Fake-Fat Sunny

Thanks for resdponding to the thread and issues in some detail. i think folks can read this thread (and actually learn a lot of interesting factoids) and assess it based on the content which tiy have contributed a lot to. However I think that a reader need only look at the title of this thread and your quote above to get the bottomline on all of our blather. This thread challenged the notion ranted in other threads that Aaron Schobel was a mediocre player. I disagree with this assessment completely. I never said I consider him an All-Pro and never said that I thought he deserved Pro Bowl status. All I claim is that whether one applies the semantics to the word "medicore" that most of us do that a mediocre player is a bad player and worse than average or even if one take the more charitable Old English definition that medicre means medium or a middle of the pack ranking of Schobel among the 64 DE starters in this league, Schobel is better than worse than average or merely average as a player. I a happy that your post summarized Schobel as being a better than average player if by your judgment he is only slightly better than average. I simply say that better than average whether you are in the top third (but not All-Pro) or simply being in the upper part of the middle teir because he is slightly better than average makes the claim of some that he is a mediocre player simply incorrect. The good news for the Bills is that the cap hit for the #10 DE according to NFL.com is $3.9 million. Schobel comes in at well below this with a 2005 cap hit at $2.6 million according to the great compilation by Clumpy. Almost all statistical measures point to him being below the top 8 witj Pro Bowl nods but well above the bad player and as you say above average even if only slightly so in your judgment. I'm not saying I'm not disappointed in his play as a Bills fan, just that like my fellow Bills fans I know I am irrational about player performance (Bruce Smith was one of the best there ever was at DE and I was horribly disappointed in him all the time). Disappointed in Schobel? Fine as I agree, because I was disappointed in every Bill last year and will be til we win it all. But to claim I am disappointed because he is mediocre rather than because of my own irrational standards as a fan is simply laughable in my book.

Like NE (winner of 3 of the past 4 SBs) they had Brady when their plan A at QB got damaged. Like TB they found their QB after he had been cut by 2 other teams Like the Ravens they found a QB capable of leading them to an SB win from the cap casuaties and paid him the vet minimum. Like the Rams whose planned QB star got injured they found a QB capable of bringing them to an SB win by paying a recent former box boy at Wal-Mart the vet minimum to lead them. If past experience is any guide, the key to an NYJ SB run is not whether Pennington delivers or not but whether they have a good plan B. As a Bills fan I have grave doubts whether this near rookie QB Losman we drafted in the 1st will break the streak going back to failed 1st round QB choices by teams since Dallas chose Aikman in the 1st and he brought them an SB win. However, i feel very good about our plan B with Holcomb if Losman develops the way everybody else has since 1989 for the team that drafted a 1st round QB. Lat round choices like Delhomme or late picks like Brady have been far more successful than the heavy investments in a McNabb (or Palmer, or Smith or even Leaf and Manning) when it comes to SB apearances not to mention wins. I know little about NYJ but if you accurately want to assess their prospects look at their plan B at QB rather than at Pennington.

I'm just not so sure about this assertion. Certainly the Pats winning the SB with Brady the last two years in a row describes this situation and QB performnce. However, a consideration of the recent history of QBs and SB winners points in a different direction. 04- Brady and agree with your premise 03- Brady as well and the premise holds 02- Johnson as QB and this two time reject by other teams performed well with his team but even when healthy I am not sure that his play and ability inspired the kind of confidence you are talking about. Confidence on this team came from their belief in Warrne Sapp and the D. 01- Brady again but I don't think anyone can talk yet about this seond year QB inspiring anty confidence in anyone even given the team's Ws with him in place. If your thoughts drove decision makling on this team Bledsoe would have been their starter in the SB. Instead it was actually that BB showed confidence in this team being a TEAM that describes their SB run. 00- Trent Dilfer is the poster boy for describing a lack of confidence in the QB to do more except not make mistakes and correctly any confidence came from a belief in Marvin Lewis and an overwhelming D. 99- Finally one needs to look back ino the last century to find a QB besides the vet brady whom a team is led by and believes in him as te Rams did with Warner (who ironicslly replaced their orginal designated starter Trent Green and Warner came out of nowhere and was paid the NFL minimum to QB the team to the SB just like Dilfer did and Bray virtually did getting a chump change bonus before he showed confidence was correctly place in him. Pennington looks like toast as an SB winner, however, one needs to go back to Elway winning it all to find aQB who began the seson inked in as the teams starter to identify the QB requirements you describe as being the key to a team beginning their SB glory run. Brady is the best and only recent eample of a well-respected stud QB being the clear team leader on an SB winning team even as training camp began for an SB winning team and even this example probably is closer to the Jets situation (Pennington as Bledsoe) that what you describe.

Great point about the night game being Saturday and thus giving folks a chance to travel without the immediate pressures of a Monday return to work. if the Bills ticket sellers are on their game, they will promote this as an opportunity to make this trip an event for travelers and at least let folks know of other options for having fun in conjunction with a trip to the Bills game. Even for the hardcore who refuse to experience anything beside football unless it is delivered to their feet, you can get drunk anywhere and the Saturday night gives folks a day to deal with the hangover.

