Fake-Fat Sunny

I can easily see how the Raiders would have more interest in LaMont Jordan than Travis Henry, the trap many folks seem to be falling in though is that just because the Raiders may be more interested one player (Jordan) it does not mean that they have no interest whatsoever in Henry. It strikes me that a big key to winning in the NFL is to have good plan B s or simply to get flat out lucky when plan A fails due to injury for the star plays like crap. NE over the last 3 years has shown the import of a plan B when Bledsoe sucked and unfortunately got his lung collapsed and Brady unexpectedly (I think even forthe genius BB) turned in play which is positively historic in accomplishment for a young player. Last year they had Colvin and a host of stars go down and some extraordinary plan Bs stepped up. This year, Law and Poole go down and even the WRs are producing at DB.. This feature is not merely important to this team, but Bills fans need only remember back to the important and unexpectdly crucial role Frank Reich filled when HOF guy Kelly went down or think about how having Kenny Davis made us simply happy and not pulling our hair out in fear over TTs feats. The internet is an arguing site which tend toward extremism which makes for entertaining argument but for "real" consideration of the fake world of the NFL mostly just shows how little the brains are of most of us fans. The Bills need to and can only make one deal for Henry. That's all we need and the good news for us is that multiple parties seem interested. It strikes me that Jordan would be a far better choice for the Raiders, but they easily might not be able to get him if the Jets, tag him, or he gets a can't say no too offer in FA from somewhere else, his grandma is sick on the east coast and he doesn't want to go west, or their are several girls on the east coast whom if he leaves he might have to travel further for easy sex. I don't know and nobody (maybe not even Jordan conciously) really knows for sure. The game ma not get done to the Bills liking, but right now the Bills are way ahead of the game we imagined a few short weeks ago in terms of having some real possibilities to get value for Henry.

I obviously find TSW to be a neat place for thinking things through, learning new stuff about the Bills and also occaisionally finding new and interesting stuff which is OT. I hear and understand folks who complain about the board being polluted by non-football stuff, but I have found a radicaL, outrageous, dicey, risky and dangerous way to deal with this problem. I don't read everything and if I stumble on something even briefly that is annoying or inappropriate, I leave it anf do away. This works for me and makes TSW a fun place.

