krazykat

Guess we're just watching different games. It will become more apparent this year when Edwards finally has to do some pocket work after the coaches "kid gloves" come off after going out of their way to see to it that he face little pressure last year. Walker plays top-heavy BIG-time and I'm pretty sure that every site with assessments of his play will say something to that affect. He has little speed and once players get around him he's absolutely useless and the good ones get around him routinely unless he has help. Just watch footage of him. Don't know what else to tell you.

I think the odds of me not being able to find you in six months to comment on this is more likely. You guys have been saying this since Donahoe took over the team.

1. This FO has been conducting drafts and free agency since '01. It's the same personnel FO put there by Donahoe and no one new has changed anything significant about it. Modrak, Guy, and Majeski run the show and many of those under them have been there with them and they were put there by Donahoe. 2. That's kind of moot since the Bills don't really have many players at all worth much long term consideration. Schobel is on his back nine easily and if he doesn't rebound in a big way from last season's dip in performance, then the team will have to think about releasing him or restructuring him downward after just over a season since they gave him that enormous deal. I don't think that the Bills have done well at all w/ cap management from the angle of getting the most from their precious cap dollars. I think you're basically saying the same thing although it's unclear. They've held the team under the cap, but so what, we haven't won anything or come close, so if "cap management" is the goal in that regard, I suppose we win. I just don't view it that way. Teams have spent less than us with better results. 3. The Bills haven't gone after good value players. You're partially correct. There are FAs out there that play solid ball but just don't get the recognition. The Bills always seem to get guys with known issues. Langston Walker, regardless of what some say, is simply not good. Dockery was overrated and a "big fish in a small pond" last year and the entire league understands that we overpaid him. You need guys that play well A. together, and B. well against the better opponents. Schobel got far too much for one reason only, because the team overpaid Kelsay to more than Schobel was getting. That would have been fine if Schobel hadn't been in his back 9. Stupid otherwise and completely lacking any value. But once again, the team was caught with its pants down. Why, because of some unfortunate event? No, because they decided to drop trow. There are many people here that rant and rave over how some of our players play against teams that we should dominate but then completely ignore how they play against teams that are a challenge for us. We haven't adequately addressed the lines at all. Fowler isn't good at C and after this year we have a hole there. Where's the foresight and planning on this? This is just one more deja vu at C. Jason Peters was a fortunate outcome, not a seriously planned replacement. And interestingly he's our best lineman on either side and it can even be argued that he's our best player overall although that is arguable. Either way, when you UFAs and 7th rounders become your stars, what does that say? We haven't gotten value from most if not all of our highest draft picks under the guys picking them now for nearly a decade. What are the objective reasons you have for complaining about the FO. The above are some, but the fact that we haven't been competitive due to having a lack of talent overall and generally speaking on this team says all that anyone could want to know. If they were doing a good job than even an average coach would be doing more than has been done. If the talent is there, then the coaching is clearly an issue. It's obviously both, but at this point does it even matter. Let me swing this back your way; what are the objective reasons why you defend, if that's what you're doing, why you would defend otherwise, the FO?

I think that our FO is about as FUBAR as they make 'em.

Marv underachieved with that collection of talent!

If Parcells had been coaching the Bills during the '90s we would have Super Bowl trophies right now.

Actually, not true. If they were rebuilding then they would have traded Clements after assuring him that they wouldn't tag him. Why run out the last year in his contract for nothing if you're really rebuilding and then watch him walk when you probably could have gotten a 2nd or high 3rd round pick for him easily. Also, wouldn't you have traded Spikes in the return year of his major injury before you knew that his value would plummet due to the inevitiable poor season post-injury in his case. Instead they played him, showed the whole football lovin' world that he wasn't what he used to be, and then all but let him walk when they could have traded him when he at least had a perceived value. Those aren't the type of things that you do if you're ackowledging a rebuilding season, at least if you're smart, which granted, our FO isn't. But you get what you can for players that you don't expect will be around, and we knew that Clements wouldn't be. They also didn't change very much else also indicative that they weren't rebuilding. Either way, you can't have it both ways, beleiving the team and its officials when it's convenient and not believing them stating that their reasons were for ulterior motives when they aren't. You either believe the crap that comes from OBD or you don't. They have no credibility left, so if you believe it then you'd be naive. And frankly, no, I don't think that it was obvious they were rebuilding. I think the facts painted the picture that they were not. Either way, to announce in year two of a new regime that you're rebuilding, it's a no-win situation for the team. If you are, then there are two choices; Either you weren't, but are, which means you're a moron and just cost your team a season which was wasted b/c you didn't know WTF you were doing. OR, you were and are basically announcing a mulligan or that what good teams do in a season during a rebuild is taking you two seasons to accomplish, still indicative that you didn't know WTF you were doing. It says little for those running this team. They don't know WTF they're doing.

