up anyway. 2. I own bye week the next week provides us with an opportunity or gray to remake out run D. He has proved to be a strategic master making great adjustments at half time last year and using the bye week effectively. Doing this again th im prove a bad run D rather than simply to perfect a good product is going to be quite the challenge.

I think the thing folks should apologize for is not their displeasure with Lindell last year or the year before but with their failure to recognize the good parts of his game and the false claim that he was bad at everything. Don't get me wrong, Lindell was bad at FG accuracy last year and between missing the chip shot against Pitts and clearly generating no confidence in MM with his kicks beyond 40 yds his FG game was simply bad, bad, bad. Hiowever, many posters simply failed to acknowledge the reality that Lindell was simply extrarodinarily good on kick offs last year and teamed with the tacklers on the ST last year to master the tricky winds of the Ralph and difficulty of enemy fields to generate a virtually perfect kickoff game last year. FGs are critical certainly, but in the end they mostly are for show and the kickoffs are for dough and Lindell and the ST were a huge part of the win streak last year. You team this up with some very good performance by Lindell with onside kicks last year (he performed on 2 of 3 chances onside last year with Rashad Baker having a shot at recovery (all you can really ask for from a kicker) and actually kicking and recovering one himself) and though Lindell simply sucked at FG length and accuracy he was superb at kickoffs and onside work. Folks do not deserve being ragged on for complaining about Lindell last year and the long-term stupid comment from TD that good kickers are a dime a dozen, but they do deserve being ragged on for not seeing the very good parts of his game last year. It simply shows a misunderstanding of the game by folks to not recognize that Lindell did a great job on an important part of the game last year. it was the difficulty in replacing his kickoff work which was why there never was really any serious competition for him this off-season even though most fans had written his obituary.

I actually think it is more of a failure by a group of players to exercise the scheme properly rather than simply a problem of bad play by one player. I think you see this in a big part of yesterday's run D problem not being a consistent failure to stop Martin from getting 4-7 yards on multiple plays, but them generally stopping him but givomg up 2 huge runs of 40+ yards. One these plaus, Martin not only cut through the DL positions you named as though they were butter, but also LBs like Crowell were effectively stymied by a blocker, safeties like Milloy who had run stopping duty on one of the runs were ridden out of the play and did not engage at the point of attack and even a broadcaster noted that the problem on one play was Nate Clements getting sucked in so that he was not there as a safety valve to provide run support because he certainly was not doing any pass coverage on the play either. How do the Bills get better? In my mind it is a combination of possibilities. The best teams on D (which the Bills have claimed to be) simply perform well as a team every single play. The Bills players do their part and play their role on almost all plays, but giving up runs of 40+ a couple of times a game is not acceptable and the players simply need to perform better. My sense is that the individuals really are trying to do too much and when multiple players do this on the same play they get burned. The culprits in terms of their particular game are in my mind: 1. Crowell is getting better as he gets more experience, but Spikes provides big shoes to fill. If he uses the INT he got yesterday to increase his calmness and consistency this will work better, but if he plays off of it and Gray emphasizes making big plays he will do this from time to time, but we will also get burned from time to time. Oddly enough I think if he is more Posey like we will perform better. 2. Clements is a great player but i think is a little to addicted to the headlines as he is in his contract year. If I were him I do not resign with the Bills until after the season anyway at all because he will get a bigger contract than the Bills can give him under the salary cap right now so simply signing him is not a realistic answer. However, he needs to play within himself a bit and we would be more effective. 3. Milloy I think is the difficult problem to solve here because I think his decline is simply due to him getting older so I think there is little choice here but to tough it out and hope for the best. I do not see his back-up Wire stepping up here so ultimately we are going to need a better player. As Milloy is older and thus subjet to more frequent nicks and missed games I'd keep an eye on the waiver wire for Milloy's heir apparent here and work Leonhard in practice to make the switch in his play from FS to SS. Overall, Gray needs to really ask himself if out high-risk scheme is the best thing for the players we got. I do not see us changing at this point in the season but our players may simply not be good enough (particularly after the loss of Spikes) to operate effectively in as diverse a scheme as we have. The good news is that the saving grace may actually be improved effectivenness by the DL because this will actually serve to take pressure off the LBs and run support pressure off the DBs. The monster play f Sam Adams and the Denney sacks yesterday were a great sign.

