Pyrite Gal

IMHO. Fowler could easily be upgraded in terms of talent level, but upgrading him will not necessarily be easy in terms of the reality of who is available, how much will they cost and the difficult unknowable of how will a talented new C FA fit in on an OL which will likely improve somewhat (though not as much as we want as fans) with Fowler in there. Fowler has some clear upsides IMHO A. Seems to have gotten over early career injury issues as he has started 16 two years in a row (he is coming off of off-season shoulder surgery but is said by the Bills docs to be 100% so we will see). B. A good football head honed with years as a natural c who played this position in college and was a highly draftable though not guaranteed product (he failed in his first attempts due to injury rather than talent) C. An athletic player with the mobility to be a pulling C. However, he has some areas where he needs work A. A little light on a huge line and not a dominating center as this OL has been disappointing in short yardage (despite the demonstrated deficit strength at the POA can be gained with more bulk and better technique by this relatively young player). B. Has not demonstrated the command of the OL Kent Hull showed (Hull was a master and while this is a reasonable expectation to hope for it is silly to demand it- it can be supplied by Dockery or a group effort so while desirable it is not necessarily essential. Overall, folks who want to cut Fowler now seem pretty laughable. A. Its silly to talk about getting rid of him without a real world alternative. B. The injury issues seem improve but remain a question as we want him to improve not merely hold his own but as a relatively young athlete getting one's panties up in a wad and advocating his cut (particularly without also advocating a specific replacement strategy seems to show a lack of football understanding. Fowler CAN be replaced, but the suggestion he NEEDS to be replaced is not supported with any objective judgment.

The line from the SD article which a link in the link refers you to is one by Mark Fabiani who is described as handling stadium issues for the Chargers. He says that a team does can buy a little time but cannot compete forever in the NFL without a new stadium. This would seem from the article to apply to all NFL teams and IF true raises the question what about the Bills. The new stadium question strikes me as a tipping point for the Bills location issue as my sense that if a private party like Ralph paid for it one would not want to abandon it without the team staying in it for a couple of decades to recoup the cost of building and/or if the government paid for it, this would be done in a method which contractually keeps the Bills in it for a similar length of time. The Bills can actually buy out of the current lease for chump change at any point but I suspect that a decision point will likely arrive in the not to distant future triggered by stadium purchase options or if life provides by Ralph's demise.

Just as folks who out their faith in past statistical events draw conclusions about the present which can often be wildly wrong (for example, some folks insist that the Whitner pick was a bad one because statistically one need not draft a safety in the first seem to value this statistical truth over the fact that it is a different NFL than their granmother's league when these stats actually described reality: 1. In the modern NFK the safety is a far more pivotal player than in the old NFL (ex. Troy Polamalu) and in particular if your base D is the Cover 2 getting the best safety you can get is pivotal (ex. Sanders) 2. The greater import of the safety in the modern NFL is seen in the Whitner draft as he was not even the first safety taken in the first round and in fact not the last as a third safety was not only taken in the 1st but our archrivals the Fish took Allen at 15. Yes, you are undoubtedly statistically correct about the utility of a WR taken in the draft, but one when asking why this happened it would make a lot more sense to conclude something else is going on here the Bills braintrust is simply out to lunch on this one. However: 1. Even with the typical learning curve delay which occurs with most rookie WRs there likely is going to be an immediate benefit for Evans in the redzone as other teams will simply be forced to place their best DB at covering bigger players on Hardy in the redzone, If this good coverage guy would have dt'ed or had even taken the prime coverage responsibility then Evans will profit from Hardy's presence without Hardy even catching a pass. 2. The Bills had an obvious critical need for redzone improvement and getting a player who is freakishly tall who took in 30+ TD in college is quite likely to fill a different specific role than many of the players whose stats you rely on. There is no guarantee of course but one has to willfully put blinders on not to at least acknowledge that this is a significant difference which may be a good reason why the past statistical info may not determine this case. I know it may be tough for a believer in past stats to acknowledge their limitations but do you not see this as a reason why the simple past statistical recitation my not apply directly in this case? Instead you seem to make statements like the limited speed comment which actually seem to run counter to the stats produced by Hardy at the Combine. 3. The pick of Hardy was not a flawless piece of work as I too feel that the likelihood of a WR contributing significantly as a rookie are small and uncertain enough it puts a lot of pressure on the Hardy pick to work out. However, the solution to this problem is not necessarily picking another similarly regarded player who he odds stack up against the same as they do for Hardy but instead I would feel much better about the uncertainties regarding any 2nd round WE we could have chosen that picking yet another WR in the second or third rounds would have likely heightened this draft being a good one. Simply ragging on Hardy means little, 4. Any statistical analysis is pretty meaningless in terms of drawing specific conclusions (which you do not do but again any honest probability analysis needs to site how this specific draft differs from the norm) now as this draft was markedly different from past or recent talent pools. Unless you want to lay out criteria which define the talent in this draft (no WRs judged to merit a 1st, but yet tons of available WR talent which merit a second or a third this year and might have garnered a first in other drafts. The risk here was not taking Hardy but in waiting until so late to take alternative Jackson. We'll see but this case does not look as bleak as you seem to imply.

