Fake-Fat Sunny

Size is a lesser factor of a center's success compared to other factors such as: 1. Communication ability with the rest of the OL and his peers. Unless he can get the other OL players to understand quiokly and clearly what the group is doing and unless he an the QB share info and on the smae page then forget about everything else. 2. Speed at makng the read on the D, deciding on a course of action and getting that out and being on the same page and making the same reads as the QB. 3. Making the snap in prticular the shotgun to the QB the same way everytime. Of particular import is to do this with the shotgunm when an opposing DT is going to crack you as soon as you make the snap. 4. The ability to turn the advantage that he will know the snap count in away the opposing DT will not know it and using this slight avantage to get leverage on larger stronger DTs. 6. Natural leadership abiliy that makes peers exceed what they can do. This is not a requirement as most players only have this a little but it was the thing which seemed to separate Kent Hull from his peers. Its easy for me to envision Teague being a better choice than Tucker at C and we fans see little of the real deal. Certainly wins are win and production is production and even we outsider fans can make some reasonable judgments about whether the team is performing better with Tucker at C rather than Teague. However, one could easily be all wrong to judge Tucker as the guy to have at center over Teague because we have little direct clue over these important intangibles. Further, it one looks at the things we can see production with Tucker has been a mixed bag. The games are: New England- Henry had his first productive game of the season and much if ut was actually behind Teague until he went out of the game with an injury. I'm not sure when he went out but as 3 of the sacks came in the last few minutes as everyone knew the pass was comimg one doesn't usefully blsme Tucker but this was not one of his finest hours. NYJ- The run game struggled and the passing game was anemic until the last quarter. There were 4 sacks on Bledsoe most of which was Abraham manhandling Jennings. Again there is no production here that would make anyone hail Tucker as the answer. Miami- We have a very good game and Tucker looks very good to us outsiders. However, it must be noted that though this team has some DE beef Tucker gets a lot of credit for dealing with, beating Miami is something which does not get you haoled as the answer. Ravens- rough game for Tucker in terms of production against a solid D. Cards- Great game for Tucker against a less than great D. Tucker dida wonderful job as a fill-in but it is beyond me why folks see this as the answer to any center issues to the extent that now we must send Teague to another position.

Whether you think you can win it all or think you hsve no chsnce, by far the best (if not virtually the only way to do it) is to take it one game at a time. Its a cliche but its a cliche because it is true that the only game of importance is the next one. The Yabnkees learned this negatively when they were up 3 games to none. The Cubs learned this negatively last year when they were up 3 games tio won with their two ace pitches needing only to win one of the next three. Indy learned this positively when they had the same record as the Bills as Wade said that his team was done with that record. The lasr 2 World Series winners had a fork stuck in them because they were done. Its sports so until the fat lady sings all ya gotta do is believe.

I agree tnat the analogy to the WM/Henry situation falls apart when comparing Tucker/Teague. No one mistakes Tucker for the future potential world-class player WM is geting back to being. The much maligned Teague who iwas playing much better prior to his injury also is going in totally the opposite direction than Henry who may have simply taken too many hits and never really found his game this year. For the moment it appears that the Bills quite reasonably see Teague as an answer to their problems to get better on the OL while they see WM as the answer to their problem of how to get better at RB. Tucker has played well, but given his flexibility it appears more likely that one would see him at LG if his talemts demand he start rather seeig Teague move.

It really depends more on what you are looking for (based on the suggestions you have gotten which vary in my mind to plces I would think meet you request for a village feel (East Aurora) to places which obviously some took as meeting your request but striking me as fairly standard suburbia (most of Kenmore if you travel a block away from your home which may be on a tree lined street to the sterile mini-malls on major streets to some of the more rural areas which are not very village like if you like people. In particular, the suggestion of Clarence as a village runs against my experience as this area used to be rather village like but is today the warzone between the old days when it was a community and the new days where it is one of go-go areas for development and any vilage feel has been lost. A lot depends on where you are coming from and how much of a commute you want to do. WNY has what I call the rush 15 minutes compared to the rush hour of other metroplises. A drive of an hpour which would be considered par for the course in many towns and actually be a short commute compared to the 2 hour drives one way folks do on a daily basis in DC, NYC or the Bay Area in CA would actually easily allow you to teach at UB and live in Rochester. I know a lot of cool folks in East Aurora so I'm probably biased. One can do a better job of pretending to have a village feel there than you can in most of the subutbs to the north and west of Buffalo. Thiis area.s village feel is under assault as well from Tops Friendly Markets, Benderson and a plethora of gas stations. However. the community got together a few years back and kept out a Wal-Mart which would have brought soccer-Moms driving SUVs from Orchard Park, Hamburg and other places and further destroyed the village feel. I'd vote East Aurora from your description.

