Fake-Fat Sunny

I am willing to think he was not that bad (I think he played well for the Bills, the problem was he never has started every game in a season his 4 years and he failed to answer the bell twice for us last year and went out of 2 or 3 other games before they were done with injury issues). Did he look like he was worth the $12 million bonus the market gave him or a $9 million bonus from the Bills if we bought him early on the cheap (if you call that bonus cheap). I think passing on resigning JJ was too bad that is what the rules allow, but this was one of the better non-moves by TD in his tenure here.

I just put the second half on tape so I haven't watched it yet, did Lindell miss a chip shot FG again like he did against Pitts last year. Surely you are not claiming that him missing a 53 yarder last week when he actually hit a 54-yarder is some sign from him that he or we are DOOOMMMEEEDDD.

Good point on the INTs. One of the best things to me about JP is that he seems pretty teachable and that though he makes mistakes he learns from them and translates them into real improvements pretty quickly. The progression which he made in his mop-up last year from: 1. First NE game was a real debacle as he was thrown unexpectedly to the wolves and rudely found out that having great physical skills (which he has) get you little more than a fumble and an INT against a good team. 2. 2nd appearance- entered the game after a lengthy TO and promptly failed to control the huddle and effectively transfer the play and got hit with a delay of game. He did recover well enough to call the plays to hand off the WM abd lead the team to a TD. 3. Still did not have the control of the huddle one wants as there was difficulty transferring the play and he had to call a TO when his job was to burn clock. Yet, at least he avoided the penalty (which was crucial as he was forced to use his legs to get a 3rd down first which kept the clock moving), He also converted on a crucial pass to Trafford and eventually did his job totally by leading us to a TD. His 0 INTs this pre-season again reflects his learning. In the first scrimmage against GB, he used his extraordinary escapability to keep the play alive, but found out that the Pack DBs were also watching and when he laid the ball out in the flat, one of their DBs jumped the route and would have scored 6 but he dropped the ball. I think JPs 0 INTs so far is a sign that he won;t make that mistake a lot in the future again.

Take another look. Posey's name is not called a lot or at all, but it appears to me this has a lot to do wuth the inability or lack of interest from the commentators to explain how the Bills D works that an inability of Posey to play his position or play it well. Posey is NOT the high profile impact player that one would get from let's say a Lawrence Taylor. This is flat out true. However, though being as good as LT, Bruce or Spielman should be the goal of any player, they are not that good. However, not being that good is not the same thing as saying that player sucks or should or can be replaced with the constraints of the salary cap. One of the disappointing things for me in TSW discussion so far this season is that there are some folks on TSW whom i have found over the years to be pretty knowlegable about their football comments (outside of some odd thoughts that folks like Raion Hill were the answer, but look at my own misestimation of Dusty Ziegler so we all are wrong sometimes). However, I think even these knowledgable folks have fallen into the trap that because Posey's name is not called that this means he sucks or that because Edwards or Denney did suck as a rookie (they could not even be actitvated much of their first year they were such libilities on the field) that they still suck. This is not correct and I think a good football based analysis shows this. The starting point for me is this premise: 1. The Bills D is far from perfect (the debacle in NE and the horrid performance to end the season against Pitts last year are two examples). 2. Yet, the D was quite good last year and its #2 statistical ranking correlated with some good play and was the foundation for the win streak which almost got us into the playoffs last year (ST contribution was also huge and the O was along for the ride) 3. The D once again looks solid in the firs three games of the exhibition season and the scrimmage A. They overwhelmed the Packers in the first scrimmage which in part was due to their aggressiveness the Packers were not prepared for but also due to their speed and toughness. B. They were very tough and effective in their firs game against Indy and once again benefitted from a higher level of aggression than their opponents rather than just simply being better players but their quality play shown through. One of the great things was that some of the back-ups like Haggan showed they were on top of the game mentally though they did finally get caught amidst the final subs on a play like the Pack TE scroring on a seam route. C. The rematch against the Pack was interesting as the first Favre drive showed in part that one cannot rely on intensity differences all season. However, the team did not let the Pack score again showing that they are simply better players (though given the dismal Pack showing against NE yesterday it may be the pack O is just not very good. D. The D was really the only thing on the field yesterday that worked very well as the offense was really the INTs and the FG unit and I think it is foolish to look to the D as the primary place we need to improve as the D lost the lead they created in a late Bears TD. The bottomline here for anyone who over-analyzes the individual play on the Bills D players is that while one might find fault with aspects like what direction they turn, doing lateral rather than vertical movement on the line or whatever, these problems do not correspond much to giving up points or big plays. It is simply bad analysis to indict the performance of a player in a big way when his unit has been very effective in a big way. Folks are correct to point out any failings they see, but they also need to point out how these failings: 1. have caused problems for the Bills in terms of TDs, big yardage losses or W/L on some consistent basis (for example the Bills gave up a big run to the bears in a drive that ended up for them with an FG. there seemed to be a problem with a hole in the DL, with poor tackles as the player went through that hole, and lame pursuit which allowed him to break the run, but it also was an epidsode and not the story of the teams typical D play this pre-season or even this game) 2. can be improved with what we got on the roster (I see little more than wishful thinking that Stamer playing would be an upgrade on Posey but I'd love to see someone argue this point with more than fact-free opinion using examples from game situation, height/weight demographics, combine #s or something measurable. 3. could be improved by picking up an available player on the waiver wire or from someone else's PS or even through some trade fantasy. 4. could be improved by the player in question addressing a particular problem with their play (for example the word was from inide talk that Denney's particular problem as a rookie is that he did not bend his knees enough when he was in his stance and ended up having horrible leverage when he engaged a blocker. he was easilt toosed aside by even the slightest vet despite having very good height and weight himself. It became apparent as I looked back at the early film at how he played that this failing was true, but that as he finally was activated he had worked on this issue. A look at the film now reveals to me a player who is actually quite athletic and not only uses his body well but has a lot of body to use with is wide arms. If I hadto pick stars on the Bills D it would be Pro Bowlers like Clements and Spikes. However, if ialso had to identify players who are crucial to it working, I would add folks like Denney, Fletcher and Posey to the list because of the critical role they play in making the Bills D work (not perfectly) but pretty darn good.

Like it or not we are in a pinch at TE with two players out with injury and one Campbell still recovering from an injury that has held back better players longer than he took to come back and play. Hence Jason Peters has resumed TE play. Trafford and probably Neufeld would have been cut without these injuries and now borh may stay were we to stick with the Peters exclusively as a LT plan.

My guess on the WRs is: #1 WR Moulds (still pronbsbly the best athlete on the O, though money may make him gone next year} #2 WR Evans (his and Losman's names may be linked together and I like the signs of develeping chemistry between these two more than between Losman/Noulds though that was a nice pass in the slot in the first half) #3 Parrish (though inactive for first few games will play as soon as a brace lowers any chance for reinjury as his wheels are the thing which will warp the D and make Moulds.Evans more effective in 3 WR sets. #4 Reed (did the job as a rookie at #3 so less responsibility will be only way he develops confidence back after droppsies occured. he will get last chance to step when in at #3 till Parrish is back and good reports on his blocking willingness and ability will be of use since WM running is the name of the game until Parrish threat opens up the O. # 5 Haddad- Has set himself apart from other receivers this pre-season and Clements will need a back-up at PR and Fast Freddy just does not cut it as a receiver or have consistency as a PR threat. Aiken simply has not put a chokehold on the receiver position when given a chance and there are a bunch of hungry dudes for ST and in fact we will generally go with 5 WRs though Aiken may hang on until Parrish is back.

Ditto Lori a great job. On substance i agree with the post above that Cieslak and Trafford were headed tiward a cut with Campbell, Euhus, Everett and Neufeld on the roster ahead of them. However, with Campbell looking good so far but coming off an ACL injury, Euhus not only coming off an ACL injury but now out indefinitely with a shoulder ouchee, and Everett likely gone for the season, we are pretty close to javing that pinch at TE the Buffalo News mentioned as even creating a need to use Peters at TE rather than LT. (I know I should drop this but we are close to see i told ya).

