Fake-Fat Sunny

I'm certainly excited about L-W-E but I certainly hope that the level of achievement shown by Manning-Harrison-James is not the model for these three. Perhaps it is merely the rough weather issue that would be difference but I think that rooting for these three must have been pretty horrendous for a fan the last few years. Talk about a lot of glitz and no payoff. Indy defines this with their achievements the last two years. Certainly its been better to be an Indy partisan rather than an AZ fan but I look at even the frustrations of rooting for the 6-10 and 9-7 Bills the past two year's versus the Indy glitz and feel better about taking on our frustrations than theres. It certainly is better to have loved and lost than never loved at all, but rather than even getting loved they seem to have just simply been screwed by the hype surrounding one of the best QBs in the league whose team cannot really outclass anyone but Denver and a Billy Volek level player.

In reply to some of the good points made: Brandon I think a key to what may well happen is that the NFL is a "me-too: league and it is amazing how teams will see what worked for whoever won this year and try to repeat it. One of the most fortunate things for the Bills and TH this year has been how Corey Dillon has tore up the league for NE (I cheered when Dillon scored his TD even though I had been rooting for Pittsburgh to tighten the game at that point) because I think his success makes it easier to trade Travis for something of worth. I'm not arguing that Henry is as good as Dillon because I don't think he is, but I think teams will be looking for their Corey Dillon and former Pro Bowler Henry will fit the bill. Even as teams argue the pros and cons of making this move, proponents now have the ability to not have to make some detailed argument but will use the Dillon example as their shorthand even if the cases and people are totally different. Dave McBride as someone pointed out if Travis sits out he will not rack up a season which qualifies him for FA. Joey Gallowat had this same situation when he held out and the deadline to get a season under his belt forced him back and he threatened to become a cancer which forced his trade. In theory Henry could return the Bills and simply not try hard and sit on the sidelines and pout. However, I don't see this happening as it does not suit Travis' interests. Thanks to he and the Bills actually having the same goals of wanting to trade him for maximum value he and they have actually worked hand and glove together. He went out with an injury which was originally reported to be a season ender, however, all parties suddenly changed reality and he was neither IR'ed amd all parties declared his physical condition to be fine. If Henry were to merely sit and not try, he would accrue time toward FA, but lo amd behold the talk of his actually having some injury which would make him a risky contract would likely surface. In addition, we're talking about TH having two unproductive seasons in a row, Hw probably will still be worth a flyer in FA, but sitting and doing nothing will not help him get the contract he wants, In addition him sitting and not trying very hard results in not only a battle with Bills management, but he will be taking up a roster spot and letting down his teammates. This is survivable but again not the best negotiating position for someone who is motivated by a desire to score a big contract. I think it is both quite unlikely for him to sit out or to go into a funk because either moves undercuts his clear interests. Also Dave as far as him moving his stuff to FL, I actually think that the greatest likelihood is that he will go to Miami because i suspect Saban will want to do everything he can to move past the Rickey Williams era (error) and getting a former Pro Bowl RB to hype will help do that even if he disappoints. I think Henry wants to go to warm weather, sees the likelihood of both Miami and TB as possibilities and besides if you're anywhere on the east coast and have listened to what TH has said about prefering warmth his moving lock, stock and barrel to FL seems quite logical. Coach Tuesday, I agree that TD was hired to win in the long-term here. However, heavily factored into this equation is that after 4 straight years missing the playoffs this is the long-term for TD. The future is now like never before. He certainly has not thrown impacts 5 years from now away, but my sense is that on balance when TD is considering getting value for TH, the idea of trying to get something that produces now has an even higher value for him than when he was hired.

Individual players are important but in terms of winning football the team is the thing. I'm even more convinced by the Ws racked up by NE that the key to winning is for the whole to perform better than the sum of the individual parts so my list of improvements looks like this: 1. MM deserves credit for implementing and pushing the idea of two way players even before it was popularized by BB's use of Troy Brown to fill the gap at DB caused by the injuries to Law and Poole. BB has done this before but never to the extent he has with Brown whose efforts harken to the ghost of Bronko Nagurski (an HOF two way guy from way back for you youngsters). Even before Brown was pressed into serious service MM made use of Bannan and Adams on the OL to improve our redzone performance. Our consideration of individuals is certainly important (particularly to those of us who have taken the fake world of the NFL and made it even more fake with fantasy leagues, but the big deal for the Bills racking up more Ws is to remind the athletes that they are football players rather than specialists. 2. I think better position players are great, but in the world of the salary cap we outside observers need to get beyond demanding that every player be a Pro Bowler because it ain't gonna happen. I think the calls for Posey replacement are particularly misguided given that the D is quite productive even with complaints (not linked to specific plays where we got burned for a TD or a big gain because faults in his play) about Posey. I don't think this means he should get a free pass and be designated the starter regardless of his play. It means to me that rather than spending our too scare cap resources on finding a Pro Bowler to replace him, I'm actually more interested in us finding an LB who will push him for his job and use competition to improve his play, but perhaps more importantly show the flexibility to be a back-up starter for Posey, Spikes or Fletcher if necessary. At OLB I;m less interested in trying to find a needle in a haystack like the next Bryce Paup and instead look for the LB equivalent of Marcus Price who backed up for the LT and RT slots for us or Ryan Denney who backed up both the RDE and LDE slots. 3. Its tough to complain at all about ST because of the extraordinary production in virtually all facets of the game. Still the opportunities for us to look for depth makes good ST chops and even more important factor in picking new Bills. As far as specific positions, I actually have always had good luck with the missionary position.

