Fake-Fat Sunny

I'm certainly part of the crew that thinks Phat Pat was a valuable Bill but he also seems certainly replacable as a Bill (in part because we in fact did replace hm a number of times last year on 3rd and also some running down)s. Nonetheless, Traylor may be a good pick-up if he can be had at the vet minimum and not to be a starter because those days are done, but as part of a DT rotation. The problem is that Edwards, Anderson and Bannan all are great choices to be good enough players to do the job in as back-ups in a DT rotation, but all of them have yet to answer the question yet of whether they are starter quality players. Traylor will not solve that starter problem for us.

The problem here is that SOP doesn't keep pace with a 24/7 world where images are ready and expected in the blink of an eye. The problem is that there were no images here so all you had were media talking heads and pundits theorizing and a "sory" was created in the public's mind which was mostly based on their fictitious Hollywood image of war. The generals in charge dropped the ball on this one because they did not deal with the tales spun and impression left by the 24/7 media, particularly when they failed to inform the family and then the public that there was even a suspicion of this beomg a friendly-fire incident until their investigation was complete. I know and it is understandable they want to wait for all or most of the facts before speaking, but that is simply not a realistic way of dealing with the reality of a business which abhors the vacuum or dead air. False impressions were created in the public mind and now when they find out reality and their pre-formed conclusions do not jibe they are suspicious of even SOP. The brass should have released to the family and then to the public even their unfcornfirmed suspicions of friendly fire. If it turned out he actually died from enemy fire their suspicions were wrong but he is treated all the more like the hero he is. If as was the case the suspicion is correct then this doubt about about the motives behind an SOP are much less of a story if they are a story at all.

It would have been nice if CNN or other media reports had been about just the facts initially, but unfortunately the news media is out to make a dime out of reporting the news and they tend to boil all stories of warfare be it Tillman's tragic death or Jessica Lynch's story into their own pre-conceived Hollywood notions of warfare. Unfortunately, part of modern warfare for the generals is managing the media in a digital world where images are taken transmitted and broadcast in an instant. Nature abhors a vacuum and when there is a moments delay in getting images from the front, this on-air vacuum gets filled by whatever seems initially believable and impressions get built in the public and even reported by the media of stories of a hero like Tillman getting cut-down by enemy fire or a photogenic gal like Lynch firing until he gun was empty. When reality differs from the initial storybook truth, even SOP gets viewed in a different light. I know the generals want to wait unto the investigation is complete before they issue a report, but the story-telling begins immediately and Tillman's family (and the public as soon as possible afterwards) needed to be informed this might be a friendly-fire tragedy. By waiting until after an impression has been built and stories were being told which did not match the facts, motives are now being questioned.

I think the numbering has more to do with American media promotion of what is certainly a great capture of an enemy of ours than it has to do with a theoretical pie chart of Al Quada organization. 1. Given US intelligence monitoring of electronic communications there is clearly little opportunity for the static command and control methods of having a ranks and western organizational structure for al Quada. The entity seems more like mercury in a thermometer. There was a traditional command and control system when they had the state of Afghanistan, but when they got stomped there they broke apart into separately operating and controlled cells. Perhaps through couriers and pre-arranged public communications in newspaper using codewords, bin Laden knows much of what is going on and exercises some general control over it, but specific decisions within a broad framework seem left to inidividual leaders all over the place. 2. The cell method of operational secrecy works only when the left hand and the right hand operate under the same general orders but specifically do not know what each other is doing or where they are. I doubt that this #3 even know were #1 or #5 are right now. 3. al Zawahiri is cited in these articles as #2, but he only recently (in the past year pledged his fealty to bin Laden and seems to be operating in Iraq where I'm sure his hands are full killing people and avoiding capture. The idea that he is somehow 2nd in command running things in al Quaeda is far fetched. 4. This guy wasn't even on the FBI list of most wanted terror suspects. I would not be shocked if publicity about this very good get is more prompted by sagging Bush poll numbers than winning the war on terrorism

Come on, we live in a world today where one can state an initial position and then when it simplu turns out to not be true you can state a new goal or rationale and claim that your success be measure by the new standard (uhh, he has weapons of mass destruction, ohh he didn't well we invaded because of his crimes against civilians). There is little accountability for mistakes in this world so why bother to dwell on things when you get them wrong.