You nailed it for about the fourth time. Don't expect anyone arguing with you to get it. This is a deja vu for us and more of the same for them.

LOL Anywhere the few can go to discuss Bills football reasonably?

I'd say three. Stroud played in a traditional system in Jax I'm pretty sure.

Right, and with guys all smaller than Stroud, they're just figuring out what some of us knew prior to their first season with the talent that they assembled at the position? I spell it out; failure to date.

Will he have his team ready to play at the opening bell of the season? He's 2-5 on opening day and 6-17 in September. Of course none of that has to do with him. Will he continue to push his "play not to lose" agenda on offense? His job is on the line as is his support from the fans. What do you think. (rhetorical) As a follow-on question, suppose he's faced with a decision that is best for the team next year and down the road but one that if he opts for it likely means losses this season, what do you think he will do? Will Turk prove to be a good choice as OC after not interviewing a single outside candidate? Will he make in-game decisions that make a positive difference? Has he been successful as a QB coach? What's his track record there? Has he demonstrated that he understands the game, not from a closed system perspective as if we were to sit down with him, but more than the DCs that he will be attempting to outstrategize? Will there be a learning curve there? If so, how steep? What qualifies him to have gotten this position other than the fact that he was "within the organization?" Will this simply be more of the same or will this hiring finally actually make a difference? To critics of those critical of Jauron and Schonert, these are the kinds of questions that the organization should ask before making their choices for coaches instead of us sitting here doing it. They should address those as well in their hiring process. Fairchild at least came here with three years of experience. Schonert has none, hasn't even been consistently employed in the NFL, and has pretty much held one role in which he hasn't even shone, QB coach.

Dallas Game: Two defensive scores and a STs score. Total Net Yards: Dallas 385, Buffalo 229 Offensive Points: Dallas 13, Buffalo 0 Defensive Points: Dallas 0, Buffalo 14 STs Points: Dallas 12 (3 FGs), Bills 10 (1 FG, 1 KR/TD) Total 1st Downs: Dallas 24, Bills 14 3rd Downs: Dallas 9-of-15 (60%), Bills 3-of-13 (23%) Sacks Sustained: Dallas 0, Bills 3 for 28 yards Time of Possession: Dallas 27:29, Bills 32:31 The Bills were prepared in this game? For what? Keep in mind that Dallas logged all of that in spite of 6 TOs. What would have happened if they had had 0 TOs? What, 800 net yards? The game would have been as lopsided as the Pats game in Buffalo. Our offense was pathetic in that game. KR/TDs are utterly unpredictable and as likely to occur in any game and are not planned as such. You practice special teams and hope you get them when it matters. It sort of did in this case as we would have been out of the game much earlier if we hadn't gotten it despite the notion that we lost. And why did we lose? We ran 23 plays and had 79 net yards in the 2nd half? This was good? The team was prepared? Whatever. If that was prepared, it certainly explains a lot of the beliefs here. D and STs TDs are unpredictable and cannot be relied upon. It was fortunate that we got them in this game as it would be fortunate for any team anytime to log one or two in one game much less three. We got three D TDs and two STs TDs all season and three of the five came in that game. Now how strongly does anyone feel that we will get three combo TDs in any single game this season, pre, regular, or post season? We got our a$$e$ handed to us in that game and were lucky to even be in it. We had no O whatsoever and couldn't stop the Dallas O in spite of getting help from 6 TOs as they posted almost 400 net yards, well beyond the league average otherwise. If we were good and had played a good game, with 6 TOs we should have held Dallas to less than 250 net yards and 16 points easily. Easily. Otherwise, if we play like that in all 16 games this year, barring getting 21 points from the D and STs in each game, we'll set the 0-16 record. Easily.

