Fake-Fat Sunny

I think one needs to factor in salary and expectation indeclaring a player a dud (if this ranking is more than a statement of production or stats) or a bust (which certainly is a perjorative which questions a players' efforts or head. 1. Shaw I think qualifies as a dud for 04, but he produced and was not one in 03 when he actually outpaced our #2 Reed in filling Moulds' role. He got cut this year to prove a point which needed to be proved in order for the Bills to not rest on their losses of an 0-4 start. However, he appeared to me to be a reasonable victim to choose to make the point eveyone must contribute rather than judging him a dud or cancer becaue his actions were fine. 2. Jones clearly did not meet out hopes, but he simply failed to recover from the injury which ruined a promising career and I don't think anyone has anything bad to say about his effort or us taking what I think was a relatively cheap flyer on him. 3. Clearly a dud in terms of showing the pre-injury promise he showed as a highly ranked collegian, but again he was a relatively cheap flyer to take. 4. Lindell is one who can be clearly called a dud and perhaps even a bust. He is proof positive to date of one of the stupidest things TD ever said that good kickers are a dime a dozen. 20/20 hindsight shows he mismanaged things in cutting Christie (who is still in the league, chose to live in the area, and is weak legged but easily outpacing Lindell), depending on Ariens, cutting Graham who is now a stalwart with Cincy, being unable to maintain a relationship with Hollis and the Lindell saga. I think Lindell's play is far from all bad because tjhe kick coverage game which the kicker is central to has been so good and he did a great job with one of the 2 or so onside kicks he was called upon to make. However, kickers get the big bucks to make kicks and Lindell has failed to be a weapon for distance and missed a chip shot.

Since judgments are being made, I think your assessment of Posey is correct and the judgment to be made really is of those who had unreasonable expectations or demands of a player for the relative pay he has received. I think most Bills fans had hopes tha Posey would become the next Bryce Paup was really those who had expectations or demand that this occur are just out to lunch in terms of football judgments. Posey's cap hit for 2005 is at about $1.7 million. Spikes is at about $5.4 milllion and Fletcher is at about $3.8 million. This compares quite favorably with the market as the top 10 average LB salaries is at about $5 million. Spikes is one of the best LBs in the league and is paid like, Fletcher who is arguably one of the better LBs but gets downranked a bit due to some dumb penalties is actually a steal at this salary for the number of tackles he produces and Posey at the very least produces at a level consistent with a wage well below that of the top LBs. Based on the hype of his Texan numbers, more sacks from him would have been great, but he and the D have certainly met my expectations. Posters whose views I take seriously as not having their head up their butts have complained about Posey them seeing Posey turned the wrong way on some plays and other failings. However, I have not heard my call to them answered to identify specific plays or stats where this bad positioning they see has turned into points against us. Posey is fine as best as I can tell its folks expectations which are out to lunch on this one.

I agree that McMichael is not likely to go anywhere, because actually almost all players aren't traded making him unlikely to be dealt for Henry and I think he is a more productive player than Henry as well. However, in the fantasy world of trades, getting a TE is the thing which would make me overjoyed. My figuring right now is that I think Campbell was a reasonable but not outstanding (except for one game) player for us and Euhus showed nicely for a rookie and has some potential. However, hearing nothing otherwise, I'm figuring at least a year til they resume their oast level of performance which makes mid-season next year if not a year and a half which is not infrequent for someone recovering from their type of injury which means 2006 until we have the starting TE play we want. I think this is why TD has publicly added this to the list. McMichael is not possible for a range of real reasons, yet I think it is true that: 1. He is due for FA at the same time as Henry and perhaps by doing a sign trade with Henry the Fins can arrange the cap hit implications now rather than later which allows for a bigger hit for them but clearer management. I think that with Henry due to the injury they probably in the long-run could not only get a smaller hit with Henry than with McMichael (who I think is likely too rich for the Fins blood and will walk for nothing after next season) and the injuries to Henry allow them to do a conditional contract with him that only pays him big money if he performs. 2. I think a major driver for the Fins is that it is a new era. Their interim HC was incredibly popular and the miraculous upset of NE provided any needed rationale for keeping him around, yet they went with Saban to fully exercise the demons of the Wannstedt/Marino faux-pas past. The other big item of eliminating the past is moving beyond the Rickey era, and acquisition of a former Pro Bowl RB is a great way to do this so I think that the Fiins may jump a little bit to get this done. 3. Judging from how TD has handled the draft withe the Bledsoe/Losman and WM pick/trades and the desire/need he and the Bills have to win and win now, I think that he did not specifically mention wanting a 2nd for Henry by mistake and TH's leading candidate the Fins do not have a 2nd. We'll see. One irony for me is that I like Sammy Morris a lot as well as a back-up to WM with 3rd down receiver and great ST chops as well. McMichael for Henry strikes me as us raping them. Morris for Henry strikes me as them taking advantage of us, but perhaps that is mostly because we already has Sammy so I wouldn't feel like we got something for the nothing TH contributed to us last year, though actually Sammy is Fin now so we would get increased value out of getting him compared to what we got now.

