Pyrite Gal

Kraft seems to have enough $ that for the most part almost any fine would seem to be an annoyance which the Pats fan base will simply bull through by whining. My sense is that a just punishment would include simply adding an asterisk in the NFL records for each of the Pats SB wins which will note that the Pats were fined each of these seasons for illegally taping the signals of the other team. Fining Kraft and the Pats is certainly fine by me, but the main thing I want is the dreaded asterisk besides their record.

There are several views on this to consider which because people aren't their theorizing is even further displaced from reality. 1. Its a negotiation so it matters what the player will sign for. If Trent for some reason wants to sign a gift contract for the Bills (like the one Travis Henry signed where he mortgaged a year of his career without free agency in exchange for relative chump change from the Bills up front) then the Bills would be stupid not to extend him after the season stats you describe. My guess is that Trent would not be so stupid as to make dumb financial "investments" like Henry which forced him to sell a year, or that he would be addled enough by his personality or use of controlled substances to give such a gift to the Bills. However, there are tons of things we do not know about what makes Edwards tick such as if he needs money for a sick relative,was profligate in his youth or will meet some Jessica Simpson so may be a deal might make sense. 2. The other side of this same issue is regardless of what the Bills want would Edwards chose to sign a deal unless the Bills offered him Romo money prematurely. Folks seem to consider these issues as though it was the old days (pre mid 80s lockout) when the owners did what ever these individuals chose to do. It ain't your Grandmother's NFL any more and while Edwards is not yet set for life, the contract he got as a 3rd rounder, the gifts and investment opportunities that comes to any NFL starter, and the likelihood that even if he sucks he likely will play enough years to qualify for an NFL pension gives him the ability if he chooses to not sign the first, second, and so on offer he gets from the Bills. Depending upon his own personality and plans if Edwards does well this year, maybe he makes a bet that if he pays insurance on injury for himself he should just hold off signing long term until a Romo deal emerges. Folks simply do not seem to get that this a two-way street. They complained bitterly that the Bills did not sign Clements when actually as events bore out Clements would have been a fool to sign any deal the Bills offered him to lock him up over the last couple of years he was here. The Bills were limited by the old salary cap as to what they could offer him. By actually being "forced" to take a tag in his last year and then hit FA and sign a deal under the new cap Clements got far more scratch than he ever would have (or even could have under the old cap) from the Bills. It is not a drop-dead certainty that the Bills could get Edwards to extend. 3. The other way the NFL is different is that its not just a Ralph calling the shots anymore. Ralph demonstrated in the last CBA negotiation that he still believes in the old way where owners were rugged individualists too rich to be bulldozed by anyone. However, in the face of Upshaw declaring that any deal the owners offered needed to start with a 60+% of the total gross (60.5% is where they ended up) and Tagliabue joined with the NFLPA to get shrinking violets like Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder and Al Davis to smile when they signed a deal for 39.5% of more money than they ever imagined making from their team, the old days died and Ralph loss the vote 2-30. The facts are that among the key elements which will guide the team led by Brandon, Overdorf, Jauron, et al. as they meet Ralph's needs will be what the fellow owners want in terms of deals being cut that they will have to match or exceed and what the senior partner of the NFL, the NFLPA wants in terms of allocations of the cap by team. Certainly the Bills will have the final say and control the throttle of negotiations with Edwards and other individual Bills players. however, one is ignoring reality if you do not recognize that the money making and money distribution strategies of Ralph's fellow owner and the players are not controlling factors at all but also they are not to be totally ignored. Merely considering this issue of whether to extend Edwards based on only what the Billa might or might not want to do is simply ignoring important and even determining factors in this equation.

Its hard to see how anyone on the Bills squad would be disappointed with them not taking an OL with one of their first three because the simple reality is who would they have picked. There was simply no one available on the OL when they chose that easily could be judged as worthy of passing up on either McKelvin, Hardy or even Ellis- 1. McKelvin is probably the pick they could have most easily done without in terms of meeting team needs, but once this player whom the Bills viewed as worthy of a top 10 pick slipped to #11, they were going to pick him. The Bills are satisfied and committed to Pro Bowlers Peters and behemoth Walker st T, so at T they need and were looking for back-up help and the Ts available were starter material so picking a T made little sense as at best a choice of Clady or Williams would have simply meant relegating Walker or a 1st rounder to back-up status. At G we are locked up contractually and talent wise with Dockery so even a choice of the top G Albert would have simply meant relegating Butler who they view as a good potential starter to back-up. We need a back-up G as Whittle is getting older and Preston has not taken advantage of his chance to be a starter and many fans have turned on him, but it is hard to see how they spend a 1st rounder on a G. At G we have Fowler who though he has beaten injury bug which made him a non-starter earlier in his career is by no means the dominant player we are used at C from the Kent Hull glory days. Yet, there was no one (and as best as I can tell no one) who folks saw as even a potentially dominant center in the long run from this draft so no one who knows the least bit about the game could be disappointed by us not making some weird fantasy reach by taking a C in the first. The drafting of McKelvin with the #1 made it a a certainty that we were gonna go WR at #2 and if this position was not filled then you might have heard vocal dissension from not only the fans (we always whine no matter what) but probably even some of the players might express confusion, Round 3 provided the only potential for rationale disappointment (again we fans are not required to rational) as a case might have been made for taking Jaremy Zuttah from Rutgers and switching him from tackle to G. However, in this case he likely would have warmed the bench in case Butler went south rather than really fortifying our DL rotation so complaint would have been not seen or unwarranted anyway from any Bill. I would be shocked to hear any player disappointment at no OL picks in the first three because there were no real choices to help the OL here that would not have meant a huge sacrifice by the Bills.