Now let me get this straight. You propose making our starting OL RT-Teague, RG- Villareal, C- Tucker, LG- MW, LT- JJ? I doubt this will happen since: 1 Teague's pro experience has been at center most recently for the Bills and at LT for Denver before that. Bringing him in from injury to a new position seems unlikely. 2. Tucker has held the fort nicely at center, with good games against the Cards and Miami to his credit, but I don't tink anyone is hailing any of the O performances against the Ravens. I think he adds a lot to this team with his work, but we're still looking for more at center and Teague was playing well there before his injury. 3. MW should as ICE offers be able to make the switch to guard, but why do this if he has played as recently as last week at a level which brought him a gameball for his RT performance. Will the overal performance of the OL be improved by a moving MW to a new positio, putting Teague at a new position, counting on Tucker to play more like he did against the Cards and less like he did against the Ravens, and benching Smith. Maybe, but I doubt it. What seems to make more football sense to me is: LT- Jennings for now, though I think he likely will be gone as an FA in the off-season. I like the fact that Price is backing him up because his past fragility makes this essential to have Price rather than McFarland or some three-rail billiard shot plan B. It makes sense to try him where he has done well before. LG- Smith for now, his development from UDFA Ravens PS levels to starter is more than can reasonably be expected, but after the failure of Sullivan Pucillo we needed radical help. He has the expected shortcomings for a player of his youth and inexperience, but playing Bannan at LG in the redzone 6-12 plays a game is a nice fill-in in the areas he needs to improve. Since the run gameis effective with WM and him playing for the most part and even the pass pro was effective with him playing for the most part, continuing to give him work to improve for 2005 seems reasonable. C- Teague for now and it is to be hoped the future. His play really turned a corner before his injury as he seemed to put the individual pieces together so he could multi-task and at the same time and not have one part of his game so south (occaisionally being easily bullrushed onto his butt in Bledsioe's lap when he focused too much on line call changes, shotgun snaps or other duties. Hr seemed to get it al together and it will be a test to see whether he has retained or even improved this ability with his enforced absence. Tucker provided a great back-up and is a bright guy (a former Princetonian) but if Teague can come back it gives us a lot of flexibility and it makes sense to try him where he has done well before. RG- Villareal is pretty solid here and it makes sense to try him where he has done well before. RT- MW has extraordinary problems that have raised legitimate questions about moving him to LG at some point. However, such a move would seem to be panicking from my point of view and premature as: A. In college he showed great agility for such a big guy and the handling of the speed rushers (particularly on the QBs seeing side and what is usually the TE side is less of an issue than it is for the LT naked on the QBs blindside). B. His onfield problems his first two years seem more closely linked in my analysis to him not having the communication and Pro help this youngster and rookie needed as Sullivan (since cut) and Pucillo (less experience than even MW abd since demoted) where his partners in blocking at RG and it all was under the inexperienced Vinklarek and Ruel. A 4th pick can be hoped and expected to triumph even with this non-help, but he didn't and thems just the facts. He now has Villareal by his side and JMac providing a framework so letting them work rather than a panicked move (as ICE prescribes) based on desperation (as Rico has described) would not be the thing to do at this time. C. MW showed further problems when he failed to train and his weight balloned this off-season. However, the clear cause of this failing seems to be the death of the grandmother who raised him as a Mom, This is understandable from a human perspective, but reality simply demands more from a professional perspective if you are going to take the big bucks MW has taken. JMac and others seemed to have done right things in terms of adjusting his attitude by publicly raising the potential of him moving to LG when like it or not the big bucks are at T under last year's cap 9 of the top 10 OL cap hits were tackles and the 1 guard was the cap cut Ruben Brown). His earning a gameball for his performance Sunday may well be a sigh he has turned the corner and moving him to LG before the off-season if ever seems unlikely. At any rate this strikes me as our likely line-up and a logical one. I cn easily be wrong asI am not in the lockerroom and I don't see them practice. In particular, the use of Bannan at LG may be a sign that JMac and the braintrust do not see Smith as the answer and having run through their other two reasonable plans of Pucillo and Sullivan they went to the D as a last straw. However, Smith did play the vast majority of Sunday's game at LG and WM ran productively and there were no sacks so it seems a lot more likely that Bannan came in to help and did help with the redzone deficits of Smith rather than overall deficits that would force the team to do something radical like try the alchemy of turning Bannan into a full time LG or creating an opening at RT by moving MW, disrupting the need back-up tackle position by shifting Price to a starter and complicating the rehab of Teague.

This move seems consistent with: 1. McGees stellar play at KR (which establishes him as a playmaker) and learning but good enough play at CB (the long pass completion over him against the Ravens and lettingthe Card fullback get around his containment responsibility for a TD are clar signs he is not there yet, but he does appear to be learning). 2. The Bills needs at FS where neither Reese nore Wire has shown they are up to the task yet. 3. The long-term plan publicly stated for Vincent when he was signed to a contract which is really more quality safety money than top quality CB money. I tend to not take things which GR says as truth without some additional confirmation because they are reasonably a business that has a history of making their money through the antics of folks lie the Coach who I see as legends in their own mind rather than primarily reporting on the Bills. However, maybe things are changing there with Howard Simon coming on board so this move makes sense.

