Pyrite Gal

Generally, I agree with your sense of who will start. The one area of significant disagreement I would have is the expectation from folks that Simpson is gonna start for this team this year. I think a lot of this feeling is base more on some fans not wanting Vincent to start because he is an older player and because the NFLPA (and unions generally) have such negative press and TV is their Prez. TV is long in the tooth and like Villarial, what used to nicks which players played through can now become injuries which knock them out of games. He could well be forced to the bench early in the season. However, if he is look for Rashad Baker to step in at FS and not Simpson. Simpson is a second day draftee and if he follows the course of most players who had the talent where they got drafted at this point, it will be into his second season before he can contribute much to this team beyond ST work.

As a life long Cub fan since I was born in Chocago, part of the fun of following a team for me is getting sucked in to believe in my team even though such hopes are obviously irrational. Its been interesting to move here to Buffalo as my lovely spouse's family is here, and to get sucked into rooting for Buffalo major league teams. I'm a Bills fan rather than a Bear fan and a Sabres fan rather than a Blackhawk fan, but I still retain my devotion to the Cubs and the Bulls as there is no major league alternative here. I must admist that I was able to salve the wounds to my sports heart when the Cubs went up 3 games to 1 over the Marlins and we had Mark Prior or Kerry Wood coming up in the rotation to win1 game and send us to the World Series. I actually do not blame the hated Steve bartman for interfering with a catch of a foul ball to give the Marlins another chance. I blame myself as a fellow childhood Chicagoan and Cub dan was off in Argentia where his lovely wife is from. He asked me if I could tape the World Series for his review upon his return. I said no problem, but not counting mt chixkens before they hatched, I told him I would not buy the blamk tapes until after the Cubs were in for sure. Of course, I happened to be at Wegman'd the night they went up 3 games to 1 and video tapes were on sale and if I waited until they clinched, I ,might miss out on a deal. Rediculously, and in a moment of great hubris I saved a couple of nickels and pre-maturely bought the tapes. Needless to say in one of the most bizzare ways possible we lost it all, Yep, it was all my fault, but actually. i was able to rest comforably after dealing silently with initial schock because I must admit it gave me a sense that all was right with this crazy world. So, for me its completely illogical to root for a playoff appearance by my Bills this year (or even a winning record)), Yet who cares. Sports for me is about rooting illogically and I am happy to go down with my Bills if that happens. It simply means that all will be right with the world.

Yep, I'm fully aware of this but I think is likely he'll do fine here because: 1. He just does not have the temperament or the ability to be a#1 NFL receiver. No prob here with the Bills plans as he is not our #1 but our #2, 2. He did not work well with singular talents and style of Michael Vick. No prob here as no will mistake any of the Bills QBs for Vick, It will be interesting to see if this issue for PP extends to a guy with the mobility and "run for your life" habits of a JP or is it an issue with the run first/pass second style of Vick. However, even though JP is the early likely QB for the Bills KH and Nall also will have their fair shot as we will improve by allowing the QB decision to maade based on on-field performance rather than from on high by a TD or by fan acclimation. 3. It would not be a shocker if playing in his hometown with its ton of distractions from friends, relatives asking for tickets and the constant assessment and love based on your play from folks you are used to reacting to you because of you weighed on PP's game. 4. It is really good news to here from the media that he still has his speed and no signs of the droppsies. It will even work for us if he produces at a catch amount of a #3 WR as he still will be in 3 WR sets where his speed, Evans speed, and Parrish open field ability will drive DC's mad. One cannot ignore his regression in every stat since he left just as one cannot simply ignore the fact he improved in every major stat category each year he was here. The wildcard is whether his eyesight andhealth are fine and whether he still has his speed. It sounds like he does so I see that Bills fans cannot reasonable be anything but hopeful about his return.

I do not see this as a lot of pressure on Price as all we are asking him to do is put up less than th tremendous performance he produced as a #2 for us his last season here. If he catches 70-80 passes instead of the 94 he produced for us in 2002 this would still be a very good year. The even better news for us is that if Parrish actually steps up to be an adequate #2 (I really doubt this will happen), PP can still pay large benefits for us as our #3 bringing his speed to 3 WE sets. The way I see this playing out at WR is this: #1 WR- Evans had already surpassed Moulds as our go to guy when he took in 3TDs in the first quarter against Miami and melted down when he had a hissy fit. The rest of the team understands that getting surpassed by younger talented players happens to eveyone and had little sympathy for Moulds whining. Even worse he chose Tyke Tolbert as the object of his tirade which even eliminated the race card as an explanation for his problem. Evans has shown great speed and good enough hands to meritthe #1. If he has also developed the athleticism to make the occaisional circus catch he will make the Pro Bowl soon. If not he still can easily be good enough. #2- Peerless cannot play the #1 (particularly for a run first throw second QB like Vick). The good news for us is that we want him to play the #2 which he has already done well for us in the real world. Even better his 2002 was so good with 94 catches he does not even need to equal his maximum production as a #@ to be what we need. Even better, Parrish steps up then PP can do the same things for us in making our 3 WR sets a problem for opponents even if we only need him to produce like a #3. #3- I think Parrish is too snall to be a #2 (but then folks thought Flutie was too small to win in the NFL as a QB so maybe I am wrong about Parrish. It makles no difference because I need his speed and shiftiness as my #3 WR. If opposing DCs have to face the speed of Evans and the speed of Price in 3 WR sets which will allows Parrish to feast on LBs it is gonna be great to watch. #4 Occaisionally we will want to go to an empty backfield and having a vet like Reed with good RAC ability from his collegiate years as an RB is a good way to go. Reed will challenge Parrish for the #3 role which Reed already has done well with Moulds and Price in 2002. I think he will ose out iin the #3 battle with the more gifted Parrish, but if the booby prize for Reed is that he gets to use his vet knowledge to pick on the zones which will be the only wat to defend our 4 WR sets then its gonna be good. #5- and MATBE #6 A team can actually get away with only having 5 WRs active on the rester because it will take an injury for the #5 to see receiver duty, However, Aiken is a good choice for #5 as though he has never show downfield production, this player will mostly contribute on ST which Aiken can do well. Fast Feddy also can contribute to the team on ST as a PR guy, but with Clements and Parrish on the squad he likely gets cut unless he shows even more as a WE, Some have talked about Davis as even being a candidate for #2. I doubt it as him having the skills to contribute at #4 is more likely, Given Reed's RAC potential and Aiken and Fast Freddy;s ST potential I think Davis gets cut. Nance I think may stick as our # 6 if we judge the top 4 as adequate and then it makes sense to keep Nance for the PS. I think Wilson has an outside chance at the PS. I think Denny has an outside shot at the PS but is unlikely.

If I am Ralph and thus it is pretty much guaranteed that I am gonna livee forever (or at the worst if I don't I won't be around to worry about the fact I did not) I am not worryiing about breaking in a new owner or GM. As far as it goes, the future is now and the only bad thing is I will not win the SB this year, but my main thinking about a 3 tear timeline is that is a year to long for my desires. The thing I like most about Marv is reflected in his book, Where You Rather Be than Right Here Right Now. The HC or GM who is setting things up for the future is simply setting things up for the new HC, a new GM pr a new owner. After the foolish episode with TD (I blame Butler for running out on me to CA and eaving me in a stituation where I had no other choice but to hire TD, turn over everything to him and hope it worked out). it clearly did not work out when it comes to W/L (the only true measure of team success), but at least he finally moved the business side into the 20th century and I thnak him for that. Though you would have to be a fool to expect us to win or even rrach the SB this year, I want to see a plan that maxinmizes immediate wins while building for the future. I expect this team to compete for the playoffs and even if we probably will not make it this year we will die with our boots on. If we get lucky and the plan goes well I want to make the playoffs this year and have a real shot if we get lucnky and we are good at making the SB next year. 3 year plan fuggaboutit. Life is too short.