It seems clear that it would be McKelvin as he was seen by many (the Bills also apparently) as potentially an elite talent (which I define as a player meriting selection in the top 10) as the Bills wasted little time in taking him at #11 when he slipped to the. For draft purposes no one I heard of remotely had Clements meriting a top 10 pick. Few seemed surprised that the Bills got him at a plus 20 pick (in fact, didn't the Bills trade down in that draft to that slot and if so clearly were not hot and heavy after Clements).

Is DJ a top caliber in NFL HC? It depends on what you mean by top caliber. Top 10%- No way in my opinion. Top 25%- Nope IMHO Top 50%- Yes I would judge. He easily is an average coach IMHO (which to me means he is not in the top 33% nor is he is in the bottom 33%. In general, though there is a Rich Kotite from time to time, its difficult to be hired as an HC (though one was as an interim) 3 times in the NFL if you are one of the lower third. It also is incredibly rare for someone who is a below average HC to win NFL Coach of the Year honors even once. IMHO opinion, DJ is somewhere between the top 50% and top 66% of NFL coaches. He is a good NFL HC which I think is what it takes to take a 5-11 team in such disarray that the GM got canned and actually lead them to an improved record of 7-9 his first year. I fail to see how anyone does not give a rip about stats outside of W/L would not be able to acknowledge this. DJ failed last year in that he was only able to lead the team to the same 7-9 record. There is no excuse for failure in that like it or not he failed last year. However, though there is no excuse there clearly were reasons why this team sported a 7-9 record (and not 8-8 or 6-10). There reasons DO NOT excuse failure in the past, but they do provide a guide for what should be done in the future. Again it seems clear to me that anyone who measures things mostly by the ultimate stat W/L would not calculate that given the real world improvements of the Jauron's first year over the MM led team and the maintenance of this record in the face of a league leading total of players on IR, and given the disarray of his inherited team which is still embodied in its QB uncertainty, that one should be reasonably hopeful about DJ's third year.