One of the best signs for the Bills remaining in Buffalo has been their performance at the gate the last few years. Ticket sales does not gurantee anything in terms of the fate of location for a team as the money generated by TVis the nig deal in terms of dollars and the equation of a rich guy (or gal if they are Oprah) wanting in will drive alot and unfirtunately can overwhem mere psychotic interest from the locals. However, lots of local interest is way way better than struggling to sell the tickets and the performance generated by the relationship between the Bills and its fans has been great. Even though we are talking about a team which has failed to even make the playoffs 5 years running. Last year was the first one where a game did not sell-out in 3 years. Part of this has come from the generosity of Ralph "buying" up a few thousand remaining tickets a few times and donating them to well-deserving US troops and also to students (one needn't get too weepy-eyed about this sacrifice as Ralph and the Bills certainly profitted from selling beer, coke and kielbasas to any butts that filled the seats even with a free ticket and who knows how the lawyers and bean counters manufactured some dollars out of this charitable gift in tax deductions). At any rate the announcement of their only being single seats available for the first three home games is a great sign for sells this year. Thias is what the prospects look like to me: Sept. 11 Houston 1:00 - Single seats and home opener frenzy mean if you want tickets you better buy them now. Sept. 25 Atlanta 1:00 - A good sign that this one is already logging demand, Vick draws some interest, but the serious fan who wants to see him probably has a package anyway. Oct. 9 Miami 1:00 - As expected already a hot property as Squishing the Fish is always a favorite. Oct. 16 NY Jets 4:15 - First one potentially in doubt as the mid-afternoon start means post dinner travel back guaranteed for the regional audience. Yet interest for Jets fans across the state should supplement this one and any reasonable start by the Bills will sell this one out. Nov. 13 Kansas City 1:00 - This game interest will be heavily determined by how the team starts as KC has little local interest and a timezone penalty on travel. Watch sells for this one to read where t=hings are going. Nov. 27 Carolina 1:00 - Same with this one but at least no timezone problems for the opponent and for the start time. Thanksgiving weekend cuts both ways as visitors are more likely but many Bills fans are gone. Weather also becomes a concern for planning. Dec. 11 New England 1:00 - Should be a good game whether NE is good and folks are attracted or NE is bad and folks salivate at the chance to demolish them. Dec. 17 Denver 8:30 - This is the wildcard as best as I can tell since this will be the first Bills home game at night in a long time. Denver is far away as well and this game is not the draw of a traditional rivalry. i would feel much more certain of a sellout if this was against a divisional opponent. it is the last regular season game though and particularly if the Bills get off to a good start this game is far enough from X-Mas to make it a fun excursion. We'll see.

OK, but explain a few things to me. 1. Definitely Schobel was 25th in sacks to his credit and thus a good chunk of DEs got credit for more sacks than he, but is the number even a rock solid analogy to a DEs play even against simmply the pass. I say no. Particularly in the run blitz scheme the Bills use, Schobel's pass duty is in the short and even the medium zone on many pass plays so sacks are of key importance but not analahous at all to measuring his effectiveness on pass plays. Unfortunately I think there is not really a good stat measuring his performance on pass plays so folks can offer whatever opinion they have reached and then give their reasons for reaching it. Why do you think Schobel is mediocre on pass plays, i will explain below why I think that last year was his best year on pass plays I have seen in his 4 years. 2. Why do you ay Schobel struggles against the run? He certainly did as a rookie and his first few years, but my assessment is that last year saw some of the best play in his career against the run as well. 3. Are there any episodes you would site where Schobel's failure to draw a double was part of the Bills problem. There were clear episodes in his career such as the horrible plays he made as a rookie letting Brunell beat him running a couple of time and a case like Schobel getting pancaked against Miami as a young player giving Fiedler a ton of time to hit a WR for the gamewinning TD which can be sited from his past, but I do not remember these clear incidents particularly as it relates to a failure to draw a double team which are the basis for the Billa D maladies. Do you even have some specific examples though they might be isolated. Instead, I think this the pro-Schobel case. 1. Schobel was an effective player for the Bills in 2004 exactly because he did draw more attention as offenses moved to nullify him than they needed in the past. When one watches the game closely I saw this in the run blitz more than ever. In play after play last year, Schobel showed the ability to get back in pass coverage and this led to the blocker assigned to him being left dancing with the air while the Bills sent Spikes, Fletcher and even the CBs after the QB and in several cases they were unblocked while the tackle assigned to Schobel was just standing there as Schobel was backpedaling off the line in pass coverage. What stat backs this up or is it merely another fact-free opinion. The stat is that the Bills finished far higher than they did in the past in number of sacks produced and if you look at who the sacks went to, it was not because of the extraordinary play of an individual like Spiks, Fletcher or Clements, the sacks in fact were divided across numerous players because Gray/Krumrie ran the run-bliytz so well. Who was the Bills who got the most sacks in our sack productive D? Well it was none other than Aaron Schobel who logged 8 easily outpacing Adams who was second with 5. When opposing OCs identified which Bill did they need to nullify to stop sack production there really was not a ready answer because the run blitz with Schobel's athleticism being a big part of it really allowed for one of the best pass rishes in the league. However, if there was one Bill who statistically should draw attention for stopping the sack it was Schobel. I saw other teams clearly double team his position when it was the point of attack and I think the increased sacks by the team is linked to his leading the team in sack total. 2. i wish I knew Schobel's rookie weight because he struck me as more stout against the run than in the past. What stats either support this claim or contraindicate it. Well, if one looks at the Bills yardage given up against the run, it was pass defense where they clearly outpaced much of the league but the team finished 7th against the run and easily were in the upper third of the league. If Schobel was in fact so weak against the run this year and it was fortunate that he had a bunch of Pro Bowlers with him, one would think this would be reflected somehow in the word getting out about Schobel's weakness and opposing offenses constantly picking on him amidst a strong Bills D. I heard and saw no sign of that. 3. One of the best tangible indicators which I saw of Schobel having a great year last year was that he was clearly a ballhawk and around the ball a lot last year. He also had the persistence and strength to fight for it and win. Look no further than fumbel recoveries where actually few Bills even got 2 recoveries but Schobel easily led the team with 3 recoveries. I really wonder what game folks were watching. Schobel is not the best DE in the league at all, but i thought he had his best year as a Bill last year and as a youngster I hope for and expect more this year from him.