No surprise at all but this is fairly hilarious after his one bad game earlier this season that posters were ranting that WM was so bad and such a negative that MM had called him out and he deserved it. MM correctly pointed out the flaws in how WM played that particular game and only the thinnest skinned of fans and folks made a judgment that MM had called him out or somehow challenged his manhood. Its not surprising at all WM had a great game just as it was not surprising at all he had one bad game. MM and WM both did a good job by simply making normal adjustments that everyone who wants to improve makes in their game and for the most part staying the course. Yesterday was the result. Any claim that MM called out WM with an insult or challenge to his basic play or singled him out for criticism is a mere fantasy.

It's a 50/50 bet because I think the main reason the Vikes do not can him is that they have much bigger issues than having an out of control team under the HC. If this was merely a football issue and getting someone in to get the team to perform better on the field was most of what this was about then you certainly can the HC. However, there are so many other personal failings related to this team, that simply canning the HC really wouldbe simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. This baby still sinks dramatically. Canning Tice may well be a good start, but there needs to be some sort of comprehensive remake of this team which separates them and is different than not only the sex scandal, not simply their approach on the field, but really deals with ownership which is disconnected from the team, poor onfield leadership, the impacts of the death of one of their OL players, the impacts of Moss and a host of other issues. Can Tice certainly, bu what is this team really going to do within the restrictions the comprehensive agreement to make this team a TEAM?

I'm just back from Chicago and only got to do a quick look at the first half of today's great win so I will try to look a bit deeper and answer this question with some supportable detail later. However, even without a thorough review I think your question about whether Crowell is partially the blame for our terrible run D can be answered accuratelt. YES, he is deserves partial blame for the terrible run D, but it is such a small part it makes little sense that changing who plays this one position would make a big difference. Specifically, 1. The run D sucked a lot before Crowell came in to play because of Spikes injury. Even with Pro Bowler Spikes in there against teams like TB and early in the game against AT before Spikes was hurt. Obviously Crowell deserves his fair share of the blame for the poor run D performance while he has been in the game, but to simply blame Crowell for the lack performance overall takes some ignoring of reality. 2. On one of Martin;s long runs yesterday one could clearly see Crowell effectively blocked and a great or even a good player does not allow this to happen. However, in addition to this, the DL was little more than a speed bump on this play, also Milloy was up on run support on this play and was not effective and seemed to be easily blocked out of the lane Martin took, so I think it is hard to lay blame on him for not being adequate to pick up for the failings of (at least) two other players with run stopping assignments on this play without also realizing that these two other players messed up on this play. 3. One thing I will really need to go back and try to look and see is that actually the broadcaster called out Nate Clements for being out of position on this play and being to close to the line to back-up his partners on this play. The question is raised up above whether the PI on Clements in the endzone was actually the boneheaded play referred to above. Despite the PI not being a very good play by Clements (particularly after McGee played the pass incredibly well just the play before) my guess is that it was Clements play on this run (or perhaps a McCarrein reception with Clements covering) which is the more likely faux pas referred to. Overall, does Crowell deserve some blame? Definitely. Does he deserve the largest part of the blame? I think definitely not.

This poll question stems from a comment about a bad call last night in the MLB game (which was moved correctly by a moderator as it was a baseball thang in football season). I did take the time to respond to it though with a more football directed response where as bad as the MLB refs are, I still think the NFL refs deserve special note and a place in heck for their efforts. Do folks agree and if not which refs are episodically or consistently worse and why? Commnt on moved post- I don't know about this comparison, there are certainly moronic judgment calls in both and all games, but certainly blowing the call on the coin flip which Phil Luckett did in the NFL (and in a George Tenet Medal of Freedom kind of way was then promptly awarded by the NFL for his "excellence" by being given playoff duty- talk about cronyism) gets a special place in the Ref Hall of Shame. I vote for NFL refs being the worst in sports in terms of these part-timers being consistently wrong and also having the worst episodes of idiocy. ---

