Fake-Fat Sunny

I actually have no problem keeping Denney and feel no need to qualify it with grugingly keeping him. Deeny flat-out sucked as a rookie as he apparently had issues lining up his body when playing to have the leverage to hold his own and even a a non-vet player could put him in a position where he was easily thrown aside. Many fans found this particularly disappointing because after foolishly switching from a 3-4 to a 4-3 to run the GW style D just at the same time we were losing Wiley to FA as we entered cap hell, had to cut Big Ted for contract reasons, Hansen was retiring and all this came soon after losing Bruce we needed a quality DE bad. Folks not only were used to a level of DE play at the Bruce Smith level (an outlandish standard for any draftee to mee) folks took the fact that we turned around and drafted anothe DE Kelsay as a sign of Denney failure when actually we had such huge DL needs after the FA and other losses and the switch to the 4-3 we were going to need to draft a DL and likely a DE anyway regardless of how well or not Denney played. At any rate, some may judge the fact that Kelsay became the starter over Denney last year as a sign of Denney problems when I think the evidence indicates that it really was more of a sign of Kelsay being that good. Denney showed these signs of easily be a contributing Bill and as best as I can tell an essential player for us: 1. Though folks find fault with him for not being a Bruce like pass rusher at LDE he in fact has mastered his body issues where he actually has a rep for stout play against the run which balances his rush failings. 2. His stoutness against the run has allowed him to actually play DT on some plays despite the fact he has a DE rather than DT body. Part of the reason we only needed Phat Pat to line up for less than 2/3 of the D snaps last year was because Denney could fill in on 3rd and long at DT. 3. Denney was built for the run blitz as his long wing span makes him ideal in the short zone and he actually has developed some athleticism which allows him to cover in the medium zone in a Ted the Stork Hendricks kind of way. 4. TD still regers to him as giving us two starters )though Kelsay is the clear LDE starter) because Denney's flexibility is what allowed us to go with only 3 DEs on the roster last year despite us using a heavy DL rotation. The judgment that Denney is a bad player strikes me as outmoded and based on his initial failures and not based on current footbsl reality.

An irony in all this is that Bledsoe actually was IMHO a far better player and more productive last year than he was the year before. Though his passer rating only bumped up a marginal 3 points or so from 73 to 76 (the passer rating is the best but still a marginal with some flaws statistical indication of QB play) I think his play vastly improved last year. This however I think if an indicator of two things: 1. It really shows how bad he stunk in 2003- Much of his improvement was a significant jump from absolutely horrendous in 2003 to merely inadequate in 2004. I think the Bills were correct to cut him last year as our future lies elsewhere and though I think Bledsoe can still be effective as he was in 2001 in the right situation, this situation is not the one the Bills are in. TD should have quit while we were ahead (in terms of Bledsoe contributing to the business) or at best a wash (he was great on the field in 2002 and horrendous on the field in 2003) after two years. It was a mistake to restructure and extend the Bledsoe deal for 2004 and beyond and we still will pay a price for that this year as the accelerated cap hit of cutting Bledsoe still sits on our cap room this year. 2. I am really impressed with the job TC and MM did with Bledsoe last year- They did several specific things with this team which improved Bledsoe's play last year over the Kevin Killdrive disaster: A. Since many things start with the OL, there was an impressive difference in the work JMac did with the OL compared to the learn on the job mistake filled work of Vinky and Ruel. The sack numbers were cut in half even with relative imobility of Bledsoe (he is a big boy who can take a hit and he deserves credit for that, but he is not going to avoid sacks with his mobility). I think a lot of the credit goes to better management of the OL from JMac compared to the confusion which Vinky helped create and Ruel could not solve. JMac still has things to show and do that he is able to achieve very good results on an absolute basis rather than simply being relatively better than bad coaches. However, plaudits to him for managing MW well applying carrots (the gameball for his play) and sticks (the threat to move him to G which fooled MW and ICE) and also for somehow turning a PS Raven (Smith) into being even a credible though flawed starter for the Bills at LG. This year we again do not have a lot of proven extraordinary talent on the OL (Teague, Villarial and MW MAY well be solid) but we are simply loaded when it comes to quantity if the quality is not yet proven. JMac can really prove alot this year and if the OL is not productive enough it is all on him. B. TC/MM took a great step by limiting the ability and the types of audibles Bledsoe could call. Bledsoe simply has too much confidence in his rocket arm and my guess is that we ended up calling an extraordinary number of pass plays in a row in 2003 on 3rd and 2 or less because in addition to Killdrive being pass-happy, the too few run plays that were the original call were probably audibled into passes by Bledsoe who saw some marginal opportunity for a WR to get free IF, the WR ran the right route well, IF Bledsoe delivered the ball well, and IF the D was not fooling us with the coverage they were showing. Even Bledsoe sang the praises publicly of the offense being simplified by a reduction in his ability to call audibles. We ironically became less predictable by reducing the number of plays we could switch into. C. TC/MM did a great job using Bledsoe as a runner and using his 10 years of time and ball-handling ability to great effect. Bledsoe will never be Micheal Vick breaking free with a few jukes to gain double digit yards running. However, just because it is not a long TD scoring tool for him does not mean he cannot run the QB draw to pick up 6 or 7 yards after we got stoned on our 1st down run to make our 3rd down play a potential run or pass. TC effectively used Bledsoe as an occaisonal runner using the QB draw to pick up positive yards which actually benefitted the pass game most of all. Opposing defenders knew that they did not have to guard the middle of the field against a draw under Killdrive and sold out to blitz or take outside rushes completely in 2003. Since they had to hesitate even the barest moment to make sure there was no delayed draw, it made the pass block much more effective. In addition to the occaisional run. TC/MM recognized that Bledsoe really had shown very good ball handling skills as a Bill. The shotgun snaps of Teague were a real adventure as he started learning this when he moved to C and from what I saw it was actually due to Bledsoe's ability to field some of these wayward snaps that we did not have a lot more fumbles of the QB/C exchange in 02/03. In 04, TC/MM used Bledsoe's ball-handling ability to employ him to receive the pitch back from WM on the flea-flicker and toss some downfield strikes to Evans and Moulds. In addition to being able to handle the pitch back and make the accurate downfield strike, Bledsoe also used his vet experience on plays like his fake QB sneak (which he sold beautifully even though we had not run it alot) and pitched it back to WM who a scampered 40 yards into the endzone. 4. The alarm clock was a brilliant move- Parcells went to the SB with Bledsoe as his QB in NE by using his force of will and great humor in practice to yell "just throw the damn ball" at Bledsoe every tine he would go into his familiar pat in practice waiting just a second for the WR to break free so he could hit him with some long spiral. In real games this resulted in some horrendous sacks. MM isn't Parcells (few HCs are), but he seemed to use an alarm clock set for 4 seconds which would go off whenever Bledsoe held onto the ball too long as a reminder/teaching tool to get Bledsoe to just throw the damn ball. I suspect part of the reduction in sacks was due to this work. The bottomline to me is that though we were much improved moving from 6-10 to 9-7 (in the end W/L is what it is all about) Bledsoe's prescence was still a rate limiting factor in that his teammates still rely on him to win the game when they screw up (as the D did letting Pitts run last year and the ST did in the final game with Lindell missing a chipshot and Clements laying the ball on the carpet). With a talented but learning younster at QB this year, the rest of the team will need to recognize that like the 2001 Pats team they all have to step up for the young QB if we want to win. In addition, I think Bledsoe also needs to remember and learn that as great as his arm is that he will actually be a more productive QB if he tries to do a bit less (throw the ball away and avoid the sack rather than wait for his WR to spring free by an inch so that he can needle the ball in to a small space. In certain situation's Bledsoe can be an effective QB to win games (like when he was using an O powered down for Brady's weaker arm and youth in the 2001 AFC championship game where Bledsoe played QB in relief of an injured Brady the majority of the game and threw the winning TD pass, also in 2002 as a Bill Bledsoe was very effective as the Bills QB until opponents got enough tape to dissect and learn the tendencies of the Killdrive offense and KK refused to vary the O enough to fool folks). I suspect that Dallas with Parcells will be both smart enough to see this and Parcells will have the force of will and Bledsoe's confidence to create a situation on this clean slate for him to effectively run Big Ds O. They may not do it, but I am actually willing to even make a prediction here as I rarely do that 2005 will see a resurgence in Dallas play and Bledsoe's redemption as an achieving player. This may not happen as the unpredictability of injury and the strange bounces taken by this odd-shaped ball (not to mention refs occaisionally blowing the coin toss) may cause a bad W/L for Dallas. However, I think that this is a smaller chance and the likelihood that I see is an impressive comeback by Bledsoe despite the sense I have that cutting him was the right thing for the Bills to do.

