Pyrite Gal

I had accepted the conventional wisdome that a big reason for the Bills huge winning streak in 2004 and accomplishment of a winning record was due to their schedule being soft. However, another thread which tried to lay out reasons for the D downturn last year cited us facing a cream put schedule in 04 compared to last year and the loss of PW as key reasons. While the move from PW to Edwards was clearly a downgrade (though a minor factor as best as I can tell of our plummet(, I was surprised when I looked at the record of teams which made the playoffs in 04 versus opponents who made the playoffs in 05 we faced, it turns out not only did our 2004 opponents finish competitively well compared with our 05 opponents, but actually there is a better case to be made for the 04 group having performed better than the 05 group. In many ways this is even worse news than I would have imagined as we had a much worse D performance against teams that may have been even weaker than those we faced the year before. The sad facts are that in 04 we faced 5 teams which put up a W/L sufficient to make the playoffs that year. NE (2 games) NYJ (2 games) St. L Seattle] Pitts In 05 we again faced 5 opponents who made the playoffs that year NE (2) Denver Cin Carol However, due to two division teams making the playoffs we actually played an ADDITIONAL game against a playoff winner when we faced our "soft" schedule. The reality of whether we faced good teams at bad taime or bad teams at good times can actually vary a lot from a judgement about how tough an opponent may be to play. Did we luck out and tough teams came to our house? Were players injured when we faced an opponent? Was the quality against the run exagerrated by facing better or worse runners in a seties of games? I'll leave more in depth analysis to others as my initial look has convinced me that our opposition was not considerably weaker in 04 than in 05 In fact if you look at the win streak we so enjoyed in 04, there were a number of factors which indicate this performance was simply outstanding rather than one we lucked into: 1. 4 of the 6 wins during the streak were on the road. While homecooking does not determine who will be a winner. It is a well noted factor usually worth about 3 points in the game line that there is a homefield advantage. Yet despite this disadvantage in these "soft" games we won going away. This factor is particularly notable since the Bills had historically been unsuccessful when the road game involved a cross-country trip. We not only survived this factor during the streak not once but twice. Even with a negative factor beating a bad team like SF is quite reasonable, but we also beat a Seaatle team on the road which not only qualified for the playoffs that year, but made the SB the next year. 2. We did not just win the games, we beat the crap out of oppoents- One of the most unfair and illogical things about the dismisal of the '04 work as being simply due to a soft schedule is the failure to consider how we beat these opponents. Not only were 2/3 of the games in the streak on the road, but the closest margin was 10 points. Games in opponents houses were often pretty much decided by the middle of the third quarter. One of the big effects of the work was that JP got tons of backpup time to work to reverse the taste of the bitter pill he swallowed when he was put in the NE game and got his attitude adjusted big time. Sure we beat some bad teams like SF and CLE during the streak, but we did not simply edge these bad teams but beat them by over 4 TDs in each case. This was not simply beating bad teams but putting on great all around performances bt D, O and ST beating these teams 3. Lest you still want to blow off these margins and claim these were failed teams, then note that CLE and SF were the actual horredous teams in these 6 games. While we had the pleasure of scoring over 40 in their house on the Fish, the other three games were against average at worse NFL teams. Sea and St. L made the playoffs (though the facts demand noting St. L slimed in through a weak NFC but even their .500 record defines an average rather than soft team) and the other squad was beating an average but on the rise CIN team in their house putting 33 on the board. These teams were weak for playoff teams but playoff teams then or so to be they were like it or not. This is old news about and old Bills teams which does not exist in the same form anymore. Yet I am interested in adding something to the record which cuts against the accepted read on our 2004 opponents and how the team and MM's work should be judged. He may well have done some foolish things with how he managed this team, but the obvious things of calling too many trick plays or TC being a bad OC were not those things. I think he made a more subtle leadership mistake in 04 that he led by driving his players by giving them a well-founded understanding that contract did not matter and being a nice guy did not matter in terms of staying on the team. Bobby Shaw found this out when we needed a roster spot for Peters and the Turk came to visit him. However, though fear is effective initially (as folks like Tom Coughlin found out) it wears thin. Once the Bills further demonstrated that TD had more loualty to the future by designing 05 priimarily as training for JP rather than give the team their best (though bad) chance at winning by playingthe adequate at best Bledsoe, the team quit on the Bills after seeing what JP could or could not do against the Texans. Still I hoep we do not see people declare 04 to be the result of a soft schedule as easily as they have seemed to do.

I think this is the key to analysis on this issue. In essence, reality is determined in the NFL by what works to win the SB or at the very least get more Ws. What is a winning strategy in the NFL is determined by the GMs in the league who operate like lemmings imitating a winning approach. What basically is going on here is that reality says one thing safties were the best pick according to 3 of the first 16 choices) and the ESPN analysts and other thinkers who say you should not spend your 1st rounder on a safety. The burden of proof does not lie with those who want to justify taking a safety in the first round. ESPN and analysts )paid and unpaid) may prove to be right about their interpretation of what will be a winning strategy in the NFL, but the burden of proof lies pretty firmli with ESPN, Mr. Locke and others who feel 3 safeties went to high because reality says otherwise.