Well duh. Of course you do. Guaranteed and a 100% fact that every QB who became great played the game. Guaranteed and a 100% fact that you have to play the game to win the SB. However, this is a totallty different question than whether a QB develops best, quickest or successfully at all by being a starter his rookie year, his second year or whenever you want to argue. The Guaranteed 100% fact is that there is NO tried and true simple rule that applies in all cases. Thetre simply exist real world examples of QBs who have been developed successfully both starting right out the box as a rookie, sitting his first year, sitting his first two years or even being started, the benched, and even cut. The key question for debate is not a foolish argument as to whether JP must play now, must sit now or whatever. The more intelligent debate is about what type of athlete JP is as a player, and what are the pluses and minuses of his game and most important how does a development strategy dpvetail with this businesses desire to sell their product right now rather than a simplistic argument that there is no choice but to take our lumps right now. It strikes me as intelligent to argue that the Michael Vick example of having a player sit much of his first year does not apply to any QB who is not the atheletic equal of Vick. It strikes me as intelligent to argue that the Chad Pennington example of sitting 2 years before playing and leading your team to the playoffs does no apply to a QB with JPs mobility. It strikes me as intelligent to argue that Brad Johnson example that you get cut twice before you lead a team to an SB win is not the example you want to follow. However, these are examples which point out that when one says a player must play in order to develop properly that this point is simply not correct in tons of cases. Feel free to add the course taken by Carson Palmer or any one of a number of QBs who reached a competitive level without being thrown to the wolves and the simplistic view that he must play now, or even this year is brought into severe question. I feel fine about JP sitting as long as we are winning. If Holcomb does not do the job I am fairly happy to bring JP back and I think he should profit from eatching the game a bit. Kyle Boller does suck as a QB, but what he said last year that he was surprised when he was forced to the sideline by rookie injury that he actually learned a lot being forced to simply watch the game and not having the pressure of being ready at a moments notice to play. My sense of JP in his brief career is that he has shown some good things. specifically: 1. He clearly can learn things fairly quickly and translate those lessons into better performance. His mop-up duty last year showed a steady upward progression from his debacle start in NE, his delay of game penalty in his second appearance, his unecessary TO in his third appearance to a level of competence in his fourth appearance that tracked the progression in his play from being overwhelmed against NE to slowly getting more control in each game. The even better news is that not only did he show improvement in each gsme but actually relied on his teammates and led them to scores in each mop-up appearance. 2. JP has show mobility and escapability- Like all NFL QBs he can be sacked. However, the complaints that he has no sense of the pocket are simply not consiostent with his history of running for his life or the escapability he has shown from time to time as a pro. Is he perfect? No. Can he run? Yes. 3. He has a very good arm- If anything JP is throwing it too hard and overthrowing rather than he does not have the arm strength to get it done. While many a QB has failed to develop the touch to throw it so its completed, reining it in rather than increasing his raw strength of throw seems miore doable. Overall, my sense is that JP showed some good capability as a college QB and that his problems have come not from a lack of ability but from a failure to adjust effectively to the pro style Wyche is training him to play and Clements is game calling. He may not make it. but time and practice are things which can help to solve these problems, I have little problem benching him if he is not productive until the chances of winning are done and then he can get the gametime if he can't deve;op the timing we need in practice.

I think it is fair to measure or call a person a good coach or not based on results and to theorize and give our own fact-free opinions on whether he is a good coach or not based on what we think we see in the game and trends advocate are true. I think the bottomline here is that being a good coach (particularly a good OC or good HC) means more than being simply just a good teacher. Kevin Killdrive may be a fine teacher but he sucks as an OC and in the past as an HC specifically because as you point out his offensive schemes and his playcalling suck. I think there is little rational debate that Killdrive is a bad coach. Unfortunately in our society from the good ol boy network of the NFL to getting the Medal of Freedom meritocracy is not the watchword in our society but cronyism is.