Excellent post. They also came in announcing that they were not rebuilding and don't forget Levy's exclamation accompanying that that "the future is now!" He said they weren't rebuilding, but then after one season of lackluster performance, they decided to rebuild anyway. In the meantime they could have traded Clements instead of just seeing him walk. Otherwise you're absolutely correct. In short, they had and still have no plan. They just keep bringing guys in often in spots where they already have starters over spots where they don't.

I don't share your vision of a 10-6 mark, otherwise we are in agreement pretty much. I don't think that we will score nearly enough to reach that and the teams we play this year, many of the easier ones, do have decent Os.

True. But as with every team, the passing game will hinge around the arm, decision making, and adjusting of the QB. Say what you want about Edwards, but I saw very little in the way of his ability to adapt to much different than the kid gloves treatment that the team put him in last year. So we'll see, but if he struggles to get the ball to the WRs, it's all moot. Reed is more of a slot guy, so his production will likely improve if Edwards shows anything. Hardy should start.

ZZZzzzzzzz.......

Wouldn't that be kinda like an ex-spouse wanting to "come back" after going off and having kids and a family elsewhere?

In order of paragraph; 1. Fair enough! 2. "Positive attitude" only goes so far. It does not overcome poor fundamental make up. As to Jauron, we also have five years with the Bears to look at and half a season in Detroit as the team's main man. All pretty much stamped with a big fat F. 3. Yes, of course I'll do the same thing. And for the record, I think that Lynch is good, just perhaps not great as some here seem to think he is. But that's about the extent of it. Otherwise I apologize to you b/c these things turn into a mob gang beating at times and you're one of the more reasonable people here it seems. It's tough when your fending off multiple shots from different angles, difficult to keep straight who said what without going back over the threads. I barely have time or desire to post these. Otherwise, FWIW or for some others, here's what Fanball has to say about Hardy and his signing: Jul 03, 2008 09:27 AM CDT Parameters for Hardy deal in place The News With the signing of Matt Forte by the Chicago Bears, the Buffalo Bills have the salary parameters in place to work on a deal for James Hardy, according to BuffaloBills.com. Forte was taken three spots ahead of Hardy in the draft. Our View Rookie wide receivers generally struggle in the NFL, so anybody taking a flyer on Hardy in fantasy drafts should keep that in mind. However, signing a deal without missing training camp would only help his cause. Which more or less supports my entire position.