This fan hopes that Schonert and the whole Bills braintrust is lying to me and being quite effective at doing it. While some fans care so much about being told the truth about everything and knowing as much as they can know, this is one fan that is quite happy to have them lie to me and fool me if this means that the Bllls opponents are lied to as well. If in fact the are foolish enough to be snookered by a lie and this makes it easier for the Bills to win its a great thing IMHO, The Bills winning is a lot more important to me than me being told the truth. The great John Butler was not simply that he would not tell me the truth but that the team lost while carrying out his lies.

It has struck me for a while that given the journeyman talent and the now cut Viti being what we had at FB that the answer seemed to be more 3 WR sets and not really making the FB more than a sometimes part of our offense. I really see no answer for us with the FB talent we have on the roster to rely at all on the traditional FB mold. Though I think that those who somehow seem to hold out the proposition that Viti was a beast who would allow us to play a Sam Gash smashmouth kind of ball were pretty close to psychotic, I also think that folks go overboard when they say we have no answer at WR. Are we loaded at WR? Nope. We do not have the depth to make that claim nor do we have a bunch of surefire #1 WRs to credibly claim we are loaded. However, it could easily work that though we are not loaded, the WRs we do have are mutants in a number of specific ways that IF we avoid injury and the players play up to talent levels which they have already demonstrated, the WR passing portion of the game could easily be quite formidable and a big part of the game. Specifically, Evans- Mutant speed and a demonstrated ability to have exceptional games and achieve great things in episodes (such as the game last year where he caught 2 70+ yard TDs or the one where he registered 3 TDs against the Fins. He has not shown the full season consistency which legitimately would have earned him Pro Bowl status. However, even his spotty performance last year I found to be incredibly impressive as he brought off the great episodes without Fairchild running an O with a credible #2 threat, which made use of the RBs as receivers (a failing I think falls on Fairchild as folks like Lynch and Wright had good receiving records in college and even WM produced much more as a receiver away from Fairchild) and which never employed the TE effectively besides sometimes spasms with Gaines. The fact Evans did what he did (not to mention the QB disruption) was quite impressive. Just get the contract done Oberdorfer. Hardy- The least credible arguments you seem to make are the negative take you have on Hardy. Is he perfect? Nope? Do #2 WRs actually tend to produce numbers as rookies not unlike PP's last year? No they do not. However, I think the summary produced on Bills' Daily about Hardy is pretty accurate IMHO > WR James Hardy Indiana 6-6, 217, 4.49 - Hardy is a tall receiver with a great reach. Gets open quickly and has good speed for his tremendous size. Can take a hit and has good hands. His size allows him to shield defensive backs from the ball. Needs to work on his route running abilities and may have trouble separating from top corners at this level. Hardy will step right in to help the red zone defense. He scored 36 touchdowns in three seasons and should be great for jump balls in the end zone. Likely a starter early in the season if not on opening day. < This perspective, his Combine numbers which support the view he has good speed and not the limited speed you site above, and the descriptions of his actual college games indicate to me that he should do a lot for the threat the Bills pose in the redzone and while opponents are used to facing two good WRs, they will have tough choices to make as the set their coverages, They will be virtually forced to put their tall guy or at least someone who can elevate on Hardy. If the Bills use more 3 WR sets because of their poor FB selection then Parrish has demonstrated the ability as a return guy and some surprisingly tough good work over the middle after his initial injury (he made all 16 two years in a row and improved his reception total each of his three years) the other team is virtually forced to put a fast good cover guy on the slot receiver. Now this leaves Evans who also demands speed from a DB and who now becomes difficult to double well if your tall guy and a somewhat fast guy are committed to the #2 and #3. Add to this when the Bills go 4 WRs that Reed feasted on the DB designated to cover our #3 as a rookie when opposing DCs found a need to double both Moulds and the young PP and he gets a chance to do this as a vet now. The Bills WRs if they avoid injury and if the performed as the have in the past as pros (or in college when Hardy was racking up 30+ TDs in his career) the WR threat shows good possibility of being quite impressive. Sure it could suck to, but there is not objective evidence to offer that it will be a big problem and there is good objective evidence to indicate it may well be quite substantial.

You are right that it would not take a Holmesean level on intellect for other teams to key on the player who by far was the team's sack leader and arguably the best player not only of the front 7 but of the D as a whole. Yet, the response from apparently football focused is to find our lack of sack production to be the fault of the team's leading defensive producer (if one disagrees we are all entitled to our views, but the view of Schobel as the best defender on this team is not only shared by the coaching staff, but he has been selected as one of the league's outstanding DEs two years in a row). Schobel's sack production went way down in 07 compared to the impressive total in 06. Perhaps those who said they rarely saw him dt'ed and that he disappeared when facing better competition are right. However, what seems more logical is that the folks who made this observation simply were doing bad analysis as it seems far more likely that opponents would take the obvious step of neutralizing Schobel by sliding the protection his way, devoting a dt too him which at least was a harder to notice chip block rather than having two players engage him as though he were Bruce Smith. The view which focuses on a pass protection scheme they did not see actually ignores the true measures of Schobel's skills and utility to the team in that he is an athletic and mobile player who can do the Cover 2 DE role of outside containment well and actually staying at home to allow the hoped for penetration we never got consistently from our DTs. If fault finders had some more specific accusations against Schobel for doing bad things they could point too or sins of commission rather than sends of omission then these indictments would be a lot more credible.

