JDG

Of course, the NFL didn't really *get* one of the msot sought after contracts in all of television. The NFL kept that contract for itself and its wholly-owned subsidiary. I wonder just how far the NFL will go with its monopoly pricing on this. I'd strongly suspect that the NFL fully intends to turn the NFL Network into a loss leader for the cable companies.... JDG

Uh, Duke Preston ain't no rookie..... And its not like no rookie has ever had success starting at center. JDG

Its amazing. Once again, if you dare to criticize the quality of players on the Bills' roster around here, you immediately get your football IQ questioned. And yet somehow we end up out of the playoffs year after year.... Go figure.... Anyhow, do the words "Dan Koppen" mean anything to you? But what do I know about football...... JDG

On every cable system in the country, the cable company decides what networks are on the basic package, and what networks are on additional tiers. You act like Time Warner is descriminating against it, when in fact almost every cable system in the country regularly decides which networks will be on basic cable, and which will be in higher tier packages. Indeed, where does the NFL get off in refusing to let Time Warner carry the Network in a sports tier???? It is the NFL that wants the special treatment. The NFL Network is getting the same treatment from TimeWarner as Fox Sports Net - same as many boutique sports channels. You really don't know what you are talking about. Lifetime is the #5 cable network. A&E is the #10 cable network. I don't know where the NFL Network comes in, but it is not even in the Top 25. It is worth noting that Lifetime has more than 2.5 times the rating of the 25th ranked cable network, so we know it has at least that much on the NFL Network - and probably a lot more. There isn't outrage about Lifetime and A&E because both networks are on basic cable on just about every (if not evey single) system in the country because, well, people watch those networks - unlike the NFL Network. The battle between the NFL Network and Time Warner isn't exactly making National Headlines. It is making headlines among NFL beat writers, because that is what they cover. It also is making headlines in cities with Time Warner cable since it directly affects those places. It certainly has not made much in the way of mainstream news. I watch ABC World News Tonight just about every day and can't recall seeing it mentioned yet (although there is a small chance I might have missed it, I think that is unlikely). JDG

From the article: "[Preston] probably would be going into this season as the starting center under the former coaching staff, but the new regime apparently wasn't comfortable going with a young guy, which is why veteran free agent Melvin Fowler was signed. " The new regime apparently wasn't comfortable with a young guy? You mean the new regime that is preparing to start a rookie safety, and likely a rookie defensive tackle as well? Yeah, that must be it..... Or just maybe the new regime just didn't think that Duke Preston was all that good.... O.k., I know that this was a puff piece, but somehow I couldn't resist.... JDG

I never said that. I said that 90% of the country isn't really all that interested in watching the NFL Network. Well, for one, we don't know what fees those other networks are charging. It would also be interesting to compare ratings for those other networks that "noone watches" vs. NFL Network ratings. The simple truth of the matter is that you act like Time Warner is refusing to offer the NFL Network to its customers. Not true. Time Warner is offering to let consumers who want the NFL Network pay for it. It is the greedy NFL Network, owned by a monopolistic cabal of billionaires that is refusing to let Time Warner offer the NFL Network to those people who want it. The NFL Network wants Time Warner to offer the Network to everyone, or not at all. And right now the NFL Network is choosing "not at all." JDG

I think Haggan or Stamer could be a surprise cut. I don't think we claimed Odom because the coaches were happy with the status quo at LB. Ezekial looked like the backup to Fletcher-Baker against Cleveland, he might get in if one of them is cut. Otherwise it might be Odom. Stamer's special teams ability makes me lean towards Haggan as a cut - but both of these are the sort of "old regime" guys who typically get cut. Another surprise cut could be Josh Reed or Peerless Price. Whichever one doesn't start will have a high price tag for a #4 WR. Even worse is that neither is known for playing special teams. In their favor is that they both got signing bonuses. I'd love for them to find a spot for Leonhard as a special teamer on this squad. Maybe instead of Sape? Anthony Thomas could be another surprise cut, as Joe Burns and Shaud Williams are probably better special teamers. He is a a Jauron guy, though, so maybe he makes it as the third option. JDG

