Pyrite Gal

Actually, it is easy to see him coming back to Buffalo if its advantages: 1. He will be a big fish in a little pond in this sports crazy town. 2. It has the usual American city diversity of urban core if one likes the gritty stuff, top antiseptic suburbs if one likes safest city in America (based on crime stats) Amherst, to small town America like East Aurora. 3. One upside of the populaton slump is that there is zero commute time and nothing like the total gridlock of traffic jammed Atlanta, LA, etc. If Buffalo's city population was anywhere near its peak of 650K in the 50s versus the just below 300K now i would not live here. 4. Oddly, depending on what you like the weather is OK or even a plus. It is much less cold and harsh than the Chicago I grew up in. The lake adds moisture which becomes lake effect snow, but also adds temperature so it rarely is sub zero or even single digit cold here. In the summer, the same lake effect which dumps snow air conditions the area so summer temps in the 90s are quite rare. In general Buffalo is a great sittingoutside place in the summer and it is football weather in the winter. Overall, PP was in his hometown of AT and was a flop on the field. I suspect he wants to come "home" to Bufffalo where he experienced his greatest success as an athlete and can hunker down behind the millions he has from his AT bonus and make his immediate world in Buffalo however he likes. To the extent he wants to come out his hovel and deal with the public they likely will adore him here rather than question him as happened in AT. If he wants he has the bucks to rent a driver/limo or even a chopper and Toronto is 2 hours away and even Cleveland and Pittsburgh are less than 4 hours away. Since the coast curves in, Boston, NYC, Philly and DC are all 7-8 hours away according to Mapquest and you leave after an early lunch and you are in for a late dinner. If one can deal with the snow being moved out of the way within 4 hours of it stopping regardless of how much falls, Buffalo ain;t a bad place to land.

I think what is eliciting some of the complaints is that Ralph is making statements about the financial situation which at best are counter-intuitive (the fact is that NFL team ownership is the closest thing going to a guaranteed financial investment- it is true that he will have to split the insane level of profits with his partners the NFLPA and that he will make less insane profits than Dan Snyder, but even the common man still recognizes that the big income item is the evenly divided TV money and that even though he will get less of more, that less of more is still a lot) and at worst these comments are some inherent sign of senility. Actually, what appears to be the case to me is that Ralph is portraying the situation in the worse light for his bottomline and for the Bills stayibng here after he is gone as this will inject the issue of tax dollar transfer to his business into the November governors race and the outcome would likely be Spitzer and whichever GOP candidate falling over themselves to deliver a ton of corporate welfare to the Bills. This would be morally unfair and actually probably a bad business investment for the state, but I am all for this as it would result in keeping my foiotball team in my town and actually be a good business investment for Buffalo is the way this resource transfer is done is to set up a NYS taxpayer funded stadium authority to build and own a new stadium in downtown Buffalo which the Bills will get defacto ownership of in controlling this asset.