Actually there are a number of statements which one can disagree with or not which points toward the points you make not being correct. I feel that. 1. OCs (it is the offensive coordinators who prepare the blocking schemes Schoebel will face and not the DCs btw) stay up all night (or as many hours as they can muster and still walk) preparing schemes and implementations to beat that week's opponent which might include the Bills. 2. In terms of stopping the Bills from getting sacks in 2007, the opposing OC likely devoted his time various Bills sack threats . Of the 40 Bills sacks that year, 14 were Schobels which actually outpaced the #2 and #3 (Kelsay and Denney) when combined. The good OC is staying up the maximum number of hours he can developing blocking schemes for his team and quite frankly he would be a fool not to spend most of that time figuring out a way to exploit the guy who got the vast majority of the sacks. 3. How does the OC actually win this battle to exploit the Bills. A. He chooses what he wants to do and forces the Bills to adjust to him rather than curtailing what he does well to acomodate the Bills. In this case, though I would be a fool not to focus on neutralizing one player in terms of sack threats because if I beat him I have taken away over 1/3 of their sack total the previous year. B. The way I do this is on passing plays I dt their major sack threat (as always depending upon the quality of my individual players I will go 1-on-1 when I can but I would be foolish not to exploit their major sack threat with my major effort). However, in addition to dt's this player I can do other things like slant my players and play in how they implement their assignments to maximize the traffic around their major sack threat. This selection and game planning about how to implement my blocking schemes produces a result which is difficult to see on TV but really impacts the play. C. I am particularly helped against the Bills as not only does their DL not present the rushing threat across the board they would have presented if they had gotten Walker to sign, if Triplett played well enough to force me to slant the protection toward covering the middle of the OL, or if designated pass rusher Hargrove were not missing all the time, but the LBs are young and injured so I do not have to worry as much about employment of zone blitzes which Schobel has already shown effectiveness at doing the past few year. Scheming for the Bills pass rush is all about scheming for Schoebel because statistically they have few other weapons.

In 2007 because of the lack of a pass rush, opposing teams keyed their blocking designs and play selection to minimize the effectiveness of the one Pro Bowler on the Bills DL. It really shows a lack of understanding of the game for folks to blame the anemic sack numbers on Schoebel because he suffered such a huge drop off in the number of sacks he logged in 2007. Actually, it was the lack of a consistent pass rush from since cut Triplett, the failure to acquire sackmaster Walker (why do folks think Jauron Fewell wanted him so badly) and the on again off again performance of Hargrove which allowed opposing offense to slide their protection schemes Schobel's way. If folks are so certain he disappeared and play so badly then why did the coaches go out of their way to put him on the Pro Bowl team as a reserve even though the sack numbers clearly did not attract much support Schoebel's way in the voting. Folks who seem so stone cold certain he disappeared simply do not seem to get it.

Disappears in whose eyes? Perhaps yours but not in the eyes of the coaches, fellow players, and fans who in combination selecting him as a starting Pro Bowler for the 06 season and as a reserve for last season. is Schoebel Bruce Smith? In a word. No. In more words not even close. However, does the fact he ain't the best Bills DE ever and not even the top DE in the league mean that he is crap or simply disappears against the best opponents as you say. In a word No. Schoebel has plusses and minuses like any human being or player. However, in this case the pluses so outweight the minuses that any rational judgment recognizes that he is a plus big time for this team. 1. The Bills scheme switches have really helped his development as a player. He came to the NFL showing promise but could be defeated by a stronger more experienced player when you sent the play toward him. Over the years he has simply developed his strength while at the same time he developed experience which allowed him to escape getting tied up or slip blocks more reliably. He does in fact get double-teamed but usually when the opposing OC has chosen him as the point of attack. It used to be he could be handled one on one but now when the play goes at him the opposing FB or a pulling blocker will take him out with the opposing OL player. 2. The big switch which helped his game a lot was when LeBeau/Gray used the zone-blitz as our base D. Schoebel responded by losing some weight so he could pull off the pass coverage needed by a DL player in a zone blitz. The good news is that this weight loss was pulled off with him while actually increasing his strength and leverage at the POA. Schoebel now can be counted upon to provide as deep as middle zone coverage due to his athleticism while also requiring a dt when he is at the POA for a run play. 3. Schoebel is not a one move pass rusher(a downside for Bills fans used to Bruce beating OL players with one move and a swim). However, this is where his diligence and the constant motor the Bill's braintrust seems to love kicks in for Schoebel. He is a smart player who will stay after the QB and also anticipate where he may scramble to as he stays on the blitz. He plays well on containment of outside rushes and his peers value his determination to the extent that rather than disappear they vote him honors, Overall, I would say that Schobel is just the type of DE we want in our scheme which operates like the Tampa 2. Its the DTs we call upon to penetrate (and with Stroud and pressure specialist Johnson joining 1st round pick MCCargo and former starter Williams the DL rotation should be much improved over the failed Triplett experiment. Schobel will be required to be disciplined in his play, contain RBs running wide, pick up the trash by keeping his motor running for the occaisional late sack, and even do short zone pass coverage from time to time. Schobel will never be a traditional Bruce Smith rusher but he has trained for years to make this work. I think he can.

