finknottle

I agree, the real reason being the fact that most first rounders do not make it as NFL quarterbacks. I crunched the numbers a while back and found that something like 50% don't make it after their contract is up, 25% make it as journeymen, and only 25% become long-term starters for the team that drafted them. Given those odds, I think every year or two you take a QB in rounds 3-6 (when they are cheap) and keep him on the bench. If after a few years holding the clipboard you are confident he has what it takes, great. If not you cut him and move on with the other guys. If the guy develops slower or never really shows you what he's got, big deal - it was a throwaway pick. You do not blow season after season while he learns on the job (and as likely as not proves a bust), and you do not kill yourself cap-wise.

I guess my point is that I don't think he has earned his current contract. He has given us only 2/3 the yards TH did at this point of his contract, and we are paying 10 times the price per yard that we did under TH. That's money that we can't use upgrading the line.

Quite right. If Mularkey truely is the problem and has lost the confidence of the players, the last thing we want is for the owner to hear about it. Much better that he only hear TD's explanations. Otherwise people could lose their jobs.

The debate rages whether WM is great or average or whatever, and whether or not TD's gamble paid off. Nobody factors in the fact that we paid him for a year of injured reserve, effectively getting only 3 years of productivity at 4 year money. That's a few million that first year that we couldn't use on actual players, and its a year less that we get him for. So with his $15.528m contract 3/4 of the way finished, only only one year left in Buffalo (unless we want to pay a lot more), can we say he was a wise pick? For every all-purpose yard WM gained we basically paid $5,809.20. In contrast, TH's $2.296m deal only cost us $413.05 a yard figuring after 3 years. Seems to me you are better off getting your RB's lower in the draft and using the extra cap money to sign some quality veteran. Comments?

If I recall, Reed wasn't behind a solid player ala Moulds - I seem to recall that he and Chris Burkett were the two receivers, flipping 1 and 2 for a while, both drafted the same year maybe. Not sure if that makes Evan's production more impressive (because Moulds is the #1 target) or less (because Evans is never double-teamed)...

That's why Frank Reich was so bad as a backup. And just think, if we had stuck with him instead of Kelly we would have won all those superbowls

I didn't see the play, but a drop kick does have to bounce off the ground before you kick it. You can do one at any point in the game - running around in the pocket, whatever. It's not uncommon in rugby. Takes some practice doing it on the run.

I'll take that dare. Let's look at their first three seasons and see who gave us our moneys worth 3/4's of the way through their contracts: Season 1 TH 729 3.4 179 rec, WM 0 0 0 rec Season 2 TH 1,438 4.4 309 rec, WM 1,128 4.0 169 rec Season 3 TH 1,356 4.1 158 rec, WM 1,134 3.7 156 rec (15 games) TH cost a 2nd round pick, WM a 1st round pick. TH had a 4 year deal for $2.296m, WM has a 4 year deal for $15.528m. The way I figure it we payed Travis Henry $413.05 for every yard he contributed. Willis Macgahee gets paid $5,809.20 for that same yard. As for whether TH will be out of football next year, sure - NFL runningback careers only average a few seasons anyway, so 5 and done is not surprising. The question is, what have we seen from WM that makes us so sure he'll be playing in 5 years? Every season brings new stars with fresh legs.

That's one way of looking at it. Another is that he took merely good talent and helped them look great. Do you really think Bebe would have made any other roster in the league? Or that Tasker would have had the same career on another team? Or that Talley would have started at LB for a decade elsewhere? Buffalo regularly lost more starters than it gained year after year at the beginning of the Plan B era. Our best pickups - Conlan and the Packer guy - didn't have much longevity. Among the other pickups that played key roles - Kenneth Davis and James Lofton - I don't think they were still considered top talent when we grabbed them. We just figured out a way to make everybody productive. Among our stars it's even harder to judge. I'm a huge Kelly fan, but he was just one of about 8 superstar qb's. Reed is also hard to judge - he didn't do much after leaving Buffalo, whereas many older wr's do. How much was due to Kelly? And was Thomas really anything more than an average top 15 back? To me his real contribution was solid consistency and longevity. As for Bruce Smith, he was top 2 for many years, but his decline towards the end cannot be denied. I would argue that perhaps the teams collective success made the players look more talented individually than they actually were.