Hello... Even if one feels that WM is th man and Henry is toast, it would be a dumb move for the Bills to simply declare WM as the answer and Travis as a failed idiot. The game for the Bills in the WM era is to maximize Travis's value for a trade. One good method to maximize his value is the co-starter phase out which the Bills are doing rather than play into the impression that Travis is a bad player, bad Bill or damaged goods. I think the true test of MM's cojones is whether he repetitively would go with Travis in the Fins game when WM first started and went over 100, whether he stuck with Henry after trying to showcase him as tradebait or to make the two RB thing work in the Ravens game (when Travis was not up to the challenge he went to WM with lots of carries and production), or if he had tried to continue the co-RB gameplan in real life against the Cards despite Henry's failures against the Ravens (he did not slavishly stick with Henry and instead featured WM to the tune of 2 rushing TDs and him hitting the century mark again). I cojones means foolishly ignoring maximizing Henry's trade value or departing from the successful to date slow but steady WM rehab schedule by overcommiting to runnning him and running him again regardless of production in the Ravens game, then thank gosh that MM is a weenie. They have played this just right as far as I can tell in terms of bringing WMs rehab along at a good steady pace letting reality determine his progress and putting TH aside in games whole maintaining the ability to ask for a high draft pick (and it is to be hoped a back up for WM better than Joe Burns) in trade for Henry when the off-season roles around.

One of the best pieces of advice whaich has worked well for me in my experience with infectious disesaes (unfortunately more experience than one would wish since my wife needed a lung transplant to combat the effects of a childhood lung ailment) is to wash your hands a lot and to urge those who come into your home to wash their hands. Flug bugs and other infectious agents are often spread to folks hands when they sneeze and refelexively cover their mouths or when they shake hands in greetings with others. Once these bugs get onto your hands, they refkexively can be spread to your mucous membranes when you get tired and rub your eyes, feel some food on your teeth or pick your nose or whatever you and/or your kids do. One of the simple things you can do is train yourself to be relexive about washing your hands. You will spread fewer germs to yourself and to others.

ICE, obviously feel free to reply or not as you wish, I'll try to keep this shorter because obviously in reading the many words of my previous posts you miss the main point as your "final" points do not reply to them at all. The main reason why the move you describe will take lots of time is not because it will take MW a lot of time to learn the new position (though I believe he will even this in no sure thing and is difficult to predict as speed of adoption is determined as much or more by desire and attiude as it is by expertise). The reason why this move will take a lot of time to sort out is because it strongly impacts the play at RT, LG and LT (particularly given Jennings record of getting nicked and the number of starts Price has gotten as a back-up). Why do you have such faith in Dylan McFarland? Have you seen something in his game which merits him backing up both tackle positions? Are you so certain that Jennings and Price will go through the remainder of season playing every moment of every game? If McFarland as the prime back-up at both tackle position isn't your plan is it to simply put MW whom you judge to be inadequate back in at tackle if there is an injury? After your juggle MW around and go back to him in case of an injury do you then feel fine about going back to Lawrence Smith you judge to be inadequate as you are replacing him? All this are merely the football implications and do not even get into whatever the mental aspects of player management are as these moves make definite statements about the inability of players like MW or Smith. I have little true idea what these impacts will be as I do not know these men and I certainly am not good at reading minds as you seem to be with your statements of certainty about TDs motivations.

I think moving MW to LG downgrades the performance of this line in the short term until he learns the new position and there is always the potential that he doesn't succeed at making the move. Even worse the tremors and effects this move has on the entire line makes this a proposition that essentially leaves one builidng the OL from scratch. A team can do this with some planning, work, preparation and dilgence by the unit but it is a move that takes time and will need the off-season and many minicamps to pull off. I assume you were at least suggesting this for the off-season as in some other posts, but to do it now strikes me as suicide and a declaration that we were turning the rest of 2004 into a pre-season for 2005. I don't see this happening until we are mathermatically eliminated or the last couple of games this season. If someone is proposing moving MW to LG right now, then they must know something about Dylan McFarland the rest of us don't know because since you are moving Price into the RT starter slot, this leaves not only skips over McFarland who is the reserve RT on the depth char, but actually makes him the reserve LT as well since Price is now starting. Given Jennings frequency of injury you are pretty much guaranteeing him a start on one side or the other since one of the main wraps on Price is that while he is a great back-up an injury he suffered earlier this season as a Bill and the events of his career raise questions about relying on him full time. In addtion to acting on the suggestion that MW is not an adequate player to start and tackle money this suggestion means giving up on Smith starting at LG. This is probably a reasonable assessment of his current skills and production, but remember how far he has come from being a UDFA who qualified for the Ravens PS last year to becoming our starting LG after Sullivasn and Pucillo failed at the job in pre-season. I'd be surprised to find out that there wasn't a major deficit in his game (which redzone play is) at this point. He's a youngster who has really come far very fast. He will get better if he plays and I don't see us panicking and benching him completely at this point, particularly when we have found a way with Bannan to produce in the weak areas of his game. Overall, I think you read too much into JMacs comments and what is going on behind the scenes at OBD regarding OL development. I read JMacs comments at the time as mostly designed to light a fire under MW that unless his play improved and he began to behave like a professional he risked being moved to LG out of the big dollar tackle job. I think lighting this fire under MW had the desired effect as his conditioning an play have improved as the season has gone on. Feel free to not believe me, but it was the team that awarded him a gameball for his play Sunday, his work resulted in O sacks of the QB. I think your theories of the motivation behind these movesare little more than theory.