Agree with Adam all you want. I'm pretty sure he was being facetious. Otherwise, believe that the sun rises in the West for all I care. Trust Walsh all you want too. Did you trust his similar assessment of Rick Mirer? I trust that you did, and I held a similar view of Mirer back then. So go ahead, but w/o further data, I'm 1-0, Walsh is 0-1. Otherwise only a fool believes that any coach or GM is right all the time. If Polian or AJ Smith, two former GMs summarily dismissed by Wilson, then perhaps I'd be inclined to believe it. But oh, wait, we've really done a grand job of seeing to it that not only hire, but retain top GM talent, right? Fits right in with your shoddy attempt at a rebuttal to that. Your discussion of spending completely ignores what I said so I won't comment. Let's just say that "better" and "improvement" aren't better and improved simply because someone tells you that it's that way. And honestly, many people here are so far in the weeds on the rest of this stuff that what's next, a discussion about how they got a new equipment guy and how how they keep up the equipment will really add to the morale. I am speaking somewhat generally and not entirely to you. You guys microanalyze everything irrelevant and don't at all even moderately analyze the relevant. As to my "fan bias": I wasn't the one who was quoting Schonert when it was convenient after Viti was let go. I quoted it because someone stated Viti's presence on this team as one of the big parts of this year's success. Convenience has nothing to do with it. The point was, since you obviously missed it, what happens now with this "beast" Viti not here to help us improve as this person suggested. Perhaps it was you, don't know, don't care. But be fair please. I view that as more a personal insult than your thin-skinned objection to my suggesting that you gobbled up the spoon-fed stuff in an article that you sent me and cited specifically to rebut my argument. What should I assume, that you used it to argue your point but don't agree with it? Please! Yet, the team has improved under Jauron's leadership from where it was under Williams and Mularkey. That's something that only a blind person would fail to recognize. In terms of what? Our QB situation is worse. Our passing offense is then correspondingly worse. We're not getting any better production from our RBs, still less than we did with Henry. We haven't posted at least one winning season yet like we did under Donahoe. The defense isn't any better either. And this all makes it such that "only a blind person would fail to recognize improvement?" Sure! Gotcha! As to the FO letting all this talent go, you really wanted to sign Clements to a 8 yr 80 mil contract? Please, he wasn't worth that and you know it. Other than that, what talent has THIS FO sent packing since the new coaching staff came. Eric Moulds? Please, he wanted way too much money for his age. At best he was a number two receiver on this team after 2005. Who else? Winfield was gone long ago and wasn't worth the money he wanted either. Minnesota is finding that out. He is solid, but overpaid. Where is all this talent supposedly leaking out on this team. McGahee? I think he was overrated and our rookie RB outplayed him in three fewer appearances. So where is this talent leak that you keep talking about. I think your generally pessimistic view of this team comes from the same disappointment we all have. You are just choosing to take a harder look at all the negatives. Nothing wrong with that. I choose to focus on the possibilities I see with this team. And frankly, that might make me a bit more disappointed when the season is half-way over. Then again, maybe not. Maybe you'll have to find some more reasons for why they suck, even if they are say, 6-2 or 5-3. Again, you are extremely one-dimensional in your analysis. Where was the focus on the lines all those years? We pretty much signed washed up vets and ignored our best players. (Pat Williams) When we did focus on the DL we got Ron Edwards, Justin Bannan who I think we traded up for, Tim Andersen whom everyone raved about as a steal, Williams and McCargo, without a proven starter in the bunch. We sure haven't gotten even one close to impact player there. Meanwhile we've drafted skill position players like they're going out of style. Our solutions for the OL are all players that got far more than they were worth on the market otherwise. It's not how much you spend as I've tried to tell you, but what you get for what you do spend. And if you have $30 and spend 28 of it, then you only have two bucks left and can't get much for it. These boards have gone through this since they've been in existence on an annual basis. Why it's different this year I don't get. We agree on McGahee, but this FO picked him! I'm not "choosing to look harder at the negatives." For a team that hasn't done anything in years except when the schedule's been easier, I think that it's hilarious that you would even suggest that. If anything you're "choosing to look harder at the positives" which is the default position during the offseason anyway, much more so here. Pretty funny though. I'll tell you what though, at the end of the season when I'm more accurate than you are, you and others still won't give me the time of day and say, 'Yeah, he was right." You'll just come up with more of the same. When Jauron gets fired you may say he sucked but you won't humble yourself and say, "Hey, maybe we ought to listen to the people that said Jauron would suck, Levy wouldn't do anything substantial, that Gilbride was a horrible hire and that we were stupid for hiring Donahoe." You will just make more excuses and dig into the weeds with more red herring distractions. It's like that every year here. And honestly, if there are fans that discuss this year that to take pleasure in the team performing poorly, it's to shut up quite a few people with egos the size of the Grand Canyon here and not because they want their team to do poorly. The fact of the matter is that it's not that difficult to succeed in the NFL if you adhere to all but formula driven tenets. First, build two solid lines. Second, have a vision and plan for it all to come together at some singular point in time. Third, draft accordingly and get your FAs accordingly. If you ignore the first it doesn't matter what happens with the second. If you don't have the second, then hire people that do, and not just in words on paper, but really. If you don't have the third, ditto there, find some people that do. We don't have any of them. Our OL is not nearly as good as many here think. It's extremely mediocre on the best of days. Our DL has issues too and pending how Stroud looks is in TBD status. Even if Stroud is all that, he's at the beginning of his back-nine as well so there's little future utility and diminishing utility also. We have no viable vision that's verifiable or articulated. And what "vision" we do have revolves around trivial things such as using a FB or including some deeper pass plays as part of the effective playbook as if those are some sort of brilliant deduction and deserving of some intellectual award somewhere. Our personnel office has produced little if much in the way of impact talent on their watch with pretty much most of the players that they've brought on from the '05 draft and FAcy either a distant memory or all but gone. I know, I know, last year's rookie class is gonna step up. Sure. I mean there's a reason why we're O/U 7.5 in Vegas! I would love to wager with some of you people. It would be like fishing at a fish hatchery.

