Fake-Fat Sunny

I think it goes to far to say this CEO has failed in his field of endeavor because unfortunately his field of endeavor is wider than you and I as fans might focus on. As a fan my focus in on W/L as the measure if success and little else. However, as a CEO TD's field of endeavor revolves around the fact that the Bills are a business. As best as I can tell, under TD the business side of the Bills has done quite well, really improved some fundamentals from the days (not to long ago under the Butler regime) when the team sold tickets sorted into shoeboxes, and as long as we fools continue to putour fannies in the seats for an 0-4 team (which has sold out all their home dates so far and I think will sell out this Sunday for the Fish is doing fine and dandy). Certainly the business of running the Bills and the production of Ws, playoff wins and SB appearances are inextricably linked. The Bills cannot expect to put fannies in the seats and go 3-13 forever. However, we fans are so committed that clearly we don't require SB wins to make the Bills a profitbale business even here in the (relative for America) economic wastelands of WNY. In fact, we dod not even require playoff appearances to sellout all the seats and make it profitable for local business to back the Bills. Amazingly, this team can go 3-13 in the 2001 season and the mere appearance of an over-the-hill QB with two SB appearances can drive us into a frenzy where virtually every (if not every with a few strategic Ralph donations) seat gets sold. TD as a CEO has failed utterly managing this game as a sport, but has succeeded well managing this team as a business and extraordinarily so given the horrible product the team has put on the field during his time. There is alot to say whether he has in fact failed at his field of endeavor. he has to your and my mind, but it is easy for me to see that he has succeeded well in Ralph's mind and what Ralph thinks counts a wee bit more than what you and I think. Ralph's comments this weekend finally provide some public sense of the side of Ralph which will only grace this planet for a forseeable time. Perhaps he is driven by the side of him which is like my priority side as a fan which measure things first in terms of W/L. However, it ain't my bucks we're talking about and it is easy for me to imagine Ralph has a broader view of what's important than I do. My sense is that absent some sin like Polian ragging on his daughter that TD hangs around as long as he is under contract and it even is not impossible at all for me to imagine Ralph extending TDs contract if TD has sucked up to his boss in the usual American manner that leads to success and has a credible plan (even if it is a new 4 year plan) for delivering the Bills to glory. In the absence of a credible alternative for producing a winner (steal Belicheck from NE? Gibbs is back in DC, Parcells is not available and probably wouldn't work to improve things anyway , Marv anyone?) I think TD is here to stay at least he additional year he appears to be under contract.

I think you are correct that luck has a large part to do with this if only because the same number of fumbles will be seen as a huge problem or not much of a problem depending upon when they happen in games and whether they are returned for pivotal TDs or not. The first point can be related to player oerformance but is mostly determined by a combination of factors which add up to luck. the second factor is totally removed from the actual fumble and can be determined by what the other team or players do after the fumble. However, though this luck is a big factor it strikes me as incorrect to TOTALLY attribute fumble occurence to pure luck and to ignore the actions of an individual player. I see no evidence that Henry has changed the angle at which he carries the ball but have seen two changes in Henry's actions which appear to me to be a part of the improvement of his fumble performance: 1. He has made changes in when and how he switches hands- I no longer have the tape of several season ago, but Henry's fumbles as a youngster seem to me to accompany him simply carrying the ball and not effectively protecting it from the likely direction of tackles. It took a direct hit to dislodge the ball, but he did not take actions he could take to minimize the chances of a direct hit. Further, after a few fumbles he did seem to try to make a change in his game to place th ball out of harms way. Unfortunately initially he was seemed overly-concious of this and made a few switches that actually exposed the ball the greater danger as he switched it to the wrong side or loosed his grip making the switch. It was at this point that his fumble problem was at its worst and became a big problem. The functional change in his play that I saw was that Henry actually began to switch the ball around less because he never seemed to show good instincts for making the correct switch. He compensated for this by running with a little bit less abandon as his career progressed, but also had fewer fumbles. 2. The second switch in TH's play seemed to me to come from him making a noticeable effort to protect the ball and focus more on holding onto it. This could be seem im him going more to a two handed hold as soon as he was hit in order to protect the ball. He still displays the habit of letting go of the ball as soon as the play is whistled over (a reaction which occaisionally led to a scramble for the ball after the play was over and a claim by the opponents he had fumbled but less so as his career has gone on) but a viewer can see his increased use of two hand compared to him as a rookie and him protecting the ball after the play is over which he never used to do. I think these two factors (less switching of the ball and more focus on protecting it) are tangible differences which can be seen by the fan, unfortunately have resulted in him running with less abandon, but have paid off in his overall performance as he funbles much less and does not subject the team to the dumb luck of a fumble bouncing the wrong way and being returned for a score (as happened to him a few times early in his career). I think luck is a big factor, but henry has made changes in how he carries the ball which has created better luck for him. Tiki Barber has not made those changes and perhaps if he did he would lose his breakway speed which occaisionally turns into TDs for him, but i think he and TH are capable of changing their carrying styles to avoid funmbles. the question they have answered differently is whether the costs of making these changes on their running success was too high.