There are three things which I think that Marv judged as special about Jauron: A. He had achieved being named NFL Coach of the Year once. This does not immediately appoint him a supreme being or gurantee good performance but it is noteworthy and should not be entirely dismissed as it is saying "didn't do anything special." B. He impressed Detroit enough to get hired as interim HC after Millwn engineered the Mariucci debacle. He has seen 2 different organizations up close and personal as an HC and even seeing a disaster like Detroit should provide good experiemce. C. Most of all, Marv liked him and felt like he could work with him to make this Bills team a TEAM. He did not seem to take to folks like Sherman or the guy who was DC in GB and as Sherman gives all appearances from his public comments of being a legend in his own mind, I feel good that we passed on him. Jauron may well not work out, but it does not strike me as supported by reality claim he is a definite loser with little or no chance of overseeing improvement of the Bills. Certainly his resume is no guarantee of success but it seems pretty adequate to give us shot. I see the starting situation for the Bills thusly: CBs- NC and McGee are solid as NC deserved his Pro Bowl nod year before last and I think that McGee may actually be the better corner and certainly contributes more to this team with his KR work and his CB play. Ss- I think many are missing the boat when they declare TV as gone as: A. He led the team in combined turnovers last year. B. The scheme is moving toward his strength of coverage and diagnosis and away from the area of fan complaint which is the run atopping tackling required of a safety in the zone blits. C. The arrival of Whitmer as an immediate starter, Youbouty needing another year of seasoning to be the 1st round talent mentally he is physically, and Simpson is a well-refarded second day pick who despite the wished of the faithful is a second day pick not ready to start at S for us, makes TV all the more important as his presence as an on field coach and off-field character which led his peers to elect him NFLPA Pres will be of great value. TV is just the SS we need and I hope he does not suddenly hit the wall as some older players do. Whitmer may well have been a reach for us at #8 but who cares regarding our starting FS as the cost of not trading down was that we lost the extra pick we might have gotten. Whether we picked him at #8 or #15 (if he was still there at #18 the Fins would have gotten him) he was gonna be an immediate starter for us at FS. The expectation is he should be able to do this given his talent which saw him as a consensus first rounder. Our safties should be adequate to the job on the field and supply additional benefits as well. LBs- If TKO comes back at even 90% of his former level this should be the best unit on the team. TKO is clearly a Pro Bowl level performer. The complaints some posters have about Fletcher really come off as whining because like it or not he has been credited with more tackles in the last 5 years than any other NFL player. Hie is a couple of inches shorter than the NFL LB norm, but makes up for this with a constant motor (as shown objectively by his huge number of tackles), his good football sense (as shown in the real world by him being D captain even though TKO is a better player), and even the pass coverage complaints come off as uninformed whining as his consistent use as a returner of short punts shows how well he tracks a ball in space and handles it well enough to return kicks. The 3rd starter question after a disappointing season by Posey last year have answers not simply in hoping Posey recovers the form that made him a key player in a highly ranked D in 03 and 04, but Crowell after filling in well for TKO is ready to step up. DL- This is the big problem area for starters to me. Schobel is solid at RDE and has the consistent sack #s in his career to show this and actually demonstrated good athleticism in called upon to pass cover in the zone blitz. It will be interesting and it is possible that in addition to him simply being solid if he performa like he has, that this year will see him go up to a new level as he devotes all his effort to pass pressure as the pass coverage duties of the zone blitz are no longer his. LDE is a question as well since a good 04 from Kelsay was not followed by improvement in production in 05. Hiwever, as the Bills have Denney resigned these two players will compete to see who can be Phil Hansen adequate at the other DE slot. The DTs are a total question mark as clearly we are gonna go with an undersized unit as used in the Tampa 2 by several team. If McCargo and Triplett can be the leading figures here, I have no problem with Anderson and Williams giving them a blow to make this work. However, this flat out depends on the braintrust making good assessments with their FA pick-up Triplett and 1st round draft pick MacCargo. On D I esxpect at least 8 0f 11 starters to be adequate to very good and the 2 wildcards may turn our to be good (it can happen) or that is where the problems will lay. WR- I think many assessors are missing the boat here as well. Evans IMHO is the only player who must perform at the level slated for him (a #1 WR) as we have no second option for this job. As far as the other WR sllots, I think there are 2 or more options and 1 of these players should do the job. #2- PP is not good enough to be a #1 WR, but he has performed incredibly well as a #2 before and as long as the docs sign off on his eyes, having him man the #2 role for us (or even be useful for us as a #3 as he still will bring his speed rep to 3 WR sets either way is fine. It is unlikely that Parrish will step up to #2 levels, but he showed some good moves once he got over his inhuries and not unreasonable hands so he is a cabdidate though I think an unlikely winner of the #2 battle. #3- Parrish should eassily be able to fill this role at this point in his development. Reed has plaed #3 adequately before as a rookie so he can offer some competition here though I think Parrish will win it. Reed does offer some good RAC skills he showed as a collegian which lend themselves to the short pass/big gain St. L O we apparently are going to run. In addition some have talked about Davs as potentially being even good enough to take the #2 WR slot. I doubt this and I doubt he will be even good enough to take the #3 but it is nice to have options. #4- Fiifure Reed and his RAC ability being the #4 when he loses out to Parrish. However he will compete with Aiken and Davis for being our #4 WR desingnee. #5 and #8 )if we keep one)- Figure that Aiken (assunming he loses out to Reed for #4, Fast Freddy, the tall Nance and Wilson will give us 2 players fron these 4 who will hold down these last two slots. I think we will have to cut at least one if not two former NFL vets to get down to our WR component. OL- As said above, the starting 5 will be better than we had starting on OL last year. TE- A lot of this depends on scheme. I doubt that Everett will suddenly become the next Tony Gozales as both Campbll and Euhus failed to be the standard quality TE our old O envisioned. However, Royal who proved to be a Joe Gibbs worthy blocker after two years of starting for the Skins can play the same blocking for tne most part role for us if that is all we demand of him. The safetty valve in our scheme is going to be needing WM to step up to play a not as good ersion of the Marshall Faulk role in the St. L D. Being a lesser Faulk is not great but certainly will be fine in this O. RB- The back-ups look questionable but I feel great about having the fastest Bill ever to reach 2000 yards rushing as my starting RB. QB- I do not think that any of these three has a probability of being the QB we want and need this year. However, I think it is qute likely that one of these three whomever it is will be able to be the starting QB we want. There are still a couple of uncertainties for starter talent, but as we have more than one option for most of these questions I think that the back-up issue is a much bigger uncertainty for this Bills team than the question of finding an adequate starter. If we have a good year with injuries I think we will be OK, if we have bad luck with injuries it is gonna be ugly.

I think you misassess several players and misstate the reality of their situations (not simply in terms of opinions about them but in terms of the facts and events pf their careers). 1. You jump to big conclusions to assume that Indy was deciding who to keep or not keep purely based on ability. Even wth the cap going way up, they need to do some of the most careful salary balancing in theNFL due to the enormoyus cap hit needed to keep Manning and Harrison. They lost one of the most accurate kickers ever in Vanderjagt (though like many kickers he is a loon tune) and lost Edggerin James (who I think they would love to have at even reasonable money but AZ set the market at an unreasonable level for him. To replace Vanderjagt they spent a gazillion on Vinateri. What this results in re: Triplett is that obviously simply judging his talent based on whether they signed him or not is a bit simplistic. There is a whole dance of team building happening here that influenced their decision making. The factual occurences on Triplett are: A. The choice for the Colts was to spend big buck on Triplett to be in rotation with Corey Simon or not. Being worse than Simon does not make one a bad player. B. In fewer games he put up tackle and sack numbers which actually were quite comparable to totals registered by Simon and RDT Reagor. The market seemed to judge him worthy of fulltime starter money but the Colts could not afford to pay him fulltime starter money. C. In addition to the DT jam, the Colts are also committed to laying big bucks when they have to on the DL to Dwight Freeney. Reality is simply more complicated than viewing this as the Colts passed on Triplett because he is merely a back-up quality player. 2. The reality on Fowler is also more complex than the simple declaration of him as a back-up. A. He was backing up Matt Birk of the Vikes last year who was IR'ed by them with a number of serious though not career ending injuries. Birk is back now and it does not mean a player sucks when he fails to unseat a multi-time Pro Bowler at a position. B. He was acquired in a short-term FA deal by the Vikes because they wanted but had their doubts about long-time Birk back-up Cory Withrow. It turned out to be a good move for them as the team was 1-3 under Withrow and Fowler unseated him. Culpepper's performance improved behind Fowler rather than Withrow, but the important thing is the team zipped off a 6 gamw W streak once Brad Johnson lined up behind Fowler. While it seems unreasonable to give too much credit to Fowler for the turnaround (even though it generally coincided with Fowler coming in and began before Johnson came in), it is interesting that the tuirnaround ended and the team fell short of the playoffs with Fowler out and Johnson in. Again, simply dismissing Fowler as a back-up or reject does not accurately state the full situtaion. 3. Folks seem to want to classify Royal as a back-up for some reason when the fact is he started 14 of the 15 games he played for the Skins last year. Folks also seem to make some complaints about his hands which seems to ignore the likely fact he was acquired by us for his blocking talents in a horrid pass protection OL and to provide blocking for WM. He actually was highlighed on the Skins board as a redzone threat in 2004 when he took in 4 TDs and set a personal best for him in receptions last year as Gibbs always has used him as a blocker first, a red zone threat second and a pass catcher third. The scuttlebutt is that the Skins wanted Royal back and that Gibbs expressed public disappointment when he want to the Bills. Are there some set of facts or events that drive these Royal complaints from some fans? There may be some question as to who is the fool around here.