EXACTLY and well put. I am as attracted to and focused on stats as anybody, but this focus on stats has also given me a recognition that as Mark Twain (I think) said, There are three kinds of untruths in this world, lies, damn lies and statistics. Stats are a great indicator of lots of things but conclusively prove very little in and of themselves. This is particularly true of the HOF where the operative word is FAME. Stats are a key indicator, but pales in terms of actual decision when compared to: 1. Who else is up for a vote- A player becomes eligible when he has been retired for 5 years and if he happens to come up for his vote if there has been a lag of several years of players at his position having made the HOF or a likely shortfall in the future it may well help him. On the other hand however. if other players at his position are taken or likely to be taken and he is aguably better than them it helps his position. All of this weighs with the fact that if other taken players provide more likely candidates than our possible candidate then he may well have to wait or get hosed. A big key for Bledsoe consideration is when he retires, who else is in or near the same class. and the feeling folks have about him when he leaves the game. Elway was a shoo-in anyway, but certainly left on a high note which made him a 1st ballot entry. Any sense that Kelly left after not winning it all was both balanced by him having an unprecedented 4 shots in a row, but sympathy over Hunter (and a tribute to the devotion he showed in how he handled it) made him a first ballot pick and easily outweighed the ignominy of leaving the field on a cart. Testaverde winning in his latest comeback probably helps him as much as the stat total being padded to the necessary levels. However, his failure to win it all or even come very close is going to make it tough for him. Bledsoe strikes me as also having the required stats mostly gained through lengthy play. However, I think the keys for him will be: !. Making it to the Big Dance once early in his career which even though his team lost is a clear accomplishment. 2. Having played an essential role in his 2001 NE team winning it all so he has a ring. It was clearly Brady's team and Brady was the QB, however, like him or not Bledsoe played an essential role for this team playing QB for the majority of a must-win game and even throwing the winning TD. He'll even get credit for being a teamer who gracefully stepped aside. 3. Ironically, it will probably be his Bills career that locks it up for him. America loves a comeback story and he was cut because Brady was better. However, the facts of the 2002 season are simply the facts and he came back from the asheap of being cut to be QB for a Bills team which improved from 3-13 to 8-8 under his signal calling. Those who would want to claim that he ran out of gas at the end of year can make this case in terms of record, but in the end and in memory the team's record is the team record and Bledsoe will instead be judged in the light of him being selected as a Pro Bowl reserve that year (if you think several AFC QBs who did not make the team deserved it more simply name them and then we can argue their stats) will be how he is judged. 4. With even further irony, Bledsoe simply sucked in terms of production in 2003, but in addition to his third life (NE SB, NE win, Bills Comeback) likely being enough to get him into the HOF on its own, he is adding to his fame with the production he and Dallas are getting this year. Even if his production stops now (and actually he would likely be helped with HOF voters if his career ended right now with some sort of sympathy raising tragedy) it likely will be enough for him to win this popularity contest. As it stands, if he steers this team to a .500 record after their problems in the past and certainly if this team ouges into the playoffs in a weak NFC or he wins some Pro Bowl popularity contest he is simply a stone cold lock after being a guy who produced in 4 unlikely shots (1 it is necessary but no sufficient to be a well-regarded rookie who produces and DB did that, it is also necessary but not sufficient to be part of a winning team and Bledsoe did that, it is also necessary bu not sufficient to overcome some adversity in your career and by getting cut and then making the Pro Bowl as a reserve Bledsoe did that, and he is doing it yet again and if Big D is judged to have improved under his QB duty he will even have this extra. History is history and history ain't over as far as DB's career, but he looks pretty good to me to win this popularity contest regardless of my judgement of whether he deserves it or not.

It hard for me to see wnat your are upset about KH. I'm still in the camp which says if the HC has an option of lying to me and getting even slightest advanatage over an opponent or telling me the truth and simplifying things for the opponet I say LIE TO ME. I don;t think most serious watchers think the Bills are going to go with JP over KH after KH QB'ed the team to a win. However, most were surprosed when MM led the charge in emphasizing winning the next game over the big investment in JP and sat the youngster. I think it makes all the sense in the world to force NYJ to divide their tape review even a little between 2 QBs rather than know for sure the focus should only be on JP. In addition, JP was forcefully reminded in last year's NE game that whenever a player puts on the uniform he should be prepared to play. I like the MM uncertainty as regards to giving no advantahr whatsoever to the enemy and I like developing good training habits in the youmg JP that he needs to prepare fully to play whether he starts or not. Regarding the OL, barring dings in practice I think the line-up will be: LT- Gandy- defintiely hurt his elbow in the Maimi game but reports indicate this ding is not serious and he will suit up and it may take some cortizone but he will play with the same strenghts and limitations he brings to the game. LG- Anderson- I think he has disappointed so far as he has not improved under JMac coaching and gets too many notiveable penalties. This being said, he does not suck completely and has a big body which allows him to be a reasonable though not feared blocker. C- Teague is the best player on the Bills OL right now. Given the lowgrade talent around him this may not say much in terms of his playing skills, but he deserves credit along with WM for us being effective in the run game at all. RG- Villarial is out of the hospital, but Preston was impressive enough that as long as their are doubts or uncertainties I feel fine about Preston playing. RT- Williams not only was able to suit up on Sunday but even played some ST. Since I have heard nothing abouyt further dings I think he plays the 60 and Jerman sits. I think the key personnel questions is merely whether Villarial is a back-up next week or maybe we get Gesubnger in uniform. As far as tackle I think we go with the depth chart as is. In terms of improvement there is not going to be change in personel so we go with the average (at best) cast we got and JMac has not accmumlated a bunch of talented players but they are no horrendous and like a player like Pacillo last ear unable to even play the game.

