Casey D

You have a myopic way of thinking. Of course, the defensive backfield has less to do with rushing defense than the defensive line. Conversely, the defensive backfield has much to do with pass defense. My analogy was that when the Patriots lost just about their entire secondary, and had to play that way down the stretch last year--and in the playoffs against one of the most dynamic passing teams in history, the Colts--the team's pass defense held up just fine. And that was with the loss of several players, not just one. Which leads to my point, that football is a team sport, and so is football defense. When over 90% of your defense returns(as is the case with the Bills), you would not expect a 50% or greater drop off in play simply because of the loss of one player-- and only a good player, not a pro-bowler. Yet you claim the drop off in the defense's play as attributable solely to the loss of PW to be a certain truth, and my reference to the Patriots was simply to show that losing one player--or multiple players--should not that significantly affect a good defense. And don't suggest the DBs that New England was using were great players--guys like Earthwind Moreland who started is not even in the league anymore(I don't think). Surely the drop-off from Ty Law to Moreland at least equaled any drop-off from Williams to Edwards(no matter how much you think he sucks), yet New England held up just fine in pass defense. I find it implausible that the Bill's dramaticdefensive drop-off is primarily due to PW leaving--that's my view. But you think what you like. You are just wrong, in my opinion.

To be sure, it would be. And fyi, "surmized" is spelled "surmised." But let's caulk that up to an honest mistake.

New England was starting practice squad players in the secondary last year; they even use a receiver--Troy Brown--on defense. If there depth is that deep, that is incredible. In any event, I understand your certaintly that the downfall of the D is the loss of PW. I simply don't agree.

Thanks for clearing that up. My bad.

Certainly no one would conclude your posts are cheerful or tolerant based on your broad body of work on this board. You have a style that is judgmental and often mean spirited. I guess I just assumed it was caused by anger, but I don't really care about the reason one way or the other--it's none of my business. I just thought it funny and somewhat ironic that you of all people would tell someone else to lighten up. But let's move on, I don't want to start a tirade or anything.

Your response only indicates that you are certain that everything is attributable to the PW departure. You may be right, but given say, the myriad of injuries that teams have with little or no fall off in performance--e.g. the New England secondary last year--it seems more likely to me that the loss of one player should not have that dramatic of an effect. So the situation hardly seems obvious to me; indeed your view seems to be overly simplistic and wrong, and in my opinion, equally curious. But to each his own.

No, your consistent pattern of scathing and acerbic comments on most every topic is a pretty clear sign of anger. Unless, of course, you are really Don Rickles or something and it is all an act.

That's funny. As angry as you seem to be about almost everything, telling someone else to lighten up. That's a good one.

Why do you find that curious? What he is plainly stating is that the fall off in the defense, in his mind, cannot be explained simply by the loss of Williams. Your fallacious thinking is that because the only thing different is Williams, the cause for the fall off must be Williams. But you are assuming your answer when you say the only difference is Williams. Other factors might be involved, like poorer performance from returning players due to age, simple regression, or injury. Or perhaps the defensive schemes used before effectively are no longer as effective because of adjustments opposing offenses have made. Those are just a couple of possibilities. Bottom line, it seems unlikely the defense has played so poorly solely, or even primarily, because of the departure of PW. Other things--hopefully correctable things--probably are the main reasons, when you have 10 starters returning(now 9 with the loss of Spikes)... CD

This team was supposed to win based on great defense and special teams, and an adequate offense that did not turn the ball over much, and let a pea green QB get his feet wet. The offense is not great, but has turned the ball over only twice in three games and scored on the first three drives yesterday, and got 16 points. This team is supposed to win 10-6, 13-7, 16-9, etc. This defense is supposed to be great--16 points needs to be enough to win 95% of the time. What did the defense do? It gave up touchdowns on the FIRST TWO possessions. It allowed a ridiculous 60 yard run to permit a FG right before half-time when the other team had given up trying to score. When the Bills closed to 17-16 early in the second-half, special teams covered the ensuing kickoff at the Atlanta 3. A hold and the Bills are in scoring position for the lead likely off the PUNT Return. What happens, a 60 yard drive. The defense, except for the one pick, did absolutely nothing to help the O. Nothing. There may be a very small gap between what we could reasonably expect and what we are getting on offense. But there is a chasm between what we expected on defense and what we are getting. If the defense is just decent yesterday, WE WIN. People who think we are going to win by becoming an offensive juggernaut with Holcomb or otherwise are fools. This team rises and falls on defense and special teams. The prospects look dim right now, given the defense's play and now the huge loss of Spikes. But bailing on JP is crazy, and shows how little patience people have, and how little they understand the game in general and the Bills in particular. Good God... CD

The foreging response was to Die Hard Fan, not myself. Plainly I am technologically challenged...CD

I did not say I predicted it-- I said I was not surprised. There is a difference between the two. Let me illustrate. For example, President Bush said he had no idea that the levees in New Orleans could be breached from Katrina. I never would have predicted he would say something so plainly wrong given that he is the President and should be informed. On the other hand, it hardly surprised me that he had no idea what he was talking about given his past performances? See the difference between prediction and lack of surprise?

Perhaps, but I think your expectations are unrealistic. This team is flawed, as are all teams. They had a letdown yesterday.. it happens. What matters now is what they learned from this, and how they respond. I did not expect them to be 16-0.