The thread name does bring back some horrible but interesting memories. The worse drive for me in Bills history was one a few years back in a night game where the Bills were playing SF and actually (I tried to forget this drive so my memory is imprecise) put on a nice drive to try to turn a game around and I think take a lead. The QB was probably TC, but with one yard to go to score a TD they sent Derrick Holmes into the line for what I figured would be a much deserved TD. Instead he got lit up by Bill Romanowski and SF picked up the resulting fumble and ran it back 99 yards for a 14 point turnaround from what was expected. Talk about the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. The drive cited here is probably one of the feeblest in Bills history (though I'm sure there is a drive where we were at least in FG range and lost yardage back to having to punt that was worst thsn this drive, also the drive where GW ended it choosing to punt in FG range a few years back strikes me as a worse drive. However, the one I mentioned comes to my mind as the worse drive in Bills history for me.

One ofthe best things about the Bills under MM (versus the GW reign of error) is that all the players must contribute to the team regardless of how they do it. Thus, London Fletcher is critical to this team in MLB production, but he is our best short-kickoff guy and he was probably seond on the team behind McGee in KO returns last year. GW would never risk a player like Clements who played a critical CB role on punt returns, but he has playmaker pasted above his locker for a reason and he ran one back for a TD even though we had PR talents like Fast-Freddy Smth around who also produced a TD. Bill Belichick had really made it popular for team members to be seen as "football players" first and specialists second. However, MM was making this the standard Bills operating procedue even before Troy Brown popularized this by answering the call at DB last year as MM was employing DTs like Bannan and even pro bowlerAdams on O in the redzone and eventually Denney being rewarded for his very good DE play last year showing athleticism and flexivility in the run blitz by being given a chance to score a TD (he failed unfortunately) as a TE. I have no problem using or risking a starter on ST play if he can contriute there. In fact I want it to happen. While obvious care and second thought would be given to employing a previously injured player such as WM on ST, this seems to me to be part of a commitment to bringing injured players along slowly as the Bills correctly did with sitting WM and JP. However, the message has been clearly given by MM, that if you are well enough to put on the uniform, you are well enough to play football as demanded (we saw that when JP unexpectedly for him but it is now clear in a planned way for MM was thrown into sink or swim in the NE game in which he sank as a performer but learned a valuable lesson as a football player). Everett may pull a muscle if he is used as a water boy for the Bills while hurt, but if London Fletcher needs some water in order to contribute then Kevin better get some water. Same with ST play, if that is how he is going to help us win, then that is what he should be expected to do. If he cannot contribute he might be a nice guy like Bobby Shaw but he will be gone if he can play and will not except in some rarified specific role.