Regarding the conventional wisdom that you do not take a safety in the top 10, or afirst rounder, not only was Whitmer not even the first safety taken as Huff went a pick earlier, but our good friends the Dolfelons took the third SS taken in the round at #16. If three NFL teams are bucking the conventional wisdom in the first 16 picks then I I think it is just as reasonable to question the CW rather than to require convincing that Whitmer was worth the pick merely cause he is a safety. In fact, I think that the Bills made this "reach" specifically because they were worried that DET who had the #9 right after us were rumored to be interested in Huff. If their attention turned to Whitmer then we would have had to consider taking the recovering from injury Allen if one wanted an SS in this draft. The theory has been offered that the Bills could have traded down to #12 or so and then gone after Whitmer who still would have been a reach at that pick. However, if DET as rumored went for Whitmer at #9 since Huff was gone this trade may well have left us without not only one of these two for SS but subjected us to the risk that Bunkley or Ngata would be gome and the Bills may have been left wth doing a reach for Allen at #12 or really reaching for McCargo. Even worse, by moving down closer to the Fins pick at #16 we now run the risk that if DET goes Whitmer, they try to jump above us an get Allen leaving us with the 4th safety Bullocak as the man we hopes saves us from Coy Wire. I think that assuming that need makes any difference to one, then once Oak took Huff the Whitmer pick was the thing to do unless you want to subject yourself to the morass of possibilities above. Regarding the choice between BAP and Need, the real world answer is both. In essence need is off the table after the first round anyway because it is hard to plan on any 2nd round or lower choice starting iimmediately. One might like BAP, but even if this is football logical, the Bills and all franchises are businesses also. Selling hope is a big part of selling season tickets. Fir the Bills not to address needs which in essence are vacuums at starting positions is not even a half reasonable business strategy.

In 2004 we faced 5 teams which appeared in the playoffs that year and played a total of 7 games because NE and NYJ both made it. In 2005 we faced 5 teams which appeared in the playoffs that year and played a total of 6 games because only NE made it from the division. During the 6 game winning streak which was pivotal to our having a winning record in 04, the 6 teams included 2 playoff teams, 4 of the 6 Ws were on the road and 2 of the road wins (against a horrible SF team and against a playoff making Sea team) involved cross country travel where we historically had stunk. It is arguable that due to parity in the NFL and the way things happened to fall out with scheduling and injuries that the 04 opponents stunk. However, its hard to argue that the 04 opponents stunk worse than the 05 opponents. In fact a reasonable case can be made that the 04 schedule actually was against tougher opponents than 05.