That's why the got JMac

My sense is that the players and most folks associated with the team have not given up on this season. From my point of view there is a difference between giving up on the hope of making the playoffs and giving up on the season. giving up on the season is an even more severe thing tod do and the team has not even totatlly given up yet on the hope of even making the playoffs as unlikely or impossible as that is. I believe this for several reasons: 1. It ain't over until its over- One thing which Wade proved to us when he gave up on the playoffs because it was virtually impossible for the team to make them only to see Indy make the playoffs with the same record is that it showed that no matter how rediculous one's limited hopes are you NEVER but NEVER give up until you are mathematically eliminated. The Bills have performed so badly in terms of W/L this season and against in conference opponents that we likely will be eliminated mathematically in record time, but part of being part of a TEAM and certainly being a fan of a TEAM is being insane and real rooters for the Bills have simply not given up no matter how stupid our hopes are. if foolish hope doesn't float your boat then give up on footbsll, the Lotto and the New York Stock Exchange and probably even marriage. 2. Ralph has to live a life- At whatever point Ralph fires TD he gives up on that season and unless he has a replacement strategy which he can publicly endorse then he also has made a bad business move which will not put fannies in the seats, sell beer, and provide him much entertainment in his life from this major investment. I find it unlikely that Ralph would fire TD during this season and probably prior to nest season since it appears TD is under contract next season unless there is a credible replacement plan for the future which will: A. makes Bills fans show up for games and at least hope for the future. B. provide Ralph with some fun entertainment and hope. The key to the claim you made in your thread is not a judgement of whether TD has done poorly (Clearly he has failed and failed badly based on the TEAMs record even if one recognizes the huge improvements under his guidance to the business side). but an assessment of whether he has any hope of doing better during the time left under his contract, but most importantly for both the TEAM's W/L and the Bills business WHO will do and like Drew Bledsoe or Doug Flutie bring some hope to this TEAM/business for the future. Your prediction of TD getting canned will certainly be right at some point as in football the only ones who avoid getting canned usually retire and often under pressure. Already in this thread you've given up on your initial incredibly unlikely prediction it will happen this year and wthout proposing a tangible alternative strategy which provides hope on both the W/L and business sides, a prediction he will be canned next year may end up being right out of coincidence but is pretty meaningless.

The article on the TBD site leading to some WM comments about Henry are great to see. I'm sure that the media would love nothing more than to have some type of Henry/WM dispute over PT, or some type of DB/JP redo of the RJ/Flutie controversy or something which allows them to write PFW articles or sell newpapers about this alleged fight. Get over it! Look, these are competive athletes and they all wish they were playing and if they are going to be good believe that they are the world's greatest athletes who can do the job if you just put them in coach. However, this is a team game and perhaps the ultimate team game as a team's fortunes are going to depend most on how well the team works together than how well some individual player stars. Granted there is a paradox in that how well the team performs is going to come down to an individual making the right effort and doing the right the thing at the right time. However, these star moments are ultimately just moments and the game has been designed and built so that the individual must depend upon his teammates because no one player is on the field all the time and everyone is going to have a bad moment with injuries or the ball taking a funny hop and a lesser player is simply going to have to pickup for the star if the team is going to do well. The disputes which the media (The Buff news, WGR, Pro Football Weekly. etc) feed serve the media's interests and not winning and the teams as their primary driver. The apolosits like Bills Digest (it really needs to strive to not be a house organ) and Channel 2 News also do not serve the fans interest as their primary driver since they clearly depend upon their access to feed their families. Both the apologists and the rabblerouser media are the best source of information we have about what is going on with the team, but just because they are the best is really different from saying they are good. In fact, the media is at its worst when they look to foment controversy were there isn't or try to play on the players good and natural competitiveness to try to emphasize things which create controversy. I think the Bills are far better off when they take the attitude offered by WM that Henry is the man and the RB as long as he produces and WM will simply have to make do even if it means he has to pretend to like it if he gets too few touches a game. Henry has committed obvious errors which could lead to it making sense to bench him (heading the wrong way on his cut on the aborted Bledsoe role out is only one of the key reasons this play blew up. his two slips were a big problem), but for now Henry gained almost 100 yards and he has played a man's game in the past and the team is helped most by him getting another chance to do well rather than sinking into some funk or a controversy even if it would sell papers. In fact Henry's errors make all the more reason for WM to shut the hell up and not to do something that causes a cancer on the team, because if Henry makes another round of similar errors to his slips or running the wrong way, he can easily be benched and WM will get his chance to shine without the stupid controversy. WM has waited almost a year and a half to recover physically to this point. There seems to be little he can do to determine whether this team makes the playoffs or not because he gets 24 touches instead of 12 over 3 games. It may suck for the media and some posters but the best thing for him to do is wait in silence for now and maybe sooner rather than later we will see him get 75 touches over 3 games because he is our feature back. Having an argument about this in publc will actually retard his progress if TD or MM dig in their heels to change.

Actually in order to be useful Bledsoe and Moulds need to take a leadership role and quite frankly deserve to do so because DB has been to the bigdance twice with a team he QB'ed there under Parcells and got a ring with Tom Brady doing the heavy lifting but Bledsoe playing QB in the majority of a must win game. Even if some players buy into the I hate Bledsoe idiocy of some posters, the receivers and RBs will need to listen because they have never even smelled the Big Dance as a teammember. Moulds can take a leadership role because though he also has never come near to securing the ultimate goal of all NFL players of getting to the Big Dance, he is the most talented player on the team who has earned a Pro Bowl nod from his peer and put big numbers in some seasons. He also needs to take a leadership role because like it or not in this society the history of African-Americans in this country is different than the history of Caucasians in this country and though it would be great if like a Colin Powell one's color doesn't block you from being part (I don't think race has caused him to be a lesser of Rumsfeld et al. its just politics) of the inner circle. There are still too many differences in the results achieved by the members of various races (the number of NFL HCs of Afriican-American heritage does not match the achievements of players of African-American heritage and the number of A-As who are players) for this issue to be simply ignored. It will be more effectiove if Moulds takes a positive leadership role in this meeting, though it strikes me as wholely appropriate for it to be Bledsoe's meeting because he is the only one with SB participant rings. At any rate, the key here to me is for both Bledsoe and Moulds to admit that their own play has been bad in terms of results in several cases. However, they have experienced what it means to suceed in this league and they themselves are committed to making the big personal effort to not make mistakes and improve their performance. They and any individual may fail as they get older. They may get beaten by a younger better player. However, the only way to get to the Big Dance is to go all out and try your hardest and even if you fail but you gave it your all then they have no regrets. Even better they have enough confidence in their teammates and themselves (despite their advancing age) that if they all give it their all they will win big. As long as Bledsoe and Moulds can make a credible case that they are giving it their all, I think they can demand of the rest of the crew that they give their all as well. Not being in the locker room I don't know whether there is too much partying or lack of focus from any of the receivers or RBs, but Bledsoe and I think Moulds can put a stop to it with the help of this type of meeting. Though it may be necessary it is far from sufficient as a simialar meeting needs to occur with the DBs (led by Milloy) by the DL led by Adams and by the OL (which will be tough because i don't think any of them have been there before so maybe Villarial can take a lead as the oldest player. I like the fact that MM seems to have had a team meeting where he did not call out individual players as idiots, but showed film of bad plays which created an opportunity for internal discipline. the players involved are too rich individually and have a history of being pamepered athletes in college. They need the discipline that an HC like a Parcells provides as want it. However, in the growing partnership between the NFL and NFLPA the players must give permission to the HC to discipline them. When the HC simply rants and raves and throws his weight around, the result is usually like a Coughlin who does well intially in Jax but loses his team and players in the medium run and then loses his job. If MM finds a way to do his version of Parcells like discipline he will do fine, but if he falls back to ranting and raving like Coughlin or stupid tricks which are not real like GWs airhorn or opportunity laps then start looking for a new HC.