Yeah but... weren't the Falcs when they drafted Vick a bad team and weren't the Jets when they drafted Pennington (he came late in the first but was one of several 1sts they had that year) and even the Pats when they took Brady adequate at best. The Falcs in particular had to go with some idiot at QB (Johnson I think) in Vick's rookie season because this extremely bad team which weakend itself in the immediate further by tradingg value to move up to get Vick had every reason if the wished to rush the rookie on to the field as a slash or to play the game as the conventional wisdom is all rookies must play to learn QB. Instead, they made what ultimately was a correct judgment that by choice the way to best develop this physically talented player was to have him watch and learn until late in his rookie season. Instead, teams that have chosen to have QBs play and learn except in the rare care of a Peyton Manning seem to have coincided with developing QBs whose paths are like Harrington, Ramsey or Boller, ie. talented guys who struggle to produce. In the worse cases, these talented players like a Favre or Steve Young play immediately, fail as most rookies do, are declared busts and traded (by the fools at TB in both these cases) and go on to glory elsehwere. Another bad case of QB development close to home is that the Bills had to rush Todd Collins along because they miscalculated how long Kelly would last and though this youngster produced some impressive accuracy #s as a Bill he also showed a case of happy-feet relatively early in his career and though maybe the mistake was in not recognizing he merited a 2nd choice, the Bills could not take their time and try to train this out of him. I am fully aware that many talented but failed QBs were rushed a long by bad teams, but the difference in production experienced seem often to track that of quality QBs were not rushed along by their bad teams who were patient for whatever reason. Again the best thing which may have happened to JP last year ws getting hurt because it nipped in the bud the pressure which would have obviously started when we went 0-4 to start JP if he had been healthy. Given what he showed when he was thrown into mop-up up the NE game, his failure to even command th huddle when he took a delay of game call his second game, and his failure to communicate orders leading to a TO in his third game, mop-up was about as much as this talented player could do last year. I'm glad he was in no position to start or play anything but mop-up last year in terms of developing him into the QB we want, and quite frankly have no problems with MM/TC deciding to keep him on a short-leash and judiciously bench him if it unfortunately proves useful in favor of Holcomb in 05. It will be tough to do and still develop him as even QBs can be amazing placekicker like in terms of their confidence and suffering badly from rough handling, but in the long-term JP almost certainly needs to both play and watch in order to become the QB we want for the long-term.

This good news in terms of his development as a Bill and for our future prospects. However, I have few illusions about his contribution to the team in '05 even id he is 100% because this means that though his relative contribution will be as high as it can get from what appears to be a talented player, his absolute contribution to the team at that point will be that of a rookie NFL player (even one taken in the 3rd round which will be not that much of relevance to Ws in the middle of the season when he is at 100% of rookie first game form. I think the real world way (as :real" as the NFL can be) to think about this is that his contribution in October will be that of fellow 3rd rounder Ron Edwards when he was a rookie or even exceed that of current Pro Bowler 4th round choice McGee, Edwards was not even active at that point of his career giving 100% of what this 3rd rounder could produce and McGee was either not active or DNP giving 100% of what he could produce as a rookie even though he later became a Pro Bowl performer. The injury is a big deal because orginally I had hopes that Everett was a diamond in the rough who might produce for the team at a cutback amount but at the same rate as Evans did as a rookie last year, which would mean since he was able to develop from the start by October 100% of him was a threat. 100% of Everett if it occurs in October will be a supportive ST role likely at best.

I find some in depth statistical comparisons which I have seen lately that show that the QBs who are doing well and making the playoffs tend to be those who sat most or all of their 1st years like Pennington. Brady, Culpepper and Vick while those who have suited it up a lot right away like Harrington, Ramsey and Boller have tended to struggle have their teams fail to make the playoffs. Part of this can be attributed to the teams which have tended to go to the rookie QB right-away tend to be bad teams, iowever, the records of many of these playoff teams QB;ed by players who sat for mpst pf the games the were active as rookies also had bad seasons which got the drafted early in many cases or simply had bad records prior to things turning around with their young QB, I know some folks worship the QB and want to ignore the factual occurences that no (narry a one, nada, zippo) teams have won an SB led by a QB they drafted in the 1st round since Dallas chose Aikman who wen on to glory back in 1989. However, this fact is simply true whether your team drafted Peyton Manning or Ryan Leaf. This is the bid statisticsl strike the JP will have to overcome. I hope he will do this, but I think the best thing to happen with him in terms of his development last year was to get an injury which fortunately he seems to have recovered fully from, but this injury gavr him a chance to watch the game and learn and a unique oppotunity to download from Wyche. While the the long time absent from this Board ICE argued the only way to learn the QB position is to play, the real life occurences indicate exactly the opposite that the best development for a young QB in terms of being a success is to sit, watch and learn. I think JP can have the best of both worlds in his second year if MM/TC are smart.good enough to run an O which does not rely upon or call upon JP much to win the game on his play, but instead allows him to play a make few mistake role and learn the game while we win.

I object as it is not just the number of posts that determines us retards, but the length of those posts. I am as retarded as anybody and the stats do not show this!

