Fake-Fat Sunny

In general I think that many of the top 10 picks in the draft are bad picks because the slotting the take down is such that few players can produce to compensate at a level that makes up for the hit on the team's cap. I really learned alot from looking at the impacts of Ryan Leaf and Peyton Manning on the teams which drafted them, It isn't possible or funny to compare how much better a player Manning is than Leaf, but it says a lot that despite Manning being a lot more fun to watch than checking out Ryan at some bar which is probably his biggest interaction with Pro football, the two racked up the same number of playoff wins for the teams which drafted them until Manning finally sprung ahead of Leaf in the 2003 season. If one can fault TD for anything regarding MW it was not being able to trade down or trade away the pick, but then you need a partner to make a trade so the blame is not so purely given on this failure. My estimation of MW is this: 1. Draft summary- If a team is going to take an OL player (which I think the Bills had to based on some poor OL investing in the final Butler years) then taking MW was the right thing to do with a top 10 pick (where a reach for Levi Jones provided a better value in retrospect). Despite some overall disappoinment he still strikes me as a better choice or prospect that McKinnie. I have no probs with him having been an RT because I think the more important thing he got in college is that he had and took responsibility for the left-handed QBs blindside. His weight and size I also judge and judged to be a plus for him because he demonstrated very good agility and athletcism with the big body in his college play and at the Combine with shuttle run results and other teats. Likewise as a pro, agility has not been the issue I have seen that have been the cause of MW problems, as he DCs do not seem to pick on him with the outside rush. Instead he totally failed to coordinate well with Pacillo his second year and struggled at times with Sullivan at RG his rookie year until things stabilized with Villarial at RG last year which indicates that the assessent of his having reasonable agility as a graduate was fine. 2. 1st Year- He had a good year and was a productive blocker in a productive offese. He showed better capability as a run blocker than I expected as Henry was productive across the board and did not have to favor running left behind Reben as I expected he would. MWs pass pro had some issues, but these were more on the inside with coordinating with Sullivan than they were with speed rushers from what I saw. Having an imobile QB did not help either in terms of covering up some of his failings, but the prospects were bright for him from my view. 3. 2nd year- He had some big problems as he simply was not enough of a vet to carry Pacillo and they both suffered as a resukt. The good news is that he was still relatively effective as a run blocker and I also though coordinated well with Campbell (you did not have to always keep the TE in to cover for him and I actually felt better about his work when he had lone outside responsibility because Campbell was going into the route than I did as far as him picking up the stunts if the DT and RDE were weaving. The lameness of our O attack in 2003 essentially made this a lost season in terms of development as far as MW was concerned fron my view. He did not digress, but as I had figured the plan was to flip him to blindside duty as soon as we could the lack of progress was troubling. 4. 3rd year- The wheels fell off in OTA and for the first time I begin to wonder if he was going to be bust as a pick. He did not take the death of the grandmother who raised him like a professional. He not only missed the OTA's but let his weight and body go down the tubes. I think it really hurt him that Ruben was gone and Teague had not taken over as spiritual leader of the OL as Kent Hull had been. MW really needed someone to either support him through the family trauma and actually stay focused on being a professional and lose himself in his work if losing his Grammy was too painful. Instead, amidst the transition to JMac and with no real internal leadership on the OL MW did not show the individual character to keep his eye on the prize. The good news is tat MW turned it around pretty quickly once JMac got in place an took over. It was worrisome when almost right out of the box in his rehab, MW hurt himself and had to focus on conditioning on a bike rather than playing on the field to get back to par. In fact, that he was able to turnaround hs performance so quickly (he needed and got threats for JMac to move him to Guard early on) that he played well enough to merit a gameball by mid-season. By the end of the season bouyed by the strong performance of WM and working quite well with the stable Villarial MW even began to pancake some opponents as the season went on. We still lost a year or even two as I had hoped and he showed some signs that if Vinky and Ruel had been on their game he would be ready to flip to LT today, but that isn't in the cards yet and Gandy is the likely placegholder this year. 05 camp- This will be interesting as the Bills have tons of options to put together a good to very good OL, but none of them seems to be a winning option right biw. While theoretically it is not an unreasonable thing to visualize doing the flip of MW now, i think the Bills have correctly not gone that way as MW is still not far enough removed awat from his near meltdown and it will be a better easier move if it comes off of a good 05 RT performance. i expect that will happen because he will only get better after his first second straight year with the same G beside him. I expect MW to have a quality year at RT and maybe possibly raise the noion of making the switch earlier to LT later this season though I hope that is not something we will want or have to do, 4.

I also don't think folks should freak out about Teague getting some reps at LT and in fact this is expected news to me and a good thing because of the need for a back-up if Gabdy goes down or does not do the job. This looks to me like a sign if anything of JMac feeling better about Teague being a plan B at LT that he thinks Preston may be a good plan B at Center. Last year not only did Lawrence Smith end up getting some reps at LT, but in fact he even got some PT at LT when injuries forced the Bills to go to back-ups at both tackle slots in one of the final games. There are simply too many possibilities for this to work out to say what the line-up for OL will definitely be (its great we have lots of options) but a real pain that we do not have an obvious OL line-up which almost certainly will work. I think a lot of this will be made real simply based on what happens and it is still too early to tell how reality willl in fact work out.

It seems to me the key to the question of what happens next is the attitude and stance which replacement Saskin takes and how Bettman plays this for the NHL. If the new talk is in the confines of establishing a new partnership between the NHL and NHLPA then this baby has a chance to fly. If instead, this is mostly presented as or accepted as dancing on Goodenow's grave because the players lost then it will be much harder to make the future work. If Bettman allows this to be portrayed as a victory by him over Goodenow orthe NHL over the NHLPA then get ready the CBA will not work and we are going back to war. It makes perfect sense to me that Goodenow had to go as he represents the combat rather than the partnership too much. As far as it goes, i think he was bad for the game but served the players incredibly well during the last 10 years. For the most part, the outcome of having a salary cap and more certainty was where the players needed to end up or they were going to kill the good that laid the golden egg for them. The results of massively increasing the players' aggregate take over the last 10 years was a huge goose with tough negotiating by Goodenow and a lack of coordination among the owners allowed to make a reality. The interesting thing will be if the NHL also cuts Bettman lose. This would be great as both the avatars of combat would be gone and perhaps a partnership good fir the game would emerge.

I also have little problem with Rosenhaus. He is simply a vehicle for the person who is really responsible for any bad or good negotiation, the player, to do what they want. Rosenhaus is probably doing his job well if he diverts fan attention away from getting mad at the player who is actually holding out and brings it onto him as an agent. In addition to the fan/player marketing issue where Rosenhaus is probably doing his job well if he allows the player to push a hardline with the team while escaping any bad press on the player, I think folks are misreading the nature of the relationship between Teflon Tom and Rosenhaus. In the big picture, the two of them are potential partners who want to make a deal rather than competitors who want to screw the other guy. The more the relationship between the two is a screw you relationship the worse it is for the business interests and goals of either Rosenhaus or TD. They will always be jostling over individual contracts but the two other will need to come ou of it at the end with at least the pretext (and usually the reality) of the deal being fair for both sides. In terms of agents, i think the bigger issue for TD out there was the miscommunication and dealings with occured with Phat Pat's agent rather than any worry about working with Rosenhaus. In the end, there is also the way things played out with TH and his team where his agent actually did a lot of TD's work for him in a manner which helped get a difficult three-party deal (Bills/Titans/TH) get done while their was tons of real kibbitzing going on with other parties such as Jax and AZ). It was unorthodox but I think that the 3 principals are all pleased (rightly or wrongly we'll see as reality plays out) with the outcome.

