Fake-Fat Sunny

Actually, though the fact it worked doesn't necessarily mean that it;s okay. the fact that it worked is a pretty strong indicator that it was not a bad play even though he only looked at one receiver. It is a sure thing that the receiver he threw the ball too was open enough to catch because the play worked and it was a reception. When the team lines up the QB has transfered the play called by the OC to the team in the huddle. He comes to the line and scans the D and if he is good (this is what he and Wyche were doing in the halftime piece( immediately he knows which receivers are likely open and which are no help to him on this play. If the play call is a quick pass off a 3 step drop and JPs read of the coverage being used tells him that the quick opening receiver should be open because the defenders are set up to cover him lose while the other receivers in his progression are double covered or running deep routes into this lose coverage, the only thing for him to do is focus on the receiver he is going to throw to after 3 steps. Should he look at another receiver for 1 second before turning his attention and staring at his intended receiver for the additional second before he releases the pass? Not necessarily, because if the single coverage he is throwing into will be the quick out if the defender drops back, or the receiver and the QB have the option to read whether the DB is coming in and then to instead go long if they both read the DB as closing in, then JP should only be staring toward this intended receiver to see whether the DB is dropping back pr doing press coverage and then JP need only be sure he and the WR make the same read and let fly. I see no problem with JP staring at one receiver if the play worked because it "probably" means they read the coverage the same way as allowing the receiver to pretend he is going deep and then to cut off his route for the reception. Staring and locking onto one receiver can be a big problem. However, there are also usually indicators that show this is a problem which were not present on the plays in question (certainly not the completions and even on the flea-flicker as best as I could tell). 1. Are these long plays- Locking onto one receiver would be a problem if it were like the play where his scrabling allowed him 13 seconds to throw or if the blocking gave him that much time, but staring is simply not a big issue on 3 step drop immediate passes. It would be nice if he did fool the DBs by looking them off, but actually on these quick plays the key is often for him to watch the what the coverage of the DB gives him and for him to make the same read a his receiver. 2. Are the DBs jumping the route- he did show a problem in the scrimmage where he focused to intently on a receiver in the flat and a GB DB barely missed the INT when he jumped the route. We have seen Greer INTs both these weeks where Greer made the read and jumped the route. However, I see no signs in the last game or that I remember against the Colts of this being a sign of a problem. I think that JP has a number of issues he must work on: 1. Bailing too quick and running. 2. Taking a needless hit when he does run. 3. Aiken gets some grief as he was running downfield when JP threw a pass to empty space because he seemed to feel Aiken would make a hot-read that the blitz was coming when Aiken went long. However, given that actually Losman had tons of time to throw and his hot-read may have been wrong Wyche and Losman MAY have to talk about this. Ob the very next play Lee and Losman failed to connect on a handoff as they were too far apart. Did Lee screw up or did Losman? We do not know but it is the QBs duty to make this work one way or the other whether it is correcting Aiken or Lee or correcting himself. 4. His completion % the last two weeks has actually been pretty mediocre. I think there are a variety of reasons the misfires did not work but it must be diagnosed and a good QB will do better. All in all I found JPs performance to be quite encouraging and good for a first year starter. However, I expect his performance to be fairly "2004-Bledsoe" like in the QB results he achieves and it would be a big mistake to demand or expect that he is going to Elway or Favre like in his production. I think the Bills can actually win and even make the playoffs if JP is merely 2004 Bledsoe-like but we get some good breaks such as if Smith had not caught lightening in a bottle for Jax in the first game or the refs had not blown enough calls that even the NFL apologized the Bills for that game. Who knows maybe another win in either game would have made us 10-6 instead of 9-7 and we make the playoffs last year even with 2004 Bledsoe performing mediocrely. All in all I must admit that though I was pissed when the D got sredded by Pitts scrubs, and when Lindell missed a chip shot FG and Clements laid the ball on the carpet, and when Bledsoe proved he was not a goo enough QB to win without superior D and ST perfirnance. I am pleased today that JP is our QB and we do not have to live through another year of Bledsoe on the downhill side of his career. TD screwed up big time not cutting Bledsoe after his horrid 2003 season and we have the 2004 cap dead space to prove this. However, we came close to making the playoffs even with a 10 year vet QB on the downhill side of his career. I think with some good breaks we can not only come close with a first year starter QB but even make the playoffs with a 2004 Bledsoe-like result for JP this year (though I think watching JP make errors as he learns will be a lot more fun and interesting to watch -or at least less frustrating- than seeing a 10 year vet QB make a different set of mistakes with the same result).

Many thanks for some detailed and often sage observations. Outside of including the usual rants on Posey that include no examples of anybody he had responsibility for or directly took on scoring a TD or even getting a bid gain these observations look pretty solid. When I look at the tape again I will keep an eye out for Rodgers making Posey look like Eddie Robinson as this is the most measurable indictment you make which is not just a complaint that this pro is observed by an amateur turning the wrong way but fortunately no one scored or got a big gain due to the Posey faux pas.