This merely continuation of another thread which escaped my attention as my lovely wife an I did a little shopping amidst the0 degree day. Sorry to those who see this is a dead horse and suggest that if folks view this as a waste of time not reading it is a neat solution. However, I have a cut on this which did not seem to be explored much in the thread, an overarching analysis which has my usual on the one hand and on the other view which I think arguments which drive folks to the extremes often ignore even though they are the reality for most players. At any rate: 1, Folks seem to have a problem with Denney because they expect a 2nd rounder to be a starter in order to contribute to the team. I think this view ignores the reality of what the Bills' DL situation was in total and focuses too much on assigning some false value to specific play of a player and wheb he was selected in a particular which does not take in account draft talents vary for year to year as whole. If a draft is deep at a position then a player drafted later in one draft may be far more talented than a player drafted early in anothe draft where he was oneof the few players available at that position. Denney was not taken in the second round because he was a "second round level" (as though this absolute assessment means anything in a draft market which is totally relative to the quality of that year) but because he was among the best DE players available at the time. Kelsay was also a second round player, but actually was the 8th or 9th DE taken in waht was viewed as an extremely talented DL draft. This assignment of absolute value seems to ignore reality. 2. One of the big factors in the Denney pick was what was going with the Bills at DL ovarall and it should not be ignored. The Bills had run a 3-4 D for years under Cottrell and the switch to GW/Gray brouhgt their system to Buffalo and its 4-3. Not only did this team need to find another starter on DL, but given that Wiley was gone to FA when we were in cap hell and could not keep him. Big Ted had a balloon payment in his contract which made him a cap casualty. Phil Hansen retired the next year after a great career. We had lost Bruce the year before as a cap casualty. It totally misunderstands what the Bills were forced to do on DL to see it as some sign of weakeness or a change in plans because the Bills took another DE the next year. The switch in scheme from Cottrell to the TN model basically mandated that the Bills were going to have to go high at DE a couple of times in the draft unles they injury tries (Marcus Jones) or FAs worked out. 3. Denny's important contribution to the Bills is seen in our depth chart. Many teams carry 4 DEs as part of their rotation. The Bills only carried three. I take from this that one we were really lucky because all it would take is one nick or sudden injury and this player deemed a bust by some would be starting with no back-up. Further, the tendency toward DL play in the NFL is toward rotation and quite frankly I judge the designation of the back-up here as no sign whatsoever as a designation that the player will not contribute. 4. You gotta factor in where a player plays and how he plays. I for one am really impressed with the flexibitly shown by all three of our DEs. Since there were only three of them the way players are flipped around the line and the risk of injury means that simply because a player is designated an LDE he must also know and play RDE and vice-versa. The Bills did designate him the back-up but this move looks more to me like an expression of confidence in Kelsay deserving the starter designation than a decision of Denney being weak. In fact, it is quite easy to imagine that Krumrie may actually have judged Denney a more flexible player than Kelsay or that Kelsay would develop faster or better if he focused on a single side. I think the thought that Denney us a bust or even a disappointment really misses the point. Add to this also that Denney has unusual demographics with his height and long arm span which makes him a particularly important player when you run the zone blitz alot. Critical to this D scheme is the LBs not running pass protection at all because they are on the blitz. The run blits makes up for this by dropping the DE back in coverage, This simply requires a degree of athleticism uncommon in many DL players. it really accentuates the advantages of a big wingspan player like Cenney who enhances the zone by simply raising his arms. I think part of his lack of sacks is that on the pass plays he is on, he often is not rushing the passer but playing short zone so Flether or Milloy can go for the sack. I think complaints about the stats of individual players in the Bills D actually ring fairly hollow because the team D stats were so good. 5. Consideration of the draft and assessment of when a player was taken or the team trading up to get him needs to be done with full consideration of what is necessary to build the team. The Bills had to step up to get the best DE they could get not only due to the critical need created by the scheme switch, but the moves we had too and decided too make in the first two picks mandated stepping up for Denney. I don't see the Bills doing anything other than picking MW with our 4th because OL improvement was such a need for this team and the other choice was really McKinnie. Even with the MW flameout las winter, his improvement this year still leaves him a better choice to me than the inconsistent McKinnie and his early holdout. Add to that an unusal opportunity appered with our second pick as reed surprisingly dropped to round 2 (a draftee who clearly has disappointed his last two years but his first year was very good for a #3 WR rookie). Add to that the overall issue that by getting this WR heir apparent it gave TD the ability to trade PP for a 1st rounder who became Willis McGahee and even despite the Reed flameout i have no problem with this maneuver since WM is a star. 6. Denney has been problematic but is way far away from a bust. My good feelings about the role he has played on this team are far from a wholesale endorsement of his play and role - He was not even good enough to be an active player most of his rookie year and I found this to be a big disappointment from a player who was older, He apparently had basic technique problems with how he bent his knees on the attack and could easily lose leverage. Thankfully he has overcome this issue but this was a huge disappointment. - He is a couple of years older than the average draftee because of a missionary trip at BYU. He would have been a good choice is this age allowed him to contribute immediately, but he is now moving toward 30 still early in his career and thus is burning daylight. -DEE simply remains a weakness in this D at critical points because out pass rush can be handled one on one. Still overall, I think the assessments of his role in the 2002 draft and on the Bills as a whole simply do not take into account the realities of team building and the football market, I will not be surprised to see Denney given a reasonable raise and resigned when his contract comes up if he continues what has been a substantial improvement in his game from his initial inactivty to becoming a starter to sharing this critical position with Kelsay and Schobel. In my mind, Alaska Darin has a far more accurate cut on this player than those who rant against Denney.

Mr. Bill (or any one else who wishes to join in with the gleeful beating of a deadhorse). I generally find you to be a fairly interest poster, but your position of Travis Henry seems to be so flatout negative that the fact it is so directly opposed to the lofty position TH was held in by Bills fans last year, by pundits around the league (1 of the network eggheads talked about him bringing a 1st as WM revved up his play and TH was looking like a soon-to-be non-Bill), and by the buzz where Travis has specufically said 5 names of teams that are interested in hom and none have publicly denied this. We've seen your list of his failings and thank you for those as they are specific and thus allowed folks to challenge them in a specific way (ex. the tackle accusation being true based on the numbers as a rookie but those numbers dropped dramatically the next two years). The piece that would help me a lot is to know whether you are so dead st certain he is so bad there is nothing at all that is positive about his play, or alternately how do you explain the positives many people express about him. Are you willing to make the best case for trading for Travis even if you wouldn't do it yourself. It would seem to me there should be something positive even those who think ill of him can say about his game, and this would certainly help me reconcile my views of the situation. Perhaps there is nothing good to say and all the press interest is just folks lying about him or every other football expert who says he has at least some value is dumb. Overall, I think many argumnts seem to be based in the convenience of arguing rather than thorough analysis (for example if his many lost fumbles in 2001 are legit for consideration, does this also mean than his reception of over 40 passes in 2002 is a legit issue which speaks against the idea he can;t receive. I think there is a ragin' moderate case to be made for Henry and as a long time TSW poster I think you can help us find it if you wish. Are you football guy enough to give us the best case (even if it is not a great case for someone trading value for Henry?