I must have missed it when these names were given in reply to a fairly consistent question I've asked. It took a bit of looking, but I can see why this answer was not offered a lot because like the other personal opinions offered on TSW it is more than legitimate to assess a players play based on any fact-free opinion one my have. However, the names you mention simply do not stand up very well under much scrutiny that looks to factual occurences or collection of stats to support an opinion. IMHO, stats are merely an indicator and do not show much conclusively, but in asnwer to the question which AFC QBs deserved the Pro Bowl reserve nod more than Bledsoe in 2002, the 8 names you offered do not stand up very well. First, in answer to the question asked of who deserved the reserve Pro Bowl nod more than Bledsoe, two of the names offered can be quickly eliminated. Gannon did not deserve the reserve Pro Bowl nod because in fact he was the Pro Bowl starter after a tremendous couple of years. Manning also is eliminated by the question as he along with Bledsoe got a Pro Bowl reserve nod. Second, in order to assess the play way back when in 2002, the usual good Internet source for stats was not immediately useful as NFL.com only shows links to past stats going back to 2003. The #s are probabably accessible to someone in some archive, but I'm not computer savvy enough to access these numbers easily so I will leave it someone smarter than I to find. #s like NFL QB rankings were not available to me (the QB ranking is far from a perfect stat and ranling (and has little use comparing performance in different years as the rule and the game changes to make the game change in how pass-happy it is, yet event though it is not a perfect or even good ranking it is the best comprehensive ranking of QBs within a given year there is). However, I was able to find listings of which QBs finished in the top 10 of particular individual QB stats. While no one stat is a good analogy at all for a QB's performance, it is useful to see where a QB finished in a variety of these categories and to form one's opinion based at least in part on these facts. Specifically, the Bledsoe 02 rankings were these: Completions- 3rd out of 10 in the AFC Attepts- 2nd Yards- 2nd TD- Passes- 7th Agaim this collection of individual stats does not conclusively prove anything, but they can give one a fair sense of a level of achievement that year and in comparing individual QBs give one some guidance on how a QB compares to his peers. There are a number of obvious limitations to any of the individual stats and what it can say about individual performance by a QB. For example one might have a bazillion attempts but often miss the receiver by a mile and leading this category this in not an accurate analogy for being a good QB, Yet, this number can indicate a bit as if one throws but throws badly, it is doubtful you will get much of chance to attempt a lot as you will be benched. One can look to the completion average when you see the attempts number is high and draw some more rational conclusions by looking at these and other numbers. The number of TDs may be high because one's recievers are good and get good RAC on short passesm or the number can be low despite the QB being effective because he throws a bunch of completions to move downfield and then his runner puvnced it in. The bottom line is think about all these indicators. The other QBs who did not get the Pro Bowl reserve nod among those you mentioned: Chad Pennington- Tied for 8th in passing TDs but not among top 10 QBs in any other of these categories Tommy Maddox- Did not finish in top 10 of any of these categories Tim Couch- Did not finish in top 10 of any of these categories Steve McNair- 10 th in completions and tied for 8th in TDs. Maybe this just means that these stats and the Pro Bowl nod are not good measures of good QBs and Maddox, Pennington and Couch are better QBs than folks who got the Pro Bowl nod and did well in these categories like Gannon, Manning and Bledsoe. Lets look at the other two QBs you mention: Brady- 3rd in attempts, 4th on completions, 6th in yards and 1st in passing TDs Green- 7th in passing yards and tied for 5th in passing TDs. This was interesting to me in that it showed the failings of either these stats as measures or of Pro Bowl nods regarding Brady. Given Brady's success in leading his team to wins of the SB in 2001, 03 and 04, I'm inclined to think that these stats are a good measure of a good QB more than the popularity contest of a Pro Bowl nod is a good measure. When the two disagree, I'm inclined to supporty Brady as the better candidate for the Pro Bowl nod over Bledsoe.. Still the notion that any of the e candidates you name are likely candidates to deseve the Pro Bowl nod more than Bledsoe seems pretty doubtful in all cases. In the end, this issue is a surrogate for the question of who is the better QB. As this game is definitely a form of entertainment, different folks are entertained by different people. In the real world is does not strike me as impossible or a contradiction at all that different people judge differet players to be the better player or QV in this particular case. If folks chose to live in the illusion that there is a right or wrong answer based on some externally judgable criteria that is fine. However, people need to recognize that the outside criteria is determined by the NFL and not really by them as fans beyond the powers that the NFL gives them. Ironically, the league gives them 1/3 the power to select Pro Bowl nominees and this is the final word. Who were the 3 best QBs in the AFC in 2002. The answer is clear. Gannon, Manning and Bledsoe. Folks once again have every right to their opinion and they can say the NFL was wrong.. However, they do damage to their own case when they make the claim that Bledsoe is a complete loser who cannot do anything write or is a loser. Bledsoe easily was in the top half of QBs in the AFC in 2002. It actually is hard to credibly debate he is not in the top quarter of QBs in the AFC that year. As far as the second half power outage it is clear that Bledsoe's production dropped in the second half of 2002. However, the theory that he simply threw himself out and he foundered because he was too old raises two key pieces of evidence which say this probably was not the case. 1. In the game toward the end of the season against Cincinnati, Bledsoe put on a very good show passing the ball. He dompleted 23of 31.He threw for 231 yards and 4 TD passes. Actually if the Pro Bowl vote occured after this final game and voters carried these stats or that recollection into balloting, he probably would have won the popularity contest of getting into the Pro Bowl. 2. The Bledsoe production drop is explained better by his faciing NE and VV exploiting him badly in 2 of the last 8 games and by incredibly bad weather that destroyed every QB playing in games against SD here and in GB, Farve went on record saying it was the coldest weather he had ever seem in GB as he weent 15 of 33 for 114 yards. Brees was so bad in the SD game they sat him in favor of a late Flutie appearance. I do not offer these as excuses since Bledsoe simply failed in the GB game and got tore a new one by Beliheck. However, these were reasons why things happened like they did and the fact simply is that Bledsoe had a very good year in 2002. His performance sucked so badly running a predictable Bills O in 2003 that it was IMHO opinon time to call one good year and one bad year a wash and cut him while the contract situation was least damaging for us. Some fans were so ticked at the stupidity of TD extending him that they have conjured a view in their mind that Bledsoe sucled in all ways. This simply is not supported by the reality. Bledsoe has failings and good aspects. TC showed us that by getting far more out of Bledsoe as a QB in 2004. Still this was not good enough as TD was one of those who drank the Kool-Aid of fanlike expectation that Bledsoe was gonna carry this team. He cannot. However, with Parcells running the show in Dallas, I think there is a better than even chance that Bledsoe once again plays QB on a team which makes the playoffs. We'll see.