I'll take a look at the game again as well looking at the DL though I think pre-season is far more useful for the purpose you put it to in the above post assessing an individual's play within our scheme rather than using it to try to figure out exactly how we will run and substitute to implement the scheme come regular season. Players are substituted in pre-season with an eye toward training and assessing players and not with a primary goal of running the scheme effectively so trying to assess how we will implement the scheme based on pre-season just does not fly. Regarding last year, I also think your description of how we used Phat Pat was not that straight-forward. Generally it is true he was in on 1st downs, running downs and in the goal line D. However, given that many second downs had a down and distance which made them more likely passing situations I think we saw him decreasingly being used as our D became more effective as the season went on. Particularly when Edwards registered a few sacks and confidence in him grew and Sam Adams began butching whenever he was sat and was having a Pro Bowl year, I felt that it began to be mostly a formality to call Phat Pat a starter. He apparently only took 58% the D snaps last year and it would be interesting to see when he played most since I would guess that actually he stacked up a lot of snaps early on when opponents were running more to kill clock and that he may well have been seeing less than 50% of the D snaps toward the end of the season when our opponents had to pass to get back in the game.

Actually, I totally recognized your sarcasm. I responded in this way because YOU seemed to fail to recognize that I have a moderate view toward Peters. I think he is a very talented player who one day MAY be the answer for the Bills at LT. However, right now has less than a year's time focused on learning the tackle and OL job and regardless of how great an athlete one is and even if one were a Rodes Scholar it seems pretty questionable to me that the team will or should entrust the blindside of our heavy QB investment into someone with that resume and history. I would happily be wrong if it is the case, but this jump in performance and responsibility simply seems extremely unlikely to me. Perhaps your misconception of my views stems from an over-focus on me refering to his being an enchilada short of a combination plate. This "indictment" from me does not mean I think he is a bad person or even that he is stupid. I meant that like Trey Teague when he first took the center job he has trouble multi-tasking. For Teague, this meant that I think he is a good enough athlete and smart guy to do the line calls, to do a good exchange with the QB, or to deal with the ever larger DTs breathing down his neck. However, when asked to do all three of these things at the same time, he could handle two and ended up planted on his butt too often. Peters also strikes me as having a similar issue which in consultant talk is multi-tasking but which on TSW I also refer to with Mexican food analogy. His multi-tasking problem seems to be a bit more basic than the higher-level football problems of Teague. When asked as a pro to use his great athletic gifts of size, speed and soft hands, and also run crisp routes, and also hear and respond to the line calls he simply could not do all three. His Wonderlic score is instructive in that rather than the Teague solution of simply more practice doing multiple things, Peters really needed to have the task simplified for him to do it well. The Bills braintrust decided to remove the receiving elements from his responsibilities and it seems as if having a simpler set of tasks is working well for him as he learns the LT task. The Wonderlic Test results like many statistically based items is not conclusive of much but is a reasonable indicator of a few things. As pointed out, one of the most difficult things about the test is the time limit and the type of questions within it are not so difficult but they do test ones ability to take on multiple simple tasks under heavy pressure and time constraints. Torturing the allegory while Peters can do fine fixing up an enchilada, or fixing up a burrito, or fixing up a taco, putting them all together at the same time in a combination platter is a more difficult thing for him to well. Just as my respone fails to understand your sarcasm, your response fails to understand my general approach and assessment of Peters. This is not problem as this is merely the Internet and with my unedited run-ons I do fail to make all points clearly. However, if you want a true sense of what I think of Peters, I view myself as having a moderate view between those who seem to think he is ready to guard JPs blindside this year (I doubt this risk is sensible) ahd those who have a view stated by CentralVABills...that all the glowing reports about Peters are simply hype/ i think the blocked punt and TD he pulled off last year show that he is more than hype, but the difficulty of even playing in the NFL, much less being trusted to start at a position guarding JPs blindside with even a bit over a year training sounds like wishful thinking to me.

This is generally correct. The other thing to factor in here is that it takes two sides to make a deal. My guess is that when the Bills cut him from their roster, they had kind words to say when the Turk came to visit and made anything from a suggestion of a possibility to a promise that as soon as he cleared waivers after being cut, he would be signed to the Bills PS and they drew as clear a map as they felt comfortable doing laying out a path for him that led from him being on the PS to the active roster. My guess is that several teams came to Peters as soon as the Bills cut him from the roster with offers to go on their PS. However, Peters and his agent (s) made a judgment that their best chance of getting onto an active roster was to stay with the Bills. It seems as if the move to activate him on the Bills roster was a defensive move on our part if he got a feeler or offer from another team that they had room to put him on their active roster (mandated for signing someone off a PS). When the Bills activated Peters we did not seem to have a specific role for playing him. It seemed to really surprise the Bills braintrust that he turned out to be such an unblockable demon on ST. He attracted out interest because of his softhands and great skills and we used him as a TE, but I think they assigned him a tackles number to emphasize to him that learning blocking was actually the thing which was stopping him from being an NFL TE as he showed Remeirsma like receiving skills but couldn'y be relied upon to block to save his life. This to me is why his actually becoming a credible LT is so impressive, because to my understanding it was not receiving that was the weak part of his game, it was blocking. Perhaps it was both blocking and precise route running which were his failures. It would seem he would have to have multiple deficits to not make him worth project status given the athleticism and nose for the ball he has shown in games.