I feel that while the particulars about our opponents weakness in 2004 and the loss of PW having a negative effect (Edwards is a fine reserve if he can let it all hang out for a few plays but when he has to pace himself to last a whole game as a starter so one cannot deny he was a downgrade) in losing him. However, though these two items are true, I think they had a negligible and second tier impact causing our dismal 2005. A. Yes the opponents were not good teams during the streak, but I think it overstates things to attribute our 2004 good results vs. 2005 bad results to this as: 1. We beat the bad opponents badly- I think it would make more sense to attribute our streak to lucking out in getting poor opponents if we had barely scraped by even a few of these opponent. Yet, in general, we beat the crap out of them, won going aways and evn was able to give JP significant mop-up time against several of them. Clearly a team like the Brownies was bad, but even in their house we manhandled them. If one is to conclude we have always been a bad team even in 2004, then I think one would have seen the impacts of them playing good or average teams even more. If we beat a 6 bad teams soundly during the winning streak, we should have seen 6 2-14 records from this crew as this more horrible than us oppnent played other better teams than us. 2. We won several road games during this streak- Homefield is not a guarantee of a win in this league, but it is one thing which seems to make a few points difference week in and week out. It speaks to the quality of our play in 2004 that we were a good team that year (even under the hated MM) that we produced wins in difficult circumstances (even on the west coast trip which usually killed us on the famous cheeseburger flight) that I think raises questions about attributing our success substantially to weak opponents. 3. Look at the 2004 records of the specific teams- The 6 opponents we beat in the streak were St. L, Sea, MI, CLE, CIN, SF. Clearly CLE and SF were bad then and bad now. However, the Fins were not good then but not worse than we are now and it was in their house. However, both St. L and CIN were average not bad NFL teams as the finished 8-8 that year. Seattle not only finished with a winning record that year, but made the playoffs. Clearly both CIN and Sea were on the upswing as both were great in 2005 and Sea even made the SB. The 2004 schedule was not a strong group, but it contained teams that ranged from horrendous to on the upswing and even a team which made the SB. Most impressive about our opponents during the streak was that we simply destroyed the two best CIN ans SEA in their houses. B. As I noted losing PW was a definite downgrade at DT, but again his lost does not explain (or I think make more than a marginal difference in the big picture) our bad 2005 results and inability to stop the run. 1. Phat Pat only lined up for 2/3 of the D snaps in 2004, If his presence made such a huge difference in explaining the results of a 2005 squad which returned the other 10 defenders, then one should have noted at least some difference in performance for the 1/3 of the game PW was not there in 2004. 2. If PW was so great, then one would have expected him to make a notable difference at his new gig in MN. PW played well enough last year, but was not so great that week in and week out we kicked ourselves seeing his outstanding production. 3. We sucked not only at early down run-stopping (PW's specialty for the significant but specific use we put him to) but even worse on 3rd down stops which PW played no direct role in. Perhaps the PW difference here is that a fresher Edwards not required to start would have been there to be a fresh rusher if onlt we kept PW. However, this argument begins to clearly build a "then if" chain of occurences which seem unlikely to totally explain our run stopping breakdown from the 2nd game on. Missing PW was a factor though there are few signs it was the pivotal or even a huge factor in our record. There are several items which make more sense to me to explain the fact of the 2005 demolition: 1. The players felt that the Bills braintrust had given up on winning in 2005- Bledsoe was not a playoff caliber QB for us if he had been kept in 2005. However, he was clearly a more productive QB than the young JP was. I think the team gave it a shot beating a bad Texans team on the road, but it was clear to internal observers that TD had decided to use 2005 has training camp for JP rather than give the players the best chance they had (even if it was a bad chance it was the best we had) tto win now. As such I think the players quickly began to play for themselves and not for each other and this had a big effect. 2. Opponents had a ton of tape on our D- Ironically, I think keeping 10 of 11 players ended up being a bigger negative than positive for us. Oppomemt had tons of tape on exactly how players performed in our zone blitz and one clear area of greater weakness to exploit. Gray did well playcalling for the zone blitz in 2003 after a horrible D performance the year before . He did well designing the gameplan on his own and making in game adjustments in 2004. However, he simply needed to change up the D to keep opponents from exploiting its weaknesses in 2005 and did not do this. 3. TC works better with older QBs- Another irony is here that Clements had a lot of success as a QB coach in Pitts helping revive the career of the failed Maddox (and potentially reviving the failed Kordell though the timing of TC hiring may give MM the credit though this context is the one TC learned in under MM as OC in Pitts). TC also had good production reviving Drew in 04 after a horrendous 03. Like I or not and admit it or not which those who simply hate Bledsoe may refuse to do, they made tremendous use of what DB could do well (sling the ball like a rocket given time, very good ball handler, a lot of experience to program though he cannot improvise) by taking away his ability to audible, using his ability to run fakes, and even running him on occaision which you must do to stop the blitz even though no one will ever mistake Bledsoe for Elway. I think part of this may be that TC simplyy could not run an effective O which was geared more toward training the young JP rather than using what a vet QB could do well and minimizing what he did poorly. 4. The 2004 players were motivated by the fear of being cut if they did not produce- I think a big part of the 2004 story which is not talked about much was the cut of Bobby Shaw at WR which coincided with the streak. Shaw was a good player who had contributed a lot to the Bills in 2003 when Moulds went down to injury and Reed developed the droppsies at #2 WR. Shaw actually stepped up as the go-to guy at #1 WR when many wondered whether he was even an adequate #3. he was not adequate at #1 but was passable and he clearly contributed a lot in 03. However, he was well down the depth chart with the acquisition of Evans, hopes for Aiken and even Reed struggling back to contribute. he was clearly not a cancer in the locker room and was even well liked by many. Yet, when the Bills had to activate Peters or potentially lose him off the PS, Shaw got the axe even though after game 2 the Bills were on the hook for his entire contract if he sat at home. What have you done for us lately and all the Bills knew that if you did not contribute on the field, having a big contract and being a nice guy may well not save you. Every Bill played for their job after this cut. However, though this motivational technique payed off in 2004, particularly when the result was not the playoffs, one can only go to the fear well as a guy in charge judiciously. You can only drive folks to succeed for a little while and then you have to lead by example and from the front. TD set an example based on playing for 2006 rather than 2005. His job did not seem to be at risk but all the players have short careers. I think that these are the bigger factors which explain the stinky 05 than looking to the absence of the OK but not great PW or overblowing how weak the opponents were during the win streak.

At 2-14, you have us probably ringing in with two losses against these bad teams we plau: NYJ (twice) at Detroit at Houston GB TN MI I know you think we suck, but these opponents sucked bad (worse than us looking at records). So posters will not disregard your post as simple whining and wailing. rather than reciting the litany of fears about us, why do you have such belief in these other teams that you predict they will beat us?