I see wha you are saying, but I assumed you must have been talking about the eventual costs of the lawsuit (if it went up high in the courts, if various local jurisdictions disagreed, or if a verdict and judgment was returned which was enormous and for some reason not adjusted way down as they virtually all are) because if all these quite unlikely events happened then a comparison to the NASA outlay may be reasonable. However, I did not focus at all on a section of the FDA opening an inquiry into the false advertsing claim because this is such a small expenditure compared to even a minor NASA effort that the two did not compute together for me at all as a rational comparison. Even a minor NASA mission (lets say crashing a probe into the comet) is many orders of magnitude greater expenditure and effort compared to having a lawyer or lawyers open a probe inot this false advertising claim that they do not compare at all to me. The FTC probe does not strike me as unreasonable at all, particularly because the company admitted flat-out that the "secret" material was widely and generally distributed unlike their initial claim and that they were rolling over and cooperating fully rather than fighting this over some principle. Both the court battle and the FTC probe strike me as very efficient ways of dealing with this. The court battle allows for private parties to adjudicate their dispute rather than have this be some lofty issue unless similar disputes are decided in different ways in different jurisdictions (a real sign it is useful to go to a higher court). I'm actually pleased that the FTC is dealing with this issue of a significant piece of entertainment being sold nationally has actually made this a simple false advertising issue rather than a larger morality issue. I see the FTC involvement as actually constraining this down to a case of whether the Grand-Theft folks put something (it could be anything, sex, gambling, religious rants, long division if that upsets some) into their product which is controversial and accessible that they did not advertise rather than putting this out there as the broader issue of what is the age of majority in this country. The age of majority issue is probably the real one here but whether a sexual-based video piece is a better thing to sort this out over rather than some more real issue of sexual interaction seems pretty doubtful to me, This is a false advertising case and the video producers seem primed to rollover on this one and the FTC focus will allow them to do this with a court settlement which makes grandma rich without setting any legally binding precedent.

His not being signed is odd though because the higher drafted Preston I believe is signed and this should determine a lof of the slotting for a lower drafted player. There are a lot of variable though that probably make the Bills negotiations with individuals not fit the usual slotting: 1. Our highest draftee Parrish was a 2nd rounder and there is a push on him to get a 2nd round slot, but there is also a push for him to get prime draftee money. Rosenhaus is his agent so there will be tough representation to put things toward the higher amount by him. 2. Parrish and Hill apparently really impressed in the OTAs which will reasonably push them toward the higher part of their slot and Everett was a 1st day pick who is out which will push him toward the lower end of his slot and this dichotomy will have to get worked out. 3. I don't know how the NFL draft allocation for us played out because we do not have to sign a 1st came out relative to the other teams, but if relatively we are flush (I suspect this may be the case) there will be a lot of waiting by draftees and jiggling to get the biggest contract they can get. If instead the powers that be constrained the overall pool it probably increased the pressure for the first contracts to jump in. 4. The tough case for us will be if our pool is smaller than we would want and Preston signing has further constrained it. The easier case to work with but still involves a lot of last secvond dickering is that there is lots of $ to go around and everybody is negotiating (both the team and draftees) to get the best marginal value they can get. 4

In general the signings of draftees from top to bottom seems to be slow this year. I think the big Parrish issue is not so much that he or his agent are being jerks about this, but that his draft position and those picked after him have not been slotted yet. As best as I can tell, NE has already signed all of their folks (darn that NE) but they have several issues which are particular to their case (the impetus and pressuere to get into camp on an SB winner, the relative amount assigned to NE in their draft pool versus the number of choices) that has allowed them to go forward quickly and m,eans that their slots do not completely determine those around the. I think that Parrish will be one of the last players drafted in the 2nd round likely to sign because his slot will be driven both by the absolute of contracts taken by thos just prior and just after him, but also he is the first player taken by the Bills as we had no 1st so the amount he gets will be dragged up a bit. If the NFL did a good job of constraining our total draft pool (an issue I have not looked at yet) compared to the larger pools of teams signing 1sts and particularly if lower drafted Bills do a good job at sucking up the money, there actually may not be as much there for Parrish as he might have gotten.

Society (how we do business in this country) seems to be making an odd and not very workable distinction between MA and AO ratings and the age of consent. It does not bug me at all that the courts would be the venue for trying to figure out and get some clarity on this point as it would seem to me to be a RELATIVELY orderly and cost effective method for doing this and one which is open to all (anyone can sue anyone in America which is why stupid things happen al the time, but there are a set of rules, some transparency, and an orderly method for taking this issue up the food chain and integrating any regional differences. I thnk this would be foolhardy if this effort immediately prompted some sort of NASA scale interaction and effort since so many broad issues are unsettled on this point of business activity. However, comparing the thousands of dollars max that are being committed to someone suing someone (much of which are actually the partial fixed costs of court proceedings and the variable costs of hiring lawyers etc are absorbed by the private sector) and the millions of tax dollars and thousands of people involved in a NASA flight does not seem to compute to me.

I actually liked the announcerless game they had in the 70s though it was a not-ready for watching product at the time I think it also held a lot promise and had the advantage of not having the announcers making stupid comments which detracted from the game (ex. many Dierdorfisms and the hey lookit me distractions of Theisman. Where the promise really comes in is that now with 25 or so years of technological advances and techniques if they were to attempt an announcerless approach today and use the many graphic innovations available today and the improved sound access it would be great if well produced. I do not turn off the sound on NFL games today despite the annoyances and stupidity of many annoucers because while one has to wade through this idiocy, many key pieces of info such as down and distance and explanations of ref calls are provided verbally. However, if the production approach was to make sure this info is always provided graphically as it is now being done anyway on items such as down, distance, gametime and even out of town scores, I think the announcers are easily replaced for me by the audio and noise of the game. Haing a producer who can add flash info like a TD call, a pending penalty or a challenge flag would add info which was often missing in the previous announcerless games. The color man does occaisionally provide some nuggets of information or perspective which are useful, but if these items were simply added from time to time as a crawl across the bottom of the screen that would be great (though I must admit the Alex Karras comment saying Otis Sistrunk attended the University of Mars was priceless). Another addition would be the recognition that the absence of a play-by-play guy and color man constantly trying to fill the air and often simply ladeling drivel does not mean that commentary would not be useful from time to time. If a game announcer came on 2 or 3 times a quarter around a normal play interruption or to provide an update from the locker room on an inured player this would be great. So my answer on MHF is to make it an announcerless game and take the best and leave the rest they offer.