My apologies for briefly diverging from Bills talk (but as this season hasN't yet but is quickly going south I feel comfortable asking a community question which has nothing to do with political feel free to flameaway sarcastically if it floats your boat as posts that give little real information on folks perspectives can easily be ignored). Intrigued by the scribblings of a lot of critics who seemed to be absolutely wetting their pants over what they called "The Best New Show on TV" (faint praise acTually given the crap now on TV) my wife and I taped the first episode of Lost and sat down together to watch it> We didn't get it. The first episode seemed to spend its time mysteriously introducing you to characters rather than building up good ensemble acting (fine as it takes some time to show and build a good ensemble cast). However, the characters introduced seemed to be mostly stock characters (the mysterious competent doctor, hIs likely love interest who was cute but tough enough to stomach sewing up his wound without anesthetic. the comic foil who went with them On a journey to find a transmitter and found a wounded pilot who survived long enough to advance the plot and be killed by a mysterious beat, the selfish guy you can hate because he doesn't speak English as his first language and the dark and foreboding guy who doesn't say much but seems evil because he is a smoker and probably there will be a plot twist that he was not as evil as his smoking telegraphed and so on. All of these characters seemed not simply to be stock players who would turn out either to be as bad as brutishly telegraphed or actually will turn out to have a heart of gold through the inspiration of one of the lead good guys or will turn out to be as bad as ham-handedly advertised and die some brutal JuraSsic Park death. We're happy to be manipulated for fun, but fun for us means that at least the manipulation allows you to suspend disbelief and weird things kept popping up which took us out of the story (is any airline going to overlook the liability concerns of a possible childbirth to let a late term preganant woman fly, yes folks will be stupidly self-centered to hoard stuff they might need to survive, but are people just post a plane Rosen going to be stupidly self-centered about maintaining a trim figure, when will hero Matthew Fox reveal to questioning that no he never went to Med School but he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night) and so on. So at any rate, we just didn't get it. This can easily be that we missed something because we are too stupid. If so, please let me know why this is one of the most talked about and critically acclaimed shows of what is turning into a 365 day season of reality shows and not nothing.

Unfortunately the paychecks are sp big these days {even the minimum is more money than most of these guys have ever seen before and even the stupid one who have no sense of how much it takes to be set for life feel incredibly rich} that it is questionable how good fines are as a tool for adjusting attitudes or even getting a players attention I think showing the mistakes to the whole crew in extra meeting time and setting it up so that the players will discipline the<selves and each other is a good start> The disciplined play problems are so long term and widespread it will take a lot of other things but its a start The best thing I"ve heard from the the bills regarding discipline and message actually happened when Milloy joined the team last year and the players laughed in a film session when one of the blockers got bowled over Milloy called them all on their reaction and said one that a champions reaction to the film should have been anger rather than amusement that one oftheir own got beat and that they should have demanded but given support to that olayer to get better rather than laughing about it like it was funny Posters have called for more discipline on this team which is correct but have mentioned parcells and coughlin as examples of how an hc bring this without the realization that they are both disciplinarians but take very different approaches I think the proof is in the pudding that the Parcells approach is the better method and that the Coughlin my way or the highway approach has short term success but is a prime reason why that team went south and he got canned Parcells recognizes that you can only discipline the spolied brats in the nfl (particularly within the context of the growing partnership btw the NFL and NFLPA) with the permission of the players Parcells seems to recognize that the best weapon you can have with the players is for them to be fiercely loyal to you because they know you will be fiercely loyal to them as long as you work hard for your teammates Once he gets the players permission and respect (something more easily achieved by him given his success) then they discipline each other and he only needs to play a heavy hand in special cases and it needs to be seen by the players as retribuion against a player not for breaking some arbitray ule (like Coughlins anti sunglasses edict) but for letting down their teammates Parcells has the ability to point out players individual failings but does so using his great sense of humor and his sharp comments are clothed in humor that makes it attack on the play failings and not on the player I"m happy to see mm take the step of using a heavy hand to deal with our huge discipline issues but I hope he looks for and finds an opportunity to simply cut some player who does something which can be categorized as letting down his teammates in addition to his poor play It will work best if it is actually a player in a position of responsibility whom he feels we have an adequate backup for them This seemed to be the case with him firing Q Carter for letting down his teammates with his drug usage and Parcells sense that Vinny could do an acceptable job If the MM technique is A Put the players in a posiion to discipline each other through his film showing episode B Encourage the few Bills with winning SB experience {Milloy Bledsoe whomever} and respect {Vincent whomever} to lead this team and do internal discipline C Take the first opportunity he can find to fire somebody for letting down his teammates with off field excesses that without saying it are tied to onfield discipline mistakes I think he can get this done Im not saying this is what is right but from what Ive seen of the modern NFL this is what works

Maybe it will hurt his development maybe not. If he ends up focusing more on being a leader of men because he is going to play than focusing on making throws that maximize his talent and being able to anticipate and understand Xs and Os he probably will be using the wrong priority. If he is the next Joe Montana it probably won't hurt him as he will be able to do both even with the wrong priority. However, if he is a normal person taking the wrong focus and not doing first things first will hurt him. The smart bet sees to me to have be our disaster QB at most and it may turn out that this injury proves to be the best thing that could have happened to his development if it means that he has spent most of his time the last 4 weeks and the next four weeks with Sam Wyche rather than spending it with Lee Evans.