Big difference in the two cases. I don't think anyone was advocating the move of Bannan as an experiment for the whole game to see if this worked, Moving MW to the LG dlot would be just this type of experiment except you'd being taking out a starting linemen and have to replaace him rather than moving a reserve player like Bannan in for spot duty as a great change-up which not only confused the oppenents briefly but enhanced compettion on the team. Perhaps moving MW to LG in mid-season would also totally confuse our opposition because they would never expect us to do something so foolish. I doubt it does much to enhance competition though as it would send a message to both MW and Smith that you were giving up on the idea of them being adequate players at their position and send a messageto the team and fans that you were giving up on this season to prepare for next.

Even this feeble suggestion makes more football sense than moving him to LG right now.

Let the 2005 pre-season begin and let it begin now. Actually I think that as a business move this option is precluded until the chance for the playoffs is nunerically impossible. For the Bills the vast majority of the tickets for the remaining games are already sold, but declaing the season essentially over and done until 2005 will have impacts on our bottomline in terms of lower turnstile count, less parking, etcetera and an even bigger impact on the league in terms of TV eyeballs on games where the Bills are clearly experimenting and not fielding the most competitive team for this year. The end of the season is one thing in terms of teams being more interested in winning late instead of winning now, but I don't see the Bills partners taking kindly to the team pulling the plug so early. Besides, if win next week at home, a 3-5 record in the first half of the season clearly means this team will need to show up to win this year every game or you build a losing ethic in your players.

I assume this meas that the Simoncast on Empire is a goner?

The suggestion has been made (by ICE who has returned again to TSW) and even hinted at as an eventuality by JMac of moving MW to LG. One certainly needs to tale this idea seriously as JMac has publicly mentioned this possibility. However, this strikes me as a radical mid-season move which would certainly be against the Bills interests if it was done now. Further, such a move may be possible in the off-season, but even then it strikes me as having such a limited chance of making this a better performing team given all the other OL question marks that this would need a lot of work, smart moves anmd good luck to work out. Look, on the field this move would trigger so many other changes to accomodate it would mean essentially rebuilding our OL on the fly in mid-season while at the same time a bunch of other factors would depend on how this worked. Specifically: 1. An opening would created at starting RT which I assume Price would fill, unless you have decided that depth chart listed back-up Dylan McFarland is worthy of being promoted to starting RT. 2. If Price is your starting RT, you now have McFarland backing up both tackle slots. Unless if an injury occurs to Jennings (not unlikely) or Price (it has happened before) you are now going to move MW back to the spot you decided he was inadequate to play. 3. The move of MW to LG means that you have decided to bench Lawrence Smith. While Smith is clearly not a world beater at LG, he actually has produced far more than the Bills should have reasonably expected from a UDFA journeyman who has moved from some the Ravens PS to be a Bills starter in the blink of a football eye. He has failed to produce in the redzone, but this problem was improved by bringing in Bannan to fill for him in the redzone on a half dozen or so plays. For the entire game against Miami, the Ravens and the bulk of the game against the Cards, Smith has been part of opening good holes for WM and a sackless game Sunday. He ain't great by a longshot, but certainly seems to merit playing time to get better from his recent youthful beginnings. 4. Who is sure MW is more productive for the Bills at LG than RT. This may work as opposing DTs are getting bigger and MW's huge size fits the demographics. However, it isa different game and different responsibilities at these 2 positions and even under the best of circumstances this move will take time to work. Mid-season with one QB folks call a statue, with an injured rookie QB who will be learning the game, and with WM on the rebuilding path seems an odd time to experiment with this move. These factors are why this move seems suicidal in mid-season and may even be tough in the off-season. It is doable if it is practiced and practiced again in mini-camps. However, this OL will have a number of uncertainties like: 1. Will Jennings be back? Doubful in my mind 2. Is Teague the man for center play? Possible in my mind but if a good center is gettable as an FA and Jennings is gone I probably move Teague to the LT slot he wanted when acquired. 3. Can Smith be developed at LG? I think so. He has come farther than anyone could have expected at this point and if this youngster continues to improvr even at a slower pace than his jump from UDFA to PS to starter he will fill the slot for us. He's not there yet and really did need to be replaced for a half dozen plus plays around the redzone but you find few good-to-go sarters on other team's PS. Simply making our team asa back-up would have been wonderful progress by him this year. To date MW has not played like a #4 choice should play. However, the penalty for this failure is not to cut him as some suggest or to move him (particularly if the tremor caused do not serve our interests), but he penalty is that he is not made a Pro Bowl player and his next contract will not grow or even lessen if the market allows. For now, I think the best bet for the Bills is for JMac to work this season to give his players what they didn't get under Vinky and Ruel. In the off-season we need to get additional players, but his will probably be an FA center so Teague can replace Jennings or an FA LT (unlikely due to cost). Perhaps you move MW to LG, but if you do you have given up on Smith developing and we have gaps at both tackles to fill in FA dealings this off-season and Teague is almost definitely your center..