Cliff noted begin: Draft picks are over-valued by fans. In the best cases a second rounder gives you Ryan Denney or Chris Kelsay and in the more likely cases he gives you Bucky Brooks. Cliff notes end Say what? Are you crazy? Our opening demand is a #2, if someone offers us a 2nd rounder, a smart runs and doesn't walk to accept it! I disagree and if you care hear me out. I pass on this offer not because I think TH is so worthwhile as a player, but I pass on this because I am not impressed with a draft choice (even one has highly regarded as a #2 for Henry. Argue all you want about whatever negatives you think Travis has and I'll say fine because I think a judgment of how you or I assess him is beside the point (as I've said the claim that any particular player's value can be stated in draft choices as though they are some adsolute value defies reality. It's just silly to claim someone should develop like a 2nd rounder for example when a second round pick in a weak draft is going to develop very differently and at a different speed than a second round pick in a strong draft and the variation only begins there). I would pass on getting a draft choice for Henry (particularly in what looks like a spectacularly weak draft) because I think posters value the draft far too highly in terms of its contribution to building a winning team (that's what it is all about Charlie Brown). I'm not saying the draft is unimportant, it is important. However, it is just one aspect of building a winning team and actually from what I have seen is not the most important aspect, Good players do have to come from somewhere and many of them come from the draft. However, as best as I can tell the draft is for the most part a speculative crap shoot which is important but does not lead in telling the story. It amuses me that some folks actually try to describe the NE way as building a team through the draft when actually that ignores the fact that a key to their 1st SB run was the fact that they acquired about 1/3 of the team using the FA and waiver wires after June 1st of 2001. The draft is important but it does not surprise me at all that this team could lose 1st round pick Seymour on DL and barely seem to notice in terms of results. Folks emphasize the importance of the 1st rounders and early picks but the strongest case you can make for the import of the draft to the Pats was actually a 6th round choice of Brady that was merely a footnote at best as the draft was judged. I would say the major import of the draft which I see is that team's routinely devote huge cap hits to 1st round choices who then brgin to perform more slowlty than people want even in the better cases (Pennington sat on the bench for two years while ICE rants a 1st round QB must start his first year, even Vick sat most of his first year and we all saw how long Moulds took to perform) and in the not infrequent worse cases, you end up paying Akili Smith, Andre Ware or of course Ryan Leaf for nothing/ Even in the middling cases you get a great performer like Manning who has yet to do much more than Leaf in terms of playoff wins or impatient fans give up on Brett Farve, Steve Young or Trent Dilfer because they didn't produce like a 1st rounder should. The thing as a Bills fan, I want to win now and getting even a second rounder for Henry merely seems far more likely to give me a Kelsay or Denney who contribute nothing to my team next year. Bucky Brooks perhaps? Trade Henry by all means because it is pretty clear he no longer wants to be a Bills and much of the braintrust and many fans are done with him. However, if we can parley him into a less productive player than TH, but one who might produce more than Neufeld at TE (our likely best producer there if it takes an Edgerrin James like year and a half for Euhus and/or Campbell to recover) I'ma happy camper. The best of all worlds is if Miami tends to over-value the draft as most fans do and have some fevered thought that Henry will have an impact for them like Corey Dillon and are willing to part with TE McMichael in exchange for former Pro Bowler Henry since they already have traded away their second. A guy can dream can't he.

I ain't no capologist since no one pays me to calim to know this stuff, but as I am over-interested in football and having at least some understanding of the cap is essential to having a rational opinion about what may happen on the field (we are fans and thus have no requirement to be rational actually), I try to pay attention to the cap and have my own sometimes wrong but I think better than average understanding of its ins and outs. My imperfect understanding of this is: You are gnerally correct about the the implications of a cut post 6/1, but things are in play and it is not at all clear when or whether we are talking about a cut in terms of real-world activity (thus the timing question has a variable effect on what reality will be). In addition to the uncertainty about what will actually happen, none of us fans actually is privy to the actual contract language and agreement. Thus in a case like Ruben Brown, we already knew from the publicly available information (which is actually quite a bit because the NFL and NFLPA mandate public release of a lot of info regarding the cap so they can keep and eye on each other) that Butler has signed him to a stupid non-market contract for his services (for years Ruben was the only guard in the top 10 OL cap hits) but cutting him still made no economic sense even though a comparably talented player ciould be had for less because the pro-rated portion of bonus would be accelerated making his cap hit the same whether you kept him or released him. However, the key fact which I and all others except for Brown and the Bills did not know was that his actual contract language called for a chunk of his base salary to be paid out as a bonus before the next season began. While the Bills still would have essentially the same cap hit. this payment as a bonus would essentially mandate that Ruben be kept even if his play deteriorated in mini-camp or pre-season (not expected, but not impossible either). The existence of this trigger and language co-incided with the signing of a new OL coach (JMac) who diagnosed RB as an umcertainty for his new scheme and plans who had a history of taking on stupid coaches (Kevin Killdrive) in defense of his teammates, This newly found out by us cap requirement became a trigger for a decision to let RB go even though the Bills actually suffered a negative overall cap hit for this action (RBs salary and his accelerate cap hit were a wash for the Bills, but we then had to also pay Villarial to man the spot sice we had dispensed with RB's services). I say all of this because it is simply a caution to you and all who see that to truly understand or predict football, you must understand and predict the cap as well. The unfortunate truth is that none of us truly understands or predicts the cap. This is not some outstanding admission because not only are we missing critical pieces of information, but when you look at how professionals in the NFL have mismanaged the cap (John Butler or Arthur Blank for example) it is not reasonable to expect any of us fans to have a stone-cold lock understanding of this. However, though no amateur (er even most professionals) has a perfect understanding of it, the best available information is pretty darn impressive to me. I definitely refer anybody who wants to understand the Bills cap to refer to the work of Clumping Platelets which is found in Billszone which astounds me in how outstanding this work is. Again that being said, there are some significant things about the particulars of the Bledsoe deal which we don't know that make estimation of the deadspace created from a cut of him somewhat uncertain. The cap hit and deadspace from him after 6/1 does appear to be $3.2 million as you mentioned. However, it now appears that the deadline for this deadspace number being true is actually some point in March rather than June as he is entitled to a balloon payment of a couple of million bucks on his 2005 base salary. My understanding is that were we to wait until June 1, 2005 to cut him the remaining bonus would in fact be split over two years, but actually the 2005 cap hit would be higher as we already would have paid him some base salary for this year. This is in part whit TD has said this issue is going to be settled one way or the other in the next two weeks. On other factor which should also go into your knowledge of the cap since you ask is that you are correct that the base salary is paid out in 1/16th chunks. However, for cap and player management purposes, if a player is on the roster for two whole weeks he is then due his entire base salary for the season whethet he is on the roster or not. This makes sense because it takes away the possibility or even the temptation for a team to cut a player just before the end of the season if they are out of the playoff mix, the player is hurt or whatever. By guranteeing a full year's pay (and thus a full year's cap hit) for any player who has shown he belongs after a couple of weeks it allows the players to be certain that they can play with the usual wreckless abandon, It also means that if a player is cut it can be done but for reasons other than contract/ For example. we cut Bobby Shaw a quarter of the way through the season to send a message that everyone was always playing for their jobs as athletes regardless of the fiscal implications. MM actually took another page from the BB book as he was committed to there being no ESW players on the Bills (eat, sit and watch). Shaw was a good guy who showed no signs I could see of being a cancer, but the message was sent at 0-4 that a player had to play his way onto the field or he was gone even if he was a nice guy, The bottomline for your analysis is that keeping Bledsoe around will never be a week to week thing in terms of the cap because very quickly you are on the hook for it all. Also depending upon language we will not know unless somebody tells the timing of his paements may mandate activities on the field which we might no be aware of.