Thanx Simon, these are the key questions as outside of the move from Bledsoe to JP (which I think will produce about the same production as we get the upside of JP being a credible athlete at QB and downside of him being a first time starter) these were the only changes to the team. It makes sense that Gandy got most of the snaps at LT because outside of Teague moving there I have heard no suggestions which make sense for someone being able to do a credible job at LT (I still do not see entrusting protection of the QB blindside to a fellow who has never player tackle before who big problem last year was that despite extranary pass catching ability he could not block well enough for the TE job). The departure of Phat Pat is the other player loss, but given that he was replaced on well over a third of plays at DT (a number no where near the explanation that he always came out on 3rd down) and given that as two options we have a 3ed round draft pick and a former DT starter, I am content we can make this work.

I know that I would not cut him when and how as you suggest because I don't think it serves the Bill's interests to do things that way. The thing which serves the Bills interests will be to trade Henry for value, and if no offer of value for Henry comes, the action which serves Bills interests from what I see would be to as nicely and forcefully as we can do it, urge Henry to fulfill his contract. It will be an employee and team management pain to do, but doing difficult things is there job and the reason why they make the big bucks and have our love as fans. It seems to me that Henry will have no real choices but to play as hard as he can as our #2 RB IF he wants to score a big contract when he hits the FA market. He certainly has the ability as an American to throw a hissy fit and sit out or to not play hard at all. However, to not play hard and perform will so undercut his ability to get a big contract that he would not serve his monetary interests to do this. As best as I can tell Travis is stupid (bad money management, getting fooled or allowing himself to be fooled or appear to be fooled by a minor and having sex with her, signing a sweetheart deal with the Bills for upfront cash). but as stupid as he is, he has a clear sense and desire of his monetary interests. TG seems to be handling this just the right way and is not falling into the sucker-deal you describe. Henry would like nothing better to be released by the Bills preferably for him before the draft or now, but anytime before the season begins would be fine from his perspective. He would have to sign for the minimum with any team which has spent right up to the edge in their cap room. However, if all hehas to choose from are those teams with additional cap room tjos year to give him the $1.25 million to keep him whole and negotiate a long-term deal after June 1st where the pro-rated bonus will not be assigned to this year at all, I'd take that deal if I were him in a Missisippi minute. If one wants to serve Henry's interests and reward him for his outlandish behavior then by all means cut him so he can play elsewhere this season. If you instead are interested in helping the Bills win, trade him for value and if value isn't there then the key is to stand up to him and force him to observe his contract. Choosing to be a cancer would be such a bad deal for him in terms of making the big bucks, i don't see him doing it. If he is so foolish as to attempt to sit out. its fine from the Bills perspective since he will not be a issue to manage in the locker room and we retain his rights. If he were so foolish as to attempt to play 6 to accrue FA status, this obvious ploy would undermine his ability to get the big contract he wants as the Bills badmouth him for being a bad employee and fellow players badmouth him for being a bad teammate and not watching their backs (something Corey Dillon was not accused of by his teammates) I simply do not see it happening unless TH decides to become a Wickey Williams without the bucks Wickey got from the two big contracts he signed. I just don't see why you want to do Henry such a big favor.

I understand what judgment is being made relative to the value of a good TE vs. a good LT and the holes/needs we have in both places. Its just that from what I have seen of Peters and the two holes, I disagree with the decision to have him focus on LT unless he is really very really that good of an athlete. When Peters was signed as a UDFA last year, he was signed because he brought so much to the table as a fast big guy with soft hands who with training might be the next Ben Coates in a perfect world. The seeming downside to him is that despite his extraordinary talent at catching the ball, he had never devoted much effort to blocking. In fact, he blocked so badly that despite his promise at pass catching he was to much of a liability to play TE. Yet, what we're being told is no wait, Peters is such an athlete that rather than his blocking being a liability that prevents him from being used as a TD scoring threat, he in fact is such a good athlete we can give him responsibility to block and protect our franchise QBs blindside. In fact, he is such a good blocking prospect (now suddenly) weare willing to stop him from catching a single pass or being a receiving threat by making him a tackle. I understand what we allegedly are trying to do and why we would do it. It just makes little sense to me. 1. If he is a good enough blocker we can trust and employ him at LT, he easily should be good enough to block at TE and the bonus is we get to use him as a pass threat. 2. If he is such a great athlete that he can learn a whole new position at tacklehe easily should be such an athlete that he can dominate at his old position of TE. JMac can easily make different judgments than me and he may be all right and I may be all wrong. I guess you are seeing the future is now aspects to my adoration of football as it seems incredibly difficult to me that Peters can ever be trained and perform at a level where we would be comfortable entrusting JPs life and blindside to a fellow who has never played LT before no matter how good an athlete he is. Even if this mrcale switch can be done, I see it as a project which comes to fruition at best in 2006 (if ever) and does zero to solve the LT hole we have right now. I have no clear idea what is going to happen here (which nicely is how TD, et a. should want it), but my guess (just a guess) is that they are saying this jus to confuse and fool the opponents. Th LT of choice is likely bnot on the roster yet.