I think you put to much stake (even it's most avid propronents which i am far from being) do not claim it makes the same false claims of being an intelligence measure IQ boosters claim) and give to much faith to a test score.

He is being described as the greatest athlete that folks such as JMac have ever coached (and he coached Munoz) and being given singular similar praise by old hands in the NFL with the Bills. There is also praise coming down that he has not made a single-mistake at LT this preseason. My question is how did 32 NFL teams (including our Bills) with all their scouts, The Combine, and all the bucks dedicated to them making the perfect choice miss so badly in passing on this specimen 7 times+ in the draft? My guesses are: 1. There is some personal foible which disqualified him as a draft pick in everyone's mind which I missed and if anyone knows or remembers this inquiring (or should I say enquiring( football fan would love to know. 2. He did register a near historic low on the Wonderlic test and like moost Americans NFL types can attribute more faith than it worth giving to numbers and tests when they actually do not do an accurate (or even good) job of predicting who will be a good football player (or whether someone will do well in college or a job for that matter). 3. There is a little bit of exaggeration going on here from the Bills braintrust as they seek to develop confidence in or around a player, seek to market their team to ticket-buyers and the media, and seek to promote their own ability or paper over their mistakes. It will be interesting to see how this all adds up wih the results of Peters play (the only true measure in this game).

One begins to wonder why the greatest athletic specimen venerable NFLers ever coached who does not make a single mental mistake went undrafted. How do folks explain this anomaly.

A look at the actual demographics strikes me that the whole Red State/Blue State thing is an accurate way to categorize whether states tend to vote GOP or Dem in tems of the winner take all electoral votes (many states Mass. or IN for example are historically in one column all the time). However, it really is more a convenient way for the media to lazily use the broad stereotypes you mention without doing real analysis because that takes work, time to report and does not allow them to make a much money as they can as easily as possible. I saw once (I wish I had kept the link) a map which assigned reds and blue not simply based on the state assignment of electoral votes but based on their actual votes by county, Most states (even the reddest of reds) has pockets of blue in urban areas or pockets of red in rural areas. In NYS for example (a blue state if there ever was one, a strong majority of counties (I think it was 2-1) actually voted GOP. However, even though Buffalo is the second largest city in NYS by a good chunk over smaller burgs like Rochacha and Syracuse because the largest city NYC is so much larger than Buffalo the red/blue dichotomy is just not a good description at all of life and most communities in NYS. For that matter, simply categorizing things as red or blue does not accurately describe the fact that NYS has a GOP mayor now, has generally had one for much of the past 2-3 decades (Bloomberg, Giuliani and hard to categorize Koch who no one would describe as a doctrinaire lefto) and has had a GOP governor finishing his thrid term. Even your description of the motivations of military recruits does not necessarily scan with the red/blue description that one would say it is accurate as a description of motivation. 1. A Red ideology does not seem to be the primary motivator for service as is described in the CSN article linkes above. it is economics which can be termed as the selfish/materialistic motivation you describe. 2. Even among folks motivated by ideology it seems to be a desire to fight for people to be free to make their own choices red or blue rather than to promote a red outcome. In general I think folks should simply drop the whole red/blue shorthand if instead they want to be accurate about the point they are making.

The interesting thing to me was that the play before JP threw to a spot where Aiken was not, he reached out to hand-off to Lee in a spot where Lee was not and had to pull back the ball and scamper for positive yards. While the incomplete pass may have been all Aiken's fault because a better WR would have made the same hot-read or heard the audible as the QB, most accurately it was probably a failure between the two to be on the same page and perhaps not Aiken's fault solely for being wrong. If anything, I think the evidence points toward JP erors: 1. He sure seemed to have plenty of time to make the throw (I think even the announcer commented on this) so if it was a hot-read made by JP and not by Aiken, Aiken would seem to be correct. 2. Though different reads may be the primary problem the QB is running things and the fact is that not only will he get the credit if it works, he gets the blame if it doesn't. Given there were two disconnects in a row, they both had one player who was a main actor in tow disconnects.

Perhaps Jason Peters + the new Steve Tasker.