The phenomeal luck that Belichick had with the brady pick was not that he chose him, the dumb luck that BB had was that Lewis hit Bledsoe in a way which collapsed his lung and got Brady a chance to do what he did. While BB and VP for player personnel Pioli deserve tons of credit for picking the right QB with their sixth round pick, one cannot seriously say that the genius strategy behind this choice was one where they were just waiting for the chance to get Brady into the line-up because they just knew (or quite frankly even guessed) that he would do all he did and accomplish all he did. Geniuses do make their own luck and I am quite comfortable labeling BB a football genius, but right along with this has to come the realization that being good or even being a genius simply is not a guarantee of success or ironically even competent reslults on the part of an NFL HC. The factual outcomes of BB accimplishments before the NE run are actually quite TD like. My recollection is that in 5 years running the team in Cleveland BB made the playoffs all of 1 time (I can't remember whether he won or loss the game. He was a football genius then and is simply a more knowlegable football genius now. Even worse, his next move is one which I do not know enough of the details to draw a dead-lock certain conclusion, but BB showed ever sign of a lack of character for running out on his word or at least exceedinly bad judgment for giving his word only to find out he pledged all he had for a bill of goods when he signed up as Jets HC and then quickly ran out on his pledge and took the NE job instead. Not a profile in competence anyway you cut it. The dumb luck which joined with BB's football genius is that I simply doubt that NE would have won the SB in 2001 with Bledsoe at QB or even sniffed at making the playoffs (not that I think that Bledsoe is bad in all cases, but he at that point in his career already had declining talent as he got older but he still was trying to and was depended upon by his teammates and HCs to do things he was incapable of doing in terms of getting Ws. Not only is it hard for me to imaging Bledsoe winning it all at point, it is even harder for me to imagine BB or any HC simply benching Bledsoe and starting a 2nd year 6th rounder in his place. My guess (and if you have a better guess and the rational behind it) is that BB/Weis would have done the best they could with Bledsoe that year and missed the playoffs. The next year perhaps they would have attempted to replicate the job Parcells did of reining Bledsoe in to compete for the playoffs or replicated the job MM did this last year and run things well enough with Bledsoe that the team could win if the ST and D played well enough. However, I think the irony here and the dumb luck is that if Lewis had not sidelined Bledsoe he could easily have failed once again to produce results in NE and may have entually had a second failed HC run and end his career as an HC as the genius who never made good. Who knows as BB has made great things out of the reality that occured. I think the relevance for this as far as TD is concerned is that his W/L is the ultimae thing I judge him on as a fan, but I can easily live with the judgment that he is a failed genius for the Bills (up until this point) because he has a record of failure in terms of W/L, but there are enough actions he seemed to have a prime role in that I would say are genius: 1. Having the faith and judgment to pick WM. 2. Turning PP whom we were owed nothing for at the end of his contract into the 1st that became WM by taking the unsuspected step by most pundits of transition tagging Peerless and using the market created by the dumb promises of Arthur Blank to extort this 1st. (btw the TH for a 3rd move does not qualify as genius but it once again is a case of his leading the way in turning a player beyond the term of his original contract into a draft choice for us, this episode does not qualify as genius but it was very good work which most GMs do not and cannot pull off). 3. Aggressively pulling off some nice draft work for the Bills. I think that those who label TD a bad drafter simply overlook the fact that in 5 drafts his record of first day hits is very good with Pro Bowler choices to his credit and folks like WM and Evans being promising, his record of first day busts is limited by his most failed choices like MW still having a chance, and showing not much phemomenal on the second day but most players are actually contributors on this team and McGee was a great day 2 pick. Add to the outward measures of success, his general attitude were he has turned tradin future picks into current benefits (Bledsoe sucked overall, but trading nothing of value in 2002 for the Pro Bowl reserve accomplishments of Bledsoe that year was a clear immediate benefit and the relative value of trading the 2005 pick to draft a QB of the future in 2004 when it appears now there was little QB value the Bills could have gotten in 2005 is simply very good or even great GM work if WM plays like it looks like he will and JP plays like he might. 4. His work getting FAs to a city deemed not a star center like a big media town includes many assessments and gets of players like Spikes, Adams and Fletcher at amazing prices and great output. Its hard impossible for me to call TD a genius with his failed record in W/L but looking at some of things he has done extraordinarily well only to see them overwhelmed by bad choice he made at HC and not being willing to simply recognize that one good year and one bad year of Bledsoe with the first rounder traded for him replaced by his trade of PP he should not have made the mistake or restructing his deal, I do recognize that since genius BB might well have a similar failed record if not for the dumb luck of Lewis, I find it hard to be too harsh on the future prospects for the Bills under TD.

An accurate assessment somehow needs to figure the dumb luck factor being a significant key to the final production under a GM and HC and to simply claim that the final record is simply an analogy to some skill level is not fully accurate. The Pats are a great example. Its obvious at least to me that BB is one of the true football geniuses of the NFL. Winning 3 of the last 4 SBs is simply phenomenal and one can even at least credibly try to make the case that the only HC SB record rivaling his, Parcells, should be greatly attributed to the work BB did for Parcells (I say try because like it or not the buck stops with the guy in charge and just as the Pats SB wins are BB's, the Parcells record with BB as a crtical contributor is Parcells). At any rate as best as I can tell, i really really doubt that the Pats would have even made the playoffs much less win the SB if Bledsoe had remained QB that year. I thnk flat-out a key to the Pats winning it that year and quite likely winning it two of the next three years should be given to Lewis for hitting Bledsoe in away which collapsed his lung, allowed Brady to atep up and the Pats to become a TEAM capable of reeling off their victories. There are a zillion paradoxes here (for examople, the wounded Bledsoe was essntial to the Pats starting their SB winning run because I doubt that their disaster QB (whoever that was) would have ben able to step up as Bledsoe did and throw the winning TD in relief of an injureed Brady in the AFC chamionsip game in 2001. Without Bledsoe's pedestrian but adequate play that year and without the bizarre application of the tuck rule againt Oak, I doubt the Pats would have won it all that year. There is simply a credible case to be made that as much of a genius as BB is, that if Boedsoe had not been laid out by Lewis, that they not only would not have made the playoffs that year, but BB would really be assesed by the stinky job he did in Cleveland, by backtracking on hi word and pulling out of his agreement to HC the Jets and moving to NE and then a record of failed results with NE until he was able to make the Bledsoe switch. Dumb luck is just such a huge factor in determing the outcome which skills bring to any life.

One of the other factors which needs to sonehow be accounted for in assessing a GM is actually dumb luck. I'm not sure how one even does this accurately, but somehow within the mixed bag od talent and idiocy that GMs bring to the game this seems to me to sometimes to really be the largest factor in determing an outcome. Belichick is a perfect example. I think virtually bar none he is an impressario at doing some incredibly impressive things with a football team and game. The ability he showed to build a coaching staff and braintrust around himself, Crennel, Weis, Pioli and most of all the players who were the TEAM in the 3 SBs wins was phenomenal. I really was simply in awe with the game smarts he showed in a night game last year (or the year before) where he somehow made the moves to keep his team hangin in there. Took a crtical safety to go down by 3 late ina 1 point game where they were sealed in their end. used the ensuring free kick and a great D stand to get field position back and then managed the clock and his O to coach the players to a win. Wow. All this being said, this genius was little more than putrid in his HC performance early in his career. He made a deserved name for himself working with Parcells in their early SB runs, but his work in Cleveland as HC was mostly insuccessful and actually bad as I think his team made the playoffs but once in his 5 years. Personally, I think his work and actions were even worse when he negated his own pledge by first agreeing to and HC job and then pulling out and ending up in NE. Dumb luck really kicked in when his team was spinning down the toilet bowl with Bledsoe at QB in 2001 and though eventually I think he would have been forced like TD was loast year to cut Bledsoe and go in another direction, my guess is that by the time he did this, it is quite doubtful the 2001 Pats would have even smelled the playoffs much less make and win the SB. The best make their own luck and BB deserves all the credit in the world himself for making the right draft move when he picked Brady in the 6th round the year before. The players deserve all the credit in the world for sucking it up and supporting the young Brady as a TEAM to win the SB. Even Bledsoe deserves credit for being downright essential to the 2001 team winning it all that year as he stepped up off the bench to throw the winning TD in the AFC championship and then gracefully sat back down when Brady recovered enough to lead them to an SB win. One can even go further in identifying a crucial thing which made the difference in the 2003 Pats becoming and remaining a team capable of their 2nd SB win was that BB completely butchered his handling of the Milloy situation and really pissed off the team, but this anger converged with some bad injury timing (Colvin for example) and the football quality of Law, Brady and the rest of the team ti oerfirn a gutcheck where they came together and won it all again. The oddity here is that I am pretty certain that if Lewis had not happened to hit Bledsoe in a certain way that caused his lung to collapse and gave Brady the chance to step in, the team to become a TEAM and support him, and gve the refs a chance to make an odd application of the tuck rule which allowed the NDE run to continue, I would not be surprised at all if BB never started or completed their SB run and that he may have even been fired from the Pats by now and simply be a footnote at best in HFL history. Instead he is correctly hailed as a genius. Go figure.

I do apologize to those folks who seem to feel they waste time reading rather than ignoring my lengthy posts which are often done late at night. I also really appreciate those folks who from time to time said they like them or even are nice enough to respond to them. To clarify the situation, once again it is this. 1. Because of requests I do sometimes (particularly during regular season when there is something of more real things to talk about in this fantasy of football try to post Cliffnotes for these diatribes and I will again try to do this beginning with camp in a couple of weeks. 2. I really do often prattle on or repeat myself in these posts as I am really thinking out loud (or at least in photons) as I write. 3, One thing I am really lucky about is that I actually am sometines paid while doing these notes. My work sometimes involves sitting in on lengthy conference calls initiated at odd hours by folks in foreign lands. I need to be on the call for the part of the agenda I work on and be there at least half listening as the agenda rolls on. I half listen but mute my participation in the calls and actually prattle on about the Bills and then focus more intently as my agenda time draws closer. The environmental muckety muck is interesting and my work requires me to listen intently sometimes to read the dynamics of interaction, but often I feel my time is better spent have listening to the calls and churning away on Bills stuff (usually in preparation for being the font of all things Bills related at family gatherings. The bottomline is please take the best and leave the rest for my too long ramblings. It works for me and this is great. It works for some of you and this is even better. The folks it does not work for, I really am confused why they waste their time reading my ramblings and taking more of the precious time to comment on them. Geez.