I disagree that poorly singing kids or disabled kids have no business singing the anthem at games and to say this seems to me to place too much importance and mystical reverance on the anthem. First off, sports strike me as shared entertainment in its basic form. There can be all sorts of other relevance attached to it and its meaning or relevance may differ completely from person to person or event to event, but in essence it is shared occupation or entertainment. Along those lines, if it floats folks boats to share together by singing together, to share together by praising their country together, to share together by enjoying marvin Gaye sex-up the anthem, or to share together by joining a disabled kid in singing the anthem badly it works for me. If I don't like it, I use the time to get chips, go to the restroom, wait quietly for a second or maybe make one snide comment to my buds. I simply don't attriute a lot of importance to this ritual.

Is the fact that on winning teams players choose the team over the money and take less than market value (Bruschi and Light were two examples given on NE, Elway did the same thing to keep Davis and Sharpe and finally won, Farve did the same thing in the late 90s to keep is running game together and was not among the top 10 QB cap hits for years while clearly he was a top 10 QB because of this) and indication that money is secondary to winning or is it an indicator that you often win by manipulating the money. In my mind, it underscores a consistent theme of mine that the NFL used to be a sport that happened to be a business and now it is a business that happens to be a sport. This small shift makes all the difference. I think it is prime testimony to how the money drives the results when you look at NE. The last three years have seen them win the SB, followed by completely missing the playoffs as the trade of Bledsoe gave them an accelerated cap hit making it impossible for them to acquire 1/3 of their team after June 1st as they did the year before. This was followed the third year by them winning the SB again in pat bouyed by the FA purchase of Harrison and being able to have bought marginally better back-ups to deal with the rash of injuries they had last year. To me its all about the Benjamins still, but teams achieve good sports goals when they pass by the free-market opportunity to maximize the dollars they make.

It's better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.

I must admit that my favorite national anthem at a sports event of all time was Marvin Gaye singing the anthem at a mid-80s NBA All-star game. It certainly wasn't the usual pomp and circumstance with the musical arrangement having a good dose of synthesizers, but it had more personal expression and feeling than any public rendition of the anthem I have ever heard. Even the national anthem can sound sexy when Marvin Gaye did it. The response he got from the audience and even the jaded players was amazing. It's tradition so it will never change but I wish they would America the Beautiful as a piece deemed appropriate to share the opening of a game with. It strikes me as far more singable than the Anthem, a better piece of music, and really embodies the sentiments of what is great about this country more than the militaristic fervor of the Anthem in my view.

I think a lot of the disappointment comes from how they market the product, The marketing angle is so intensive around the efforts to emphasize it as an individual versus and individual (usually ywo quarterbacks or a quarterback vying against history that the games usually disappoint as a team mashes that QB, or the pressure to perform becomes so large on that individual he breaks down. Certainly in these playoffs a big part of the disappointment was that Manning was over-hyped and did nothing, RoboQB was overhyped and he folded under the pressure (as most rookies would) and oddly enough Philly finally triumphed but most had written them off because their new star Owens got hurt and the media anf network had beaten the MCNabb horse so many times before they couldn't get excited much again. It is interesting that it is NE who keeps triumphing and a big part of its sucess it that they are a TEAM where players don't specialize but do what's necessary, where there is actually debate about whether a player challenging Bart Starr's record for playoff wins is a good player or not, and the team has no controversies because they don't fight in public. It is just more evidence that the QB focus of the NFL may be great for marketing but does not add up to winning it all.

The major issue at DE is not simply the lack of an outstanding pass rusher, but simply one of numbers. The NFL as a whole is moving toward a rotation method which allows fresh boduies in at the DL positions. The figuring is that even if you have a great player if he has to cut his effort down to 2/3 of what he can do because he is pacing himself to last the whole game or he is exhausted by several straight rushes, you are better off with a player logging time who may only be 75% as good as the orginal athlete but can let it all go on a particular play. The amazing thing about the Bills DL is that we went with just 3 DEs all year. There should be at least 4 just to provide normalcy and be prepared for injury, but Kelsay. Schobel and Denney did it all on a D which racked up some nice stats. I think the Bills have an essential need for a fourth DE and preferably one with some good pass rushing skills or rep. Rather than the draft, I think an FA who could play the role that Jim Jeffcoat played for the Bills when he was here would be great. I'm glad that folks have been rehashing the Denney situation as it has giveme a god excuse/reason to focus upon this. After thinking it through I find myself a bit more impressed with Denney and I recognize biw tge sugnificant contribution he made to this team. I doubt he will ever be the pass rusher we want and need, but having a guy who can back up both RDE and LDE is a real value for this fellow who is not a master at any one DE shill, but it a jack of all skils who helps this D hum.

Well it finally happened for the first time since McNair brought TN to the Big Dance in the 1999 season but putting your team in the hands of the an investment your team has made in a 1st round QB pick has brought a team to the SB. I for one am rooting for McNabb who has faced the trauma of three straight championship games, the idiocy of that drug addict Limbaugh playing the race card on him and overcoming in the playoffs the untimely loss of the savior TO to have a shot at the goal all players go for. The odds are still stacked against him. If he delivers an SB win to the team that drafted him this will be the first time this has been done since Dallas chose Aikman in 1989. I'm getting fairly tired of Tom Brady so good luck to RoboQB so that this year will guarantee that picling a QB in the 1st will finally pay off for that team. It may be the exception that proves the rule, but I think this will finally be the year where selecting a QB in the first will be the thing to do. I'm feeling better about the Losman choice all the time. History is there to be bucked, but it has been a long time for this move to work out with the ultimate victory.