Okay, I'll address it. It was a slip (Freudian or otherwise) because when it comes to young developing Bill's QBs I clearly still am scarred by the RJ experience, However, I think the two (JP and RJ) share little in common beyond their home state. I think one can truthfully label RJ injury prone after he suffered multiple injuries to multiple different places on his body in a short time. I think it is waaayyyy premature to give that same label to JP after one injury that occured in an unusal (training while he was wearing the QB tutu that says don't hit me) circumstance.

In addition to not declaring JMac a miracle worker, I woulfn;y get all warm and fuzzy thinking to much of Jonas Jennings either. He did play well for the Bills when he was on the field, but inaddition to some good games he has against the games stars, he also could be used and abused from time to time as he was in the first Jets game when Abraham rung up two sacks on him. SF simply overpaid for him big time both based on his level of performance and what the market seemed to dictate for DEs. Granted that traditionally the run on LT talent has driven their price through the roof, but I think an examination of the market place shows teams like NYG and others to have really spent a lot to lock up fairly moderate talents like Petitgout and Clifton. There simply were not a ton of teams in the LT market since most teams have already made huge mutlt-year commitments to LTs. Jennings really lucked out in my view as there was still one of the few remaining teams with an LT opening also had the caproom to overspend and SF did. In addition to failing to start all 16 games in his career, Jennings also failed to finish a couple of additional games at DE due to a concussion amd a shoulder injury. Jennings was simply not worth what the Bills would have had to pay to keep him. I'm comfortable that Teague can handle the job if called upon to do it (though the disruption of having to move Tucker in at C makes this not a preferred move). Gandy has to prove to me he can handle the job before I believe in him, but JMac may be able to squeeze adequacy out of him. I can't see taking the ball out of Peters hands if he truly is as phenomenal athlete as advertised so I do not see him as the LT abswer either but I could be surprised. Overall, i agree with the sentiment that our LT is not yet on the roster, but even with what we got, I think that 4 out of 5 of the OL slots are set and last year at minicamp with a need to replace Ruben, Teague as of yet to have his best season as a Bill at C, and MW at the beginning of a meltdown of epic proportions no more than 2 of the OL positions were set at this time last year. This crew struggled in the first 4-6 games but recovered to join with WM to block for a team which won 6 of their last 7. The OL situation is better than it was at this time last year and will need a lot of work but we have a lot of horses and I am comfortable that we will get to a reasonable and probably very good outcome.

Though I feel uninformed because I have not seem a a lot of Anderson with my own eyes, certainly from what I have read about him and the fact that he was a starter on a team where the Bills found an LG starter who was ranked well below him, I aggree with you that regardless of an failings folks have about Anderson's play he is an upgrade over what we had at LG last year and under JMac should be part of a contributing unit.