I sm getting so psyched up. I am really having to work at not getting prematurely excited about the potential to actually get some real value for Henry rather than a mere draft choice. TD is quoted in two FLA papers making comments that trading Henry within the division is defintely doable at the right price. Its nice to see that the Miami media and thus the fans deem the trade for Travis talk as newsworthy and thus a not unreasonable thing to do, The articles also provided some new news to me because they quote Nick Saban as saying getting an RB is critical for the team. Again, this is not news as their RB deficits are clear, but it is new to here Saban setting the table for them to spend valuable resources of some kind to get an RB. Finally, the real kicker here for me are the TD quotes: Are the Bills seeking a second-round draft choice for Henry? "You could look at it that way," Donahoe said. "We want to do something that is fair, whether it's a player, a draft pick or a pick and a player. "We want something that would indicate somebody is serious about having Travis. And if they are, we told his agent to have them call us and we'll take it from there." Miami does not have a second round draft choice so if this deal is going to get it done then its got to be a player or a pick and a player to allow the Bills to say yes. The other option of course are even higher value future picks, but my personal feeling isthat even current fraft picks are so speculative as to have a reasonable shot at giving you delayed or no value and future picks are even more potentially worthless. Some folks may argue that a good GM values the future because the future one day will be the present. This certainly true, but the present is definitely the present and after 4 years of no playoffs, TD appears in no danger, but playing to make the playoffs right now has got to be a priority for TD, Ralph and the Bills so in my mind trading Travis for even a first rounder in 2006 is worthless for this year and thus pretty worthless to me and I suspect TD as well.

I think there is far too much out there of value at LT for the franchise tag for Jennings to work. To gauge the market take stock of the PP situation (the players are not analagous but the differences highlight important market lessons). PP had maximum value for AT in this market because: 1, PP was judged the best and in many minds the only game-breaking receiver in FA that year. 2. Arthur Blank had publicly promised his customers that he would get PP. 3. More important, Blank might screw his customers since they are the only NFL game in town, but he had promised Vick he would get him a WR. 4. PP had publicly said he wanted to go to AT (owners routinely ignore players but by this statement if he didn;y go to AT, AT and Blank cannot divert the blame to PP. In Jennings case only item 4 is defintiely true and Vick wants all the help he can get certainly but after the championship game and several regular season escapes D-investments help Vick's W/L more than getting him an LT. TD had a pretty guaranteed buyer which I think was a key to tagging Price and that is not the case at all with Jennings.

The dirty little secret here is that it looks pretty doubtful that Jennnings is going to commamd anything near what LTs have gotten in the past from the market. This is not because of Jennings value compared to some of the other folks eho hsve gotten big dollars in the past who are not as good as Jennings, it is because ofsupply and demand. Bascially there are 32 LT contracts which are the market Jennings will be mining. Subtract from that market: 1. 8 teams already pay LTs 8 of the top 19 OL cap hits 2. 12-16 other teams have already committed big log term contracts to players like Clifton and Petitgout and are not in the LT market. 3. Of the 12 remaining teams subtract out as competitors for the Bills teams which are likely close or beyong the cap even though they could use Jennings services and we can give JJ a better deal without sweating AT appears to be in this boat because after a huge outlay for Vick and previous FA commitments like PP they are likley going to be cutting players merely to mske the cap much less generate cash for JJ. 4. Whoever has cap room and is left have the ability to pay for better LTs like Orlando Pace, Walter Jones or Tra Thomas who are probable FAs. JJ only has to get one off-market deal and there are plenty of fools running NFL teams, but when the smoke clears it will not surprise me at all if though the Bills will give JJ the biggest contract he has ever seen in his life, the market will mandate that it be for much alot much less than the salary cap hits commended by FA LTs in this league in the recent past.

Many thanks for finding this and your work and thought on this. I love these numbers because they seem to confirm a lot of what I have been thinking about Jennings. Though AT is an obvious place for him in terms of his desires amd their desire to protect Vick, it will be pretty hard for them to talk serious money for him. As folks like Walter Jones and Pace draw the top LT FA dollars and most other teams have made bid dollar long-term commitments to other players at LT (from 8 of the top 10 teams in OL cap hit to folks who have given long-term contracts to pedestrian talents like Petitgout and Clifton I don't think there is a big marhet out there for the Bills to compete with for Jennings. We can reward him with a contract that is more money than he has ever made before and actually get him for less than the $5 million buck annual salary folks are talking about and lesser talents have already gotten. Rediculously some folks have even talked about giving Jennings atop 10 OL cap hit because the fear losing him. I think he is a good player but I hope TD does not pay him through the nose and lets him walk if he gets a great offer because I think we can resign him on the cheap as LT salaries go. If he does get a good salary fine as I think we have multiple options for replacing him.

Agreed there is a big difference between the folks viewed as franchise picks at the beginning of the 1st and folks at the bottom who like Nate Clements were seen as solid starter hopes but not world beaters. The oddity about QBs (which I think has a lot to do with the marketing of QBs, is that from the top to the bottom of the 1st round no QB pick has led his team to the SB since Dallas chose Aikman in 1989. Whether they are first oicks like Manning or late picks like Pennington, they certainly have a lot of glitz in their production and despite the many total QB busts like Leaf, Smith, Ware, Couch et. they at least have some record of playoff qualification. Yet, when it comes to the ultimate goal these 1st round picks fall completely short of the mark whether at the top of the round or the bottom. Go figure.

For a few weeks when I tune into TSW I am greeted by a now familar post which sits in the TSW archive from the distant past asking if the Colts and Bolts can tie. Well the answer is no as they almost finished the same in the "real" life of the NFL with the Colts winning but one playoff game this season against the hapless Broncs and the Bolts coming close but no cigar as they got edged out in OT by NYJ. Yet, the funny thing to me about this is that when you go back to the key decisions which defined these teams that being the selection of stud QB Peyton Manning over bust Ryan Leaf, the two teams are in about the same position today in the measure which counts most playoff victories delivered to the team. It says something ironic about pro football that Manning could be such a better performer than Leaf, but yet the difference between the two in terms of delivery of achievements to the two teams are about the same with Manning finally lurching ahead of Leaf last year in career playoff wins recorded, and the two producing exactly the same results in terms of SBs won or even appeaered in. I guess Manning, Leaf and the insurance adjusters can all get together in 10 days or so and watch the game on TV. You could have drafted any of them and the final result would be the same.