It is interesting to me that Wm\s play coincided with the word trickling (and rapidly becoming a torrent overtime) out of the Bills closed workputs that WM around the 3rd or 4th game of the season suddenly began showing an extra gear in his rushes and the word came out in media stories they plannned to give him more carries. Its hard to say which came first the chicken or the egg. Did WM really began to show some extra production in practice around week 3 or so and MM and the braintrust actually acted very quickly to get him more carries and then to install him as the starter on the depth chart by game 6 or so. Alternately, was WM ready to play and perform from the word go this season and they held him back from starting out of fear of his injury or hurting Henry's feelings and finally were forced by Henry's lack of production and our 0-4 start to platy WM despite their fears. No one can know for sure, but it actually looks to me from a look at how the players were used, their production (or lack thereof) and the injury situation as though MM/Clements did not sit on WM when he was ready to go and thus he could have scired more TDs or reversed our initial record if they had only played him. I thought WM looked very promising right out of the box, but it seemed to me his early productivity was lower because he was not ready to play and did not have the confidence in his knee to play as well as he could even if he was physically OK. These are his initial stats: Game 1- Jax 31/9 Game 2- Oak -3/2 Game 3- NE 0/0 Game 4- NYJ 42/8 Game 5- MI 111/26 Game 6- Ba 58/16 Game 7- AZ 102/30 Game 8- NYJ 132/37 Game 9- NE 37/14 Game 8- St L 100/20 Certainly one can tell a story of WM being held back and finally being let go to pick up some yards and put us in place for him cruising to an impressive 1000+ yard season in a rookie season with limited starts. However, I think a more accurate story which also fits these facts is one of WM being a less productive back initially because he has the usual learning almost all first year players need before they are the produtive vets they can become. The WM situation was worse than normal because he was re-learning his body post injury, and he and the brintrust were gaining additional confidence in what he could do. I think if you look at or remember the individual games I do not think that WM would have done any much if we went to him sooner. We probably would have lost the early games we lost and won the later games we won (unless the additional play resulted in some unfortunate injury) anywey even if we had thrown caution to the winds and pressured him to start sooner. In the first and fourth games I think WM got a chance to do as much as he could do (actually nicks or cramps to Henry forced us to use him more than MM seemed to want to) and i do not see him delivering wins to us in these games we lost even if he played more. In the 2nd and 3rd games, Henry actually produced the best yardage he produced this season and though one might blame him for falling down so the refs made what the NFL later admitted was a bad call denying him a TD that WM would have lurched into the endzone so we won that game. However, its not like WM was producing so well at that time whenever he touched the ball that he demanded it be given to him. The per carry average of these two players was not all that different at this point and though WM has become a far better RB than TH there is little that indicates to me from their play at this point that switching RBs would have made a big difference beyond the possibility of some better redzone performance (a poroblem solved by Clements with the use of Bannan and Adams on O). WM really forced the Bills through his performance in practice and due to some untimely injuries which limited TH's play to make him the starter. The irony here is that in terms of game performance WM actually was not the difference maker at that point. If the team played well as they did in games 5,7 and 8 we won, the team played well and WM played well. However, WM actually tended to pick up bigger yards later in each game as he wore down and punished the opposition amd it was not all like he singlehandedly pummeled the opposition with his production. His overall per carry yardage did not equal his production later in the season once he really got going. In the losses in games 6 and 9, the team sucked and WMs performance was not very good either, I think this is ironic in that his accomplishments are now so mythic one would think he can do no wrong, I think many partisans for example exaggerate differemces in blotz pick=up performance by WM and Henry. The blitz pick-up has never been the strongest part of the Henry game and like most youngsters he struggled with this his first year. However, overtime I remember him as getting a little better as he learned more an i was certainly not identified as a big problem for him during his second and third years. My recollection of this year is that in his brief appearance in the first four games, WN also suffered the usual rookie growing pains and was not very good at blitz pick-up either. His play in this regard did improve over the course of the season as he learned more and also as the productivity of WM. the Bills O and the ST set opponents back on their heels during the streak and there simply were not a lot of blitzes to pick-up as there are when we are forced to pass. My sense is that it is simplistic to say that the Bills output miraculous improved due to things WN brought to the game which TH did not. Instead it strikes me as a more truthful description that the offense overall got much better and WM as a better RB than TH did a better job of exploiing the good playcalling, the SE contributuionto the score and the field position wins provided by the D and the punting game. The fun good news in all of this and what should be scary for the rest of the league is that trying to analyze the individual game performance I can actually see a number of areas where WM really could improve his game. Can anyone say 2000 yards rushing?

Sorry for any confusion. I was actually posting in response to elements of both posts which co-incide in some ideas but do have two different authors and ideas drving them. I was lazy in my own regard in responding to both in one message and will try to distinguish the ideas as I seek clarity on what is an impossible to know for sure situation given our lack of crtiical pieces of info. However, of import to this I would say: 1. I think its important not to be too much of a slave to an assignment of value to a particular player taken in a particular draft position in a particular draft. Each draft is its own market and the supply and demand for particular players at particular positions simply creates to much variability to assign more than a general equivalence to two players taken at the same spot in different markets. Specifically, in examples like one often cited by our good friend ICE, he claimed that a 1st round pick needed to be played right away so he could learn to produce right away because of the value of 1st round picks. I would say this view is falt-out wrong because it makes the incorrect assumption of some equivalence between for example a QB like Pennington taken in the 20s one year and a QB like Losman taken in virtually the same slot in a different year. For a individual team the player is the player and this investment will and should be developed based on the reality that the team confronts and not some hidebound assignment of an absolute value to that player based on his draft position. It simply makes too big of a difference in terms of a rationale development program how factors such as; how is the starter ahead of him playing or assessessed (Testaverde v. Bledsoe), will the team have a shot at winning that year (BUF v. NYJ), how many draft choices did the team have that year (Pennington was the 3rd or 4th of 1st round choices the Jets had that year), etc. etc. and a bunch of different factors. I think this lesson actually applies even more forcefully to a #61 pick than a first rounder as not only does the market and thus the development and production expectations vary from year to year but they actually can be enough picks made to that point to casue these expectations to vary greatly within the very same draft. An example of this is close to home in consideration of the selection and development expectations for the Bills and Chris Kelsay. He was chosen #48 by the Bills in this draft, so are should his level of play for this pick be that of a player like Bucky Brooks who also was taken at this point? Should it be for a second rounder (we hope he starts soon), should it be at the level of the 8 or 9th DL player chosen which he was. Whatever, as these facts are all interesting but he is expected to actually develop like we decide this individual should develop. For us, this was driven by our sense that Kelsay actually had talent which in the past had been equivalent to that shown by many first round DE choices. Further, TD read the market well enough to see that the 1/3 or so of NFL teams which could make a draft allocation for a DL player had already done so for one of the first 8 or 9 DL players chosen. The Bills had a screaming need for an LDE because a number of things had not played out like we wished in termsof Denney's 1st year, the switch to the 4-3, Marcus Jone's rehab. etc. He took WM in the 20s with the full expectation and the eventual reality that this first round choice would contribute nothing on the field the year he was drafted. he took Kelsay with pick 48 even though he had him rated as a top 30 talent. it all worked out incredibly well. The lesson from this is that your (and So-Cal's) too rigid assignment to Denney of a demand of development speed, achievement, or importance to the team is not the most accurate way to make these judgments from my perspective. Was Denney a bad choice because as #61 he deserved to be inactive much of his first season? Was Denney a successful choice because he actually started his second season at LDE on a team which statistically was one of the best Ds in the league? Is there some absolute expectation which allows Denney to be reasonably declared a bust or a success? In my mind, the keys are these: 1. In general you want to pick the best player available with the draft but strongly skew this choice if there is a specific need for a player which helps your team reach the ultimate goal of racking up Ws. 2. Denney was a player judged by many outside observers as probably being a 2nd-5th round choice in terms of likely production. 3. The Bills had a goshawful need on our DL primarily due to the shift from the 3-4 to the 4-3 and this need was exacerbated by the market costing us Wiley, Big Ted, Hansen and Bruce in short order. 4. This need was even further exacerbated by us reasonably using our first two choices on MW and Reed. Our actions were simply dicatated in the real world by Pitts being on the phone to pick Denney (testimony that someone else paid to pay too much attention this judged him as meriting a #62 pick. Moving up to pick him has been confirmed as the correct choice by no other DE meriting selection unitl the very end of the 3rd round. The correctness of the choice of Denney over other reasonable options is further shown by the other DEs picked after himand before or around our next choice either not even making in the league or at worst producing at essentially the same level as Denney. Most important for the Bills in the real world, Denney has in fact played an essentail role on out D as we only have 3 DEs on the roster and this D has been not good enough to deliver us playoff achieving Ws with our O and ST, but a high-performing unit nonetheless. Has enney disappointed? No doubt. I.m a Bills fan I am disappointed when every player regardless of how he was acquired does not produce like Bruce Smith. Is it reasonable at all to be disappointed in him? Yes, to a point, but its a pretty short point. When he couldn't even be activated it was pretty reasonable to be disappointed with him. However, pnce he improved his production enough to be the starting LDE on a squad which achieved a top3 in the conference statistical ranking of D performance I think it departs reality to be disappointed in the output of this #61 pick. He ain't nearly what we want, but having your third choice in a draft end up as a solid back-up in his third year (after starting his second year) at a position you are incredibly undermanned in who allows you to escape with having the two starters and a back-up for both posuitions br your allocation for the three slots, I think we have done pretty well. Or something like that.