I think there is no question that there is a big drop-off in productivity from Spikes & Fletcher down to Posey. Yet, this drop-off does not seem to be reflected in the D producing horrible results or in a series of plays where the D got raped because of a Posey mistake (if anything I would say that Fletcher has been the noticeable players taking some bad penalties which have extended drives like a couple of early season personal fouls which I thought were bad calls and a pass interference in the Pitts game). It's hard to inquire or debate about these specific points without a reference to which game (s) they occured and when in the game would be great. However, there is simply a big difference between even a correct accusation that Posey turned the wrong way and got burned for a TD, or he got sealed off and that led to a big gain and just the accusation that he turned the wrong way and nothing happened. Particularly with the Bills smacking the top of the cap expenditure lists and the D generally being incredibly productive even with these Posey faux-pas I think it becomes a lot harder to put his position at the top of our acquisition list compared to other areas where injuries to TEs, a bad chip shot miss by Lindell and offensive failures make these areas changes that could make a difference in W/L.

The future is now, trading our current back-up RB and our current starting QB for some fantasy league future consideration in what most view as a weak draft strikes me as akin to suicide. Willis has been great and is certainly a validation of TDs trust in his medical team and his judgment with WM already producing over 1000 yards rushing in this partial first season as a pro. However, anyone who saw him go down and it looked like he was going to out knows we need a back-up RB capable of being our starter if this is unfortunately necessary (Shaud Williams looks like the real deal as a 3rd down back and even to give the starter a blow in games, but no one should expect him to carry the ball 30 times a game week in and week out and we want at least that capability in a back-up. Likewise at QB, I hope the QB of the future becomes the QB of today as soon as possible, Watching JP I remain comfortable with the idea he may one day become a great one, but I agree with those who know he is not ready to start right now. The at length analysis which was on TSW from Outsiders does not prove that sitting a QB his first year is the way to develop him, but it provided ample statistical evidence that many QBs over the last 10 years have sat and learned initially and that has not stopped them from developing into the best QBs of today. JP might step up and be ready to go in 2005, but then again he easily might not and even if he doesn't contributr immediately in 2005 real life events show that he is not a bust because of that nor is he condemned to never QB a team to the playoffs because of a slow start. Trading two pivotal positions for a resource which MAY pay benefits in the 2006 or the 2007 season simply strikes me as all wrong in a league where going from worst to first in one season is possible like never before.

I also fail to see why folks are so freaked out about the QB position. JP will get a shot in competition on the field to take the starting job. If he can great, the future is now, if he can't do the job I don't want to rely on him to do it. Bledsoe has been publicly told that the only way we can manage our QB of the future is for him to take a paycit. If he won't then adios and we have some work to do, but some cap room to work with (from good fiscal management in the past, Moulds agreeing to a paycut and some other money-saving moves like a Prioleau cut. Paying 2005 deadspace for Bledsoe is brutal and having him take a paycut and be prepared to either win the job on the field or to play the same role with JP he played with Brady is a much nicer outcome for us. However, if we have to cut him we deal with it and actually the Bills QB situation becomes a lot more attractive to any FA QBs. Signing up to a team with JP and Bledsoe means you are quite likely the disaster QB, but if I was a vet, I'd sign on to a team to take on JP with the belief that I can start over the well-regarded but inexperienced JP. I think we're in not bas shape at QB and I am extremely comfortable with the 2 week timeline for decision-making TD gave to Mike and the MadDog.

It sounds like a look 'em in the eye and make a personal judgment question. Sam Adams in my mind clearly deserved the rep of being a low-effort player during his 20s with his play despite some great production. Adams had (and still has) on the quickest first steps in the game and is a big boy. However, he found that throughout his 20s he could still make the Pro Bowl even though he took half the plays off. The opposing center or guard never knew whichplay Sam was going to go on vacation or when he was going to make a truly astounding move for such a big guy so they always had to be ready. Unfortunately, for Adams team's if his gap happened to be the point of attack and the RB hit his hole hard on one of the plays he happened to be taking off then a big gain would occur. For whatever reason Adams suddenly matured. Whether he suddently found that as he got older he needed to prepare himself better, whether playing with his buddy Phat Pat gave him new motivation, whether he suddenly matured, his childhood dog or grandpappy died, commentators complimented him last year and the Bills for gettin more out of Adams than at any time in his career. he made the Pro Bowl this year. Abraham appears to have outstayed his welcome in NYC. Mularkey and TD need to meet with him if he is free and make an assessment and make the case for him to adopt the Bills way (if appropriate) and get this talented player into a position where we are lacking. If not pass him by, but if so then what a weapon. The brutal time he has had because of the injury issues for him in NY may well have taught him a thing or two about maturity to the extent he was at fault. MM and TD need to judge whether he has learned those lessons and apply them as a Bill if we get a shot at him. After seeing how he simply brutalized Jonas Jennings early last season, I' love to see the team make a bet on him as long as MM feels he can work with him.