Exactly, the playing field is still unclear. Some players are more risk averse and they prefer the security of a deal up front now even if it means they may get less cash than if they waited. Other players either have an insane level of confidence in themselves or for some reason assume bad things like injuries will not happen to them. I think this difference in risk aversion explains why some players are like Stroud or Heap and others are hanging out waiting to maximize their take. I don't know NC so I have no idea where he falls on the risk aversion scale. he certainly plays like his hair is on fire (sometimes out of control with the good and bad that comes with it) so he seems to be a risk taker but maybe his family is poor, a relative has cancer or some other factor will drive him to the table. I think however, folks are making an assumption which may be totally wrong that the reason there is no deal is because TD is a cheapskate. If I was NC I would not mak a deal until the last minute at best and actually I would probably take a risksince I already have first round $ in the bank and not sign a conract and wait until the FA market. I saw what Winfield got and I think I can get more than that by being in the free-market.

My understanding of the big deal regarding the 2006 salary cap is that the NFL is due to rework all the TV deals this year and next year's cap will reflect a massive increase in what teams must spend as about 70% of the designated gross (which includes TV money). The smarter players with professional agent representation will have already built in escalators to their contracts to suck up this money. Teams will make deals with players they want long term to give them bonuses in exchange for longer term deals. If I'm NC I would have never signed a long term deal last year and depending on how risk averse I am I would wait as long as possible (possibly even until I hit free agency) before I resign with the Bills. Its funny to me that folks seem to feel TD refuses to resign his players (excuse me but wasn't it TD who gave away large chunks of change to resign Bledsoe not to mention getting long term extension deals done with Schobel, Moorman and others) it seems to me that the person who may least want to resign at this point is Nate Clements. It really depends upon his own judgments about the utility of a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush.

It strikes me as a step back to have the Bills pursue replicating their 2003 output which saw the D play well producing a D that ranked around 5th statistically when i thought the 2004 D was a better unit seen it is producing at a level where they were 2nd in D statistics. My sense of the difference in Schobel's play between 2004 and 2003 is that he increased his understanding of the run-bliz scheme and actually seemed more agile and athletic so that Gray/Krumrie were even more comfortable using him in short and even medium zone pass coverage in the run blitz. What you saw as a lessening in his confidence I saw as better play by him. This was reflected actually in that though his personal sack total went down, the team sack total was up. I care far more how the team does rather than any individual performance. I thought Schobel showed greater strength at the point of attack as well as being more manuverable. He does need to improve as the D failed badly in the Pitts game and he is still heading to his prime so its not a wild hope. However, I just don't see the complaints about Schobel's play and merely looking at his individual sack #s without taking into account the team's scheme and sack # increase seems to ignore the football reality.

A definition of mediocre is to some degree semantics put I appreciate you offering up your numeric sense of things. My sense is: The top 10 DEs in the league (or top 5 RDEs if you want to restrict it to that position, though players flip sides all the time to get good match-ups and fool opponents so lumping all the DEs together reflects reality more in my view) are elit players in my view. The top third (up to about the 21st of 64 DEs) are good players in my view. The middle third (21-42) are average starters. The lower third (42-64) are certainly mediocre starters (thogh generally I would not call them mediocre "players" because they have been judged to be better than well more than half their competition on their team who are given ST duty because they are not good enough to start). Even if you want to call the lower third of DE starters mediocre, do you really judge Schobel to be 42nd or worst at his position? I think not by virtually and statistical measure or the judgement of most professional observers of the game and from the my view which is that of a rank amateur. Schobel ranked 20th in the league in sacks (a list which includes others besides DEs). He was fourth on the Bills in tackles. Of greatest importance the Bills D was incredibly productive and ranked second in the league statistically in total D. Do you really insist that they did all this with a medicocre player at RDE? Maybe you want to claim that being an average in the NFL means you are mediocre. I think this meakes little sense, When a player is average he is average. Do you really think Schobel is in the lower third of DEs in this leagie (42-63) or even RDEs 20-32. I don't think he is by any staitistical measure or the judgement of anyone who has a notion of the game. I have been quite critical of Schobel during his career (my repetitive recounting of his taking horrible tackling angles as a rookie against Brunell). He is not in the elite of DEs or RDEs (but he is not paid like the elites so the Bills deal with him is fine with me) but the concept that his is mediocre justy does not square with reality. Do you judge him to be in the lower thrid of starters or does average mean mediocre to you? Either way this view is not realistic.

No. There are a couple of posts below on the issue of resigning Clements which make the point in a comparison that was not the central topic of the thread that Schobel is a "mediocre" NFL player. Since this claim was not the centrak topic of the thread and quite frankly is unsubstantiated by any logical evaluation I thought it was worth posting as a separate thread. Look, I know folks were disappointed in Schobel's sack production after hwe signed a big contract and rightly so in terms of the lowering of his sack production, but to jump to the conclusion that he is somehow a mediocre player (a worse than average NFL player) simply is unsupported as a football opinion. Consider this: 1. Schobel was the DE on one of the second ranked statistically D team in the league. Do you really think they achieved this lofty position and result even though they got "mediocre" play from their RDE? 2. If memory serves me correctly the team led the league in sacks and Scgibek easily led this team in sacks (8 to second place 5 for Adams). His personal totals disappointing for fans yes, but mediocre no. 3. A big part of his low sack total strikes me as the flexibility the athletic Schobel offered the Bills which allowed him to do the short zone pass coverage credibly in the run blitz so others could rush effectively. 4. Schobel's big problem as he developed was his being weak at the point of attack on runs and sometimes taking bad tackling angles (particularly as a rookie) however, by using him well in the run-blitz this both plays to Schobel's strengths and away from his weaknesses. he struck me as more effective and better used in 2004 than in previous years. 5. For me the really big deal about the job Schobel did last year was that his play and that of Kelsay and Denney allowed the Bills to carry only 3 DEs when the import of this position and the rotation the Bills use on the DL really dictated that they keep 4 DEs. Thw great play and athleticism of all three DEs led by Schobel (who strikes me as a better player than either Kelsay or Denney) allowed the Bills to devote a valuable roster spot to keeping a designated long snapper and even shop for a long snapper after Dorenbos was injured. Their play gave us the flexiibility to activate rather than lose Jason peters because we had an extra roster spot. Th notion that Schobel for some reason should be judged mediocre has nothing to do with a good football judgment in my mind. By no means is he perfect and their can be great improvements in his play, but the notion that the 4th leading tackler on the #2 D in the league is a mediocre player is nothing short of laughable.