Bill et al., My understanding of what Henry actually said and where he is on this issue is that quite specifically he understands that he has not put up the numbers which would establish him as a top 5 back, but that he believes if he were used the way he should be he cap produce like a top 5 back. I disagree with this likelihood, but would not say this is impossible because in his second year, I think he did produce in the real world like a top 10 back (as seen by his Pro Bowl nod due to injury where his peers and knowledgable observers gave him an honor equivalent to being one of the top 4 backs in one of the conferences. It's hard for me to see how you can be so dead certain that if Henry were used as a 1-2 punch with an outstanding threat like WM that he would not accomplsih great things. Making it work with two backs used well is a difficult thing to do, but seems far from impossible to me. The cadillac in this regard was Miami with Csonka, Kiick and Morris and they actually used 3 RBs well. As far as TH's views, I do not think he will be correct that he would produce like a top 5 RB if traded to the right team, but I would actually hope and demand that any athlete hae exactly that attitude and confidence in himself in order for him to actually achieve a lot on the field. I have noproblem with TH's goals and actually do not see them as unreasonable even if I do not believe them likely since he did produce well in 2 of his 4 years. It does not make sense to me that anyone would be so certain as you seem to be in terms if the reality of his production.

Marv went to some college in Boston thus does not suffer from the same educational penalties I do.

Yet, it would seem to me you would in fact make a reach for a guy like Denney if you have him as a player worth taking at that point and particularly if in addition to being the best player available you have a need at the position he plays. From press accounts at the time led by the reporting of ESPN (the reports seem accurate as they were widely reported, and Pittsburgh and Denney were supposedly on the phone so the facts were easily confirmed or denied). 1. Reports had him gping from the 2nd through the 5th round and Pittsburgh apparently was about to take him so the pick may not have even been a reach. 2. The Bills are generally committed to taking the player they deem the best player available and had done so by taking Reed when they had no immediate need at WR. The Reed pick merely intensified the DL need which was huge for a Bills team which had gone to 4-3 after running a 3-4 and had lost 4 DL starters since 1999. Again, do you or anyone else really belived that Pitt faked telling Denney they were going pick him to "hoodwink" the Bills? Even if Denney had played lights out in his rookie year, the Bills still would have needed to pick Kelsay on the DL. The Bills in fact may well need to go DE in a serious way in the upcoming draft, though I would hope they would go for someone to play the Jim Jeffcoat reserve rusher in FA. We got very lucky playing things close to the edge with only 3 DEs on the active roster this year. Even if Denney were great would you have then comfortably done without Kelsay and gone with only Schobel and Denney at DE? The idea that the pick of Kelsay is proof positive of Denney being a blown pick simply fails to recognize the near DL disaster created for this team by adopting the TN scheme at the worst possible time. The pick of Denney certainky stunk his first year as he could not use his body and leverage well enough to even be active. However, moving up to get him was dictated by necessity because of the Reed pick, scheme changes and contract issues. Most important for the Bills after a disaster start, Denney's play improved enough that he got the nod at starter where he is not the rusher we want, but he gained control over his body and used his wide wingspan to help make out use of the run blitz work so have been among the top ranked Ds statistically. Kelsay (or some other highly rated DL player) getting drafted almost certainly would have happened even if Denney could rush (Even if Denney could rush we still needed a back-up at LDE) and the good news is that Kelsay has shown enough that Denney who is a jack of many trades but master at none as a DL player played well enough that even though Kelsay played better, Denney allowed the Bills braintrust to play it as close to the edge as you can in terms of our DL rotation and bein prepared for a nick to a starter. How were the Bills fooled into reaching for a player who was rated to go potentially in the 2nd, whom Pittsburgh was about to take, who we had a huge need for someone at his position even if he apparently wasn't about to be picked at a point many regarded as appropriate for him. Most important though he struggled initially, he has allowed us to go with the absolute minimum DEs on a defense which is a statistical performer in the league an has by far been the best unit on the team compiling the last two year's results. I simply don't think you make an effective case for this being a big mistake. Denney is not the LDE those of us who are use to the days of Bruce want, but he is far from a bust,