I think your post shows the issue here in the words that you chose to express your thoughts. The first sentence says his work does note mean he is. was, or will ever be a GOOD NFL HC. In the second sentence it seems to want to support this conclusion by stating his coaching style will never achieve our goal of GREATNESS. This would seem to be a pretty rugged standard to set for the Bills in the specific context of the reality that they faced when Marv was hired to lead the decision making for hiring a new HC for the Bills after TD was canned and MM took a powder. I assume that the standard which you felt that Marv should have stuck too for hiring was to hire an HC whom he (you, the fans who agree with you) would judge as capable of achieving greatness. Only in this context could a judgment reasonably be rendered that he was the right HC even if the team's record demonstrably improved in his first year and the record held steady in the face of real world events like having more players on the IR than any other team in the NFL (again this is no excuse for failure as like it or not we simply failed, however though this is not an excuse to justify total forgiveness it is a real world reason which one can choose to ignore if you want to ignore reality). My sense is that you merge the two standards together as if they are the same thing (you can only be GOOD if I judge you can become GREAT) when though one can set whatever standard one wants (setting standards is what we fans are entitled to do even if they are unreasonable standards), this particular one would seem to me to virtually impossible to obtain unless one can see the future (last I saw no one could do this with an accuracy and consistency which far exceeded coincidence). Who is it that you think the Bills should have hired to be HC back when Marv was cleaning up the mess which TD left in the wake of his firing (when actually TD was hired to clean up a mess left in the wake of Ralph and Butler screwing up his leaving). IMHO GOOD and GREAT are two different things (do you disagree?). Even to the extent you want to claim that you are not GOOD unless you can become GREAT, then my question to anyone setting that standard would be who made you god? One only has to look at the real world of Marv's achievements in his first go round as an NFL HC to see that the past does not gaurantee the outcomes of the future. The question is not simply one of who achieved greatness before and he is the only one you should hire (by this standard you only want to hire Bill Parcells or maybe Joe Gibbs and everyone else is either a big risk or a silly move). You certainly would not hire someone like Sherman as some advocated. Perhaps NYG should not have hired Tom Coughlin (who actually did show every sign of being an idiot with the way he handled Carolina and in his initial record with NYG until they turned it around in the middle of last season). Will Jauron ever be great? I really doubt it (though I never would have guessed that Marv would make the HOF for his coaching work after his start turn at KC and even in the days of the Bickering Bills). However, I think that one is simply ignoring reality to not see that being HC of a team you inherited which: 1. finished 5-11, 2. who had an owner who had done a horrendous job with the loss of his last three GMs (do you think the canning of Polian, the desertion of Butler, and the canning of TD demonstrate anything beyond that the owner has clear weaknesses which hold us back 3. which still suffers on the field from a series of QB assessment/handling errors dating back to the handshake deal around Jimbo's retirement. is actually doing a pretty good job and roughly the maximum which could be achieved with a significant improvement in W/L his first year and holding his own at 7-9 in the face of the reality of events like: 1. the calling himself out in a make or break game in which he broke by the QB he inherited, 2. the continuing disarray lent to it by an owner who clearly feels that the current financial model of the NFL is so bad he has to be one of two votes of 32 against it 3. the presence of a media which continually demonstrates in the stances taken by the only sports radio station in town and voices in the media a dedication to flaming QB and other controversies so they can sell ads rather than objective reporting which does recognize the team's deficits (budget uncertainty and future ownership uncertainty depending upon the unknowable of when Ralph dies, the QB uncertainty, the relative youth of the team) but also the strengths ( (a promising corps of stars and potential stars, a rebuilding OL, the ship of state at least being righted from the 5-11 record, potential solutions for the unknowable of Ralph's death, and the relative youth of the team). Its fine to rag on Jauron for not having done a good job, but this opinion is easily ignored when it is depending upon past events as the main argument. Its harder to ignore if it acknowledges what I think is the reality that he has done a good job "merely" by overseeing the team's immediate improvement but claiming that their are real world indications that he has not changed the basics which stop him from being great. However, folks seem to want to make what I see as an inherently weak argument that the mere act of righting the ship of state against some really bad situations (the team which went to 5-11, Ralph sucking at hiring and holding GMs, a fiercely competitive league where significant chunks of the media does not share the team's goals of winning it all as highly as they value their own goals of selling ads) does not constitute good work because DJ will never be great. I doubt also he will be great (but stranger things have happened like Marv doing well enough to make the HOF after his disastrous start). I also recognize the reality that though he will probably never be great he has done a good job in his first two years. Just as with draftees, I think it is reasonable to really question any conclusions about judging an HC and his work with THIS team until after three years. The first time is just an episode good or bad. the second result MAY just merely be a coincidence. The third year though allows for a clearer assertion of events being a trend. I think DJ has some relatively clear challenges to overcome in his third year: 1. He needs to demonstrate something he has never shown which is hiring the right OC to work under his guidance to form a working offense. Can Schoenert do this? We will see. He does have some reasonable working parts to start with which actually are demonstrably better than what DJ inherited: A. An improved situation at RB (I would take Lynch/Jackson/Wright over McGahee/whatever any day) B. An OL finally showing signs of stability though there are questions (pro-bowler Peters/vet Dockery/et al. is far better than Mike Williams/Villarial C. The QB situation though muddled is better than it was (I think the hopes of Edwards backed up by the experience of the backup (JP) before he leaves next year is better than the JP/Nall, Bledsoe/JP. Bledsoe/AVP, RJ/DF situations we have had. There are major challenges with the state of the passing game (WRs, TEs) and overall O scheme issues which are uncertain but not insurmountable. 2. DJ is a defensive specialist HC and really the D story is a wing and a prayer that really has led us to a slightly below average record with a team which achieved 5-11 before he got here. The FA/drafting of the past two years hold the potential that all three units could actually be areas of strength for this team- Whitner/McKelvin, Mitchell/Pos, DL rotation. 3. The ST is potentially dominant though there will have to be a major reloading by April (Moorman, Lindell, McGee/Parrish are across the board among the best in the NFL at what they do). Will this be great. Doubtful but we will see as no one knows the future for sure. Ralph and his mismanagement of the leavings of Polian, Butler, TD would seem to be a far greater rate limiting factor than any DJ issues. Fish rot from the head and poor DJ ain't the head of this fish.

To answer your question directly, I am virtually certain that Jauron will never emerge as the best coach ever. However, I think that it is pretty clear looking at the Bills right here and right now that Jauron is a pretty good HC. My reasons for drawing this conclusion: 1. Jauron took over as HC of a team which had posted a 5-11 record and which performed so badly in the year before he got here that the GM got canned and the HC jumped ship. Being HC of the squad their record improved to 7-9. Does Jauron deserve all the credit for this? No. HCs routinely get too much credit for wins and too much blame for losing, However, as the highest ranking on field person and the main spokesperson for the team after a game (W or L) the buck does stop with him Like it or not when one looks at the only stat that really counts, Jauron did a good job his first year as HC of the Bills (and some would credibly say though ultimately I would disagree with them he did a VERY good job as HC given the disarray and relatively poor players and units he inherited. 2. The record did not improve in his second year and a couple of winnable games (Dallas) were loss. However, along with the sad reality of no improvement in the W/L the fact simply is that this team had more players on the IR than any other team in the league. Does this excuse the team having an inadequate record? No. However, the disruptions of this team were real and though ultimately there is no excuse for losing, they are a real world reason why this team did not perform as well as they should/could have. Producing the same record was at worst average and actually I think can reasonably be called a good coaching job. I am not saying that you should love how he coaches or love him, but I think on the face of it Jauron has done a average job at worst and actually a good job considering him working with a number of key factors he could not really control (players signed to longer term contracts and the injuries which were different enough as not to be indicative of any specific flaw like not warming up, etc). DJ is and likely will never emerge a great HC, but the simple fact is that for whatever reasons (he is a nice guy, he has learned from his failings in Chicago, dumb luck which is simply part of the game) he appears to be a good one. Am I satisfied with this. yes, for now, call me in a year when it is rational to draw conclusions about his work as a Bill HC.

