finknottle

Another factoid - you can still be a passing team without actually leading the NFL in yardage. And a passing team, if they force the defense into constant pass defense, wind up with a lot of easy runs. I'd be curious to see how many of the last ten SB winners finished ranked higher in passing yardage than rushing, versus the other way around.

Absolutely. I watched a good amount of SC last year and was hoping he would land here as a UFA. I don't pretend to be a mechanics evaluator and maybe he doesn't project, but he seemed have the genuine leadership qualities you want and the intangibles of a franchise QB. He got it done, playing in the SEC. Unless his film says otherwise, seems like an ideal PS/#3 QB candidate to take a flyer on.

I think there may be one more very important factor missing that makes the Bills an attractive spot. If EJ struggles badly then Kyle gets a shot, yes. So what happens if we (or rather, the new ownership) decides EJ is simply not the answer and it is time to move on? On any other team, they take that 2-14 record and cash it in for the next would-be franchise quarterback, and probably say "thanks for the 6 games, Kyle, maybe you want to be the backup to our shiny new rookie next year?" But with the Bills now not having a first round pick, the way it plays out is that if he gets a shot and plays well and it's decided EJ is not the future, he gets at least a year as an unchallenged starter.

There is an idea out there that would-be owners are already so rich that they are so motivated by joining the club that making money falls by the wayside. I think that is misleading. Set aside the question of whether the personal qualities that make you filthy rich (such as good discipline about business decisions) can be turned on and off. Think about the relative size of a billion dollars. Even if a would-be owner is worth more than that, a billion dollars is a significant fraction of everything they own. You are asking them to liquidate half or whatever of their financial empire and convert it into a toy. And the great majority of bidders are not billionaires, which is why you generally see ownership groups formed. Raising an absurd amount of money takes time and maneuvering, even for the extremely rich, and a typical winner may wind up borrowing money one way or another to finance their bid. And that loan charges them interest. So when you say 'who cares, 3.5% sounds good if you are rich already,' you ignore the fact that after they pay their interest they are making diddly or even losing money. So they need a return at least as big as what they are losing to finance the purchase. As to the point that this is risk-free, and that history shows this is the safest investment there is, things always go up until they stop. Railroads, steel, broadcast television, real estate, many industries had half-century periods of growth by the end of which they appeared money-in-the-bank investments. Horse racing was the dominant sport at its height. I'd guess that the major horse tracks showed similar growth until the 50's or so, appearing then to be slam-dunk investments. Didn't last. The bottom line is that there is risk to the NFL - risk that popularity will wane, risk that the internet age will destroy their broadcast revenues, risk that lawsuits, liabilities, and government regulations will undermine the product. Owning an NFL franchise looks reasonably safe, but it certainly no more risk-free than buying an S&P tracking fund for the long haul.

I'm not taking his side on the Doom, but can't you people read??? He's not saying Kiko is worth 20 points. He's saying that a promising strategy is being derailed due to a sequence of bad luck on the defense: losing Byrd, losing Pettine, Dareous' stupidity and possible suspension, and now losing our best linebacker. Add up all of those things and you're arguably talking 20 points - that's what he's saying, and that's why the thread is 'Crumbling Foundation' and not 'Yet another Kiko post'. 20 points? I don't know about that many. But I think the basic point is legit.

Frankly, it's an insult to Thurman Thomas. Let's see C.J. dominate a game (as opposed to flashes of being the best player in it) before we designate him one of the 5 best Bill's RB's, let alone more talented than Barry Sanders. Remember, Sanders didn't just have good-looking runs. He took over games. He *was* the Lion's offense, from start to finish, and did it with everybody knowing it and keying on it.

I do, but not for the obvious reason. This team does nothing but chase yesterdays success, whether it be coaches, players, or schemes. A coach had success 10 years ago? Hire him! A scheme was hot 5 years ago? Adopt it! You don't get ahead in this league by being a day late. I know it's easier said than done and the success rate is low, but you have to be successfull at identifying and gambling on tomorrows talent, not signing yesterdays.