Media coverage will be key and since Spikes has had two Pro Bowls in a row, excellence from him will be an old story. Unfortunately, he would need to do something reallY extraordinary and unusual to get coverage like intercepting the ball 6 games in a row or being involved in a murder trial like Lewis (it was not simply making the SB since that happens but bearing the murder rap which put him over the top). I actually think the more likely big story if he can lead the team in tackles as the season goes on will be London Fletcher being an unsung her. From a sports perspecive Spikes is the story if he plays as well as he has in the past. However, from a business perspective Fletcher is the story. Unsung hero exists in Spikes shadow but always leads the team in tackles (and even broke Spielman's record) but is paid chump change compared to players he has out tackled and who go toe the Pro Bowl while he stays home.

The article says he is expected to miss the 1st month of the regular season. The good news is that his wheels are fine and as soon as he can catch the ball half credibly and there is little fear he will make it worse just be catching it he can come in and help out Moulds and Evans by forcing opposing DCs to put their fastest DB on Parrish in 3 WR sets. I think he will likely be elminated from PR duty for quite awhile as a broken wrist is at risk catching punts. Clements will probably be get the lead duty once again and it likely will come down to a choice between Haddad and Smith as a back-up. Haddad runs more disciplined routes so I supect he may make the team over Smith though my guess is we carry 6 WRs at least until Parrish is active.

The Flutie Days are done for Buffaloanians and like the Flutie Flakes they are gone. I do sleep with a Flutie lover every night though as he remains my principle competition for my wife's affections judging by the several Flutie posters she collected. One of her favorite childhood memories was going to the Rockpile with her Dad when she was a kid and there was some little scatback who returned kicks for the Bills they called Mighty Max or something like that. I think she loves any Bill under 5' 9"".

What was the outcome on that play, I honestly don't remember. If it was a big Packer gain and Edwards was at fault (though if he was dealing with a block and a mere chip them I think it is going to be hard to grill him for not beating them back question him yes, but grill him probably not). If on the other hand the TEAM did well on this play then I have no problem at all with Edwards not getting the tackle or some stat credit for the play, he took the attention of two players and his team stuffed the oponent which is what he is there for.. Edwards has been a signifciant part of a D which held GB to 7, stuffed Indy with a great zone blitz presentation and stuffed the Pack in a scrimmage. Folks may want to dissect in individual performance but if the TEAM D performance remains as productive the nitpicking is not well thought out. Perhaps it it was accompanied with some suggestion of Anderson or Bannan are better choices or advocates some waiver wire alternative (folks are railing without even some fantasy league Cory Simon suggestion). I think this focus on individual stuff about Edwards may just as likely reflect a lack of understanding of the Gray D as it is a good footbsll indictment of Edwards play. The bottomline is there has yet to be an explanation of why if Edwards is so piss poor in his play the D has been so successful with him in there so far this season. This is likewise true of the indictments made of Posey's play last year, but somehow we were the #2 D statistically even with this stumblebum as SLB. It would seem a relatively simple matter given how bad folks seem to say these two are to link the times our D failed (NE or Pitts) to Posey's bad play though I'm not sure what bad play this pre-season (the Packers did score on the first drive Edwards bad play should be easily linked to this if true). Unless there is some real world impact, folks may want to question whether the failings they see make a difference whatsoever.

I think you can give him some production credit. We were 6-10 in GW's last seaso and 9-7 last year and almost made the playoffs but we got rocked by Piss (MM is partially the blame as I think he and the braintrust panicked a bit on the play calling in the last game and went away from a ground game which was grinding toward success when the D did an el foldo against scrubs in the run game. The ST also was unusually negative as Clements laid one on the caroet in PR and Lindell missed a chip shot. He turned to Bledsoe and save us but Bledsoe is not the player to do it without strong leadership (or at least adequacy) from the D and ST and we died. Nevertheless, MM deserves a lot of credit for massive improvement of this team in W/L even though in the end we aren't there yet, but demanding he make the playoffs his first year after taking over a 6-10 team is what we fans do but it is a bit much to expect. I think it is notable that the 0-4 start did not spark any outward panicin MM who seemed to believe in himself. I think the I-90 comment from Vincent comes directly from MM getting Shaw released though the Bills were already on the hook to pay him as he could not make it onto the field with his play to contribute. Finally, he got the sacrosanct Bledsoe cut (I still feel it was a great trade to make initially, but TD never should have been extended the deal given the DB meltdown in '03). After he demonstrated that finances and being a vet means little if you don't contribute this was MMs team,.

I am curious whether he went into this rant or it was in response to a question of whehter he felt that life in general or the Bills in particular the last two seasons had treated him fairly. To the extent it makes a difference if this is his proactive line well boo-hoo and ain't it a shame. If this is his reactive line, then he isn't being fully accurate because there are several things at fault for removing 70% of the passing game in 2003: 1. TD certainly gets blame for trading Price, but he also get credit for the outcome which was being able to pick McGahee with the pick he got for Price. I think folks make that trade any day of the week given their output since the trade and WM even had to sit a year. Add to this that just about everybody believed Josh Reed would be a fine #2 after he was quite productive as a rookie (most of my post were throwing cold water on those who expected him to equal PP's 2002 #s. Even if Reed had a great year and doubled his 2002 production in 2003 it still would have been well short of PP's 2002 #2. 2. He should blame fate in that the only way you can really say 70% of the passing game went away is to lump the loss of Moulds in and that was due to injury so I don't think the loss was unfair on anyone's part. Perhaps you want to blame folks for unfair expectations but... 3. He himself really needs to take part of the blame. He never stood up to Killdrive who refused to vary his method after folks had enough tape to figure it out and BB provided a roadmap on how to make it tough for Bledsoe in his games. Bledsoe hitting his helmet and clearly sayin D'Oh after he threw the ball away OB on 4th down in a late game was merely a summary of his work and production after the team failed to score a TD on O in multiple games in mid-season. MM/TC did simplify the game by taking away some of Bledsoe's ability to audible last year(Killdrive was pass-happy and Bledsoe audibled out of the few 2rd and short runs he called to make the pass-insane) but oddly enough Bledsoe produced roughly the same QB rating last year as the year before without throwing downfield and we have a much more productive O. Bledsoe does not explain this at all.

