JDG

Because that happens so often around here, right? And because my posts have completely drifted off the original topic, right? It seems that there is no surer way to catch grief around here than to dare criticize a Buffalo Bill not named Coy Wire..... JDG

The problem, Kelly, is that you seem to want to have it both ways. You think that Willis' season was "amazing" and "remarkable", but "not great." You think that Willis had the "fifth best season by a Bills RB in history", but that he had a "solid, but not great" year. You think that Willis has been "every bit as good [as Thurman] in his first two years", but you "don't know if Willis will ever be as good as Thurman"? If I wanted to be annoying, I could point out that you just said that Willis is as good as Thurman right now, at the two-year stage of his career. Of course, I interpreted your comment as arguing that you think Willis' first two years were as good as Thurman's, but you are reserving judgement as to whether or not Willis will have the type of extended, long-term, NFL-dominating productivity that made Thurman a Hall of Famer. Is that a reasonable characterization of your position? If so, I responded to your post by pointing out that I think that Thurman's statistics for his first two years show him to have been an unquesitonably better player than Willis McGahee in his first two years. Moreover, I think that it was only by comparing Thomas' and McGahee's first two years' statistics in the manner least-favorable to Thurman Thomas that you were even able to suggest the argument. If forced to chose a RB for two years of my football team - all other considerations aside - I would not think for a second about picking the 1988 and 1989 Thurman Thomas over the 2004 and 2005 Willis McGahee. JDG P.S. You said above that "Okay, Willis was way better than Thurman as a first year player" - come again? Thurman's first year was 207 carries for a 4.3 average, with 2 TD's and 18 receptions for 208 yards as a rookie. Willis' first year was 284 carries for a 4.0 average 13 TD's and 22 catches for only 169 yards as a second-year player. Willis was an inferior receiver as a first-year player, and about the only thing that was "way better" was the fact that he was the designated goal line back that year. I'd argue, thought, that Thurman's performance line as a rookie was arguably stronger - although I wouldn't ridicule someone who argued the other way. But "way better" - hardly. Certainly nothing compared to the difference between Thurman's second year and Willis' second year.

Let's see, Thurman Thomas in his second year average 4.2 yards per carry on 298 attempts and caught 60 balls for 669 yards (11.2 average) and scored 12 TD's. Willis McGahee average 3.8 yards per carry on 325 attempts and caught 28 balls for 178 yards (6.4 average) and scored 5 TD's. I honestly can't gather how you could seriously conclude that "Willis McGahee has been every bit as good as Thurman Thomas in his first two years." The argument you make is based on a very selective reading of statistics - produced by combining Thurman's 2nd year with his rookie year when he had a 2 to 1 split with Rob Riddick and comparing it to McGahee's 3 to 1 split with Travis Henry in his second year and McGahee's third year. It also is the classic Losman-two-card-monte, in trying to compare one player's second year with another player's rookie year. Anyhow, the true picture is quite clear, however, that performance-wise, McGahee has not yet produced to the level of Thurman Thomas in his second year. JDG

Until Mr. Headcase finds some other excuse for mailing it in this year... It is just bizarre that you are trying to convince us to get excited about a player *because* he quit on his team last year.... JDG

Actually, Thurman would have tried last year....

And that would be because Jeff Burris, Thomas Smith, and Antoine Winfield went on to such stellar careers after leaving Buffalo? ;-) All those players started for several years for the Bills, by NFL standards, those are hardly wasted picks (cf. McNown, Cade; Rumph, Mike) JDG