I'm sure that the poster thinks second day pick McGee who made the Pro Bowl was a bum as well. Perhaps he finds even the good production from the draft substandard as he compares it with some good production we got from FA signings like Spikes and Adams or UFA gets like Moorman and Baker (or even the contributions of a nn-starter like Peters, The list of some fairly nice hits by TD looking at draftees, FAs and UFAs raises several questions about the misses: 1. Why do some folks want to accuse TD of being horrible at everything when a more reality based assessment shows him to be a mized bag at worse? Generally the W/L under his tenure and failure to make the playoffs and the failed hiring of GW are the lead bad issues. However, the above mentioned accomplishments in the draft. FA and UFA. his putting together a good team led by Modrak, his great management of the business side of the Bills for Ralph and him reversing the two big mistakes of his era by hiring MM after the GW era and cutting Bledsoe after foolishly restructuring, shoe TD to be a mixed bag but he is on a roll recently and things seem to be moving in the right direction. Who knows why some posters refuse to see all of reality and focus only on the stupid things he has done when they were done earlier than more recent good moves? Who knows, but it probably says more about that poster than about TD. 2. If there are so many good things to point to why have we not yet made the playoffs? Thia is a good question and the best answer for those whose panties are up in a wad over this qustion which there is no possible way to answer until December when the Bills either make the playoffs or not is simply just wait. I think we have failed to make the playoffs because TD's initial errors combined with a need to retool after Butler meant it would have been quite surprsing if we had even made the playoffs before 2004. Most teams need a couple of years at least of cap hell before they get free of all the bonuses and old contracts of the old guard (some teams are such bad managers like AZ or CIN before Lewis brought even adequacy to them to be perpetually in cap hell). It seems counter to reality that some folks want to describe TD's cap mamagement task when he came here as easy and anyone could do it.Look at how long some of the teams with better records of achievement like SF or Oak have meandered in cap hell and really think about how simple and straightforward this is. it was clear that 2001 was going to be a lost season and was very impressive that we legitimately were a 500 team in 2002. 2003 saw a result that one can honestly blame on TD as we saw the results of both his lousy hire of GW and the good performance of Bledsoe in 2002 came back to bite us in 2003 because GW could not get control of the O and get Kevin Killdrive to diversify the O and opponents used tape review and the roadmap provided by Belicheck to neutralize the Bledsoe led O. I think we have failed to make the playoffs because we are still reeling from the non-management of the OL by GW, his dumb OC hires like the not-ready Sheppard and the talented but wouded Killdrive, and his two failed OL coaches. However, the prospects are good. MM brought Clements with him (apparently the TD choice to replace Sheppard but he seemed so intent of allowing GW to make his own bed that he accepted the GW choice of Killdrive and we did well until opponents got enough tape and BB provided a roadmap for how to undress Bledsoe). MM not only turned around O production once he got control of things (it took the first 4 losses and seemed to coincide with him establishing what he wated by cutting OK player Shaw because Shaw was not contributing because like it or not he was the #5 WR. We finally put up a winning record last year and since I think we lost to Pitts in part because our coaches did not get the same production from the team they got during the winnng streak, but both coaches and players should have learned valuable lessons from this loss, we can do better this year.

The thing I was most interested in hearing from your desciption of the interview was whether he took the opportunity to trash the Bills (as Phat Pat has done since negotiations did not go his way and he flew the coop to MN) or whether he is taking a higher road and either praising the the fans who rooted for him, or is simply leavingthe past behind. I take it that it was painful to watch because no one mistakes Henry for a great orator rather than it was painful because he spoke out aginst the team or the region since there are no specifics cited a long those lines.

I gave some though to adding Campbell to my "they suck" list but did not do so because: 1. He may well suck after his ACL injury as this injury has been known to end some careers and the 30 year old Campbell who was never fleet-footed to begin with fits this description. However, I think we should wait and see before we make the judgment. 2. I perceive you judge Campbell to have sucked even prior to the injury and I disagree. A. He was better than what we had at TE when he was acquired as he came in after the end of the Remeirsma era and we needed help here. Advocating an upgrade is something we always want to do, but is less relevant when there is no apparent upgrade and the choices are between a player who sucks and several who suck worse as starters (Neufeld for example). One can advocate diping into the FA pool, buteven that choice for going for a better player like Bubba Franks has implications for not spending the cap $ elsewhere that need to be discussed in a serious proposal. B. I think Campbell actually showed the potential for some good stuff prior to his injury. He was actually second on the team in receiving TDs last year bouyed by his 3 TD day. One might assert this was a fluke, but boy what a fluke and Ds are simply forced to cover our TE so the fluke does not happen to them. In addition, the two other TD receptions and several cases where he caught downfield passes and did not cough up the ball after vicious downfield hits are indications to me that while he is no Ben Coates at all, that he does have some receiving use and before his injury was not an unreasonable bet to improve his game. C. He has a rep as a soild blocker and it is difficult for us outside observers to really parse this out based on observation on TV and even worse at the game. Instead, I think that results are the best way for us observers to try to guess about his blocking skill. The results rushing for TH in 03 and WM in 04 and improvements in the pass pro in 04 over the 03 results with Bledsoe indicate that the OL with Campbell was doing something better and even right. Regarding our OL- i would say yes they are inadequate but in addition to this thread being about assessment of individuals rather than groups (though the group thing is actually more relevant from a football standpoint). I think our OL was clearly inadequate but did not suck. The two things they have to do is be productive run blocking and providing pass pro. The OL has been a part of stacking up some yardage with TH and with WM and I think one has a hard time labeling their run work as even inadequate much less simply sucking. There is a better case to be made that the pass pro has sucked since the 2002 season, but other issues like the repetitive play calling of Killdrive and the relative lack of mobility of Bledsoe are easily factors as much or probably more than the pass pro blocking failings.

I think the Bills are figuring that Gandy will one of two things well enough. First JMac sems to see something specific he believes he can improve in Gandy's play which will allow him to perform at the same or better level than he performed for the Dears when Thomas ran for a bunch of yards. 2nd, I think he figures that Gandy's voice is good enough that when he does get beat he will yell LOOKOUT at the top his lungs and JP who is far more mobile than Bledsoe will scamper out of the way or at least duck and cover for the coming blindside hit.