I think folks are falling into a false judgement that there are only two choices, either Drew sucks or Drew is a gift from heaven who can do it all. Neither is remotely true. I think the more interesting and more intelligent discussion or debate iw what does it take for an HC to get the maximum that he can get out of Bledsoe and how much is that maximum. I think the reality on the ground shows that it though it does not seem possible at all that Bledsoe is a good enough QB to lead a team all season to an SB win. He has come colose to doing this in real life. The facts are these: 1. Bledsoe has a rocket arm and over 10 years of seeing pro Ds over the center\s back. Also on his plus side he is a big boy and outside of a huge hit which collapsed his lung, he has demonstrated that he can survive the huge sacks and massive pounding which comes from his immodbility. 2. The downsides to Bledsoe as your QB are huge and almost always fatal to a team which attempts to rely on him as their #1 QB. A. He locks on his prime receiver and goes into his familiar pat,pat,pat as he waits for the WR to get the slightest advantage on the DB so he can zip it in there are few can with his rocket arm. B. He has a lot of experience which lets him see alot and recognize situations, however, like many jocks he is often a taco short of a combination platter and can be badly fooled by a new or deceptive look. He sometimes will have a brain fart like he did when he threw the ball OB on 4th down on an end of the game Bills drive. C. He simply has too much confidence in his own arm and has shown a tendency to audible out of 3rd and short running plays and instead which to a pass which often are marginal passes that rely on his huge arm and everything going right. Is it possible to win with Bledsoe? Certainly! 1. Bill Parcells coached a Bledsoe led team to the SB early in the youngster's career. Comimg up a game short is not winning it all, but as the Bills showed everyone four times getting to the Show at all is pretty amazing and means you won a few to get there. 2. Bill Belichick HC\ed the 2001 Pats season and fortunately for him Bledsoe got trashed so he had to rely on Bledsoe (it is a true irony that with the Lewis hit, boy genius Belichick might well be known as the bright guy who sucked as HC in Cleveland making the playoffs at a TD like rate of success of once in 5 years, and he reneged on his aggreement to coach NYJ to go to NE, and then leading a team where he rode Bledsoe at QB as he had to do he floundered in NE- fortunately for BB the Lewis hit freed BB from having to make a choice to force Bledsoe to the bench- a choice I doubt he could have pulled off). Nevertheless, the facts are that Bledsoe did play the majiority of a must-win game at QB in their SB run and in fact threw the winning TD. 3. Despite Bledsoe playing dreadfully in 2003, he did QB a team to a winning record last year in part because despite the star addiction of the NFL and American society it generally takes a TEAM to really win in the NFL. It was the ST and the D play along with a couple of games by Bledsoe when the wind was strong and some nice vet timely plays that got us to a winning record. Together this team came up short a home against Pitts as Lindell missed a chip shot, the SD gave up over 100 yards rushing to a 4th stringer (though Parker is good), Nate put a PR on the carpet and Bledsoe also proved incapable of being good enough to lead the team or overcome thsee problems. The other factors which did allow Bledsoe to QB a winning team is that MM and TC did a tremendous job utilizing what he did well, using the talents of the rest of the O, and compensating for Bledsoe's failings. A. Parcells used his personality and force of will to remind Bledsoe in pratice as a youngster to just throw the damn ball whenever he went into his familar pat. Young technocrats MM and TC used an alarm clock set for 4 seconds to build a pattern in Bledsoe of getting rid of the ball since he seems to lose his internal clock most good QBs have. B. TC was smart enough to know that simply because Bledsoe will never be mistaken for Micheal Vick, you gotta run him from time to time anyway. Bledsoe is a big boy who will get hit hard whether you run him or wait for the sack and the Bills ran him for positive yardage on the QB draw enough last year that blitzers could not sell out on the sack rush all the time. C. TC made great use of the stiff-arm and greater outside speed of WM over Henry to force blitzers to guard against the outside run and not simply sell out on the blitz. D. TC used DB outstanding ball skills (his ability to catch and handle errant shotgun snaps saved Trey Teague while he learned this part of the game) to run a few succesful flea-flickers last year where he handed off to WM, took the pitch back and hit the WR long. Bledsoe even pulled off a nice fake of a QB sneak and pitched the ball back to WM who scampered 40+ fopr the TD. E. Even Bledsoe himself publicly sang the praises of TC simplifying the O alot by cutting down Bledsoe's ability to audible. 4. Bledsoe is steerind Dallas to at least an average season and in fact has a great QB rating and simply dogged Philly on Sunday. Some folks may want to claim Bledsoe totally sucks or that he can do it all. The truth is that with a very good HC and a very good team aroiund him. Bledsoe has proven capable of being a winning QB and play a central role in winning the SB. The bad news for Bledsoe haters is that if he continues to play out this season at a anywhere near the rate he is playing now he is likely a stone cold lock for the Hall of Fame. And actually, even if Bledsoe has an end of the season downturn in productivity as the weatber makes it harder for eveyone to pass, by being on an SB winning team, putting up some glitzy numbers even though it was often for a losing Pats team. getting to the Pro Bowl anf being the Comeback Player of the Year in 2002 making the Pro Bowl after he was cut in favor of a better QB, Bledsoe probablty already is going to make the HOF even if he had a bad season this year. The bad news for Bledsoe haters is that when one sees how a brain dead no running vet like Testaberde can come back and be effective at his advanced age, it is not unreasonable to think that Bledsoe may actually have several more years of effective play in him in which his team wins games because he, his HC and his teammates will not depend upon him to do things be cannot possibly do. I think the irony is here that Bledsoe may well become a more winning QB as he is forced to rein in his game by age. In fact, the best chance for those of you who want to see Bledsoe gone is that he has made so much $ off the game he may simply choose to go Fishin in Montana.