Fuggabout the draft pick for Henry, we need a player who can contribute to the team now. I like Miami as a potential trade partner exactly because they do not have a second round pick so if they want Henry then they have to give us a player in exchange (my wildest dream is McMichael who is due a big FA contract at the same time as Henry, I think he actually is a more productive player than Henry so we should give them more but hey can't a Bills fan dream. I think the debate on whether Henry is worth a 2nd or worth a 4th or whatever misses the point of creating a team capable of racking up the Ws and getting into the playoffs in 2005 or even 2006. Draft picks are neato keen for fantasy leagues, but in terms of Ws give me a vet, even one judged of lesser value than Henry.

I'd nominate the Draft of 1983 as the worst in history in that that though the players were some of the best in history led by the QBs such as Bills fave Jim Kelly, John Elway and Dan Marino and even RBs like Eric Dickerson I'd rank its effects as bad for the history of the game as the coincidence of these stud QBs occuring while others like SF had Joe Montana has contributed to the psychosis that unless you draft a stud QB in the 1st round you will never win the SB. Ironically, the exact opposite has proved to be the case as the last team to drafty a QB in the 1st round who led that team to an SB win was Dallas picking Aikman in 1989. I hope McNabb breaks this streak this year because I would hate to see it fall upon JP to do it even though he may be just an exception that proves the rule. Drafting stud QBs in the 1st is has simply been a non-winning investment for the past decade and a half plus and the marketing momentum of the 1983 draft is a big part of this.

I think the Jax game proved to be a learning experience for Clements which painfully taught him the lesson to do what is necessary to win, nothing less certainly and if doing more is about style points fuggadabouit also.

I think it is highly unlikely that Henry would remain a Bill, but if a deal can't get done, it would be fine with me if Henry does the fence mending necessary to crawl across glass and take a role as a back-up RB for the Bills. One of the amusing reads for me are TSW posts by folks who apparently look at this from a testerone standpoint rather than a business standpoint. By far the thing which serves Henry's interests right now is to get a deal done and move on. However, by re-upping for a year in exchange for some upfront cash which he needed because he apparently mismanaged his assets, all the cards are in the Bills hands for making a trade, If you take the possibility of making a trade away because no one will make an offer sufficient for TD, the Bills still hold all the contractual cards for a year and Henry will have to make a choice. 1. Stand on his vanities, show he has major cjones and get screwed financially and practically. 2. Suck it up, make whatever peace he can with the Bills and know that the fates are pretty likely to provide him with a shot as a back-up to make as many dollars as he can and show some pride he can both market and his Mom will feel good about even if it hurts him. Some have thrown out the idea that if TD won't accept a deal then Henry can hold out, pout or throw a hissy-fit. Certainly theoretically true, but do so would clearly and obviously not serve his personal interests at all, A. He cannot formally hold out because under the CBA he only will accrue time toward him gaining FA status if he is a member of the team in good standing. Were he to hold out in 2005, he would not knock a year off his contract and he would still be Bills property and not an FA in 2006. B. He could show up for work but not put any effort into it and thus accrue time. However, were he to play this game, he not only would screw the Bills but also his teammates who in essence would have no one backing up WM. It would be a very painful year for Henry hanging out and being hated. C. The Henry goal in all this is to get a big FA conract, were he to hang out and do nothing for a year, he not only adds a second non-productive year in a row to his resume, but he adds a rep as a malingerer with GMs because he screwed the Bills and potentially among players if he screwed the efforts to win it 05. Even if you want to classify Henry as an idiot not derving the accolades he got as a stand-up guy form Bills fans last year, if anything he has shown that he is pliable and subject to advsisors because he kept his mouth shut while the season was going on. Those who wanted to label him a cancer were forced to try to read into an interpret his body language since he rarely gave folks the press quotes to feed a fight during the season. I think those who say its obvious that he will react like a baby if worse comes to worse and there is no deal say more about themselves and what they view is important in the world than they do about what Henry will or won't do.

I disagree. One of the good traits that TD has shown is that he plays well with others, even dimwitted overly egotistical players. The match right now for TD and the Bills is not to prove that they are smarter than anc can best Travis Henry (which judging from the sweetheart deal with the Bills which TD and Henry signed to extend his contract for a year is not hard to do) but to try to get the maximum possible value out of a trading partner. TD did a wonderful job working with Peerless Price who initially reacted in a kneejerk manner to getting tagged by the Bills, but pretty quickly it was clear that he spoke with someone he trusted (TD?) who educated him that he and the Bills had the same interest which was to extort the maximum possible value out of AT. Blank stupidly promised his customers that he he would pay whatever was necessaty to get Price for Vick and by franchising PP TD made trading a 1st (which became McGahee) part of what was necessary. A version of this is now happening with Henry. It serves both the Bills interests and Henry's interests to get a trade done for him. In fact, TD by releasing Henry to find a deal, he is now doing TD's work by scoping out the market for TD. To the extent Henry does a good sales job of himself that benefits the Bills which TD cares deeply about. So I disagree, i think TD cares alot what Henry says and does, cause if Henry does it well, its better intelligence about the market for us and if he makes the sale we benefit. Viewing the Bills/Henry relationship as some mano-a-mano faceoff might make an individual feel like he has big cojones but it does no benefit the team at all.