Thanks for your thoughtful and lengthy post. i will respond to a few items with the time I have before heading off for evening 7/4 activities. The key point regarding how the SD game plays for us is how effective their pass game is with Rivers (I assume this is who you mean when you cite Phillips) pitching and not the simple fact we are home (a definite advantage for us but not one that in itself can cause a bad team to beat a good one). In answer to a post above that cited Tomlinson running all over the Bills even if the QB is learning the game still (as normally happens for a first full year pro) Just like last year when SD missed out of the playoffs losing critical end of the season games after Brees went down, if Rivers goes through the typical young QB growing pains, this will allow opponents to put 8 in the box and limit Tomlinson's ability to run at will. I think Tomlinson is a stud back who will get his yards almost regardless of how he is defensed. However, the key result is not LD's yardage total but the final score. If SD needs to run LD a few more times for his to get his 100 and several of their drives get stopped because he happens to get held to 9.5 yards in his 3 carries that series rather than producing 10.5 then SD can be be beaten. It really depends a lot on how successful their O proves to be whether they or the Bills should be favored when this game comes around. Odds are I think we will still lose, but one would be foolish to write this one off as a definite loss at this way too early point. Reagarding Gates, my sense is that a Cover 2 scheme will not result in Fletcher being lined up against Gates as a defined match-up. In order to pick on Fletch in what likely will be the Bills version of the Tampa 2, then Gates woul need to run patterns into the 1/3 of the deep coverage that Fletch has split with the two safeties. A stud player like Gates (barring injury or nicks to him which cannot really be barred by a predictor for any player) will have some obvious advantages over Fletcher if he tries to take advantage of this match-up but: 1. In order for the Bills to have a good shot in this game, one thing that must happen is for Rivers to be experiencing the normal growing pains of a first year starter. Its possible he will not, but it is not unlikely that he will. Throwing deep routes to the TE will be a real test for Rivers and if the game rests of this happening I'm sure the Bills will take their chances on this. 2. Deep routes provide a chance for the Bills pass rush to do their thing. None of our 4 likly DL starters is a sack monster (yet?). However, trying to hit deeper routes which take time for the TE to lumber down the field (even a good athlete like Gates) plays to the strength of sackers Schobel and Kelsay who are high motor guys who need time to do a couple of moves to pressure the QB. Likewise Triplett and likely McCargo were chosen because they have demonstrated in real life an ability to penetrate with their first moves. Again if SD is gonna tend toward deep routes to Gates as their bread and butter the Bills will likely take this bet. 3. The game occuring in December has the potential for the game to be in wintry Bills weather where even good QBs have trouble throwing the deep route so again counting on Gates as your bread and butter may not be a good bet. 4. I do not think that the events which have occured in real life support dismissing Fletcher's pass coverage ability. A. He is D captain for a reason and this reason is he knows what is going on on the field. His experience allowing him to diagnose plays before and as they happen will hold him in good stead playing centerfielder duty in a Tampa 2. My guess is that a signifcant number of pass plays into his zone will not even be thrown because the QB will see that the only chance he will have for a completion is if he throws it perfectly and Gates wins the jump ball with Fletcher. If Rivers has already shown that his throws as he learns are not perfect it will eliminate Gates as a target. B. Fletcher is shorter than the norm for an LB, but he covers ground well and has a high motot as seen by his accumulated tackle numbers over the last5 seasons. Again the switch to a Tampa 2 plays toward his game. C. It is also proven that Fletcher judges and handles the ball extremely well in flight. This is seen in his routine and flawless on his part usage by the Bills as a short kick return guy. Though I wish he was a couple of inches taller, I have no fear of Fletcher judging the ball and laying a little body on the player he is competing with in a jump ball situation I simply do not see Gates or any other TE repetitively picking on Fketcher all game going into his deep zone in a Tampa 2. The Bills will probably love it if that is the opponents strategy. The key is whether you have belief in Rivers or not. If his first full year looks like Roethlisburger SD has a good shot (though the main use of Gates would be to provide a threat so the bills cannot line up 8 in the box to stop LD) but if it looks like Eli Manning's then the Bills should do quite well. Also, what my original post was looking for was why folks had such confidence in Matt Millen and Marinelli finally getting it right in Deroit (there are few signs they will after his Morningwheg misassement and Mariucci managling). However, I think your judgment of what the Bils acquisitions bring to the table do not accord to the facts so I will note them. Reyes was a starter, but only a marginal one. - I think that Reyes rather than being a marginal starter, the evidence indicates he was a solid one. NC was ready to go with Evan Mathis at RG last year and if Reyes had been marginal they would have done so. Because Reyes was a solid starter than the running game was productive with him and Delhomme could chuck the ball with him protecting they did not make the switch. The big difference this off-season was that Reyes was an FA and it made no sense for NC to pay him starter money when they were prepared to go with Mathis. i think there are few objective signs he was marginal and this view does not line up with the facts of assessing him. Fowler was a backup. - Yes, he was a back-up, but he was a back-up to Withrow (who backed up multiple Pro Bowler Birk who got IR'ed). The Vikes wanted to start Withrow because he was drafted by them and he practiced as a back-up in their system for several years. Yet, the ike lost 3 of 4 games with Withrow and Fowler beat him out. Fowler not only kept the job for 9 games until an injury knocked him out of the line-up, but production in terms of W/L improved for the Vikes with Fowler snapping to Culpepper and they even pulled off a six game winning streak with Fowler snapping to Johnson. It was Johnson's quick release (which also improved the play of OL players like McKinnie) that had more to do with the Ws than Fowler's play. However, one cannot simply ignore the facts that the game results with Fiwker were better after he started (with either QB than the guy he backed up for) nor ignore the fact that the run game not only improved with Fowler playing in the Vikes, but that he was also productive blocking for Suggs in CLE. Like Reyes, Fowler was available because the Vikes clearly (and correctly) were gonna go with Birk at C now that he has healed and they were not gonna pay Fowler the starter money the market was going to give him after his good play in 2005. Fowler has a couple of questions to answered: A, Can he start a full 16 at C as he has never done this before and he ended his good play last year with an injury. B. To what extent has he twice been on the market because better players were available to the team which had him like Burk (losing out to one of the best Cs in the game does not make one a bad player) or Faine in CLE (I was hoping the Bills would draft him). However, merely descriving him as a back-up is essentially inaccurate as it does not take into account the full facts that happened last year. Price was cut. - Yep he was cut. However, AT correctly cut him because the contract he signed paid him to be a #1 WR when he was not capable of that production to be a #1. We are going to use him as a #2 (a role he has performed at in real life) and actually can even use him well if he is only good enough now to be a #3 as we will get his speed and his rep in 3 WRs sets. One could attempt to ignore this reality if all one chose to consider was that he was cut by Dallas. However, even using this to dismiss PP calls for ignoring the fact that he was not going to beat out #1 producing WRs Glenn and TO and that the market certainly judged PP as being worth more than the #3 or 4 role Dallas could give him. Assumng his eyesight and health are good, the Bills having him as their #2 (or 3 if Parrish steps up) is a good bet for the Bills to make if our docs proves as good as they were assessing WM's health. Royal was a backup that had the dropsies. - My understanding is that Joe Guibbs and the Skins' had Royal penciled in as their starter at TE playing a pass blocking role. This is how we plan to use him in our O. He clearly is no Gonzalez, but A: no Gonzeles was available to us and B: I have enough concerns about our OL last year that emphasizing blocking skill from our TE makes a lot of sense to me. Particularly if the TE can make good seal blocks and allow the WM stiff arm to come back, using Royal is fine with me. I have not heard a lot of concern about any Royal droppsies because we have no plans to utilize him to make our O productive as a safety valve. In fact, we appear to be planning to use WM in the Marshall Faulk role (though he shows no signs of being as productive receiver as he has been a runner in terms of yards gained, but we are not looking for an all world receiver yet). I see little reality that your Royak concrns are based on. He and Everett represent a pretty clear upgrade for us at TE where Campbell and Euhus were both coming off of major knee inuries and delivered the inconsistent performance consistent with that. Tripplett was a backup. - Again merely labeling him a back-up does not describe the reality of the situation. The Bills paid Triplett a salary in accordance with what the market dictated based on his play. For IN, he was a central player in there DL rotation who commanded a signficiant number of minutes and a number of game starts last year based on their judgments of the match-ups involved. His sack and tackle production numbers last year support the conventional wisdom that he is an active player who started or did not start by match up choice rather than by talent level. Merely dismissing him as a back-up is a mistake in assessment.