I think the main difference between the filmmakers, Hollywood in general (as though there is one Hollywood which moves in lockstep), most of the rest of Amwerica and in contrast the views expressed here and by most of the doctrinaire political types (as often seen on TV which is mostly controlled in Hollywood or that hotbed of conservatism NYC) is that: 1. The right (or left for that matter) wing view seems to assume most people are motivated soley or at least primarily by doctrine and ideology. 2. Most Americans have more complex motivations than simple ideology and if there is one doctrine it is actually to do what makes a lot of money. If it would made the maximum amount of money to set the film in France it would be done. Political correctness has so little to do with this as motivation or some desire to slam the right it isn't even funny.

Actually, I think the financial aspect is a secondary (if not tertiary consideration for the coaching staff judging by their past actions. They cut Bobby Shaw last year even though he was on the roster long enough that we were on the hook for his whole salary whether he was with us or not. It was great to see the braintrust make a move which cost the Bills $ in terms of a roster replacement for Shaw in order to take the chance to find some help and send a sport rather than business message to the team. If anything if economics are a driver it cuts in Reed's favor because his cap hit is substantially higher than Haddad's or Aiken's not becaise he will be be paid so much more than them in base salary this year but because the bonus already paid to him as a 2nd round pick is prorated each year over the life of the contract. If you want to see the true difference look at Clumpy's salary page at Billszone.com. The difference in base salary is not 5 times but actually in the tens of thousands of dollars. it cut ins Reeds favor as if cut his bonus becomes deadspace a sign of GM miscalculation. Hpwever. from the start where TD screwed up by extending deals for Holocek and Jones who were then cut the team chose their player judgment (even though that turned out to be wrong as Raion Hill could not do the job and a poor assessment of how much Jenkins had left made Wire a starter at SS when he could not handle the job and led to the Bills being forced to make a huge payment to Milloy because the market demanded it. In addition, TD also paid a huge bonus to get Jason Glidon to sign but rather than keep him because they paid him they cut him. The economics are diffenrent than you lay our and thank gosh the Bills do not give it the weight you seem to.

Agreed that right now Reed is likely behind Haddad in impressiveness and performance this pre-season. However, there are enough factors at work here that is appears a close call as to who stays and who goes at WR because their are a lof of factors at work that MM and the braintrust will want from out #4 and # WRs and simply because the jury is still way out on who is going to be cut at other positions that can fulfill those needs and none of us TSWites can really have or judge all the the data the coaches will use to make their choices it really is too close to call. On catch or drop may provide the marginal difference that puts Reed. Haddad or whomever over the top or below the line but I agree with you that it will be in the context of the whole career or a player because that will be relevant to judging his prospects. I think one must take into account Reed's huge droppsie case year before last and persistent droppsies since he improved on that horrid performance which is simply unacceptable for a posserssion WR. However, just as it would be silly to ignore his histories of drops, it would also be silly to ignore that he has performed in the NFL his first year.

I'm not sure why my assessment is way off base since like MadBuff just below your post I think he is a very prosing prospect at LT. I'm not as charitable as him in my defining time as he is as his switch to LT when he was activated off the PS last year since someone was about to snatch him from us gives him much less than a full season at LT (in fact even when he came up last year a good chunk into the season he was actually forced to play mostly at TE due to out injuries to Campbell and Euhus (this was where he made the mental mistake of not telling the ref he was a TE though he had a tackles number) and then made a name for himself and a big contribution to the team by proving to be virtually unblockable as an inside rusher on the punt coverage team. Though Peters is a good prospect, I suspect we will be in big trouble if this nascent LT player is entrusted with guarding JP's blindside this season. I am pleased folks are seeing some good things in his play, but having an outsiders observation that he has good foot movement against the lacking depth Packers scrubs and being ready to play a critical role in the Bills OL and protect our big investment in JP are two different things. As far as the Wonderlic and how he did on the test, my sense is that a test is simply a test. Its actually a dumb way to use it alone to choose whether someone is ready for law or medical school and its a dumb way to use it alone to determine if someone is going to be a good football player. I'm actually more concerned about him failing to report to the ref last year (even though rather than a sign of intellectual dificiency it could have happened because he was simply jazzed or geeked out by being in a real NFL game) and by him lining up poorly in last night's game than I am about his single digit Wonderlic score. If Peters gets in at LT guarding JPs blindside I hope he has enough understanding of the game to know when a stud LDE from Miami has him beat so that he yells lookout loudly enough for JP to run for his life like he is back at Tulane. I know and believe that Peters is a phenomenal athlete. We have a huge need at LT so i can see the temptation if JMac believes in him to try to teach him the lT game. However, this decision succeeds like a great pass defense in stopping this phenomenal athlete from catching any passes/ Who knows how bad the injury to Euhus's shoulder is because with the injurt o Everett as well perhaps we will see Peters using his great speed, size and soft hands at TE again sooner than we expect. I think he is a promising prospect but I like you do not see him as a starting LT at all right now and perhaps it is way off base to be pleasantly surprised if he is ready to guard JPs blindside this year, but maybe you feel like it is a stone lock certainty he will be. I'm not sure where I'm way off base in this judgment.