Don't try to red herring this please. You know full well what I meant. I didn't say "receiving" stats. Also, please learn to recognize sarcasm. I can tell you that they weren't writing things like this on Hardy; http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/20...QB-Arkansas.htm I think you know what I'm trying to say but aren't coming clean. Look, it's really simple here, really. Just go look at all the top WRs drafted every year on day one. Then count them up, then find out how many actually step up to do what their draft positions hopes that they should. Then run the simply ratio of those that succeed to those in total. That gives you a percentage of those that do. Then you can, yes, you can, assume that the odds of the guy that you drafted fits that pattern. Except here of course where the opinions of those that have been wrong every year trump any data out there. If you're willing to wager even money that Hardy put up at least 500 yards and 5 TDs, on this team, then you're foolish. Plain and simple. Can it happen? Sure it can, but the odds are against it. The odds are even less than that b/c our offense sucks. It's one thing for a WR to go to a team like Indy and succeed like Gonzalez, but it's another altogether to have one come to the Bills and succeed.

In order: Lynch was 80% of our offense and the single consistent component of it. It's not even debatable. Yes he had his issues and I don't disagree with you on where he must improve, but he had success in there as an offensive weapon even on 3rd downs. Why they didn't use him more, even according to Schonert, had little if anything to do with performance rather than Lynch because according to Schonert they "didn't want to throw too much to Lynch." Either way, if you say that Lynch has all that to prove, you've even dashed my hopes. Is he great? No, but he was a consistent hard runner. I can't tell if you're serious with this post or not, but Jauron's record speaks for itself. Kelly might not be a much better a coach than what we've had. It would be a decision based primarily on nostalgia.

Probably true, and they're not that much better than the collegiate ones either on teams like Akron and Indiana St. That's also why guys like Matt Jones whose an inch taller than Hardy and did more in college is the league's leading WR right now. I'm sorry, I was wrong all along. Note to self: What was I thinking!