Only a fool would claim that any player is a shoo-in destined for a great NFL career. Too many great regarded players have had unfortunate breaks (literally in some cases) or turned out to be poor players once they pocketed their bonus for one to make that claim. Too many late draftees and even UDFAs have mounted great careers. The question is where will Hardy fall on what is likely to be result which is likely more disappointing for those who see him as a consistent pro Bowler or more impressive for those who see him destined to be a bust. The good news for the Bills is that all should agree he is a tremendous specimen who has had some (but not total) significant success as a TD producer. Other teams will need to adjust to him simply based on the fear of what he might do and the mismatches he creates. This will likely be a boon to Lee Evans who will not see the DTs or biased coverage toward him that other teams could mount last year with little fear that Fairchild and the Bills offense would make them pay for have an overwhelming focus on Evans. This coverage will not last if Hardy is not able to produce at all. However, the tea leaves are clearly in the Bills favor on this one.

Do you have any objective information which supports this opinion or is it merely just something which ranges between another fan's view or a simple fact free rant which is all to prevalent on this board. My sense of the actual objective facts of Parrish's play are: His first year as a rookie was fairly much a lost year in terms of productivity as a Bill as this first choice of the Bills (though a second rounder as we had traded away our first choice to get JP) as he suffered an injury in camp which caused him to miss most of this learning opportunity. The team he joined was a screwed up unit as the OC got switched in the middle of the season and the HC resigned. His second year saw greater productivity (not hard to do given the disruptive rookie year coaching shenanigans). Yet the good news was that after the injury he played all 16 games and actually began to show value to the team as a PR guy on ST pm practice. He did show a couple of episodes of good route running which ironically was from the slot rather than the usual burner position on the outside as he ran good slants with lomg TDs against the Jets and DET. No one would correctly accuse Parrish of being an all-star but all too often on the internet folks seem to have only two judgments, either you are an All-Pro or you are clueless. Neither is true as Parrish is somewhere in between. He is essentially a smurf and the role we had him play going over the middle alot seems quite questionable for a player who missed significant time right off the bat due to injury. Yet, rather than being clueless, Parish showed good recognition and an ability to run a route to give him the separation to use his speed on the two TDs and the handful of other longer pick-ups he made. Parrish broke out a bit in his third year and proved himself to be one of the most feared PR guys in the league. Opponents clearly kicked away from him on some punts giving up yardage putting the ball OB rather than giving him a shot at a return. Even better, for the second year in a row Parrish played in all 16 games and jumped right up after a couple of vicious hits on patterns over the middle. Again rather than being clueless, his reception numbers improved once again with him logging 35 catches up from 23 the year before. Was Parrish god's gift for pass patterns? N. But given his improvement he has shown each year, his taking in a number of catches which was not horrible compared to most #3 WRs and him showing recognition and ability to run routes to give him separation when the opposing DC is foolish enough to give him room and cover him one on one, this is much more than total cluelessness even though it is not great. Even more to the point which makes your indictment a bit weird is that with the firing of his first OC and his second OC Fairchild never really demonstrating an effective ability to run the Bills D, it just seems odd and without support for one to deliver a lot of blame directly to Parrish. Is he clueless> There is little evidence of that and lots of reasons to hope that Schonert runs a much better offense, that the young Edwards will improve all the WRs play over last year and that the presence of Hardy will make for a much more potent passing game than the poor job Fairchild seem to do with the getting older Price and no TEs , and a failure to use the RBs effectively as receivers. Indicting Parrish as a leading problem here does not seem football smart.

Double bingo. The opinion held by some that you never pick a safety that high or even in the 1st round is made ludicrous not only by the consensus that Whitner was a better pick than a safety taken earlier than him (already making a mockery of the notion that no one picks a safety that early or that the safety taken must be a Pro Bowler to make the pick make sense). Ragging on the choice is made an even greater departure from reality that the run on Huff/Whitner led to Miami picking yet another safety Allen in the 1st round. Whitner is clearly better than Allen whom some folks seem to advocate we should have ended up with this FS as our SS. Again when one looks at the reality of what happened, there is a fair to middlin chance that if the Bills had traded down a few spots they might well have lost Whitner to Detroit picking at #8 (who needed a safety badly enough they took one with their second pick. The Bills might well have lost out on not only Whitner but also even Allen who was judged the third best safety in this draft. The concept that one does not pick a safety in the first is simply shown by this draft where 3 safeties went in the first 15 picks to simply be old thinking which does not show understanding of how the NFL works today. Ds like the Cover 2 and the play of safeties such as Polamalu and Sanders simply demonstrates that the idea you need not go for a safety in the 1st is simply outmoded thinking that those who repeat this rant should give up if it is important to them to show a grip on modern football reality.