Though this looks pretty doubtful that the Bills are interested in Shelton anymore, it is certainly one of my fervent wishes as a psychotic fan to see the Bills pick him up for no compensation as cap casualty after June 1st. Though this would mean he missed the chemistry building opportunity of the most recent mini-camp, tnis would be no price to pay if the Bills braintrust thought he could be worked with. Shelton has clear limitations as a player (the ankle injury, athleticism operating in space against DE speed rushers. However he also seems to have some real plusses also (great run blocker, great upper body strength so that if he locks up with you you are done as a passrusher, earned the nickname Last Man Standing in AZ they were hit with tons of injury and Shelton showed the toughness to play through the nicks that all players get (psrticularly OL players) in a season. One assumes that there were numerous back channel conversations between AJ and his cousing Damon who is a Bill so if we want him we can get him. Shelton at LT would solve a number of our worries if he can perform even at the good/bad level (more good than bad likely since it earned him a big FA contract) he has performed at in the past. Specifically it would make our line-up LT- Shelton- great road grater for an O which is going to run alot on first plays and then run again. Limitations operating in space against speed rushing DEs, but if we are running a lot, he is strategic about taking penalties rather than letting the QB get blindsided and his voice allows him to yell ooops in an understandable way if he gets beat so RJ can demonstrate the same fleetness he showed running for his life at Tulane, i have no problem with us signing cap casualty Shelton for a prorated bonus which gives him more than the $3 million he would get in base pay from AZ, but gives him a cap hit less than $3 million cap hit the Bills would have had if we traded for him (even this contract would have been renegotiated to translate the base pay into proratable bonus to reduce his annual cao hit down to a Travis Henry like $1.25 million. RG- Anderson- Even the weakest link on the Ravens OL is an upgrade over the uncertaonty we had at RG last year with Sullivan (cut last year), Pucillo (cut this year) Smith and ultimately Tucker as the RG choices. Even given some negative comments about Anderson there is the question for the Bills as to whether he is an upgrade. The answer is that given this spot was manned a significant part of the season by Smith who was assessed at a PS level on the Ravens even below this fellow some call the Ravens weakest OL link, this is a clear upgrade at RG. C- Teague- Clearly and intelligent guy and a lockerroom leader. However, though I think he can make line calls, AND use his athleticism to handle shotfunning well, AND use his athleticism to handle the bigger LTs he is facng, he has shown difficulty doing all these things at the same time, However, he has improved by most judgments as his shotguns are less of an adventure (thank gosh for Bledsoe having good hands, but the need to watch the snap did slow down Bledsoe's ability to read the D and his ability to read and react to the D was too slow already) and he ended up on his butt less last season from bull-rushing DTs than he has in the past. After recovery from his injury he played the best ball he has played as a Bill C and I think he can take another step up there or actually prosper with a move to what should be an easier position for him at LT if it comes to that. RG- Villarial- Even the one bad penalty he took last year (against Oak om a 3rd down in the redzone where Travis gained a first the play was nullified by a holding call on Villarial) seems to be an acknowledged ref mistake. He was able to play 15 last year which was good enough to allow the Bills to show no back-up RG on the depth chart. This year we should have the solid identified reserves and CV is a good find. RT- Williams- Perhaps the greatest benefit of CV's stability is that finally MW had a teammate next to him that was stable and he could learn from rather than him actually being a better player than the young Sullivan at RG his first year, and him being both a better player and having more knowledge that Pucillo at RG MWs secid year. he exhibited his best play a a Bill during the winning streak and if (and I mean IF) he continues his development on the positive tone he set last year in the second half of the season he should be good enough to make the flop to LT next year giving us all sorts of flexibility. At least 7 OL players will be active for each game (and probably 8 depending on the game situations with injuries on our roster nd the quality and depth of the opposing OL. I also see Gandy filling the role played by Marcus Price last year and giving us a quality backup who has played both LT and RT before and potentially could have been a starter if he were a little more consistent. In addition, given his good and productive fill-in job for Teague at C last year and him earning the starter job at LG, I am quite comfortable with Tucker as our first option for backing up the middle 3 OL positions and this allows us to comfortably go with 7 OL players active (though 9 or 10 on the roster) actuve each week if we want to acivate another player (like a Peters on OL or Fast Freedy as a punt returner and 6th WR. The 8th OL player on the active roster (but perhaps inactive for the games) is interesting. I hope Preston commands this role by pushing Tucker as the back-up C (dare I say soon to be the starting C). If he shows the flexibiility to play some guard if necessary that would be great. Other candidates for the #8 OL choice will come down to a player competition between Smith (who made a big jump from the Ravens' PS to starter last year and is now depth charted at tackle and he even played a little LT when Jonas got one of his many late game nicks that forced him and made him not worth a big FA contract even though he was good IF he played), McFarland (who also played last year and was drafted by the Bills brcause of his potential) and Sobieski who needs to force his way onto the roster or I suspect he is gone because too much time has passed for this talented but oft-injured player to be on the PS again as a development project. However, the other most likely 8th player is the recently drafted Geisinger since i don't see him surviving long as Bills PS player if we try to stick him there he will get an offer to be on another team's roster as a development project if he shows any of the skills which got the Bills to draft him. Maybe Geisinger sticks as a 9th OL player on the roster. At any rate the 10th player is going to be a PS player and their are several candidates for this slot including: Pruce: Hiw NFLE production last year earns him a look. Espositio: His sticking as an inactive player on the Bills roster earns him a look though he is a likely goner. Gudmunson: UDFA signing has PS written all over him if he makes the squad. The other wrinkle (potentially big) in all of this is that JMac keps talking about Peters as a phenomenal athlete who will compete for tha starting LT job. OK. JMac has forgotten way more than O will ever learn about OL work. However, it strikes me as strange why if Peters is such a phenomenal athlete, why on earth we would take the ball out of his hands by switching him from TE to LT. This is even more true with the injury to Everett which creates a gap at TE. If Peters is sch a phenomeal blocker now when it was his inability to block which made him a PS player last year despite his soft hands and phenomenal speed. Peters will almost certainly be our our 2005 roster, however, we are filled with development players at T we just lack a proven starter at LT. I see Peters as beomg a far better candidate for the third TE role than the starting or back-up LT roles. Bannan is still on the roster as a G, but public comments seem to return to DT production being the way he makes this team. The prescence of Shelton makes things much easier (though it essentially gurantees we will cut two players who played for the Bills last year) and though it looks diubtful it is what I want for an early Xmas. Even without Shelton JMac will need to make something work with the experiements with Gandy, Teague, or Peters as our starting LT. I'd guess its Teague at LT but this sets off such a chair reaction in terms of other positions who knows.