The QBs available in the next draft started with the sat for an excrutiatingly long wait to be drafted and the yet to pay any dividends (like JP) Rodgers. To date, the trade for JP has not been justified because JP has sucked, but on the face of it, giving up lowly draft resources to get JP and train him before he plays looks like a bad move because JP has not performed (yet?) but not at all becaise some other QB looked like he would have been a better choice than keeping and using our 1st round pick on a QB the next year. Which QB would you have chosen with the Bills 2005 pick if it had not been traded for JP?

Who were they?

I agree as the decision to cut a player is always a balance and the Pats clearly judged with the strengths and weaknesses of Bledsoe versus the strengths and weaknesses of Brady thwe choice was obvious. The mistake people seem to make however is to assume that because Nrady was the better choice this means Bledsoe cannot do anything right. I think that events in real life show us that even after that decision that a team can get a winning record with Bledsoe at the helm, but an SN with him at QB is incredibly doubtful. Bledsoe's play and performance with the Bills demonstrated that under the right circumstances (running an O which folks did not have a lot of tape on yet) he was capable of producing a season which merited his reserve Pro Bowl nod in 2002 (id you disagree simply name the QBs who deserved the AFC reserve slot more), However, once the NFL had tape to study and BB provided a blueprint on how to destroy a Bledsoe led O he was done. TD stupidly extended him for 2004 when he should have chalked up hi one good year and one bad year as a wash (particularly after he replaced the lost 1st round choice by having the cojones to tag PP). However, under TC's guidance the Bills once again showed that if you use Bledsoe in a far better way and with more diversity in playcalling than Killdrive did, Bledsoe could in fact QB a team to a winning record. Hpwever, hos limitations comvined with a majopr ST power failure (Lindell missing a chip shot and Clements laying a PR on the carpet and the D getting shreded by a bunch of Pitts back-ups that the Bills could not close the deal after a winning season. Now Parcells is using his mastery to once again use Bledsoe in a manner they are knocking on the playoff door. Bledsoe is no Montana, Young etc, (though he does have a ring he played a key role in his team earniong and Marino and Kelly never pulled that off). However, if uised properly he can QB a team to a winning reocrd. That is simply a fact.

A 2nd and a 5th sound like a pretty small extra price to pay if he plays like a 1st rpund QB. He has not to date (amd may never do so), but given how poor the QB class was the next year (I think Rodgers who still is as unproven as JP went at #18. Obviously the Bills should have looked to draft a QB replacement for Kelly a year earlier than they did as both Butler and Ralph badly miscalculated how long Kelly would be able to play. We are paying for this mistake in TC being drafted too high, TC being rushed to start before he was ready (if he ever could have been), us wasting a 4rd rounder on Hobert, us panicking and giving big bucks to RJ before he proved he could overcome the injury issues he was already showing signs of when we got him and foolishly extending Bledsoe instead of just calling his one good year and one horrid year a wash and cutting him then. However, the worse thing we could do is panic again and pull the plug on the JP experiment until it has run its course on the field. Bringing in Holcomb and Nall to compete with him is the interlligent thing to do, Let play rather than opinion decide.

Actually thank you too for a thoughtful post. I agree with your general analysis and you are correct in saying that the general cliche about any given weekend and that generally this is a bad team. it would be foolish to predict total victory on our part based on either the any given Sunday cliche or on an assessment of our team. That is not at all what I am trying to do. What I am trying to do is point out: 1. The any given Sunday maxim makes it also foolish to purport this team is going to go winless, or 1-15 and probably it is foolish to even predict 3-13. In this league where worse to first is possible like never before, one side effect is that it is really difficult for a team to only win 3 (Houston bottomed out at 4 last year) and you have to go back to SF the year before that to find a team bottoming out at 2 as SF did that. 2. A look at some of the real bad opponents we are facing also makes it a huge jump to conclude that even if we agree we are bad we are going to lose to these teams. The NFL still attempts to balance the shchedule so that worse teams do not have as tough a schedule as good teams. The schedule is weighted toward intradivisional bias and set years in advance now so this is not perfect. However, this schedule does have us playing some of the worst of the worst (we cannot play ourselves, but oh well) and also gives us the benefit of playing some of the tougher non-playoff teams in our house (Jax and MN) while playing a chunk of the bad teams on the road (DET, Hou). If we are going to beat average teams and steal games on the road this is the schedule built for that. When one adds into this, that we join 3 of our division rivals in being questionable teams and even the best of the division NE shows signs of implosion, it will actually be quite surprising if the lionshare of the Bills games are not competivie this year. I am not arguing that we are going to the SB (or even the playoffs nor would I even argue this team is definitely going to have a winning record). I am arguing, that a simple look at where the NFL is right now in terms of producing match-ups and where with good fortune we happen to be with the match-ups we have that for anyone to argue this team is going winless, with one win or even 3-13 is pretty irrational even if one concludes this is a bad team. What this post is looking for are some rational assessments of the opponents and I am getting a little of that. So far, I feel worse about our prospects in Detroit (they should be favored unless Matt Millwn has made yet another bad coaching choice in Marinelli which is certainly not impossible at all given his lack of a resume and the way he bollickeds the hiring of both Morningwheg and and even a good HC like Mariucci). Also the Moulds factor in Houston was something I had not thought about and your bringing this up gives me pause in thinking about how bad they are and whether they might catch us. I do though feel a bit better about facing Chicago after reading a bit of analysis of this opponent. I still would put this one as a probable loss for us, but I'm backing off the certainty I have of this that I would lump them in with Indy and NE on the road as definite losses. I also feel a bit better about facing SD at home. This likely Bills loss in my initial equation could even turn into a likely Bills win if Rivers has the same young Q@B struggles as many NFL QBs in their first year. I pretty much agree with folks that we will not be a good team. What I am simply pointing out is that in this league that does not necessarily mean that you are going to have a 5-11 record in this league and that actually it is quite unlikely you will not win at all or only get 1 or 2 wins. Pete Rozelle is probably a very happy guy up there, because given the way his structure has played out and the vagaries of how the Fins, NYJ and NE are doing, I actually think that though making the playoffs and us going winless are incredibly unlikely, one can actually see a an odd series of events, breaks and events occuring so that we make the playoffs as greater small probability than the small probabiliy we go winless or only have a victory or two.