Cliff Notes Begin: Due to popular whining and the season drawing close there is my usaul too-length rumination on football detail below, but particularly since I have far more questions than answer, I have summarized the following post into these questions: 1. 10 of 11 starters are back for the Bills D and the one who is gone only took 58% of last year'sD snaps so he was replace on approaching half the plays. Why should there be a big downturn this year in application of our scheme in the big picture? 2. One answer to this might be comparing the play of Phat Pat to his replacements Edwards, Anderson, perhapsBannan) and finding it better. If this is the big diferemce why was it not apparent on almost 40% of Bills plays last year. 3. Some point to the run D difference as the big thing saying the big D here is that Phat Pat sat on all third downs. I don't think this explains Phat Pat taking so few snaps. Guranteed there was a 1st and 2nd down if there was a third down and as Os sometimes got the FD on an earlier down there were more 1st downs than any other down. If Phat Pat only took 56% of the snaps it is a pretty sure thing he was also sitting on some second downs and maybe a few firsts as well. How does this factor into the switch to Edwards. 4. Edwards was a sub last year compared to him being a starter in 2002. Yet we saw his sack numbers go from 2.5 when he played more to 4.0 with him playing less, how do you explain this difference (His total tackles went way down so there is obviously some use difference his usual playing partner at DT Adams saw both is total tackles and his sacks go up near his historic highs)? 5. The Bills made use of a 3 DE set with Phat Pat being one of the big losers in PT how is this usage explained in the Bills D? I think the answers to these questions point one in the direction of not being too worried about losing PW or Edwards being ready to step up and replace him. There s a hole as Phat Pat was a big guy who can stop the run and Edwards stepped in got more sacks than he had before. However, as Edwards has bulked up 20+ lbs and did so without losing speed, i think one can be comfortable with him expanding his role particularly with pressure of a well-regarded but still unroven Anderson behind him. The bottomline is that I think the Gray D is a very different bird than the traditional D in the way players are asked to play. A better measure of Edwards oerformance in replacing Phat Pat (who i think player well for us) is not to use traditional analysis of his play that he is doing his job well when he hits the POA and attacks the LOS, but actually when he moves laterally and covers more space only engaging when he is sure where the ball is headed and letting Sam Adams and unexpected LNs shoot the gap or attack the LOS. The following too long post are my rumblings which led to this summary. Please skip te rest if you are worried about brain hemorrhage or your boss. Cliff Notes End I'd be the first to admit that (well maybe the second as my wife usually beats me to the punch aclnowledging my frailties) that I really don't understand structurally what is going on with our D. The one thing that I am pretty sure of is that the standards I usually apply to judge good football play by individual players do not apply to what a player should be doing to make our D work well. Over-analysis is easy to do so should be avoided. I think the key to understanding our D is almost certainly very simple because if it was truly as complex as brain surgery pro football players would not grasp it. However, I think that what Gray has done is take the innovation of the zone blitz developed by LeBeau (an innovation not in that it was something completely different conceptually, but an innovation in that it asked players to do the same things they defenders did before, it just had different players do those same things so that the O might not be able to figure who exactly was going to blitzand who was going to pass protect on a given play- you had an RT waiting for the RDE to pass rush as normal and he knew that because the TE was going into the flat that he did not have to worry about the SLB or the TE would get the hot-read pass, but he found himself just standing there because in fact the RDE dropped back into the flat and covered the TE while the SLB blew right by him on the blitz and the QB simply has to eat the ball rather than throw to a TE who was covered). I wish that the Bills had some nickname which actually explained their D. I understand what you are saying about DTs and their importance in to a D, but I think Gray has really done something different here in utilizing (perhaps augmenting the zone-blitz so it really is something different and when assessing individual play what may look like abject failure may in fact be a player doing it exactly right in our nameless D system. An example of this is actually seen in looking at the play of the DTs. I nirmally want my DT to cover the running lanes in the center of the line in coordination with the other DTs. Its tough work as there are really three lanes in the center of the line and these two mean covering them. The three lanes are blocked by 3 players RG,C,LG and the RB has a choice of going up the center, to either side or he can string it out and try to go off or around either tackle depending on where he sees a hole. The LBs and sometimes the safeties supplement these DTs by having responsibility for the holes left uncovered as naturally there is a hole. The 3-4 was an innovation because as LBs got bigger and quicker and they knew what the DTs would try to do and they could see what was happening they filled the gaps and actually the 3-4 was a good run defense though it actually had less meat in the middle. A mobile or run plugging DT would take the assignment to plug a gap and make it difficult to run there. There wer MLBs to either side and if they read run they got to come in with a head of steam and meet the RB at a POA spot with a head of steam. If the mobile or run plugging DT guessed right, there ended up being a ton of traffic at the POA with LBs coming in from either or both sides and it was tought to run even against a lousy 3 DL front. The next and current innovation is that DTs are getting bigger while getting faster also. Teams are finding that with two DTs clogging the center you can actually turn the 3 gaps into 1 or 2 gaps as these behemoths command the line. 4-3 and big DTs are in vogue now. By either traditional standard the Edwards lateral movement is troubling. A good DT either picks a spot and either stops or blows up the play if he is really quick. A good DT in either a 3-4 or a 4-3 pushes and penetrates forcing the play and the LBs read, pick, choose and clean-up the trash. This is not the Bills system. Gray not only varies the roles so sometimes the DE usually the RDE peals back into pass coverage, but he gets the new bulked up quicker player rotate among roles in addition to rotating the responsiblity of a particular role. He has worked with and gotten both the DEs when Schobel and Denney are in to not only take a serious short zone role, but in fact both of these players can now comfortably do pass coverage dropping back into the medium deep zone area where LBs and even safties use to be the pass coverers. It just is not unusal to see one of these two doing man to man coverage of an RB or TE a dozen or so yards downfield. It is different in that Schobel uses athleticism to do this and Denney has also developed some athleticism but also has a huge wingspan and covera alot of territory just y raising his arms, What does this have to do with DTs, well part of the answer is that it was not infrequent that we saw the Bills DL go with 3 DEs and only 1 DT at all last year. Even odder, we might see Denney in the DT role muscling up to to do the traditional DT run stopping, or he might possibly still do pass coverage from a DT spot is his zone was the middle of the field, Mean while we might see Fletcher or Spikes on the blitz essemtially unblocked. Spikes did do a lot of pass coverage was him actually sneaking around while the O slowly developed a screen and he got very good at pouncing into the flat when the QB was rushing to make the throw as a confusing blitz from the MLB or SLB came in. 2 of Spikes 2 TDs were on just these typw of picks in the flat. The DT also factors into this because of the particular way Gray uses Adams and Edwards skills. On some play Edwards has run resposibility but rather than attacking at his guess of a POA and depending upon the LB to fill the other gap if he is wrong, the Edwards job seems to be to slide laterally down the line and clean-up the trash is quick footed Adams guessed wrong when he shot the gap or pick up for a pass rushing or run stopping attacking LB. You might see Edwards failing to occuppy the lineman and the LB doingthis, but the plan seems to often be that it is the LBs job to get in there fast and either blow-up the play or make a pile and Edwards is playing the traditional LB role of lateral movement as the second guy into the POA. On the other hand, on passing downs it is Edwards job to shoot the gap and he did so well last year racking up a career best in total sacks even though he was merely a reseve who had once been a starter. Its all quite impressive to me. At any rate I have more questions than answers, but I think these questions pose a number of challenges to an analysis which uses standards and a context for setting these standards which are outmoded for assessing the Bills D. As the season is drawing close I will place these questions in Cliff notes at the top of this post and if folks are intrigued by them they can plow into this too lengthy e-mail or ignore it as they prefer. 1. 10 of 11 starters are back for the Bills D and the one who is gone only took 58% of last year'sD snaps so he was replace on approaching half the plays. Why should there be a big downturn this year in application of our scheme in the big picture? 2. One answer to this might be comparing the play of Phat Pat to his replacements Edwards, Anderson, perhapsBannan) and finding it better. If this is the big diferemce why was it not apparent on almost 40% of Bills plays last year. 3. Some point to the run D difference as the big thing saying the big D here is that Phat Pat sat on all third downs. I don't think this explains Phat Pat taking so few snaps. Guranteed there was a 1st and 2nd down if there was a third down and as Os sometimes got the FD on an earlier down there were more 1st downs than any other down. If Phat Pat only took 56% of the snaps it is a pretty sure thing he was also sitting on some second downs and maybe a few firsts as well. How does this factor into the switch to Edwards. 4. Edwards was a sub last year compared to him being a starter in 2002. Yet we saw his sack numbers go from 2.5 when he played more to 4.0 with him playing less, how do you explain this difference (His total tackles went way down so there is obviously some use difference his usual playing partner at DT Adams saw both is total tackles and his sacks go up near his historic highs)? 5. The Bills made use of a 3 DE set with Phat Pat being one of the big losers in PT how is this usage explained in the Bills D? The bottomline is that I think the Gray D is a very different bird than the traditional D in the way players are asked to play. A better measure of Edwards oerformance in replacing Phat Pat (who i think player well for us) is not to use traditional analysis of his play that he is doing his job well when he hits the POA and attacks the LOS, but actually when he moves laterally and covers more space only engaging when he is sure where the ball is headed and letting Sam Adams and unexpected LNs shoot the gap or attack the LOS. The following too long post are my rumblings which led to this summary. Please skip te rest if you are worried about brain hemorrhage or your boss.

I thought part of why the media went after Rush Limbaugh was that he was an outsider in the world of sports journalists. He came into the scene having made his name in politics rather than in athletics as a player or as an adoring sports junky. When he made a mistake (bound to happen as his schtick is really more entertainment than politics and he is a legend in his own mind) the long knoves came out, the media has the largest loudest soapbox im the world and Rush's stupidity in his comments about McNabb came at the same time as the revelations about his hyppcrisy relating to his drug illness and comments over the years about other drug addicts and the weaker folks in society. The sports media has a history of acting things which are not their own or do not serve their interests like the what they uniformly trashed the announceless game experiment a few years back. This game was not perfect or even good. However, the standard of comparison should be games with announcers which also are not perfect and sometimes no even good. The technology exists now with transposing the first down market on the field, halftone corner graphics showing the score, clock and down and distance, conistent and occaisional use of a crawl with out of town scores. If they added in color commentator who came in occaisionally and in a timely manner to explain odd calls and give injury updates, a game miked merelu for crowd noise and occaisional player chatter would be great from my perspective. The sports media probably occaisionally will accept an outsider who gives up his old gig for the sport for the most part (Limbaugh did not) or shows reverance and respect for the game and commentators (Limbaugh did not). I though Dennis Miller has a chance because the main rap on him was being to esoteric and not doing enough football, bu he spent a lot of time initially showing his respect for and knowledge of the game. Yet in the end his career at MFL was shoter than Dan Dierduff and there is no excuse for that.