Only the top 50 (maybe 51) salaries count against the cap. The same pick as Everett last year was Anderson and there appear to be about 8 or 9 guys from last year's roster with lower salaries. When push comes to shove he will probably end up barely counting against the cap but the Everett salary will not be a huge hit to the Bills in terms of available cap room. For example cutting Josh Reed and having his 400,000 bonus become deadspace will take up about as much room as Everett's hit on the cap. It will be a marginal difference taken into account but likely will not drive football decisions.

My guess is that there were NOT basic similarities between this cas and the Schiavo case unless all the key issues are the same. One of the big keys to the Schiavo case was who decides for a person who is not able to make their own health decisions. The dispute was that her husband says that she clearly told him her wished not be kept alive if it required the use of itmes like the feeding tube in a hospital while her parents said that she should be kept alive, expressed no wish like that her husband said, and that she and the husband were no longer married in face, he was motivated by money, and should not be the next of kin. The courts ruled on the side of the sanctity of marriage and declared him the rightful next of kin. I have seen nothing to indicate that the basic issue of the firefighter's next of kin is the same as the dispute in the Schiavo case. To me however, the rule is the same, in cases of incapacity the next of kin gets to speak for the incapacitated person and I feel very uncomfortable with government intruding in decisions between a husband and wife virtually regardless of the reason. It seems in both cases the next of kin made the right decisions.