Below is a thread started by Simon (welcome back and this is truly a sign that the real season is starting and the fooling around of the off-season has ended, let the fooling around of real football begin). I am posting this as a separate thread because the lengthy TH thread which has finally moved to some specifics rather than simple declarations based on false claims that opposing claims that TH is worthless means the poster thinks his good (I think the statement in the thread that Henry is not anywhere as good as Mcgahee but he was significantly better than Kinton really summarizes well the mixed bad rating those who have defended Henry feel about this definitely flawedbut defintiely accomplished player, had turned into more of a debate about how good Walter Payton was at blitz pickup. I agree he was great but I think this dead horse is worth beating a little as it focuses on assessment of the 2005 Bills. I have pasted below a couple of post which I think can be responded to in terms of specific points and asks the two posters if they wish to take the time to share with us some of the specific stats or situations which support these more specific assessments of Henry that simple unsupported general claims he sucks but are still not supported by much interms of real indications that make them all that believable. Here goes: John from Hemet said: I really think that Donahoe pulled a rabbit out of his hat on the Henry deal...... - Lets face it.....as soon as there was legit competition on the roster Travis Henry fell apart.....he couldn't handle it....... I agree, the failure of TH to make a succesful or even credible effort at making the 2 good RB attack work made him a great candidate to trade if we received good value for him. The rabbit out of the hat description is neither here nor there for me as there is little need to claim some analogy for how good or not atypicl getting a 3rd for Henry was. The facts of this case were: 1. TD was very opportunistic as a GM should be in getting another year out of Travis as a resource to be used as a resource or traded beyind his original agreement. While TH created this situation by himself without any TD encouragement by mismanaging his money, TD did exactly what a good GM should do by getting this year out of him for chump change. Further, he did a top notch GM job by using the fact he had Pro Bowler under contract for now 3 more years to draft an extremely talented RB who was injured and would need at least a year of non-play to recover, allow WM to take the starting job if his injury healed as the Bills docs suspected in this second year, and take the gift we received of owning rights to Henry for a third year to either use him in a 2 RB attack if he remained mature or trade him for value if he broke down While one can easily invest in some far off argument as to whether this fits the rabbit/hat analogy, I simply do not see how one can deny that TD did the job that a good GM would do in extending ownership of TH (and many GMs in this league are clearly that Matt Millens and Mike Lynns of the world and are simply not very good) and that TD played the fall-out of the results of this opportunity in terms of the WM pick, squeezing a productive 2003 out of TH when WM was recovering, managed the WM recovery well and got a productive 2004 out of him) and at least appropriate silence but pouting during the season out of TH, and pulled off a trade of TH for a first day pick while some of TSW and among outside pundits were saying a greedy TD should have taken a 5th when offered, traded him for a damaged LT we did not even want when he was cut and some even argued TH should be cut and we get no value. One can easily claim this was no magic trick but who cares. One cannot credibly claim that TD did not do at least what a GM should do (as opposed to those who seem to claim he can do no right) in getting TH another year for chump change and that he actually proved the several folks who accused TG of fouling up the TH situation by passing on a 5th, a wounded player or cutting him as being simply all wrong. - His blitz pickup last year was fricken horrible.....I think we could have put a rookie in there and gotten a better effort......I dont want to turn this into a "I love Willis" thread but lets face it.....there was a noticable difference from when Willis was doing compared to Travis...and it was WILLIS' FIRST YEAR Judging and arguing blitz pick-up is hard to do as there are not even any individual stats which present good indications of this. However, if one is going to make claims of someone being fricken horrible or or geing noticeably good there should be some or actual a lot (if the claim is so extreme as to claim a player horrible or the difference was noticeable) of specific plays that can be pointed to. One can make it easy for us morons by pointing to specific plays at specific time reference in games. I don't expect folks to have the memory or do the work to do this, though it would be a great thing is they did. Failing this specificity then I would think anyone with the temerity to make the extreme claims mentioned above should at least be able to site some games they remember as proving their point. Actually, while I think TH had allowed WM taking his job to get to him and he did make anumber of boners such as going a different than Bledsoe on a missed handoff against NE which led to a fumble and a Seymour TD and also Henry failed to find the endzone on a couple of short yardage plays against Oak which indicated a lack of desire and an admitted wrong ref call by the NFL that mental wizardry and toughness were not a big part of the TH game in 2004. However, I think there are few (if any actually) plays in 2004 where TH missed critical blitz pick-ups. I remember Shelton performing this error in one game cited in Bills Daily in the third or fourth game if you want to find a reference. There was a clear case of TH missing a blitz pick-up in his first game as a rookie in 2001 leading to a Doug Flutie sack (just to show I am not asking for something impossible to remember). However, there certainly were no more than a couple of cases one can point to in the 5 games TH started in 2005 and a couple of errors alone fall well short of comdemning him as friggin horrible and again I think there well may be no real specifics which can be pointed to and this claim is reduced to being a fact-free opinion. While I cannot credibly go out on the limp that 34 and AVP seemed to be willing to crawl out on and say his blitz pick-up work improved in 2004. I think that they idea that while he could be called abysmal as a rookie, this issue was a non-concern among the usually vocal TSW crowd in 2002 and 2003 and I do not think there is much or any evidence beyond fact-free opinion to be sited for these years and 2004 that blitz pick-up was a big probem for TH. If it was cite the plays and I will look for them on the tape I have of almost the entire 2004 season or at least cite the games please (or perhaps just drop this unsubstantiated claim). - He was never going to be a outlet receiver.....his shelf life with the way he runs is going to be short I agree his shelf life is likely to be short the way he runs as seen by him having very good seasons in 2002 and 2003 but an essentially worthless 2004 all of which were marred by injury. My guess in terms of likely outomes is that TN will see two productive RBs go down next year. However, on the first point, this is simply wrong based on real life occurences. TH caught over 40 passes in 2002 when he was used as an outlet receiver and while he and the rest of RBs in this league clearly have not been Marshall Faulk even in their best years. TH has shown production that he can be an effective outlet receiver in an O which used him this way. He was not an effective outlet receiver in 2003, but was anyone in the 2003 Nonfeense of Kevin Killdrive effective that year? In fact if any olayer deserves kudos in this O it was TH gaining 1300+ on the ground. Likewise in 2004, TH correctly can be blamed for not being as good as WM (though this has got to be one of the lamest blames cast) as the offense behind the rocket arm of Bledsoe even on short passes did not become effective until the mid point of the season and TH was riding the pines. WM despite the fact his production was much like THs in terms of YPC initilly got him game into overdrive by midseason and most important for Bills team production the ST and D really began to dominate, TC/MM established Bledsoe as a threat which relieved some of the sacks and WM did add to the team threat with is superior stiff-arm to most and better outside speed than Henry and our O improved. However, TH's failing as an outlet receiver are a minor if non-issue here and his 2002 performace as a pass catcher shows he can produce in this role if used this way (even taking into some missed catches from the non-touch of Bledsoe in 2003). - He was NOT coming back this year. Though I agree because TD git adequate trade value for him, if TD had not moved him because we could not get a third I see nothing TH could do but come back to the Bills and do the best job he could do as a #2 and then hit the FA market last year. Unless TH decided to pull a Wickey Williams he had no other choice. He needed to play and be praised by his teammates as a man who backs up his partners or he would not get the extension he wanted. If he had attempted to go hard core and accumulate only the 6 games needed to be an FA next year, not only would the Bills have actually stopped this from happening an retained owership of TH, but if he proved to be devious enough to pull this off he would have so damaged his value among teams now not interested in a player willing and able to abuse his employer if he becomes upset, but the word would bet around the leafue of him being a teammate unwilling to support his brothers and also have to deal with the whispering campaign from TD and the others that TH really had two less than productive seasons in a row (2004 and the 6 games as a back-up in 2005) that his value would be demolished if he refused to comeback as asked by TD who consistely has left the door open fo him by praising him. - Rather then trade Travis in what a lot considered to be a weak draft...he got a 3rd which could be a very good 3rd in a much deeper draft I agree - We could package that pick and move up.....it gives us great flexibility I agree' All in all this was a great job by TD moving a malcontent back who was not nearly as good as WM, but really is a good player if things work out as they did in 2002. Bill in NYC said OK, let's just completely ignore the fact that sacks were drastically reduced when Travis was benched. It made little to no difference. Sound good? - I hate it when folks reduce the claims of others to adjectives like lunacy. but a claim that the sack number were driven by WM being better at blitx pick-up than TH are bizarre non-football thinking at best. JMac being a better teacher and OL organizer than Vinky and Ruel is difficult to deny and is the starting point for any sack improvement (which actually included a one sack game in which Henry started which preceeded the switch to WM as a starter. TC did a phenomenal job of forcing opposing defenders not to sell out completely to the blitz or outside rush by 1. actually using Bledsoe effectively in the delayed QB draw up the middle and using (flea-flickers with pitces back to Bledsoe or from Bledsoe to WM which forced defenders not to blitz but wait to see what we were doing this time, 2. Utilizing WM not for an after the fact blitz pickup guru, bu by proactively using him an outside rush threat with his stiff-arm and great speed. The claim of WM doing better than TH at blitz pickup is unsubstantiated in terms of anything approaching evidence as outline above and even if he had happened to be better there are far more important things done to curtail the sack numbers than blitz pick-up work. I will admit that it is sometimes tough to assign blame for sacks. I truly believe that Travis was too stupid to even comprehend what his assignment actually was. -This was not the case when he ran productively in 2002 and 2003, im 2002 when he caugh over 40 passes or looking at the improvement in his game from his rookie year to his Pro Bowl and next year. Why don't we wait and see just how stellar his performances are at Tenn.? It wont be long. I have a feeling that poor McNair is going to be one hurtin' SOB. I also think that TN is going to be disappointed by the results of this trade as I think bith Brown and Henry will not complete the season. However, one need not wait for these results to see that the above arguments by you and and John from Hemet are essentially non-supported by the facts. However, mif lovely wife will tell you that I am not perfect and god has not fished with me yet. Please share something beyond mere opinion which supports your views.