Because the future is now. I think Euhus showed some good potential this year and in his 3rd year or so could become a feared weapon. However, depending upon what the docs judge as the severity of his injury, in the best case it will not hinder his development and I do not see him becoming the weapon we want at TE this year and if he follows the normal rehab from the injury he suffered (I understand it was an ACL tear) he actually will be a year and a half post injury before he returns to the level of development he had pre-injury. Bledsoe definitely used Coates well and also seemed to miss the world-call pas catching of Centers when we went to the very good but not world class pass catching and safety valve of Gash. However, though this is nice, it is beside the point because JP or whomever is QB will profit from having a pass-catching weapon at TE and WM will profit from having a good run blocker there. Will Euhus be the weapon we want as a pass catcher/run blocker next year? Looks prettty doubtful as under exisiting condition he showed promise but no one expected the sophomore to blossom and after the injury, his junior year as a pro would be great for us. Is Campbell there. From time to time but not consistently and he also is coming off a season ending imjury. Should we mortgage the ranch and the dog to get a TE weapon this year? No from my point of view. Should we look aggressively for a TE with some proven ability and hope TD can make a "Sam Adams" like deal for him? You bet. The Bledsoe issue is a sideshow issue on this one as far as I am concerned. It is questionable how effective he will be even with a stud TE, but he certainlyy will be better with one. JP is clearly our QB of the future, but it remains uncertain whether the future will be 2004, 2006 or ever. He also will be helped by a stud TE. Buy a TE for 2005. Don't spend everything to get one. If JP is ready JP plays, if JP isn't ready then Bledsoe or someone else if he will not take a paycut plays. It seems pretty straightforward to me and getting as many possibilities on the table for a TE seems like a smart thing to do.

There are two issues here, 1: Should TDF and the braintrust have invested in Kendall and by committing bucks to an LG instead of the decisions they made won the one more game necesary to make the playoffs at least, and 2. did they not do this because TD is a tightwad. I think your first point may be true and is a good football debate. I think your second point is not true as with the players' salary now set by the salary cap and the Bills having pretty consistently spent within spitting distace of the max they could spend on players salaries and clearly did not have enough money left over in cap room to have bought Kendall that cheapness is not the issue here at all. Perhaps once could try to make the case that though the Bills pretty much maxed out in current cap expenditures they have not taken money from the future to get alent in the present by paying bonuses now and prorating them over the long-term as bonus. This argument can be factually made, but its a pretty tough sale as a good strategy after living through the cap hell ofthe Butler moves along this line and watching the 9ers spin in the toilet still after pursuing this strategy. Beside even if you disagree with how TD has managed his maxing out of the cap by not spending future money, I think it stretches reality to label someone as cheap for not doing this. TD has made a number of bad football mistakes with clear contract implications: 1. Extending JH and HJ contracts and then cutting them only to see Raion Hill not do the job (bad football judgment) and Cowart get hurt (bad luck). 2. Saying good kickers are a dime-a-dozen and cutting Christie and then presiding over the Ariens, Graham, Hollis, and Lindell near misses and debacles. 3, Hiring GW and then not being controlling enough to force him to hire a more experienced coaching staff and controlling Kevin Killdrive. He apparently advocated for Clements but gave in to GW's choice of Gilbride 4. Buying the judgments of GW and Gray that Jenkins and Robinson were answers for us. 5. Glidon and various other flyers like Farris, the DE whose name I forget and a player here or there (Glidon really is the only one who vexes me as his deadspace was signnificant. I'm sure there are other issues which do not leap to mind at this semi-late hour. However, there is just as good an argument here that he has been to profligate spending Ralph's money on these bad ideas as to somehow call him a skin flint. Also, a rational view has to take into consideration of some excellent financial moves and risky expenditures that he has made like McGahee, the Sam Adams contract, spending the bucks to get Spikes here, a nice pick-up and significant expenditure on Fletcher, and even though folks disagree on spending money on Bledsoe the problem here in most people's minds was that he should have been a tightwad and not spent this money. If you got a problem with his LG judgments I think you're much more credible complaing about that than complaining he is a tightwad. If you feel his Kendall choice was a financial issue then I think you're far closer in your professional mind-reading which reveals his money issues by complaining he spent too much money on Bledsoe and instead he should have spent too much money on Kendall.