BINYC- I think there is a convergence in our thinking on MW: 1} He has been grossly overpaid for his performance as a Bill (all athletes are overpaid and when you disappoint as MW has you are grossly overpaid) 2) It isn't too late for him and his performance at the end of last season is not there yet but gives one reasonable hope. Though there is a convergence in our thinking there is a huge difference in how we express this thinking which may be simple semantics. In my view, in retrospect looking at his performance the last two years one can reasonabl express dismay that MW is not great yet (that is to say performing like a top 10 OL player as a #4 should choice should be at or nearing by this point) but it would be pretty unreasonable to expect that MW would have entered the league performing as a top 10 OL player. He had a great first year in my view because his first year production was at a level that was headed this way. This was measured by him getting a starting job early (unlike Pace who held out and developed a bit slowly and then became great) and the Bills being productive on offense in 2001 based on objective standards such as Travis running for a bunch of yards and receiving a bunch of passes, the receiving game having two receivers above 90 catches, and Drew setting multiple QB records for the Bills and also subjective standards of O productivity such as Pro Bowl berths. Compared to the 2001 offense and the team's 3-13 record they became EXTREMELY productive in conjunction with major changes in personnel being Bledsoe and MW (also Hollis for non-position players) along with added experience for the 2001 crew. Was MW a great player in 2002? No. Was he on a reasonable track to become a great player? Yep, definitely. What happened to MW in 2003? 1. Kevin Killdrive stubbornly refused to alter our O and as people knew what to expect and BB/NE provided a roadmap on how to undress a Bledsoe led team running the same old thing the O and MW suffered. 2. Having two not ready for primetime position coaches in Vinky and Ruel caught up with MW. There was no or little tape for opponents in 2002 and it was unclear to them what the Bills and MW would do. However, in 2003, opponents were able to identify the weakest parts of his play and pick on them. Killdrive and the Bills were unable to change. he young MW in his second year had little clue as to what and how he should do this. 3. In his second year, MW had his hands full. At least as a rookie he had the eventually cut but at least more experienced Sullivan next to him. In 2003 he actually was more experienced and expected to carry Pucillo next to him. its no wonder that on several plays Bledsoe ended up sacked with MW and Pucillo standing over his prone body looking at each other with obvious "I thought you had him" body language. I think the bottomline is that MW got off to a great start, but the failings of GW, KG, and DB caught up with him so his game did not develop in his second year and actually in conjunction with the death of his grandmother (and perhaps his marriage) he took a big step back in the beginning of his third year. Is his first year reasonably described as a disaster? No, not at all in my book. I think it was a great start which was objectively better than the one Pace had and actually was not dissimilar to the start Ogden had as he actually was a guard originally and made the jump to LT where he began to collect LT plaudits as one of the best in his third year. MW had a great start because though he was not a great player at tackle (not to mention LT) his rookie year, the fact that he was a starter at tackle from game 1 with his new team (an achievement not matched in the rookie performance of Pace or Ogden) he was on a track to do very well and deserve the LT money which was promised late in his contract. Its fine with me if some folks do not consider this potential which was more than the usual fan hopes and wishes, but butressed by real increases in production by the 2002 Bills O which may have been coincidental to his becoming a starter. However, to make this case, a poster would have to explain why the Bills productivity jumped in 2002. You seem to claim it was all about Kevin Gilbride's system which somehow prospered despite the fact you claim his RT was a disaster. the complaints of many that his QB was a statue and your own loud complaints that the RB was worthless. Come on. are you such a Kevin Killdrive worshipper that you attribute all the real world improvements of the 2002 O to having a scheme that was so good even with horrendous RT. RB (and I suspect you agree) QB performance it ccan qualify multiple folks for the Pro Bowl and be part of a resurrection of our record from 3-13 to 8-8. I guess the bottomline is do you really think Kevn Killdrive was that good.

Jim Kelly was really the last of the QBs whp actually called the plays n the field. The modern QB (particularly with the advent and perfection of helmet speakers is really a conduit for transferring the calls made by the OC and/or HC ti the team. Definiitely this player must have good leadership ability to effectively communicate the plan but it is an illusion to assume that this player has a greater mantle of leadership through his performance of this function. The Bills are fortunate this year, Pittsbirgh was fortunate last year with a rookie at QB and the Pats were fortunate in 2001 when Brady was their QB that the leader does not have to be the QB. In the modern game leadership is most effective when it is a shared function and teams figure out a way to provide a balance of the full array of the areas of leadership necessary to have a winner. On-field leadership is key, but from dealing with the media, setting an example for diligence in practice, dealing with media and even managin up to keep the relationships with the owners and coaches positive are among the necessary areas for leadership. No aingle individual is capable of keeping track of all this and of being listened to by everyone on the team, the is particularly true of the youngsters like Brady, RoboQB and Losman. Fortunately there is more than one leader on a team and even in a particular unit.

This might get him to free agency, but will certainly not help him at all in his desire to make his next contract a big one. If Henry actually suceeded in this little game, he would go into free agency with: 1. Having had two non-productive years in a row on the field. Excuses can be made that he was in a funk last year over WM and then WM proved to be a good enough player to keep him off the field. He can attempt to explain away the poor production in 2005 by saying he did not play most of the season. However talk walks and production talks and going two years in a row without showing the production that saw him get 1300+ yards will be two years ago and it will hurt his ability to get a big contract. 2. His potential new employers questioning whether they want to invest a mint in a player who stood up to his old employers, was willing to sit rather than play and ultimately successfully pulled a tricl on them to get what he wanted even if the team wanted something else. Would you as an employer trust him enough to spend huge dollars on him. Maybe if you thought his production would make a difference, but as in point one he will be a bit removed from his production. 3. His current teammates have already begun to publicly express displeasure with TH's attitude as a teammate (WM was quoted last year saying if he were TH he'd prove his worth and defend his job on the field and Moulds is quoted todays saying he wished TH had come to camp). Neither of these points is fatal right now (WM is his competition, Moulds problems can be solved by Henry coming back) however, if TH plays the game you suggest he will likely get badmouthed by his fellow teammates for not watching their backs. TH runs the risk that potential future teamates will react negatively should a GM ask team leaders how they would feel about the team bringing him in. 4. Finally, if the Bills attempt to hold onto him by suspending him for sitting out and win the battle over this issue, TH will simply remain Bills property and not get FA status, or if he wins this figth he runs the risk of a whispering campaign being launched that TH;s injuries which ended last season were more serious than the Bills let on and this would undercut his negotiating position. Henry can do what he wants certainly, but if coming in after 10 games is what he wants he runs the strong risk of not getting the contract or the freedom he wants.