Thanks 34 for a thoughtful post which even beyond referencing my post simplies raises some thoughtful points which do not delare TH a god-on-earth as an RB 9he isn't) but simply point out that there were some very good features ot his game. I certainly would have traded him once he showed he could play behind a much better (but not yet perfect) RB amd TD simply read and played the market well as both some of the folks (his customers) who care about the Bills deeply felt we would be lucky to get a second day pick for him and a few even said we should cut him (a good move to advocate if you are a relative of TH's but a move clearly against Bills interests which like it or not are better served with a first day pick than by nothing). In addition some pundits flat out accused TD of being a greedy idiot who hurt the Bills by passing on an offer of a 5th or of Shelton (who even if you like him trading for him would have been stupid as he was later cut as TD read the market perfectly even for those who disagree with the JMac anti-Shelton read. We won't know for sure until we see how this Gandy thing (with a likely Teague plan B which will be somewhat dependent on the development of Preston) turns out, but TD gas to be given a lot credit for once again turning a player into a 1st day draft pick after the orginal agreement with the player had run out. While one may not want to give TD credit for having foresight one at least reasonably give him credit for being opportunistic which is one of the things a good GM should be. No one should be embarassed at all for finding signficant fault with TD for clear boners he has pulled racking up a losing record on his watch and not making the playoffs with is team. I think he hired GW because he knew if GW tried to pull a Cowher he could beat him, but we paid the price for this bad HC hire. However, it is becoming pathetically embarassing to see some posters claim TD can do nothing write. I thought my overly long posts displayed some degree of psychosis, but the post and avatars which declare TD a total loser rather than a mixed bag and somehow ignore the surprising WM pick, his stealing a 1st from AT, some great negitiations which seemed to bet Pro Bowlers like Adams and Spikes for seemingly lower than market rates, and even those who claim he sucks at drafting when his first pick for the Bills made the Pro Bowl and he and the gang even found a second day pick who made the Pro Bowl joining 2 FAs he hired who made it (and even these players rewarded by the pundits do not include our leading tackler Fletcher who was immediately made D captain after TD purchsed him for a song and the O player WM who many feel may be in the future rival Thurman in production and some think he will be one of the best in the league if he stays happy. I shouldn't give the impression that I think WM is a sure star because one of the real key effects for Bills fans is that Rashard Lee better work and Shaud Williams deal with recurring hits, because there is a not unreasonable chance that these plan Bs will see significant time at least giving WM a blow if he stays healthy or step in for him if necessary. You would think from some of the WM frothing which went on in some posts which seemed mostly to be inspired by a desire to trash Henry that the big question is why we did not start WM out of the box. This view ignores the fact that actually WMs numbers logging signficant time due to some TH nicks (injuries I think he would have played through in the past but he gave up on his teammates when WM got drafted) were actually pretty much like TH's in terms of ypc. I'm glad you highlighted the issue of TH run blitz pick-ups. While I did not share with you the feeling that he had his best year in his abbreviated 2004, I think your view is way closer to what I observed in passing than the notion stated by some folks whom I respect their other views than the generally unsubtantiated by any objective evidence that blitz pick-up was a notable problem for TH. Its hard to prove a negative that it didn't strike me as an issue particularly on an issue as statless as blitx pick-up. However, if folks are going to claim the positive that he was just awful at blitz pick-up they should easily be able to point to several examples in the 5 games he started where he blew a blitz pick-up to devastating results. In addition, the notion trotted out by some that the sack numbers went down as soon as WM walked on the field and TH walked off due to WM being far better at blitz pickup was simply bizarre non9football thinking as best as I can tell. Again, my passing observation was WM like almost all rookies was not a pro at all in his initial blitz pick-up duties (if anything I think it was Shelton who blew one big time when WM was in the game). However, I don't remember many (any) cases of him being outstanding at it (I would certainly love to see a game and rough time estimate as I still have about 3/4 of laast year's games on tape and I easily could have missed it but I would not be surprised if the only response to a search for objective facts to support this claim is that of crickets chirping. Add to that the utterly bizarre notion that a key to lower sacks overall is because of better blitz pick-up (it simply is a rare case as it is non-existent in the several empty backfield plays, is not the RB responsibility if the FB has the duty and the RB contribution is to go wide and bad receiver or good one take an RB with him). The notion that better blitz pick-up was the only factor (or even the lead factor) over other potential issues that probably were more important to loweing the sack total like: 1. Duh, JMac is no miracle worker but it doesn't take much to be a better OL organizer and teacher than Vinky and Ruel. 2. Duh, Kevin Killdrive was a predictable playcaller whom the rest of the league caught up with in 2003 and he refused to change his game. The opposing blitz game strikes me as far more effected by TC running Bledsoe for positive though not huge pick-ups forcing opponents not to sell out to the blitz or commit to easier outside routes, MM and TC establishing they would successfully call flea-flickers which also caused blitzers to delay as they closed in on the run and then he flipped back to DB. 3. Really bizarely is giving WM credit for fewer sacks due to his blitz pick-up when actually I think he more clearly deserved credit for being such a huge outside run threat with better speed than TH and one of the best stiff-arms in the league that defenders were thinking more about making sure they good get ouside with a good angle to beat the stiff-arm rather than thinking about what blitz angle to take. The whole TH/WM blitz pick-up argument simply strikes me as unsubstantiated junk which even without any facts leaving fact-free opinion to back it up simply makes no sense even in theory as being the major reason for a drop in sack numbers. Thank you 34.