It certainly sounds stupid and unfair for this team to be summarily removed from the league or pemsalized for being too good. If this is the whole story then shame on those who treated them unfairly. It would be interesting to hear from someone responsible for these actions or who has a different perspective on this story to hear their justification. Based on hearing this part of the story the actions seem outlandish. Sometime people are stupid and do things like this. other times only half or less of the story is told. it will be interesting to see what the fuller story is here. It may well validate the story presented in this article or perhaps it does not.

Why do folks insist that this an either or choice particularly at this point when the reality is simply negotiation as far as the one team Clements can talk to because of the agreed upom restraint of trade which the NFL and NFLPA have created. Clements clearly can pursue an outcome which allows him the best chance he can create to have both the maximum amount of cash and the maximum chance to win. It is simply a fact of reality that in the end, he will have to make a choice between these two outcomes if he enters the marketplace and the maximum cash offer comes from a team that does not provide him with the maximum chance to win. However, for now reality says he cannot even make that choice. The good news for Clements is that 1. The Bills have a very good chance of competing for it if a number of things break there way (Namely the O works because JP plays as well as we hope or Holcomb fits in well if he falters, the D continues to perform at recent levels and the ST also continues to perform). 2. The Bills are quite likely to be able to give NC a load of money because a new TV contract to be negotiated before FA time will cause a huge increase in the salary cap by rule. If NC avoids injury and maintains the same level of performance he will not have to chioose between making a boatload of $ and winning it all. If i were Clements I would wait until the last possible moment and try to get TD to offer me a contract based on the likely new cap numbers using the leverage tha the potential I may enter the free market puts on the Bills.

In a thread below a poster rantred against the rantings of several posters who have said from time to time cut T Henry now because they hate him and/or his play (this is an odd view INHO because TH would love to be cut and it would be doing him a great favor which seems inconsistent with hating him, his play or simply wanting the Bills to get something for nothing). Amusingly someone responded to this notion with total sarcasm that cutting him was the right thing to do but a poster missed out completely initially on the sarcasm. At any rate the thread digressed into TD assessment and raised the issue for me of judging his performance. I figured I would throw my two cents on TD onto the waters and see if folks had anything to say. My own lame judgments of TD are: A. A year to year assessment since though performance is the ultimate judge for me, I actually am quite willing to reward a GM who failed in performance but did as good a job as can be done dealing with the reality he is given. B. Also skewed by though me only really caring about W/L I am quite well aware that the ultimate decision about keeping him or not by the owner is influenced by whether he is turning a profit or not and keeping the owner happy. C. An overall assessment based on W/L and prospects for the future. Toward that end: 1. 2001- I judge TD's performance to be at about a B level. He reasonably deserves the benefit of the doubt as a new hire in a horrendous situation as Butler ran out on us and Wade gave up on his last season by declaring us done while we statistically were not eliminated (a real world issue since Indy had the same record as us at the time and did make the playoffs that year). In addition tio getting the benefit of the doubt, TD was simply outstanding in doing a great job stabilizing the floundering post-Butler Bills by managing the salary cap and doing the dictated blood-letting in a almost as efficient a manner as possible (thoise who claim cutting the cap is simply dictated and easy ignore the reality that many teams (even good ones) butcher their cap year after year. Even if one accepts that no skil demonstrated by TD could produce good results, the reality is that with a bad owner like a Bill Bidwell or even if you are the best team in the mid 90s to mid 90s as SF was a bad GM can certainly do a bad job of cutting the cap. TD deserves great fault despite the benefit of the doubt he gets as a new hire in a horrible situation he screwed up badly in choosing GW as his HC (understandable though not condonable after the last HC he hired ran him out of Pitts). However, all in all I think he was the best we could do in the post-Butler era at the time. 2. 2002- I give him an A at this point as moving from 3-13 rebuilding to 8-8 was simply phenomemal. The Bledsoe move was a great one as it not only restored faith in the product he was selling but resulted in on the field performance which was as good as could be expected. 3. 2003- Saw he chickens come home to roost as he plummeted back to a C level as the failings of Bledsoe became apparent and even worse were exploitable by opponents as the failings of GW as a poor HC became apparent. I think a team can win with Bledsoe's real and large failings but to do so you can't have an OC like Kevin Killdrive in control who refuses to diversify his approach, you cannot have not ready for primetime OL position coaches like Vinky and Ruel, and the GM needs to use his good judgment to supplement the HCs failings and TD did not do this. If TDs job eas only judged by on field stuff (like I do) then he easily gets a D (as seen in his eventual letting GW go and hiring of MM there was hope). However, it is also clear that in terms of the other aspects of his job like negotiating contracts with outside vendors, negotiating player contracts and other factors kuje drafting folks like WM TD did a great job so i stick with a C. 4. 2004- While missing the playoffs still leaves hin inadequate in a total judgment by me, the improvement and close call this year once again elevates the TD job to the B level for me. i find his belated abandonment of Bledsoe a good sign as I do not think we want to do what is necessary (or would it be the best option for us) to win with Bledsoe's limitations. If the JP experiment works out and he did a good job picking a replacement QB when he did he easily deserves a B for 2004 if not higher. B. In terms of my second judgment, he deserves a B (if not lower) for his W/L, but he gets an A for his business management so i think he stays. C. In terms of W/L which is where my real fan assessment lies I give TD a C(-). Hope for the future is the main thing which does not give him a D since we missed the playoffs in everyear he has been here. Some might give him an F for this result, but i think you have to take into account that the 8-8 his second year was really about as much as any team could produce and like it or not last year they failed by not making the playoffs but did produce a winning record that cannot be judged an F as though SF, the Lions and the Bills are all exactly the same (NE is a good example here as they missed the playoffs in 2002 but can anyone seriously say that it is meaningful to simply judge this team to be an F same as the other teams which missed the playoffs that year, Anyone who judges the 2002 Pats to be exactly the same as a team as the 2002 Bengals simply because they both missed the playoffs that year knows little about football). TG is a c(-) in the areas I hold important but hope springs eternal for me in the 2005 season.