I agree generally with the plus/minus assessment and also feel that there are specific goals we will profit from achieving with each unit. The Jedi view expressed is a true one that our areas of potential great strength are also the same areas of potential great weakness depending upon how individuals (mostly players but to some extent coaches on a young team) perform doing their jobs. Actually, this is the way it is supposed to be so I look forward to an entertaining (though quite frustrating at times) season. Specifically: DL- I feel this is actually more likely a strength than a weakness. Schobel is a Pro Bowl quality player but will not be mistaken for Bruce Smith in terms of being an imposing player that opponents must scheme for individually. This being said, the rotation we are going to employ has very good potential to turn the average players into very good ones (Kelsay, Denney,rookie Ellis, Williams, Johnson) and the reasonable potential to turn the good players into great ones (McCargo was a legit 1st round choice, Stroud is a former Pro Bowler coming off of injury. Schobel). Even if one or two disappoint this can easily be balanced by 1 or 2 stepping up and this unit is likely to be the most improved part of the team. Penetration and pressure by the DTs is likely to be the key here with the renowned for their motor DEs shifting and moving about to allow the DL to use DT penetration but still be stout against the run. DBs- What started out as being an injury away from being an area of weakness is now an area of potential strength with the drafting of a potential elite talent at CB and a 4th rounder to back him up. Add in a journeyman FA in James at a position which actually is not a centerpoint in a the Cover 2 we run and we are pretty deep at CB. Overlay this with two very young safeties backed up by Wilson and the DBs look strong. Whitner will need to develop to be a Sanders like force for this unit to be imposing. The depth we now have at CB should allow us to play both a version of the Tampa 2 or more traditional coverage if we choose. LBs- Great potential but I think those who point to this as our strongest unit may be correct about the sum of the units but there is even less evidence than the questions we hope the third year as Bills and vet talent we have at DB and multiple years as Bills as well regarded talent we have on the DL offer to these units. Vet Mitchell, the highly touted and impressive in a short career Pos, and the vet Crowell offer a lot (particularly when they are backed up by former starters out of necessity like JD and Ellison) but this group needs to show they are am imposing whole on the field before anyone gets too excited about them IMHO. RBs- Great potential but the key here strikes me as the Bills effectively being able to employ the RBs as receivers. Under Fairchild the Bills really did next to nothing with this aspect of the game despite a number of the players coming to the game with good reps as receivers (Lynch, Wright for example and even McGahee was used far more effectively as a receiver by Balt than by us. Heightening this aspect will not only get these runners the ball out in space but would relieve the burden on the WRs and the QB for pass rush. Better use of the RBs as receivers strikes me as the biggest improvement Schonert could bring as OC. It will be hard for us to do less. WRs- I think this may be the biggest failing we have since even if Hardy has a very good season for a rookie the total stats will look fairly Peerless Price '07 like for a #2 WR. Maybe PP is done as a player but the problem to me was not necessarily his production (which produced #2 like WR numbers last year), but Fairchild never used whatever speed he had left to make it impossible for the other team to focus on shutting down Evans. I would have much preferred to see this team trade down the 1st and get two 2 or 3rd round WR talents rather than load up at CB. OL- We need chemistry to keep developing which is not unreasonable, but we also need for the starters to reamain healthy and start all 16 which probably is unreasonable to expect. The fingers (and toes) are crossed. TE- The best bet here seems to me to run an offense that uses more 3 WRs at the expense of a TE and makes better use of the RBs as receivers as I do not see these players being much of a receiving threat. Some seem to hold out some hope that the rookie we drafted can step up. I think ST is a better bet (though the odds here are still long) for a contribution from him rather than good TE position play. Some folks also are hyped up over Mile Viti. Yep he has a great physique, but the difference between having great muscles and being a pro FB are so huge that the ramblings of some folks that have him as our starter at FB would be funny but they are actually serious. Schonert needs to have some plans for running an unusual D effectively because he not only has the not atypical questions at QB but he does not seem to have either the TEs or FBs to make a traditional offense productive. QB- nobody proven as a consistent winner but both QBs have shown the talent to win episodically in the NFL (which is way ahead of what division rivals the Jets and Fins can claim). it is clearly Edwards job to lose as JP declared the Jax game make or break for him and he broke. Still there is a reasonable possibility one of these two with TE getting the prime shot will prove to be a consistent winner IF there is a productive team around him. ST- it finally hit an unproductive streak last year after the wizard April has clearly demonstrated he knew what he was doing. The 08 draft and FA provided clear reload opportunities as we cleaned house of older players. Anchored by clear production at the skill positions of PK, punter and return guys this unit should return to the upper reaches of the NFL

The most interesting thing about this report to me is that it seems to show where the Bills see a potential need for depth or the possibility that there may be need or an opening for a 6th WR or a 4th TE if the player also has the requisite ST skills.

In addition, no one has presented any objective arguments as to why the NFL would not prefer instead of choosing either Buffalo or Toronto why would the NFL not prefer to make money from these two markets who are actually farther apart than several existing market pairs (such as having teams in both Baltimore and DC which are both broadcast in the same TV markets). Is Buffalo smaller than Toronto" Sure. However, the NFL currently has a franchise that sells 52,000+ season tickets, has pre-existing relationships with hundreds of advertising sources. and represents a strong connection to the NFL history as an original AFC team, The other NFL owners not only get a cut of these resources which some advocate simply throwing away, but not only would the NFL be forgoing a tie to the past it is actively marketing to teams in Europe and other countries that they can be a part of that rich past history but it does not set a context of stability which is what is required for the NFL to maximize dollars. Perhaps, there is a credible case which can be made that the millions of folks in the GTA cannot support a team without the few Americans who would stick with a team which outsourced this asset (if it cannot then that also draws into question the viability of a team moving there. Perhaps, the case can be made that WNY cannot support a team without the 10-20% of its ticket buyers who are Canadian and would (theoretically abandon the Bills for a new team in Toronto, However, what seems far more likely to me is that the NFL would be reluctant to approve a deal which made them less money than would a deal which replicated for football what even a mickey mouse league like the NHL has been able to pull off of having two very profitable franchises in both cities.