Clearly there is a difference between a player who does not meet the terms of an agreement with the team and a GM and team who do not meet the original tems of their agreement. When player's holdout and fail to meet the terms of the agreement it violates the CBA and when GM/teams simply cut a player and thus fail to complete their agreement this action is within the context of the CBA. However, though their is a legal distinction between the two acts, there is a moral equivalency in that the two parties have reached an agremment and one side chooses not to follow it. My sense is that the "moral" culpability of the GM/team varies from case to case. In a case where a contract is clearly backloaded and a player's skills have clearly slid it actually would be unreasonable to insist that the team/GM has any moral duty to honor the contract. However, on the other end of the scale, there are players who still have something left in the immediate as players, who have expressed their willingness to take a paycut to stay with the team, and are pillars of the community which loses out when the player is forced to go because the team exercises its right under the CBA to go in another direction. For example. I think the case of Ruben Brown and the Bills is more like the latter case. His backloaded contract had a trigger for a signing bonus which the Bills decided not to pay him the money so they moved to cut him instead. The 2004 cap hit for cuttimg Brown was almost exactly the same as if they had paid him because when they cut him the out-year proration of the bonus already paid to him accelerated into the current year. Money is money and there was an additional payment the Bills were going to make if they kept him even though the cap hit would have been the same if they kept him (and thus no acceleration). However, Brown had publicly offered to take less money in bonus and essentially saved the Bills money in what they agreed to pay him. The benefit for Brown would have been he got to stay in Buffalo with his teammates and with a significant number of charities he has long supported with time and events such as organ transplantation. a scholarship program for Buffalo kids to go to college and his motorcycle rally. The interesting thing here is that the Bills decided not to meet the agreement because they chose not and not because they had to: 1. They at least had the same cap hit for cutting him as keeping him and actually RB said he was willing to create a cash savings for them by providing services for less money than they agreed to pay. 2. There is at least a credible case to be made that Brown would provide "adequate" services as he remains in the NFL, and had a record of achievement in the near past with the Bills. 3. The Bills obviously had a clear OL need and specifically a clear LG need as we were forced to start a player from the PS of another team and had to bench him as being inadequate. 4. There was a real reason for the Bills going in another direction despite their being no financial benefit to cutting Brown and there being a need for his services at LG which he credibly could fill and there ending up being no player actually developed to fill the LG role through playing last year and that real reason was that Ruben had puiblicly challenged the work of Kevin Killdrive and to some extent Ruel as being bad and hurting the team. He was correct and they were canned, but if you kill the old coaches then you must also be killed because if not folks will look to you when they disagree with the new coach. All in all, under the CBA it is understood that teams may no meet their obligations and stand up to their agreements so in now way did the Bills not follow the CBA. However, they also did what is the equivalent of a player holdout in failing to meet their obligation and agreement for reasons of convenience rather than putting the most competitive football team on the field last year. Would the Bills have been a better team in the first four games last year with RB playing LG rather than Smith? Who knows, but because the Bills decided not to use the CBA to not follow their agreement we will never really know.

Rosenhaus is hired by the person holding out and that player deserves by far they blame rather than focusing on the the tool following their orders.