My sense of the Bills QB situation was that the choices made as to which QB should start were much more forced by reality than by DJ or anyone's preference as to who they judged was the QB to invest in. Specifically: 1. Drafting Edwards took some independent action which went against the norm as we already had a young QB who had a troubled career (but a trouble overarching situation under the twists and turns of TD) but who had started 16 straight the year before and left the fanbase fairly hopeful he might actually be the answer. Yet, the move was more than defensible and in retrospect a no-brainer as Edwards was a clear second round talent who had the endorsement of old sage Bill Walsh, It was now clear that Nall was a marginal answer at best as the #2 who MIGHT do the job necessary as a fill-in but almost certainly would not develop into the QB of the future. Edwards was a gutsy choice but really this showed few signs of a regime that desperately was looking for an alternative to JP but instead if an opportunity fell to them they had no reluctance to take it. Again great reaction but few signs of a pro-active campaign to make the QB situation follow a particular path. 2. Making Edwards the #2 had clear implications for JP IF he got injured, but again this showed good reactive instincts by the Bills rather than a pro-active plan to make Edwards the starter ASAP. If anything, the most proactive part of this had an impact on Craig Nall as he was shipped out in addition to being passed over. 3. JP got illegally hit by Woolfork and reality dictated that Edwards start. Again if someone wanted to hatch a conspiracy theory that DJ had it out for JP the decision which made this a reality was getting rid of Nall as there was no decision to have Woolfork kill JP. 4. A fight might have emerged over whether to bench Edwards and bring JP back under the oft observed cliche that a player should not lose his job due to injury. However, giving JP another week of recovery was not outlandish with the decision to go with Edwards as starter against NYJ. The proof was in the pudding as to whether JP had recovered enough physically to play as he led the team to a victory in relief of Edwards. However, he was winning generally and playing well so this was at most a reactive decision rather than some proactive plot. Even more to the point when Edwards went down it was no one's plan but reality simply forced JP in. 5. The next decision was also a tribute to reaction as by now it seemed pretty clear that the Bills braintrust wanted to go with the guy they drafted who had been incredibly impressive for a rookie when he was forced into the line-up. However, reality again dictated that the Bills react in a particular way as JP had been the QB when the team pulled off a winning streak which put them in contention at least for a playoff spot. Reactions again dictated not that the Bills fulfill some conspiracy but that they keep JP as the starting QB. They did this. However, ultimately JP did the coaches the favor of all calling himself out by declaring the Jax game make or break and by anyone's estimation he broke, So I reject the notion that the Bill braintrust are and have always been operating within some nefarious plan at QB. The braintrust pretty much has done what the realities of injuries and the perceived realities of the marketplace forced them to do. They probably were pleased with the way they were forced to go but that is just the game.

Great post sir! The Buffalo story I know of an athlete who found out about, managed his diabetes and then exceled as a pro is former Buffalo Bison and then longtime MLB player Dave Hollins. He used to work out at Body Blocks downtown when he was in town with the Bisons (I think he was from Orchard Park originally) on his trips up and down to the MLB. His trainer, Bob Bateson (an accomplished college LB with Corltland St. who got brief tryouts with the Bills, Dolphins, etc and was a player a couple of years in NFL Europe) worked with him in his up and down days and like many workouts it was the usual struggle. Bob had to go to the airport and wrestle Hollins off a plane when he got word of an incredibly high blood sugar. The great thing is that Hollins became a better and more accomplished athlete after his diagnosis. One they knew what was going on and could manage it through Hollins taking his blood sugar more consistently and learning how particular sugar levels felt so he could stabilize them while working out like a demon, Hollins got things under control. Like many MLB players he bounced around, but was able to hit over .300 on a somewhat consistent basis and maintained a journeyman MLB career for at least 5 years after diagnosis. He was good enough that he was able to catch on fairly consistently with Cleveland and Toronto which allowed him to maintain a close relationship with Body Block and Bob as the place he worked out (either traveling to Buffalo from 2-3 hours away when his schedule allowed or even more consistently when he ended up at Cleveland's AAA Bison franchise when he was in th minors or on rehab. He certainly demonstrated to me that it is certainly doable to operate as a professional athlete (even with the instability of the typical journeyman status as it is incredibly rare for an athlete to stay with one team throughout their career and it is not rare at all for a player to maintain a career by playing for multiple teams. In the end, none of us gets out of this life alive. However, thanks to increased knowledge, modern medicine, and most important diligent efforts by the diabetes "victim" this disease though critically in need of a cure is not a death sentence for a person, or even a condemnation to a life without sports.

No more than usual. I unfortunately sometimes state things so that folks can choose to take them in the extreme (as is the norm unfortunately on message boards like TSW). This is fine as being EXXTTRREEEME is the advertising norm these days, but actually I find football fun to watch because generally it is not extreme at all Teams have chosen to operate under conditions like the salary cap or roster limits which force them to make a decision of choosing either this PR that. However, these stark decision are almost invariably based on half-empty/half-full considerations that nothing is really cut and dried. This great IMHO because if the result was so clear and drop dead certain then why even bother to consider or argue over multiple possibilities. As far as an FB choice goes, like many things regarding the Bills roster ST will be the deciding factor. Would the Bills love to have FB Viti on their roster? You bet. However, this will only happen if he turns out to show very good productivity as an ST player. If he proves to have the speed to be a top notch wedge buster or blocker then they will even go into the season with an FB on the roster for blocking when we go to a fullhouse backfield. However, will we go completely standard FB-less using H-backs/TEs to fill the role. Possibly that too if the good ST chops are shown by players such as Schouman, Johnson or Massoquoi. My betting right now is that 4th and 3rd year TEs are more likely to get the H-back role rather than UDFA Viti, however I easily could be wrong on this choice of critical importance to these individual players but of marginal significance either way to the Bills prospects of success.