O.k., so your argument is that Willis had an "amazing" and "remarkable", but not "great season." And that "the fifth best season in Bills history" is "solid, but not great." O.k...... I hope you can forgive my confusion on that little bit of nuance.... All this proves to me is that the NFL's record-keeping methodology is not a particularly good indicator of future performance. Point taken. I didn't mean to suggest that Willis McGahee couldn't handle the workload of 3rd downs - although I do speculate whether his blocking and pass-catching is up to it on a performance level. We shall see in that regard - and I probably shouldn't be putting so much stock into Mularkey's assessment of that. Anyhow, the point I meant to make is that I don't think that playing on 3rd downs will do *that* much to improve upon his putrid 3.8 yards per carry from last season. With a terrible and injured offensive line. With atrocious quarterbacking and no deep threat. With the worst play-calling in recent memory. With a defense that didnt turn the ball over. With a divided locker room which basically became Lord of the Flies. With a fullback and tight end who blocked no one. Not playing on third downs. Willis had the fifth best season in Bills running back history with 1247 yards. And he did it without even trying the last eight games or so. It was rather a remarkable feat. He should put up huge numbers this year, with virtually everything better for him. The coaching, the line, better QBing, a deep threat, better play calling (guaranteed), a tighter locker room, a better blocking TE, and playing on third downs. O.k., let me see if I can identify your 11 problems: 1) a bad offensive line 2) an injured offensive line (seems like double-counting to me) 3) atrocious QB'ing (I did address this) 4) no deep threat (Lee Evans is apparently purely a possession guy, or else you are double-counting the QB play of Losman and Holcomb) 5) poor offensive game design (I did say that this gives me hope for McGahee's improvement) 6) few defensive turnovers (seems irrelevant to me - McGahee had the 11th most carries in the League already) 7) Divided Lockerroom (the lockerroom wanted Holcomb - was McGahee's performance better once the lockerroom was pacified by putting in Holcomb) 8) Poor TE Play (see #1-2) 9) Poor FB Play (see #1-2) 10) Not playing 3rd downs 11) Not trying (there is zero change that "not trying" will cause me to think highly of McGahee - indeed, his quitting last year is a key reason why I am very unwilling to give him the benefit of the doubt here....) In my opinion, your argument boils down to the fact that we should be impressed that McGahee compiled the "5th best season by a Bills RB in history" on a bad team, with bad talent at every offensive position besides WR and bad coaching. Its impossible to argue for an example of a RB that was successful with bad blacking by the OL, FB, and TE - mostly since the performance of these positions is almost assessed *by definition* by the play of the RB. I did however, cite that some of the best RB performances in NFL history have come on teams with terrible QB'ing. In 1973, in particular, Ferguson was essentially Losman-like in his futility. What this really comes down to, though, is that you look at McGahee's 2005 numbers, see the 5th-best season by an RB in Bills history, and are even more impressed by it when you consider the extenuating circumstances. I, on the other hand, look at McGahee's 2005 numbers and see a RB who was basically force-fed the rock over and over again due to the coach's philosophy and the ineptness of the QB play, and that this produced the 5th-best ranking in the NFL's highly flawed way of assessing these things. Looking closer at McGahee's 2005 numbers, I see a RB performance that ranked at the very bottom of the League - meaning that correcting those extenuating circumstances that you see have an awful lot of ground to make up on the rest of the League in order for McGahee to rank among the Top NFL backs in 2006 and justify his lofty draft status. I can only hope that you are right about that... JDG

Sir, you doth think too little of me! JDG

I think that this post proves the old adage about lies, darned lies, and statistics. Or the adage about how statistics don't lie, liars lie.... O.k., that's a little harsh, I don't mean to accuse the Fair and Balanced one of lieing - just of presenting a misleading picture using statistics.... First, this post is very misleading when it refers to "fifth-best season in Bills running back history." I'll leave aside for a moment the peculiar definition of "best," which allowed one of the worst seasons in Bills' running back history as one of the best. What is more misleading is that when referring to "Bills' history", one might think that this goes back through the full 46-year history of the franchise. Of course, it is worth noting that Willis benefited from playing one of only 26 16-game seasons in Bills' history. If one wants to draw conclusions about Willis' 2005 season in Bills' history one *must* account for the difference in the number of games in a season, even if one doesn't account for the change in NFL philosophy from multiple running backs to having a single featured backs. Secondly, while you cite that putrid play of Losman last season as making McGahee's performance look better, I'd actually say that it makes McGahee's performance look worse. There are plenty of examples of RB's who had truly great seasons doing so with inept passing games (cf Jamal Lewis, 2003; Eric Dickerson, 2984; and best of all - OJ Simpson 2003.) A great RB season is one where a great RB takes over the offense to overcome the passing game's difficulties. This connection becomes most evident when you consider your contention that McGahee's season was "great" because he put up those numbers while not playing on 3rd Downs. Yet, one wonders - how many more attempts could McGahee have reasonably expected to have last season. McGahee had 325 attempts last season - more than Thurman Thomas had in any season, save one, and more than Antowain Smith had in any season. Again, there has been a sea change in NFL philosophies from keeping RB's fresh in past era, to riding workhorse RB's into the ground in the current era. McGahee ranked 11th in attempts per game last season, and a paltry 13th in yards per game. Among RB's with 100+ attempts, McGahee ranked a pathetic 29th in yards per attempt - equal to Chris Brown in Tennessee. In fairness, I expect that Bills to be much better this year - and that includes Willis McGahee. I think we're really going to see just how bad Mularkey was this year. I just don't think that we should be putting lipstick on the pig that was McGahee's 2005 campaign.... jDG