In another thread which I could not remember which it was Bill in NYC asked me whether I thought any Bills sucked, It was interesting food for thought since I realized that there were any number of Bills in the GW era that I thought sucked, there actually were fews named that sprung to mind on today's team. I name my candidates below and the good news is that even those I think do suck do have a chance IMHO to potentially redeem themselves through better performance if they worked out hard this year. Certainly in the GW era when we were going through the rigors of cap hell and it took less skill to make this team a number of players sucked in my eyes. Horrid moments when we picked up GW recommendations like Robinson or Jenkins who were done, escapades like when we asked Chidi Ahanatou to be Jevon Kearse in the GW 4-3 (he was probably a reasoable back-up but he sucked in a starting role) and even taking a player who I liked as a back-up but he simply sucked as a starter like Sean Moran the suck quotient was pretty high in the old day and we has the 3-13 record to prove it, As time went on and we escaped cap hell the team and the players improved. I think that we finally had a winning record because MM not only does a better job of not getting players who suck but he tends to use them well also. I think my comments have been more positive because the players are better and also because many post do not seem to recognize this and declare players as sucking when they don't (Ryan Denney for example sucked so badas a rookie he could not even be played, but his play has improved by leaps and bounds as last year it allowed the Bills to go with only 3 DEs ina defense that used a lot of DL rotation) or not recognizing that players were a mixed bag (For example , Bledsoe sucked so bad in 2003 he clearly deserved to be cut and TD stupidly did not do this, but in 2002 he played well enough to deserve his Pro Bowl reserve nod {if you disagree then simply say who deserved to make the team that year who did not} and a real assessment of his play needs to acknowledge both these realities rather than investing in the fantasy that he always was a god or he always sucked). At any rate, I feel even better about this Bills squad because a lot fewer players than in the past suck. Current Bills Who Suck (IMHO) Firat off- This list is limited to players who were on the Bills last year and does not include my sense of new players who for the most part are draft picks or camp fodder. 1. Sam Aiken- This is a player who I hope pulls a Dusty Ziegler or a Ron Edwards who are both players who I had initially as sucking (IMHO) who really turned their games around or I looked at the their play more closely and was actually impressed. Sam Aiken is not there yet and my guess is that he will never be. He did do a few thing right toward the end of last season but was unable to finish even on thse few good plays. Between him and Reed, as disappointing as Reed gas been after a good start I think Aiken is the more easily cuttable player. 2. Drew Haddad- I hate to say this about a UB grad but he really has done nothing as a regular season pro and he simply sucks and is an oft-injured player with tender hammys 3. Rian Lindell- It is with some reluctance that I make this statement as I think that the virtually unanimous posts which have called for his head actually fail to acknowledge that he did not suck at kickoffs last year but was actually excellent. I think the casual observer of the game may get fooled by the notion that deep kickoffs and toucjbacks are the true or only measure of a kicker, but I think it is the combination of the kicker putting it where he is supposed to put it and with a reasonable amount of hangtime that is the true measure of a good kickoff. Performing this feat in the variable and often severe winds of the Ralph is even tougher to do and the record of the Bills ST in givng up no TD returns and even few long returns is a tribute not only to good tackling but really a tremendous job kicking off by Lindell. Add to that him being called on for three onside kicks last year and he simply did everything as well as it cpo;d be ddone when he recovered his owm kick after halftime to seal one game and actually made a great onside on another that Rashard Baker had a shot at (all you can reasonably ask of a kicker) and failed to recover. All this being said, missing a chip shot FG at a critical point in a game which could have got us into the playoffs simply sucked. I also am moved to add him to my list because oa positively stupid statement by TD that good kickers are a dime a dozen when he cut Steve Christie (who is still kicking well enogh today BTW). Jake Ariens play, Shayne Graham getting cut and now doing well, the failure to be able to maintain a sustainable relationship with Mike Hollis and the huge contract Lindell signed which he has not yet lived up to all make this player simply suck. I have defended him because many refuse to acknowledge the full record but the bottomline is he has sucked. 4. Josh Reed- I think he gets another chance because the cap imvestment will make the Bills inclined to keep him all things being equal and in his career he has been a workout warrior and showm well in practices even in the year he had the droppsies in the regular season and got hurt in regular season. He has been productive before as a pro with Moulds and Peerless and there is no reason he cannot do the same with Evans in the PP role but until he does he sucks. 5. Coy Wire- I like the fundamentals about him because he is a big hitter, with good enough speed for his size and he is a bright boy who graduated from Stanford. He has been active and a community booster in the time he has been here. However, I think GW and the gang totally mismanged his development throwing him into a starting role at safety when he had never played the position at any level of organized ball and shifting him all over the place to get him on the field when they should have trained him to become the next Steve Tasker right from the start. I think unfortunately he is done due to this lousy management. Well, this is who I think sucks Bills and I am curious who folks might add to this list or who they might disagree with my assessment. Overall, this also needs to come with recognition that this is a fans view and that even a scrub in the MFL is infinitely more of an athlete than us normal folk will ever be. However, us fans can say what we want and they are paid the bib bucks for us to judge them whether it be with fact-free opinions or whatever.

The point is that the Bills O was so bad in 2003 particularly after Moulds was hurt that it is possible that one could be the best Bills WR and still not be very good. To me was Shaw a good player? No Did Shaw suck? Yes and no but mostly no as he was the best we could do at WR. I think Reed sucked as he was prone to drop key passes and could not be depended upon at all. I think he was worse than Shaw by a longshoy. Again this does not say Shaw was good but describes hiw problematic Reed was. I think Shaw clearly was not going to do the job a lot, but I think he was clearly the best alternative we had in an offense that hit the wall.

I agree with the move to cut Shaw as it coincided with a turnaround in team W/L results which indicated to me that for some players who needed motivation that they saw that if a vet player like Shaw could get cut because he was the 4th or 5th WR on this team they better get to work and produce on the field because the extra guys might be gone even if the team was already on the hook for a full-season's pay to Shaw after the second game. I disagree with you however in concluding he sucked. In fact, I think he was still a good player who as an above post pointed out was still looked upon favorably in the locker room as a good guy and team guy. If Shae had sucked I do not think this cut would have sent the right message to the players. It simply would have said don't suck and you will not be cut. It would have sent a message if he had been kept that even if you are a non-ccontributor to this team as a benchwarmer, that is OK if you are a good guy. Instead, the fact we cut a good player who as recently as the year before had been the best WR on the field when Moulds got hurt and Reed developed the droppsies. The fact that we cut a good guy who we were already on the hook for a season's pay and might prove useful down the line if we had an injury problem at WR actually sent a message to all players that not sucking was not good enough. A clear message went out that the Bills demanded production from all players and being there just in case was not good enough. To me, Shaw got cut not because he sucked, but because it became clear that Moulds was back and Evans was the real deal so #1 and #2 WR were locked up, Further, there were still question for #3 but between the fact Reed was not back to his rookie form but had overcome the bad form he showed with is droppsies, that Aiken had the potential to earn the #3 slot and that even Fast Freddy Smith show some capability that emerged late in the season on PR, it made even the best WR on th field in 2003 who had continued to get older but was not done yet a player whose highest and best use was to cut someone who did not suck. I agree with the cut but disagree that he sucked. In fact, if he sucked or was a cancer there was little good message to be gained from cutting him.