I have been convinced by the fact that the Bills were clearly taking a serious look at several other kickers early in this off-sason that I was probably incorrect to mostly emphasize the FACT that: A. Lindell did a flat out great job at kickoffs last year- Some folks only measure a placekickers contribution by the high-profile FGs an clearly Lindell did not win games for us (oddly we seem to win and lose games by so much the PK game is not used this way and even when it is folks like the Jets get the shot which has nothing to do with Lindell). Lindell simply sucked at PK as he not only made an almost impossible to forgive shank of a makeable FG against Pitts but he proved ineffective enough at non-crunch time FGs MM had no confidence in him at makeable distances. However, PK is an essential PART of his duites but it is only a PART. Any real assessment of Lindell's work last year should include some to be honest great results by him on kickoffs. Some want to disregard this as merely a tribute to great tackling and relegate the kickoff to a function anyone can do. This ignores however. the fact that the coverage team is a TAM which is led by the kicker whose has the not easy job of kicking it exactly to the side (easier job as shanks must be avoided), a specific distance and with the hang-time required. From my looking at football this ain' an easy no-brainer act. This is particularly true in the changeable sometime gale force winds of the Ralph. The fact that the Bills suffered no TDs and even very few long returns on KOs last year is certainly a great tribute to April and the tacklers, but it is also a great tribute to some outstanding kickoffs by Lindell (and some dumb luck as I have seen sudden winds at the Ralph simply drive high ball seemingly headed straight for the upright directly into the ground. If you don't want to accept this then just remember the fact that the though the Bills lucked out missing the KCs of the world and the stude return guy with the Ravens I believe missed our game to injuries (though we had precious few kickoffs as the O was absent) opposing kickers gave us the ball at the 40 by kicking it OB trying to avoid McGee with directional kicks Lindell handled well and opposing attempts to fool McGee and the blockers which begin with the kicker failed miserably as he scored a couple untouched having caught the ball in stride because their kicker did not kickoff as well as Lindell. Many casual observers when they even look past the placekicking game to realize how important kickoffs are (guaranteed he will do it at least once every game and set the tone for a half of football and if we play well he will do this lots of times while he may not placekick outside of PATS much at all) measure this only if he is a Sebastian Janakowski capable of getting long touchbacks. However, most kickers do not have the leg for this and a reurnable high kick is what the McGees and the blocking team is looking for. Most kick coverage guys have an assigned lane and distance they are running to. If they have to second guess where the kicker is sending it and how long it will stay up, if they are looking for the ball they are not looking for the runner and even worse will get their clock cleaned by a blocker. It seems to me to be just the facts that Lindell simply excelled at kicking them where he was supposed to kick 'em and the PART of the great tackling performance was because of his great KO work. B. Lindell did a very good job with onside kicks- My recollection is he had three demands last year that he do this and 2/3 he did a good job which is an average for onsides anyone would like. One was blown and the other team recovered this desperation act that all expected. In another game late in the season, I think his onside kick was good as it was recoverable by the Bills which is really all you can ask for, but Rashad Baker mistime his leap and the opponents recovered. The other was simply a work of art by Lindell who: 1. he and the KO team completely fooled the opposing team who expected the half to begin with a regular kickoff and they made the fatal mistake of back pedaling to form their wedge which gave the Bills a few yards of space and the opposnent momentum going in the wrong direction. 2, The most difficult thing Lindell pulled off was not only the fact that most observers know that the ball must travel ten yards, but also the ball must travel 10 BEFORE a block is thrown on an opponent. Lindell not only had to kick it the requsite yards but with the speed and pace that it covered the distance for a legal recovery to be made. 3. Add to this, in order not to tip our hand to the returner, we could not put out a hands team but it was the usual tacklers and could not overload to one side. Insteas, the plan was for Lindell to not only kick it with the proper speed and pace but make the recovery himself. He an the coverage team did this perfectly and the Bills who has scored at the end of the first to take the momentum simply took the game away as their offense sullenly sat on the bench and their D dragged itself back on to the field. Lindell;splay was so well done and really put a fork in this game I think it is impossibl to a believable assessment of Lindell without giving him credit for this gamebreaking play anytime one mentions him pulling a gameloser with is Pitts shank. Am i predicting Lindell will be a stud in 2005, Nope, I have a tough time feeling confident with predicting what a normal player will do and nobody would mistake a kicker for being normal. However, the braintrust seemed to have chosen what I thought was a pretty risky approach to managing a weirdo which was essentially looking for his replacement in broaddaylight, Must kickers seem to react to this lack of confidemce no matter if it is easily justifiabke after the Pitts shank and the loss of confidence in his kicks beyond 49 yards by simply losing confidence and going into a shell which leads to second guessing that makes 'em miss. However, the great thing about Lindell's clear showing of commitment to not retreating in the face of a challenge but commiting his time to doing whatever he can to get better is a great sign. His first game kicks in pre-season will be critical, his first game decider and how he recovers when he blows one as happens with almost everyone exceptIndy and NE will tell the tale. Lindell has a lot to do and a lot opportunities to fail. TD certainly made one his bigger blunder when he made the statement that good kickers are a dime a dozen when he cut Christie. Yet, from the tangible reaction to the challenge put to him by the Bills and the kid-gloves April is correctly using to pump him, and him actually putting up some good numbers and distance in SEA (and actually not bad numbers in total last year as he gpt a lot of shots he made inside the 40 though he simply sucked at long distance). The Bills seem to be doing all the right things to make this work. A good Lindell year as a placekicker is still a tough row to how and not even likely barring him having some good results this pre-season. However, it is far from the longshot it seemed to be in Pittsburgh and not impossibl at all as some would have us believe.