Its funny, but I saw that you mentioned Time Warner's profits, but not the NFL's profits. Well, that's because Time Warner is a public company, and the NFL keeps its profits close to the vest. O.k. 200 million people watched football games last season, but how many of them watched the Super Bowl and nothing else? How many watched only games with their favorite team in it? The truth of the matter is that die-hard football fans, whom the NFL network appeals to, are only a small percentage of viewership. What the NFL wants to do is to charge all cable subscribers for its games. Time Warner is saying that it just wants to charge the die-hard fans who really want it. The fact that many other cable systems have already capitulated on this point, mostly because it will only be a small increase in the monthly rate for the average viewer - doesn't change the fact that this is a raw deal for cable subscribers and that the best solution is to charge the people who want the NFL network for the NFL network, and to not charge the people who have other interests besides obsessing about sport. JDG

But the NFL Network can?

Fans could get the NFL Network on Time Warner if the NFL would agree to let Time Warner price the NFL Network to the small segment of cable subscribers that want it, rather than requiring Time Warner to charge the 90% of cable subscribers who don't want the NFL Network for getting the NFL Network. Basically, this is a ploy by the NFL to try and charge people for not watching the NFL games. A pretty sick deal if you ask me. JDG

I think people were just plain way too gaga over Martin Nance. The truth of the matter is that in the 7th round of the NFL draft, 7 WR's were taken. In fact, the Cincinnati Bengals, who are a short hop, skip, and a jump from Miami took *two* WR's in the 7th round. By definition, these six NFL teams rated these WR's as better prospects than Nance. I'm not interested enough in this to see what the preseason PT has been for each of these seven guys - but I doubt that teams are trying to hide them. Nance is a nice story, but the idea that the Bills somehow needed to "hide him" this preseason strikes me as wishful thinking. A far, far simpler explanation is that, at this stage of his career, he simply isn't very good. JDG

The only mild surprises there are Kingsbury and Gibson. Looks like we are keeping Holcomb for the moment. JDG

On draft day, the Bills had two quality DB's on the roster - and one of those was (and is) a on a one-year franchise tag contract, whom we had promised not to tag for next season. Most NFL teams need 5 good DB's, as in this day and age in the NFL, the nickel CB is a virtual starter. That left us 3-4 quality DB's shy of having a good secondary. So I guess that I don't see anything inexplicable about it. JDG

Oh yeah, and the #1 reason to keep Andre Davis - the fact that he was one of Kelly Holcomb's favorite targets during Holcomb's best season in Cleveland, now also seems to be irrelevant as well. JDG

Nance was an UDFA steal only in the eyes of the fans. There's a reason why 32 NFL GM's thought that Nance was unworth of a 6th or 7th round pick. Nance, so far as I know, hasn't done anything in camp to earn extra playing time. Every report indicates that he has been outplayed by George Wilson. So that leaves SEVEN other WR's with pro experience and Wilson ahead of him on the depth chart. I think that the coaches are using the game time to try and see whom out of Reed, Price, Davis, and maybe Aiken is going to emerge to start alongside Lee Evans, and also to see whether or not Jonathan Smith and George Wilson can merit roster spots alongside Parrish in the special teams department. With eight guys ahead of him, Nance has never been anything more than camp fodder, barring an unbelieveable camp - which he simply has not had. Davis might still make the team, but there is no indicate that Davis has beaten out Price and Reed for a mainline WR spot, and I have a hard time seeing him beating out Aiken for a ST coverage spot. As a returner, I don't see him beating out Parrish and Smith for that role either. So, I just don't see it.... JDG

The Bills plan on using a very serious rotation on the defensive line. Other than Schobel and maybe Triplett, I fully expect Anderson, McCargo, Williams, Kelsay, and Denney to all be "co-starters" with significant playing time. The fact that they were in early in the game tends to indicate that this is how the Bills will use them during the regular season as well. JDG