There are so many ways to go with this that I really don't even know where to begin. First of all, keep in mind the source, Chris Brown and OBD. Haven't we as fans learned that what they tell us usually means nothing. I mean for how many years now under how many different OCs have we been told how the TE will be used more? Every year pretty much and we are still at the bottom of the league in terms of TE use from a passing perspective. That's just one of about a dozen things. The OL, "disruptive" D that is designed to generate sacks and such ridiculous pressuer that no offense can function properly, McGahee, Bledsoe, the Fairchild spread O, ... Secondly, they said the same things last year and frankly, Fairchilds "Rams like" philosphy did that in St. Louis, so why didn't he last year? He said he would! Levy said he would! Jauron said he would! Are you absolutely certain that Jauron doens't play more of a role in this? IDK, just asking, but I do know that we were told that that was one of the biggest reasons why we liked Lynch was for that very reason, yet we didn't use him in that role in spite of directly stating that we would. Third, don't you think that's one of the first things Ds look for on 3rd downs is the RB catching the ball out of the backfield? Because it is for RBs that do it. So simply stating that we will do that doesn't automatically propel this team into All-Pro offensive status as appears to be the underlying implication here. I mean how many teams do that and still suck too? Just because you "do that," doesn't mean that you do it well ax, just like so many other things. Of course it will help as it will open up the alternatives for the offense. But it will not be the critical link that moves our offense from 32nd in efficiency to 10th. And again, why didn't the team do what it said it would during the season in this way? And spare me the they just wanted him to get his feet wet stuff. Why didn't Jauron intervene as is his job and say "let's get Lynch involved more in the receiving game Steve!" From the article: "We held him back and Anthony Thomas handled more of the third down role in the beginning of the season because we didn't want to throw too much at (Lynch)," Schonert recalled. The tough questions: And whose brain child was it to use Anthony Thomas on 3rd-down passing situations, or even rushing situation, if you actually believe that? Did they really do that also? What in Thomas' background would lead you, much less them, to believe that he was even capable of being a successful 3rd-down RB? Shouldn't they be held accountable for such idiotic thinking? Jauron that is. And why did they say that they would use Lynch in passing situation before the season began but then change their tune? And, since you seem to gobble up everything that they try to force feed you from OBD, if that's true then why did Thomas only have 5 rushing attempts and 6 caught balls in 10 games played then on 3rd downs for about one touch per game in those situations? Does that match up with what Schonert just said? If not, then does this give you more confidence in Schonert, or less? Lynch had 26 3rd-down carries and 4 receptions for 30 touches. Thomas had 5 carries and 6 receptions for 11 touches, and you believe Schonert's nonsense? I mean come on here, does anyone here challenge what these morons say? They're like politicians trying to separate you from your money and protect their well paying jobs, funded by you. This team has said so many things about the team over the last six or seven seasons, including the last two years under Jauron particularly, that haven't even come close to happening that they should have zero credibility left. "I anticipate him being in on third down a lot more," said Schonert of Lynch. "He's had a year, he understands the protections now and I think this year he'll be an integral part of our third down package." What do you mean "you anticipate" coach? Don't you know? Aren't you the one deciding this? If you're not 100% sure then don't say it! Buffalo's offensive coordinator apparently agrees as Lynch caught several passes in the spring workouts and lined up wide on numerous occasions. Oh boy, one more reason to get our hopes up. And a little more of Lynch has never hurt an offense before, so expect Schonert to take advantage of a player that can truly be an every down talent. Lynch can be all that and a bag of chips but I expect little from Schonert. He's never held this role, hasn't done well as a QB coach, has been bounced around more from team to team in the NFL, finally finding a home in Buffalo, LOL, than a cheap ho on Saturday night in the ghetto. Anyway, I think this is part of the problem, too many people reading from OBD. Brown himself has even said openly that his hands are tied. Why anyone even respects what the guy writes is beyond me. He's the propaganda arm of the Bills, nothing more. This team isn't going to succeed or fail ax because Lynch is catching balls, it's going to succeed or fail because Schonert knows what the hell he's doing or not, and saying things that any one of us could say because they make sense and really shouldn't say much about the coach saying them, rather should say little for last year's coaches that couldn't seem to figure out that this was a good idea then. It is also going to succeed or fail based on Edwards who has yet to do much of anything besides "be poised." If he's "poised" and loses, is "poised" and can't seem to lead the team to more than an offensive TD or two every game, is "poised" and can't throw TD passes more than every third game, then what Lynch does doesn't matter now, does it. Here's what's going to happen this year: Teams are going to stack the line against us. Why? For a bunch of reasons. First, because last year we had one of the worst passing quarterbacks in the league on one of the worst passing offenses in the league and rarely put up passing TDs. That won't scare any opposing DC until proven otherwise. Second, because Lynch is our primary weapon since we don't know what to do with Evans and Edwards hasn't proven that he can go deep anywhere near consistently enough to give opponents cause for leaving too many DBs back there. Even when Losman was in there with his deep to Evans throw opposing teams didn't respect out deep game all that much. Third, because Schonert is an inexperienced rookie OC and will not be respected immediately. He will have to earn respect. Fourth, because Jauron is also not respected nor should be. Fifth, because our OL simply isn't that good. Having said that, I'll save you a few steps in your next post; I realize that Edwards is poised in spite of playing like crap last year and that he could explode