Thanks for the feedback, but your post raises two issues in assessing the Bills ganes: 1. It still does no answer the basic thrust of the thread. Where are our opponents in their development such that anyone can confidently say that even a bad team will not at least be competitive with our real world opponents and even beat them. Most of the teams we face did not make the playoffs last year either and appear to e bad teams (Houston for example), appear to be going in the wrong direction for this season (D'Brick and Mangold will be good in a season or two but this season looks bad for them as Trey Teague may be there best OL player this year), or have a long history of failure ( I think that '99 was the last time Detroit saw the playoffs and the coaching debacles of Morningwheg, Maricucci and now the unknown Marinelli is what they bring to the table). The reality is simply that even a bad Bills team can be competitive with a lot of its opponents. The really scary thing is that not only do the Jets look a couple of years away from credibility, but the Saban led Fins see uncertain prospects at best after the Wicky Williams debacle and their own QB controversies and NE looks poised for the eventual meltdown and reloading which generally comes to all winning teams. It simply will not take much of a surprisingly good performance and a few fortunate bounces by this oddly shaped ball to see this team compete in the division unless someone out there has some rational incisive commentary about how our opponents are generally or dead lock certain to improve. 2. Many of the question marks you raise seem to be incorrect or at least incomplete readings on the face of them: A. I agree that Marv's scant history as a GM is a concern, however, the team still has Modrak on the payroll who was seen as a reasonable GM cndidate for elsewhere and apparently decided not to go as the Bills situation allows him to do the detailed GM type work he dd well with in Philly but avoid the overall hassle of being judged all the time. If marv had any skills which were the hallmark of his success with the Bill, it was in managing a team of men who all could do their own jobs and work together. I think a mere indictment of Marv's inexperience as GM without a recognition that the team of Modrak Overdorf, and even experience OL position coach JMac are stilll in place ignores a lot of reality. I think the problem the Bills have had in producing stinky results in the reign of error under TD was not that the infrastructure was bad, but that TD himself seemed to be committed to him being blamed by and getting run out of town by an HC he hired like Cowher would never happen again. The gain of Marv is uncertain, but the loss of TD looks like addition by subtraction. How do you account for this issue most fully? B. I'm not sure where this Cover 2 slave issue comes from. Definitely this is the D system he likes, but all signs point to the Bills not running the traditional Cover 2, but actually an advance on this scheme with something like the Tampa 2 which DC Farrell ran in Jax. The base is the same but the implementation promises to be quite different if only because we are setting up to have players which look more like the FL teams in terms of DT size than the Chicago team of Jauron which used DTs of the Big Ted size. One can complain he is a slave to a system (but I think almost all former NFL HCs are salves to some system and the key is that its employment got Jauron NFL Coach of the Year in his Chicago gig so being a slave to what worked does not sound to me like a set-up for DOOM. C. I do not see how us moving away from a zone blitz style which was 29th in the league is running away from a strength. In fact, I think the move to Cover 2 clearly moves toward the DBs strengths in that the getting older Milloy who is a zone blitz guy was cut, TV stays but coveragte is far more his sterngth than the rushing D required in the zone blitz. Further the DBs are reinforced with Whitmer, Yopbouty and Simpson so clearly we are moving toward strength in this area. The LB situation depends much on TKO recovering, however the extension of Crowell gives us 3 recent LB starters in addition to TKO so that it actually gets crowded when/if TKO recovers (former starter Posey likely to the bench or gone). These 4 are reinforced with extensions to good ST players and reasonable back-ups Haggan and Stamer and now Watson has been added to this crew. These 7 LBs are at least a solid base and may be formidable if TKO comes back. The DL is where I have my largest questions, but here is where we have our most repsected FA signing and we traded up to the 1st to get the player we wanted so though it is going to take someone who has forgotten more than most of us remembers about a D to make this work, one cannot say that the team did not devote resources to this area of need. D. As far as the receiving corps, I think the key will be Evans stepping up to the #1 level in his third year after 2 good stating seasons. I think he cn do it (he actually seemed to surpass Moulds for the #1 WR slot on the team in the Miami game he caught 3 TDs in the 1st and Moulds threw a hissy fit and melted down (even NFLPA Prez TV did bit cine to Moulds' defense when he was suspended). While they are not deadlock certain to fill out the corps with quality at every position, i do like the chances beyond the must suceed ! Evans- #2- PP failed at being a #1 for AT but he is being asked to be a #2 for us. He did this job before in the real world so he may well be able to do it again. The laternative is Parrish who actually had a not bad season once he took the field last year and showed some of the moves which may make him a #2 eventually if not this year. Some talk about wildcard Davis stepping up but I doubt this. #3- I think Parrish can actually fulfill this consolation prize and has enough speed and moves that when/if PP beats him out, these 2 plus Evans bring a freakish amount of speed to 3 WR sets. If Parrish does in fact step up to #2 then PP will easily be able to fulfill #3 goals and still brings the speed rep to force DCs to zone up in 3 WR sets. There is some talk of Reed resuming the same production he achioeved in the real world his rookie season as a potent #3 for the Bills. i doubt this, but he did it before so one cannot reasonably say it is impossible. #4- Though I doubt he will be #3 material, Reed should be sufficient to be our #4. In fact, this former RB had a reputtion for good RAC when he was drafted and if we succedd in installation of a short pass/RAC St. L O he may prosper. He will compete against Aiken whom I see as more of an ST contributor who merely is adequate at best at #4. There are several other candidates such as Davis who though I doubt he is #2 quality should offer some ineresting competition for #4. #5/6- We are already up to 6 WRs with above names and add to them that the final slot will be a competion between the losers of the compettion for #4 and the proven vet Fast Freddy (he contributed a TD on ST year before last which to me makes a #6 WR if we decide to keep one proven at this lowly slot), In addition, UDFA Nance isa very tall and well regarded by some WR. Add former PS guy Wilson to the mix and I suspect the tale of the Bills at WR is not that we do not have enough talent to make it work, but that we are likely going to have to cut a couple of former NFL vets to get down to 5 or 6. Its no certainty whatsoever this team will be good (or even compete well), but I think that there us even a lower chance that the result from this crew on the face of it will be DOOM. When one ads into it that most of our opponents also have big ? or simply suck, i look for this team to be quite competitive even if they are a bad team.

Yep, gnenrally if you mean Fowler who we signed took over from Cort Withrow after the Vikes went 1-3 with Withrow at C. With Fowler in for the Vikes perfromance improved marginally until Culpepper was gurt and Johnson came in. The Viles peeled off a number of wins in a row. The improvement is more attributable to better team play than Fowler in particular, but it is interesting the streak's end coincided with Fowler going out with a season ending injury. A look at the details of the games and also of Fowler's appearances in two previous stops show him to be part of effective teams and running games when he is around. I think this natural center (he played the position throughout college rather than being shoehorned into the slot as a Bill as Teague was) should be a clear upgrade over Teague. However, the questions are: 1. How will he be playing a full 16 at C which he has never done. 2. I think folks who view him as passed pver back-up have not followed or looked at his career (he caught my eye during the draft as I was hoping the Bills would take him). The Browns to the well-regarded Jeff Faine who started over him but this may have simply been a best available player pick from this team. For MB, he was signed as an FA, but they were clearly going back to mulyiple time Pro Bowker Birk when he was healthy enough to play. The question is whether he simply had the baad luck to end up on the same rosters as two very good Cs, or was there some real problem with his game that sent teams looking elsewhere. He pretty clearly seems to be an upgrade for the Bills at C, who despite the badmouthing of many actually should start a better OL than last year unless someone wants to make the case for MW, Anderson and Teague. Peters at RT, solid starter with Carolina Reyes at G and Fiwker at C chould all be better than MW, Amderson and Teague. The question is given that Preston is the likely back-up for the long in the tooth Villarial (or Fowler if he is not good or does not do 16) will we have adequate back-ups.

Interesting assessment and I am going to have give them some thought. The one comment I would make though is that Rex Grossman may be more comparable to RJ rather than JP if you are looking for a comparable Bills QB. Extremely talented player, but after losing games to a finger injury in his roolie year, losing the season to a torm ACL his sophomore season and missing most of last season before coming back in the post-season he got knocked out with an ankle break. Like RJ, injury prone may end up being the major feature of Grossman's football legacy. It doea go show however, that folks predictions of doom without giving some serious thought and assessment of the opponents is simply irrational.