Why do you judge Denney to be a stiff. We all have our fact-free opinion about players but I am really interested in any at least semi-objective stats or grounded in playing time rather than our non-professional observations of his play. My own semi-objective assessment on Denney is this: 1. Denney flat out sucked his rookie year as indicated by the fact he was inactive for almost all games. My understanding of why he was inactive is that Denney was not bending over enough in his stance and when he engaged a blocker and that it didn't take much experience at all for an opponent to get leverage on him when engaged and easily toss him aside or let him fall the wrong way. Deney worked on this issue, and by the end of the season was at least effective enough to get activated a couple of times but there were better choices for the Bills for folks to play. 2. Denney greatly improved his ability to play and how he used his body in the off-season such that he was actually the best choice we had to start at LDE in 2003. He was essentially a first year player and really was not a good starter though he was better than the rookie Kelsay. Denney became a fan whipping boy for several reasons: A. Expectations were high on him because TD traded up to get him. These expectations of immediate contribution were not only stoked by us spending extra value to get him but after he took a couple of years for BYU mission work he is an older guy. When he proved to be so bad as a rookie and you only get one chance to make a first impression he deserved his initial rap as a bad player but this rap is hard to change unless you are phenomenal. Ufortunately, though I think he had a good season last year he is not phenomenal overall though he does actually even excel in some facets of the game. B. The areas he is worst at are exactly the areas we fans expect good play. We fans were quite frankly spoiled by having a level of play at LDE which was defined by one of the best (if not the best) player in the history of the game with Bruce Smith at LDE. Many fans were disappointed when his replacement Wiley "only" put up double digit sacks and they argued he was not worth a big FA contract (which we actually had no money to meet the market for him anyway). Denney was going to be a disappointment virtually regardless of what he did and his rookie year was bad so fuggaboutit. C. Many tokk the objetive fact that we drafted yet another LDE in the second round as an outside sign that Denney sucked. While yes this more than our fan rants and is attached to a real reason, merely asserting this is only due to Denny bit cutting the mustard ignores the fact that at the same time we were losing Wiley to FA, DT Vig Ted as a cap casualty, Hansen to retirement and all of this within a year of losing Bruce as a cap casualty we were switching from a Cottrell 3-4 that at least held its own to a 4-3 cause that was what GW knew and had succeeded with. The two effects were that even if Denney had been great we still would likely have needed to draft a DT or LDE early in 2003, drafting a player who could pass rush was made necessary by Denney's failing there, but it should not be taken as clear evidence that Denney sucks, In fact a better football explanation (though this time a subjective one easily open to debate) is that actually Denney's play at least improved from sucking in 2002 to him being slotted in as a starter in 2003 by coaches who clearly were willing to sit him if they were not satisfied. Further, by drafting Kelsay we got a player with a motor and some Schobel like pass rush skills that actually compliment the things which Denney does better than pass rushing. The two outside signs that Denney does have something to offer is that even when Kelsay was named the starter, the brainstrust still refers to him and Denny as virtul co-starters. One might argue that the braintrust is just saying this to cover their butt. However, in addition to this outside sign there is actually some objectives signs which if ignored need to be met with objective arguments: 1. Denney saw some serious PT last year as the Bills only went with 3 DEs on a roster which had a heavy DL rotation which saw the # 3 DE get a good chunk of playing time. 2. Again one might argue that he only got playing time as a sop to avoid embarassment but the problem with this argumen is that our D with Denney getting a lot of PT was second statistically and was a good unit. Folks who say Denney simply still sucks in order for this to believe need to explain how the D was so good in so many facets playing a #3 DE a lot in rotation who simply sucked. Outside of fact-free opinion with little objective evidence outside of rants he does not produce enough sacks there really is little to indicate this is true. 3. Subjective arguments actually do ignore a couple of subjective points: a: a sackmaster at LDE would be great (in fact I think GW/Gray used Denney poorly initially demanding in 2002 that he fill the same role a stud like Jevon Kearse filled in TN with the GW 4-3. I suspect part of the reason he finally was able to start in 2003 was that we switched to a the LeBeau run blitz which employed Denney in a role which more suits his play as a guy who can surprisingly move around well (after his initial body articulation issues in 2002) and has long arms which effectivel allow him to drop back in short-zone coverage and merely raise his arms to make short passes to his side risky to do have to be thrown high and hard to a player. Even better the mobility he has (which reminds me of Ted the Stork Hendricks playing LB and doing pass coverage well) actually allows him to get back into the medium zone as a DE allowing Fletcher, Spikes er al to blitz and leave run blitz zone coverage to Denney, b: Denney has not exceled at pass rush but he has developed a rep of being stout against the run. Again the objective evidence that indicates this subjective assessment may be true is that he was lined up last year as a DT in sometimes. Part of the reason Phat Pat was easily sat on 3rd down and played less than 2/3 of the snaps was that Denny could relieve him in the rotation and I suspect part of the reason even Sam Adams was complaining he was being taken out was not only that Edwards filled in well for him, but that Denney also allowed for a rotation which saw both or our starting DTs sit. and c; if you want to disregard the subjective conclusion that Denney actually showed some athletic gifts because it disagrees with your own fact-free assessment, then explain why he actually was rewarded with some TE time and we even tried unsuccessfully to throw him a TD pass. i think MM (a TE psychotic if there ever was one) believes in Demmey's athletic skills. D. At any rate I have prattled on long enough but suffice to say that I agree Denney initaled sucked but an objective look at his play indicates he has improved in his play both years. He is a little bit older so this improvement will not go on forever, but it is even possible that we may look back at 2004 and the breakout player may not be Kelsay as many suggest and hope but actually Denney who with proper use in the run bliz might get a couple of INTs or with continued use as a TE becomes the 2005 version of Butch Rolle, the funny thing will be some posters will still claim he sucks.

Actually, I think the most accurate reading of CP's numbers regardinf decisions to cut players is found by looking at his column listing deadspace in the cap after a player is cut after a specific date because all bonus paid to him is immediately accelerated into the cap. The good news regarding a cut of Reed is that this is his last year under contract and there are no accelerated out years. However, there is bonus that has already been paid to him and this 400K distribution will count as part of the last WR's cap hit regardles of whether you cut Reed or not. There is a $75K difference in the annual salary paid to Aiken of $380K paid to Aiken versus the $455K to be paid to Reed, but given current salaries paid to NFL players and within the context of an $80+ million cap and the almost $4 million in cap room we currently have the less than $100K savings from keeping Aiken is pretty small. In fact, it actually is a reasonable thing to really add the cap cost of a cut to the actual cap hit for Aiken/Reed if the choice comes down to these two (this assumes the choice is between these two and PR ability keeps Fast Freddy on). Figure that if we cut Reed the actual 2005 cap hit for deciding go with Aiken will be $874.000 (Aiken salary + Aiken bonus + bonus from cut Reed already paid for the 4th WR). The decision to go with Reed (and thus cut Aiken) means a 2005 cap hit for this 4th WR of $949,000. Again the less than $100K cap hit for the final WR slot regardless of who you keep is so small as to not really determine who will be kept. If anything, this difference cuts in Reed's favor because the a shorthand for assessing how good of a job our GM is doing is often how small your deadspace number is. As cutting Reed will add over 300K more to the deadspace number than cutting Aiken if folks feel TD is insecure or small enough to be motivated by pundit judgment of his work, all things being relatively equal Aiken is dust and Reed gets kept.

I gurdd it csn reasonably vary from person to person how one looks at it, but I saw the one year the Bills had his contract as a positive for us that made the trade possible. Obviously it would be better to have a guy with a locked up low salary for years to come in terms of trading him, however, the real world options for the Bills it seemed to me were to have no time left as was the case under his old contract so he simply walks unless you tag him (as was done with Alexander or James and neither are tradeable really) or you had the 1 year which is as good as its gonna get in terms of a tradeable player. If we had TH with two years on his contract (as was the case last year) really no one is thinking seriously about trading this player on either side for the most part. I thought the Bills were actually in a great position having the "extra" year because pf TH mismanaging his money. It made him tradeable and though it added a hoop to be dealt with, we see in the TN deal that this hoop was not a problem at all. If anything, the fact that he was going to have the incentive of playing in his contract year I thought made him even more attractive for a trade partner.

Yes and no. I think he was clearly opportunistic with extending TH for chump change as it was TH who came begging to the Bills when he mismanaged his assets. My recollection is that TD even warned him this was a bad deal for him but TH is an adult (at least chronologically) and TD almost sheepishly took advantage of the situation. However, from the point TD began to even think about drafting WM in 2003 with TH being hailed by Bills fans at the end of 2002 as one of our favorite Bills and the prospects for this team looking extremely good after they improved from 3-13 to 8-8 it seems pretty clear TD had a plan. It was a plan of possibilities where he took actions like grabbing Reed in 2002 much to the surprise of both fans and pundits because he foresaw that we likely would let PP walk (I do not think he foresaw that Arthur Blank owner of AT would stuidly shoot his mouth off an essentially gurantee that they would do whatever it took to sign Peerless, but opportunistically he translated this into a #1). Having created a #1 I think he did begin to forsee that taking WM might be possible. He had the Bills docs check out WM's injuries extensively which shows clear willingness even though we were set with TH. Even a cleverer sign of intent beyond simple willingness TD and the Bills kept quiet about their findings and interest. If they had far more interest in picking someone else rather than WM then it was all in the Bills and TDs interests to broadcast the fact they were impressed with their docs examination of WM and maybe some other team would take him and leave a DL player for us. However, they kept quiet on the chance WM might drop and a DE would not. Even after selecting WM, I think that TD/MMs hope was that TH would play ball and that the team would find a way to make it work with the two of them playing together, but this did not happen. However, though I doubt TD had a Maciavellianian (Nostradamian) plot in mind all along to move TH for at least a 3rd, I think that he knew more than anyone about the contracts the Bills signed and is thinking way ahead of his pundits and competitors in terms of building a team. We saw that when he "found" a #1 to replace the one traded for DB after he surprised pundits by drafting Reed, we saw that when he stole Denney from Pitts while they were on the phone with him. we saw that when he surprised the world with the WM pick, we saw that when he picked Kelsay with our 2nd when folks would not have had a cow if we had taken him wih our first.