Some folks may simply want to ignore the cap, but if you are a GM and do this then you will not be a GM for long. This all jas so many factors to it now and has become so complex that unfortunately even the non-casual outside observer is pretty much guessing as to what the best thing to do is. The easiest and one of the biggest mistakes that many of us outside observers seem to make is that we seem to assume there is some one to one convergence between the level of a players talent and the contract he gets. Nope, this is not the case. Each owner and thus GM has a budget to spend reflected in the salary cap that he/she will spend on their team. Within this budget a player may be a young great performer, but if his team is willing or able to budget enough to sign him to a big contract, but a better player of similar youth is on a team whose cap budget is dedicated to other positions then the second team correctly might let that player hit FA and walk. As pointed out, the various examples cited are older players, non-top 5 cap hit contracts or simply do not draw much direct analogy to Clements and even if they did, the Bills could quite reasonably let him walk if they have what they feel are adequate cheaper replacements. If Thomas Smith, Peerless Price, Andre, Thurman or Bruce or one of the other Bills we have let go had become world-beaters then I would have a problem with our general strategy of not investing in these players then I think there would be a problem. However, that has simply generally not been the case so I think it is hard to make a credible case that we do not invest in players correctly. Of the folks who have had notable play after they walked on us (Dusty Zielger made an SB, Big Ted has some good accomplishments) there do not appear to be any long term deals or individual successes that I would point to us having made a mistake (Antowais Smith is a good example of leaving the Bills was great for him but I would have a hard time arguing that their success was due to Smith). Overall, when one looks at the FA market and the benefuts we have garned from pick-ups like Bryce Paup, Sam Adams, Takeo Spikes and even London Fletcher I think we are way ahead of the game in investing or not investing in the correct way or timing of players. The future will be interesting, but I think AW is a good player but his market cost did not make him reasonable to sign and I will be quite surprised if the market value that Jennings achieved would have made him a good investment for the Bills. I disagree that we have handled investment decisions on young players badly. If you do then who should we have signed that walked and how much should we have paid them to keep them off the market.

I don't think any if this is inconsistent with what i said is the bottom line that speed in running is for the most part determined by nature (genetics- some poeple inherit a make-up which makes them faster runners) and by nurture (their is training one can do on techniques which revolve around getting a good start, using good technique like the most efficent running form, and having a good close like running though the tape or making a good lean at the end. As someone pointed out tine is a big element with this so the earlier you start the better and the younger you start the les you have to also unlearn bad running habits. You can have "runners genes" and even with a late start in training you can do a lot. However, even if you start early with training but are built geneticaklly to be a slower person you will be the best you can be but you will never be a world class sprinter. The key here is to no yourself or as best as you can know your kid and regardless of the result if the effort is there then love abd reward your kid for making the good effort! In essence techniques can be taught and those techniques almost always can improve speed, but making a living from sports is such a rare thing in our soceity (300+ million people for a few thousand jobs) that by the numbers it is incredibly unlikely that the improvements in speed which can be taught will make in difference whatsoever in whether one gets an athletic job or not that is not a good strategy to learn speed to reach this goal. Learning speed techniques can certainly be a good strategy for having fun with it or gaining confidence, it just is a non-strategy for turning sports into a job.

By the measure you are using he certainly is a more ptoductive QB than Peyton Manning who at least has finally sprinted ahead of Ryan Leaf in playoffs win with his first one with the Colts playoff victories in the seventh year of his career Manning was certainly achieved a higher QB rating than Vick in the 4th year of their careers though not extraordinarily higher so that one might judge their individual accomplishments to be quite even since clearly the AT teams with Vick at QB have achieved more than the Colts teams with Manning at the helm. I'd agree with you that all things being what they are, I wouldn't certainly rather have Trent Dilfer with his cap hit the year they won the SB which allowed them to instead commit winning resources to the D, or if I insist on having a glitzy QB to invest in strategies that found Kurt Warner at Wal-Mart of Tom Brady in the 6th rounf rather than to pay a team-killing amount to Micheal Vick or Peyton Manning and never win the SB or even the conference championship game. I'd pass on opting for the stud QB or athlete and instead a key to reaching the ultimate goal of an SB win seems to be not to invest inordinantly at QB but to instead invest in building a team. If JP wins the SB with the Bills, he will be the first QB to deliver the trophy to the team which drafted him in the 1st since Dallas chose Aikman in 1989 (though I think that the key move was trading Herschel Walker to MN for the depth which made them a winning team. Of course their is the example of NE winning it with Drew who was essential to their winning run in 2001 with his work in the championship game, but we have already done the Bledsoe thing and it was really a 6th round selectwed QB paid 25K above the rookie minimum that delivered the SB trophy to them, so outside of Vick having a slightly better W/L % than Manning they really are both about the same in desirability if winning the SB is what you are all about as a fan.

I like the definition of Henry as a pre-cancerous lesion. With proper care and serious but not radical surgery (like cutting him as a few crazies advocated the problem can be handled. I think folks who for some reason think that what TD and the Bills did getting a 3rd for Henry post the end of his orginal contract was little more that average work to be expected, might consider this analogy that TD led the way in treating this pre-cancerous lesion very well.

2 things which strike me about this situation. I think that those who say TD better resign Clements or he should be gone are wrong because if I am Clements there is no way that I resign before FA unless TD offers me some psychotic deal with a huge signing bonus. If I play at the same level I played this year (and as he apparently has a sign that says "playmaker" on his locker a lack o ego and confidence does not seem to be NC's problem) he walks into FA with a very good chance to sign an extra ordinary contract even by NFL standards as the salary cap goes way up under the new TV-deals which under the CBA must rise as players are promised a % of the designated gross which includes TV money. Clements stands to make a boatload of cash which I'm not sure that RWS can even pay NC right now if he wanted to given that he is one of the less liquid of the mega-million owners and under the current cap limitations. There is no way I would resign now unless I had some injury worries, needed upfront $ right now or was not due to become a UFA until 2007. This brings us to the second issue which is McGee. This is a classic debate for him between having a bird in the hand or two in the bush. McGee should not come cheaply because having achieved the Pro Bowl in his second year and having been forced into a starting role at CB where he floundered initially like any young player but clearly improved in his play he has a temendous amount of real leverage. Hpwever, he simply will not be able to exert that leverage as he is not only under contract for chump change in 2005 already despite his 2004 Pro Bowl renown, the Bills can hold him with a larger but still chump change qualifying bid in 2006. There is signficant leverage for him to take a lesser contract now than a UFA deal because the signing bonus will set him for life and give him money up front to play with. The good news for him is that the earlier he signs a deal which sets him for life, the more likely he is to actually be able to get a second bite at the FA apple with some time left in his career IF he continues to perform (as I suspect most athletes think they will) and if he avoids serious injury (as I think most kids who know they are immortal think they will also). I think there are all sorts of reasons why McGee might take the biggest payday he has ever seen and be set for life (with good fiscal management) but forgo the huger Ty Law-esque money UFA brings. If he extends now he likely gets a second bit at the apple before he is 30.