Except for the fact that the McGahee pick both physically and psychologically torpedoed Gregg Williams' critical third season with the Bills. And what has McGahee done for the Bills? So far he has been a career 3.9 yards per carry back. Right now he has been all unrealized potential. And need I mention that Larry Johnson was drafted just a couple picks later? I won't give Donahoe credit for McGahee until he produces - which so far he hasn't done. JDG

I think you are overweighting the cap clean-up job by Donahoe. What was the last team to get into cap trouble ala the Bills or 49ers? I have the definite impression that cutting the likes of Thomas, Smith, and Reed on the same day (the day TBD turned black) is an event the likes of which the NFL will probably never see again. I don't know if it has been the rapid growth in revenues, or the word getting out about how to manage the cap - but I don't see many instances of "cap jail" coming up like they used to. JDG

My objection is to your strong implication that Donahoe was "good at most of his job." You didn't say it directly, but you definitely left me with the impression that that was your conclusion - despite your other criticizisms. JDG

I disagree with this. O.k. the man that hires him and pays the bills *may* not say that, but THE MAN who hired him and paid would not say that. I firmly believe that if you told Ralph Wilson in 2001 that he could choose either: 1) Making a reasonable profit every year for which he remains the active owner of the team 2) Win one Super Bowl in his lifetime and make a small loss in every year for which he remains the active owner of the team, that Ralph Wilson would absolutely choose #2. Secondly, while I agree with you that it is unreasonable to blame Tom Donahoe for lying to us, I think it is worth criticizing him for perennially engaging in the flashy offseason moves that made us the "Team of March and April" every year, which certainly helped fill the seats, but didn't help us be the "Team of December and January." O.k. in fairness to Donahoe, I can't say with certainty that his motivation behind the flashy offseason moves was a desire to fill the seats. It might have been something else, such as his desire to make a name for himself, or perhaps it is even possible that he truly thought that those moves were in the best long-term interests of the franchise. Still, almost every year under Donahoe he was bringing in lots of flashy free agents - many of these were actually some of his more successful moves. After that, though, it gets worse. He traded a first round pick for a Drew Bledsoe who was never that good, and was actually getting worse. He sabotaged Gregg Williams' contract year by making him a lame duck, and then drafting a Willis McGahee that would never be able to play for him. He traded up for a very raw QB from a non-BCS Conference. In the space of four years he managed to use SEVEN 1st and 2nd round draft picks on QB, RB, and WR. And we wonder why this team isn't any good! Granted, each of those moves was reasonable on an individual basis, but taken together, it shows a prolonged pattern of failure at the offensive skill positions. Since Donahoe's track record on the offensive line hardly needs bashing - for what can we then credit him? The defense? After last year? O.k. so he built a great special teams unit, and he put together a nice training camp. A nice training camp, though, makes us the "Team of July and August", that's a little close to where we need to be from being the "Team of March and April", but still a long ways away from "December and January." In short, you act like he primarily had to go because he had an abrasive personality, even though he was "good at most of his job." Sorry, but building a good special teams on a very bad football team and making a fan-friendly training camp is not "most of his job" - and most NFL teams seem to have figured out the salary cap by now as well. I think Donahoe's performance more than made the case for his firing.... JDG