I did check again briefly so i would be pleased to be corrected with greater specifics is I am wrong and time allows, but a short look at the DE position does not indicate that we were hoodwinked at DE at all and certainly not by Pittsburgh. From a Bills perspective I agree with you that the selection of Josh Reed in Rd 2 was logical given his resume and even worked briefly given his first year production. I'd add to that by saying take our judgment of the best OT available (how you rate MW versus McKinnuie is a different question) with our first pick. The important thing for us after we made what you and I agree was a logical choice of Reed is how much di we have to give to get a draft pick which allows us to take the best DE we can or do we wait until our third pick. Looking at who was taken at DE after the Reed pick we missed out even by moving up on Anton Paelopot who was taken just prior to our acqusition of Denney, I know nothing about him but as he is already on another team and seems to have been unable to start 16 games a year in his career there seems to be no mistake here. We traded a 4th to move up to get Denney here and this is where I begin to disagree with your concept that Pitt sucked us into this. My understanding is that Pittsburgh was on the phone with Denney letting him know they would select him with the 62nd pick. Pick #61 was on the board but this team had no need for a DE so Pitts put the call into Denney. However, it was at this point that the Bills made and announced the deal for the 61st pick and made it Denney. The idea that Pittsburgh was somehow on the phone with Denney as some sort of ruse to suck the Bills in seems bizarre at the least. Moving on raises the question of whether the Bills should have done something else. First, the picks I agree with you on in terms of Reed and my thoughts on an LT essentially mandated that the Bills get the best DE they could with their next pick. The bif picture was this team was shifting from a 3-4 to a 4-3 creating an extra DL starter need and this was happening while the business and our cap situation was costing us Wiley, Big Ted, Hansen and even Bruce the year before as a cap casualty. If you want to lay the blame for us having to spend a 4th to move up then lay it not on a mistake going after Denney but on the need created by the scheme change and spending out prior draft resources on MW and Reed. If one must trade up then fortunately we missed out on Philipolai but was there some other alternative to Denney who would not have cost us the trade-up? Well, Pitts who clearly had a DE desire did not seem to think so as they did not picl the next best DE but actually took Antwan Randle-El who has contributed to the team but would be worthless for our DE problems. In fact the next DE was taken until the very end of the next round wich indicates to me that none of the other guys paid to think too much about this saw a DE talent worth taking in the rest of the 2nd and almost all of the 3rd. The other choices until the Bills picked again and even afterwards were: Dennis Johnson KY - picked #98 by AZ- is no lomger listed as a curremt player on NFL .com Alex Brown FL- picked #104 by Chicago- He certainly has been a productive starter for Chicago earning their starting RDE slot. However, his total of 8 sacks in the past two years leads the Bears but is not going to get him mistaken for Bruce Smith. He was a good pick in the 4th round but clearly would have been a reach in the 2nd for a Bills team looking for a player who would have been gone in the second not even to mention the third. Jarvis Green - picked #126 by NE A contributor but again his 4 sacks indicate he would not be an answer to out DE quandaries. John Taylor - picked # 134 by Detroit Not on NFL.com as being in the league. All in all, i think denney did not answer our questions but I see no real mistake alternative we should have taken that reasonably could have been or would have done so.

It can't hurt and its too cold here in Buffalo to go outside and play. I've already dropped a couple of positive nuggets even I don't believe on some foreign message boards.

In general I think these are more issues for Bills fans than the rest of the world, because I think in general these are actually non-issues which we manufactured due to our deep commitment to the Bills, watching this all way to closely and over analysis. As Bills fans I would hope even those who are nost skeptical of Henry as a player if they feel some need to post on the TB board will lie to them about their real feelings and praise Henry all over the place and say we are fools for giving him up for a mere 2nd round pick. If you think TH will never ever do anything for the Bills, then by all means do your part and help Travis' agent help TD to get a deal simialr to what AT gave us when they overspent for PP. As a Bill's fan, I think there is no question that WM has much more to contribute to this team than Henry. As a fellow greedy American TH shoukd meet his contract, but since the contract holder the Bills have freed him to go find a deal cause he wants to start, then goshspeed and I hope he finds a deal. Overall, i see TH thusly: 1. Overall a very good quality NFL back in his relatively short career offers some upside because he has actually produced in the 2 seasons he was used alot by the Bills to the tune of about 1400 yards and a good chunk of TDs. 2. He is no brain surgeon, but football players's don't need to be and actially we got a huge benefit from his mismanaging his finances so we got another year out of him for not much money. 3. Durability is probably my biggest concern as he has suffered a couple of injuries in his short career which were serious enough to impact his play. I wouldn't trade a lot for hin because of this concern all things being equal. However, life is never equalin the NFL so I would likely trade draft resources for him on the flyer that he may become a Corey Dillon for my team the way this malcontent has helped NE. The things which might lead to this deal being reasonable are: 1. He gets hurt but he has demonstrated over two seasons an ability to play productively through pain. 2. I think concerns from Bills fans about TH's receiving abilities are overblown as in the 1 of his four years he was utilized as a reciever he racked up over 40 receptions. He did not do this his third year, but I think this drop-off says more about Kevin Killdrive and Bledsoe's play than any Henry deficits, This pas year he did go into a funk and was not utilized as it was ckear to all that his days as a premier back for the Bills were numbered because WM was so much better than him. Bills partisans may whine about some noticeable driops by Henry as the wheels came off their offense in 2003, but his production as a young receiver in 2002 makes me think of his receiving ability as an asset where he can be better trained and utilized to even surpass his production in the real world in 2002. 3. He definitely has lost a chunk of fumbles in his career, but in my mind has clearly improved on his "fumbleitis" from his second year to his third year. Further, there are a number of speciic changes which I think can be made in him to lower any fumbles called and improve his game (this is possible for even a developed player to do as seen in the fumble numbers improvement caused by a technique teach to Tiki Barber this year. In my mind, part of Henry's problems is that he turns it off a hair to quickly and if he were trained to hold onto the ball well through the whistle rather than releasing it and trying to leap up quickly to stay in the flow of the game, that might actually reduce the nubmer of fumbles he is charged with by a couple a year. The fumble issue does not worry me as some are worth it and come with the terriory as long as he is picking up the roughly 1400 yards he has produced twice and even this number can be reduced (and he has done that before) with some work. 4, I think the blitz pick-up issues are really overblown on TSW. Like many rookies his blitz pick-ups were dicey as a rookie. However, in his second year this part of his game was not a problem even with a "statue" at QB and a lot of sacks. I found the same to be true in his third year where the Bills sack problems got even worse as the O as a whole fell apart. Like the OL, all other RBs used by the Bills that year and even Sam Gash, Ds blitzed and the Bills got tatooed a lot but I never viewed the issue as extraordinarly worse with Henry it was bad at alll points. Similar event occured this year as no one can credibly claim early in the season that the Bills stopped the sack consistently. However, as faux pas, by Henry, poor blitz pick-up by the young WM, less than mobile usage of the QB position and the Ol struggling to get its act together after 3 years of inferior coaching, again I think identifying Henry as a particular problem on blitz pick-up is overblown here. He struggled as a rookie as most rookies do, he improved his performance his second year, and the wheels fell off the O his third year. I think any team that feels confident in their offensive ability ned not be overly conerned at all about this issue. 5. He has to be a better choice than we got. I'm more concerned about how Henry compares to my real-world options than some pundits or fans false estimate of Henry's absolute value. If Henry is a fumbler, but my current RB option Pittman fumbles more then Henry may be the option for me, if my choices are to have Amos Zeroue or Tyeone Wheatley gain the same number of yards in a full season as Henry gained in his horrible quarter of a 2004 season then I am interested in Henry. 6. Henry's year extension makes a big difference. RBs like LaMont Jordan and Shaun Alexander are much better RBs in my opinion. However, i will have to write them a big bonus check to get them. Henry will want to and I will want to renegotiate a longer-term deal also, but I can take my time and watch him play and work with him as I do this. I'm even happy to sign a huge contract with him as long as it is conditional to levels of production by him in areas such as yards, catches. carries, starts or whatever we can agree on. Even though there may even be 3 RBs in the draft with better prospects, I think there is alot more to be said for expecting productivity from a vet who has done it before at this level rather than rookie. LaDamian Tomlinson is the rarity and even if one of my rookies is another Travis Henry who gets to the Pro Bowl quickly his first year production was good though not phenomenal. There is a big question of timing I have to consider and the win now ethic tells me that I prefer a vet to potential. 7. Corey Dillon. I don't think TH is nearly as good a back as Corey Dillon. However this is a me-too league and the real workd production of this former malcontent for NE will actually make it far easier for a potential partner to allow themselves to be convinced that former Pro Bolwer Henry will be their Corey Dillon. I don't think so, but all we need is one fool team to trade with and I think we can get them from what has impressed me as more options than I would have guessed.