Though I agree with your premise to some extent, I'm not sure that you have the right read as to the result. Fletcher has played here with a weak DL before as we were forced to start the likes of Sean Moran at DT in front of him. However, the result of him having weak DTs in front of him was actually MORE tackles as he even broke Chris Spielman's mark for total tackles with 209 credited to him for that season. Fletcher may slow down in his 8th year so who knows what will happen, but I always felt that one of the greatest parts of his game for the Bills is that though our weakness at DT did allow an OL player to be assigned to him and play in his grill, he was very good at fighting through this and still making the tackle. I thought many posters actually showed they has little clue about what was happening in the game because they kept complaining that Fletcher sucked because he kept making tackles 5 yards downfield. To the extent this was true, it was because first contact for him did not occur until 3-5 yards beyond the line of scrimmage and he had to fight through an OL players assigned to him to even make the tackle which he did. I do not think that the DT situation will be as bad as it was in 2001 anyway as I think that both Edwards and Anderson are better candidates to start likes someone who at best was a good back-up like Moran. Between these two, Takeo Spikes being a better LB partner for Fletcher than Foreman (the comparison isn't even close) and us using a run blitz scheme which is a far more deceptive and better scheme for keeping OL players off of Fletcher this all will be fine and his tackle numbers will remain vey good but not elevate the extraordinary numbers he put up in 2001 which were an indicator of a big problem for the Bills at DT.

I agree this is most likely his last season at this substantial salary negotiated under the pre-current TV deal salalary cap at his old fairly consistent and pretty good with bursts of top flight excellence production numbers. However, in addition to his producing at a top flight level one more time (100+ catches or double digit TD which he achieved in 2002) I'd add these circumstances under which I think we keep Moulds: 1. The new cap level really changes the salary structure of teams and his current contract which is among the highest in the team and league becomes a lower % as the Bills really have to ladel out $ to be within the minimum cap # of wealth distribution to the employees. My sense is that even if this is the case that the blockbuster contracts go to players like Clements, but a short-tem huge deal to keep Moulds is certainly possible. 2. After an incredibly promising first year (just like Reed had his rookie season), Evans has a sophomore slump (just like Reed had his second season) that makes keeping Moulds around a bit more of a priority. I think that Evans is the real deal and I doubt he has the something like the droppsie problem that hit Reed and is actually more important and more likely for a WR who is a possession guy like Reed rather than a burner like Evans. However, who knows what may happen with injury and Moulds relative value could make him a keeper if Evans suffers some injury which damages his speed. 3. There is something about Moulds contract we do not know. The numbers we have are likely correct as the NFL and NFLPA releases factual total numbers as part of their "turst but verify" interaction with each other through the CBA website. However, it has become clear through various unforseen curve balls like the actual date of Ruben Brown's bonus kicking in that we outsiders do not know the actual language of the deals and important info for understanding the contract. Clumping Platelets does an outstanding job collecting and sharing Bills details, but one has to acknowledge there are significant things which may impact this decision which we do not know. This is probably Moulds last years as a Bills, but between the 4 variables above (add to the 3 him having a great season) it is a bit early to declare this his final year for sure or at any level we need to worry about.

Some posters has referred to Henry as a cancer while some of us disagree. In my view. Henry certainly grew to be a pouty petulant child about this, but was far away from being what I would call a cancer. TH was an idiot as a Bill (and I am glad he was such a poor fiscal manager that he bought us an extra year of owning him on the cheap) but he did not reach what I consider the definition of a player being a cancer which in my mind is: 1. A player whose public actions or comments or his persona among his teammates becomes a distraction which detracts or distracts from the team winning. 2. A player who simply punches the clock and collects a paycheck while not playing hard or like a pro. In my mind Henry was not a cancer because he never was a team leader or ever had much of a prescence that his poor plsy last year was any distraction at all. Beyong maybe giving TH a start against the Ravens when WM had clearly gotten a giddyup back in his game did TH ever stop WM from playing when WM was ready to go. TH started (and did not produce) in the first 4 games because WM was not ready to start yet because even as he season went on one slowly sae WM getting confidence in his knee. Henry was not a cancer last season at all because he did not spread dissension (how could he crdibly when it was clear WM was the better player) but silently sat there and pouted leaving those who claimed he was a cancet to try to claim his bofy language was bad. TH was a child and not a positive force but he was never the negative force of a true cancer. Folks might have a better case to make on the second point that though TH did not infect the rest of the team like a cancer, his own production clearly was down. However, even in this case, his production dropped from very good (when he rushed for 1300+ two years in a row) to average at best wotj a couple of bad plays at very bad times. However, even this downturn came after he had been quite productive for a year in 2003 working on a very very bad O, If he had gone into this season and held out and remained at home then perhaps he would then deserve the cancer rap (though I still think many of his teammates would have said so what along as WM could play). However, the fact he did not pull these shenanigans until after the season ended and clearly he had a working re;ationship with TD when his agent did TD's work for him and sniffed out intial offers was him playing ball to meet our needs because they coincided with his rather than being a cancer and hurting himself just to hurt the team. Labeling TH a cancer is simply too strong and gives bit too much credit to this man who reacted like a boy to the WM pick.