Reed should not and will not be cut due to one catch and Haddad will not be kept or cut due to one fumble or return. The competition between several players vying for a WR roster spot (even if it is #6 WR and their contribution to the team is actuall on ST) is close and will be determined as much as by how the whole team fits together and the holes that these folks fill. There are 2 pieces of good news in this for the Bills. 1. We are several options of how things can be put together to create a productive team and the individual or relative capabilities of individual players matters less than filling all the team's needs and across the board there are several acceptable options for doing this (ie, Haddad may be a better WR than Reed but it it is perceived Reed is a more viable back-up KR to McGee than Haddad because a decision has been made to cut Lee then you likely keep Reed because neither will see #3 duty if Parrish is healthy- this is cited just as a hypothetical to make the general point because I actually guess Haddad is a better KR guy than Reed). 2. This decision matters very little as I think it is doubtful that Reed or Haddad will play a critical or potentially even a useful role on this team since we have better likely options at PR, KR, and at #3 WR assuming Parrish comes back. Right now my overall sense is that: 1. Reed- came in as the favorite to win a roster spot as a WR and maybe even the #3 WR if he excelled and showed performance ability like he did as a rookie. However he has not done this as #3 even though an injury to Parrish gave him a chance. He simply has not made the tough catches like the TD yesterday or a lowball from JP last week he and JP thought he caught but the refs did not and what they say is the reality. He did lead the team in receptions last night and got more yards receiving than Haddad but did not make a couple of plays he needed to make to command the role. Decisions about him will revolve around the chance he has provided for others to step up and his practice performance (reports on TSW are pretty unreliable in this regard as most commentators have their favorite and see the results of practice in a manner that suits their pre-existing choice). If MM is given another chance to send a message that on-field production is what matters and not cap hit then Reed has not performed well enough not be provide a bigger contribution to the Bills by getting cut so Haddad, Freddy Smith or Wilson send a message that on-field production will be rewarded. 2. Parrish- will stay in his first year as our top pick as his future promise and cap hit guarantee this. Uncertainty on his injury status is useful to the Bills as it keeps the stakes very high for those in the mix at #3 and if he suits up he need not really be able to be more than adequate as a receiver since his wheels are fine and when in he will have to be covered by a fast DB forcing the opposing DC to either put a slower guy on the speedy Evans or play a zone. If he can play and be an even adequate pass catcher with his wounded wrist he will play. 3. Aiken - Likely #5 on the WR depth chart when pre-season started behind Parrish and Reed (and starters Moulds and Evans). He has not demanded PT as he needed to do as a WR and I assume he remains in the mix and the same on ST but the general quality of our depth means he will need to create reason to keep him with production and that is not there yet. 4. Haddad- Probably the player who has most demanded that he see some PT with his production in games. Even better for the Bills is that he has made things difficult by showing both PR ability (the fumble is a reality but quite frankly was neutralized as a problem by the penalty and him bouncing back with a great PR on the rekick. As a position player he does not have the Combine jets to force coverage like Parrish does that can make Evans and Moulds better players based on rep alone, but he simply has proved to be a reliable catcher getting a deflected ball last week. If he continues to perform the next two weeks like he has the last two he will be very difficult to cut even though there are as many as 3 guys ahead him on PR (Clements, Smith, Parrish) and 2 credible choices behind him (Leonhard and Lee). I like the hands team we can put out if he is a keeper. 5. Smith- Likely a 36 WR if kept as he does not seem to have the discipline and focus to be a WR. He likely will stay if MM decides Clements is too valuable as a CB to risk him on PR (likely unless our W/L forces us to go with maximum talent everywhere) or if there is any issues regarding Parrish's health that make this player who scored a TD on PR and produced a couple of longer returns last year. 6. Wilson- Impressive on field production but likely camp fodder at this crowded position. May stick on larger PS if he shows some good ST ability. 7. Brown, Peoples- Brown came in with some buz but someone needs to make a case that he is a keeper. I think we keep 6 WRs but this comes down to a decision on whether to sit Clements or not on PR (I think we have enough depth at DB that I say use him up on PR and if he gets hurt, maybe we get to sign him at cut rate Andre Reed bad break prices to play CB for us). I think the winner of the Reed/Aiken/Haddad battle will be determined by game production the next two pre-season games.