The Peyton argument is actually the reason why JP needs to focus on off the field lessons first and if he gets those or at least the responsiblity of playing real football does not take precedence over his big need to learn the game and to work on his mechanics then and only then should he focus on learning to play against NFL speed opponents and the other items which only come from playing. My meory is that when Manning came up, he did somethings extraordinarily well: The quick release was already there. The ability to understand and anticipate the right NFL offensive moves was already there from growing up in Archie's family. I don't remember there being any big issue with his mechanics like throwing off the wrong foot or doing things differently almost everytime. These were critical because the quick release minimized his chances for injury, the early ability to be a coach meant that his classroom needs were minimal. He did not need to work through his own mechanics in order to build chemistry with his teammates. Manning really profited from playing because he still was not a good enough QB to win an NFL game because he needed to play against better opponents as his physical athleticism did not and really would never be better than his opponents. By playing the game Manning worked on the things he needed to work on to become a quality NFL QB. Alll rookies need BOTH the classroom and the playtime to improve, but Manning already had the smarts on the game from growing up in the Manning household and I remeber there being no big mechnical issue and the stuff you only get playing was his primary need. Losman on the other hand brings a number of great skill to the game. His leadership ability as a cocky kid and an athleticism that allows him to play like a linebacker in a QBs body are exceptional. He will need to step it up a notcj plus like all college boys to play at NFL speeds, but this is not his primary issue. His primary issues appear to be: 1. He played in a freelance offense if not by design certainly by performance as his blocking routinely broke down and he and the offense would make plays on the fly. He will need to learn the rigid NFL style in away that it becomes second nature to him. he will need to throw the same way everytime because in the over-systematized NFL that is ehat the O is designed to do. 2. He does have an identified issue with his mechanics as he became used to throwing however he deemed necessary. This led to him occaisionally throwing off the wrong foot and other issues which do not maximize the use of his ability. You get away with it in college and maybe even throw a TD. You get killed in the pros. Don't get me wrong, I think JP needs and will benefit greatly from playing the game. The chemistry he buiilds with Evans and others will make him far more productive. However, first things first because being human he almost certainly won't do everything. From what I see and here, Losman will develop into the best QB he can be by focusing his time and attention on practicing without the pressure to freelance of throwing the ball the the same way every time and getting down his mechanics. He will profit most from watching film and breaking down goffenses with Wyche to get him as close as he can be to the Jim Kelly mark of being a coach on the field. I doubt seriously he is at that point yet. I would much rather see Losman as our disaster QB worrying about hitting the books and throwing a million passes focusing on his arm motion than having him worry about opponents hitting him and worrying about the motions Lee Evans takes running routes. I know folks are disappointed in (or hate Drew) but letting this drive your desire to see JP play is almost certainly counter to his development.

Prioleau came into the league and attracted the bills interest because of his strong safety play He convinced the Bills to give him a long term contract by his play where he racked up a sack< forced a fumble and even got an int though the play got called back by a holding call which was away from the int> i"ve always felt he was a better player than either wire or reese< but clearly the bills braintrust never saw it that way> he has always stuck with the Bills despite various calls by fans and others to get rid of him because he simply has made plays like his blocked punt last year< staying in his lane but still ranging all the way across the field to tackle santana moss after he deked out wire and Stevenson for a big punt return and several td saving tackles after watson and othe idiots got burned> I think he may unfortunately be past his peak but i have more confidence in him than i have in wire (or reese or that matter

first do you really think that what applies to PM given his skills as a rookie and what apoplies to JP given his skills is a direct correlaton and makes an argument for developing Losman the same way Second do you really think you learn nothing sitting on the sideline your first year given the experiences of tow more recent NFL rookie qbs Pennington and vick who sat out their first year for the most part and led their teams to the playoffs their second years My sense is that though it would be silly to say simply because PM bennifitted one must do things the same way with jp there are lessons to be learned here However the lessons point toward JP developing best from focusing on watching offenses from above and consulting directly with wyche on what he is seeing and spending time in practice working on his mechanics As a rookie PM already had the instincts to read offenses and the smarts of sitting at his Archies knee that Losman needs to develop and can get from Wyche sitting PM has never been the athlete a VIcK OR even a JP is in escapability and benefitted from playing at NFL speeds> JP is no Vick _ is anyone_ but he strikes me as someone whose real development needs are much more like the classroom needs of Vick rather than the onfield needs of PM In a perfect world one would do both< but as Kyle Boller found just as you gain things playing at NFL speeds you never could get from sitting and watching you also gain things from sitting and watching without the essential distraction of preparing yourself to play that you cannot get from carrying the clipboard as potential backup or playing and running for your life By far it appears to me that Losman will develop into a better qb for the Bills in the longrun and maybe even next year by sitting and learning this year and perfecting his mechanics in practice with wyche