I think the best thing about Law and Order has been the scripts and stories and the fact that the characters are important but are mostly a vehicle to carry the scripts and stories. They hit upon this early with loss by his choice of George Dzudza (Greevey for those who you who don't read credits) who got killed off so fast in the second season you only saw his shadow get shot and they focused on his wife's face. Since then like life everyone has an expiration date. for me the series hit a low-point when they went off into these weird explorations of Lenny's daughter getting killed by some drug idiot and then will Lenny have him killed and Julia Roberts boyfriends affair on his MS ravaged wife. I'm glad they killed this and went back to writing drama instead of producing rubber stamped pscychodrama. If you don't like the new ADA, just wait she will be gone the way of Jill Hennesey, Angie Harmon, Serena, Paul, whathisname and whomever soon.

I will miss the informative and entertaining things done by Empire as it reached its height, but I view the turn of events announced today as a good thing. Perhaps it is the Pollyanna in me which finds life to brutal to merely accept the lemons it gives you to not try to make lemonade. However, I agree also that with the demise of the coverage of scrimmages, the end of the post-game rant or victory celebration opportunites, the Simoncast and even the Simon/Brinson effort ESN was a mere husk of its former self. The demise of Empire/WNSA leaves a vaccuum in the Buffalo sports coverage scene. Nature abhors a vacuum. WGR and the national football sports shows leave an opportunity for someone else to try to enter the Empire vacuum and make some bucks. It will be tough. Empire has the advantage ofthe built in Sabres tie-in to fill the massive newshole with a professional sports supplement since though the Bills are loved, it isn't all year and its hard to do all football all the time except on Sundays. It also had the cash cow of Rigas using the public as a cash card til he got caught. Yet, even if this town may not be able to support 2 sports radion stations, WGR is so half-baked often that if there are 1- 1/2 efforts in town GR can easily end up being the half and there is simply no local primarily sports focused cable or TV effort. Even the lock-out is quite timely as though MSG clearly has an inside track on the Sabres, it seems unlikely a deal will be done while things are so uncertain providing organizing time for any enterprisers who want to try to build in hockey as a supplement to the Bills coverage which will carry an effort. It may not happen because even if there is money to be made (as Howard Simon and others showed) it may be easier to make bucks clear-cutting hardwood trees or sucking off the government teat getting massive rents to warehouse folks in public housing or subsidies for building roads into national forests to take out trees to sale as timberto Japan. Yet, I see this as a possibility for things to get better which was not going to happen as long as ESN occupied space as it slowly went down the toilet. I think entrepreneur will probably be a crazy enough sports fan to try to do something. I just hope in addition to being crazy they also turn out to be good at TV and damn lucky. if so we will all profit.

It's just wishfuil/hopeful thinking based on the set-up (meaning probably true, but alot has to happen before it goes either way in result) rumor Mort started and refused to expand upon in an ESPN Q&A session.

I don't think that was ever a popular theory, why would folks opt for journeyman scrubs when well-regarded QBs have been readily available outside of the draft like from Farve and Young to folks who forced trades like John Elway.Yhe certainly were run out of town by folks who put too much emphasis on the drafty and demand drafted players produce immediately and declare them bust when they don't. There are certainly recent SB winners like Brad Johnson who was certainly could be called a journeyman as this two time loser was on his third team, but even though his new contract did not have the heavy hit of the out years of a 1st round draftee or the championship killing cap load of a the resign contract of a great QB like Manning I wouldn't call his contract a scrub amount. Certainly, the theory I have promoted for years is that it is possible to win the SB with a player considered a journeyman because of several stops on his resumer (Kurt Warner) or his minimum salary (Trent Dilfer). However, this theory says less about what it definitely takes to have a QB play that position in a Super Bowl year than it saying that their are multiple methods for doing this, and the anti-conventional wisdom is seen in the simple fact that no team has drafted a player in the first round who has led them to a win in the SB since Aikman did it for Dallas with this 1989 pick. This is not a simple theory but is just a simple fact. I am one who does not argue that it can't be done, but simply that the next time it is done will be the first time a team made an SB winning move with this pick in 15 years. I think there is a great case to declare 2004 the year of the 1st round draft pick QB because they did extraordinarly well getting teams to the playoffs when generally 25% or so or 3 of the 12 teams are led by teams drafted in the 1st round. However, it remains to be seen if RoboQB, MacNabb. or Vick prove to be winners of the SB this year whether their wins are mere exceptions which prove the rule or a breakthrough hailing back to the Aikman choice. The again, if Brady and the Pats stick to the same route they used to vanquish the team of Peyton Manning again and when it all, it may just be wait til next year and folks devoted to the star power and marketing of 1st round drafted QBs will have to make do with the NFC QB reversing a trend last bridged in the 1999 season when McNair led TN to the big dance. My personal wish is that JP Losman actually be the guy to break the trend and break it soon by leading the Bills to an SB win.