Just do not forget that while stats tell a lot of the story about performance of a player in this sport, that this sport primarily makes big bucks from casual, fairweather or distracted by life (this is the majority of football watchers rather than the relatively true blue fanatic fans like myself, you, and the other folks who use this board heavily). The highest paid players are not merely those who produce a positive impact on the field in the game, but the highest paid players are those that produce the most impact entertaining the masses. I think it is a mistake to simply reach the conclusion that QBs are the highest paid because they have the biggest impact on the game. They do have a great impact and our prominent as they have their heads up when they handle the ball on almost all offensive playsand are readily identifiable. We Americans have small brains and want action action action and rather than understanding complexities of team performance, w much rather would focus on one person or star. QBs are the highest paid because they are one of the best marketing opportunites in a game where the players heads are obscured by helmets. Through the QB Club and other activities the best performing QBs have marketed the heck out of the position. If one is simply looking to rank the absolute value or determine the absolute importance of players, salary is a useful indicator but is not a perfect analogy for game performance.

I think part of the problem here is the context which is provided by the originsl subject line and post. I think it is clear that a team WANTS a great QB if they can get one (well duh!), but I think your original list in another thread and then an expansion of this list to create a larger sample of SB achieving SBs and even conference final achieving QBs demonstrates that though a team WANTS a great QB, they do not NEED one to get to: the conference finals certanly (which most folks would define as success in a seaso unless winning it all is their unreasonable goal for success( getting to the SB evem if you lose probably (even if Jimbo lost 4 SBs he deserved the HOF nod) and, even winning the SB (one's chances are much better with a great QB but even with your own finding of many winners being merely average it is clear that the answer to your subject line is no you don;t NEED a great QB though having one is a great thing.

If this is his competition than McGahee probably deserves the appellation best player. After a so-so at best but sometimes dreadful full season last year I'd grade NC below WM as a player. Spikes is a better player by a lot career wse but as the article notes after his injury we are hopeful but declarations as to his quality as a player are speculative at this point. Fletcher is a more valuable player because of his mental smarts amd bersatility, but WM is cetainly competitive with him if one wants to make some fantasy judgments as to who is a better player. McGee is probably the clear case of him being a better player than QM as his ST p;ay and leading the league in KR makes him not only a more valuable player but i think even a better one, Schobel had impressive numbers of sacks and has developed great athleticism as he shed lbs. as ordered so he could pass cover in the zone blitz. We will see how he does now that I think he will be used properly to emphasis his rushing accomplishments. However, there is still a wildcard out there as he will need to put back on a few lbs so he is strong at the POA which likely will be essential for him with our DTs shootting the gaps a lot and depending on our GRs to seal the outside of the line while the LBs patrol the middle. I like Schobel but I'd rate WM the better player at this point, though Schobel can surpass him with a breakout year. I think their contention of WM being the best player now that Moulds is gone, but it certainly is a reasonable assertion if this is his comp.

I do not think any of the draft class will be a surprise keeper. They already have made a choice that these players are worth having and will develop in the long run. I cannot see them even deciding to cut more than one of them from the team and even this man (whomever he is) gets signed to the PS. Keeping in line with the post subject, its hard for me to see how Reed pr Haggan are the guaranteed cuts the post asks for since both were just endorsed with a bunch of Ralph's money with contract extensions. Particularly Reed, who in addition the $ has drawn vocal praise from the Bills braintrust as one of the smartest players on the team, a cut of him seems quite unlikely. Actually, his RAC potential he has occaisonally shown as a former RB should fit in quite well with the switch to the short pass big yards from RAC we supposedly are going to use. If in fact, we end up with the speedy Evans, the speedy Price, and the shifty Parrish as the top 3 WRs, I expect we will see a bit of empty backfield and 4 WR sets where a smart vet will be able to work the seams of the zone for a lot of RAC as teams will be forced to zone up against the pass or let the speedy Evans or Price go one on one with their second fastest DB.

My sense is that the positive is free choice for the individual limited to the degree your choices pretty directly abridge the freedoms of another individual. If this is a guding principle then their certainly should be societal debate about a fundamental issue such as abortion involves abridging the right to life of another individual. However, I would tend to resist the social engineering involved in trying to force folks to have a traditional nuclear family be it those who want to force abortions to keep family size down to 1.8 kids or those who want to restrict access and use of contraceptives so that people have more kids. The amusing thing to me (which is related to but begins to go far from the WNY economy topic so this discussion should probably go to the Politics board where I for one will not actually follow it) is that both the hard left and the hard right seem to want to pursue social engineering to create a world which never existed (definitions of a marriage being a natural thing ignore the fact that nature long pre-dated society and that society created government and legal marrriage) or never will (I think people in general are good, but in recurring episodes such as Hitler in WWII. Pol Pot, Rwanda and the current set-to in the Middle East people are always capable of great evil). The traditional nuclear family which is a tradition that never really existed the way it is talked about is a neat idea which i would pretty much oppose anyone trying to enforce it on the individual or doing much besides advocating it with free speech to bias things to make it happen. I think our problems tend to flow from US society introducing a number of biases into the law which are sold to the voters as supporting family, but then once the breech is opened, the money class of society forces through a bunch of other biases which benefit them as individuals.