this year. I realize that Hardy's huge, had a great collegiate career, and is all but a zero risk prospect. I realize that Lynch is about to explode in spite of, just like at the end of last season teams focusing on stopping our rushing game, the road to accomplishing that will be easy. I realize that Schonert is no Fairchild and for that reason alone an excellent OC. I realize that this team's performance has nothing to do with Jauron and therefore any insinuation that he can't win for reasons that, well, he rarely has, have no meaning. I realize that Hardy is going to open things up so that Evans has a 1,500 yard, 15 TD season finally. Etc., etc.., etc. BUT, until all that happens, opponents are not going to respect our passing game, Edwards, Schonert, or Jauron. They will stack the box and try to shut down Lynch, just as you would if you were playing the Bills and you were a DC. If and when we prove that we can overcome that, they will have to adjust, but not before that. Edwards will be tested, blitzed due to the number of players in the box, and will have to get rid of the ball quickly and limit his mistakes. The running lanes for Lynch will be tight. And keep in mind that we were +9 in TOs last season, largely for reasons of fortune, not so much by design. In other words, we got lucky quite often. While that's good and you take what you can, we cannot assume that we will rank 4th in the league in TO ratio again. So unless Edwards starts doing what he hasn't done, and very quickly, then I just don't see how this team's offense will be anything close to what you say, especially since we had the worst, meaning 32nd ranked, TD producing offense in the league last year and the worst red zone offense too. So think what you want, but there's quite a bit that has to come together for this team's offense to be even an average one. As to the article, it's a bunch of rot by the "political wing" of OBD, nothing more. I'm surprised, and a little disappointed, that you even cited it. Your comments about Schonert show that you have given up on the team before you have even seen what they can do. I think that is a bit overly pessimissitic. I prefer not to pass judgment on coaches or players until I've seen them in action. Perhaps you will turn out to be right, and if you are, we're in for a long season, and perhaps a long three seasons as a new staff is brought in and will have to rebuild. Before seeing such a dark and horrible football future for Buffalo, I prefer to wait and see what these players have. From what I've seen, they are doing the right things this offseason. You may disagree, but we wear different colored glasses. OK, I'm not sure that you understand this. I haven't given up on the team ax, it's given up on us! When is the last time that we hired a decent coach? And I don't necessarily mean an expensive one, but one that believes that the lines must be solid to succeed first and foremoset? How about an experienced coordinator? Why aren't the guys that have produced drafts that have barely left us with any long-term players and far more disappointments than successes held accountable and fired and replaced? Why is it that this team has barely paid much attention to the OL? Why do they keep overpaying mediocre players then either causing us to sell the farm to sign the better ones or watch them leave the team? Why is it that this team does everything by hype and not by solidly run football decision making? Otherwise, what I hope for is unattainable given the way these clowns run this team. What I hope for is what got in the days of Kelly, Bruce, and Thurman. Plus a SB of course. But that's not going to happen the way we are running things. If you want to believe it is, then great. I don't say what I hope will happen ax, I say what I see happening and after breaking it all down myself and by comparing to what I know about football without my fan bias involved. You and others can't seem to separate yourself from that however. If Edwards plays like a champ this year then I will have to tell myself that my assessments were off, way off. But I'm telling you now that by midseason you too will have seen enough of him. I've seen QB and paid attention to it for decades around the NFL and nothing that I've seen from Edwards, absolutely nothing, is indicative that he's anything but a bust or extremely low end backup in the making including his time at Stanford where once again, not his lack of production against anything but low-end Ds led the way, but more excuses as to why he wasn't productive. As to Schonert, he wasn't a good QB coach and just because he says a few things that any fan with a basic knowledge of football could say, does not mean that he's going to be good and finally prove that he's an above average coach in spite of the fact that you have already convinced yourself that he has. Also, look at the official site and tell me, what was Schonert doing in 2002? 2004? Why was he only with the Panthers, Giants, and Saints for one year each in '01, '03, and '05? Do you have answers to that, and good ones that don't suggest that he sucks? And naturally he ends up on the Bills after that with the team talking about all the experience he brings to the table. And he's done such a marvelous job with Losman and Edwards too leaving us hovering at or near the bottom of the stack offensively as a direct result of the position that he's coached. Yeah, what a great choice for OC! It's gonna take more than what we've put on the table in the offseason to avoid disaster from the offensive side of things again this year. And again, even if we double our offensive TD production, double it ax, we would have ranked 11th offensively last year. Now how confident are you that our offensive production will double? I'm thinking that given the few changes on O and the completely mystery meat nature to all the most critical ones, that if we can add 50% to our offensive TD production it should be considered a good thing, and that if that happens, we'll play O such that we would have ranked 21st last year in O TDs. Unfortunately our defense isn't going to improve by that much that it propels us into the playoffs otherwise. But here's a question for you; At what point do you draw the line with: Jauron? Schonert? Edwards? The personnel staff that has conducted our drafts since Donahoe's management?

Hmmm! Good one Riddler. I'm just gonna guess here by being a half-foot taller than everyone else. Now I realize that's a minor difference, just like when you play recreational basketball with someone 5 or 6 inches taller than you makes no difference, but that's my answer nonetheless. Great question though, you sure know how to stump them, doncha!