I think it is pretty sad that some folks are arguing that we should rush to play Losman because Beldsoe sucks and quite frankly I will not be upset if he does not play at all this year. 1. Yes, Bledsoe sucks but this has nothing to do with deciding to play JP until JP is physically and mentally ready to play. Physically he is ahead of schedule and running and practicing, but from what the docs say he is at least a couple of weeks away from being ready for contact. Even when he is ready for physical contact, Losman has yet to show that mentally he is anything but a rookie QB who played behind a sub-standard line at Tulane which got him use to having to make great throws to play the college game, but left him a long way from having the mechanics and the predictability NFL receivers require for him to suceed at the Pro game. 2, The Bills have real world experience with the effects of rushing a QB along to play after they waited a year too late to draft and develop a replacement for Jim Kelly. Instead they over-reached to draft Todd Collins and then rushed him along before he was capable as Kelly was forced to retire by his play against Jax. Collins had a few positives but never beat the happy-feet he developed from being thrown in to play before his college problems were ironed out. 3. The idea that a 1st round drafted QB must play his first year or drafting him was a mistake is simply wrong. Vick sat except for a few mop-up jobs and learned the game and got his team to the playoffs his second year. Chad Pennington was drafted in the first round and sat and learned his first year and steered his team to the playoffs his second year. Carson Palmer was picked early last year and sat all season. The idea that a player drafted in the 1st round must play or he is some kind of bust is simply wrong. 4. Even worse there is a credible case to be made that some of the players chosen in the first and deemed tradable or cuttable busts were really rushed along found lacking and then Dilfer, Steve Young and Brett Farve went on to other teams where they won SBs. 5. Even worse even the best QBs who do start their first year contribute nothing to the teams W/L generally as they learn the game, Manning was 3-13 his first year and his major contributions to the team were not getting hurt (the only player to start all 16 games as a QB that year) and to have the team produce badly enouh under his leadership to get Edgerrin James. Troy Aikman won 2 SBs but was 0-11 as a rookie starter. One might argue that he might learn the game as a starter but arguing that he will be productive has little reality in the NFL. 6. QB is just a too high of an injury position in the NFL that you would use the position simply for practice. Vick and Pennington learned enough on the bench as rookies that they led their teams to the playoffs their second year without the benefit of having played as rookies. Even still both these players were removed from their teams by injuries their third years. Risking JP to win games is part of the game once he learns how to be a Pro, risking injury just to get him practice is not good for him or for they team and players have succeeded in helping their teams even when they sat as rookies. 7. What dies Losman need to become a good NFL QB. I'd love for him to be able to do it all and see him play. I hope he is perfect. However, few rookies are and I do not expect JP to be, In fact the deficits in his game which I believe he has to work on are probably done better from the booth at Sam Wyche's side learning NFL offenses and om tje sidelines rather than running the scout team practicing his mechanics under Wyche's eye. If the Bills braintrust judge Losman to be so recovered from injury, so incontrol of the playbook, motivated by NFL instincts rather than by bad lessons learned running for his life at Tulane I say start him and bench Bledsoe as well. However, I really really alot really sort of alo really doubt this will occur. Sitting Losman by far seems to be the best thing to do for his development. Fans may want him to play but it strikes me it will be to their benefit because they have given up on Bledsoe rather than for Losman's benefit. I love JP athleticism and his leadership ability, but these are just the things that playing at nfl speeds will give him. Assuming that reality will reign I hope he sits except for a little mop-up duty late in the season. I f someone wants to make the case that they are sure Losman will be far more productive than Manning or Aikman were as rookies or why he will not be able to pull off what Pennington did as a second year player who sat hs rokie year then I'm all eyes.

Since I think that JP will develop into a far more competent QB if like Pennington and Vick he sits and learns his first year rather than being thrown in to play, they can use any excuse they want for me to keep him in the press box learning the game from Wyche rather than carrying the clipboard or replaying his learning of bad mechanics and habits which got playing on the run behind Tulane's line. It might be exciting for some fans to see Bledsoe forced to sit and watch JP behind an inadequate Bills OL, but i doubt it will be in the best interests of JP developing into an NFL QB.

My sense and comments are these: 1. I think you overclaim when you say JMac came here as a savior. In fact he himself said right from the start even before he was hired that people should not expect him to be a miracle worker. I think most semi-knowlegable watchers and JMac himself knew that he was not going to be a savior for this team and that the Bills faced a long road to improvement of their OL play. 2. The real question to ask about JMac is not whether he has produced miraculous improvement of the OL (he won't) but simply whether he is a better OL coach than Vinklarek or Ruel. I think the flat-out answer to this is YES, if only not because JMac is so great but because Vinklarek (no NFL experience as an OL coach when he took the job) and Ruel (1 year of OL coach experience with Detroit) were so bad and not ready for primetime. I think a realistic assessment of our OL under JMac is this: 1. Like any coach he had to work with what he had and what he could get. What he had was: A. Some good young talent that had produced some in other places I. Jennings had been productive in pass pro and run in his short career but there were significant questions regarding his health and his future after FA next year. II. LG was a hole since RB had worn out his welcome and the candidates for the job like Pacillo had failed in their RG gigs. III. Teague was a bright guy but somewhat undersized to take on the behemoths now playing DT in the NFL and in the division. He showed pretty well at an LT in Denver but not so well that finding a new spot for him was a bad idea. IV. Villarial was a vet replacement for RB but not the same as even if he was a better player he is new to the team. V. Mike Williams showed promise as a $4 but he had not developed into a dominant player under Vinky and Ruel that demanded the LT slot which might soon be open. The back-ups looked OK like Price and Tucker but they were back-ups and no clear starters from this crew. B. Some good production in run blocking as Henry had impressed two years in a row but pass pro (particularly in front of an immobile QB) had been a real adventure 2. He has run into a set of additional problems which are probably not his fault because he just got here and injuries happen. Though he didn't create these problems it is his job to fix them. these problems include: A. I still think it is too early to declare Mike Williams a bust, but he has disappointed in what one hopes a #4 pick would do. he really has had substandard coaching development under Vinky/Ruel. He ended up being the beter player playing next to Pacillo in his second year when he really should have gotten the vet help a Villarial can now give him and he needed. Further, our O scheme was so stupidly pass happy it neither played to the teams strengths nor set a good tone. Add to that his total meltdown which was unprofessional but who cares about money when a family member dies and Williams has simply sucked and needs a psychologist as much as an adult position coach. B. The injury bug has hit us in a serious way, Furst Williams overextended trying to make it back from his failings. The first game OL play was pretty good, but the wheels came off in the second game. The thrid game play was pretty good for three quarters but once again with a concussion to Jennings and Teague going out in the second quarter the wheels came off and the OL play sucked. Overall, I am displeased with the results but see no rational reason to be displeased with even the output from JMacs work. 1. He dealt well with the Williams meltdown and he seems to have bounced back from being a child to at least trying to play like a Pro. Williams was further sloed by the injury but if he and the team stay the course with him through the season he can be not simply a credible choice at RT but can possibly begin to produce like a #4 pick should. 2, We are in a bad place with no credible replacement for RB, However, Smith looks like a find that JMac will get deserved credit for developing him well if he can improve his play over the course of the season. The tripping of Drew on Sunday is the type of mistake a rookie guard makes, if this is the magnitude of the problems this season from a UDFA, then JMac has made a real find. 3. There are many reasons for the poor sack numbers in the last two games. However, ot see,s farfetched to me to simply blame them on JMac no being a saviour. He and the OL got even better production out of them than I expected in the 1st game given their results last year and Williams problems. The poor production in the 2nd game might be a sign of problems but also can be a sign of a team playing on the road with the base problems they had last year. The 3rd game showed a clear difference between performance in the forst three quarters and performance in the last quarter. Simply attributing this difference o coaching seems far fetched, attributing it to an inability of the team to deal with two major changes as first Teague and then Jenning went down seems a lot more reasonable. So my comments are (this is the Cliffnotes for those so inclined or forced): 1. The JMac coached OL has been up and down in producing the result we want. 2. The 1 game and 3 quarters of adequate play indicate to me that though he is no savior he has been a part of producing far better production than I expected for a majority of the time the OL has played. Though the game and a quarter of failure was an important reason for two of the three losses, I think it seems far more likely and much more intelligent to attribute this to simply being overmatched by players on the road against Oakland and the two bug injuries which hit the OL playing against better NE players when theOL simply could not protect a less than mobile QB when he and his RB "fail to communicate" on which way to run a fake.