Defintiely MW has failed in meriting his top 5 pick, but this is a very different thing from judging him to be the best player we have at RT, or moving to disrupt the whole line because you want to experiment with him elsewhere. If a player should not start at a particular posiion unless he is a Pro Bowler then you need to move most players in the league out of their jobs. MW can both be a failed draft choice for us and the best thing for us to do at RT given what we got.

I assume this is a sellout or near sellout (single seats of a small enough quantity to be bought out by local TV) despite our lousy record. Any updates or confirmation on this?

UUhhhhuuhh, this is called the free market. Players and agents have every right undder our capitalistic system to try to make as much money as they can and owners have every right no to pay the players contracts which destroy the game. Hockey is relatively small potatoes as a business compared to other sports businesses like football and baseball that its owners cannot voluntarily give out bigger contracts looking for a competitive advantage. The salary cap is a centralized control which would force business discipline on the owners. In exchange for aggreeing to not pursuing the free market approach (which would kill the sport) the NFL players have agreed to a CBA which sets up a partnership between the NFL and the NFLPA and both sides are making money hand over fist from this cooperation. Both parties are to blame for failing to cooperate with each other, but I do think that action does start with holders of the capital who drive the game. The onrs have voluntarily given out contracts which the business cannot sustain. The players and agents have not protected the owners from themselves but it is hard to expect them to do that.

Teague definitely came to Buffalo with the expectation of being our LT after recovering from a season ending injury and manning the LT position adequately enough for Denver to get a good FA deal from the Bills. Teague was OK at LT for Denver, and seemed to be thought of the way we think of Jonas Jennings. Pretty good but no airtight play on the QBs blindside and enough injury question marks to not make him worth breaking the bank over. Teague apparently was much pissed when the Bills decided to use him at center and thus take him away from the big money at LT and dedicate that position to JJ (who actually made his chop for the Bills at RT and had played center more recently than Teague). However, Teague seems pretty respected by all as having the brainpower, football mind and experience at multiple positions so he understands what everyone on the OL needs to do (it would not surprise me if he played guard at some point in his career, but if he does not have the necessary bulk in folks minds to be center he probably dooes not have the necessary bulk to play guard either). He apparently has really taken to the mental game of being a center and now says he likes it. I think he can perform all the individual requirements of being a center (good quick brain, understanding of what everyone needs to do, ability to make shotgun snaps as he has improved in this area which was a problem for him, ability to communicate well with his OL peers and the QB, and the athleticism to take on the biigger DTs and get the necessary leverage to handle bulkier players), however, though he can do each individual function, he has trouble multi-tasking and doing them all at the same time. It appears to me when there are difficult line calls to be sorted out and done AND he has to make a more difficult snap in the shotgun or Bledsoe is under center but changing the call, that is when Teague can be bowled over by an aggressive DT as he gets too focused on his other tasks and does not use his athletic ability in a way that gives him good leverage on a bigger aggresive lineman and he can be bowed over into Bledsoe's lap. I think time and practice are actually the best solutions for these problems and his play before his injury where he began to play center well this year showed that. If Tucker can handle the job, this is good for the Bills as we may very much need an LT if Jennings attracts a big contract on the FA market. Worse come to worse we have found an adequate back-up at center in Tucker and the competition will make Teague better. If Tucker does not beat out Teague, we now have an answer for letting JJ go or for having a back-up at all OL positions across the line if JJ stays. Tucker has now started at C, G, and T in his NFL career.

MW got a gameball awarded to him for his work in the last game with the OL giving up no sacks and opening holes for a 100 yard rusher and 2 rushing TDs. What is the basis for the indictment of Williams" He has had obvious problems but they have struck me a mental in that he and Pucillo did not co-ordinate well at all last year as a team and at times his focus seems to dift. In terms of athleticism and speed, he certainly has shown in workouts that he is far more nimble than most linemen and big guys. He put on too much weight when got sad over losing his granny this off-season but has seemed diligent in working off the pounds and getting into game shape. When I have seen him give up sacks and allow pressure it has not been speed rushes (which usually have to go through or circle around the TE position on the right side but it has been stunts that have given him problems.