The important thing Gandy can do far better than Jonas is to remain healthy and be able to start every game this season and finish every game he starts. This important in comparison to Jonas because in addition to the 2 games he could answer the call. there were at least 2 games he left early with significant time left once because of a concussion and another I believe due to a shoulder injury. I for one thanked gosh for Price because Jonas was so fragile even though when he played he was pretty good (except for the occaisional game like the one where the Jets Abrahams fo a couple of sacks and ripped him a new one). I was certainly glad when TD refused to pay him out of our cap money that should be spent on guys that have an injury that costs him PT in a quarter of his games and I laughed when I saw what SF overpaid for him. I merely shook my head when a pre-season injury already forced him to miss some time. Gandy remaining healthy is critical since we do not have a back-up at LT like Price who was a great replacement for JJ when he went down so often. Given that Plan B on he depth chart is Peters with no LT starts and less than a full year at this position entrusted to guard JPs backside and journeyman Jermain at Plan C, it appear the best plan may be moving Teague to LT if necessary and the tremors this will cause on the OL as our back-up LG moves to C may be really bad but is probably better than our big investment getting blindsided.

Look, I'll say this again to try to save you from the risk of braim damage. I do these long posts for my reasons and to serve my goals which they do. 1. I find I do my best organizing of my thoughts by writing stuff down. I really am thinking out loud in these posts. I rarely even proof read (hece the many typos and the major changes are when I get myself to change my mind as I think these issues through and either redo the first part or even just throw out a large chunk of writing. I really leab things not only as I read some great posters but also while I write. Its fun for me and part of how I enjoy the game and doubt I will change. 2. I like the fact I am repetitive as it means there is some gemerally some consistency in my thinking (something that is missing in many posters like the late lameted ICE whose posts I loved if only for their amusement. Some folks change their positions not because they got information which changed their minds or that they were wrong (a fact I have no trouble admiting on issues like me casting Dusty Ziergler off but he fooled me and demonstrated the game is more than a resume). 3. Arguing about the sport is good practice for figuring out what folks are saying (really reading -or listening in real life- is key and the constructing a response which agrees or disagrees and tries to evoke a response that builds on the discussion is important in my work. Doing this on something trivial is good practice to do the same thing in my real life activities on environmental issues. I look a lot for win/win situations in real life and practicing that in thei fantasy world is good practice. In real life I do run into legends in their own minds a lot and this board is rife with them it is also good practice to try to actually produces an argument they cannot beat. It happens sometimes which is fun, but the good thing is when they beat your argument and I learn something about construting arguments. 4. TSW really fits my lifestyle. I started with it near its beginning when the Rochester D&C Board imploded because of a combination of their over-commitent to the first admenment and the free market (an interesting learning experience in itself). I was actually in St. Louis for 7 months where my wife was undergoing a major organ transplant to deal with a childhood illness. TSW provided a link to home, practice typing about something important to me which I translated into some massive missives about this life changing experience and it provided a sense of community when I was away from mine. I was able to transplant and take time off because of my consulting work and actually it has lent itself to TSW. I am able to work on conference calls which nuy my time and pay the Bills but I have to sit quietly while they roll through an agenda to listen and speak when spoken to in my area of expertise. They often move the agenda so I sit half listening to stuff of no import to me and mute the phone and read and type til my turn on these calls which often are at odd times due to overseas lead participants. This fits nicely but I can't be that careful about my wrting so my apologies but that is the way things are. 5.Though I type for my own purposes, I do really like the responses to some of my posts though they are not required at all. Due to this, particularly once the season starts and I am quite interested in responses about real football stuff, i do try to be a bit more pithy and short (not this post obviously) and try to add Cliff Notes summarizing my ranblings. Replies are great but if these message are too long please skip them. 6/ I do these to prepare for family dinners. Grandad and the three families (I am married to the youngest) get together for family gatherings where I describe the conversations as a brawl. Believe it or not I am shorter and more to the point in these conversations because if you aren't you get cut-off, run over or the topic swiftly changes. Each member of the family has various areas of expertise or work and questions get asked of them. Sports in general and the Bills are one of my fields. Having thought through these issues I have short answers that touch upon key points in discussion and folks seem to be satisfied as they keep asking and sometimes they even mention one of my references as being borne (or occaisonally dead wrong as members of the family are fond to point out. So for these and other reasons I probably will keep up the long slogs for as long as I can. Remember the only thing which wastes more time than reading my stupid posts is to spend time replying to them. So feel free to save the time and feel free to not reply.