I would not think much of this deal at all because while draft picks are good things to have picks next year provide zero value to the team this year. The future is now. Particularly since we have had such a long drought without reaching the playoffs, while I see there is no reasonable way to expect an SB win this year (note here that we fans have expectation of reasonableness) the Bills need to focus like a laser beam on making this team good right here and right now. While the cliche that not planning for the future will often condemn a team to always being mediocre is true, also true is the cliche that by constantly planning for the future you never take full advantage of today is true also. Many of us fans have become psychotically addicted to the value of draft choices because of the crazy successful promotion of the draft Kiper, ESPN, and the NFL have done. The advent of fantasy leagues have also done a lot to stoke the interest in draft choices. However, we have taken the truism that the draft is a wonderful and actually necessary part of building a winner and turned it into a false idol where it is seen by some falsely as the ONLY way to build a winner. It is an important way but not the only way to build a team. A good team used UDFAs, FAs, trades, and focuses on internal development of players acquired in whatever method as essential building blocks for a winner. Given the uncertainties inherent in having a well-regarded but still young second year player at QB, and the legal uncertainties surrounding Lynch, getting mere draft choices next year in a trade sounds like pretty thin gruel to me.

I think the main thing that is incorrect with some of views expressed is that some want to treat is as though there is one rule or one trend which governs all. The difficult thing is that in some cases being rich or being famous is a key to allowing you to skate and in other cases it will result in the law being even heavier on you than the average. The key seems to me to identify whether a specific case is gonna fall into the skate case or the hand 'em high case. Vick was a perfect example where many of the factors put this one beyond the tipping point for harsh treatment: 1. Vick was not a likable person at all (race played a role here but not THE role by far as Vick was simply a jerk). 2. Vick had tons of exposed resources which could be taken. 3. The prime victims were doggies. Lynch however has several items which should help him skate: 1. The victim was not killed (or permanently hurt from all I have heard but we will see what reality is). 2. A lot of other people are dependent upon him playing for us. 3. The significant legal help he can afford is playing his hand and are skating close to the edge but not overplaying it yet (again we will see what reality is). Celebrity and money from being a great athlete gives the potential felon options that normal folk do not have. These options can be used well or used poorly. These options can be enough to win a case or not nearly enough (ala Vick) I think there is no trend her besides money is good when you get in trouble.

I agree it is an easy choice and there seems to be a fairly growing consensus which has that view. I think when one considers the size of contracts being doled out in this marketplace to folks like McFadden that is not outrageous at all to see someone like Peters not simply being the "victim" of a Svengali agent (as some folks have theorized), but instead is is someone taking rational actions in search of a huge prize which does not set a precedent for others. What Peters is doing is certainly violating his past agreement that eliminated any marketplace for him for another 3 seasons. However, if there was a marketplace he entered, his worth would likely be more than $60 million over 6 years with with roughly $26 million guaranteed. His current agreement provides him with $3 million this year, $3 million more guaranteed and whatever future salary unguaranteed he agreed to. Given the choice between as little as $6 million if bad luck befalls him or some ref hits him in the eye with a beanbag or $60 million with $26 million guaranteed it is not surprising he is doing everything he can to create a market for himself right now.

ESPN OTL carried a piece a month or so back about major league teams dealing with a significant number of recent incidents where fans had taken the ashes of long time fans and to meet their last wishes scattered them on major league fields. In response at least one major league team is setting up a cemetary for interment and several others are now selling official urns with team logos. Does anyone know if any major religions have taken any stance on this practice? As far as Russert's case, what the immediate family chooses to do with his remains will almost certainly rule the day. I know his birth family in Buffalo is very Catholic but I do not know for sure whether his wife and chosen family is or not and likely her wishes will rule the day. Catholicism as a religion clearly has strong and specific doctrine, but recently has demonstrated great flexibility on issues such as dealing with the shortage of priest by allowing formerly married men who take an ongoing vow of celibacy to become priests. Historically priests and even past popes way back when are said to have been sexually active. If Russert wanted to be interred in Buffalo likely the greater impediment to this happening will be any desire by his wife and chosen family to want him close to DC where they are rather than the church blocking something from happening. The Church often is very practical when it comes to some popular decisions.