Having been born in Chicago in 1959 I was a became a big time Chicago sports fan from the age of 8 or 9 or so. Since the Cubs were doing well in the late 60s (leading to the demolition year and the Amazin' Mets of 1969) it got me used to rooting for teams which came heartbreaking close to being great but would break my heart in the end. This made me an easy mark for the Bills of the early 90s. I actually came to the Bills and Buffalo for the best reason possible, my lovely wife! I went away to college in NJ in the late 70s but kept my Chicago sports rootin roots. I lived in DC in the 80s but Chicago teams were my teams. In 1989 I came to my senses, got married and moved to the promised land of Buffalo and a weird thing happened to my rooting interests. It was great to finally root for an SB winner with my psychotic addiction to the Bears in 1985 (our answering machine song featured the Bears' Super Bowl shuffle that year much to the confusion of the Mom of one of the two women I was sharing a house with). The Bulls finally rode MJ to a series of great payoffs which warmed the soul of a kid who had spent many an evening in the stygian depths of Chicago Stadium as a kid. However, my move to Buffalo coincided with the bulding of a great team, the K-Gun and a town which simply went wild over its team making the SB and losing, and making the SB and losing, and making the SB agsin and losing, and making the SB again (weerr'rree back) and losing. I was hooked and have enjoyed the ride. I think even with the pain of the losses, the ride has given me some of humankinds finest hours like the heartfelt outpouring to Scott Norwood in Niagara Square. Don't get me wrong, as I was there with the 1985 Bears, rooting for a team which wins the SB is great, but I actually think the moments like the Norwood "group hug" were even better sports moments for me. It may be easy for me to say because I have rooted for winners, but I actually wouldn't trade 1 SB win for the Bills 4 SB losses. 1 SB win can be a great episode, but the 4 losses provided me with so much entertainment and sharing with the community in a community which because of its fears of an economic downturn like the 70s and 89s there is not enough sharing that if forced to choose I would take the 4 losses over winning just once. Life is such that we are not in control over such things so there is no choice. Thus, since i can make a meaningless pick, i will take 4 SB wins for the Bills instead. In the end, I am a Buffaloanian and a Buffalo rooter. The most relevant sports caveat for this is that I have fully adopted my Buffalo hometown pro sports teams (the Bills and Sabres) over my childhood Chicago sports teams (the Bears and Blackhawks). I root for the Bills and Sabreas to beat and in fact enbarass my childhood affiliations quite easily. However, out of unfulfilled dreams and first love (the Cubs) and having the best player to ever play the game (MJ) it has been quite convenient to have Buffalo only do the AAA thing in baseball (I have had full year season tickets to the Bisons and shared a set with several friends other years because it was the first time I could afford this outlay for a sport) and that the lamented Braves gone because I remain a Cub and Bull fan. Yet overall, I am a Bills boy and hope and expect to be for life (or as long as my wife willl have me).

Me too!

Despite a couple of good performances this past year from Edwards, I still see him as problematic. I think his career plays out this way to me: 2001- acquired in the third round and had about the worst performance of a Bll from this draft as he was not even productive enough to deserve activation on a team with huge deficits at DT and several later drafted players becoming starters and other drafted players becoming difference-makers (Clements, Schobel, Henry) for this team. Big time dud. 2002- stepped up a lot but stepping up a lot meant he not was merely inadequate as he was able to start at DT as experiments like Sean Moran didn't produce. On the good side at least he was not a bust completely. 2003- Thankfully replaced by the acqusition of Sam Adams who though some Bills loyalists complained he was a fat tub of goo, i replied who cared as even a fat tub of goo was an upgrade over Edwards. When Adams went down in the Jets game that year, Edwards failed to fill the gap as he also went down. Even Bannan had shown more initial progress than Edwards and even with Phat Pat holding his own DT remained an issue for us despite Edwards. 2004- The DT problem (and the uncertainties of FA) made it a useful thing to spend on Anderson. He has not impressed in his first year so problem is not solved, but amazingly Edwards has shown some good ability to step in and even get some big sacks in conjunction with a (brief fortunately) Adams meltdown. I'm happy about Edwards play (particularly with Anderson showing little so far and Bannan appearing to have more of a contribution to give on offense in the redzone rather than as a DT) but his play be more like that of Sean Moran that he has learned to be a productive reserve letting it all hang out briefly, but if you ever needed him to start consistently a back-up there is only heartbrek to be found. If cheap keep him, but if Anderson develops evan a little or Bannan re-ermerges I am happy to call it day with Edwards.