I think you place far too much value on a 1st round choice than TD does (as shown by his smart willingness to use it as a tradeable/bankable tool to accomplish his the Bills goals of getting Ws rather than worshipping them as a marketing tool as seen his his trading away 1st round choices for Bledsoe and Losman and using it to draft a player he knew would provide no immediate return in WM). I think one of the great things TD seems to embody is that he seems to see the 1st round choice as something to use rather than be used by it as you describes it dictating action. The pick is already dicey as 1st round QB choices have no record of delivering an SB win to the team which picked a QB with it since Dallas chose Aikman in 1989. He has mitigated that risk somewhat by actually having JP as our second choice in that draft so his work last year is getting measured by Evans output so the fact JP needed another year before even possibly contributing has not harmed him at all. It will be harder for him to escape even the unrealistic expectations of many for a second year, but even this will not be impossible if JP proves unable to contribute as long as this team finds anotther way to win.

Actually in our society everyone is guaranteed the ability to sue anyine (as long as they have the cash to file the suit which is actually one of the primary limiting factors on gratuitous suits though this is routinely ignored as a factor which has led to the vast majority of suits being filed by corporations rather than individuals). However, no one is guarantted that they will win their suit. In the farfetched hypotherical you described (taking into account that extreme cases are generally worthless in setting the rules for the whole) if the company took its actions in a totally arbitrary and capricious manner (decision-making documentably driven by totally non-work related criteria like looks, no paper trail of warnings by the company, no rational action to comply with reasonable company standards) the plaintiff might win a wrongful dismissal suit. However, in this general case if the company can make a case that: its actions and smoking impact their ability to do business, the ability of the employee to perform actions (smoke breaks limitling efficiency for example) is impacted by smoking, that they clearly communicated the rule change, that they offered assistance to employees to comply with the rule change on a reasonable timeline, that they established a paper trail of failure to comply by the employee with the new rules, etc. etc then it is quite likely that the employee would lose this suit. It is the case in our society that: 1. Most employees will not want to spend the time to pursue a lawsuit they are likely to lose and thus receive no payback from. 2. Most lawyers will see no reason to take this suit on based on the hope they will get a remunerative settlement if they see it as a loser. 3. Most employers will know that if they have controlled their costs as much as possible by hiring a lawyer on staff if they are doing a lot of litigation and that they can outlast most employees in long litigation and even oulast most lawyers or deluge them with motuion after motion that they simply need to pay the fixed costs of hiring a staff attorney to oppose all frivoulous suits, and oppose some reasonable suits and the costs can be managed. Even your far-fetched example strikes me as no rational reason not to take the action of dismissing employees if this dismissal helps the bottomline.

Actually that tends to not be true (particular specific cases are particular specific cases and one ends up with inaccuracies if you apply any extreme case or outrider as though it were the general rule). Litigation is an episode, while constant costs like consistent insurance or almagamated health costs of employees happen each month. While the smart business translates litigation costs if there are enough of them into a consistent and predictable cost by hiring an in house lawyer to handle the load if there is one, generally the costs of litigation may be bad if you lose a case, but often are even manageable if you lose when they are turned into a cost of doing business and risk is laid off to insurers. The "high" cost of litigation is a relative term. The smart business calculates the costs of litigation and compares that to the income stream produced by various activities which may lead to litigation and then does things that pay and doesn;t do things which do not pay. Our society works because the costs of litigation rather than being "high" in most cases are quite manageable. On the other hand, the costs of healthcare since we bizarrely have made provision of health insurance an area of competition for employees are unrelenting and griowing. My sense is that if the US wants to efficient about doing business it will eventually separate health care and insurance from competition for emplyees doing their jobs.

The answer to the poll unfortunately is both. Stability and predictability are the main drivers of the market here. Thus, if the proposed trade partner is near the front end of the draft there is more likelihood the answer is before the draft. However, if the eventual trade partner is in the middle to end of the first round then likelihood shifts to after draft day because there is still a lot of uncertainty for that partner as to which holes they will be able to fill through the draft. If these teams are uncertain that their RB choice is still going to be around when they pick or they have some other need they likely will fill through the draft then locking up Henry as their RB prospect makes more sense. My guess is that applying this rationale, most of the potential trade partners have running game problems which caused them to rack up a lot of Ls (Miami for example) and thus they have an earlier pick so my default is to see a trade happen sooner. There are far too many variable to guess with any accuracy, but my current leading candidate is that we will see a deal done with Miami and this deal will happen before the draft in March after declaration of FA status make the market more clear. I may be wrong (if TB offers us the ranch and the dog by all means take it) but these are the factors I see leading to this decision: 1. Miami has many needs and trading for a former Pro Bowl RB allows them to address one of them through the trading resources so they can use major draft resources on other needs They can do this the other way around and draft a top 3 RB and trade for other needs, but there is a former Pro Bowler available in trade and it's probably not as easy to fill other needs through trade. Also quaity RBs can be found late in the draft so using the trade on Henry and picking a plan B RB in the 5th or later makes sense. 2. Travis wants to go back to FL. 3. I think TD is committed to the future being now and the lack of a 2nd rounder for Miami may well make it easier for the Bills to get a vet from Miami in exchange for Henry. My dream is for the deal to be Henry for McMichael. McMichael is a far more accomplished player in my mind, but he also is headed toward FA status after next year so maybe a mutually cost effective deal can be reached. It probably won't happen without the Bills giving up value in addition to Henry for McMichael, but then I thought the Bledsoe trade could not be done either by TD.

The NFL does not want to insert itself into questions as to whether an injury is fake or real and is also pretty reluctant for liability reasons to write a rule which might be interpeted as forcing a team to play an injured player. They seem to take the approach to leave judgments about who is injured, how badly, and who is not up to the individual teams and write rules which are necesarry for the game to function smoothly to leave the call to the teams and merely force them to deal with the implications of their decision. Thus, the teams are limited to having two active QBs and one as a reserve who can come in only if the two QBs are injured. If they play this reserve QB, then one and only one of the regular QBs can come back into the game during the 4th quarter. The 2 QB rule has some cost containment advantages to it as QB salary hits can be quite high and if teams hired 3 QBs on an even footing for playing the position would take up an even more inordinate percentage of the team's cap budget. Thus the league has become very comfortable with taking a stance which allows for some salary cap allocation control but also allows for protection from unjury of players. This is my understaming of the rule which tracks the posts above and the rationale behind it which is new.