We watched the tapes of 20 college games and had two private workouts, and on that meager basis drafted him. So why is is so incomprehensible that our opinion might have a bit more foundation by virtue of actually working and talking with him every day for two seasons, and having him play through 7 gameplans (plus preseason games) prepared especially for him? I don't know what he's like in practice, but it seems to me that his coaches over the last two years now have an infinitely stronger basis on which to judge his talents than did the scouts who told us he was worth a 1, 2, and 4.

I have heard it said on TBD early in the season that if a guy (ie Holcomb) probably can't lead you to a Superbowl win then you cut him. 9-7, 10-6 are worthless if you aren't going to win the Superbowl. So yes, that historic OT win and the long string of low draft choices that ensued (all in vain) was indeed the beginning of the darkest chapter in Bills history.

I did a study a few months back that showed 1/2 of first round qb's don't make it, 1/4 make it as journeymen, and only 1/4 become starters. The conclusion I hoped people would come to is that yes, starting a guy is the fastest way to get him experience and see what you have, BUT you are taking a step backwards for a few years with bad odds of it working out. In that case, the best strategy for the franchise is to periodically draft guys, let them ride the pine for a few years while you train and evaluate him until you are very confident of his value. It's slower, less sure, but the franchise escapes the qb-go-round that perennial losers get caught up in, drafting and starting a new non-answer every 3 years.

IMO he was poor but not nearly as bad as JP, over the course of the season. In particular, what you expect from a rookie are great plays mixed with terrible decisions (think early Jake the Snake). With JP I'm not seeing any flashes of spectacular.

Very interesting.

and he's a midget, too.

One thing that didn't win Wade any slack was the introduction of the challenge. We tend to forget now, but at the time he was savaged over it. First, he usually got them wrong. Second - and far more important - every time the camera was on him expectently after a questionable play he had this bumpkin, bewildered expression like he had no idea what was going on. Just the way he looks while he's thinking, I guess. Pretty funny, but very unfortunate, and it made him an easy target.

Aything short of 100% on 3rd down is unacceptable! That's why JP is better!

What's the matter - not getting enough hunky-love? Ok, Roscoe is a small receiver and a stupid use of a pick. But what has he shown you on the field that makes you certain he's not tough? I saw him bounce up without a thought after a couple of mean hits...

Because he's a more productive runner this game?

Nah, he's just warming up for the "so-and-so is absolutely awfull" refrain that posters spew about any player no longer on the Bills.

When Marv was brought in I thought it was a mistake. I saw him as just another retread who had failed miserably with his last team, the USFL Chicago Blitz. I was wrong. Yes, I did not think he was a good as the 'good' coaches at game-time adjusments. But he proved exceptional in three aspects. 1. He got the players to focus each and every game and play up to their potential. They never believed they were out of it. Many people say he had an easy time because the talent was there. I'm not so sure about that, outside of a few. He (or the system) made average players very good - think Talley or Tasker or Bebe or Kenneth Davis. 2. On balance, he was good at picking competent assistant coaches and maintaining stability. They came and went without the system lurching dramatically to and fro - contrast this with the TD era. 3. With the onset of free agency (coinciding with our glory years) it seemed that Buffalo got the short end. We seemed to lose at least two starters a year, including an OL, but the team managed to turn whoever was new into a legitimate starter by mid-season. So basically Levy brought competent management, a stable system, and motivation.

you're the backstabber, calling a Buffalo Bill that.

Re the Bledsoe trade, on balance I think it was bad. However, people make one common error. Did he cost too much? Absolutely. Did we lose a #1? Yup. But guess what - if we didn't make that trade, that #1 would have cost us first round money. Not as much as Bledsoe probably, but over a million + signing bonus. And if we had gone with Van Pelt it would have been top 5 Mike Williams money, much closer to Bledsoe's salary! So the idea that we could have kept Winfield is a bit simplistic.

I guess that's why Fletcher is the only one still with hustle when it gets cold.

In hindsight DB was one of the more successfull moves. Worth the money and the picks? No. But outside of Centers, TKO, Fletcher, and Virrial, what non-draft TD moves have had any actual positive impact? At least with Bledsoe we got some mojo for a while...