McGahee by a longshot because not only is there such a big drop-off to plan N Shaud beyond a 1 or 2 game stint due to ability (once opponents get a lot of tape on him and time to prepare I think the talent difference will really balloon) and also have doubts about someone of Shaud's size taking the pounding our run first O is gonna give to the RB. Our RB #3 is a position one must draw into the calculation if you start with the premise you lost WM. I have seem no where near the RB production from Lee (though I loved his KR against GB and ST potential if April likes it) and Burns to feel they merit a starting role. Adams is number 2 and likely at some point as a player on the downhill side of his career to miss at least a game or so. We might be OK here though given our having Edwards who at least was good enough to be an indequate starter a couple of years ago and since then has both bulked up and improved. The jury is still out on his adequacy in a Bills D which has also picked it up several notches but I am not as worried as some seem to be who I think overanalyze his play in a scheme that differes from the usual and I think many good heads here are actually analyzing the detail of his performance based on the old scheme activities. The lateral versus penetrating movement that some see as a failing in his technique I think is exactly how he should be performing in our run blitz which can depend onthe phenomenal first step speed of Adams to penetrate and Edwards is called upon more to cover space that the first step speed may leave open and actually may create a gap for the zone blitzing backer if the guy across from Rdwards follows him laterally and our DE drops back into coverage in the space an LB normally covers. If Adams goes down, then Edwards actually steps into his role and he actually has shown more skill as a pass rusher than run stuffer and Anderson or Bannan will need to show the lateral movement skill and run stuffing ability. If Adams goes down either all this personnel will have to step up or its off to the waiver wire or Gray/Krumrie will really have to do some magic with the scheme so this is my #2 uncertainty if Adams goes down. 3. Evans being gone is a problem but it strikes me as no greater problem than if Moulds goes down. If either falls the other gets doubled and neither will likely be very effective. Between the Parrish injury, Reed failure last time he was number 2 meakes it doubtful he can step up, Aiken showing no signs whatsoever he is starter quality in a 2 WR set, and Haddad maybe making the team or maybe not unless Parrish makes it back to the field we are in the same deep doo-doo we were in in 2003 when Moulds got hurt, and Reed got the droppsies and there was only one WR Shaw we could really put on the field. True Moulds alone or Evans alone are much better than Shaw but if we lose either one AND our #3 we are hurting big time. 4. We do have huge questions on the OL with Gandy and Anderson as newbies and MW playing well in the later parts of 2004 after his meltdown in "voluntary" minicamp. However, I worry less about losing them because unknown talents like Peters or ubkniw journeymen like Jerman are simply replacing a regular season unknow quantity like Gandy. Perhaps the more interesting question regarding LT is that as the Buff News said today Peters can actually be used in a pinch as a TE (it is just the BN when as I have said I do not even believe what coaches say since I think it is more important for them to not tell the truth to give no benefit to the opponents than to tell the truth to me as fan. Please lie to me if it helps the team). If the unknowns created by an injury to Euhus which will cost him a game, if he is damaged goods (the Bills have cleverly demonstrated they do not tell the all regarding pre-season injuries so who knows include the Texans), then a TE lineup of Campbell, Neufeld and Travis strikes me as a pinch. This move will have no LT effect if Gandy continues his pre-season form into the regular season and IF Jerman were there to give him a blow when necessary (hopefully never) but this pinch could cause LT issues. I see no real plan B problem if Clements goes down for a game or so. We have PT options that may take this job from him anyway. I think Vincent is on the downhill side of his career, but if we need him in a game. I think adrenalin will allow him to cover top receivers for a game and we might get another full game out of him before oppossomg receivers got enough tape on him to exploit him. We then mix it up and go to the zone and see how we do. I have few worries about Baker resuming his starting role at FS (Vincent has been a playmaker that Baker could not pull off though he a good coverage to breal-up passes and provide run support when needed, certainly better than the Wire FS experiment and way cheaper than Prioleaux [i do give props to Prioleaux though because there is a marked ST achievement difference between PP who was the first Bill in while to block a punt against KC and he was enough of a vet to stay in his lane against the Jets while Wire and Stevenson closed to tackled Santana Moss he then had the spped to sprint all the way across the field and back toward his own endzone to tackle Moss and save a TD after he deked out Wire and Stevenson). PP was a player he was just too expensive]. In addition to the turnovers he quickly caused at FS. he put a nice hit on a GB receiver to break up a pass so i think he has the chops to play safety and still has something left if called upon for a game or so if Clements goes down). If we lose Clements it is a loss of a Pro Bowl player, but i think plan B of Vincent in the short terms and some scheme adjustments in the long term make more worry little about this possibility. I will be bummed if the new cap $ does not result in TD showing him the money (I doubt it makes sense for Clements to even sign a deal the Bills are capable of offering under the current cap. In order to meet a Clements call saying he is the best the Bills would have to fashion a tiered cap payment which would give some risk to Clements. If Clements is so unworried about risk that he would accept a tiered deal then he would probably risk waitingfor the free market of FA). At any ratte, though I will be bummed to lose Clements and his Pro Bowl playmaker talent next year, particularly if Thomas comes back so we face the season with McGee (who will need to keep improving his CB play at the same rate he is doing since he is not yet a number 1 level talent), with Vincent a talented guy well into the backside of his career, with Thomas whom if he recovers showed some talent and was a good #3 and would need to step up to be a #2, Greer who I am very comfortable with at nickel, and King who definitiely makes myactive roster and with a year's work should be pressing for the nickel job, While these 5 are not as good as Clements as one of 5 (Vincent would be full time FS where he belongs at this stage in his career) but while I would be bummed if we lost Clements next year I think we have the personnel to make the resulting drop in performance tolerable. Actually, i think the best bet with Clements next year is probably to tag him. As many of the top CBs are already signed to huge long term deals, and Clements is probably the best on the market, even thought the new cap will expand salaries a lot, i think there will be at least a year gap before we see huge escalation of the top 10 salaries so that the one year average Clements would get would be so huge that the Bills actually would not be paying an even larger amount for Clemets bonus payment. The combined two year outlay of the average next year and the bonus in 2007 would e huge but again may be managed or simply avoided as the Bills would now have two full seasons to find and train replacements, and make use of Clements playing his heart out twice for a contract. One should never root for injuries and I don't. but one would be foolish not to realize that were Clements to suffer an Andre Reed type injury in his contract year (bad enough to make folks reluctant to risk big bucks on this FA, but not so bad he wasn't rehabbed and contributed to the Bills for a very good price). If the Bills tag Clements we not only get two years of motivated play but the risk he would go through of injury (the main reason he would want to sign a deal favorable to the Bills now which would be great) which either would be minor and we are in the same shape, moderate and the Ree-type injury allows us to sign him cheap and rehab him to glory, or he is badly damaged and we simply do not resign him. I think the Clements situation has been set up extraordinarily well for us and part of getting replacements for losing him so we are not negotiating from weakness also means that if he gets hurt we can deal with.

This really is an excellent is an excellent question. In Fantasy Football. However, this issues make zero difference in the real game (which is actually the fantasy of entertainment in real life so maybe we should call it Fantasy Fantasy Football but maybe being a double fantasy makes it a reality like a double negative). I can see the confusion of earlier posters that the question must be joking because until the Bills go with a one-receiver set on anything outside of the redzone the distiction between the #1 and #2 WR is meaningless. However, just as Evans got more TDs than Moulds last year, there may be some relevance and continuation of this in 05 that not only will FFFL folks take note of but those primarily interested in NFL results will also watch. Every pass has not only a receiver but a thrower and outside of the occaisional option pass this will be JP. As they were drafted in the same year and clearly will be linked together if they both do well, I hope that the names Losman/Evans get mentioned as pme like Kelly/Reed. In this configuration the name Moulds is essential like the name Lofton was. Just as Reed has a much closer linkage to Kelly, it is Lofton who achieved the career accomplishments Reed aspired to and still as not gotten (yet as far as the HOF). So too Evans aspires to achieve the career that Moulds has, gut like Kelly/Reed Evans can be the go-to guy for Losman even though there is a more accomplished receiver in the mix. I actually hope and expect that even in this year we will see Losman establish Evans as his go-to guy even though I want a great year for Moulds as well,