I dom't think anyone here would say that TD is a master poker player because poker clearly is a an entire game and not just one hand. TD has had some extrarordinary episodes and made some extraordinary individual moves, but this team has never even made the playoffs in his tenure hear and no one and I mean no one can or even makes the claim that he is a master poker player. However, just as silly as it would be to declare him a master GM overall when he simply does not have the bottomline to show for it, it would also be silly no to acjknowledge that in specific episodes and cases he has read the market better than anyone else for that move and been the lead on some extraordinary individual cases which really go down in NFL history as among the best market reads ever. Without declaring all of these moves the best ever (they were not) but acknowledging they were special are: 1. Reading that Blank in AT essentially promised his customers and Michael Vick that he would spend whatever was necessary to get Peerless and TD led the charge in transtion tagging him and replaced the #1 he gave up for Bledsoe with a #1. 2. He hired and trusted his docs and made the almost completely unexpected move (it sure fooled Travis) of picking WM with that pick. 3. The WM pick was raised to an even more special level by: A. TD recognizing that the first round run on DL players meant that he could pass on Kelsay with the #18 pick and still get him in the 2nd round when actually few would have complained (except for those who complain about everything TD does regardless of reality) if he had picked Kelsay with the #18. B. I doubt he knew PP would be so bad he would get cut, but overall it is hard to find a case where a value was traded who turned out as badly as PP for a value that looks as good as WM and it was only through the Bills ecercising the tag in an inventive way that this occured. C. He has added to the chair on potential benefit by using the prescence and play of WM to allow for the dealing of Henry. This move involved not only TD beind delivered the benfit of getting an extra year's ownership of TH's rights through TH's horrendous fiscal management, but also TD reading the market well when some of this board advocated simply cutting TH (I still think most of them were Henry relatives) and idiots like John Clayton accused him faltout of misreading the market and upbraided him for not taking the failing Shelton when offered. 4. Overall, the WM pick is the gift that keeps on giving as having him on the roster made it quite doable to pick up a 1st day pick by sticking to our guns on Henry, but also is part of TD consistently taking actions were seem to recognize that using your #1 pick on as player is almost always a bad idea if your goal is to win an SB. The big TD first round mistake was making the right pick given out needs and taking failure to date Mike Williams but the other consensus LT choice arrestee McKinnie makes trading the pick a way the best thing we could have done. Kudos to TD for using the market well to negotiate with top 5 player WM from a #18 cap slot and for trading away our #1 to find a replacement for RJ when we needed one (I generally think TD made a big mistake by resigning Bledsoe but given DB's great 2002 season and horrendous 2003 I think it would have been a wash if we simply cut him then, The DB/PP/WM chain is a gift whicj keeps on giving overall though as it played a key role in us being able to still be sitting on a fist day pick in exchange for TH. 5. Like the Bledsoe deal it did not work out perfectly in terms of the real world, but I also give him credit for reading and trying to manipulate tbe market and doing fairly well with out 2002 2nd round pick. We had a clear need for a DL player as we were trying to make up for Butler arranging a world where we lost Wiley, Big Ted, Hansen and Bruce in short order. Even worse, TD did err in hiring GW whp among his many errors moved us to his 4-2 from a 3-4 at the exact same moment our DL personel was melting away. I think kudos are merited to TD for: A. The Josh Reed pick has not played out like we want it overall, but his first year success as our #3 WR indicates it was not an unreasoable thing to attempt to try to take this consensus 1st rounder who dropped to the 2nd with that pick. B. TD read the market so well that he did attempt to fill our now larger DL need by stealing Ryan Denny off the phone from Pittsburgh. Though Denny's first year as a Bill sucked he is clearly a mainstay now on a D which was productive the last two seasons though it sucks now against the run. C. It also should be noted that the pick of Kelsay with our #2 in 2003 was not dictated so much by the failure of Denny but by the gaping need for a DL player left by the switch from 4-3 to 4-4. TD deserves part of the blame for this problem because of his GW error nuy likewise derves kudos for some good use of the market to address these issues. Overall, TD ain't no master popoker player for us overall as GM, but some of his individual moves have been simply outstanding and a credible assessment would acknowledge them as such.