Actuslly it is really hard to create a property tax scheme that is in agreement with what you get for the taxes as long as shool funding levels and attendance and taxes are intrically linked to where you live. If you have children you get far more compensation for your taxes than if you are an empty-nester or retiree whose children are out of the house and you do not get the compensation of the daycare and education provided by the public schools. One of the reason why the rate of childbearing has dropped in our society is that as folks (particularly women) are gaining more control over decision on when or whether to have kids, they instinctively are realizing that even with massive subsidy provided by paying for schools, having children is simply a bad financial deal. It is strange that people view it as a great thing when a town attracts new families to move their so the breadwinners can take new jobs, when it is good news economically if it is a "dink" (double income no kids) couple that moves in, but the added costs for providing day care for their 5-18 year old at school while they are at work and the added cost for fire protection, policing, etc. that younger people bring with them make this a really bad economic deal for a community. Municipalities provide for these local services by getting money from propery taxes, but this cost is distributed across seniors. empty mesters or anyone who owns property equally regardless of your use of services if you have no kids or they are gone far in excess to the level of what the municipality provides. You might agree with Hilary Clinton that it takes a village to raise a kid, so this distribution of services is fair even if you do not directly benefit. However, if you take this perspective, it is merely a short jump to providing the same village approach to equalizing all educational spending and access to all kids regardless of where they live.

You know what they say big hands are an indicator of.

Apparently the "unknown" about Nance is that he actually was "the other man" in a long-term affair with an NFL HC's wife. Apparently, this affair caused the unnamed HC (whom many have dubbed a boy genius forgetting a 5 year tenure in CLE which saw near TD like playoff results) to do a bad job as an HC there and to take then pull a low-character reversal on accepting another HC job and skip off for bigger bucks elsewhere. Go figure. It is amazing what we do not know about off-field behavior which later comes to light and explains seemingly bizarre decisions about on-field stuff.

Interstingh as there was a report (published I think but I did not retain the linky) that the Bears had signed all their picks. This was used as new information which countered me answering a question someone raised about whether the Bills were slow in their signings. I shared my perspective that in the past the signings had started with late rounders who set the price and then creeped up to 1st rounders signing at the last moment or later. It appears that this Bear's story (if true) was the exception and the rule is still about the process taking time and ending at the last minute or beyond. One hopes expects that a player like Whimer who was drafted at a much higher slot than anyone expected (and thus more $ than he expected) and the word he is a high character guy means he and the Bills will get a last minute deal done before camp begins.

As as football goes, it is trivia compared to what the impacts of these deemingly selfish and seemingly stupid actions by these three adults were on the hubby/wife's kids and on BB and his wife's kids. As far as football goes, the fact this went on for so long puts the BB's acceptance and the sudden reveral of his decision to take the NYJ HC job and insted go to NE puts this odd seemingly low-character decision in a new light. I've always questionmed whether in fact BB was hands down the greatest HC of all time because of his horrendous record as an HC in Cleveland and his reversal first giving his word and then showing what his word was worth with the NYJ HC job. I think that this footbsll judgment about HC quality is probably best determined by judgment by fans of his public actions with teams (CLE ans NYJ) and not by his personal actions. However, though his apparent duplicity with his wife/kids and the other guy is nothing in regards to judging hus HC performance, this does explain a bit why he was such an idiot in his poor HC performances.

I hope you won;t convulse if he is merely on the PS. He will need to be cut for a day to sign him there but please do not immediately panic if he is cut as I think this is likely the case for this rookie.

I doubt PP gets cut as since reports are that he still has his speed and he has vet experience, I think he stays even if he demonstrates he no longer can credibly be a #2 WR as his speed and experience would still allow him to take the field in 3WR sets as a #3. His speed and knowledge of routes would simply create a very bad situation for opposing DCs. An opponent would need to choose whether he is going to put his fastest coverage guy on Evans or on Price. The one who doesn't get the fastest guy then will get to feast on lower skilled DBs. IfPP is productive, opposing DCs would have little choice but to go to a zone in 3 WR sets and then an experienced player gets to feast on the seams. Price has flat out proven he is no #1. From the Bills perspective if he proves to be a #2 who actually is even significantly less productive than he was as a #2 for (lets say 60-70 catches rather than 94) us in 2002 that works for us. The good news is he can dtill provide the same coverage benefits for us if he only hals in 40 as a #3. I am pretty sure he makes the team,