I don't think that is what he meant otherwise why specifically site McNabb's achievement as a great occurence and to contrast this with the Dilfer example. If you're looking to show that your QB should play in a top flight manner why look beyond Brady who has 2 SB MVPs? I think he is making the broader finding but that finding contradicts itself. If finally McNabb making is proof you must have a top-flight QB, then does it mean anything that QBs seem to routinely lead their teams there (since Brady and Johnson did not disprove the Dilfer case),

In my minf he has the opportunity to win the starters job if he shows enough upside in minicamp and in the pre-season. I don't think he needs to be perfect of produce great stats to earn this job. For me he will earn it if he shows enough upside for learning the game and minimizes him losing games for us by mostly learning from making game-costing mistakes. He has shown me enough in his brief appearances that I think he can do this and only should be swept aside by the back-up (be it Bledsoe or whomever) if the back-up plays lights out in minicamp and pre-season (a feat which I don't think Bledsoe can pull off even if he takes a paycut and stays). There has been a lot of talk on TSW for folks calling for JP, but i think much of this has been motivated by people's dismay or even hatred of Bledsoe rather than their strong belief in JP. I'm curious what folks think about JP rather than the side issue of what they think of Bledsoe. My cut is: JP Losman- Highly regarded college prospect who generally was worth a first round choice in the 2004 draft. Generally rated as the 4th best QB prospect in that draft behind Manning, Rivers and RoboQB and he appeared to be a cut below these three because Manning is clearly bigtime, Rivers shows more polish than all the others but throws sidearm and is not your prototype QB. RoboQB showed perhaps the greatest poise and production of the 3 but did so against weaker competition. Losman has the equal or greater athleticism than any of these three but had to run for his life in a Tulane program and exhibited some mechanical issues from his great freelance success which lodged him a cut below as a prospect, Given that playing for a bad team and for stupid offensive genius HC sidetracked Manning, given contract issues sidetracked Rivers and given the phenomenal success RoboQB had until the team was forced to depend on him being great because they ran into a more cohesive team clearly all bets are off for demanding a particular speed and style of developing Losman which is not molded to his indidivudal needs and situation. Overall, the pick looks like an outstanding job by the Bills and TD as though they were more interested in having a QB for the present thay defintiely needed a QB for the future because it was unclear whether Bledsoe would produce at all. By picking an immediately productive player with is first pick of Evans and then using his 2005 first as the main meat in a trade to get Losman, TD managed to pick his QB for the future in 2004 for the 2005 choice when there is no QB propsect of near Losman's caliber in the 2005 draft. The trade and pick makes even more sense as Losman pretty clearly needed to be looked at and actually needed somework before he could be given the reins anyway. The particulars of his 2004 work are these as I see them: He showed the talent and athleticism which got him drafted in the first scrimmage against Cleveland and in his pre-season appearances. He is a solid improvisor and shows no fear of putting his dead down and getting hit or giving punishment. On several plays in the scrimmage and onward he demonstrated his ability to take the snap and roll-out looking to produce. He has shown a nice touch in making passes accurately on the run. However, his big problem in 2004 was gettng a fracture in practice which limited his ability to practice and play. It is a concern that the injury may in part may have occured because Losman was taking advantage of the fact that players were prohibited from takling QBs in practice and he has used the "tutu" to makes some runs when the D was covering passes in practices and he ended up getting shoved a little harder than he had planned by Troy Vincent and suffered a fracture. It is still far too early to call him injury prone because of this fracture, but if the team's reaction was to the negative of him taking advantage of the practice rules he may need to moderate his cockiness to be most concerned about leading his teamates than racking up scores in practice. The injury ironically may actuallty speed Losman's development. Its not a good thing at all because it cost him repetitious practice time he needs if an essential part of his development is ironing out his mechanics (in the highlights of his college days he could often be seen throwing off-balance successfully as he ran for his life, however, if he were to depend on the same free-lancing in the over-complicated pro offenses he will find it harder to develop chemistry with his pro receivers who will depend upon him to throw it the same way everytime, Also, one can get away with weakthrows in college but unless he is throwing as wlell and as fast as he can he will get picked off by pro athletes if he is too loose in his play. The injury however may speed Losman's development if he used the enforced downtime to surgically attach his ear to Wyche's mouth and dowload knowledge from this former HC and better learn NFL offensive rational and defensive tendencies in the booth during this past season. It may not hurt his getting to know the boys better by yucking it up during games, but a more critical part of his development would seem to be the mental side of the game. I'm pretty not worried about his ability to lead. His play during the season was interesting: Appearance 1: He got thrown into a game against NE. He did not do well here as he threw an INT and also fumbled the ball as he looked unprepared. This was not a fair test and his post game comments seem to indicate that he had received an appropriate message from this episode in that he committed himself to being more prepared the next time. This is good but raises the question as why he was not prepared this time. Second appearance: Its not hard to improve over his bad initial outing but this was a good showing in that he did the most important thing for building his confidence in himself and among his teaamates he succeeded. Some may whine because they wanted to see him throw passes, but I think it means much more that he successfully moved the team in a mop-up after we blew them out even if it was "just| by handing the ball to WM. He has thrown the ball before but he has never led an NFL team to a TD before so I saw this as a great outing. He also demonstrated in this outing that he has a lot to learn as he entered the game, failed to command the hudddle and transfer instructions quickly enouh and we took a delay of game. Still this was a good outing because we scored under JPs guidance. Third Appearance: Much much better. A somewhat ignominious start as he had to call a TO when the goal was to keep the clock rolling during mop-up time but this at least was better than taking a bad penalty because he still had a rookie's command of the huddle. The actual play was good because this was such a laugher he got even more time and there was enough time left that first downs were needed to burn clock so he ran a more diversified offense. He not only drove the team to a score, but completed a nice pass on the move to advance the ball and also pulled the ball down when passes were covered on 3rd down and picked up the yardage on the run to move the flags. The effort was not perfect though as he put his head down and took an unnnecsary hit to gain a couple of extra yards after he already had the 1st down on the run. it was fun to see him lay some wood on an opponent but it was stupid also because it was unecessary. Stll overall I was pleased. At anyrate, much remains to be seen, He pretty clearly was not ready as seen by his lack of command of the huddle and a little bit of the panic which has him run a bit too quickly in my view even if it moved the sticks. There will be three keys for his development which see: 1. Has he learned NFL offenses and defenses well enough yet to be more of a vet than a rookie. 2. Has he ironed out any mechanical issues or still allows himself too much variation to develop good chemistry with Evans, WM and the O. 4, Is he able to maintain the cockiness usefull for evoking confidence while also having a calmness about him that makes for great leadership and making great choices. Two of my favorite QB stories are told about Joe Montana and about the good friend of many on TSW (not) Doug Flutie, Near the end of one championship game SF got the ball and needed to drive for a TD to win. The team took the field and looked to Montana for orders and inspirtation. He brought the team together and asked folks to look in the stands near the opposing endzone. He asked, "Isn't that John Candy sitting there in the 6th row, I loved him in so and so movie. The team cracked up that he was so calm he could scan the stands for stars and talk about cmedy movies. This was calm and the team marched down the field and scored. Though many hate Flutie I was impressed with a story of him getting thrown into a game as a freshman fourth string QB. They were not going to win, but he marched the team down the field, through some nice sideline throws, ran the ball effectively on third down and eventually through a TD pass. The coach called the team over to discuss whether to go for two and amidst the debate Flutie winked and smiled at the HC. Regardless of what was going on, the bottomline was that playing football well was fun. If JP shows the moxie to be calm, I think he will go far.