I disagree with folks who bash him as I feel he is a good player who has been a difference maker from time to time (as shown in him getting the first blocked punt for the Bills in years against KC, him making several TD saving tackles when other Bills had been beaten ranging back to a couple of Chris Watson boners, some adventures in pass coverage from a young and poorly used Coy Wire, to him having the intelligence to stay in his lane on a Santana Moss last year but enough speed to chase him down from across the field, and being that Bill's rarity at the time a ballhawk who got some timely INTs and fumble recoveries which earned him his contract). Folks have struck me as bitching about him but it strikes me as anecdotal mostly as the plays referenced above werr actual plays he made which made a difference in games. However, I think he has never been adequately used by the Bills braintrust with GW and Gray never really finding a good consistent use for him that rought these episodic showings by him out on a consistent basis. I think they wanted to cut him because they couldn't make it work, but actually in flashes he has just been too good to cut. Now however, the cap hit from him in 2005 creeps up to $1.6 million with most of that being base salary rather than deadspace if we cut him. Even though this is small potatoes compared to the salary cap and modern NFL salaries his postion and job are most effected by Troy Vincent being a clear and potentially dominant starter at safety. Milloy has the other starting spot. I suspect Reese will be cut due to his errors and the default is going to be 4 safties total plus whoever makes a good ST case to keep them. I think Rashad Baker wins one of those slots because despite him being a flawed youth but a well-regarded rookie with a lot o potential and who has a $305,000 cap hit according to the Billszone that male him a keeper. This leaves a shootout between Wire and Prioleau for the 4th slot. Though Prioleau can cover unlike Wire you save 1.4 million cutting Prioleau and 455K cutting Wire so I think Prioleau is a goner. This merely repeats what others have said but because I like PP I'm thinking out loud but I think he is a goner.

Yeah man, it's like so 1992 or something. Welcome back to the stoneage.

The amount of work that went into this and the amount of time devoted (wasted as my wife would say) writing this is phenomenal. Perhaps my posts aren't detailed enough, thought out enough or simply long enough using this model as a template. Scary since I thought I was bad. At any rate what I think the key points of this treatise are if you want the cliff notes are the disclaimers where the writer researcher says: 1. There is no single method for developing a successful result in a quarterback. In essence, some sit their first season and become stars in their careers even measuring by several criteria like SBs won, Pro Bowls or subjective judgments. Some sit and suck. Some play and suck and some play and do well. 2. The clear bias though there is not one method which usually sucks or usually works is that players who sit a year do better. However, no only are their notable divergences from this theory, even when it works it is unclear why players suceeded at sitting since it may be the quality of their teams as much as what they learned. 3. The sample size is simply too small to draw any firm conclusions. If you are looking for some reality out of this treatise, I think your best bet is to apply it to a specific case (JP's development for our purposes). Also to take the one lesson which I think you can clearly draw from this treatise which says they found no one answer. Namely, anyone who claims that there is only one way to develop a QB is all wrong. In terms of the first item (JP) I think the likely conclusions are: 1. He probably benefitted a lot from not playing his first year if he applied himself well and worked hard. There are simply numerous examples and broader statistical evidence that sitting your first year does not doom your career and accompanying evidence that one can start your first year and end up being a bust. 2. I think this finding is probably amplified for JP because though he will benefit both from on field experience and from book study, repetivie practice and watching the game, he actually seems be most developed in the areas where on field work is essential (athleticism, cocky leadership, playing against pro speed) and actually seems to be least developed and needs work in areas where off-field preparation helps alot (mechanics, learning pro offenses and defenses). As far as summarizing the second point there is a simple short way to do this for TSW purposes: ICE is all wrong. 1, Clearly there is no demand that a 1st round draft pick at QB start in his first year and clearly there are a plethora of 1st round and highly rated players who had busts in their careers who did start in the first years. Maybe they failed because they were bad players. However, there does seem to be a relevant correlation between players on bad teams getting rushed along apparently before they were ready to play. Anyone who claims a player must play (even worse must start) as a rookie at QB is simply willing to ignore the many players who did not start and did succeed and is also willing to ignore the fate of the many players who did start and simply had horrible careers. 2. I feel even better about my mantra of start JP when he is ready to start and not moment sooner or a moment later. Though this analysis does not prove there is any one method that works and even with this small sample provides little more than a indication that a 1st round QB profits by sitting. It does seem to pretty clearly indicate that you will not kill JP's career by sitting him and that you well might kill his career by starting him too soon. Overall, I was intrigued by this impressive work which proves nothing in terms of a specific development method in what was missing. this included: 1. There needs to be more salary cap consideration if you ask me. Manning is obviously a better player than Leaf, but Manning has produced no more SB win or appearances for the team which drafted them than Leaf. This needs analysis. 2. I'm interested in what impact being trained or tutored has on QB development. This will be totally subjective in judgment as it involves an assement of the QB in place training the youngster in training ability and his willingenss to do this. I'd be interest ed in this analysis.