No, this Peerless Price whom the Bills drafted we are talking about and not the player you seem to be talking about as niether objectively PP's stats or subjectively what you describe fit the reality here. Its hard to tell exactly what you are describing here since it seems to be mostly fact-free opinion rather than something substantial but.. 1. PP did put up tremendous numbers in 2002 (I'm not sure at all why making 94 catches is somehow part of some grand idictment), but rather than being simply an exotic explosion of unexpected production, one need only look at his production the first three years and he had a nice (though not overwhelming) rookie year and improved in catches, yards and TDs each year until his breakout year. There simply is no case to be made here that his "career" year was somehow inconsistent with his career track. He did make a huge jump in production in 2002, but this simply continued his consistent improvement in production to that point. 2. What Josh Reed had in his second year could be reasonably described as alligator arms, but PP never had anything remotely like that level of droppsies either demonstrated by any stats I have seen or complaints at the time from observers. Someone posted some stats yesterday which showed Moulds as 6th in the leage in terms of catching balls thrown his way he should have caught but has PP not far behind him at #10. These results were a sharp contrast between some well-regarded top recievers like Chris Chambers who were actually on the other end of the spectrum in the top 10 of pass droppers. 3. Again this gutless comment may say more about the observer than PP as while the stats indicate no alligator arms, he did have a season with a few fumbles. However, my pretty clear recollection is that rather than indicating he was a weenie, they provided contrary evidence. PP's fumbles that year actually occured when he was fighting for an often meaningless extra yard and with one defender hanging on to his ankle, the second one hit him and knocked the ball lose. If anything, I was wishing that PP was more of a pansie and would go down on the first hit, but I do not care how tough you are, if you get set up as astationary target for many NFL LBs, they are going to give you a jarring hit. 4. Its hard to measure PP's blocking and difficult to see it as WR blocks often occur away from the ball. However, if this was such a big issue, one never saw it in 2002 in terms of T. Henry's productuion as an RB. I think the bottomline is that while Price was in no way perfect a a player for the Bills and completely imploded for AT and is not a #1 WR in the NFL, so what as we dod not plan for him to be our #1. We are going to give PP a shot at being our #2 and as noted above if he has a year at even 2/3 what he has ALREADY PRODUCED in his best year for the Bills we should be quite happy. In fact, PP should be locked in competition with good moves, nice speed and OK hands Parrish showed last year, and against the uncertain possibilities of Andre Davis brings to the table. My hope is that actually Parrish will step up and take the #2 role because if I am comfortable with PP at #2, I'm certain he can perform as our #3, In that role given his speed and past prosduction, with the speed and past production shown by Evans and the prospects of Parrish other teams will hve big problem with us in 3 WR sets. It really amazes me that folks seem to want to set up a demand that PP perform at his 2002 levels (or better at #1 WR levels) and then since he obviously did not and cannot be expected to for any team they then claim he is a total loser. Nope. We need PP to perform as a #2 or even a #3 for us and couple (triple actually) his speed with that of Evans and the potential of Parrish to create a coverage problem for opposing Ds which he and Moulds and with Reed adding in created in 2002. The facts both objective and subjective do not indicate he has been crap, and the way we hope to use him is pretty reasonable. The bigger questions as to whether we can produce a high-flying O as productive as St.L taught to new OC Fairchiild are: 1. Who will be the QB to run and perform in this O. 2. Evans had already surpassed Moulds as our #1 (hence the Moulds meltdown which led to his suspension) but can the even better speed draw DTs and rule the middle of the field like Moulds did and thus allow our #2 to wreak havoc. 3. WM has been an outstanding rush yardage producer his first two years, but can he be utilized as a pass receiver and third down threat as Marshall Faulk was by the Rams and Clement/MM never attempted to do. His yardage drop-off in the second half of last season seems better explained by our overall O breakdowm and piss poor bliocking than the soap opera rants of some concerned about his "baby mommas" but we'll see. The PP concern is well below the top 3 issues of worry for this O and as long as his health is good it seems like a good beat that he can produce like an NFL #2 and certainly a #3.

Sounds reasonable to me. Neufeld is simply a fill-in at best and if/when cut will almost certainly be replaced by another fill-in player. This team did not fall based on TD'/Bill coaches choice to sign Neufeld, nor would it have risen to some amazing level of success by signing some other player at the vet minimum whose primary job would be to be our #3 TE/back-up long snapper/ back-up RB with HB skills. Some seem to look for any outlandish claim of mistake on TD's part to substantiate their claim he was an idiot. These picayune ramblings overlook that this first decision produced the fatal mistake of hiring GW who simply was not yet ready to HC successfully and passing over attracting or hiring Lewis or Fox. Both were looking for HC jobs when we had the only one open snd both have experienced great improvement of the bad teams which chose them while the Bills continue to spill their wills.

He did perform surprisingly well as a back-up MLB when Cowart unexpectedly went down for the season (he scored at least once and I think twice that season on INTs). Even though he did unexpectedly well for a rookie, he and the Bills finished 3-13 in that cap hell defined season and it was clear we needed an upgrade at MLB. This came in the form of TD signing FA London Fletcher who produced a record number of tackles credited to him (he surpassed a Chris Spielman record) and has more tackles credited to him than any other NFL player over the last 5 years. Crowell and now Watson are the MLB back-ups. Spoon did suffer a badly torn muscle. He seemed to recover the next season but surprisingly to most observers was cut and left the NFL.