Self-defense usually means a threat of imminent danger, Following him outside makes it tougher to call it imminent. It is possible as Harrison has a "a carry" that if the fellow pulled a gun out that Harrison fired in self-defense. However, it does not help that he fired a bunch of shot if reported correctly, there are no reports I have seen of someone firing back at him, and he missed wildly and hit a little girl, In addition, to that violating the law and violating NFL rules which his union agreed to are two different things.

My guess is that Schoenert likely plans to go with using an HB rather than a FB. 1. I think this why we have stocked up with a bunch of pseudo TEs. 2. As excited as fans are on this board about Viti, it seems pretty doubtful that the team would be counting upon two journeymen and a UDFA to produce a player who will start for us or whom we will depend upon very much. Viti has an impressive build but seriously he is a project for us who should consider himself lucky if he makes the PS. 3. Our gaggle on RBs includes players like Wright who actually in college was a short yardage back and a good pass catcher and while no one should be under any illusions that sparkplug Omrob did any blocking in college, he is tough to bring down and has no break away speed, if the Bills coaches can teach either how to block they may fill the goaline and short yardage role that is normally the FB function. My guess is that the Bills go FB less are far as their line-up this year.

Its like the idea above asking whether it would be stupid to create a few offensive plays for McKelvin. No its not stupid just way way (a lot) premature. McKelvin will have his hands full gaining a full mastery of his defensive position play for him (or the braintrust) to worry at all about figuring out some good offensive plays for him. Its a notion to keep in the back of our minds as he simply flat out says he loves carrying the rock (he has a rep as a great defender but more as a pass blocker rather than a successful interceptor due to some notable drops of the ball in college when he had his hands on the ball- perhaps this occurred because he made an extraordinary play merely to get his hands on the ball). However, there is no need and it may even be counterproductive and distracting to bestow this reward on him before he shows the ability to make some INTs and be dangerous running it back. Likewise with the return game. First things first as right now the concentration should be on him mastering the Cover 2 and the CB position (a number of vets have remarked it takes them a year of playing the Cover 2 before they master it so it will not be shocking if McKelvin is not only a liability at CB to start but perhaps even as a nickel. He should be given some touches in pre-season as a return guy and then prove on the field he deserves more. In particular if he needs to sit on the bench and watch and learn a bit in order to master the Cover 2, then actually it becomes a bit more of a need to in fact have him carry a lot of water as a return guy as the media like WGR and jerry Sullivan would love to pre-maturely declare a player a bust to sell more newpapers and radio ads. The main lesson in this IMHO is one step at a time. We start with moving him as far up the CB chain as fast as he can go (we hope he starts at CB but one should not expect it, we do expect he will contribute as a nickel as quickly as he can, we are prepared though if he needs some time for his mental output to equal his physical potential as an NFL position player and if the coaches judge this to be the case then put the pedal to the metal for having him contribute as return guy. McGee has been overwhelmed by the many tasks he has to do as a return guy and starting CB in the past. We saw this when he failed to do the reads properly early season before last. Sitting him down to watch for a week and then easing his burdens by having NC cover the other team's #1 all over the field allowed him to perform much better in the second half of the season and at least be adequate last year as our #1 CB (the pass protection overall was not adequate but this seemed based to me is us being around the bottom of the league in QB sacks and pressure). Ironically, I think it actually would increase the Bills productivity to have him be able to focus more on the KR game by having McKelvin take on some of the CB pressure than to see McGee improve his CB play by losing KR duties. However, it seems pre-mature to conclude anything since McKelvin has not even hit a player in anger in a Bills uni.

I hope that Torontonians show a lot of interest in the NFL. My sense is that if the NFL is given a choice of Toronto with: the potentially huge amount of eyeballs to watch TV (the true money source), fans, corporate boxes, and other income sources and: Buffalo with its already established 45,000 seasons ticket holders, the much smaller than Toronto but still huge and already obtained advertisers, WNY corporate $, and other cash streams. The NFL will choose if can to have both! It would simply mean less money and dumb for the NFL to toss either the potential cash of Toronto or the tried and true cash from WNY if the NFL can have both. The better Toronto does in attracting fans to the game, the more likely it seems to me that the Bills will remain in Buffalo and the NFL will make the most money (the ultimate dictator of their choices) by exploiting both markets for all they can get.