From my perspective it is a matter of chemistry and future plans. In terms of chemitry if the OL has another game against the Jets like they did against the Cards then I judge Teague to need more time to recover and I feel fine about seeing how Tucker and the OL do against the Pats. If Tucker and the OL remain productive then Teague probably needs to wait til next year because I'm real reluctant to mess up the chemistry of an OL which has been productive three weeks in a row and against two likely playoff teams. However, I doubt this will happen and I bring Teague back as soon as he is ready. The other factor for me is our future plans. Jennings is so prone to injiry that I probably let him go when FA comes around. If so, I have a big hole at LT. MW was probably our original vision, but after his disappointing reaction to a death in the family it will be all he can likely do to hang on to the RT job. If Tucker looks like he can hold his own at center, probably moving Teague to LT is our best option.

I think you have to be pleased with how effective the redzone offense was with Bannan and particularly because there does seem to be less of a role for Bannan in our DT rotation (Edwards seems to have found his game and though calls for him to start are a bit over the top and calls to move him to DE seem pretty stupid he has clearly pused Bannab to the #4 DT slot. Anderson will be given every chance to beat him out this off-season so the only way I see for Bannan to stick is for us to lose either Phat Pat or Adams or for him to provide other benefits). However, I think nodnarb is right that a reasonable expectation or hope for Bannan at OG is not the idea that he is going to become our starter or that he will be useful at OG beyond a few situations. I think we will and we should make noises about him playing LG in the redzone and perhaps at other times simply because it will waste opposing defenses time trying to figure how how to exploit him. I would use him if I could as a position player a few times, but only as a fake to occupy the minds of opponents. Leonard Smith has not been adequate as a starting LG, but he has made phenomenal progress even though the judgment of him as not being good enough (yet) is true. He has moved from the practice squad of another team as a UDFA to being a starter in a incredibly short amount of time. He merits working with to see how far he can go. However, my sense is that once opponents get some film on Bannan at LG his production will drop unless he works hard and full time at guard play and develops some additional skills and tricks. In the end, the thought that he should be used as a regular in the redzone at LG and certainly as a regular player at LG actually means that you are expressing more confidence than would seem to be warranted by his play in Tim Anderson as our # 4 DT.