I'd be interested in this as well. The stat seems fairly dubious to me as the nature of changing line calls strikes me as making this assignment of a sack to an individual player seems a dubious guess in so many cases. I think there tend to be easier cases to see, For example, the LT slot sometimes leaves the blocker on an island and he really is going straight up against an opposing DE who beats him on a speed rush and it is pretty clear who is at fault. However, on stunts and with blocking inside, the assignment is more dubious to make. An LT may be lined up against an LDE, but if the rusher stunts inside and the outside rusher is clearly going to be an OLB who gets picked up by the LT, I think it would be false to assign the LT with a sack responsibility because the LDE he is lined up against circles inside and beats aguard or the center for the sack. We'll see it is to be hoped.

I think what this stat really indicates (stats are great but football interested folks need to remenber that all they do depending upon the interpretation is indicate somethings but rarely conclude anything) is that folks need to consider Moulds in terms of what he means to Evans output rather than simply making a judgment whether Evans can replace Moulds. In terms of building winning football teams condisderation of the salary cap and the likely team budget for each position really determines a lot of what the right thing to do is. It strikes me that Moulds' 2005 cap hit of over $8 million is simply too big to be able to make other investments which build a winning team. Fortunately, Moulds seems to recognize this too and with the help of his agents can see that he is quite unlikely to get an offer from another team which will pay him more raw money next year than even a re-negotiated base salary with the Bills with a kicker of longer-term investment which may become deadspace as time catches up with Moulds as it does for all people. If the Bills actually dumped Moulds it would be a far worse deal for the Bills, for Moulds and even for Evans than renegotiating a deal which lowers Moulds base salary and thus his immediate cap hit and in exchange provides him with more money in a prorated base salary that will de distributed over a Moulds contract which likely will allow him to retire a Bill and if it all works out his productivity will end just as the contract ends and there will be no deadspace. Mould's public declaration that he is willing to re-negotiate sets things up for our WR budget nicely.

If you're in the former Detroit mode charlie Batch looks like a possibility as well. Its tough to say who would want to come here either way whether Bledsoe will take a paycut to backstop JP in case he fails, gets hurt or simply needs more time before he is ready to start or whether Bledsoe plays and produces in minicamp and then in pre-season like this truly is his team. Either way the pick-up FA is likely a clipboard carrier disaster QB and this role is part of the path that Shane Matthews was on when he was out of a job and sitting at home on the couch until the Bills lost the #2 and #3 QBs to injury. This drop seems to big for Harrington to take and mostly comes down to whether McMahon or Batch get better offers, as former but failed starters I think they get offers to be the #2 somewhere. I think the greater likelihood for the Bills if they are looking to back-up JP and Bledsoe would actually be to go the Kordell route who if he resumes the slash role could be an active Bill who can move in at #3 if needed. Word is the chicago piece has not worked out perfectly for him, he knows MM/Clements well and has succeeded under them and if the Bills get QB cap room in their budget the wherewithal will be there to pay Kordell (who is a UFA) a nice dime. I don't like Kordell as my #2 because I don't think he will ever be an effective #1 at the SB level we want to attain. However, if bad luck hits us and we have to dip down to the #3 level I'd be pleased to have Kordell over oher potential choices like Todd Collins as we actually might get some contribution out of using the Slash in the tricky Clements offenses.

At this point, I think TD has set up a nice public situation for the Bills. Henry and his agent may be lying through their teeth about expressions of interest but the lie that there is multiple intersts in Henry is a good one to have out there and TD is not the one taking direct responsibilities for spreading them which leaves him free to play off multiple potential partners against each other has he tries to get a deal done. As Badol pointed out yesterday a real rate limiting factor for TD in terms of getting a good value for Henry is that there appears to be a pretty big chunk of underclass RBs coming into the draft and forteams looking to fill the RB slot the draft option is a possibility in terms of getting this done. However, one good advantage which the Bills and TD have is that they need not wait until April to get a deal done and actually do not even have to wait for the clarity of who gets released into March 2 FA market to get a deal done and as soon as the SB is done if someone wants to give themselves some clarity and structure by acquiring Henry they can set the market and do the deal. Having multiple teams express some interest in providing value for Henry plays in the Bills favor. If Henry's agent is lying through his teeth about Tampa Bay's specific interest who care's, Tampa knows this but probably won't say so publicly, because bad information eventually catches up with you, but for now it confuses Miami so they probably will not confirm or deny this. Even if they do deny this, then Miami has to ask whether TB is lying because they actually have an interest in TB and may be shining Maimi on to keep his value down and to limit competitive interest. The best thing for the Bills is that even if Henry is lying, TD ain't and he can try to play off the action but not get the rap as a liaramong fellow GMs. Henry chatter is great for the Bills.