Some folks are predicting that the Bills will go 3-13, 1-15 (and even 0-16 from some) or some other disastrous record. They have every right as NFL consumers to do this. In addition, one can still be a good Bills fans and take into reality and expect the team to loss or even loss a lot because rational observation tells you this, but you are still a fan and hope against hope that a miracle will occur and they beat a team you think they will lose to. However, it is testimony that a person is a bit odd if they for some reason follow a team and actually spend their time hoping the team will lose. Its one thing to have irrational hope that your team will win, but it is a bit psychotic for someone to irrationally hope the team they claim to love will lose. One of the neat things to me about the NFL though is that on any given Sunday one team can beat another team. It is from these Lotto like situations as shown a couple of years back when a lowly Fins team actually beat an SB winning Pats team that the any given Sunday dictum was a reality. I think anybody can look at the Bills after 5 years of not making the playoffs, the front office purge last off-season and a draft by the Bills this year that did not follow the norm (to say the least) and see that this team is not going to make the SB and almost certainly not even the playoffs this year. However, what strikes me as irrational would be for anyone to predict that this team will finish 3-13) or as bad as replicating this year's dismal 5-11 record) without some assessent of the opponents. I'm not arguing that the Bills will not be bad. I am merely asking why some are so certain that many of our opponents will not be as bad or even worse in their meltdowns. Is there something that these folks who have predicted DOOM know about Matt Millen and Detroit that for some reason this idiot who picked an even bigger bust that Mike Williams in that draft (he cut #3 Harrington this year as we cut #4 MW) is gonna do great things so Detroit is certain to beat us when we play them. The good news is that the Bills were at least smart enough to can their failed GM while Millen gets to continue to lay waste in Detroit. As I see it, there are three of our 16 games which I am pretty certain we will lose at this point such that I have no rational objection to someone predicting a loss. These games are: Sun. Sept. 10 at New England 1:00pm I do not see us besting this recent SB winner on the road (though interesting we came close in a night game last year). Sun. Oct. 8 at Chicago 1:00pm I do not see us beating a team that finished 11-5 last year (even though their offense sucked their D is likely too good) Sun. Nov. 12 at Indianapolis 1:00pm I do not see us beating this team which clinched its division so fast I think the rust and the trauma of Dungy's son suicide did them in. Though I expect we will likely loss the next clump I judge these teams a definite cut way below the teams above. I expect we probably will lose but even a loss will be competitive. Depending on injuries, how things go with momentum and other phases of the moon we can win these: Sun. Sept. 17 at Miami 1:00pm We will be on the road so they have to be favored, but I suspect the Fish will have some early adjustment issues getting used to and blocking for the mobile Culpepper after their previous QB disasters. The Fush can always be squished so though I think they are favored this is not impossible even for a bad team. Sun. Dec. 31 at Baltimore 1:00pm Its a long way till the end of the season and the issues which will determine this game have yet to occur, but given we are on the road and Ray Lewis and the gang I log this one in the likely (though not definite) loss column. These next few are games where we have significant things working against us (like being on the road, but anyone who logs these as definite losses really needs to state positive things about the opponent rather than simply the negatoves we all know about the Bills for the prediction to be rational at all. Sun. Oct. 1 MINNESOTA 1:00pm MN is a beatable team and I am curious why folks think so highly of them they have us definitely losing to them at home. The Bills being bad is not good enough here for anyone to be so dead lock certain it will be a loss. My particular sense s that the Bills will have a lot on the line in this game as they come into it either 1-2 and needing a win badly or 2-1 and playing at home with the momentum of having beaten two division opponent in a row. Either way, this team should be ready to reinvent their rep or save their season, Sun. Nov. 26 JACKSONVILLE 1:00pm This will be an interesting game as Jax is clearly a better team than us, but we will be at home against a team which is beatable. Thuis one worries me but is far from a dead lock certain loss. Sun. Dec. 3 SAN DIEGO 1:00pm We will know by the time this game occurs whether the cut Brees for Rivers move was a good one or a disaster. If Rivers is struggling SD will likely travel cross country as a bad team and even if we are bad we will be able to beat them (particularly if this Dec game is in Bills weather rather than SD weather. If Rivers performs and it is a team destined for the playoffs then we probably lose. Sun. Oct. 22 NEW ENGLAND 1:00pm This is also a game where we will know a lot more once the real games start. NE appears in many way to be a team headed for a precipitous slide after their SB glory and if this happens we will be favored at home even with a loss of the first game. Even if they are competive, like last years game in BE this will be a competive game we can win, The following games I see as likely or possible wins even with a bad team. These more than any others, i judge anyone predicting a loss would need to demonstrate why they have such faith in bad opponents even if they are certain the Bills will be bad in 06. Sun. Sept. 24 NY JETS 1:00pm Perhaps the most likely win on our roster as almost all expect NYJ to be bad and we will be at home. Sun. Oct. 15 at Detroit 1:00pm Detroit is a goshawful team and has been for years. We are on the road and their ability to eat home cookin gives them a leg up. However, the Jarin revenge incentive should also be there and this will be a game even a bad team can steal unless folks have some reason to believe the Detroit story will be dffierent this year. I think even a bad team may steal one from them in their house. Sun. Nov. 5 GREEN BAY 1:00pm Favre waiting so long to see if GB was so bad he might as well retire states the question which surrounds this team which will come into our house. To some extent that Favre weighed things so long indicates how close a call this was about whether this team is OK or disgusting. I suspect that as old age creeps up on Favre that the answer may well have beed decided by whether BB is good enough to make it worth millions for him to play for a bad team and not whether the team is good or bad. Sun. Nov. 19 at Houston 1:00pm This was the worst team in the NFL last year and I see nothing from drafting Super Mario and the other changes they made which is certan to change this. I think a bad team can beat them on the road. Sun. Dec. 10 at NY Jets 1:00pm Again I think this is going to be a tough season for MYJ and even a bad team can beat them on the road. Sun. Dec. 17 MIAMI 1:00pm CBS The Fish are notorious for their December swoons and we should be able to beat them in our house. Sun. Dec. 24 TENNESSEE 1:00pm I think this is also a bad team and again they will be in our house. Looking at our opponents, I can easily see a .500 season even for a bad team. What is it which folks who predict a losing season, 3-13 or worse know about our opponents that they are such believers in them? Merely coming to the obvious conlusion that this Bills team is going to be bad is simply not good enough for someone to reach a rational conclusion we are DOOMED. For someone to assert we are doomed without any rational support for this argument adds up to that prediction saying more about the attitude and life of the person making it than it does about anything else. Again, I think one can rationally believe that the Bills will be a loser this year. replicate their 5-11 record or even rationally believe that our opponents are gonna be so good we will lose and I would defend them to the end that they are good fans who judged this team to be worse than its opponents. However, if someone predicts doom for no rational reason of their own its a bit odd.

I think that the comment came from after the 2004 season based on the wording of the piece and the poster saying it was from a hjaws cache. Moulds and others completely melted down last season, but coming off a winning record, a last weekend loss that cost them playpffs, and WMs fantastic 9 games in 2004, this supporting cast comment would not have been unreasonable if this is when he made it.

I don't think so. I think most people define a bust as a draftee like a Mike Williams, Harrington, or Leaf who implode completely and never produce anything near their expectations (and actually anything at all) for team which wasted a draft choice on them (particularly a high one). I think as Culpepper successfully played QB on a team which went deep in the playoffs early in his career (I think they made the conference finals in his second year) and also since he posted some gaudy passing numbers in several years during his career, he is pretty far away from being a bust. He certainly has disappointed Vikes fans with not even getting to an SB, but this says more about the unreasonable expectation of Vikes fans (afterall we fans are supposed to be unreasonable in our hopes, we Bills lovers certainly are), and some really poor management by the Vikes braintrust than it leads to the conclusion that Culpepper was a bust. Ironically, I am also happy to see the Fins go down this path in search of a winner as I do not think ut will work out for the Fins. In order for Culpepper to perform well, it appears he needs very talented and very disciplined WRs. Chambers is talented but no one will mistake him for disciplined and with the two of them running around and freelancing high motor guys without outstanding initial moves like Kelsay and to some extent Schobel (though I think he has improved with experience) will get their share of sacks. Also, I think the Vikes improved going from Culpepper to Johnson because the latter has learned to get rid of the ball quick rather than using his running to extend the play. Blockers like McKinnie who also lack discipline and do not seem to hold their blocks for a long time do better with a Johnson than with a Culpepper. I think the Fins will actually be taken advantage of their first few games as they get used to the Culpepper style and do no be surprised if the Bills pull off an upset against a Miami team that appears as troubled as the Bills are.

I don't put much credence in the theory that the change in the conditioninh coach had such immediate impacts on the level or severity of the injuries sustained. I'm not saying this was a good change as I think Rusty Jones had put in place a method which had produced some benefits for the Bills in terms of weight control and conditioning. However, a key to the success of the Jones method was the recognition that eating is not about diets and short-term activities but about eating as a lifestyle which takes time to learn and implement good habits and builds results which can last a lifetime and needs to be committed to on a consistent basis. Just as I do not think that instantaneous results or a panacea is offered by the Jones style, i do not think that one would see instant destruction from the team going away from it. I think it was a bad move to let Rusty go and it appeared that MM put more of a value on getting "his" guy in rather than sticking with what had worked for numerous coaches. However, drawing some straight line between the Bills strentgth and condidtioning and the results on the field in terms of W/L is simply not borne out by our W/L being bad and better under Jones. Concluding also that there would be such a fast turn around in results also seems quite unlikely. Particularly if one is gonna point to traumatic injuries like TKO's as a proof. If there were proof of this theory to found it would more likely be seen in an increase in nagging injuries due to poor conditioning rather than traumatic injuries.