I see too many question marks here to make a prediction or certainly to advocate a line-up and positions for players without some try-outs at the new spots. Ihe OL more than any other football unit is not simply a job of picking the best 5 players as athletes and putting them out there or even the best athletes at the 5 positions and sticking them out there. The key is to find the best five players who coordinate and play well together and put this unit out there. In a good OL the whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts. I think that for discussion sake, seeing folks opinions on who that might be is worthwhile and a key to rooting for the team, but for the most part I think that the various opinions stated about put this player here and that player there are junk. My sense of working with the OL is: 1. Players can move and learn new positions, but they are not tinker toys who can easily be slotted in wherever you want them to go. Chemostry is key to the whole being greater than the sum of the individual parts and chemistry comes from repetition and playing together in the same roles as much as possible. In general, the off-season gives you the necessary time to give player a try in new positions and maybe the bye week gives you some time. However, when a team is forced to bring in 2 new players into this unit of 5 or is forced to bring in 1 new player but shift a stand-by to a new position, even if the new 5 are all great players, the OL play as a unit can suck out the wazoo. Figure that we can make 1.5 changes at a time to the OL (one new player and one old player moving to a new position) and anything more than that figure that many sacks will happen and the run game will take a long while to develop. 2. The Bills already burning through this 1.5 switches due to injuries and bad play. Stability does allow us to do some neat experiments like bringing Bannan and Adams in the redzone for a few plays. We needed to do them because overall redzone production was horrible and L. Smith at LG has brought unexpected benefits to a position we have been unable to fill but he is not the player (yet e hope) that we want at LG. The injury to Teague and the nicks which have forced out Jennings for a few games makes it fairly impossible to bring in new players in more than a fill-in for the injured player or shift a players position like MW which at best will be an experiment for now. 3. The key thing to remember about the success we had with the Bannan surpruse us that he played way less than a dozen plays and that Adams switched in at TE for a couple of plays. The success they had is great but no one should expect them to man a position for a whole game. Their play is freat because it will make opposing DL players review even more tape. However, if we see them at these positions only once or twice for the rest of the season and only for a few plays that is about what should be expected. Overall, I have enough trust in JMac and his experience (it isn't even funny comparing it to the non-experience of Vinky and Ruel) that he should be fine experimenting and fine tuning this OL the rest of this season, but it is going to be the off-season where we see any position changes that make sense. I trust his judgment to put together a good whole, my assesment of individuals is: Jennings- All signs point to him being gone as an FA who wants to go south to home. He is a good player, but his history of injury makes him too much of a risk for us to break the bank on him. I say adios unless he signs incredibly cheaply and even if he can be had incredibly cheaply I still might want to go in another direction as I think the tackle situation is tough but workable without him. Smith- His stepping up saved our butts because as we searched for a replacement for Ruben it turned out that candidates Pacillo, Sullivan and possibly Sobieski were not up to the job. He is a UDFA/PS background player and produces like one. Even this mediocre level is a bonus for us after the candidates we had for replacing Ruben were at the level they were obvious cuts (even with the marked shortage of OL talent in this league neither of these two players has been picked up as an NFL player as best I can tell). Smith is not an adequate LG (witness the redzone problems and the desperation of even switching to Bannan for a few plays) but he has come incredly far from UDFA to starter and with work he may be an adequuate OG next year. Teague- Despite calls for his being cut by some fans after being embarassingly bowled over a few times last season it seemed clear that many OL and offensive coaches felt he has the smarts and the leadership capacity to be a quality center. From my view Teague has shown the ability to make positive line calls, the athleticism to deal with the hulking DTs he faces, and the ability to do shotgun snaps as he started as an adventure at this last year, but learned how to do good snaps. However, though he strikes me as being able to do all of these individual functions, he has shown an inability to multi-task. When the play mandated that he do several things at the same time he sometimes messed up one of them with disastrous results. Still. up until his injury he seemed to be putting it all together and unless there is a better idea out there (we seemed to be committed to him contractually he is our center. If it comes to it, I think he can play LT for us if Jennings goes, however this creates a gap at C which will need to be filled in FA. Dtill its nice to have the flexibility. Villareal- He is Ruben on the right side for us and has the experience to be a stabilizing force. I assume the bad penalty he took early in the season came from the lack of chemistry. He should last for a couple of years at least and though he does not appear to be the leader we need, merely being solid is good enough if others (Teague in terms of smarts and MW in terms of play) really step it up a notch because they are not there yet. MW- Hmmm. Talk of him being a bust was pre-mature last season but became a real and serious concern when he reacted non-professionally and badly to his Grandmother passing away. As a human being this is understandable since apparently his Grandma raised him like she was his Mother. However, life is tough and he is paid big bucks to be a professional and he was not able to do it this off-season as he allowed himself to get fat and unmotivated. However, so far so good this season as he seems to have heard the wake-up calls with JMac talking about him being moved to G. His injury in the pre-season seemed to come from him working too hard to whip himself back into shape (unfortunate physically but a good sign mentally). He took a bad penalty which cost us a TD in the redzone last week, but this was actually his only penalty so far this season in an OL and team which lacks discipline. Further amidst an OL which gave uop no sacks this week, was incredibly productive in the redzone against one of the better redzone Ds in the league and blocked for a 100 yard rusher, it was Williams who got a game ball. Moving him to guard in midseason may work but merely would be an experiment that may not work well at all either. Particularly with our LT likely gone in the off-season, it makes much more sense to me to keep demanding improvement from MW. Given the lack of solid coaching he has received in his brief career and putting the now of the league Pucillo next to him when he needed a Villareal next to him last year, it strikes me as panicling to call him a bust or to give up on him playing tackle right now. He is a big boy but has shown the athleticism to deal with speed rusher so far in his career. Tucker- He has really shown up for the Bills in Teague's stad and I am more than comfortable with him backing up several positions and pressing Teague for the starting center\s job. Price- He also is great for us to have as a back-up. The idea of making him a starter leaves us two holes to fill in my book as he is able to pull off a rare trick in that he is a credible back-up for both tackle positions. Pucillio- I actually just remembered he ain't gome but is one of our back-up guards. I don't think so and he needs to show some definite improvement or more likely be gone. McFarland- Journey man- Epositio, Pruce, Rodney, Peters- The precence of 4 linemen on our practice squad merely shows how desperate we are. It wouldn't surprise me if one of them is the next Tucker or Smith. In fact one of them had better be or getting a big name FA OL player will be a priority for us in the off-season.