After last's weeks dominating win, this game was a logical progression in this team's learning curve. Losman was being thrown accolades, and the defense was talking about being as good as the 1985 Bears. Well the Bucs through a cold water bath on all that talk, and the Bills were humiliated. But it was an away game in bad conditions(heat) against a non-conference opponent. If you are going to lose, this is the kind to lose, as opposed to home games against Division rivals. So yesterday was no surprise to me at all. What I am interested in is how this team re-groups--that will give us a much better idea if this team is a pretender or a contender. If they look like yesterday again, then worry. But if they fight back and play OK, and WIN, then maybe we have something. How you respond to adversity is the only true test of character. The Bills need to be 4-2 after the first 6 games if they are really a playoff caliber team, given the early schedule. So let's see what these guys learned yesterday and, more importantly, what they are made of . My view is that I would not want to be the Falcons this week, but we'll see...CD

I like having 3 of the first four games against NFC games. It gives Losman a good chance to get some experience agianst some pretty average teams, and if we lose a game we shouldn't, helps with tiebreakers down the line as it is an out of conference loss. As he should improve as he goes along, this may be a big help to the Bills at season's end... CD

To me, this story is just more Donahoe leaking things to a friend in the media to strengthen his bargaining hand with Arizona. "No, we don't really like Shelton that much, so you'd better make sure we get that draft pick swap we want." I don't think TD would tell his ESPN buddy that the Bills' staff thinks they can turn Shelton into the next Orlando Pace at this juncture, do you? CD

I am neither pro-Bledsoe nor pro-Losman, I just don't want to take a step backward in 2005 and miss the playoffs. And I don't believe the Bills braintrust thinks releasing Bledsoe will reduce our playoff chances much, if at all, for 2005, or they would not make this move. On this score, doing an economic analysis of the situation, it appears that the market agrees with our braintrust that we will not take much of a hit in going with Losman. The proof on this is that no team seems to be willing to give the Bills anything in a trade for Bledsoe. I know the Bills respect Bledsoe, but they would not give him away if there was a stronger market for his services. How they are handling the Henry situation proves that. Bledsoe's cap number for the next two years is relatively small for a decent starting QB. If Bledsoe were perceived as a decent starting QB, someone would offer a draft pick for him--the Bills would let him shop his services and then make a trade. This is not being done for only one reasonable reason--no one will part with even a middle round pick for him. It is evident, therefore, that the market shows that Bledsoe is, at best, a marginal starting QB. That being the consensus judgment of an entire league of GMs and coaches, as a mere interested observer, going with Losman seems to be the move that most every team in the league would make. So let's get it done and move into the Losman era....CD

ICE ICE, baby...

How about he just play in A game when it is not mop-up time. Hope is nice, but that's all it is right now as far as Losman winning BIG games.

The answer to your question is clear, as what QBs have won a SB except Brady in the last few years: 2003: Brad Johnson 2001: Trent Dilfer 2000: Kurt Warner None of them were remotely star QBs when they won(you might argue on Warner, who was spectacular for a very short time, but he came out of nowhere and soon returned). In fact, Warner and Dilfer were backups when the season started. And none of them are starters today. Which suggests that other than Brady, the fixation on the QB position to win the SB is misguided. Others like Rypien, Doug Williams, Jeff Hofstedler, all were backups or journeyman. Favre did win one, Elway two, but only late in his career as his talent was fading. Outside of Aikman and Montana, you'd have to say the teams won the SB because they were the best team, not the team with the best QB. Indianapolis proves this truism every year.

I finally understand why no one outside this board thinks what TD said last week is a big deal(thus no newspaper articles)--it's not. Unless the Bills "do something different"--which seems unlikely givne their investment in Losman and Bledsoe-- the issue is whether Bledsoe is guaranteed the job, or whether he has to earn it in camp. Big deal. I mean I always assumed if and when Losman is performing better than Bledsoe, he would get the job. This all now seems like a big nothing to me...CD

He says we could use a guard, and a tackle if Jennings leaves. He also indicated an upgrade at TE and Defensive End might be a good idea. No analysis...CD

I've had the same question. If what TD said yesterday was as substantial as listeners have posted--i.e there is a good chance DB will be cut or something like that--isn't that news for a team that finished 9-3 with him as the starter? But not a peep from the News or the D&C. Are they asleep? It seems to me given all the drivel that is written, this is a pretty big oversight if reports are accurate...CD

I agree, it is up to the factfinder, i.e, the jury, to determine if the guy appeared visibly intoxicated. The issue is not whether he was intoxicated--this is not strict liability--it is whether he "appeared" intoxicated. If someone holds his liquor well and shows no sign of intoxication, then the vendor would not be responsilbe even if the guy had a .2 blood level. I have not heard the evidence, so I am not in a position to judge. But juries are just people finding facts--it they got it really wrong, the decision can be reversed. I cannot assume that the jury was wrong to say the guy looked intoxicated, when he had a .26 blood alcohol level.

The law in New Jersey is quite clear, you can be responsible in tort for serving someone who is "visibly intoxicated." If, as a matter of fact, an Aramark employee served this guy while he was visibly drunk, then they are liable, as a corporation can only act through it's representives. If you think it's a bad law, change it. If you think a corporation should not be responsible for it's employees conduct if it violates some internal rule, that would be fine too. But, if it is true, as alleged, that Aramark was happy to serve drunk people, that it winked when it's employees served visibly intoxicated people, then it bears responsibility. This is not purely passive conduct on the part of the company, as is often the case with a gun manufacturer(here, to me, the beer company would be analogous to the gun manufacturer). Now there is no basis to hold the NFL or the Giants responsible under the law of New Jersey, that is why the case was dismissed as to them. But this is not a situation where the court made up some new standard, it simply followed the statute that duly elected officials in New Jersey passed as law. And it hardly seems unreasonable to me.