I completely agree that ST will make the difference as to whether we keep 5 or 6 or possibly more. I think at a minimum we likely keep 5 to fill the position need 2 starters, a nickel who is a near starter and two players who are the prime back-ups iin case one gets injured and I has a nick at the same time (a likelyhood unfortunately in today's NFL). The question of whether they keep 5, 6, or possibly even 7 almost certainly comes down to ST play. Right now my sense is: McGee- A definite keeper and the #1 CB for now. Though some folks rag on him, he actually responded nicely to his benching year before last and he is a good example of how even vets need to play and adjust to making the complex reads in a Cover 2. As a vet who learned his lessons by screwing up year before last, he has a combination of athleticism and height that makes him our choice until proven otherwise to take on an opponent looking for a jump ball in the endzone. Greer- He surprised last year with his play that made him an adequate #2 CB. He was plan D at CB but after Webster and Thomas both ended up on he IR and Youbouty suffered nagging injuries and never established himself as a player Greer took the job and played well considering we had such a poor pass rush and the opposing QB often had plenty of time. Still his stature is a little short and his job could be had. In the past he had been spectacular at times in pre-season but never showed the same in regular season. He needs to build upon his surprising performance of last season in camp to be taken seriously over the hopes for McKelvin. McKelvin, the conventional wisdom (which is false) among many fans and the media is that a first round pick MUST start in his first year (at the beginning of last season only slightly over half were first on the depth chart at their position after a year of play in'06). Still, the Bills hopes (expectations?) for McKelvin are that he will soon break into the line-up at least as a nickle since he came as close as one can to be an elite choice (which I define as a player who wins a top 10 pick). This will likely depend on how fast McKelvin masters the NFL Cover 2 which even vets routinely say they must play in it for a year before they really master it. Many folks have huge expectations for McKelvin to immediately emerge as a player who can cover WRs all over the field when actually our base D scheme will not even require that of him (the media will be happy to fan the flames and prematurely raise the "bust" question even if he shows the normal growing pains of a young player. Since he was a great return guy in college, there is always this fall back and even if he is not quite ready for position play the Bills would then likely give him even more of a chance to contribute on ST. I hope he comes in and takes a starting slot at CB BUT I expect we will see him take the nickel slot. I will be disappointed but not surprised if ST is his major calling card. We will see. Youbouty- After an aborted first year due to the death of his Mom and his being the oldest remaining kid, last year was really his first year (he actually did impress his true rookie year winning a start in the win over NYJ and making some nice tackles as a gunner on ST). However, he did not perform up to hopes (expectations by some) at CB last year. He did not at least command the nickel slot and meet our biggest hopes of commanding the #2 slot after Webster and Thomas went on IR. Those who have given up on him really look like they simply have their panties all in a wad rather than dealing with reality. Its still way too soon to write him off and he has shown a couple of flashes of good play in the two years. However, flashes are merely flashes and his third year he needs to show that his nagging injuries were a fluke and in the face of heavy competition from vets (McGee and Greer), a well regarded rookie (McKelvin), an FA pick-up (James) and other bright eyed youngsters (Corner is interesting in particular) he will need to establish his position or it may be adios NEXT season. This season he likely gets a couple of shots but he will need to produce. Based on his past performance he likely can do this in some highlight reel episodes (though some nattering ninnies will want to throw him off the bus for little good reason right now) but the most important thing for him to show is consistency. This is the big question mark. James- He is a vet who has been around since 200O says something positive for him. He played 14 games and a semo-prominent role for Philly last year which also says something for him. Philly did not successfully hang onto him even though they wanted to move Lito Shepard and will have openings which does not say a lot for him. He likely was surprised as anyone that the Bills made a lot of moves to acquire CBs in this draft and he likely better make a name for himself as an ST stalwart as achieving even the #4 CB slot would be an accomplishment for this vet. Corner- An interesting pick by the Bills. The obviously valued him spending a 4th rounder on him so he is far more than camp fodder. Yet, one of the weaknesses on this team even as far as the limited pass protection duties of the CB in our version of the Cover 2 is on fade routes by tall receivers. Corner is a tremendous athlete with great leaping ability but the simple fact is that he is a midget even for a CB. He had a rep in college an aggressive player but did not show much in run support. Corner strikes me as a player who had Bobby April support written all over him for a prominent role on an ST that must be restocked badly. Aggression in tackling is difficult to teach but he has that big time. Great leaping ability and overall athleticism is also difficult to teach (though it can be perfected) but he has that. Better tackling technique though can be taught and given that he does not seem to fit the classic mold for position play at CB, ST is likely going to be the prime contribution of this player. Cox- The Bills have an interest in him beyond the norm as we drafted him. However, some question whether he has CB speed and his ability to pass cover but he has shown good run support work so perhaps he is a safety in waiting. However, if he can be trained up in press coverage with his aggression and generally restricted to short zone coverage perhaps the CB role in the classic Cover 2 works for him. Again ST will tell the tale about his contributions as a Bill. Overall, the CB harvest for the Bills seems to have us moving beyond the Cover 2 which Fewell says we run 25% of the time and the Tampa 2 variant which we also run a lot. When one factors in these two schemes, and the numerous plays in the red zone or the down and distance do not mandate much deep zone coverage, it really is only in the time to time circumstance that our CB is required to cover the WR all over the field. My sense is that we are arming up to go with the potential to run a very different style defense than the Cover 2 model which has been our base D.

I am surprised Bell does not ring your chimes.