My understanding of the tag is this: 1. The tag does lock a player into only negotiating with the team which originally has his rights and the choices are either make a deal or pay the player a salary without a bonus which is the average of the top 5 salaries for the franchise tag and the top 10 salaries for the transition tag. 2. The tag is a tender of an offer to a player, thus, if a player accepts the tender the club is bound to that contract. 3. The tag can be withdrawn by the team at any time IF the player has not accepted this tender. 4. Teams do not like to offer tenders through tags and players do not like to be tagged because both parties can generally make a far better deal for themselves through negotiation. Teams hate the tag because the cap hit for the salary is immediate and severely limits the room to negotiate which comes from paying a player an even larger amount of money but doing as much as possible as bonus so that the amount can be pro-rated over the life of the contract. Player's hate the tag because they can get much more money upfront and overall by negotiating a deal with a sizable bonus. What ICE suggests in terms of using the tag is generally not done in the NFL because it would not be the best deal for either party which can be done and because it exposes both parties to significant risks. The Bills would immediately have a huge burden on their cap which limits their room to operate. Further they run the risk that the cap figure for an OL player is so large that Jennings might actually accept this deal and the Bills are locked into it whether they want to withdraw or not. Jennings would likely not want this deal because he would be paid a large amount of money under it, but it would come on a per game basis rather than in a big chunk as a prorated bonus. In fact, were he to be cut prior to the 2nd week of the season he would not be entitled to the bulk of the money, though after the second week he would be guranteed all the money whether the Bills kept him or not. In sum total, if the Bills were to cap and pay Jennings they would essentially being going to war with this player. Worse, the huge cap hit would totally restrict TDs ability to negotiate other deals within the cap and build a team. For Jennings, he suddenly finds himself locked into a team who his contract hamstrings their ability to build a winner. Personally, what pays for him is to take as few risks as possible with his fragile body until after the 3nd week when the money is guaranteed. If the Bills attempted to use the tag purely as a negotiating tactic with the player, they run the risk that he will accept the deal really destroying the team's prospects for 2005. Alternately, they can bet he will not do this to his teammates (though the cap number for OL players is so high, if the Bills were going to stop me from going home and eliminate my contractual ability to negotiate, I might well accept their tender out of spite, make sure I didn't risk injury but didn't get blamed too much for lollygagging and take the big contract and see if they want to do it agin next year or let me go anyway but with big bucks now in my pocket. Even worse for the Bills as they attempt to attract FAs to the frozen tudra, they now will have to do this with a rep for playing hardball in contract negotiations. If they play hardball with Jennings it is questionable whether FAs like Spikes, Adams, Posey etcetera will choose to come here. ICE's tag proposal is fraught with risk and will force TD to go to war in building this team rather than doing what he has done in the past which is attract players here and actually get them to sign less lucrative contracts than they could have gotten elsewhere. Tags are applied in specific cases, and usually with a pretty good explanation by the team doing the tagging to the player tagged why this approach will actually result in both sides making out like bandits. An example of this is the Price tag and deal. Falcons owner Arthur Blank made the mistake of publicly promising to get Price in particular. He did this as it greatly satisfied his big investment Vick that the Falcs were going to pay for WRs for him and AT fans of the same. TG, seemingly with total communication with Price and his agent put the transition tag on Price because Blank had already guranteed that he would pay through the nose for him. Price seemed to operate in a manner where he expressed the appropriate dismay at getting tagged, but made a deal through the Bills with the Falcs that allowed him to be paid big bucks to go home. Unless you see some similar scenario for cooperation between Jennings and the Bills with some third party paying Jennings and the Bills to do what they want to do I do not see your scenario happening at all.

It's important. It's just not as important as folks make it out to be. It's an important part of building a good TEAM and the best are good at the draft and use it effectively. H9owever, my sense is that particularly under the salary cap attracting the best FAs at an affodable salary, making good FA investments in seemingly marginal players who become difference makers and making good UDFA signings are more important aspects to building a winning team than the draft. As teams begin to get the hang of the cap, making good trades has moved up from an impossibility to the point where it does not yet rival the draft in importance but making the right trades at the right time is also important. I have seen a nymber of pieces posted as though they were truisms that simply don't strike me as being the truth anymore. For example: 1. It's been said that you build a winning team through the draft (this usaully accompanies handwringing about us giving up our #1 to trade up for Losman)- one need only look at the method BB has used to build the best team in football, the Pats to see that the draft has played a supporting role in their efforts, but the acquisition of 14 or so players after June of 2001 was a key to building their first SB winnner and the acquisition of FA leaders like Rodney Harrison were critical to having the leadership on the current team. Again where the draft was critical to this team it has not been the widely focused upon high picks but actually a 6th round developmental pick of Tom Brady and their luck ogf having their 1st round selected QB go down has provided the greatest draft value to this team. 2. We're in desperate shape because we are without a 1st next year- Perhaps, but mostly I miss having a 1st that we could trade for a proven vet. Some of the most interesesting acquisitions I have seen in recent drafts were the use of a #2 by NE to get Dillon who may well be the missing link for this offense, the use of a future #1 by the Bills to get Bledsoe who successgully replaced RJ in his Peo Bowl year before going down the toilet his second year. However, this lost #1 was replaced by some fancy footwork by TD who then continued to be fancy using the new 1st rounder on a developmental pick of WM which seems to be paying off. As far as next year goes, if JP pays off like we hope he does this will be a pick well spent by the Bills. We now sit on a Travis Henry whom NFL pundits seem to judge as a tradeable commodity for a high pick if not a replacement #1 assuming WM continues to survive. At any rate, the lowering value of the draft is a feeing I jave which I will try to back up with some research as time allows, nut I'd be ovrjoyed if someone has a link to research that has a;ready been done on this or wish to do their own assessment on how winning teams were built. In the ned, I guess I am moved by really big bucks (and thus cap room) being allocated for very good players who were high picks like Manning and McNabb only to see these players team repeatedly fail to get to the big Dance only to see lower round picks like Brady and off the rack guys like Delhomme and Warner lead their teams to glory. Just a thought supported by some initial interesting findings.