When he arrived London Fletcher was clearly the best LB if not really the best defender overall. He knew the game well as can be seen with him arguing calls and points while GW was still standing around clueless tryung to figure things out. Fletcher was and is clearly a team first kind of guy as seen by how he has thrown himself into the ST role and play despite the fact he is a starter. Even when you take into account the negatives with Fletcher as a player one could attribute his being a bit of control of some plays for over-exuberance and over commitment. At any rate, what this has seemed to add up to is that in his time here Spikes has wed to Fletcher's leadership and actually taken a backseat to Fletcher in mnay ways. Perhaps this is just a quality move on his part making an effort to blend in with his team rather than take a me0first attitude. Yet. to some extent i think that is just the way Takeo is. I have no problem with his style at all because he does the important thing of showing up and leading by example. I'm sure he is different with his teammates than what he projects to the public, but he does not seem to strike the typical leader pose adopted by folks such as Darryl Talley.

I'd agree with the general consensus laid out so far, particularly Eric Moulds name coming up several times. I think accomplishment has to be a big part of effective leadership and Moulds has been around long enough, made a few Pro Bowls, reached the century mark in passes caught and led the team with 84 catches last year that I think he is one of the recognized and acknowledged leaders. I was glad to see Moulds quoted saying that Henry needs to get to camp because I think he is going to be a critical part of both mending fences and keeping Henry in line if we do not move him. Another piece i would add to these comments is that in addition to the O and the D there will need to be a ST voice and leadership for this team. Sammy Morris as captain of the ST a couple of years in a row was this voice, but Wire was soppory developed by the Bills he did not seem to occupy this void last year as I think the Bills wanted him to. Perhaps Moorman has enough accomplishments to be this leader.

Yeah, MW definitely had a great start FOR A ROOKIE PLAYER. He was not a great player his first year (2002) but I feel quite comfortable saying he got off to a great startthat he has not continued. We can certainly argue the semantics of what one means by "great" or "disaster" but I think any rational analysis (not that I expect or demand that any fan be rational actually) looks at MWs first year and judges it to be much close to the good side (great start) than the bad side (disaster). Specifically: 1. He was chosen to start right away as a rookie. I would judge this to be a good start and a start to be hoped for in a #4 choice, but as 50% of the choices in even the 1st round disappoint according to the pundits, breaking into the starting line-up in your first game is an essential part of a great start though it does not gurantee it. If he had not been able to start his first year you might (might) call his first year a disaster, but he did start so if you are going to justify calling it a disaster 1. it has to be shown that his play was the bad or the cause of bad things and, 2. the burden is definitely on those labeling his play a disaster because the default of the coaches choosing him to start provides some assumption of at least credible play on his part. 2. The team was very productive offensively in 2002. Assessing lineman play is a tough thing for a fan to do. There are not the usual assorment of stats like catches, yards gained, TDs etc to point to when making a case. Even worse, what you see in terms of line plan may not be a totally accurate indicator of individual play. For example defender who lined up across from an OL player may get credit for a sack but the OL player may not be the blame if the line call gave him responsibility for a different player on a slant block. This being said, all the objective signs point to MW and the OL being part of an O which performed in objective terms and relative to other Bills teams produced on the field: A. This OL provided the blocking which allowed even a statue like Bledsoe to set multiple single-game and season records for offensive production. B. The OL provided the blocking which allowed Henry to gain the fifth highest rushing total in Bills history. C. The OL provided the blocking which saw 3 Bills O players (Moulds, Bledsoe and Henry) qualify for the Pro Bowl (not a perfect indicator but a pretty good assessment of accomplishment from third parties). There were objective limitations to his game. he did not start all 16 games, but starting 14 as a rookie is very good. He logged some sack free games and did so early (Bledsoe for example was only sacked once in MWs first start and I'm not sure who was responsible). However, all in all I'm not sure where you get calling this a disaster from. In my view MW clearly got off to a great start because he was a key part of an OL that helped the team produce offensively and in the most important indicator the team went from 3-13 to 8-8. I will concede that I was not as accurate as I could be if I gave the impression I thought he was a great player his first year rather than what I meant that he got off to a great start at the beginning of his career. However, I'd love to see you lay out the case that his first year was a disaster because I saw nothing that would indicate this is true in the least. Jeepers, if Bledsoe made the Pro Bowl with a disaster playing RT for him and Henry racked up about 1400 yards and caught over 40 passes with a disaster playing RT in front of him then maybe well all better reconsider how good Bledsoe and Henry are. If they can pull off their 2001 accomplishments with MW being a disster they must be good.