It would seem to be to be a mixture of talented players and the Bills in recent years being a good place for a player to go to gain an NFL spot, My sense is that any player entering the UDFA market and his agent are weighing a complicated matrix which starts with a player considering offers (if any), soliciting offers from teams he feels he has a good shot at getting a contract, and balancing his disappointment at not getting drafted with whatever level of aggressiveness he has to seek a potential job. If one considers a player who has some chance of developing into a contributor, he likely is dealing with a few offers and is assessing them with a strong sense of where he guesses he has a shot or is simply camp fodder. As the draft moves into its final round there likely develops into a shifting dance between it being a buyer and sellers market. For the most desirable players a team likely has position coaches call potential UDFAs and let them know that we feel this player has enough talent to be drafted but the position coach lost the internal battle over he team picking the player. If things break that the player is not picked we hope he would consider team X. Things are probably pretty furious just after the draft with individual players offering up (whether its true or not) that they are entertaining several offers and want to here the best offer a team can make. UDFAs start signing quickly because there now is a real danger that when the music stops they are gonna be left without a chair unless they sign. Clearly some folks sign deals with pretty good knowledge they will be cut (the back-up kicker and punters we signed for example) but these players make the calculus that getting into the Bills camp is a good way to find a job elsewhere. I'd be surprised if a player such as Peters did not sign with the Bills because he and his agent calculated how weak we were at TE so this was a good place to come. Right now, in addition to the Bills being attractive in the UDFA market because they have not made the playoffs in about a decade, the fact that our ST lost Aiken, Stamer, Wire, Haggan, etc. is known to agents and is being sold to UDFAs that a player can make this team and contribute immediately in the trenches on ST. However, a player who sees a selling point for him as that he is a good kick return guy would be a fool to come here because not only would he have to beat our Parrish and McGee for the sole return jobs but now he likely would have to leap-frog McKelvin and his contract. The quality of a team in general and at specific positions has to be one of the biggest factors in this matrix.

I think one of the major factors in UDFAs making the team was that teams in the recent past have been so bad. This was a good place to try to make the NFL simply because it was not impossible to be better than the players we had. To some degree we hope this is no longer the case and if it is fewer UDFAs will make the squad. UDFAs like a Peters are examples that a very good player can break through here, but the overwhelming thing that might attract UDFAs here is that this team has not made the playoffs in such a long time it can be more easily marketed to undrafted players as a bottom feeding team where they can get into the NFL.

I don't think that he (or almost everyone who argued for signing Walker) are saying the Bills should have caved into him. I think some like the approach the Bills took which I understand was actually offering to extend Walker, but not give him the amount of $ he was asking for and to negotiate a contract which would allow the Bills to cut him semi-gracefully if he did not perform. Though such an offer actually would have given Walker part of what he was asking for I do not think that meeting his part of the way on this would have been caving in to everything he asked for. The Bills let him walk when he demanded even more or refused the compromises we would have needed for him to sign. IMHO the Bills actually could have gone even further in terms of giving Walker what he asked for (a choice for him of getting more $ but agreeing to a contract which easily would have let us cut him if he did not cut the mustard, or having more guarantees but lees money) and this also would not constitute caving in. From what I hear, he would not come to camp unless he got an extension with both the money and the guarantees which would have been caving IMHO, but the Bills let him walk. Its hard for me to fault them for the concept they were trying to make work (our pass D did suck last year because we did not get enough pressure) nor for not caving (which we did not do). However it is simply simplistic for anyone to maintain that Walker had nothing to offer this team (we cut Tripletts and retooled the CL bigtime this off-season because we did need some upgrade) and it would be simply incorrect to claim our pass D is any good without having more pressure to offer.

First off I prefer to refer to myself as deranged rather than insane. I think it is more accurate as insanity points toward a virtually total disassociation from reality while deranged points toward taking a warped view of reality. I can easily be completely wrong about my conclusions about the NFL, but I do not think that the NFL game is played by a bunch of potted plants or inanimate objects or some other truly insane notion. As far as my conclusions about rookies playing for the Bills, if you took the time to sit with me in the train car, one can see how my thinking and proposed conclusions actually revolved not around a conclusion about all rookies at all time, but in particular about counting upon a rookie to play well in the Cover 2 scheme as employed by the Bills. If you look at this particular question which is the one we care about, the performance of rookie LBs in the past is in fact a reasonable indicator to consider but one is in grave danger of going wrong to simply draw conclusions from these facts. For example, while yes it is true that many of the D-ROYs in the past 10 years (to choose this arbitrary but round number rather than the arbitrary convenient for the argument # you chose) were LBs (choosing AP. ROY, Diet Pepsi's , Sporting News or other will give one differing results. However, it goes a bit to far to say they were mostly or even to some extent MLBs because actually the base Ds of some of these teams were 3-4s rather than 4-3s and there is a significant difference from being an MLB in a 4-3 and an ILB in a 3-4. There is even a large difference between being an MLB in a typical defense or the MLB in a Cover 2 (or something more like a Tampa 2 run by the Bills). I was in fact reminded and learned from TSW that in fact there was an MLB who played a Jauron designed D and played it well which was Brian Urlacher. I learned from this point and agreed with it. The conclusion I drew from it however, was that a rookie may well be counted upon to do a good job as MLB in a Cover 2, but this player had better be good enough that he draws an elite draft status (which i define as someone who is good enough to garner a top 10 choice). I think we saw this play out last year in two questions: 1. Should we have taken Patrick Willis in last year's draft- My answer was no not with the #11 or 12 choice we had last year. My thinking was that if Willis was in fact that good he likely will go in the top 10 and I felt that we had other huge needs (like RB which we filled with Lynch) from this draft and we were better off using our resources to get more players rather than using them to trade up. As it happened, the professional upon seeing Willis changed their views on him from the initial thought he would go late in the first to in fact if we wanted him we would have had to trade up into the top 10 to get him. I felt we would be better filling the gap left by the WM trade and look for an LB later in the draft. This is what we did and I think folks feel pretty good about the results. 2. Would an LB taken later in the draft be good enough to play MLB for us? My answer to this question was not immediately and I think I was right about this as well. Pos is a very good player I think but I felt that we would have been better off going with Crowell at his natural position of MLB and let Pos get used to the NFL and the Cover 2 at his natural position of SLB. We did not do this, but ironically Pos did get mostly a learning experience out of his first year because he ended up on IR. I think folks are not paying full attention if they want to simply declare Pos great as a rookie at MLB for us based on his leading the team in tackles before he got knocked out. IMHO, Pos deserves great praise for leading the team in tackles but to me he looked like a poor man's version of the Bills previous MLB leader in tackles London Fletcher. IMHO, Pos did show incredible speed last year, but also of this showing happened after he got faked by the opposing OC and/or players into taking a false step backward on run plays or forward on pass plays. He showed great recognition and recovery when he scrambled back into position to make the tackle after the initial misread. However, one need only look at the significant number of yards gained and 1st downs by outlet receivers in the few initial games Pos played to see the result of a player learning the Tampa 2 as they went along. Ironically, I hope and expect Pos to be much better this year because he had a year on the bench to simply sit and watch NFL plays develop while sitting on the bench without the distraction of having to worry about stopping the opponent on the next play. However, the perspective of recognizing the importance of rookie status was borne out to me by the results. This at least is my deranged opinion. My apologies for calling your opinions fact-free. There were some facts behind them (the ROY #s) even though it is a conclusion drawn by looking at these facts only at the surface. To understand how these LB numbers relate to the Bills one I think needs to understand what the difference is between a MLB and an ILB in a 4-3 and a 3-4 and one needs to understand that the MLB has significantly different duties in a standard NFL D and in a Tampa 2.