My sense is that much as a marriage is for the couple but the wedding is for the guest, so to the funeral is for the guests but the final burial place is for the deceased and their family. My sense is there should be THE significant funeral service for Russert in DC. Be it the national cathedral or some other location where normally services are held for Presidents and other folks who represent the shared national ethos, it strikes me as making the most sense to do the speeches and a funeral service in DC where he lived much (if not most) of his adult life. The body as those that lie in state for a few days in the Capitol before the DC funeral service is then sent to its final resting place. I was really struck by the recent photos displayed in conjunction with the 40th anniversary of the sad event of people gathering beside the train tracks that provided the publicized route for Bobby Kennedy being taken home from LA. If the family wants it, then perhaps a similar train trip is appropriate for Russert's body to Buffalo. The body should be laid to rest in whatever manner he and his family dictate. I know for us when we laid my mother-in-law to rest, her Earthly ending was appropriate for the family. She was creamated and the bulk of her ashes were carried (a year+ after her death actually) to the summer beach cottage the family used to rent each year for a couple of weeks on the NJ shore. Her husband, 3 kids, and their spouses all spent a few days on the shore reliving the old days and memories of her, playing with the machines on the boardwalk and sharing her life. We then took the ashes (graciously stored in a plastic baggie) and went on a little trek through town and down to the water's edge neat sundown. There we released her ashes (and those of her dog Hildy whose ashes resided in a plastic bag in the garage for years) into the winds. I will always have the memory of her skipping down the ocean beach with her beloved dog following behind her from watching the winds carry her ashes into forever. A small cylinder of her remaining ashes were interred just outside of the church she always attended (and where her kid and I were married) and we visit them from time to time (her birthday and various holidays) and her memory lives on for us. If Russert and his family choose for the shell he left to take up space in a cemetary then so be it. He dealt well in words and ideas so it also strikes me as most appropriate if he also is creamated and released to the winds (though his family can secretly stick some at the Ralph and keep some for a possible future Bills stadium IMHO). If a sampling of his his ashes were interred at a holy place in DC with the appropriate plaques for his many friends and visitors in DC and his family to visit this final resting spot that would be great. If another sampling was placed her in WNY for Big Russ and in honor of his connection her that also strikes me as great. I always find it a little odd that folks seem to want to argue over where the body rests as a whole after death when actually from my spiritual background the body is simply a shell and Russert is done with it. The key thing is that he lives on in the thoughts and good feelings he created in a wonderful life. Given that this life touched so many in Buffalo and in DC (and here in Buffalo with his family and with the Bills) my sense is rather than arguing over which one place to plant the full body he is done with, if the creamate him and build the appropriate remembrance places around cylinders of his ashes (the majority of which should be cast to the winds) this would be a fitting resting observance. In the end though, the immediate family rules.

McFadden just signed a deal with Oakland that gives him 60 million dollars over 6 years with about $26 million of it guaranteed. Certainly a stud RB is of greater value than a stud LT in the NFL business (we can put aside the different football philosophy argument over the relative value of an RB vs. an LT and consider this more in the light of the business where both stud RBs and stud QBs are overvalued). However, I think there is more than a rational case to be made that Peters in a free market (if one existed for him) actually has a much greater potential for success as a player who won Pro Bowl recognition for his play versus a well-regarded college rookie. Even if one sees significantly more value in a McFadden than in Peters, I think this analogy is instructive in thinking about why Peters is taking such a tough in going back on his agreement and word of honor with the Bills. He is going to be paid a huge amount this year in salary ($3 million) and added to this is a million in amortized bonus payment. However, Peters can create a market for himself and force the Bills into re-negotiation, a McFaddenesque contract represents Peters collecting $4 million this year, or even with half a McFadden level contract taking in $13 million in guaranteed money as part of a $60 million contract. Peters would certainly be setting a price for his word. Many of us say that our word of honor is priceless. However, if the price being bandied about is over $10 million and could be as high as an additional $50 million then it is easier to see why there may be a price here. In the end if Peters gets the Bills to show him the money it sets a precedent which the Bills (and any team operating under a salary cap) will find it hard if not impossible to match. However, in the real world of market value it hard to see how any Bill short of Edwards playing well enough that he would garner a Pro Bowl nod or Lynch becoming the second coming of LaDamian Tomlinson I really do not see anyone else meeting the precedent set by Peters of being a very young player with the upside of last year being his first full one at his position who merited a Pro Bowl nod.