The articles today where the players do the right thing by pumping up and praising Losman are great to see. Even Milloy (who formed a real bond with Bledsoe in NE which was part of bringing him here) was happy to do this even though it left a clear trail to finding some of the faults in Bledsoe's play. Yet, it does raise the larger question of leadership for this team. Often it is the QB is the undisputed leader (the Joe Montana case) or at least the first among equals (the Jim Kelly case). He handles the ball every offensive play and is often the most brainy or accomplished athlete. However, this is a team with a first year starter at QB. He has lots of potential but potential simply means you haven't done anything yet. Who is (are) the leader(s) of this team and why? Looking at past models of success where the QB was not the man, they range from the Baltimore model where Trebt Dilfer played the caretaker role and Ray Lewis was the leader to the NE model where the young Tom Brady did a fine job by dustributing the ball equitably but Belicheck is actually the leader even though he is not a player. It will be interesting to see how this plays out for the ills.

The best LTs usually develop quicker than their fourth season. Pace struggled at first after his hold out but by the secomd year was a clear force to be reckoned with and I would not be surprised if he got Pro Bow recognition as early as his third year. Jonathan Ogden was even quicker out of the box if memory serves me correctly and by his second year was well on his path to be considered one of the best. MW had a great start, but having Vinklarek and Ruel as his OL coaches have set back his development by at least a year and in conjunction with the death of the grandma who raised him really set back his development by a couple of years. I am hopeful and I think it is reasonable to hear some talk of MW dominating this year, but if he were really on track he would have been ready to flip to LT right now.

The refreshing which I take from this article is that the Bills do expect JP to step up in ways that Bledsoe could not, but those times will come when the play breaks down (as often happens when other pro athletes are trying to stop you) and that JP will be able to take advantage of thos opportunities like Bledsoe could not. However, there is an emphasis on JP awaiting his opportunities and capitalizing rather than him making those opportunities and dragging the team to victory. I think the Bills lost badly when we depended on Bledsoe to do things he was incapable of doing like carry the team and we will also lose badly when we ask JP to do things he cannot do like carry the team. The Bills strike me as being far more likely to win with a team effort rather than expecting the QB to be a second coming of Jim Kelly. This image is fictitious because even the first coming of Jim Kelly could not win games with any consistency on his own (the NFL Network's recent replays of the Bills comeback against the Oilers reminded us of this, because Kelly was not even in uniform for the Greatest Game Ever Played). The Bills will lose if we fall into the trap of over-relying on the QB. The key to the sorry loss last year against Pitts was not that Bledsoe counldn't do the job (he couldn't) but that this team was only going to win if the QB put the team on his back and overcame the funbles by ST, the D letting a scrub get over 100 yards in our house and Lindell shanking an easily makeable FG. If he team plays team ball (which they did during the 6 gaame winning streak and the 8 and 2 finish) then the game will never rest on JPs arm or Lindell's toe. If we do this we will probably win, if we allow it to come down consistently to one player's performance (particularly a 1st year starting QB) we will almost certainly lose.

Clearly it depends most on the game situation, the weather conditions and various other factors fortunately before you even get to the question of whether you have more faith in JP (I have a lot more hope than faith right now) or faith in Lindell (the shank on a very makeable kick against Pitt has removed all faith in him and even putting a hurting on my hope for him and thus for us. In pre-season, I'm much more interested in testing my faith in JP so virtually evey situation like this I try to move the ball on the ground and see what he does. As far as Lindell goes this is a job or MM/April as sports psychologists and my guess is they have to show unflagging support for Lindell like they were George Bush searching mindlessly for WMD. Even if it is against all logic that what motivates us is true, we have to stick to our expressions of faith in Lindell and hope it works out for the best.

bump as I am still looking for an answer.