Hey, JP has looked better and better with each preseason game. From a ho-hum first game, a couple decent performances, to last night's clinic. He deserves full congratulations for winning the QB job fair and square, for improving each week, and for last night doing everything that he could do. With that being said, let's see how he does in Foxboro.... As they say, the meter is now running..... ;-) JDG

Davis certainly made a statement with that catch today. And Aiken's big preseason game is now a memory. I think Aiken still might have the inside track in my reading of the tea leaves. The coaches seem to keep trying Davis as KR man, which may indicate that they are looking for something more from him, and yet Davis has been very ineffectual at returns. The other factor is that on gamedays, the team probably wants its #4 WR to be a Special Teamer. Thus, the wild card here is the Josh Reed may yet get cut, signing bonus and all, just because he doesn't fit the 4th WR role - even if he is the 4th-best WR. JDG

WR 1) J. Smith - Can't unseat Roscoe Parrish as a returner. 2) A. Davis - Just hasn't shown us anything 3) J. Reed - The surprise cut, but he's paid too much to be a 4th WR, and I don't think he plays much Special Teams. Especially since on GameDay, you'll want Evans, Price, Parrish, and Aiken to be active, effectively making Reed the 5th WR we'd look to activate on gamedays. It just doesn't make enough sense to me, time to see if Wilson can do it in live action.... RB 4) Goldsberry 5) Ricard - Beat out by Burns on Special teams ability 6) Shaud Williams TE 7) Cieslak - Only because he's still PS eligible OL 8) Jason Thomas 9) Merz - PS 10) Butler - Appears to have been beaten out by Pennington. Should make PS DL 11) Jefferson 12) Sape 13) O'Neill 14) Hall 15) Powell - And the winner of the 4th DE battle is *no one*. The Bills are going with 7 DL, having failed to find a 4th NFL-caliber DE LB 16) DiGiorgio 17) Haggan - Too big and slow for the Cover 2 18) Stamer - Beat out by Ellison 19) Hunter - I'm projecting that Odom will unseat him tonight. Ezekial makes the team as the backup MLB. DB 20) Bassey 21) Kiwaukee Thomas 22) Wire

How about the production level of the 27th pick in the same draft? Oh wait, that was Larry Johnson..... JDG

So, you are saying that Losman's rock-bottom performance last year was Mularkey's fault? And if he does it again this year, we shouldn't complain either because "he's really just still a rookie?" To review what happened here, the Buff News tried to explain the Bills' acquisition of Fowler as 'not being comfortable with a young guy at Center.' Somehow the Buff News never considered the possibility that maybe it wasn't Preston's age, it was his *ability* that led the staff to bring in Fowler. (I mean, is Fowler on a one-year deal or something so that Preston can have the job when he grows up?) In support, I pointed out that the staff doesn't exactly act like shrinking violets when it comes to starting true rookies, let alone *second-year* players, at other positions. At this point, you jumped all over me, and acted like it was a mathematical impossibility for a second-year player to start at Center in the NFL. The truth of the matter is that this conversation isn't about me proving that Jauron & Co. have no problem starting young players - it should be about you demonstrating that Jauron & Co. *are* reluctant to start young players. Of course, Jauron somehow had no problem starting a rookie Cade McNown in his first year as Head Coach. His Center that year? Olin Kreutz - a second year I've already tossed out the example of Dan Koppen, who was a 5th rounder, and who started as a rookie (let alone a second-year player, like Preston), and went on to win the Super Bowl. Al Johnson, center for the Cowboys started in his second year. Kevin Mawae started for the Seahawks as a rookie. Tom Nalen (5th rounder) started in his second year for Denver. Jeremy Newberry split time at Guard and Center in his second year for the Niners. Dominic Raiola started in his second year for the Lions. Alex Stepanovich (4th Round) started as a rookie for the Cardinals. Jeff Saturday started in his second year for the Colts. LeCharles Bentley and Nick Hartwig were both starting at least at Guard by their second years. But what do I know about football? Hey, maybe Preston will still develop. There certainly are guys who have taken a couple years. But we shouldn't kid ourselves that it would somehow be absurd for a team to start a second-year player at Center, especially a team in a rebuilding year with a new QB (best for the QB to get experience with his long-term Center) in a rebuilding year. JDG

Its probably for the same reason that a rookie center could never start in the Super Bowl..... Oh wait, nevermind..... JDG

