RuntheDamnBall

On one hand they ought to ignore this stuff. On the other, they are making themselves available to fans and then getting called "f--kin guy" or getting their skills and manhood called out by people whose most intimate knowledge probably includes Grand Theft Auto, the correct ratio of Chee-tos to Diet Coke, and strategies for remaining in their parents' basement indefinitely. I'm not saying we have to elevate Fred Jackson for making himself available to the public, but a lack of respect begets a lack of respect. It's football, people. A bad game doesn't mean you get the right to go be a douchebag to somebody else. And if you wouldn't say it to these guys' faces, you should just not say it. It is internet tough-guy sh-- and it's beyond old. Sorry to disagree with you, Mr. Original Poster, but I do. So, are you at work 24/7? Does anybody give you **** for watching a football game instead of being at work?

Whitner has an axe to grind with Gailey, and thus should be taken with a grain of salt on all matters regarding the team. He also thought he was worth millions, and while he is probably worth more than Ko Simpson, he had a highly inflated value of himself that the team didn't share. Both moved on. I think Gailey has plenty of issues, but if this team was mentally tough enough this wouldn't be coming up. I will, however, buy the fact that the criticism isn't really going to get a lot of great response out of players. You need to figure out a way to make them feel tough and empowered on the football field. Gailey is definitely not doing that right now. What does need to be figured out is how to harness their very best. SF has obviously done so to the point that a guy like Whitner who is average can fit in and generally play well.

Agreed. They need to ride this out and make changes in the offseason.

"Keep those comments in the locker room," says the a--hole running his mouth off to the media.

That is definitively bad. Wow.

Hard to disagree.

We wait because we may as well lose 'em all and solve our QB woes for the forseeable future.

There are different kinds of experience, and I am uncertain that Chan has ever had enough success as a head coach to warrant siding with his experience over the kind of leadership and stewardship that today's NFL players need. Let's put it this way - Chan is good in that he will give someone a chance to succeed or to fail. From a player perspective, that kind of trust is important. But I don't know that he has the kind of understanding of these players' backgrounds and lives that could be useful in the NFL. If you're really in the locker room all the time with your fellow players and if you understand the realities they've faced, I think that's a concentrated sort of experience that can trump longevity.

If G. Smith is really the man and continues this pace, I'd give up this whole next draft plus a 1st the next season to get him. It's not irrational if you think you can acquire the rest of the players you need via other means. LBs can be gotten in FA. So can backup linemen and additional receivers. Those are the Bills' primary needs, aside from QB.

My pops suggests the same - you really think they flat-out gave up to get Luck? I feel like it would have been more obvious, but I could be persuaded otherwise. I have always thought that it's terrible to cash out and hope for a good draft pick, but today's NFL and Geno Smith have me reconsidering the dark side.

I will say this: If Gailey does not survive this season, the Bills really need to look at a younger coach. I am not saying that Gailey can't connect with his players, nor that that's the end-all, be-all. It doesn't trump talent or the work ethic of a player like Brady, or the smarts / cheats of a guy like Belicheck. But reading that Stevie article from the Buffalo News this morning just made me realize that Chan can believe in his players and he can be a decent coach, but as a motivator it's very hard to work with someone when you're from a completely different era and universe. I think the Harbaughs, Mike Tomlin, Whisenhunt - it's not like these guys are from the street, but they are close enough to the recent history of the game that they know where players and their teammates are coming from. It needs to be considered if the Bills are once again looking at coaching talent. Even Mularkey, flawed as he was, had a better pulse on his team from my perspective.

Maybe what this is telling us is that the Dallas Super Bowl defenses were actually in large part a product of great rosters. Football sure is easy when you have very good players.

Everyone is an idiot and you're all getting diabetes.

I do not like a coach calling the team out like that in public. If I am the coach and what we're doing is not working, I address it by changing up personnel as well as adjusting the scheme. The nickel wasn't working, the players couldn't execute the calls due to size or whatever. Doesn't matter. The plan is not sound if you can't execute it. Once your roster is set, smart coaches have to adjust.

Check who I was replying to and what the nature of this conversation is. It's about the double standard afforded the Pats. I think it's relevant. http://blogs.buffalobills.com/2008/11/02/wilfork-admits-cheap-shot-on-losman/ Not whining, but an admitted cheap shot that ruined a QB's season cost VW $12,500 and no suspension. I can't imagine inflation adjusts $12,500 in that season to above $15K this year. By the way, that same hit against Brady, if it knocks him out of the game, gets you four games, guaran-!@#$-teed. If you don't believe me you're delusional. So, no double standard, you don't think?

Can't use Chandler as a Flex? That's what I've been doing when both he and Witten have a susceptible opponent...

Just like Vince Wilfork and Bill Belicheck know the rules and follow them to the letter of the law at all times, right?

That's right, dude.

Two bad losses, but I agree with you. Thing is, if he really lost the team, they'd be able to beat nobody.

If he were ever going to lose the team, it would have happened at 0-8. These guys have been through a lot together. Fitz may be losing the team if he can't cut down on the mistakes and start finding Stevie with more regularity, and Wannstedt may be losing the team if he can't put the D in a better position to succeed. But I am not sure that Chan has lost anyone, yet.

Thanks for explaining it like someone who knows what they're talking about Well-done.

The only thing more disconcerting than the inconsistency of Williams thus far is the way that it seems people have been WAITING to shift gears and pile on the dude. Be fans and support him. The last thing we need is another reason for people to speak ill of Buffalo. FAs take awhile to fit into their new teams and systems. This is the case more often than not. I'm not saying I enjoy that aspect of what's happening, but judge Mario if he is clearly this ineffective over the course of 16 games. I was certainly hoping for instant pass rush and results but I can't say I expected it right away. In addition, if it looked like Wannstedt were doing everything right and MW just wasn't producing, I'd buy a little more of this Mario-bashing. But so far, we've seen Wannstedt play his DBs miles away from receivers and get burned (week 1), generate pressure and stop the run against two poor teams, and get straight-up owned by New England while refusing to adjust from the nickel package. If that were all Mario's fault, I'd understand all this a little better. Bruce Smith would not have made much of a difference if placed in the same exact situation this past week. He would have been better, but not enough to thwart this pathetic game-plan and lack of adjustments.

Also, is it possible to run for 250+ yards and never hold? I'd love to know.

He's sleeping in his six pack at a traffic light somewhere.

A bad coach also called a run up the middle into Vince Wilfork from his speed back when he should have kept his foot on the Pats' throats. It bears repeating.