Yes but, 1. The players do not want to take the pain of lower salaries to "save" the league while the owners who stupidly kept shoveling money to the players do nothing to change or restrin their bad business sense. 2. If the owners nuke the players and hire replacements or break the union and the union decertaifies itself then away goes the draft. drug restrictions and other devices by which the players and owners collude and stop the owners from having to buy players and make individual agreements in a free market. The owners and the league cannot survive in a free-market and they will be loathe to nuke the players and force them to create it. I think the owners are in a not very good position because one of the thngs there is alot of in this society is capital and it will be a tough organizing task but they can be replaced if there is nothing in it for the players because they have been broken or replaced.

Certainly before the combine results and scuttlebutt and all the decisions about which underclass RBs are going to enter the draft its too early for me to see the market or to put total stock in the vision of folks who know alot more than I know about the relative cap room and resources other teams have to use. I agree with your analysis of how the market gets set. I also agree that the Bills are in a far better contractual position with Henry than with an FA. It appears to me that there will be a good chunk of talented underclassmen RBs entering this draft and that will weaken the Bills position. However, I think there are several important kickers that make the Fins deal a definite possiblity: 1. They have a lot of needs on this team which was built to win in the last few years and as players like Seau and Thomas get older and more hurt, they will need to use a lot of draft and cap resources to deal with these needs. 2. This team is already without a second so in terms of filling these many needs if they can use the draft on other positions beisdes RB, because they think they can fill theRB need with Henry they may be tempted. 3. Having a year to go on Henry's contract is a real resource to a team which has alot of cap demands. 4, This has to be a new Dolphin team for them to market most effectively to their fan base. I think this is part of the reason why the Fins decided to go outside the team and in fact outside of the NFL for Saban rather than hiring the intensly popular old regime Bates when his team actually beat the hated but great Pats and played tough even in losing game like the one against the Bill. How it works out is going to be how it works out and it is certainly way to early for me to make even a half-arsed judgment about whether the Fins will see some other position besides RB that they want to spend the very early first pick on and if they think all the good enough RBs will be done by the 3rd, trading for a former Pro Bowler to help them move beyond Rickey makes a lot of sense. I'm trying to tamp down my eagerness because if we could somehow get McMichael form them I would be a very happy boy, but I don't know enough about his contract to rbrn guedd wether this move makes sense for rebuilding the Fins. He probably is too good and too pivotal to be worth their while to trade as he led the team in receptions for a TE, but as a 3 year player, FA is on the cusp for him and if they think they will lose him anyway maybe they would trade him. Perhaps Sammy Morris wants to come back as he proved his stuff as a back-up level RB with freat ST leadership and chops. i'd take either of these players over draft choices almost any day even if the player I might picke with a second or a third in this years draft might turn out to be a better player than McMichael or Morrisin a year or two.

Thanks for the info. This actually makes a lot of sense in that I have no recollection of what the trasition or franchise tag amounts for a WR were when we tagged PP, but certainly if we franchised him we would have chosen to release him rather than pay him the top 5 average salary. By franchising him, TD took several risks: 1. He had to be sure that he had a relationship with PP that he could be sure there was no under the table deal where PP and the Falcs imply waited for the Bills to drop the tag rather than pay PP Moulds like money and risk losing him to FA the next year and then have PP waltz into a deal with AT (or whomever he and his associates conspired with) to leave the Bills with nothing. 2. He risked developing a label as an unfair operator among players which might have stopped players like Spikes from choosing the Bills if he tagged a player and then simply released him when the market had dried up. 3. He risked that PP would play the game well saying the right things to foster AT interest that a contract with him could be done once AT gave up what Blamk allowed TD to take from them. I guessed the transition tage was probably still beyond the Bills budget for a #2 WR but the franchise tag certinly was.

Different times, different markets, different results. Yet may posters still seem to insist that players have some static amount of their worth/ The state so and so is a 3rd round player, or that Dillon went for a second and Dillon is x amount better than Henry. Its all supply and demand and the supply and demand changes all the time.