If one invests in the silliness of looking for ONE move last year that made all the difference in the Bills going from 0-4 to a 9-3 finish which almost made the playoffs perhaps the best coincidental case can be made that it was the cut of Bobby Shaw which made the difference. Say what? What about WM taking over for Henry? What about using Bannan as a G inthe redzone? There is evidence that these switches also can be linked to the turnaround in the Bills 2004 production. However, as has been exhaustively shown when someone trotted out the notion that the Bills improvement was directly linked to WM walking on the field, this idea does not bear our statisitically as: 1. WM saw some significant time early on before he got full confidence and actually the improvement did not coincide with him walking on the field. 2. The Bills actually experienced similar success which WM was not a part of it terms of play (ST performance and the D performance were more significant and statistically better linked to the turnaround) or even his being around as we still won laughers even with Shaud Williams or lesser WM performances. 3. The Bannan mov or simply sitting Smith explanations also fall apart when someone weighs them down by claiming they are the sole or even simply pivotal turning point. However, though it is simply silly to declare any ONE reason THE reason statistically it does show how a whole bunch of things can can come together and be absolutely critical to producing the final outcome. Many elements are necessary to win as a TEAM but no one thing is sufficient to explain or dictate the outcome. One of those key myriad factors to last year's turnaround was ironically the decision by MM to cut Bobby Shaw. This move had no real effect on the game as Shaw did not even register an official game stat appearance for the Bills in the first 4 games. He went from being the leading WR on the 2003 team due to the injury to Moulds and production outage of Reed to simply being not used by MM in 2004. Though he did not log any stats to mark and official appearance for the Bills in 2004, he was on the roster and logged time under the CBA which put the Bills on the hook for his entire base salary in 2004 (in terms of cap hit for sure and probably in terms of paychecks to Shaw though the NFL may allow some sort of compensatory deal if Shaw is signed by a new team in the NFL but I do not know) after he was on the roster for two games. At any rate, the key to this to me was that it generally is felt that Shaw was a quality guy. Though he did noting for us on the field, he was a vet prescence and did nothing to hurt the the team by sulking or making a half effort perceptible to the outside world after he was passed over by Evans, Reed, Aiken and even Fast Freddy Smith as WR position contributors to the Bills. The Bills had Shaw on the roster just in case Moulds suffered another injury or Reed and the others failed to produce and we had an option if needed on the roster who knew our plays and could step right in. The Bills could cut him with no immediate cost on the field, but as his salary obligation was set there was no financial advantage to cutting him and actually the team would bear a small marginal cost to replace him on the roster. Still in the face of this HC, Mr. Mike sent an important message with Shaw being cut. This message was crucial for an 0-4 team (which had played well enough to win against Jax but a couple of unlikely plays in the final drive cost us a win at home and some refs calls so bad that even the NFL admitted errors cost us against the Raiders cost us a road win) to change the direction of the team. MM clearly said with this cut that it is not enough for a player to simply be a nice guy, a vet, and not a negative on the team. MM sent a clear message that while the Buffalo Bills are a business, that the team was willing to spend a few hundred K if it gave even the chance to get better on the field. MM sent a clear message that a player needed to demand to contribute on the field with his play or he probably would no longer be a Bill. I think this point is relevant right now because of the competition at WR. Josh Reed is the heir apparent at #3 WR. He is a vet who was productive enough in his first year that with the aid of Moulds and PP at WR he made us comfortable enough with his performance as a rookie that we let PP go and anointed Reed as #2 (This was a reasonable move by TD given Reed's rookie production and the sense that he was a #1 talent who slipped to the 2nd round. The juggling he did to take Reed which confused most observers as we had two quality WRs in 2002 under contact with Moulds and PP actually allowed us to tag and trade PP to AT. As this draft pick which replaced the 1st traded for Bledsoe became WM (another choice which confused observers) these moves actually produced on the field which is the bottomline so kudos to TD for the outcome of these maneuvers. However, Reed's devwlopment of the droppsies his second year clearly marks him as a failure at #2 WR and the injury which sidetracked him last year moves him pretty close to being a bust overall. It happens and given his initial good production I think it is fairly laughable when people fault TD's football judgment for this choice. His concepts were reasonable and even worked out intially though the choice was clearly a failure in the end, but given even the best of GMs has some failed prominent draft choices this single occurence is not proof he is bad. At any rate, Reed is still a reasonable betting choice to remain on the roster: 1. He has a several hundred thousand dollar cap hit whether he is cut or not as his bonus was prorated. There is no fiscal savings for cutting Reed and actually there us a small cost as hemust be replaced with a base salary which will probably be below the 51 counted in the cap but our deadspace number will go up. 2. He is generally known as a workout warrior who despite a lack of clear production on the field is known as a hard worker who looks good in practice and in the weight room even though the production on the field is not there. His presence sends a message to rookies and newbies that hard work in practice is noticed and rewarded when it pays off on the field. However, it is the last point which is the key. If Reed does not produce on the field it does not matter how nice a guy he is or how buff he looks in the weight room. Unless he catches the TD passes and moves the sticks he likely will be gone. Even harder for him is that several camp fodder guys like Haddad and Wilson on the WR depth chart are actually producing in games. Even better for Haddad he is producing on ST as a return guy and if you are backing up and will not start as a position player, ST is how one contributes to the team. Aiken has learned this lesson and he contributed far more to the team as an ST tackler last year than his spot appearances as #3 after the Reed injury. He never really produced at a level last year as #3 that demanded PT, but this simply means he better produce on the field on ST. overall, I really like the message and the TEAM which MM buit with the cut of Shaw last year being a part of that message. It gave us the roster space to add a player like Peters who surprised folks by not only being unblockable in practice but translated that into a contribution on the field as he blocked a kick and scored a TD last year. Both Reed and Aiken are on thin ice right now as Haddad is producing on the field as a position player and on ST and Wilson is producing in his brief opportunities as a position player. Ironically, if any of these players are essential to the 2005 Bills beyond an occaisional play like the one Peters pulled off last year we are probably in big trouble because we are force to rely on Haddad for something or even Reed as #3WR. However, overall I love the message Mm has sent and love this competition.