I generally agree in that I think some folks seem to be more motivated by their desire to prove or win their point (as if there is really anything to win by winning an argument here) that by even showing remotely some outside perspective in assessing the TD or Bledsoe situations. In general I think folks are too caught up in thinking the draft is some type of outstandingly valuable thing, when quite frankly it is just another tool which sometimes gives valuable resources which work out. but actually more often than not gives you nothing but heartbreak. This is not a bad thing. It just is. Like it or not, I think we fans, outside observers, and TD can look back at the 2002 draft which really only will be pretty honestly open to more true rather than less true assessment after next season (though we have a pretty good idea where things are headed even now) and reach a rational conclusion that it was a problematic draft with some definite failings which actually played out pretty well for the Bills. There are three major factors which draw me to this (semi) conclusion- 1. The early production from this draft was nothing short of outstanding in 2002- A. The top choice MW showed tremendous promise and immediate production as a rookie as he was an immediate starter on an offense which carried the D to a vast improvement in W/L. OL was a clear need and we got one of the better performers of the rookie OL players in that draft. B. The second pick had a very productive rookie year. Reed was not only seen as a 1st round quality player as a Biletnikoff winner but most important for us his production made it at least reasonable to reacquire the 1st rounder we lost in trading for a QB to immediately replace the failed RJ. Even more extraordinarily his prescence gave us the ability to play the PP situation into a recovered 1st pick who became WM. C. Our needs in the first two picks left us with reasonable and even initially very good choices which left us with a huge hole still at DL which was made even worse by the way the market played out (losing Wiley, Big Ted, Hansen and Bruce Smith over 2 seasons while at the same time switching to a 3-4 to a 4-3 under GW's leadership. Again say whatever you want about Denney, but still I think the Bills would have needed to trade up to get a fellow whom Pitts. was on the phone with informing him they were going to pick him when we moved up and took him. I think TD knew exactly what he was doing and probably went to sleep with a perverse smile on his face that night from having reached into Pitts pocket, but this action was a sidelight and he did the right thing even though Denney clearly did not become Bruce Smith. D. Blahm balh, blah, I could go on in detail with more of the same but most players chosen that year are still Bills except for the last three picks and though this team is still flawed (THEY SHOULDA MADE THE PLAYOFFS BY NOW IF THEY HAD NOT MADE MISTAKES REVOLVING AROUND THE GW ERA) but the overall 2002 draft assessment is much the same to me. 2. The second year draft assessments have seen definite failures to produce in key players chosen despite some intial very positive outcomes. Bledsoe dropped from meriting his Pro Bpwl nod in 2002 (does anyone disagree and if you do then who deserved it more) to being one of the worst QBs in the league in 2003. MW's development stalled and he even showed signs of washing out when his beloved grandma died this off-season. Reed simply was unable to move up to the #2 responsibility and in conjunction with his injury an lack of production this year is really down to his last chance in mini-camps as he has gone backward. Denney has disappointed many who for some reason demand a pick in the second play the same role as the #1 pick (Bruce Smith) in the entire draft. Denney has not done this, but has been one of only 3 DEs on a team which only carries 3 DEs and managed to produce the #2 statistically rated D in the league. 3. The future and the overarching assessment of this draft will be written this year. My thought is: A. This is not a make or break year for MW as OTs are simply too valuable in this league, he has been part of some good production initially, and he has seemed to at least reverse some bad production which came in conjunction with his family issues. I think with JMac providing a good framework, I am pretty hopeful he will continue his growth and MAY well turn out to give the kind of production we expected from a #4 choice. Not yet, but easily imaginable to me. B. I think Reed is done actually. All the initial signs from the initial production and his resume were there, but for some reason it just has not worked as planned, He does get another chance in mini-camp and pre-season, but Aiken is flawed but threatening and if Aiken steps up then I think Reed begins to occupy the Bobby Shaw spot for the Bills. My guess (and this is little more than a guess) is that Aiken has shown enough upside to outdo him (though his droppsies are a bit annoying) and that actually we will try to find a player to catch lightening late in the draft or in UDFA and this also would push Reed out. I hope Reed steps up and produces like he did as a rookie but wouldn't bet the ranch and the dog on it. C. The Bills still need a DE who draws blockers toward him and makes life even easier for the DTs and LBs. Neither Schobel, Kelsay or Denney is that man yet. However, the mistake I think many posters make is reaching the conclusion that because these players and particularly Denney are not good enough that they are not good at all. Each player had a pivotal role on a D which has improved outrageously over the last two years getting better players and employing a more appropriate scheme around them. Folks might want to blame Denney for these failings, but in the end he is one of the 3 DEs on ateam which must and does play 3 DEs and is far more productive from this play. If I'm the Bills I sign yet another DE if I see a player in the draft with the upside I want or an FA in the Jim Jeffcoat mode and I resign Denney as well. D. Coy Wire has disappointed primarily in my mind because he has been poorly used. Having him start at SS as a pro when he had never played the position at any level of organized ball was simply outrageous. Even still he has shown the hitting desire, the speed, and should have the intellect as a Stanford grad to do things. He has disappointed but seems to have found a role as captain of a very productive ST unit. He has never become a Taskeresque impact player as I hoped, but he has been asked to learn other things such as safety pass coverage he does not excel at. Since he has a relatively small cap hit (compared to the Prioleaux's of the world and has found a place as a recognized team leader and community leader I think he is easily a keeper for this year. Whether to resign him after that comes down to whether he can meet the challenge of becoming his version of a Taskerlike impact. If so great, if not say goodbye. E. It actually is the Bledsoe element which makes the difference in assessing whether 2002 wasa good year for the Bills in terms of the draft. If we had cut our ties top Bledsoe after last off-season I would have easily judged it to be a wash as we got him in 2002 for future considerations and in return for this non-2002 expenditure we got a player who did well in 2002 for us while the Pats missed the playoffs in large part due to the accelerated cap hit from their mistaken contract. However, he sucked so bad it was just a wash.

I agree. Ther whole manner in which the DL situation has been handled in the post-Butler era makes little football sense to me. My guess is that there are multiple factors which have led to multiple mistakes which even though some good moves and nice developments have worked out to allow us to have the #2 stat ranked D and to be among the league leaders in sacks, we still are suffering from limitations on the OL. There have been bad moves in terms of individuals (giving up on Fisher), bad luck in how individuals have acted which I don't blame the GM for (Robertson showing some good stuff but drugging out), good ideas simply not working out despite good tries by all parties (attempts to play Marcus Jones back in to shape), and a big scheme mistake that I think was caused by an overestimation that TN suceeded due to GW's superior scheme when it really was having some superior players (Kearse, Bishop) which made it all work. In the end, I think moving to the 4-3 from the 3-4 at virtually the exact same time that the business was costing us Wiley, Big Ted, Hansen, and Bruce was a killer for us. Giving up on Bryce Fisher who is not starting and starring sometimes elsewhere in this league is just a glaring error. I think the folks who get their panties all up in a wad over Denney being a failure as shown by us having to draft Kelsay strike me as missing the player assessment point much as it was missed on Fisher. I don't think it can be credibly argued that Denney is a great (or even very good player), but I easily think it can be argued that he is one of the best DEs on this team and plays a crucial and at least statistically beneficial role on this team. This is because facts are at worst he is the #3 DE on a team that is the #2 statistically ranked D in the NFL, but this team ONLY carries 3 DEs. He plays a critical role and the team is far from perfect, but has simply produced in real life and Denney is a part of that.