You actually misstate a number of things I have said, so read S-L-O-W-L-Y and perhaps we can overcome what is probably my own lack of articulation: 1. "Well, using your recipe Drew should have taken us to the SB as we did trade for him afterall." Actually my whole mantra is that THERE IS NO ONE RECIPE FOR SUCCESS IN THE NFL. This all interests me because it is far less than clear at all of the one way to get this done. Not only do multiple recipes work, but one can have all the correct ingredients and because this oddly shaped ball bounces in a funny way or some stupid ref blows the coin flip it can all be for naught. My point has not been about insisting on the right way to do it, but actually rising in opposition to those such as ICE who seem to insist against reality that there is only one way to do it and if we all were simply as smart as him we would realize this. I have been so repetitive about the 1st round QB point because the conventional wisdom that if you want to win the SB you must draft a stud QB in the first round like Peyton Manning, Ryan Leaf or Joey Harrington has been so wrong that it amazes me that many not only endorse taking this method but claim that it is the only way achieve success when it simply has not worked out for any team since Dallas chose Aikman in 1989. High risk is fine, my only question is why are folks so stone-cold certain about a method that has not produced for such a long time. 2. We all now know that going to the SB under Drew aint gonna happen, and more likely it wasnt Drew who took the Pats to the SB but rather the team. This certainly isn't the approach I endorse since I have openly advocated that Drew should have been cut after last season and I feel TD made a mistake using out cap room to negitiaate a new deal. That being said, the reality is that DB was (and actually still is until we cut or bench him) our QB and my contention has been that even with this faux-pas we can win if we do not depend on Bledsoe who has many failings and do rely upon our TEAM. I think the real story here is that this view was proven mostly correct and made to work even far beyond my wild expectation by MM and the Bills during the streak. I am one who believes that generally few coaches can make the difference but I now am prepared to believe that MM may be one of the good ones. 3. Fact is, we are MUCH MUCH MUCH better off going with a guy that has as much talent as possible rather than trying to find the next Tom Brady. What has happened in real life says otherwise. This is not because finding a Tom Brady (or a Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, Kurt Warner) is easy. It ain't. It's that if one defines a QB with as much talent as possible as being Peyton Manning, Donovan McNabb, Steve McNair, Dante Culpepper or any of the other folks who are among the best throwers in the league, their combined number of SB wins is zero. McNabb in fact is a deviation from the norm because McNair was the last of these 1st round choices to even make the Big Dance. Its very very extremely hard to make this work by finding the next Brady it is simply harder to make this work under the limitations of the salary cap and the pressure to perform from choosing one your talented guys in the 1st round. 4. You, in fact, claimed that MANY QB's were "all" we needed to get to the dance a few years back. You, in fact, claimed that Warner, Dilfer, Garcia would ALL do what Tom Bardy has done in NE for us, and was all we needed. Hell at one point you wanted us to simply pikc up Jeff Blake. I'm not sure what you are referring to here as I have tried to stay away from any stone cold lock claims. I would not be surprised if yor or someone wants to waste the time of wading through my many way too long posts to pull some quote out of context but my intent has not been to say there is but one way to do this. I did endorse for example taking Jeff Blake way back when as a replacement for RJ, but this from my standpoint was that I saw Blake as a better choice than Chris Chandler or the other FAs available at the time. I considered a trade for Bledsoe as not possible within the division and too rich for the two 1st rounders NE was asking for him. I praise TD for pulling this deal off because I see Bledsoe as having been a QB who allows a team to win better than if Blake were their starter and quite frankly I judge him as having raped BB in the 2002 season as the result was that the Bills had near record improvement of the W/L under Bledsoe to 8-8 while the SB winners missed the playoffs that year in large part due to the accelerated cap hit for trading Bledsoe. Certainly BB used his knowledge of Bledsoe to collect 2 wins that year from the Bills but who cares in assessing that year's impact of the trade because we had a huge benefit and they took a huge hit. The effects became a wash the next year as NE got past the cap hit and recaptured the SB, and Bledsoe went from meteoric success to horrendous failure in the second year but again the real world events conicide with my views. 5. Your plan really only works for the Pats and has NOT worked for any other team. If you can find the next Tom Brady, by all means, clamor for him. HE, my friend, represents the enigma, NOT the 1st round QB's. My plan is to win or at least get into the SB. However, my plam is not to try to replicate the Pats but to hope for and to advocate MM doing it the Bills way. Just like politicians who try to replicate what won in the last election and end up losing, I think that finding and establishing the next thing will be the key. Perhaps the thing I am most impressed with MM/Clements for doing is that though BB has long advocated the two way player, MM actually used well and relied on this technique even before BB popularized it with his use of Troy Brown to fill in for an injured Law and Poole (they didn't suffer these injuries until mid-season). Yet it was after game 4 that you saw MM make effective two-way use of Bannan and Adams to solve our redzone issues. Using WM rather than TH was obvious because WM was a better player, but this use of defensive players on offense was different and inspired. This type of out the box approach embodies a Bills way to me. Other candidates include: 1. Not valuing the draft as highly as most fans seem to. I think that the Bledsoe trade, the Losman trade, drafting the injured WM are actually signs that TD has a far better sense of the importance of the salary cap and the value of the draft in building a winner. its a tool but just a tool. It will not surprise me if devaluing the draft becomes part of the Bills way. 2. Recognizing that the whole must be greater than the sum of the indivdiual parts to truly be good. I will be unphased if we pick no OL players in the next draft (or merely late round projects), it strikes me as pretty reasonable to go after an FA center (center are cheaper than LTs and I like Teague better at LT than C). However, I think we have a better chance of producing a productive OL through McNally being a huge upgrade over Vinky and Ruel than us overspending to keep Jennings here. I like Jennings and by all means keep him if we can get him on the cheap (which I think may be doable because most teams have already blown their cap wad at LT and demand there may be surprisingly limited despite the huge past contracts) but overall I think we will produce more getting players who play well together rather than simply focusing on getting better players. 3. Plan B is the key. I think the Pats have done well because they did many things well but a key ingredient is they got lucky. if Bledsoe had not had his lung collapsed my bet is they would have stuck with Bledsoe long enough to miss the playoffs that year. Last year BB did a number of things well like the FA acquisition of Harrison and but his mismanagement of the Milloy deal and how the players stepped up to that and the injuries wrote the tale. I think the Bills are in a position to not merely be lucky about players stepping up and joining together, but to actual;;y do this in a planned way. I' not sure exactly how you get this to work, but this is my plan or thought. 6. Facts are facts. 6 of 8 of the playoff teams had 1st round QB's, then 3 of 4, now 1 of 2. The team that has the late round gem is NE and IMO is the ONLY team that can do it in the whole damn league. Go ahead, talk about Atl and Indy all you want, even NYJ. Id MUCH prefer to simply GET to the playoffs with a 1st rounder than NOT DO IT AT ALL behind the next Warner, Dilfer, Garcia, Blake, or Bledsoe! ALL of the 6 out of 8 playoff squads (round 2) had the 1st rounder that THEY drafted! Those odds are very much more in favor of OUR situation where we drafetd JP in the 1st. I agree that this year may well be looked at in history as the beginning of a new era of the QB. However, this may be looked at as special because in the past 1st round drafted QBs have failed to deliver SB win (since Dallas chose Aikman in 89) or even SB berths since McNair led the team which drafted him there in the 99 season. Either 1st round drafted QBs are always successful or this year is different than the occurences I have based my views upon. When you see which is right I again rely upon the facts of what has happened in the past in that 1st round drafted QBs have little record of even making the SB in the past decade and a half forthe teams which drafted them. Pointing to the 6 out of 8 record of achievement this year merely emphasizes how correct my read on the record was before when 1st round drafted QBs merely produced 1 out of 4 of these teams for the teams which drafted them. Very good certainly but not the only way to go certainly either. When one escalates the standard to SB wins or berths then 1st round drafted QBs becomes a non-road to success since 1999. The interesting thing about this season is that given the great start I was pretty sure this would be the year that a 1st round drafted QB would finally win the SB fior the team which drafted him. many of us have our fingers and toes crossed for McNabb, but after seeing the championship games this may be yet another year where a 1st round drafted QB fails to deliver everyone's goal for the team which picked him.