it does interest me how important individual feel, momentum, and intangibles are to game results. There is a somewhat reasonable explanation to these events that the Pack O had been publicly challenged by Favre as not being as good as players as the Bills who had kicked their butts in the scrimmage. Prodded by this challenge and still led by Favre, the Packers' O took the field intent on sending a positive and better message to their fans and leaders. This MAY have made a marginal difference in their performance where the difference between great success and miserable failure by an NFL team is actually quite small (example, it was really the same Bills team which went 0-4 and then 9-3 last season without the exception of Bobby Shaw who though he did not contribute on the field was viewed generally as a positive guy). Add to this the intangible on the Bills side that the D had actually had a relatively easy time of it against the Pack in the scrimmage and perhaps it took them a moment to readjust their heads as they focused on the fact they were still competing with each other for jobs and respect of their peers so they ramped it up after the first series (where again their were 3 3rd down conversions so marginal differences on single plays could stop an entire drive). Finally, there is the intangible that Favre was done for the night so perhaps this impetus that he provided with his leadership which led to the first score was gone. Who knows for sure, but this is one of the reasons the game is interesting.

For those who were frustrated sitting through the poor regular season performance of Antonio Gates as GW's return guy who could have imagined that in MM's second year we would have: 1. Clements remaining a PR guy who can score but quite frankly there may be no need for him on ST with other talents. 2. Fast Freddy also demonstrated he can score in the real world with a TD and a couple of good returns last year but he may not even make the team as we are looking pretty deep at WR even with Parrish out. 3. When Parrish comes back PR chops is one of his collegiate claims to fame. 4. Drew Haddad is making a strong case for sticking around with a good challenge to Reed as the #3 WR if Parrish is out for a while but it is actually his past contributions as a return guy and some nice returns tonight that seems to say it is when rather than if he will score a return TD. 5. Rashard Lee is struggling in the RB battle and may not make this team give Shaud Williams showing well and Gates getting a TD. However, the great eye-cacher by Lee was a 69 or so yard return where he was generally untouched meaning the blocking was effective but he gets a lot of credit for finding the holes and exploiting them so well. 6. Bills fans are quite impressed with Jim Leonhard and his attitude and rep, nut again his real world production tonight was turning some PRs into posuitive yards. Tough decisions will have to be made, but I far prefer us having to cut a couple of guys who could be kept than having to go with one player on PR with potential but little else.

I'll have to watch the tape to be sure as the wife and I went to Bill Gray's for dinner and I only got to watch in snatches their several TVs. i no Peters got hit for at least one offside call for lining up improperly which seems fairly consistent with him being an enchilada short of having a combination platter mentally, He is simply a demon with great ST play where you simply wind him up and send him after the ball. April said he was virtually unblockable in practice which earned him a game role he translated into a TD. However, from this penalty to him scoring in single digits on the Wonderlic mental test, to him failing to tell the the ref he was a TE with a tackles number last year, it still looks pretty questionable to trust him to protect JP's blindside this year and he will need another (his first full) season of LT training before we want to depend on him in this role.

The truth is that players often do not merit the opinions of fans that blames them for totally sucking just as if they often do not merit the opinions of fans that judge some players to be flawless athletes that can do no wrong. I certainly had my own doubts about Lindell after being beaten into submission by many angry fan posts and the Bills entertaining looking for another option acquring kickers on our roster and trying them out in Europe. However, the facts are these: 1. Lindell has had some productive seasons and showed some leg power in his previous duty with the Seahawks. He downright sucked in most phases of the game in 2003 (showing the stupidity of TD comments when he cut Christie and signed Arians that good kickers are a dime-a-dozen) and sucked in longrange placekicking in 2004, but he was actually very good in other key phases of the kicking game in 2004. 2. His kickoffs were nothing less than phenomenal last year as he teamed with the tacklers to not give up any return TDs and even precious few long gains/ Good tackling was essential to this result, but licking the ball where and with the appropriate hangtime for tacklers who run for an assigned spot and cannot run and watch the kick is also essential. Lindell was near flawless even with the variable winds of the Ralph last year. 3. His onside kicking was very good also as 2 of his 3 attempts were recoverable and though Baker missed a key one against Pitts, Lindell himself civred a beautifully executed onside for the third one. 4. Though Lindell's placekicking sucked in 2003 he actually put up good numbers inside the 40 in 2004 until he simply missed a chipshot he should have made against Pitts. This miss along with even MM seeming to lose confidence in him beyonf 40 made it pretty justifiable for the Bills to consider looking elsewhere this off-season. The bottomline is though where did this Lindell ability come from? it was always there and one could see it in his performance if not distracted too much by anger at him missing the chipshot placekick.