I generally don't think the fans have been happy with the OL plsy or the individuals players since the days of yore when Kent Hull was leading the crew. Folks have generally seemed to recognize that Butler was flailing around badly with his picks in the post SB days, and recognized that he was forced to overpay Ruben more than the market would give him when he also tried to sign Dusty without any guaranteed shot at being a center (which he proved to be when he was center the next year on a Giants SB squad) so I don't remember snyone putting up much of a fit with OL smears going way back. Most seemed o feel that Coach Dickerson was over-reaching when he used to rag on Glenn Parker mercilessly and rose to defend Parker, but this was not because folks thought Parker was that good, but because the Coach was so outlandish and football silly in his assessment of Parjker (an assessment the facts proved were simply foolish on the Coach's part as Parker also was run out of town to NYG where he went to the SB as part of a JMac coached OL and the Coach's designeee Corey Louchiey simply turned out to stink when he got a shot. Even since this putrid time, i think there has been general agreement on TSW and even among the media like Larry Felser that one of the biggest disasters of the GW reign of error was having his inexperienced buddy Vinky and then |upgrading" to the equally inexperienced Ruel as being OL position coach. Things are much better now with JMac at least being an adult in charge, but even those of us who feel this is true think it is much better not because our current OL is any good, but because the Butler inherited version was so bad and some poor development outcomes under TD have occured that this group is troubled. Overall, i think when one assesses out OL it is legit to assess the end of the Butler era as not only having players perform badly, but there seemed to be little intelligent design going opn. The TD era is interesting as it has been a mixed bag where they actually have tried to invest fairly heavily in OL improvement (I think he has picked an OL player in each draft he had here and often spent a first day pick on them). In addition, this team has not been reluctant to go to the street looking for OL players as the draftees have failed for a range of reasons which vary in who deserves the prime blame from poor assessment of quality by the braintrust (Pacillo), bad breaks with injury (Smith, Sobieski and a well regarded player whose name I forget who was drafted as one of the best but never recovered from injury) and players simply not performing up to their level of talent (Williams). Still, under TD while the OL has been hurt by the dumb O leadership he hired (Sheppard, Killdrive, and D-guru DW) there are a few cases where players actually have stepped up nicely only to be to injury prone to be worthwhile (Jennings, Tucker, Smith). It has been horrid, but not completely bad and I don;t remember anyone being more positive than that generally.

The writer simply seem to fish for and feature prominently the portion of a more full-founded commentary by Losman on this obviously deserved benching. JP's fuller comments I heard did have him talk about his embarassment and beinf bummed about but also he seemed quite pleased the team got a win and talked about watching Holcomb as a learning experience. He ain't our QB right now and should not be. He is our QB of the future and should be that as well as no one expects Holcomb to be much more than a short- term answer for us. Things are far from good at QB, but the situation isn't unworkable at all.