I wondered about this also and went back and reviewed the 4 games and did some what if theorizing. My sense is that if WM had started and produced the way he produced later in the season he would have made an obvious difference. However, if he produced the way he produced in the real world when he began to play it probably would have made little difference. I reached this thought because: 1. In the first four games, WM got far fewer carries than he got later, but due to injuries he actually got a good chunk of carries and a chance to be a difference-maker in some of the 4 losses and he did not make a difference. Jax- He got a chance to show what he could do in the 4th quarter as he was relied upon due to leg cramps suffered by Henry and he did not make the difference fpr us. Oak- Perhaps the best case to argue that WM would have been a difference maker if we had relied upon him instead of Henry because the denial of TD in the redzone was a key. However, WM would have made a difference if he played better by taking the decision out of the refs hands as even the NFL admitted that Henry should have been awarded a go-ahead TD and MM didn't/couldn't challenge the bad call. NE- WM was not used at all in this game so one can make a theoretical case, though such theories against one of the better Ds in the league are tough to make. Jets- WM did not start this game but his play and an ankle injury to Henry meant that WM was the man in the second half and again was not the difference for us. 2. In these games TH laid down the pattern of injury and inadequacy that lost him the job, but actually these were his only and included his best performances so WM would not only have been able to be adequate right out the box but outstanding to be the difference-maker. He did not even get the chance to be adequste in a couple of the games but Henry was adequate and when WM did get the chance he showed potential but was not outstanding. 3. The RB problems were obviously a factor in any loss (if TH had gained 150 yards on the ground we wouldn't have lost, but poor RB play was not the main reason for our losss in these games. Jax- The O provided a slim lead and the D didn't hold it with 3 unlikely Jax plays in their last drive. Oak- We should have never let the refs decide this game but ref calls blew this one. NE- I'm not sure how we beat this better team but this was probably Henry's best game of the season. NYJ- Again the offense put a slim lead in the D's hand and the D allowed O'Brian to kill us. Conceivably WM might have made a differnce but it looks really doubtful.