FYI the following article regarding the Buffalo economy (I will post it here as the Buffalo News in its pecuniary wisdom does not allow people to link to its articles after 10 days or so). The article is interesting to this economic point for several reasons: 1. His comments about folks in this area having a dichotomous commitment to both liberal politics and consevative values is true. This is not unusual though as institutions like the Catholic Church for example both oppose President Bush generally on immigration issues and particularly the border security approach but also support him fully in his veto of the stem cell bill where his approach seems to run counter to 70% of Americans in polls and conservatives such as Orrin Hatch. 2. He does not the typical rants against NYS tax rates, though his personal complaints really get reduced to blather as he regularly seems to blow and give away amounts of $ which exceed the extra tax hit specifically noted on things from charitable institutions to personal items and kitsch. (He recently held a yard sale at his home where one could buy some fairly pricey upholstered chairs for as little as $5. They had about 50 of them and they probably came from one of his clubs- They were a great deal if you did not mind sitting on something in your living room that had seen lots of lap dancing). 3. The idea of this being a hugely depressed area does not correspond in some ways with is having bought the home for a million a couple of years ago and is now looking to flip it for $2.95 million. He clearly is not the norm for ecomic activity. However, he has not added $2 million bucks to the value of the property throgu hspucing it up and adding a large garage. The run-up in the value he is asking for the house seems like an optimistic assessment, but is not inconsistent with a huge run up in the price of homes in the area and in sections of the City (there is little demand in low-income sections of the community where one can still bus a home for less than the cost of a middlin car, but the market is hopping downtown and in better neighborhoods and this location-location-location aspect indicates that many folks still want to come to this depressed economy). 4. It also is notable that despite the wailing about poor folks benefitting from a welfare mode that drives taxes, his primary complaint that has him leaving is with the landed gentry in Buffalo who simply do not "play well together" with new folks in town. Folks need to remember when they are wailing about the welfare state that the simple fact is that poor folks are not rich. If one wants to whine and B word about poor folks driving NYS to ruin, actually it is the rich folks that are making outlandish profits off of providing welfare thatreally are the root of the problem Flamboyant booster bids Buffalo bye-bye Snowden feels rejected because of strip clubs and stunned by tax bills By ROBERT J. McCARTHY News Political Reporter 7/19/2006 Buffalo News file photo "They're so liberal here in their politics, but in social mores, they're very, very conservative...I consider it hypocritical." Richard A. Snowden, owner Rick's Tally-Ho, at his Nottingham Terrace home After moving here from Las Vegas two years ago, Richard A. Snowden hit Buffalo in a big way. He purchased the fabled Miller Mansion near Delaware Park and sank hundreds of thousands of dollars into the showcase home he opened for a slew of community fundraisers. He joined boards and civic organizations, and explored running for office - first Congress, then the State Senate, and finally county executive. He told anyone who would listen that his business background could go a long way toward relieving the region's economic doldrums. But that same background produced a classic case of unrequited love. The owner of Rick's Tally-Ho - a strip club he calls a "gentleman's cabaret" - has put his mansion and his businesses up for sale. He will return to Las Vegas after being rejected by a town he says can't get past the way he makes his living. "They're so liberal here in their politics, but in social mores, they're very, very conservative," Snowden said. "In many respects, frankly, I consider it hypocritical." Combined with a tax burden he finds overwhelming, Snowden is ending his dalliance with Buffalo. The stately home on Nottingham Terrace with its signature front lawn fountain is on the market for $2.95 million, and his Tally-Ho clubs on Genesee Street in Cheektowaga and in Rochester and Florida are for sale, too. Snowden, 55, said he and his wife, Danielle, still love the area. But even raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for charitable and cultural institutions ranging from Shea's Performing Arts Center to the Buffalo Zoo could not erase his strip clubs' stigma. "I don't mean to be critical, but I've lived in a lot of progressive areas like northern Virginia and Las Vegas, where there's lots of growth," he said. "There's too parochial a view here. People really want the same old, same old in their politics and the way things are done." A Hornell native and Republican who unsuccessfully challenged then-Rep. Stan Lundine, a Jamestown Democrat, back in 1976, Snowden said that the state's high taxes shocked him upon his return. He said he paid $7,800 in property taxes on the Las Vegas home he sold for $1.2 million, but shells out $35,000 on the mansion he bought for approximately $1 million in 2002. Snowden went so far as to retain veteran City Hall figure Tony Farina as a political consultant and even discussed a countywide poll with Utica pollster John Zogby in preparation for a county executive campaign next year. But he said he discovered that only a handful of families control the political process. "They would never allow anyone with a different life experience to have a seat at the table," he said. Erie County Republican Chairman James P. Domagalski said he would not make any judgment on Snowden or anyone else, and that Snowden never came near to announcing a candidacy. But he noted that Snowden is engaged "in a business that certainly is a factor in the minds of a lot of voters." "He has a passion for politics and public service. He's also in a business that would be looked at carefully by the voters," Domagalski said. "And I think he understands that." Others in the community are sad about losing Snowden's charitable efforts. William H. Seiner, executive director of the Buffalo and Erie County Historical Society, said he was "astonished" that Snowden decided to leave. He noted Snowden opened his home to several daylong events and elegant dinners that benefited the Historical Society and other institutions such as the Buffalo Zoo. He served on the Historical Society board and helped raise $30,000 when culturals saw their public funding cut in the midst of last year's county budget crisis. Seiner said he never had any problem accepting Snowden's largess in the same way that merchants selling cars or groceries accepted his money. "He runs a legal business and tries to do good things with his money," Seiner said, adding he never fielded a single complaint about accepting contributions from a strip club proprietor. Snowden says he now wants to retire from his profession of 27 years and may dabble in fine arts and antiques upon his return to Nevada. He hopes someone of the stature of Buffalo Sabres owner B. Thomas Golisano might be interested in the manse he rechristened "Nottingham." "We took a castle and were able to put it in as good a shape as when it was built. It was a real thrill," he said.