Actually, my tomes (or screeds or whatever you want to call them) are actually so long due to advances in technology. Now that I have gotten my head fitted with a jack so I can just plug my computer right into my brain and spew forth TSW posts in a flow of unconciousness (as some might notice from my content I am sometimes asleep while I am writing) it has greatly increased the number and length of my posts. Actually, there are several real world factors that contributes top their length. 1. Stevetojean is correct that there is no NEED for a 10,000 (or even 1105) word post on most of the topics which peak my interest. Fortunately, TSW and the whole internet for the most part (its main use as best as I can tell is for anonymous gambling and sex-stuff as its usage has gone far beyond the good ol days when it was limited to loftier stuff) have nothing to do with NEED and everything to do with WANT. Most of us Americans (an particularly my lovely wife) seem to confuse need and want all the time. The internet and TSW are wholey optional activities and though 3 words are easily preferable to 3000 in the real picture they are both optional adventures. Whether one chooses to waste time reading a long piece or reading a short piece you are still wasting time in the end. 2. The good (but still optional for me as it is for most Americans) news is that I have actually developed methods for earning a dime while I am blathering on TSW. My work involves some monitoring of conference calls and chipping in occaisionally. It has nothing to do with TSW in the least, so as long as I remain plugged into the call and speak when approrpiate or when spoken too, those who pay the bills seem to tolerate me being online at the same time because my work is not harmed at all by my extra-curriculars. There are few things better for me than getting compensated while I am trolling. As these calls sometimes occur at the convenience of other timezones than US time you might also see my submissions happen at off hours. 3. I use TSW to think outloud in print about the Bills. At my worst, sometimes I will start with one view of a Bills situation and end up having convinced myself of a contradictory view. Though i usually will not send these rants because even I see the paradox, it is often the case that my posts promote lines of thinking which are pretty on one hand and also on the other hand rather than the typical web blather of taking a position and sticking to it regardless of reality. I really do appreciate any reactions to my posts as I do learn from them, though i must admit they are often not in a form that is good presentation because they are my flow of unconciousness. TSW is a great service because in my mind of the little community we have formed here. Like many I tend to launch in and out (for example i was out of town on work last week so didn't participate as much as I have often) but it is a great thing since is accessible anywhere you have a net connection. I found it way back in 98 when my lovely wife an I were away from Buffalo for a major operation and having the connection to the Bills helped me be distracted from the traumas of surgery and be the caregive my wife needed at the time. My apologies for the long messages and I encourage those who feel like they waste their time to ignore them and I really do appreciate and actually am honored to receive a comment from those who do take the time. Like life, take the best and leave the rest.

It strikes me as odd that folks judge Posey as not producing very well as in my view the simple fact is that he has been an entrenched starter at OLB on a Bills D that did very well in production in 2003 and did even better in 2004. I'd definitely agree with those who judge Posey's performance as not reaching near the level of Pro Bowl performer Spikes or one of the Billa leading tacklers and D captain Fletcher at MLB. However, as appropriate and lofty as our hopes are for LB production, the notion that not being as good as Spikes (who uniformly is judged as one of the best LBs in the league) or being as good as Fletcher (who does not get the proper respect in terms of recognition from others but has not only proved to rack up a huge # of tackles for the Bills, BUT also raised his game in 2004 to be a well and often utilized guy on ST on short-kick returns, AND also despite the negative of playing out of control at times he clearly is one of the better thinkers on this team on the field in diagnosing the right thing to do in the current situation. Posey has not fulfilled the role many of us hoped for (and some fools expected) that he would equal Bryce Paup production as a Bill in ringing up sacks. However, there is a big difference to me in his failure to be one of the best plyers in the league and him not being productive. Posey is not an A player in my judgment, but I certainly judge his play as having been productive and useful for the Bills as he has manned a key spot on one of the most productive Ds in the league statistically. I know there have been a variety of complaints from posters whose judgments I generally respect such as Simon siting Posey problems where they claim he was out of position or turned the wrong way. However, since these indictments generally do not seem to be accompanied with either specific examples of Posey giving up TDs or even long gains to an opponent who was his responsibility or by some statisitical measure which indicates he is a problem, I think these indictments are more than our fan disappointment that Posey has not reached some unreasonable level of achievement rather than some real football issue. Posey has been a key player in a productive D. While his play does not justify at all a Spikes level contract. if the market allows the Bills to hang onto him when he hits UDFA for a substantial though not earth shattering contract I think he will be worth a hefty expenditure to hold.