In some ways this question is ironic as the truly best humanitarian acts are done ithout publicity, notice, or expectation. I love what Warren Buffet just did because it was a great piece of advocacy (his point counters the greediness of those who rant about the "death tax" and his own rant about beiing totally opposed to dynasties based on wealth accumulation was a not so subtle dig on the Bushes which was probably lost on many people). However, though it is one of the huge and potentially efficient gifts to humankind ever, I think there is some uncertainty about dubbing this a humanitarian act as he has devoted his life to wealth accumulation and this is dumping off this wealth to someone else to do something with it. It is a humanitarian act if you do effect a bunch but interact little with other humans in taing this action? I also think of Babe Ruth visiting a sick kid in the hospital and then "allegedly" pointing toward where he was going to hit a homer and doing it. If true, a pure sports act on behalf of another human. The act clearly inspired many folks. But why did he do it, did he do it and what were the results? I like the direction taken by the person who suggested Pat Tillman. He passed up athletuic wealth he had in hand and paid the ultimate price for his cause of protecting you and me. Still this overparsing on this issue rases questions about whether he did this with some long term McCain esque goal in mind, to prove something to himself and not for you and me and really questions of whether these two questions are even relevant to thinking about humanitarian acts. Maybe Bob Kalsu was a greater humanitarian act. Jim Brown walked away from the game at the peak of his athletic achievement (bu by doing so walked into the arms of Raquel Welch in the movies) but since then has been directly involved with community improvement activities, negotiating and raising issues with LA gangmembers to stop killing (and beating his wife also apparently). Should we point to humanitarian acts or lifestyles as impressive? What role does past histoy and bad acts play in this (pretty much any charitable act by Kobe Bryant has been made suspect in my mind by the rape accusations against him and more so by him in essence buying his wife off with a big diamond- I hope he keeps all his charitable acts quiet and between himself, the cause and whomever is around because if he has some intent to rehabilitate himself while the charitabgle acts are great in themselves there is little he can do to not make himself a Jay Leno joke in terms of relating to other people. He should count himself lucky simply to not be in the slammer. Overall, I think that this post reflects far more thought being given to this issue than i useful, but this topic is about something far more useful that pro football so it deserves having time wasted on it more than the time I waste on TSW talking football.

C'mon, he may be overrated as a player, but depending upon the course of Eli's career he may well go down as one of the great sperm donors in NFL history.

Maybe I'm simply being a homer fan about this (I certainly am a homer but more like Simpson actually) but I think that a majority of these 3 questions you raise about the O will be answered positively as the season goea on. Bad receivers- I no that this is the conventional wisdom (see the ESPN rankings) but I feel pretty good about the personnel we have and expect a good competition for the several open spots and think we will have to cut at least one pro quality player at WR. I think that the key to this working out will be whether the Bills can sucessfully install a St. L type O which uses the long pass mostly as a change up for the short pass with larger yardage gains from RAC after the catch. Fairchild will have to design an O which utilizes the separation his WRs can achieve and whatever oicks he can get away with the make the attack potent. As far as the personnel I have more questions about the extent to which WM can be as effective a pass catcher as he is a runner as he plays the Marshall Faulk role for us (concerns some have about his personality and drop-off in the second half of last season seem overblown to me as he has dropped a few pounds while maintaining his stength working out at the U this off-season based on the reports I have seen. WM is not a guy you want to sleep with but its fine with me if this fastest Bill in history to rush for 2K in yards is our RB). Specifically, I assess the WR quakity as: Evans- He had surpassed Moulds as the go-to WR last year based on production (it was the Miami game where Moulds was the decoy and Evans scored 3 TDs where this was obvious and it was Moulds meltdown which seemingly was not well-received by his teammates who offered little public support for him after he was suspended that I think led to Moulds leaving. Evans needs to become the #1 in practice in addition to name. He has the speed to command double teams if he forces the DB to give him room and begins to break off these patterns for easy receptions and RAC. There is no Bill to replace him so he simply muct step up and he appears ready to do this. He has shown no sign of droppsies and actually shown some good hands at times. If he can develop the ability and athleticism to make the circus catch the nlook out Pro Bowl. He need not achieve this level this year, but needs to play like a solid #1 who demands dts). Price- Faiked nmiserably at being a #1 WR for AT and needs to resume the production which made him a stud #2 in 2002. Vick being a runner rather than a passer and some eyesight issues may explain a big part of his failure. I assume his eyes are OK vased on the read of the Bills docs and the bonus we paid him. The good news for us is that he need not replicate his outstanding 2002 performance to be good enough for the job he has to do. Even better, he still has the rep for speed that he can even prove to only be a #3 quality WR and still be good enough for us to do what we need to do if Parrish steps up his game and becomes the credible #2. Parrish- I hink it is more likely that Price will play at #2 levels but if he does not #3 levels will be OK if Parrish steps up his game. He showed good shiftiness and a bit of speed to make it possible (though unlikely) this will be a break out year for him. However, I am quite comfortable he can be god enough to be our #3 and if Price comes back these three will nr formidable and present many challlenges for the opposing DC. Reed- A big ? as a WR after a solid rookie season which saw hin slated to be our #2. The bad case of droppsies he developed in his second year and an injury he developed in his third year nipped the thought of him being a legit #2 in th bud. However, he did well in ST duty and showed enough to the Bills braintrust that he will get a shot at returning to the good #3 WR levels he showed his rookie year. The RAC ability he has shown only brief glimpses of as a firmer RB may make him a potent weapon in a St. L type O. However, if he can be a good #4 with ST chops then that makes his good enough to make this scheme work Aiken- when we get down to the #5 WR the player will need to contribute more as an STeamer than a position player as the need for 5 WR sets will be few and far between, He also must be able to step up to #4 levels in case of injury. He has shown little big play prodcution or route ability to make him a credible choice for any of the top 3 spots. Yet, as a back-up #4 he should be adequate, Smith, Davis, Nance abd Wilson will all get their shot at the utility #6 slot.. Nance and Smith both have some mutant ability that make them interesting as back-up back-ups but ij we gop wimply the above top 5 and one PS guy I will not be displeased at all. Davis may even surpruse and be a credible choice as high as #3 WR. The bottom line is we have one optiion for #1 which who must w[rk pot. Wehave two options for #2 and one should work out. We have the loser of the battle for #2 at #3 plus Reed gets a shot. Reed might even return to #3 form but if he does not who cares he is at #4 where he will be challenged by Aiken wh os ia reasonable #5, Aiken will be challenged by the rest for #5 but the bottom line is we will likely need to cut 1 or 2 NFL level players. I likr our situation. 2 Bad linmen- I think in making a real presentation on the line one needs to acknowledge that the probable starters we have this year are better than the starters we had last year(if anyone wants to sing MW and Anderson's praises and argue against this then feel free). The issue is that we will need to identify some credible back-ups. This is still an issue, but a much less hard one than tring to find a starter. We need to improve but doing this is doable. 3. Questionable QBs- I agree, but the key here is that even though all three are unlikely to be good enough in themselves, the chances one of these three will be adequate is more likely than unlikely given that when you add their chances together there is a majority chance one of them will workout. I think there is a significant possibility that we will find one adequate starter from amongst these three. Its no sure thing we will be good, However, it is certainly easily conceivable that they might be.

One of my bug hopes for the DL is that Jsuron is lieing to both me and more important to the enemy teame in letting us follow the conventional wisdom that McCargo and Triplett are both slotted to play the same position on this team because we have adopted the definition that they are 1 technique DTs (we fans love nothing better than finding a good buzz phrase to use so we can pretend we know more than we do). I hope they have out both Triplett and McCargo on the deopth chart at LDT in the hopes that opponents will also accept this notion. Then I really hope that Jauron/Farrell are lieing to us all and that they fool our opponents into not being prepared for something new that defensive genius Jauron is going to unleash on the opponents. I will be somewhat disappointed if we had the control we had over which FAs we pursued and used it to acquire as our big FA sigining and a 1st round pick we traded up for two players who canot both contribute to the team at the same time because in order for one to play the other must sit down. If this is fact what we did, perhaps we had to because they were the best players available we could get. However, I will consider unfortunate if this is the case as it virtually guarantees that we put out a lot of resources for a player who will only be a part time contributor to the Bills this year at least and probably for a while as both McCargo and Triplett are destined to be Bills for a long time given their contracts we signed them to. It will really be a waste of resources if we cannot put our best players on the field at the same time.