Agreed with all that its only a matter of time before Parrish gets the job. Even at his best Reed has not shown the kind of breakaway upside that Parrish has shown with his return skills. Reed at best would seem to be a good compliment to a #1 WR and not only is Evans a better compliment to Moulds but the #3 WR is all about opportunism and Parrish offers seemingly far greater opportunities that Reed. The more relevant question is probably Auiken v. Reed rather than Parrish v. Reed. I am persuaded by thinking about how MM has really set the tone that $ matter less than winning with the cut of Shaw last year. In fact, Shaw was not cut because he sucked, was a bad guy, or had clearly failed as a player. MM cut him in order to free a roster spot for a player who would contribute something/anthing to the W/L of this team which Shaw was not doing as the #4 or #5 WR. Even though we were going to write paychecks to Shaw after he was on the roster for two games whether he sat at home or on the bench, MM delivered the message loud and clear that we would rather pay you to sit home and free up a spot for a player (I don't think this was the exact deal at the time but it was the roster spot eventually) for a player like Jason Peters who was activated off the PS as other teams began sniffing around to sign him and then he showed he could not be blocked as a ST rusher and ended up contributing a block and TD for us. I had figured Reed as a keeper over Aiken because we have already paid him and he will have a larger cap hit than Aiken even if we cut Reed. However, Aiken does stand a real chance of proving himself more valuable than Reed and making the team over him. I do doubt however that this will happen as Aiken has not shown an indication that he is going to take the job by the throat and not let it go (he has occaisionally been OK but never great or even very good) and Reed in his rookie season was very good and has a rep as a workout warrior in practice and in the pre-season that differs from the droppsies he had in 2003 and the injuries he had in 2004 that have made him non-productive as a Bill. I think the odds still are that he sees opening day as a Bill but I think Reed has and probably will be a disappointment for this team.

At Billszone Clumpy has update his salary cap page (we are currently $3.55 million under an amount which should allow for signing the rookies, keeping a small cushion in case of injury or opportunity like the Milloy situation and of great import allow us to lock up a player long-term like McGee (possible) or Clements (doubtful as I think he would be nuts to agree to resign at a rate we can afford until the new salary cap kicks in). However, scanning the detailed results (Clumpy really does a fantastic job) it raised the question for me of which players are great values for their relative output and who is grossly overpaid. Underpaid- McGahee was my first thought at a cap hit of $1.7 million for output that shows every sign if he remains healthy of really being one of the best players in the league (the average salary of the top 10 RBs in the NFL is around $5.5 million and today I have WM easily in the top 10 RBs . Yet, I pass on labeling him as my underpaid candidate because I want to see him do again before I give him this note of achievement. My actual candidate is London Fletcher who still takes in a completely rediculous salary for a human being to play this boys game of a cap hit of $3.8 million. Given that he has led this team in tackles for several years, that he even surpaassed Chris Spielman for the season record for total tackles his first year (a number produced with an OL player usually in his grill because our weak DL allowed an OL player to be assigned to this MLB when he was at the point of attack. Given that he is the teams D captain and always impresses me that when something happens on the field and the Bills get jobbed by a refs interpretation he almost always seems to realize the problem and be lobbying about it before anyone else is, and given that he stepped up last year and even produced as the short kickoff return guy on ST, his contributions and leadership on this team are unequalled on the D even compared to Pro Bowlers Spikes and Adams. For this he gets lofty pay which actually is below the cap hit of $4+ million which Adams takes in and $5.4 that is the Sopkes cap hit. I certainly do NOT advocate that Fletcher get more or that Spiks get less because like all of America, level of salary and what folks deserve to be paid are two completely different things and the market rather than fairness rules. However, looking at bang for the buck the only negative I see in Fletcher is that he occaisionally gets out of control with his play and he is a little short but he easily delivers play for the $ from our cap which exceeds his peers. Overpaid- As I scanned the list this was looking like a tough choice as TD really is a great negotiator who only overpays on occaision like with Lawyer Milloy where supply/demand when he hit the market and the unforseen retirements of both Cota and our Plab B battle left us with a huge SS need. However as this list was in alphabetical order, one needed only to get to Mike Williams enormous $7+ million '05 cap hit to see the definition of overpaid. This true not simply looking at the normal world were all NFL players are grossly overpaid for what they give to society (they are not firefghters who brave flames, soldiers who brave enemy soldiers orteachers who amazingly face our kids each day) but MW is grossly overpaid in terms of output compared to other OL players (mostly LTs guarding the QBs blindside). The MW salary weighs in at a level which appears to be around thee average of the top 5 OL players. While I am hopeful that the ship of state for MW has finally been righted by JMac for MW, even if he accomplishes the uncertain awesome task of stepping up his game at RT to another level and makes the flip to LT, I doubt he will be play at the level of the best LTs though he will be paid like them. I think the bottomline here is that the smartest thing TD has done with the draft is to trade away our future 1st round picks for an immediate need at QB in terms of getting the vet Bledsoe to replace RJ and getting Losman to be trained to replace the failed Bledsoe because a top pick is slotted and will get a contract that simply is overpaid be they Mike Williams or Peyton Manning (who for all he is paid as never even help deliver a sniff at the Indy ultimate goal of an SB win and only recently finally pullled ahead of Ryan Leaf in terms of delivering even playoff wins to the team which drafted him. Manningcertainly makes losing fun to watch, but like it or not, Indy is paying him goshawful amounts of $ to lead them like the Bills to being a loser.

Great job and thanks! We benefit a lot from your work.

There are so many great plays it is hard for one to standout for me (though the Flutie TD was a clear and singular moment where victory in terms of triggering a run to the playoffs was grasped from the jaws of defeat (feeling like we were done for the season and headed toward repeating the debacle of the 1997 season) and embodied in that one play. However, there are two moments which stand-out for me which were best moments for me though they were not particular plays. The single best moment for me was seeing the crowd reaction to Scott Norwood after the missed kick at a speech in Niagara Square in downtown Buffalo. Not only did 20.000 people or so turn out on a workday to be together celebrating a great team and season and sharing a painful loss, but Norwood apologizing for letting us down and the crowd vitually rising as one to give its forgiveness was really a great moment for me that transcended football. The message was not one of losing being OK. it was a message that even when we lose if we remain a family we can fight again. I think that the Beebe chasing down Lett moment was part of this feeling. For me personally, the best moment was actually on the radio. It was during the Greatest Game Ever Played and I was actually in my home office doing some work as I had a deadline on Monday but had the game on the radio. I listened with dismay as the Bills were thrashed and beaten in the first half, and the great moment came when Houston took the ball near the beginning of the second half and scored again. I simply cursed and turned the radio off and went downstairs where my wife was working (keeping our life together rather than worrying about keeping the Bills together) and vented for a minute or more. However, there was no question as I came back up and turned the game back on to share the ongoing meltdown even if it was going to be painful. it was a great moment because its always darkest before the dawn and the dawn came so brilliantly with a comeback win that was simply historic in my too many years of sports watching. It was a fantasy, it was fandemonium, it was fantastic.

Actually, I think the most impressive part of TD's work os that he is actually beginning to set an unusal precedent in this league for turning a player whose original contract with the Bills has finished into getting some value for them. By the rule, player situations work the way that they did in the case of players from Jonas Jenning to Takeo Spikes, when their original agreement is done, the player is free to enter the free market and the team which owned his rights is due nothing if they chose not to pay through the nose for the player. TD did a great job in the Peerless case where he surprisingly tagged him (using only a transition rather than a franchise tag unless the worst happened for us) and translated this into a 1st after Arthur Blank shot off his mouth and guaranteed a deal. In this case, TD again was opportunistic as Henry proved to be let;s say a bit less than a financial wizard. He did TH the "fsvor" of giving him some chump change up front cash in exchange for an extra year's ownership. This allowed for the suprise drafting of WM (aome surface knowledge NFL folks questioned why draft him when we already has a Pro Bowl player at RB when actually having a starter in place at RB so we could sit WM for a year was essential to drafting and rehabbing him). TD once again was able to translate the nothing that we were owed when a player's oringial contract ran out into something. While this pales next to the PP move because a 3rd ain't a first, I am impressed that when we were owed nothing under the original deal we agreed to, TD translated this into a 1st day draft choice. Even with your judgment that a 3ed is next to nothing in value, the better comparison is next to nothing versus notthing. Given that we have been able to find a Pro Bowler with a 4th, this deal is a definite positive and has potential to be a big deal.