I generally agree. I have no idea what calculus Peters (and or whatever crew he has which could be a Schwengali agent, his family, a smart agent operating in his best interests, hangers on and sycophants, or whatever I do not think any of us outsiders can reasonably judge) is making to drive this holdout. I can see however, a set of circumstances which make the approach he is taking a rational one. 1. His market value is extremely high right now and unlikely to get much higher even if he plays at a Pro Bowl level again in 08. Let's say that Peters continues to improve his play as many youngsters do and once again makes the Pro Bowl. Upon making it two years in a row and still being pretty young for an OL player he will be on his way to achieving consistent Walter Jones like status as a parennial Pro Bowl level player. However, has that bought Jones the lifetime huge contract he has wanted? No. He has gotten huge bucks but it has come in annual chunks with him being tagged year after year. Peters has 3 years committed even before he gets the short-term windfall of the tag if he continues to develop. Even worse, folks generally thought to be stud LTs like an Orlando Pace were not even given the Pro Bowl props by the market last year. There is no guarantee and actually a very good chance that Peters is near the top of his market value right now. In this market calculus it makes sense for Peters to draw a line in the sand right now. He gets a king's ransom in pay at roughly $3 mill a year (but his market value may well be more than twice that right now). If he chooses to do the moral thing and honor his agreement it would be a stand-up thing to do, but the fiscal cost of doing this would be about $10 million over the life of the current contract. Add to this that if he continues to play well, the Bills decide to tag him in the ways Jones has been handled for a couple of years as the CBA allows and though Peters at least finally would get the market value for his play. He ends up doing this without achieving the fiscal benefit of a long-term deal. With this calculus, Peters would benefit from forcing a long-term deal right now to the tune of: 1. If he gets a deal which pays him the current market value for an LT for the rest of his current contract it means about $10 million in his pocket right now versus $3 million right now plus whatever escalations he agreed to in the past but he would not see the money until the future (if ever since Ralph retains the right to cut him whenever he wants with a cap hit charge but no money to Peters). 2. If he gets a deal right now when his market value is quite likely to be at its highest as a youngster coming off a Pro Bowl year, he also will get money in his pocket right now for the out-years of the deal (those years beyond 3 years) at whatever bonus rate he can wrangle (or at least he can make the payout in the future guaranteed even if he does not see the money now). 3. The downsides on not making a deal right now are likely substantial (even though he stupidly himself agreed to these terms without some escalators) as even if he continues to play well and develop, he has sold these years to the Bills for substantially less than the current market value. If he continues to play well he does so for amount roughly $10 million less than his market value under his current contract. Add to that under the current CBA rules even after the 3 years the Bills still have the significant advantage of the tag where even if they pay him franchise tag market value, they got his play for two years and the chances of him cutting a long-term deal as an FA 5 years from now are not a likely (though not impossible) occurrence. 4. Even worse, if Peters should get hurt or his play go south, then by not forcing a deal right now he gets nothing in the out years. He would of course deserve nothing if reality strikes him a cruel blow, but reality now is reality now and he would through this course of bad luck or bad play actually forgo a substantial amount of money. An injury without a new contract right now could be the difference between the huge money he will get under his current contract ($ 3 million in salary this year and a million bucks in amortized bonus) or an even larger amount he likely would get if the Bills signed him to a new contract remotely based on the current market. McFadden got a 6 year contract for $60 million from the Raiders with roughly $26 million guaranteed. I proven Pro Bowler LT Peters worth that much? Well honestly if someone suggested the difference between holding out and not was over $20 million then a holdout starts looking like a pretty good idea. I guess its a question of how much is my word worth. Well, when the price is about $20 million my morality might be bought.

I think folks are right on target when they say you do not draft and RT with a #4 pick. However, rather than simply faulting the Bills for spending a high pick for their RT, what I think this perspective actually means is that the Bills plan was they hope that Williams would show so much that they could quickly move him to play LT and protect the QBs blindside as he did with a lefty QB in college. I think the Bills deserve more to be faulted for trying things which did not work (like MW being an at a least adequate player which he was not, like trying a plethora of talented players who had proved unable to perform due to health problems elsewhere, or trying continually to turn sows ears into silk purses. They never used high round draft picks for OL (this can be faulted mostly because it did not work though it is certainly possible to build an SB capable OL through FA as JMac did in NY). Actually, during the TD reign of error, OL was one of two units where they drafted s player each and every year. I think the bigger problem for the Bills was not so much how they tried to build the OL but the fact that their efforts did not work including devoting attention to late OL picks each and every draft.

1. I said folks are certainly entitled to their opinion but actually outside of the news business where institutions have made a general stand against censorship (adherence to this principle allowed bulletin board like the Rochester D&C site which gave birth to this community to get dragged down by legends in their own mind) folks do not have an unfettered right to to rant their opinion when it hurts the community to do so. I am happy to have the free market rule sites such as TBD where I have consistently encouraged the mods to be pretty draconian about censoring views that they feel hurt the community, even my own. I much rather would see this marketplace of ideas protected even if it means my own ideas sometimes get pulled by the mods who are not perfect but certainly have earned my trust through their actions. As far as the particular post in question dragging down the community. I actually do not think that it does since it is one rather easily ignored because it so fact-free to describing Ferrotte's steroid use as a key factor which led to his death without stating any specific evidence to support this view. Yes, steroids cause heart weakness. Yes, a lot of pro athletes use steroids. Does this mean that Ferotte's death was caused by steroid use or abuse? NO. In fact, the quote of one of his relatives that cited other family members and direct relatives of Ferotte's having died of heart attacks sounds like a far more reasonable cause of death or major factor in his death rather than the fact-free assumption made in the original post we are answering. However, even the non-substantiated post citing steroids as a cause without the least bit of substantiation is not the reason I think it would be reasonable for the mods to remove it (as I said folks are entitled as Mericans to their unsupported rants). The thing which I feel lessens the TBD community is to have this unsupported rant and the former Bills death notice thread amidst a lot of fond memories and RIP sentiments. Some folks cannot even wait a couple of days to launch their unsupported accusations or statements of consequence. I do not insist upon but would find it quite reasonable if the mods chose to spare us this blather. TBD is a neat place because generally folks get to spout a variety of opinions/ it is a special place though because many of these opinions are well informed (I try to be) and many are well stated (mine rarely are because I tend to use TSW to think out loud and do not do as much editing as I should). Its really a special place because it has been around so long (about a decade which is a lifetime in the internet) and folks have not only built a sense of family and shared goals on the web but even get together in real life from time to time. Posts such as the one which interrupted the solemn wishes and good memories with a unsupported steroid abuse accusation diminish TSW a little bit. Hence my sense that moderator action would have been reasonable.

Good to see that you are wondering about this rather than stating it as a fact without any supporting evidence.