There's also the matter of the public outcry, especially as people would worry that home-market games might eventually leave the networks entirely for pay-per-view. JDG

The existence of pay-per-view games would immediately diminish ratings for the network games. Someone in the NFL Front Office surely has an analysis of whether the pay per view revenue would offset the diminished network broadcast fees. JDG

You can dig around through the Yahoo! site and find this. Just know that if you can count KR yards, T. McGee is far and away the most valuable defensive player. JDG

Actually, Vegas has set our over-under at 6.5. JDG

Just keep in mind that just because you write a point 10 times does not mean that any given poster has read your point 10 times. Many of us only read here and there.... I know that you weren't addressing me, but this is the first time I have seen that point. Anyhow, it is not exactly proof of your contention that the Patriots use WR's differently that you haven't had a 1000 yard receiver in 5 years. Deion Branch had 998 yards last year in 15 starts. He clearly was being utilized like a 1,000 yard WR in your offense. David Givens had another 738 yards in only 10 starts and 13 games. Although the Patriots do spread the ball around, I think that you overstate your point. The lack of 1,000 yard WR's probably also has as much to do with the quality of your running game, and the quality of your defense. With one of the best defenses in the League for years, the Patriots have rarely been trying to play catch-up. And of course, a major factor has been injuries - I'm not sure you've had a WR start 16 games in five years either. JDG

Not with the schedule that they have. Patriots at home: Buffalo, Miami, NY Jets, Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Denver, and Indy The Pats could easily be favored in all those games. Not unreasonable to see them going 7-1 in those, let alone maybe 8-0. Patriots on the road: Buffalo, Miami, NY Jets, Minnesota, Green Bay, Jacksonville, Tennessee, and Cincinnati. The Pats could easily be favored in all those games, with Cincinnati looking like the toughest test. I don't see 6-2 as being unreasable from that group. JDG

I think the only hope that the Bills have Week 1 is New England's history of opening-day stinkers, with maybe the Deion Branch situation becoming a distraction. All other signs - i.e. the Bills installing new systems on offense and defense, the Bills' overall talent advantage, and NE's homefield advantage point to a New England romp. I think New England is going to be very good this year. Moreover, the AFC East is benefitting from a very favorable schedule this year, playing the NFC North, which may be the worst division in football, and the AFC South and East, which are appear to be the two weakest sides in the AFC. Thus, New England is going to be very good, and they are going to look even better that with their schedule. I see them with a shot at 13-15 wins, whereas if they had, say, Baltimore's schedule, I'd say that 10-11 wins would be more realistic. The question is whether or not the Bills can take advantage of their schedule. I think that the Bills need to get to at least 3-5, or better yet, 4-4 by mid-season. Presuming the Indy game to be a loss in Week 9, that would have us at 3-6 or 4-5. The second-half stretch is eminently winnablle, however, with four home games and road games at Baltimore and sad-sack Houston and the NY Jets. If the Bills are able to improve over the first half of the season, we might be able to go 6-1 in that stretch, which could get us to 9 or 10 wins. Here's how I see our opponents: Upper: Indianapolis New England (2) Middle: Chicago - Can the defense carry this team again? San Diego - How good is Philip Rivers really? Jacksonville - How is life without Jimmy Smith? @Miami - Completely overhyped based on beating weak teams last year. Lower: vs. Miami Baltimore - Should be a contender, but what will New Year's Eve be like? Tennessee - Hard to know what to make of this team. Detroit - Improved coaching and no Harrington could make it better. NY Jets (2) - Mangini will try to keep them competitive. Green Bay - Favre looked like he didn't have it last week, and who else is there? Minnesota - This team looks like an implosion. Houston - Domanick Davis out, no offensive line, Mario Williams doing nothing so far. JDG

Good grief! How low are we going to put the bar for Losman? Or better yet, how far down do we need to put the bar in order for him to go over it? JP Losman is *third year* player. He had more regular season snaps as a rookie than Carson Palmer did. Last year he played in nine game. JP Losman is *not* "essentially a rookie QB. He is a young QB. I'm really amazed at your vitriol on this issue. Is it really so hard to believe that Jauron, McNally, and Levy simply don't believe that Preston is good enough to be a center this year, no matter what his age? Isn't it entirely possible that Jauron, McNally, and Levy would have strongly considered starting Preston if Preston were a better player? JDG

I'm just pointing out that whatever amount they paid, it was essentially just an accounting convenience. JDG

And where exactly did they get that $600 million from? They might as well have paid $1 billion......