Look, first Losman should not be rushed back to his detriment simply because Drew sux. Some fans may want this, but there is an extremely strong case to be made that even when he is healthy, Losman will develop better as our disaster QB than being forced in as the starter. 1, He should not play at all until healthy, Even with his recovery thankfully on a fast track it does not sound like he will be ready for even the practice field physically for a couple of weeks, When he resumes practice it will still be several weeks for him to get the practice reps necessary to be a credible starter (can help the team with his play and can protect himself) even if he is on a fasttrack and there are questions whether the quality of play will allow that or not since he is a rookie. 2. When you look at his game, leadership seems to be a strength and athletic ability seems to be a strength. His weaknesses seem to be development of poor mechanics and bad habits playing behind the jailbreak Tulane line a need to learn NFL offenses like any rookie, In other words, there is no replacement for the benefits of playing, but his primary needs for improvement are most likely found listening to Sam Wyche in the pressbox and practicing his mechanics under Sams eye than playing the game. Don't get me wrong, ultimately playing gives you something the classroom can't, but as Kyle Boller said in the draft from his experience being an immediate starter at QB for the Ravens who was forced by injury to sit and watch, there are things you can learn in the class room and in the pressbox that you cannot focus on if your are preparing to play and lead or carry the clipboard. By far Losman strikes me as someone who will develop better following the Michael Vick/Chad Pennington/Tim Crouch model of sitting and learning than he will develop from following the initial (pre-injury) Kyle Goller model or goshforbid the rush him in before he is ready Todd Collins model. it may satisfy some fans to see JP play, but after like the rookie Peyton Manning he goes 3-13 pr the rokie Troy Aikman he goes 0-11 as a starter I worry that not only will he fail to develop like these two or are among the best QBs ever, but more likely fans will quickly declare him a failed draft pick as they vent their dislike for TD and like fans who ran Steve Young, Brett Farve and Trent Dilfer out of town when they were early losers thrown to the wolves to fast, so too will uneducated fans give up on Losman;s rookie failures he will almost certainly have. Bledsoe may suck, but this is no reason to rush Losman along. if Bledsoe must sit then I hope we see Shane Matthews. He sux also but he won't be distracted from development like Losman and who cares if he is killed because this season ain't over yet but has likely already been lost for a range of reasons. Playing Losman likely won't change that, will not bring a focus to areas of work Losman needs, and likely will not help the Bills in the short or long term.

I disagree, trading Bledsoe ended up being as damaging for NE as for the Bills during the time-period mandated by the trade. 2002 was a big plus for us as we upgraded from RJ/AVP steering this team to 3-13 while Drew steeered the squad to 8-8. This on the field improvement was one of the biggest turnarounds in NFL history and Bledsoe's play was a big part of this turnaround (though far from all of it) There were negatives to his game such as BB undressing him bigtime because he knew Bledsoe and his weaknesses so well. However, even with the two losses to NE finishing at 8-8 was a huge turnaround for the Bills and much more can't be expected. From NE's perspective they clearly made the correct move going with Brady over Bledsoe, however, this does not eradicate the negative effect of having to dump Bledsoe as his accelerated cap hit can really be said to be a big part of NE going from being an SB winner to missing the playoffs the next season. This trade was rediculously in TDs favo that year when comparing it to NEs production under BB. 2003 saw a huge turnaround in the results of this trade. However, the assessment is more about Bledsoe's sucky play for us than saying much about NE. They simply made the correct obvious choice going with the better younger QB and if they deserve much credit it is for taking the Bledsoe hit in one fell swoop the year before rather than simply marooning him on the bench in case they wanted him to play the same role as a back-up for Brady he played in a must win game for them in their 2001 SB run. the story here was the horrendous production outage by Bledsoe last year. Still on the whole this simply made his play a wash for the Bills (great in 2002 and sucky in 2003). The mistake was not looking elsewhere this off-season of if one must resign not having a credible plan B beyond Travis brown or a rookie QB. The idea that BB raped the Bills is simply not borne out in the results of 2002 in the real world. The thought offered in another post that there was some economic disadvantage for the Bills in making this trade is false also as NE subsidized our having him at a curate salary for a starting QB in 2002 and 2003. Even resigning him in 2004 was economically fine because his new deal is pretty cap friendly and even by cutting him after June 1, 2005 we can go elsewhere next season without a huge cap problem. The problem is one of the Bills braintrust making a poor assessment if how much he had left this year and not having a credible plan B for him from Travis Brown and a rookie QB even before their injuries.