The Buffalo News printed an article today featuring roster battles which is a nice way to focus on this issue as a bunch of cuts are scheduled to happen on Tuesday. It is not a completely focused way to present this as the Tuesday cuts will mostly thin the field and really not decide a lot of these battles for roster spots. In addition what happens in this weekend's pre-season game which to some extent will be determined by the dunb luck of how this odd-shaped ball bounces will determine close outcomes in battles for roster spots. The article also fails to deliver on the promise of the headline viving interesting info and perspectives on a few individuals but not being able to real lay out the likely battles. Nevertheless this is my attempt to do this and even make some wild-eyed guesses in terms of outcomes though my predicitions may and should change with whatever reality delivers this weekend: 1. 4th CB spot- King v. the rest I agree with BN that the injury to Thomas which has him on the PUP list makes King the winner with Fontenot and Oglesby surviving this cut but not the next one. Though the nothing I hear regarding Thomas' recovery is foreboding, King will get the spot as a drafted rookie and though he has had typical rookie struggles he shows reasonable progress and I feel fine about this particularly since our starting FS Vincent is a recent Pro-Bowl CB. 2. Back-up LT- Price v. Jerman BN talks alot about Jerman having a rough start but coming back to life recently (it must be practice because I saw little of this from this vet against GB). Peters has gotten very high marks for how quickly he has progressed in playing the position. The '05 problem for us is that Price is making great progress from next to nothing as an LT. He got the T number mid last season when activated so he has less than a year in this spot and regardless of his progress it is going to be dicey thing if we are ever forced to entrust JP blindside protection to a player who has come no closer than being a TE to an OL position until the middle of last year. In addition my old stalking horse of perhaps it being a mistake to simply stop this extraordinary athlete for catching the ball by playing him at LT has been brought up once again by the injury to Euhus. I know folks are freaking out about losing JJ, but if Gandy is surprisingly solid, Jerman is in fact coming back (I'll believe this when I see it) and actually a better plan B than Peters if we are forced to it may be to move Teague for C to LT and move Preston or Tucker to starting C (as horrid as this chain reaction is I hope we don;t have to do this.. Come on Gandy work) do not be surprised if talk suddenly rears its head that Parrish's receving talent cannot be denied and now that he is better blocker with his LT work he might actually be a second coming of Remeirsma as a receiver and Friggin Lonnie a blocker (the last time we had credible TE talent in all phases of the game it was unfortunately two players). At any rate, one can be barely satisfied with our starting situation at LT, the back-up question for 05 is still open. The most hopeful thing said about this is that MM says that Peters is not ready to start in '05 but he is holding his own when he plays. This is not a great endorsement for a back-up doing more than spot duty so Gandy cannot be hurt for multiple games or have his talent go south again. The BN goes as far as saying Peters could still be used at TE in a pinch. The BN saying it is a long way from the coaches saying something and I don't even trust the coaches' words. However, if Euhus injury which definitely will sideline him against the Bears is more serious than 1 game or is a sign that with his ACL boo-boo last year of RJ-like injury proneness (its too early to say for sure but 2 injuries to different parts of the body in a short time makes just the time to say this as a real fear) then a TE line-up of Campbell (seemingly recovered from injury we hope but needing to step-up anyway to be the starter we want), Neufeld (I like him better as an H-back) and Trafford (nice guy but) this sounds like a pinch to me. 3. Back-up RB- Gates v. Lee v. Burns Ironically, though all of these players are badmouthed on TSW as not good enough to be our back-up RB, though I agree with that call I would be pleased to have any of these three on our roster because pluses they add or prospects they have. I think Shaud Williams has won the #2 slot with some very good games last year and solid appearances this year. I'm not sure how I feel about this because if WM goes down this is a major hit to our O because Shaud ain't no WM (but then who is, if only we had the 2002 Henry as a back-up). I actually think Williams plays productively enough that he can spell WM nicely for a game or two (disagree if one wants but he did this in real life last year). but he just seems to small to stand up to long-term play-in and play-out pounding. The battle is for the number 3 slot with really only Lee having an outside chance at this if he has a couple of extraorinary Pre-season games which I don't think will happen. My sense is that the battle looks like this: Gates- Probably a keeper as he is the only prospect for furture very good development among the three. As #3 RB his role is not game critical and as a rookie he is expected to make mistakes and since he is not game critical he will have time to work on them. His running and scoring a TD in the GB game provides some reality to him being a prospect and the possibility that he may even demonstrate that he can contribute at RB in '05 depending on how he looks in the next two exhibition outings. I think he makes the 53 man roster or some team with depth at RB or no chance this year signs him to their active roster. Lee- Has gotten some grief on TSW but I think most of this is a combination of folks disappointed that he does not appear to a #2 quality RB or the usual whining from folks who hate TD and indict all his moves whether its picking WM, signing Adams for a song, or hiring MM (I wished he had picked him over GW thoughbut perhaps neither was ready to HC at the time). Lee has been not very productive at RB (though some of this is in strong part the young JPs fault, for example there was a missed hand-off to Lee which caused JP to scramble, I think the two choices are that this was also substantially JPs fault as it is the QBs shared and lead responsibility to make a sound play everytime and hand-off this time and clearly he and Lee were not on the same page OR it was mostly JPs fault because there is a school of teaching that the RBs job is to primarily look for the hole to run through and it is primarily the QBs job to get the RB the ball in his hand. In terms of assessing Lee it doesn't matter because the job did not get done on that play or other game running attempts for the most part and even if it was mostly the young QB's error he is going to be a first year QB all season and picking up for his mistakes will be something vets are going to need to do all year. Still though he has not shown enough to be #2 RB and probably not even #3 I do like what he has shown on ST from the very nice KR last week (folks who claim he was untouched so it was easy have not taken from watching football that one is untouched on the KR because the runner does a great job reading and setting up blocks and striling the balance between going straight forward and dancing if necessary. One only has to see most KR end with the runner picking a hole that never materializes because he picks the wrong blocks and he runs into a pile. Lee has also player some coverage ST and looked good. If the ST judgment is to keep him it is fine with me. Burns- he also gets grief because year after year he is not Travis Henry or Willis McGahee. However, year after year he also has been a stalwart on ST and in a pinch has filled in at FB and RB. Again this is a judgment for Bobby April and the gang to make so whatever balance they make based on activity off camera we do not see or activity at practice most of us do not see so our ST judgments are questionable at best it is fine with me. 4. 4th DE- Ritzman v. Gause Both these players have impressed with Ritzman in particular putting up some good numbers this pre-season and having spent a year on the roster (though mostly IR) and Gause bringing an impressive set of skills (though he needs more training) to the table and also some notable performances this year. However, the Bills went with just three DEs last year as I think it was the case that in our run blitz scheme the normal positions of 2 starting DEs, and 2 back DEs and 2 starting OLBs, and 2 back-up OLBs does not really apply. The Bills used a lot of sets with the three DEs playing last year and actually the player who sat was a DT mostly as Phat Pat was in for less than 50% of the D snaps (a stat not explained fully at all by him sitting on 3rd because that still leaves 66% of the snaps as 1st and second downs and actually a little bit more as opponents sometimes got a FD on their 1st or 2nd play. Big losses that made 2nd down a passing down are balanced by any big gains that made 3rd down a running down). This actually increased the need for a DE to be kept, but actually the xone blitz scheme as implemented by Gray has used Posey as a a downlineman lined uo way left and used Denney in his in place from time to time. Schobel has shown the ability to drop back in pass coverage that has resulted in him and Denney also playing a similar role. I feel more comfortable with one of these two stepping up in a traditional role, but it would not surprise me at all to see us go with 3 DEs once again and one or both of these players ending up on the PS. Its too close to tell as best as I can judge who this may be. 5. #3-6 WR Parrish v. Reed v. Aiken v. Haddad v. Smith v. Wilson This is probably the battle that has attracted the most attention but this one is so unclear as: 1. The injury status or effects if he can play regarding Parrish;s wrist are really unknown making all our fan predicitions pretty questionable because we can;t even say what the shape of the table is much less who should sit at it. 2. The number os WRs we will keep is totally open to question given that the 6th WR if he is kept must have some contributing ST talent and probably PR talent. However, if we decide to use our #1 CB on PR and Parrish gets better and takes the back-up or lead PR duty then we probably do not keep a 6th WR who is more a PR guy. Not only does the injury wildcard no one outside of the docs and the coach has a call on, but temperament and choice issues regarding playing Clements as a PR given his import at CB and him being in a contract year make this unknown and most stone cold lock WR pronouncements pretty laughable, 3. WR position contributions beyond the stat sheet and what we can see on TV (plus even with the addition of what folks saw in camp as the reports are at both extemes depending on whether folks hate or are pulling for Reed) will likely determine the final decision because it is pretty close and involves a ton of variable in terms of the final choice. My own laughable guess is this: 3. Parrish will be the #3 if he is well. His speed will still be there and he still will be a threat that forces DCs to put a very fast DB on him if he can even half catch with his wounded wrist and if this happens Evans may get a slower guy or Moulds will get to work without a double team. In essence play a zone for most teams because they simply will not have the talent to cover all are players adequately in man to man. If Parrish can't go predictions are very very very hard to do. 4. I really go back and forth on this and this position can be won if someone steps up and performs in the last two exhibition games. I have to guess that Reed has the upper hand if in fact his blocking is superior to Aiken's and Haddad as some have said (though some swear by the blocking of these other two though much of this accompanies total indictments of Reed which serve to make it appear that they are more interested in winning the argument by painting it as a black and white obvious choice rather than the close call a real assessment seems to be. I put a lot of stake on the blocking ability of the #4 because if Parrish is not back and he steps up to #3, the D warping ability of this player is not there since none of the three has Parrish speed and the O with them at #3 is more of a play with WM as the sole RB and blocking rather than receiving will be a serious duty. If Parrish is back and the #4 is there in 4 WR sets with Parrish he will het to go up against the dregs of the pass coverage guys or run his routes in coordination wih his teammates on zones. Both Aikeb and Reed have more practice at this though Haddad clearly has a instict for the ball which is better than Aiken who has been fairly warm/cold as a receiver in his career and Reed who has been hot/frozen with the extremens he has shown from earning a shot at #2 based on his rookie year to having an awful case of the droppsies his 2nd year that his confidence has still not seem to have recovered from though he is better than he was that horrid year. Reed is still the back-up KR guy on this team though is Rashard Lee earns a slot if his RB play kicks up a lot he probably will be McGees back-up. Haddad definitely adds to the ST threat with some good PR chops he showed getting a couple of pre-season TDs in Indy and his returns last week but there are a lot of PR options on this team so good PR work may not add much to his good WR work. Aiken was one of the leading tacklers on PR last year but this team has a lot of good competition for the coverage unit so none of these players can gurantee their ST chops puts them over the top and they have to win it with their position play. 5. All three players are vet and probably have shown the maximum of what they can do )Aiken being the exception by age/career but he has done nothing to grab this job by the throat even though he had the chance. Second place for #4 looks good here but some temperament and route running precision choices will probably be made by the Bills braintrust here and the judgment of outside observers is almost certainly not gonna be accurate. For this 5 th slot ST will play a more important role. I don't think good ST play will get you the #4 job, but it may well put a player over the top for #5. 6. This position is a wildcard as none of this player will make his main contribution on ST. Maybe this player is a gunner or a wedge guy but more likely he will need to be a threat to put points on the board at PR. Clements and likely Parrish are better PR guys than any candidates for this job so if MM decided that putting the best player on the field is worth he additional risk of injury or Parrish recovers enough then there is no number 6 WR. Of the candidates, Fast Freddy is the only one with an NFL PR TD to his credit and given a couple of other long returns he pulled off this cannot be ignored. He is a mecuric player who has not shown the route running discipline in his shoer career to be the #4 or 5. I think he has the lead for the #but the position may not even exist. Haddad shows good PR ability but he is not a gamebreaker either yet. If he can repeat the PR TDs he produced previously in pre-season he will be a threat to make this team as a #6 even if he cannot push Reed or Aikeb out (which he might). It also should be noted that Leonhard has shown some good PR chops, we may go without a #6 WR if we feel we have options behind Clements or Parrish if MM chances his mind. At any rate, I think the leaders today are: 1. Moulds 2. Evans 3. Parrish 4. Reed 5. Haddad This configuration assumes that Parrish comes back with some sort of brace on his wrist which lessens the chance of additional damage but lowers his ability to catch passes. However, his wheels are still fine and DCs must respond or else he may get enough space where he can make a 1 1-/2 handed catch and this makes him worth using as a #3. He likely will not be able to handle PR duty for a while, but Clements is given the PR role and Haddad backs him up if he is injured or we pull him out for just CB duty. Reed is probably the most controversial choice here as many folks are just sick of this guy who failed them at his shot for #2. However, as #4 he will be stepping back to taking on a roll that calls for even less than the #3 role he did well his rookie year. With Parrish in, Moulds commanding a DT, and Evans producing to build on his rookie production (he better not pull a Reed and I don't think he will) either Reed will get to feast on #5 instead of #2 CBs, safeties or more likely LBs. If the other team goes to the zone, coordinated route running with Moulds, Evans and Parrish will be most essential. Reed's problem has not been an inability to run routes and get open it has been an inability to hang onto passes which hit him in the hands. If Parish cannot play the downfield blocking becomes very important for the new #3 and Reed has gotten some good reviews from the coaches which may make the difference though I expect Parrish will be back in a crippled form which still allows for good productive football. I see Haddad squeezing out Aiken if he continue with the same production levels. Though I hope a healthy Parrish can still run, I would not be surprised if we wait awhile to risk the wrist. As I suspect that MM will make the same choice he made last year when he used Clements on PR and the contract uncertainty will both see Clements want to improve his case by playmaking on punts and the Bills be willing to get as much production as they can out of a player who may be gone next year he will be our PR guy. We need a back-up here, but as Fast Freddy will be sitting on PR and on O because of his lack of discipline I think he is gone and Haddad as our #5 can back-up Clements and play WR when needed. There will be too many good coverage guys to tackle for this to be Aiken's major calling card and he simply never produced TDs as the #3 last year or this preseason. This all can change, has tons of variables, and like all of you misses critical info to make a good choice or prediction but this is my wid-eyed guess.