I guess this reply from you constitutes you bitching and moaning about the Buffalo mindset in a second post.

One of the other things which has happened in a few drafts is a "lemming" like aspect of GMs and the secretive/deceptive nature of the draft. A player will not be selected when he is expected to be selected and other GMs will begin to wonder what they do not know about a player that other folks might know. A player may not be selected at a point when he should be taken or when another player at the same position is taken and the choice defies easy explanation to other GMs beyond the possibility that there is some injury they do not know about. When the player comes up next as a potential selection and the GM has a choice between filling a need at one position or taking the player who dropped, he then has a choice but gets scared off by the unknown. Now having been passed by twice "or more" the lemming mrentatuility is on and additional GMs begin to wonder what they don't know that others know. Eventually, a player drops so much he becomes such a value pick that someone takes the risk. However, if the player is projected as a second day guy anyway, the player may simply slip through the draft. Who knmows? This market effect is one of the interesting things about the draft. My sense of this case is: 1. Despite great product with RoboQB, the ACL injury pushed Nance to the second day of the draft in any case. His nice recovery made him pickable but the injury fear pushed him down. 2. His great features in some regards but not others actually hurt his draft prospects. By definition (height and size of hands) he was a mutant. However, as teams switched more heavily into "beast player available" picks as the draft wore on, more well rounded players were more attractive selections than mutant prospects. 3. Weakness of the WR class hurt him. Teams with WR needs looked to FA and other sources to fill this need as this draft class of WRs looked weak. There simply were not many buyers left looking for a WR from this draft as the market was going to be thin. 4. There was a question of how much coaching would help. Nance already ran good routes and seemed to get what he he was going to get in terms of huge gains out of good coaching. He also may well have produced well in college due to his height and large hands and no team was gonna improve this with NFL coaching. Folks may have liked what they saw in college but saw little upside to be gained beyond his past avchievement through their coaching. Every college player needs to improve a lot over their current game to be good pros. 5 The success of RoboQB may have hurt him. Just as Losman looked impressive and one of his selling points was his production behind a bad line and folks having hopes he would do better behind a good lOL (aa situation he has yet to see unfortunately). Nance probably got downgraded even with the QB switch for being thrown to by the first first round QB choice to deliver an SB win to the team which drafted him since Dallas chose Aikamn in 89. 6. Overthinking and over-analysis by folks interested in the draft can produce some weird rationales. This very post you are reading is clear evidence of it. I really have to leave myself a note to get a life.

Boy, the way you B word and moan about this mindset makes you sound like you would fit in perfectly.

Bingo! It really amazed me to read through this whole thread before I finally found someone noting one of the fundamental differences between how things are usually set up in an O that differentiates an LT and RT. The LT usually has no on the outside of the OL and they are on an island and can be more easily beaten by speed rushes around the outside. Teams often put their best rusher to that side because he is harder to double there and he has the shortest route possible to the QB. The blindside is an extra benefit of coming from this side against right-habded QBs but is not the primary reason why that rusher is there.