Thanks to all for the feedback. As far as the Bledsoe v. Blake v. Kitna theory, much of this is simply theory (as that is what us fans actually thrive on so its finr with me) as what happened happened and what didn't didn't so one can't know for sure. Hpwever, frp, wjat happened, Kitna may well have been a better bet than Bledsoe but given his sorry previous performance out west I don't know anyone who would have had the foresight of how he performed under Marvin Lewis last year to make this deal. Hinsght is all over this one. As far as Blake there is some foresight here as getting him was certinly possible for the Bills, but I feel much better about his being a player to have as a back-up for Delhomme than relying on him to be my starter so he is simply an unproven quantity. It still strikes me in terms of what happened in the real world that TD picking up Bledsoe in 2002 was a good move, He paid off for us on the field with a great performance in 2002 that in my mind merited his Pro Bowl nod (if you condemn him as a loser everywhere which runs counter to him making the SB and earning a ring in the SB later who would you have chosen for the 2002 Pro Bowl instead of him). Even moreso in terms of the realworld he paid off for the Bills and TD on the business side as he reignited a Flutie like excitement about football here after a 3-13 season. There were definite downsides to his game even early on, but even with BB undressing him twice in 2002 we improved to an 8-8 record which was the second biggest turnaround by a team in NFL history and NE failed to make the playoffs after their SB win struggling under the accelerated cap hit of trading away Bledsoe. I think TD clearly got the better of the deal for the 2002 season over Belichick, Nevertheless, Bledsoe's horrible play last year mandated cutting our loses by cutting him and looking elsewhere last off-season. i was willing to believe the experts and the NFL pundits in resigning him once he areed to a cap friendly deal, but even me as an outsider recognized that his poor play last year called for a solid plan B to be in place for the Bills in case Bledsoe's play continued to suck and the unproven Brown and rookie Losman were never those Plan Bs even before their injuries. Like most voters I do not accept that Bledsoe was always a loser or that he has always been a god. TD made a great move to get him (particularly when he got the 1st round pick back by turning nothing into something for Peerless) but he failed big time in not simply cutting him and our losses and failed utterly in not getting a good plan B for Bledsoe once he resigned him to a cap friendly deal.

It certainly is funny to see how folks lambasted Teague and his play in the past and now that he is gone, they declare us as being lost without him. Folks can't have it both way. Anyone who complained about Teague should be dancing with joy now. I think the big issue for the Bills is that Tucker better be the smart-Princeton boy we hope he is or we are in big trouble. If not perhaps Sobieski is bback sooner than anyone would have guessed when he got cut.

Cliffnotes begin: Oops Sorry. Cliffnotes end As i have noted a few times, i tend to post to think these things through for myself and though i love the feedback and ideas from folks reading them, i do often post for my own head. At any rate, I should be a bit more pithy because not everyone has the advantage i have of being my own boss (I fight my boss like a cat sometimes, but i always win) and i do appreciate the insights of others. Mostly, I tend to rant on too long because particularly after a loss, much of the analysis on TSW is so simplistic and so wrong it can take a book to point out the reasons why. For example: Losman should not start because; 1. He is injured and can't even play right now and even though thankfully his recovery is ahead of schedule it will take a good 3-4 weeks after he can resume playing before he is remotely even able to practice enough to play, His injury makes starting him a non-issue until at least week 8-10 even with a speedy recovery. 2. He is a rookie and will not help the team with Ws. if you don't believe me look at the records of rookie starters like Manning and Aikman. No one mistakes Losman for Manning and even when a rookie can help a team put up Ws it has more to do with Balts D picking up for Boller and Tampa Bay and Dungy's D picking up for whatever their rookie QBs name was when they were good under a rookie QB. 3. Injury is simply a big issue for any QB in this league and I shudder thinking about rushing Losman out there behind this line. if you really care about the future prospects of the Bills better to put Bledsoe out there for sacrifice this year than rush Losman end to get knicked again since he already has goned own in practice. Like all players he will get some benefit to his game playing at NFL speeds, but athleticism and the ability to lead is the least of his needs for work and learning NFL and the Bills O are greater needs to develop him as a QB. His development will get so much more from being with Sam Wyche in the pressbox rather than replicating his Tulane experience behind a Bills O-line it isn;t even funny. Sorry for going on so long, but the idea of rushing him in as a starter is simply against the Bills interest. if anyone is interested I suggest waiting til you get home and dodging your wife (or significan other) rather than your boss.

This post is simply not true on a signficant number of plays on Sunday. Brady was great on Sunday, but it was not simply him deliverinmg the ball quickly, but it was also him being smart enough to recognize when his blockers were holding the Bills and hanging onto the ball. If you want specifics: 1. On several plays, it wasn't that Brady released the ball quickly, it was that his blockers gave him enough time to hold the ball while his receivers ran downfield crossing patterns, For example, on the TD to Patten it took a bit of time and the blockers gave it to Brady for his receiver to cross the entire field and get downfield to be open when Coy Wire was unable to run through the picks of crossing players to cover Patten. They ran this type of play several times. 2. Likewise their was one play in the endzone where Brday was huge in holding onto the ball for several seconds while the Bills mounted an ineffective rush and a Pats receiver finally broke free for a gain off their goaline. 3. Another example was the 1st and 35 pass play where the Pats picked up 44 on a long downfield catch that was more pass than RAC. Brady is a great QB and knows and reads his blockers well, he throws both the good quick timing pass and waits when he has the opportunity. However, there were too many cases on Sunday where the Bills rush simply did not do the job and Brady correctly waited rather than releasing the ball like Marino.

I think Gray has done pretty well adapting to use of the LeBeau runblitz even without LeBeau. This is not surprising in that as the caller of the teams plays last year as DC he had to know the scheme cold. Sunday's adventure was unfortunately interesting. Gray had show mastery of the scheme his first two games holding opponents to an average of 13/game, but he ran into an unflappable Brady who played a great game and RBs who picked up the blitz incredibly well (the play where Dillon disrupted the Posey rush and jumped up to receive the pass was phenomenal). One does wonder and I have will have to go back to the tape whether the problem here was not simply lack of a rush by our DEs (where were Shobel, Kelsay and Denny as the team recorded no sacks) but actually the zone blitz put theDEs in a short zone coverage and actually it was the onrushing LBs like Posey who were stopped by great efforts from the RBs and Brady. The game really merits a second look in order to do good analysis of our D and its failings.