O.k. I agree that TD wasn't wholly evil. He was, however, a disaster for the Bills - from undermining Gregg Williams to hiring Mularkey. I hope you are right about the above players, but I think you may also be reading too much into limited performances. We'll see how the Bills do this year, and I am hopeful that the Bills can be a surprise team this year - but the simple truth of the matter is that it is hard to believe that Donahoe could have stocked a team full of talent that went a combined 9 games below .500 during his tenure. I also question Donahoe's success in making 2nd-day draft picks. Consider the following: 2001 - (Spoon, Sullivan, Driver, O'Leary, Jimmy Williams, Germany, Robertson) 2002 - (Bannan, Kevin Thomas, Pucillo, Rodney Wright, Jarret Ferguson, Stevenson) 2003 - (McGee, Aiken, Sobieski, Sape, Haggan) 2004 - (Euhus, McFarland, J. Smith) 2005 - (King, Geisenger, Gates) Other than hitting on McGee and Aiken in 2003, there aren't any other obvious hits. Indeed, 2001, when he had the most picks, is extraordinarily bad in this regard. Other than that, there's a few guys who played - but again, played for bad teams, and played in spot roles. The non-development of the offensive line is, of course, another major criticism. Regardless of whether or not Losman works out - and the conclusion that Losman, in his third year is better than a 33-year old Kelly Holcomb is *not* vindication of this - there will still be plenty of other criticism of Donahoe to go around. JDG

Except for the fact that the past statistical performances of David Carr, Aaron Brooks, Rex Grossman, and Billy Volek are all *better* than that of Losman's!!!!! (You could make a case that Carr was below 6 yards per attempt last season, while running for his life, but he has historically been well above that benchmark, and he completed *60%* plus of his passes last year - something Losman barely even sniffed.) Again, there just seems to be a lack of realization among Bills fans that Losman's performance last season was *below* the level that most of us think of as being "bad." The only comparison with Losman from your list is with Alex Smith, and he, at least, was a rookie, and was playing on a team that was even more talent-starved than ours was. Alex Smith certainly didn't have a Willis McGahee, Eric Moulds, or Lee Evans on that team.... You also might have included Charlie Frye on your list, as he is certainly a question mark for the Browns at QB, except that oh, wait, he performed better than Losman too.... and as a rookie at that..... JDG

I think that the point was that one has to be nervous about drafting Willis McGahee with JP Losman back there.... JDG

Thanks for posting something reasonable. I was interested to see above that Steve Buerlein was complimenting Losman's poise on TV. I can't help but wonder if that influenced peoples' perceptions of his performance, compared to those who didn't see the TV broadcast. (Reading the Bills' beat-writers (many of whom presumably did not see the TV feed) after the game, their opinions seemed closer to mine than to the opinions of many on this board.) Sort of like a Nixon-Kennedy thing. JDG - Back from vacation...

Faderphreak: Good research. To clarify, I said "it seems to me that there are scant few examples of a second-year QB performing as badly as Losman did last year and going on to good things....". While you provided numerous examples of QB's who did badly in the second year in the NFL, I specifically said *as badly* as JP Losman did. Thus, in answer to your question, my point is this - that few Bills fans seem to truly comprehend just *how* bad JP Losman really was last year. Instead, many (most) Bills Fans seem to take that attitude that either a QB is good or is bad, and of course there are lots of quarterbacks who were bad early in their careers. Again, my point, is that even considering how bad many of these QB's were in their second year in the NFL, JP Losman was *worse*. Specifically, I think there are two statistics that sum up JP Losman's abysmal year - a completion percentage under 50% and passing for less than 6 yards per attempt. In all the examples you listed, only a handfull of old-timers managed less than 50% completion in their second year. All managed more than 6.0 yards per attempt. In a couple of the cases of the old-timers you list, the player did not play for several seasons. You asked me what my alternative for this year is. My alternative is to play the QB who gives us the best chance to win games. Hopefully, that QB is JP Losman - but I also don't believe that the Bills should pound our heads against a wall. Losman *must*, in my mind, meet minimum standards for NFL competency. NOTE: I am not saying that Losman has to be good. On the contrary, I am just asking for Losman to be *bad* enough to merit additional playing time. If Losman can be *as bad* as a Steve Young or John Elway in their second seasons, then he'll merit additional playing time. If he can't even complete 50% of his passes, can't produce more than 6 yards per attempt, and becomes a turnover machine - then I say put Craig Nall in there and see what he can do. JDG - just back from vacation.....