The discussion on TSW about the Jags and Titans current RBs and Henry raise the broader issue for me about how one defines a player as injury prone or not. Onvously different folks and teams have different levels of risk aversion and/or willingness to take risks. All NFL players are subject to the real possibility of significant injury and all NFL players can be judged on their ability to play through pain or not. To some degree the concept of a player being injury prone or not and certainly what a GM decides to do about it is far more an art than a science and sometimes a gamble is justifiable and sometimes it ain't depending upon the relative of what happens rather than some absolute standard which is immutable and the same in all cases. However, I am pretty comfortable laying the label of "injury prone" on a player based on objective measurables. Thus. I define injury prone as: 1. A player who suffers recurring injuries to one part of his body such that he is forced to missed games by these recurring injuries and is at higher risk for missing games due to new injuries to that place. For example, Gale Sayers was one of the greatest players I ever saw. He had the ability to both avoid hits and when he was hit to nounce back nicely. However, Kermit Alexander hit is knee the wrong way and though i would not lable him as injury prone based on the one hit, the knee was weakened by it. The good news is that he came back from that hit (with the well-chronicled help and competition of fellow RB Brian Picolo) and actually put up over a 1000 yards in a season after the injury. However, once hurt, it diminished his use and performance on KO returns and when the knee was hit again and he was hurt later in his career he clearly became injury prone in relation to the knee and was forced out of the game when he actually had few years left if his knee held out. 2. The bigger problem is that I would deem a player injury prone if he seems to come down with a series of different injuries and nicks which cost him gamez. I am quite comfortable in labeling RJ as injury prone not because he was prone to the same injury, but because it seemed to be always something with him and injuries. One hit breaks his collarbone and he is out for a few games. Another hit separates his sternum and he is out for a few games again. Another hit rings his bell and he is out several games with a concussion. I am totally comfortable labeling RJ as injury prone because he simply is prone to miss games with some injury quite alot. From my stanpoint, I think it is way too early to label JP as injury prone despite some puppies expressing that fear. It was an odd injury and perhaps little more than an unepxected aggressive push from Vincent did give him a fracture. Hwever, things happen and it is simply too early to label him as injury prone in my book as he has shown no fear or limitations to taking hits in his collegiate career and a history of injuries has not been the case. Likewise, with Brown with the Titans and Taylor with the Jags, I am actually comfortable with folks labeling both these players as injury prone. Brown seems to have RJ disease as he suffered a third significant injury in practice this year when he broke a bone in practice which has cost him practice time. He did not lose game time because his 3rd year has not started yer. However, given that he has suffered two injuries in his 2 year career which did cost his games and he now has a third injury which occured in a mere practice I think one can comfortably call him injury prone though he is talented. I think there is less of a case to made with Taylor because has actually answered the call 16 time in a season not only in 2003 but also in 2002. However, he is getting a bit long in the tooth already exceeding the average career lemgth of an NFL RB amd givem that his injury last year was his third one which cost him game tme, I think it is reasonable to lable him as injury prone in the Gale Sayers type of way. Henry is interesting, because in my mind he is one injury short of deserving the label injury prone himself. He has had a couple of injuries which cost him time for the Bills. However, his rib injury is actually a tribute to him as a player as he not only played through the pain in 2003 but was effective as a rusher despite the pain. His injury in 2004 strikes me as one where he did not play through the pain but this weenie performance (in my mind) was probably motivated by him giving up on the Bills because he felt they gave up on him by drafting a better RB WM. I can see either the Jags or the Titans deciding to take the Henry risk because things look even worse for prospect Brown or good ol Taylor. Among others who i think this year will determine for me whether they are reasonably labeled injury prone or not is Jonas Jennings. One of the key reasons whu I am quite happy the Bills did not reward him with a contract comparable to SF (I think we could have got him for what would still be a lot but less than his SF deal if we had signed him early) is that my guess is that we will find out this year that JJ is another injury prone player in an RJ like way. The fact he has never played a full season during his four years and that he not only was unable to answer the call for the Bills a couple of times last year, but also failed to finish a couple of other games he started due to knicks strikes me that JJ is simply one of this players prone to injury when hit. It fortunately has not cost him his career at any point or the majority of a seasonn. but i will not be surprised at all if JJ never starts 16 games ever in his career or in fact if injury occurence makes him a clear bust for SF.