McKelvin was the best value if one was going to make a pick. The Bills had him rated as a top 10 player and he slipped down the Board and was available when there no other player at a position of prime need for us that really was likely to go in the top 20 picks (as it turned out the plethora of lower first round-high second round talent at WR available made everyone hold off on these players and select players at thinner pooled positions). If I were in charge (which fortunately for the Bills I am not) I would have wanted to trade down the #11 and use the added value to get two WRs of roughly Hardy talent because I think we are still a WR short on this team. If no one will make a deal then McKelvin seems like the obvious choice to make. The only prob I have is that I believe there was still 4 min. or so on the clock when they chose McKelvin and I would have worked until the last minute to make a deal. The Hardy pick is just the type of target (6' 6"") we wanted and real world accomplishment in the redzone to boot. The question mark is character because of some law run ins (a big part of the reason I would have preferred a second pick). However, none of us talked to him and either you trust the Bills or not to take the measure of a man's character face to face. i trust 'em. The third round pick was my favorite of the three. I think Ellis likely will do a lot more to improve our pass D than McKelvin will. He fits in perfectly with the rotation for pressuring the QB which I think is far more important to good pass protection than pass coverage (in particular what a CB who can cover all over the field who in our base D will not even be asked to cover beyond the short zone. A good day overall, but I like our picks of good ST talent on the second day even better for its potential to help the team.

Who said that getting the best CB in the nation would not help. I didn't. Who said having a better pass rush would help our pass D more. I did than getting the best CB. I did. If you disagree fine, but is there more than fact-free opinion behind your view?

Agreeing exactly with the sentiment that our simple problem was a lack of a pass rush does not invalidate the concept that we need adequate CBs. It is more a statement that a good pass rush is a clear rate limiting factor in my mind, IMHO. I look at it this way. How would your team do with a good pass rush and good CBs- Very well. How would your team do with a bad pass rush and bad CBs- Poorly How would your team do with a good pass rush and bad CBs- not well but potentially adequately How would your team do with a bad pass rush and good CBs- not well but potentially poorly It is a team game and one wants all areas to work. However, a pass rush can cure a lot of CB ills, but it is difficult for good CBs to cure bad pass rush ills. Its a question who dictates the game and the plays. A good pass rush forces the play while a good CB merely forces the opponent to try other options to beat you. If your pass rush makes mistakes your CB must play well or it is 6 for the other team. If your CB makes a mistake but if your pass rush sacks the QB the CB error is meaningless. CBs are essential to the game (like any player) but I am one who errs on the side of dictating the game.

No prob interjecting, I set myself on auto-ramble mode.

Certainly a large constraint in the initial days of TSW was simply time. Scott Sarama and allies doing all they could to keep things up an running as they answered the call created by the sinking of the ol D&C site due to its commitment to free speech but certain users taking advantage of that freedom by not exercising responsibility. Time was then consumed fighting the battle to make this site self-sustaining financially and even profitable for the time Scott put into it. There were ongoing dust-up as some folks kept trying to prove they were real people by fouling up the virtual conversation and growing family either through technical internet assaults or abusive characters. At some point time also was stressed because the birth of his child gave Scott something far more valuable than TSW to spend his time on. Given that the organizers and moderators of this site are still striking a balance between keeping the content in good shape and making it look less tired and old, i think the right choice has been made which is to focus the limited time on the content and let how things look (unless it is a user issue) simply go as it goes. As Woody Allen once said, i do not want to achieve immortality through my work I want to achieve immortality by not dying. If the limits of time is going to mean less focus on content because the organizers and moderators are focusing on looks, rather than dying but leaving a beautiful corpse I rather the focus is on not dying.