Don't know, but I want to comment on the whole TJ thing. I've come around to the side of firing both Nix/Gailey, but I don't hold the inactivity of TJ against them. The fact is, as the poster notes, they followed his career and liked what they saw. Took a flier on him for a low pick. Maybe - just maybe - now that they have him practicing with the team they see that he's worthless, regressed, and it was a waste of a pick. So what? It happens sometimes to the best of GM's. But if that's the case, then they should do exactly what they've been doing, which is forget about it, move on, and cut him in the off-season if he doesn't turn it around in practice. If they've decided he's worse then Thigpen, then starting him just to "see what they've got" will do nothing but waste another game day. At least with Fitz you can work on the offense and have a chance of getting something clicking with the recievers. Playing a guy you've believe simply can't get it done, just to prove it to the fans, would be a bigger mistake than having signed him in the first place.

When Spiller proves he can be an every down at that level of performance and last a full season, then we can say he nailed it. There are a lot of backs that look good and seem to have the knack for getting hurt. Not saying Spiller is one of them, but he hasn't been able/had the opportunity to prove otherwise. And it seems to me that you can't say a pick nailed it without addressing durability and longevity. And ultimately you have to address the worth to the team. Let's assume Spiller can be a durable, every down back going forward. Spiller being underused the first few years of his contract may not be his fault, but the bottom line is that we drafted a top ten guy to a 5-year contract, and we'll get maybe two seasons of starter productivity out of the deal. That's not nailing it in the draft.

I see that that fellow Drew Brees is 2-0 this season when he has under 30 attempts, and only 3-7 when he passes more than 30 times. I think the lesson is clear - Brees is no franchise quarterback, and the Saints need to limit his liabilities and stop putting the ball up in the air.

Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated. But on the other hand, the collective wisdom of this board suggests that maybe it is quite easy after all. First, you trade all your picks to move up and grab a 'franchise quarterback.' You know, the latest Mark Sanchez. Then you sign everybody described as a 'freak,' 'beast,' 'stud,' 'roadgrader,' or other homoerotic label popular among the descriptively-impaired. For a game plan, in today's NFL all you need to do is play 'smash-mouth' and 'run the damn ball.' Sounds convincing to me.

Not disagreeing withy your analysis, just one point of evidence. I don't think Rice 'held to 49 yards' is an accurate description. He was running ok, and barring interceptions and missed FG's, the Ravens offense looked like it was getting its job done. I think that when it started pouring, the coaches decided to rest Rice most of the second half and put in the rookie Benard Pierce (finished with 48 yards on 6 carries).

Terrible idea that die-hard fans everywhere love. It would be another step on the road towards ending the 'regional rivalries' like Buffalo-Miami and Redskins-Cowboys. Fewer games would have any intense national appeal. We'd be stuck watching Jets-Giants, Eagles-Redskins, and 49ers-Raiders every week, or else a couple of currently good teams with no particular rivalry. I think in the long run the national slate would start to lose the more casual fans.

I agree. There were several questionable calls and non-calls in the coverage. Even assuming the refs got them all right, what was noticible was the fact that the booth never questioned them, or slow-mo'd it for us to take a look. In particular, when the Browns were flagged for running into the Raven's fair catch, it looked to me like the cover man was pushed from behind into the man (itself a penalty). On such a key penatly, you would have thought they would show the replay once or twice and discuss.

On the contrary, I think many if not most franchises have gone in the direction of cheaper expendible running backs, and spending their money elsewhere. And when they do draft them, they expect an immediate impact. My beef isn't with CJ Spiller, it's with the idea that you use a high draft pick - who is yours for a finite period of time - when you know that part of that time will be unproductive. It means the remaining time has to be exceptional just to average things out to a good return on the pick. For the Bills, this goes beyond Spiller. Willis McGahee should never have been drafted that high, knowing that at least one of his four years was going to be spent injured.