I disagree that 4 years of Bledsoe dulled Bills fans expectations of the QB at all. Flat-out the fading and remembered good parts of the Kelly era have heightened Bills fans worship of the QB position that we really demand far more out of the position and attribute far more importance to it than any football player deserves based on a rational football judgment of their play, Granted the QB position is central to O performance. He is called upon to make critical snap decisions all the time and really is the initator of just about all great plays the O makes. However, between the league and the networks desperately wanting needing to promote personalities in this game where most players faces are repetiviely covered with helmets. Where actually most plays are really determined by team work and the seeable coordination between the recever and QB and the merely intitiated coodination of the RB and QB and the often unseen or unexamined work of the blockers which may be critical the play working. And between the NFL becoming oversysematized and the QB role is really that he is able to translate orders on the headphones to the team quickly determing good play more than good judgment as seen in the days where Kelly (no brain surgeon clearly) at least made great judgments among the fairly limited play calls the K-Gun allowed him. The QB role is hugely overvalued as being central to team performance by most fans. Even more rediculous is that not only is the QB central but far far from the only thing determining O success, the amazing run the Bills had in the second half of last year with the D and ST leading the way shows that a team can win going away even with simply moderate or adequate QB play. My sense is that JP will have a good share of the usual struggles that a sophomore QB has in this league. However, several things give me what I feel is reasonable hope (and even some confidence that the Bills will put up a lot of Ws this year and actually have a good shot at making the playoffs. 1. The Bills clearly demonstrated that they could actually destroy many opponents both at home and on the road and even on the left coast where travel always seemed to cause us problems even with the adeuate play of Bledsoe. The team did get killed against Pittsburgh, but I think this game wa actually the exception that proved the rule of Bills performance rather than it being the real team and they simply got lucky 8 times in a row blowing opponents out. 2. i do not expect JP to be much of an upgrade over Bledsoe in total performance. However, I think the two of them will add up to be about the same with a different combination of strengths an weaknesses. I think the braintrust realizes this and will actually call the games with the more pliable young JP more easily reined in by the coaches to not try to win the game or be depended upon by the rest of the team for him to perform and even provide the leadership to win the game. JP will actually be worse than Bledsoe in a number of key areas: 1. Bledsoe has an incredibly powerful arm which provided a threat even in bad wins which made the oppenents play to stop the potential long pass and this made WM a more effective runner. As the season rolls on I think opponents will force JP to beat them with his arm and pinch down the running game. We will have to see if JP is as much of a threat on the deep ball as Bledsoe regardless of the wind. 2. Bledsoe does have 10 years of pro experience and even though he has the bad habits of locking onto his receiver and going into his familiar pat and also simply having brain farts like the one where he through the ball away on a fourth down year before last and then realizing his error made an obvious DOOHH slamming his head, Bledsoe showed some great skill: A. Tunning play fakes like the one where he faked the QB sneake and pitched it back to WN for a 40 yard TD scamper, several time receiving a pitch from WM and hitting Evans and Moulds on long flea-flickers. B. He has usually been a great ballhandler and despite a horrendous fumble against NE last year he did gather in nicely some dicey pitches from WM on flea-flickers and he really did a phenomenal job fielding some awful shotgun snaps from Teague until he learned this part of the game (unfortunately the concentration on the snap this required did add to his time reacquiring command of the routes being run and slowed his delivery of the ball). C. One good part of JPs game is that he very quickly seemed to mimic a good Bledsoe habit of running out each play and doing fakes even after he had given the ball away. We'll see if JP retains this good Bledsoe habit. D. Bledsoe will never be a good runner, but TC/MM showed last year that he is a good enough runner to be effective. Bledsoe pulling off a few effective but not groundbreaking QB draws sneaks last year did a lot with WMs outside threat and better blocking by a JMac taught line of stopping opponents from selling out on the blitz and reduced our sack totals. However, as good as I feel about parts of Bledsoe's work last year and feel many posters were not being rational in declaring him a total reject. The good thing for us about some of JPs demonstrated skills is that they are exactly some of the areas where Bledsoe had issues. JP demonstrated in college where he had to run for his life behind a porous Tulane line that he makes good snap decision while Bledsoe simply had too many brain cramps under pressure. Further, JP is far more mobile than Bledsoe and his running ability has the potential to make QB draws more than adequate but even outstanding. Also, Bledsoe is a big boy and seemed willing to hang in their and take a hit rather than getting rid of the ball or bailing out when he had too. As admorable as Bledsoe's toughness was, I'd rather have a QB like JP who seems to already have a pocket sense equal or better than Bledsoe. Also, JP has shown this skill while still being a tough guy not afraid to take a hit rather than showing the happy feet of a player like Todd Collins. I expect JP to be an equal to Bledsoe in the occaisional frustrating faux pas, but his strengths and weaknesses should fit a well run team better and TC/MM demonstrated they can run and O and a team. 3. In addition to my analysis of the Bledsoe/JP tradeoff being an equal one that can work out well for the Bills iff TC/MM exert good control. I think the Bills gained a lot of confidence from the example of RoboQB in Pitts last year. He an the team showed that it is possible to win with a young QN IF you do not ask him to do too much and depend on him to win being a manger like Trent Dilfer than demand he be a John Elway. Just like with Bledsoe I think a key to the Bills winning is the braintrust ability to rein in their QB a bit and depend on WM, better blocking and some outstanding receiving to make the O work, but most important really look for top quality D and ST work to lead this team to Ws.

Edward simply was not ready to perform in the NFL as a rookie and this is seen in that while players drafted both before him Clements, Schobel Henry, and after him (Spoon Jennings) became starters on this rebuilding team due to rebuilding and injuries he was inactive most of the season. He did suck it up and improve his sophomore year becoming a starter, but his play and the D were still inadequate as GW put more faith in his scheme and thought incorrectly that uoungsters and fading talents could prosper in it (Robinson at LB and Jenkins at SS) and TD essentially recognized that while Jerry Gray at Dc was a talent that GW really needed to be moved aside as the D guru and he brought in Dick Lebeau and his run blitz scheme which surprisingly Jerry Gray quickly mastered (as seen by his play calling at DC that year and the choice of him over LeBeau and his continued success last year). Edwards however was still inadequate his third year and TD recognized this and made a great negotiating move to get Sam Adams at a low price (some posters accused Adan signing as us taking a fat tub of goo which I thought was still an upgrade because even a fat tub of goo was an upgrade over Edwards as starter). Adams surprised almost all of us by not simply being better than Edwards but actually retaining one of the quickest first steps in the league which simply mandated a double team which both improved Williams game and the DE next to him. Edwards also surprised me by improving his performance last year. I have never been an Edwards booster, but there are three objective reasons why this improvement may be the real deal and actually even continue to improve: 1. He has put on extra tonnage which does not hurt him for the role of run-stuffing required as evidenced by how he looks and his declared weight (often inaccurate but usually the other way of men being of a heavier weight than they claim publicly) but amazingly has not seemed to hurt his speed at all with the extra tonnage as evdenced by his sack totals last year. 2. He will be lining up next to Adams who gives the benefit to his partner that Adams demands the center to either DT him or at least watch him closley rather than wating Edwards in case Adams simply beats the G on him. Edwards has the ability to work one on one which he did not have teaming with Williams who is good but does not attract the attention away from Edwards that Adams does. 3. PW's comments that he will be difficult or impossible to replace were simply not the fact last year as he was actually replaced on a ton of plays on 3rd and even 2nd down with great effectiveness for the D as Edwards came in and was an effective pass rusher and even Denny was used at DT on some plays. The objective sign look like Edwards may well do the job and even if not, there is the prospect Anderson and even the potential of moving Denny inside on some plays and employing the run blitz scheme so that Williams (if we are lucky) may not be missed much at all though he is a very good player.

I agree that staying in shape through workouts has never been an issue for TH and I wouldn't expect this to be a problem for him based on a fact-free theory how you would react to the silly situation he has created for himself.

There are alot of responses to this list so maybe your general broadside is directed at specific posts you do not specify rather than at all posts valuing oldsters over the youth that derive from them however. However, there are clearly those who see great value in the older rockers and also the new ones. Do you really feel like if one embracing any new sounds then you must reject the old sounds? there clearly is room for both in my record collection. however, choosing the "top" albums of the last 20 years or overall is a different question. For me I can easily choose my top 100 of the past 20 years and with more difficulty but it can be done select a top 20 from the past 20 and it probably looks something like the Spin list. However when choosing my top picks overall. criteria is the key thing and staying power is important so no albums from the last 5 years no matter how great I think they are musically makes my top overall list because they simply have not had enough time to exhibit staying power with the broader public or my own growing (it is to be hoped) musical tastes. I do think those who are locked into 1984 are probably wrong with their best of lists as are those who are locked into 2004.