Sure, the list should actually be a fairly recent one as it is a very different NFL today from the one Jim kelly was drafted into back in 1983 as the far more complex and over-systematized NFL and the growing size and speed of LBs makes this a very different NFL than the past and recent examples are far better than old examples. 1. Eased in QBs who exprienced success: A. Michael Vick sat his first year for the most part and learned the game and led his team to the playoffs. B. Chad Pennington sat and learned his first year and led his team to the playoffs his second year. Losman has far more in common with talent level with Pennington than with Vick but both of these players provide good examples of the route of seeing JP as little more than our disaster QB this year and playing next year. 2. Highly drafted QBs who sat their 1st year A. Carson Palmer sat all last year before being anointed the starter this year. B. Chris Simms was drafted fairly high (but not in the 1st round if memory serves me correctly) and seems to be a good bet to start for his team but sat early. The jury is still out on these examples along with the above two but they show that the notion that a QB drafted early must start immediately is simply not true. 3. Highly drafted QBs who were thrown into the fire immediately. A. Kyle Boller started for Balt last year and put up a reasonable though not outstanding record as a rookie before a season ending injury. B.If you want to go back a little wayPeyton Manning 3-13 his first year. C. If you want to go back too long away to be relevant to JP Aikman started as a rookie and finished 0-11 as a starter. D. Mos relevant to our casr because he was a Bill is probably the Todd Collins example. the list is #3 goes somewhat far afield but it is instructive for this issue: A. Giving JP a start this year would be hailed as a great move by Bill Parcells because it would likely make the Bills 2005 first round pick now owned by Dallas a top 5 draft pick. If JP survived this trial by fire, like Manning and Aikman he might use the experience to become one of the best ever, but anyone who wants JP to start now to help this team win now is saddly mistaken in understanding past history. Far better players than JP (do you think he is as good as Manning or Aikman) delivered nothing to the bottomline for their teams as rookies and the same is probably true of JP. B. Actually, given the recent history of even bigger even faste defenders in the NFL than when Aikman or Manning were drafted and given that JP's injury history is now one of a olayer who can be damaged even in practice, it seems unlikely to me that he would even survive to see the end of the season if pressed into service now before he learns better how to protect himself. Even players like Vick, Pennington and Boller who probably brought a combination of athleticism and expereince to the table that equals JP proved unable to survive when relied upon as NFL starting QBs. A real key to using JP as a starter it seems to be is his #2 because it is not unlikely that he will see some significant playing time. C. The lead example for the Bills to take note of from this list however is Todd Collins who to me shows what can happen when you manage your QBs poorly and bring them along too fast. The Bills braintrust fell in love with the good parts of his game (accuracy and came from a good school) and unfortunately probably overdrafted to get him (because they waited a year too long to breed a replacement for Kelly) and rushed him into a situation he was not up to and thus excentuated his tendency to have happy feet. Overall, there are a number of clear recent examples of highly drafted QBs who sat and learned their first years and produced some good payoff later. Further, there are examples of teams intelligently expecting highly drafted QBs to bring a payoff later without real concern of them being declared a bust if they did not contribute their first year. Finally, the key for QB development is clearly patience. Look, teams expected a lot early from players like Farve, Steve Young and even Elway (who forced a trade immediately but it took years and years for him to deliver an SB win) and rushing these players is not the thing to do. Even Kyle Boller who pulled off a rarity and was productive as a rookie QB starter remarked during the draft this year that the surprising thing to him after his season-ending injury was that there are things a QB can learn sitting that he can never learn playing. JP as a real player strikes me much more as a player who needs to learn offenses, needs to learn mechanics like always throwing the same way to pro receivers and off the correct foot more than he can benefit from learning to play at NFL speed. Being disaster QB and being in the booth dstrikes me as the best way to develop him for the Bills for the longer term even though it may satisfy some fans more right now to see Bledsoe sit. I don't think much of Shane matthews as a player and if it weren't for injury he should be at home on the couch, but if YOU want to sit Bledsoe I'd rather the Bills go with matthews rather than Losman because I think he will develop better soaking up Sam Wyche's knowledge in the booth than he will trying to prepare himself to play or carry the clipboard so he doesn't pull a Billy Joe Hobert.

It's obvious that the Bills OL play is unacceptable, but the TMQ cut you describe does seem to want to use part of the facts to support their pre-selected narrative rather than using all the facts to create a narrative. Unfortunately it seems to me that the whole of the facts are uglu and somewhat contradictory and will not support a simple narrative of declared statements which make for good writing within the space constraints of a column sold by the author for whatever substantial nickels he makes from his product. A real OL analysis to me is one that lends itself to few simple solutions or explanations and unfortunately is going to take some time and likely some off-season changes in personnel to make it right. Overall, I'd say the important things to consider are: 1. given the lousy job Vinky and Ruel did schooling and teaching our crew, 2. some failings we have with needing good experienced leadership of this crew when at best we stood still with replacing Ruben with Villarial, and 3. some bad luck with injuries to the substandard folks we do have (Teague, Jennings) it is simply stupid to claim that the failure of the Bills OL to mircaulously improve from last year is an indicator of bad coaching. It certainly may not be good coaching from JMac (this remains to be truly assesed after 3 games) but to ignore the bad start we had under Vinky and Ruel, the lack of internal experienced leadership from the players and the impact of injuries to our starting center and starting LT as at least having some impact on our fourth quarter play Sunday and to attribute it all to bad coach is simply dumb and shows limited application of football knowledge. JMac was right when he said when he was hired that he was no miracle worker. He does not walk on water last time I saw him. Unfortunately it would take a miracle to make this OL perform adequately given the current situation.