In his column he leads off stating two things he sees as harsh truths. 1. The Pats really are much better than the current competition (well duhh- even if you don't think much of them the current competition has some pretty clear shortfalls which are there to be exploited- they actually pay you good money to state the obvious)? 2. This year proves you need a top flight QB to have a serious shot at winning the SB. He states he is sick of the Trent Dilfer example and the achievements of McNabb proves the error of this thinking. Sullivan misses the boat in my view because while he is right as far as he goes that a top-flight QB is a key to an SB win (again duhh), he does not seem to see several important factors which strike me as true: 1. There are several avenues for getting a top-flight QB and though the method Philly chose for acquiring McNabb (drafting him in the 1st round) is one way of doing this, it is among the worst in terms of prodcuing real world positive results. McNabb is great and Rush Limbaugh is stupid. However, the facts remain the facts. McNabb will be the first 1st round drafted QB to bring the team which drafted him to the SB since McNair led TN there in the 1999 season. Further, no team has chosen a QB who led the team to an SB victory since Dallas chose Aikman in 1989. I'm not making this stuff up and why does this fairly obvious point seem to escape being worthy of mention by Sullivan. You don't need McNabb and his near achievements to make the point you want a top-flight QB, Brady has produced like a top-flight QB in 2 of the last 3 years and makes this point, Warner produced like a top-flight QB and was a key tio the high-flying Rams D winning it all. The thing which is different about McNabb is finally after much delay a 1st round pick even led the team which selected him to the big dance. To present this as proof positive rather than simply an exception that may prove the rule seems wacky. 2. Ragging on Dilfer is fine with me if you want to rag on not-so-good QBs, but if one looks at the last several SB winners and performers if you want to claim that they show the importance of having a top-flight QB, then it is clear top flight QBs come from a number of sources: 2003 season- 6th round draft pick beat UDFA (undrafted free agent) 2002 - UFA (unrestricted free agent) beat UFA 2001- 6th round pick beat UDFA 2000- UFA beat UFA 1999- UDFA beat 1st round draft pick 1998- Trade acquisition beat UFA 1997- Trade acquisition beat trade acquisition 1996- Trade acqusition beat 1st round draft pick. Sullivan may want to put the Dilfer example to rest an aberration but in doing so he declares Brad Johnson, Jake Delhomme, and even Rich Gannon to be top flight QBs or else maybe Dilfer was not an abberation. It makes less difference to me as the real lesson here is that it is quite doable to get an SB capable QB as a UDFA, UFA, or even more likely as a trade acquisition than spending a 1st rounder on him. 3. Though McNabb does redeem 1st rounder choices in this one example, Sullivan can not ignore that the far far far (alot) far more likely occurence is that a 1st round QB choice will bring you pain. One can look past bad 1st round choices like Couch, Leaf, Smith, Ware, etcetera if you want even though they are even more frequent than the occaisional McNair. However, one cannot reasonably make the point he is making and also look past the point that even when these players perform extraordinarly well. McNabb is merely reversing 3 straight years of close but no cigar and as great as Peyton Manning is he and Ryan Leaf remain neck and neck in terms of leading the team which drafted them to the SB. If you're a Blls fan then by all means root for McNabb because if he wins the big one, it will take the pressure off of JP to be the first 1st round QB choice to deliver an SB victory to the team which drafted him since Dallas chose Aikman way back in the last millennia. The irony here is that if one is addicted to picking a QB in the first, there is a best case out there in terms of that choice playing a key role in leading the team which picked him and even playing an essential role in an SB win. Ironically, this is actually Drew Bledsoe who led the Pats to an SB appearance in the 1996 season (only to be beaten by trade acquisition Farve) and played QB and threw the winning TD in a must win game for NE in their 2001 season SB run.

Clumpy, how does the CBA apportion the Bledsoe cap hit if he were cut after 6/1? You have a deadspace allocation to him on your chart in Billszone of $3.2 million which I believe is a correct allocation of the accelerated hit over the 2005/2006 cap, but I believe this info was created before the $1.2 million payment to him in March became common knowledge. I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that this is part of his 2005 base pay and thus this money would not be saved in terms of our 2005 cap if we were to cut him after that date. In theory, I guess this payment could also be converted from base pay to bonus which would still get him the check he watnts but allow us to prorate this payment over 05 and 06 were we to cut him after June 1st. I assume the Bills will not want to pay him this money in any case if they are going to cut him so this drives making a decision sooner rather than later but do you have any sense of how this money is cap allocated?