I'm not sure what memorial service you are referring to but I dio remember a major memorial service soon after his death which was held at a golf course and featured many pros (and I belive all the top one). The serivice featured comments by Stewarts wife and many of his closest friends and ESPN did some great coverage and featured the appropriate bagpiper and conveniently a sullen mist which shrouded the course and set the tone. I do remember Woods being there and doubt this is simply a convenient memory of my part becaue I think a Woods abasence would have been very notable and the subject of a iid chunk of coverage if it happened. Woods was almost certainly there at the key memorial ceremony for Stewart. If I am wrong it would simply take a link to an article at the time which notes this rather than a alleged memory or accusation.

Is there a summary of the criteria they used to select these top 10 albums (Folks can respond with their sarcastic comments that an album had to meet some silly criteria like crappiness or idiocy, but i think we can all assume that many think this list is silly and your pretend criteria merely lengthen the thread. Feel free to blast away but stating the reasons why you think their criteria suck would at least be a useful response). In my mind sells do not mean quality but they certainly are a criterion I would use to judge a "best" album because even if I thought the music was bad, impact is determined by a lot of people buying the album. I can take a pass on the M Jackson album Thriller in terms of quality and rather than the music solely creating its massive impact it was the dancing on the videos and the long-form commercial directed by John Landis which also created much of the impact. My judgments on music quality is such a big factor for me, even with its massive impact Thriller would not be at the top of my list of top albums in the last 25 years, but due to its massive impact and it really changing the nature of the record business with its innovative inspiration of vidoe and the dance moves it is one of the top 100 albums of all time for me easily (in fact I would not be shocked if Spin chose 20 years as a time period simply to avoid avoiding or including Thriller in its list. Ironically one of my other key factors for judging both the impact of a top album and assessing its musical quality (music I thought was great when I was 10 or 20 I did not think the same thing of when I was 30 or 40 and staying power helps me judge this- In addition, music which did not strike me at all upon an intial listing has grown on me after a few listens and the impacts of an album are better judged with time. Quite frankly I think choosing any album released only within the last 5 years is pretty silly,

This does explain the serious interest at depth at G shown by JMac and TD and also make the strong interest in shown in investment at back-up C in the pick of Peterson rather than simply take a flyer on a late round or UDFA C. I hope Tucker returns to form, but even if it does not we seem to have reasonable plan Cs and plan Ds at LG and back-up C if he does not.

I disagree with you not in your judgement of the public's assessment of what they want from a movie, but disagree with you in that I think the public does think and the market has made it quite clear what movies are more likely to develop a generate a market return and what films (and I use this word specifically because the movie market and film market are different markets) are less likely to deliver a market return. A larger segment of the public has thought this out (mostly relfexively and will only give you a concious thought process with insistence) and wants movies because they are looking for mere entertainment and not be challenged with a film. Most people (the market) seems to feel they get enough hassle working two (or more) paid jobs. raising their kids, dealing with bills, watching their political leaders implode or what have you. If a movie does not simply distract them form life they are not interested and I can't sat I blame them. Some (of us actually) are more entertained by a challenging film and seek them out (girls actually seem to get entertainment often out of "chick flicks" which present some slice of life which get enough of in real life. However, if it makes her happy (or gets us into their pants in some cases) then I am happy to go see this feeling movie or film though I quite frankly do not find "slice of life" films challenging at all (if you got cancer or some disease then deal with it the best way you can be it some grinding medical travail or some fruit-loopy alternative treatment that happens to work wonders for you). At any rate, I think folks make far more real choices which correctly meet their needs than you seem to give them credit for. If it floats someones boat to go see special effects then I am all for it because that means there will be fewer people distracting me at the film I went to see with subtitles because they would rather hear the lines than read them and not focus on the actor's face and special effects around in the scene. I find no fault whatsoever with people making different market choices than I do because I'd much rather the folks who come to the same film I do be a smaller more intimate crowd anyway. It is not because my choice to see a film is better than their choice to see a movie, but i simply find medium size crowds more enjoyable for me (usually- I love being in a huge Deahead crowd as I have enjoyed several times at the Ralph) than massive crowds. The problem is actually change in the market right now. It actually is so easy to make a ton of money even with a bad movie right now because of DVDS, the internet and the increased ease of watching porn in your own home, that Hollywood seems to be producing a disproportionate number of what my tastes find to be bad movies. They also seem to be getting quite good at duping my lovely wife into being interested in dedicating her (thus my time with her) precious time to films which turn out to be promoted as good films but they turn out to be not very good or at least different than advertised. This actually works out for me because she is sometimes fooled into seeing a film she hate but I liked since I knew nothing about them (Lost in Translation for example) or even when I do not like the film (Million Dollar Baby for example) I do not mind wasting 2 hours of my life to see a film that aspires to greateness (and was rewarded by the Oscars for being one) that I found to be a good attempt but in the end a badly flawed attermpt. My sense is that the choosy shopper needs to be choosier than ever in the current market and how Hollywood choose to make a dime off of it. However, there are market opportunities being developed (NetFlix for example allows you to get three films at one time at the same definable cost and makes it easier to simply scrap a bad movie if you choose). One needs to be really careful when you choose to go out to a film due to the cost and many fellow movie patrons being horrible folks to watch a movie with because they are used to talking out loud like they were home. However, if you are a careful shopper (no problem because the selection process allows one to claim you are superior to the crowd seeing the latest shoot 'em up even though one is really the same as other people regardless of different tastes in movies/film). Alternately one need not be careful at all about your choices if it results in one getting into the pants of the person (male or female) you saw the movie with.