While I like most folks were surprised at the large (by the standards of us mere mortals) deal Reed got, the idea that he could be gotten for the vet minimum does not seem to be either a realistic judgment of what the market would provide him ore realistic in terms of the actual amount he got. In order to believe that he would have gotten the vet minimum, one would not only have to believe that the recently promoted Overdorf and the Bills misread the market (unlikely as the problem with this team has been performance and not contracting in numerous recent deals where the Bills appear to have gotten players for less than the market offered) and assess his play as being vet minimum valuable. In terms of play assessment: 1. Reed disappointed big time in his failure in 2003 to play at the quality level of a #2 WR as folks hoped and actually reasonably expected given his performance as a rookie in the #3 WR slot and his rep based in his Biletnikoff award winner in college as the best college reciever. However, not being good enough to be a #2 WR does not mean that a player sucks and is worth little more than the vet minimum. #3 WRs typically get far more than this and Reed did perform well enough at this level here in the real world as a rookie. 2. The question is what level can he reasonably be expected to perform at. #2 quality WR is really unlikely (though even that is possible and cannot reasonably totally ignored or disregarded). Him performing at a #3 level may still be unlikely (though not quite unlikely) but he has done this job in the real world once before. The things which mitigate against it would be poor performance on his part. but his poor performance in 2003 was reflected in him having a horrible case of the droppsies. He has seemed to solve this problem to a great extent in 04 and particularly with a few clutch catches in our dysfunctional O of O5. One caould easily see the braintrust making the judgment that 3 years of experience has solved the performance issues and allow him to be a viable #3 if things break properly. The other factor which actually mitigates against him being the#3 would be his competitors on the team being better than him. It is easily conceivable that if the not guaranteed happens and PP returns to his past #2 achievements, OR the equally well-regarded and shiftier Parrish plays at #3 levels, OR the wildcard Davis fulfills his promise and plays at #3 (or even #2) levels all these things would have to occur to then force Reed into a competition for #5 WR with Aiken and Fast Freddy. Its really omly if Reed is at best a #5 or #6 WR that we are taling vet minimum and maybe you predict that PP. Parrish and Davis are all going to work out and Reed will not, but if so you are about the only person saying this. If so, i hope you are right. 3. Instead, what seems more likely is that Reed is judged to be of value to the Bills because: A. He performed well on an ST squad which is the leading performer on this team. Particularly with a greatly incread cap (which appears likeit wil go up again next year) the take simply needs to be distributed to the workers by rule under a CBA which sees 59.5% of all the total assets going to the players. I think that Overdorf simply has a better since of what the true NFL vet minimum is going to have to be under the new CBA and thus the ratcheting effect it is going to have on player contracts. This ain't your grandma's NFL anymore and the days of getting anything other than a UDFA for $300K are gone. B. The Bills seem committed to installing a high flying St. L type O and their will be unprecedented for the Bills WR opportunities and needs. The new O is likely to emphasize making catches in tight spaces off the line and getting RAC after that. Reed's past successful work as a #3, his college RAC chops, and his improving at the very least if not solving his sophomore droppsie issues give him a reasonable shot at making the #$ slot, and a possibility of even being the #3. In our new O if this comes to fruition he will be worth the money. Overall, i think the Bills paid Reed the big bucks: A. They believe he will compete for and have a credible shot at winning potentially the 3 an at least the augmented value of the #4 role. While i was surprised at the value the Bills place on this also, it is well above the vet minimum. b. If in fact the new O scheme is going to be critical to our success, then we do not and cannot risk it getting sidetracked due to injury. Having a #4 WR in our O who can at least perform adequately is more important to us than having a pass catching talent at #3 TE (we barely have one at #2 TE now) or having much at FB at all (I think we would rather go with a single runner in the backfield than not have a quality #4 WR. Overall, the Bills have signed for keeps and risked signing bonus for 5 WRs (Evans, PP, Parrish, Reed and Aiken) and even if an injury occurs we will still be able to operate 4 WR sets. In addition we have a large salary little signing bonus guy to try out in Davis at WR. The vet minimum for Reed I do not think so.

I think folks often focus on the fact that while the Buffalo economy is lagging compared to the economies of the Sunbelt and go-go American communities. it is still part of the American (and increasingly North American as the world becomes flat as Tom Friedman would say) economic engine. There is still a large and increasing chunk of disposable income available to large chunks of folks in WNY and marketing efforts can still sell out the limited number of seats available in the Ralph. As the teams record and prospects are lousy, sales have been slower than in the past. Yet, it ain't over 'til its over and as the Bills business gets off its butt and makes even a marginal effort it can obtain sell-outs. Still. things change slowly and even more slowly here in WNY where people value tradition over total effectiveness economically on the whole. The Bills as a business have greatly improved with the "Great Leap Forward" of the Business Backs the Bills Effort. With the help of significantly reducing the stadium size to increase the revenue Ralph could hold to himself under the old CBA sellouts can be achieved under a constrained timeline and even within the context of a WNY economy that does not have the growth levels of higher profit lesser distribution of profits to workers states like the Sunbelt. However in the big picture though there is less boom here than in NC, its just an unimaginable difference between the allegedly struggling economy of WNY and actual true economic backwaters such as Mexico or the old former Soviet Union before spiking oil and gas prices gave them a huge boost. Trulyhorrendous economies are found in places like Iraq and Lebanon, and though folks routinely complain about life being so hard here, there are other places that really have it tough and make the typical US complaints amidst the growing obesity of people who live in America mere whines even if you want to be charitable in characterizing it. It would be funny if it was not so pathetic in terms of the human condition. The amazing record of the Bills now pretty routinely selling out games the last few years even though the team has been goshawful for the most part tells the true story and expect sellouts for the most part this year even if the product is bad. It may happen more slowly than before, but the NFL and Ralph have gotten a clue that the advertising on TV provides a far greater profit in sale of collateral items than the marginal gain of increased ticket sales due to TV blackouts. With minor efforts the Biills can get close enough to a sellout to allow Ralph to fill good about himself and gain great publicity and free advertising by giving away the few remaining tickets to our troops or to Boys and Girls Clubs.