This is a good sign and confirmation that the Bills approach of bringing in some competition early on this off-season and the summarily dismissing them all and going with Lindell was a good management technique. It actually is not a huge departure however from what Lindell showed on the field in the past: 1. He was excellent at kickoffs last year teaming with a coverage unit which gave up no TDs and few long yardage returns. Goodtackling is essential to this happening and Lindell gets limited/no credit for that, but also kicking the ball where and with the hangtime you are supposed to is also essential for the good outcome as tacklers have little to no time to watch where the ball is going and when it is coming down. Particularly in the variable winds of the Ralph this task is not easy and Lindell simply deserves great marks for performing abiut as well as one could in this regard last year. 2. He did a very good job in the onside kick game last year as well. I remember him having three shots at this task and he did his job on 2 of three kicks (which have a low rate of success anyway). One onside was not good, one was goof and Rashad Baker had a shot at recovering it but missed which is about all you can require of a kicker. The third example saw Lindell perform extraordinarily as he not only made the kick well (he and the ST dummied the oponent in this second half opening kick so that they were dropping back to form a wedge rather than attacking the onside kick( and he made the recovery himself timing this kick perfectly as it went the requisite ten yards before a Bill even touched an opponent. 3. His placekicking was spotty at best however, with the good news being he was very accurate inside the 40 gnerally as he was much better than 2003 but a less than successful record outside the 40 and him missing a chipshot against Pitts brough the longknives out and folks simply ignored him being good as these other two aspects of the game. Its great to see him placekicking so well and though it is surprising given how bad he was last year in the limited crucmch time performances he had, it is not without precedent as he has shown many signs of being a very good kicker. Now he simply needs to keep this up.

You are right that the Packers have already shown that they have depth issues among position players and this often shows in the ST game where back-ups are often called to play a critical role (ala Crowell, Haggan, Aiken and other back-ups who were prominent in our NFL leading ST last year though starters Clements and Fletcher played critical roles also). In addition, they did seem poorly organized and my guess is that this team spent a lot of their practice time on blitz pick-up rather than ST and this showed in particular in a game where gameplanning is minimal. However, what good/great teams are supposed to do against worse amd imprepared teams is crush them like grapes and the Bills ST unit did this. Given that this performance seemed to be more than a fluke occurence given the great performance last year, i think a little giddiness is in order.

In addition to the folks stated above like Williams, Spikes and Moulds who TD paid the market rate or higher to, TD also overpaid for Bledsoe and also made an overpayment though it was the market demanded at the time for Milloy. Do you think the TD contract extension for Bledsoe was not an overpayment? Do you think TD did not make a huge payment to Milloy because that is what the supply/demand market required? Do you think the slotted salary of MW was not a huge payment that he has not merited (yet)? Do you think that the Moulds contract was such a good deal that we easily will pay it next year? Do you think we got Spikes for a song? The reality of payments TD has made and your conclusion that he refuses to pay big nucks are simply different. How do you explain these numerous exceptions so that your rule simply does not apply.

Outside of a few idiots I see few folks arguing that a Casino is some panacea which is going to save the region. Some developers who are going to make a mint indiviudally if there site is chosen versus some other developers site in Niagara Falls may make this argument, but most folks seem to be fairly hard bitten about this and they see the big limitations of a casino but on balance they want the specific benefits they might be able to get. There is a legit argument that in addition to not being a real development engine (it merely recycles local money unless you do a lot of other things to attract out of towners here. Folks will not come gamble in Buffalo when increasingly they can gamble at home in Indian Casinos or the Internet or other sites like Vegas are entrenched or building additional reasons to come to that destination) that on whole the extra costs which will come from the additional social service need and crime associated with gambling abuse makes it a bad deal for the region as a whole. However, on balance I think that the argument that gambling opportunities in Naigara Falls and Canada are close enough that we will have to pay for the social service associated with abuse will happen anyway and that we probably should support a Buffalo casino as a defense measure to stop Erie County dollars from going to Niagara County and US dollars from going to Canada and we get left with the social service impacts of gambling abuse by Buffalo residents. Casinos are not a development strategy at all but they may be a neccessary evil since NYS and others are bellying up to this bar.