I think part of the misunderstanding here is that treating people the same and treating people equally can be two entirely different things. If one treats two folka the same but they start out with different characterstics which are delivered to them and are not their fault then the final outcomes achieved may be very different. For example, I am commited to treating everyone the same so I give everyone the same four inch stool to stand on so they can reach the high shelves. Definitely I treated everyone the same but I did not treat everyone equally at all. I helped the 6 foot guy reach the high shelf and get the goods. However, when I gave the 5 foot guy (or gal) the same 4 inch stool they couldn't reach and got nothing as a result. I treated eveyone the same but I did not treat eveyone equally. What's the general rule here? First and foremost it is that there is probably no general rule or principle here. Situations are different and ones actions or responses should also be different if I am going to be fair. Its makes a difference in terms of whether I should accomodate the differences between people based on the root and the nature of that difference. An accomodation which attempts to make up for a factor deemed by society to be irrelevant to how a benefit should be distributed but impacts the achievement of the goal is one I probably want to make if I can, even if it means that I may be treating two people differently. However, if this difference is relevant to distribution of the goal then I probably won't treat people diffierently am content to see the differences in distribution occur based on these differences. If there is a general rule it is probably the golden rule of doing on to others as I would have them do on to me. I am far more interested in treating people equally than I am in treating them the same and in order to truly treat folks equally some weird and paradoxical things will happen from time to time, but part of being an adult is learning to deal with these paradoxes.

Perhaps the difference is that while I do care about how individuals players perform I really only care to the extent it makes a difference in how the TEAM performs, This is why I was interested in understanding the specific cases where that bad performance has meant points out on the board for the other team (the ultimate measure of success or failure by the D) or long gains for yards by the opponents which oftwn leads to them putting points on the board. Though one needs to be careful about drawing to broad a conclusion on a single play (particularly from pre-season plays) I did love you siting particular plays like the Rodgers play or a TD pass from Farve being attributable to Posey failings. I plan to take a closer look and it is to be hoped learn a few things. However, as far as looking at the real occurences last year, I'll take your word for it that Posey was turning his back (or out of position, didn't bend his knees properly when performing a pliette or whatever) however, these faults are relative meaningless to me if they do not result in bad results for the team. I think it makes little difference how a player looks if the other team does not score points or gain yards. My sense of the performance of the Bills D last year (and in fact for the most part the last two years when Posey was starting 32 games for us and racking up a lot of PT as he, Fletcher and Spikes were gaining the rep as one of if not the best LB corps in the league, the D has given up far less than the average number of yards and points) While how he looks makes little difference to me as long as the D suceeds in giving up far fewer points than the average and far fewer yards than the average, it does make a difference to me though if we can get better by having someone who did not turn his back (or had good positioning or whatever) who also was part of a D wih far better than average performance. However, I see little evidence from his play that Stamer would be as good a performer as Posey has been and unless I read or remember what you said you were also not impressed with Stamer's position play. Like I said, you clearly are a knowledgable dude so your word can be taken about Posey turning his back more than you feel he should. However, this observation seems to be fairly meaningless in terms of the D giving up ponts or as regards a general reference to givng up a 6 yard gain (which beyond debacles like in NE and the fatal game against Pitts did not happen that much last season fortunately). Your observations regarding Posey on Rodgers and Farve are helpful and I look forward to your reviews of play the first quarter of the season. For now, I see a bit more credence in the choice of Gray and the braintrust to use Posey a lot because that fits with the performance of the team last year and the explanation as to why the coaches seem to value him and why the D did perform last year makes sense rather than a concern about whether he turns his back too much burfirtunately we are still the #2 D in the league statistically.