Great kick by MONEY (the nickname I use for him after he hit 7 of 7). Finally, one over 45 yds. and he is becoming money in the bank on many kicks. He still has to prove it over a whole season so we know that he is substantial money in the bank on kicks and not just a few cents.

My sense is that all the theorizing is little more than dime store psychology. My guess (and guesses are about as best as we are gonna do here) is that they all realize that the thing which ultimately makes this thing work is if you are a TEAM. Thus dissension and fighting ultimately does not work if you want the team to be a TEAM and have a reasonable chance at suceeding. Of course as in group that involves more than one person there are dyamics and competition within here and all is far from rosy in the best of situations. However, even in the best of teams that become TEAMs and win it all or come close, even these dynamics and tensions are ultimately overcome and that is actually how the team wins out. This was the case with the Pats first SN win as the team was already showing signs of caving early, but the bigger threat of losing their "savior" QB slapped around and they all came together. There big "break" two years later was when boy genius Belichick xompletely misread and mishanded the Milloy situation and pissed everyone off, but again some critical injuries slapped everyone around and the individuals responded to the challenge by becoming a team. Even out own Bickering Bills of the early 90s soomehow found a way to overcome their own juvenile tendencies and somehow forged a bond and almost a sense of family bolstered by them all coming together and hold hands when Norwood was going wide right and formed a further bond in Niagara Sq. when 20K came out for a rally and to forgive Norwood for his miss. Like every family there is an Alpha male and oecking order and make no mistakes Ralph writes the checks and is on the downhill side of his life and his word rules. HE has dictated that this is TDs team and as long as he is happy (which he seems to be because even though TD has failed to deliver a playoff team, he has done an outstanding job making the cash register ring at a rate which outpaces the league average (already a huge profit center and looking at the increase in team value is where he excels). The fact that he had pulled this off in a small market which Ralph took by default after his first 2 or 3 choices were taken way back when seems to be centerpiece of why TD just got an exrension. As far as MM, he is TD's boy from way back and just as when it was TD who hired him and gave him his big chance and $ score, it really is TD who rules the roost here as well as beat as I can tell. Not onlu are many of the assts holdovers whom TD first hired (Krumrie, Gray, et al match the MM boys like Clements or guys they hired together like April) but the front office like Modrak are TD boys too. The idea that this is somehow unexpected (or quirte frankly even much of a problem) that MM does not ultimately call the shots may be true, but I think bigtime his is totally what was expected when MM took the team and signed on the dotted line. In fact, if one wanted to say what were the two big mistakes of TDs reign to me they have been hiring his first HC GW who was better suited to be an Adminstrative Asst to TD than a full HC (he simply did not have the offensive skills to totally head up a team) and even worse did not have the security to hire me who were older than he was or potential theats to his psedo-regin. TDs second big error was that he actually did not interfere enough to override some lame GW choices like hiring first time OC Sheppard and then based on TDs public admission giving him his choice of the wounded Gilbride to replace the immature Sheppard instead of inisiting on his choice at the time Tom Clements. TD did slowly enforce his will attracting buddy LeBeau amd evem hiring a former OC as his RB coach but never forcing GW to pull the trigger and demote Kevin Killdrive who refused to diversity the O calls or rein in Bledsoe from chaning the run calls on 3rd and short in his feeble second season to run plays almost all the time. I'm sure there are tensions between the coaches and GM and the players and the owner do tgheir bit of kibbitzing where they can (though Ralph knows his suggerstions tend toward having force of law and holds back publicly as a wild or disinterested owner will make this a team with small letters as quick as anything). It's interesting to watch this play out, the injury to Spikes presents a clear opportunity for the team to suck it up and become a TEAm. Depending on what is going on internally this JP move can be part of how this psychology is also being worked in this transformation. It may or may not work as a lot of this is going to be a gut check for the individual players. I doubt it will lead to any big time dissension because this would not have happened because it is Ralph's money bigtime and if he did not want this it would not happen. Further, JP has not been a teammate of the other players long enough and his the older players do not have the future to weight for him to get it together. I think all the Bills are oretty much on the same page with this move and if any of the four (owner, managers, coaches, players) were not orginally they read the handwriting on the wall and got on board pretty quickly after a 1-3 start. If TD led the charge, fine it is a good thing because he should have interfered a lot more with GW's mistakes and we'd be better off.