Simon, thanks again for your detailed comments. I have not had to go back to the tape yet but plan to do so before the week is out and I will look at the plays you mentioned. Even still despite my respect for the good eye you have shown on many things in the past I do not find your vitriol on Posey very compelling. Your comments about him turning the wrong way or having bad positioning or being so bad simply did not correspond with the reality that one could not also cite last year how this bad play corresponded to TDs by the opponents or even big gains. If he was as worthless as you seem to indicate in his play last year it does not correspond that the D could be so statistically effective with a bad player starting 16 games and logging a ton of PT in a critical role or even if he was a weak link why opposing OCs didn't constantly pick on him for scores and big gains that even the doofuses in the media would eventrually notice. I hope you saw and would love your comments on a detailed analysis done by a Bills poster (CJ Nittan I think) of the role Posey played in the Colts game (might have been the scrimmage aginst GB but I think it was the Colts game). Basically according to Nittan's (or whomever it was) observations, the key to Posey's play was that he seemed to be asked by Gray in our zone blitz to make a read whether he thought it would be a running play or a passing play. The result ended up for about a 50/50 split of him dropping back into pass coverage or going to the POA of a run (note that hiis responsiblity on a run may be to pass cover if the run blitz has others guarding the run so it depends on what we call whether he did the right thing rather than their call). Regardless of what we judge about his particular coverage, the play worked well for the Bills as our D slapped around the opposing O. If Posey did what he was asked and expected to do in our D and that D was successful, I couldn't really care less about our individual assessments of his play positioning or leverage because what WE did worked and stopped the opponent. There is a legit question whether our assessment of poor Posey positioning is a weaknes which later can be exploited. However, this question ends up getting answered on the field by if opposing OCs are picking on this weakeness effectively. This is why real world results are important. Last year with the Bills finishing 2nd in the NFL statistically and not even Posey critics such as yourself being able to site examples last year where his alleged bad play resulted in many or any examples of TDs or big gains, the proof is in the reality that this Posey issue was a non-problem last year. For this year we only have a couple of pre-season games and a scrimmage to go with so it is still a bit too early to draw conclusions based on pre-season play. Yet, I will look with real interest at the case you cite because they at least are now attached to specific negative outcomes. Overall it still is pre-season so these items even if Posey is at fault are merely examples and not trends yet barring additional real world examples. In addition, seeing the tape may add to and improve my thinking, but as far as the theory the Nittan analysis still makes more sense in terms of explaining why the overall Bills D results were so good last year and explaining why the Bills braintrust has relied so heavily on Posey if he is in fact as bad as you say. Nittan actually hatched a new word to me "The Keeper" to describe the position Posey is utilized to play by Gray in our zone blitz. This Keeper position plays SLB, but plays it flexibly depending on what our zone blitz is doing. In this analysis, the Bills D produces good results with Posey as Keeper because he: 1. Reads plays well and either drops back or moves to the run POA well as is requited in our zone blitz (where I think it is actually Fletcher who is calling the shots though i was very impressed with Haggan calling plays as a reserve in the Colts game). This is a difference which one would never see on the stat sheet and outside of the results achieved by the D (which were generally very good with Posey at SLB last year as the D finished 2nd statistically) is difficult for us outsiders to judge accurately. 2. Has the ability to line up essentially as a DL player in a three point stance on the outside. Orginally when we got Posey as an FA from Tex we were wowed by the 8 sacks he rung up in their 3-4 (at last I know I said we would get some LB help for our DEs who were far weaker on the pass rush than I was used to having been spoiled by years of Brrruuuccee doing the rushing for us). However, though Posey often lines up as a down lineman (something many faster but lighter LBs cannot do well) he does this in the Bills zone blitz not as a pass rusher but specializing more as a run stopper (specifically the area whereMM most recetnly sang Posey's praises). I think many of us are disappointed in Posey because he never registered the sacks we expected and wanted seeing occaisions like the one where he sacked David Carr and knocked the ball lose and knocked him out of the game. However, it doesn't look like he is called upon much to blitz in our D and his first duties are to stop the run so Spikes and Fletcher can roam free and tackle and sack. His secondduty is pass coverage and the sack game is his third responsibility. 3. Nittan also observed that the player who seemed to occupy this "keeper" role when Posey as getting a blow or lined up differently in our tricky zone blitz was none other than the often ragged upon Ryan Denney. This observation and usage is consistent with Denney's talent and the usage of him I have seen where he actually has surprising athleticism and his hue wignspan so he is effective in pass coverage, but also our starting DT Phat Pat only saw less than 60% of the D snaps last year and there was even a point where Adams was butching publicly about being sat down on third down. I think this was in part because our D ran 3 DE sets where Denney was judged to be strong enough against the run that he played this Keeper role and could make good reads to either cover passes or plug the POA. i will look again, but there is still the basic questions of if Posey is so bad, why did the Bills D do so well and if Posey is so bad why didn't opposing OCs pick on this weak link and rip him and the D a new one last year. The notion that Posey is so bad simply does not track with the real world output and actions by our braintrust.

If Blesoe does happen to be more productive in Dallas than in Buffalo (from the little I saw of Bledsoe last night he looked less productive) I doubt it will be more motivation that makes the difference it will be bause the personality of Bill Parcells suceeds in doing the same thing he did with him when Bledsoe led a Parcells NE team to the SB. Bledsoe has the obvious and clear to all bad habit of holding onto the ball too long and going into his trademark pat-pat-pat. If the OL cannot hold the rush for more tha 4-5 seonds the next sound one hears is a sack. Even when the OL holds its blocks (Bledsoe is a big tough boy who will stand in there as long as he can before the sack) Bledsoe also has the habit of locking onto his favorite receiver and lasering the ball into a small opening if it occurs before the sack as only his rocket arm can. However, when you do this you run the risk of creating a situation like one in Miami a couple of years back where Bledsoe waited and waited for his favorite Eric Moulds to get open and Sam Madison also waited and watched and jumped throw for the INT while Travis Henry waived his arm in vain for a wide open throw because Bledsoe did not read his progressions when Moulds was not immediately open. If Parcells can use his personality of consistently yelling at Bledsoe to replace what MM used (the alarm clock set for 4 seconds) to get Bledsoe not pat and lock then he will get better production out of Bledsoe. In addition, TC called a game which used Bledsoe on occaision on the QB draw which helped force DCs to not sell out completely to the blitz with their LBs. If Julius Jones proves to be an effective rush threat (particularly to the outside) as WM proved to be then it is possible to both give Bledsoe more time and to force him to just throw the damn ball instead of using that time up. It din't look like this was working last night, but if Bledsoe survives we'll see.

I think this a good point because a key to the Bills winning (the first thing) and JPs individual development as a QB (the second thing in my mind) is him for the most part playing within himself. He actually will need to "let it hang-out" a little and "push the outside of the envelop" (to use two cliches which actually describe the situation) a little in order to develop. However, I think the key to production from this 1st full year QB is to plat within himself and do what he can rather than to take risks and make mistakes. True he would learn from these mistakes and with luck become a better QB, but the future is now, and this team can make the playoffs with a QB whopulls off the Trent Dilfer trick of simply making few mistakes. This team showed last year that it can come within a hair of making the playoffs with a Bledsoe like inadequate performance at QB. I think this year: 1. JP can perform at a 2004 Bledsoe level (and I suspect he will); 2. Of far greater import 10 of 11 starters back on D and Phat Pat was good but saw less than 2/3 of the D snaps and his replacements seem good enough, 3. The ST looks deeper so far (a plethora of PR guys, good competition and scheme on coverage) and the placekicking game can improve and may do that judging by one game; 4. The O improved a little from last year (if injuries don't drag us down much more), 5. Most players on this fairly young team ready to step it up a notch (WM and Kelsay in particular), 6. There are a few older players but between roles being switched so they can still perform (Vincent to S utlizes his vet brain while demanding less speed than CB and their personal commitment to stay in shape (Adams) as long as sudden occurence of injury (watch Milloy) doesn't hit they look good. 7. MM really improved translating team management into production in the second half of his rookie season and seems poised to be an even better HC his second year. At any rate the prospects look good to me and this will impact how JP performs in what will be a year he learns how to be a pro and should impact how he is managed. The issue IMHO opinion is that I think JP knows he should play within himself and MM/TC are managing him to play within himself. The problem is that his first time starter doesn't know what "himself" is yet as a pro performer. He and the braintrust have a pretty good idea because they know well the skills he brings and thankfully we got a full year for book study and teaching him the pro game (which had to happen because like it or not he did not know the pro game in terms of the theory last year). However, in addition to the essential book study, there really is no replacement for playing the game. JP will learn this year what he can and can't do on the field. It makes sense that right now people are seeing one level of performance from him and then seemingly the next quarter another level of performance (fortunately the less than successful performances are not so bad that they are marked with horrendous errors, for example he has not had a performance like his debacle in NE last year yet). This makes sense because we have not yet had a game (in pre-season now or his mop-ups last year) where he had to throw the ball deep and the D knew he was coming yet. I am quite content to see him learn what is too much, what is too little, and what it just right in pre-season and even in regular season as long as the D and ST play well enough that he can win by not trying to do too much. I am also happy to see him get limited or 1 shot at learning how to come from behind and win. Hpwever, if he has to do this too often and fails to do this, then I feel his development is important but if we have a shot at competing for the playoffs and he demonstrates he is not their yet in terms of production, part of his development will be learning to deal with his butt being benched and a previously failed vet getting a shot. If Steve Young and Farve can survive the indignity of failing so badly they got traded and still grow up to become stars, JP will simply have to suck it up and do this too (and pull off the bigger trick of not needing a change of town to do this improvement). I think the bottomline is: 1. Improve slowly but still win and make the playoffs like RoboQB in Pitts last year. 2. Bench him and go with Holcomb if the reserve gives us a better chance to win and winning right now is critical to us making the playoffs. Right now I hope and assume that our D and ST will be good enough and the MM/TC management of the O will be measured such that all we have is success and we go 16-0 with JP as QB. I know this is a fantasy so I will also accept it grudgingly if mistakes are made and we only produce a 14-2 record behind JP. Its only if we are headed toward 9-7 again and our losses are related to JP mistakes (or a change in leadership would improve things even if it isn't his fault) that I would bench him as part of his development because winning is the overwhelming key.