As he seems to be envisioned as an MLB and Posey plays OLB with some talk of him playing DE on passing downs this move seems to have zero impact on whether Posey stays or goes. Folks seem to be looking for some grand significance here, but this seems to be prompted more by off-season boredom than any real football judgment. Overall: my sense is: 1. Particularly when Cieslak getting some good buzz and three vets vying for three TE positions in addition, the numbers were tough for Euhus as Royal and Everett are keepers due to contract and if one of the two other TE candidates steps up Euhus is gone. It seems mostly to be a trade of a player at a position we are deep at for a player at a position we are weak at. 2. The post which anoints Watson as Fletcher's replacement jumps the gun as Watson is not even guaranteed a spot on the team yet. 3. The element which will probably determine Watson's fate with the Bills has not been mentioned yet in that if he shows the ability to contribute on ST he stays but if not he probably is gone. 4. While his acquisition has probably zero impact on Posey, it does provide a positive benefit for the Bills re: Crowell as this former back-up MLB on the depth chart will now have to compete against another vet. I think folks are making a mistake if they assume all players are measured by their position play when it is ST and increased competition which are the two real items the braintrust will likely use to determine who stays and who goes among all back-ups. 5. Neufeld is not pivotal to the Bills at all, but I think Kelly F&B states to harsh a case in his assessment of Neufeld. His problem that I see is that he really plays little role or much at all, he simply has not been used enough in important situations to suck. His prime calling cards are that he is on the depth chart for the Bills as a back-up long snapper and that he also has played the H-nack role on a team which seems thin at FB in numbers and talent. I also really doubt he makes the team because he has not played a critical role enough for the Bills and has not been as positive in addition to not playing enough to suck.

Bowen looks like a very good pick-up for his ST play and I am psyched that Marv views ST as a third of the game rather than as an afterthought, however, there is little demonstration from Bowen in his career that he is much more than a back-up as a field player, and I think we would get continually picked on at SS if he were the starter. My sense is he would likely beat out Coy Wire to start at SS, but given that this is even a question and it is pretty clear that Wire is inadequate at SS to start, speaks to how problematic it likely would be to rely on Bowen. Bullock is a nice player, but certainly there is a clear consensus among the undits and also as seen in the market of when players were taken that Huff/Whitner are a cut above the other safeties and are by far the most likely ones to start immediately for their teams. Bullocak does not strike me as a reasonable choice to start for Milloy or immediately at SS as I even have my doubts about the third SS taken in the first round by Miami being able to start immediately. Bullock presents the additional problem that in fact for the Bills to have taken him with their 10th choice in round 2, since Bullock went at #8 in round 2 we would have had to hae traded up to get him. In general, I think you are absolutely correct in realizing that the Bills forced themselves into having the SS need that forced them to take Whitner at #8 and to trade up to get McCargo. However, I disagree that there seemed to be much haste in making this decision as both the cut of Milloy and Adams did not happen immediately after the season ended, after Lvy or Jauron were hired, and was not forced by the cap as even if no new CBA agreement had been reached we were in far better cap shape than most and not forced to make cuts beyond those we chose to make. One can disagree with the judgments they made, but there seems to be little objective evidence that these judgments were made in haste. As far as it goes, the judgment to cut these players was generally reasonable based on what we can know and probably is quite reasonable based on what you and I cannot know. 1. Milloy was a good cut- This is a good player, but he is well into the backside of his career. This can be seen in the games he has missed due to injuries he likely would have played through when he was a younger man. It also seemed pretty clear that part of the Bills reduced effectiveness stopping the run last year was due to the reduced effectiveness of Milloy who had a nagging arm injury last year. His deficits were even going to get greater exposure with our switch to a Cover 2 rather than the zone blitz as our base D approach. The zone blitz emphasized the strongest part of the Milloy game which is run stopping as he lined up essentially like another LB. However, the centerfield duty of a safety in the Cover 2 is more Vincent's game than Milloy. It made perfect football sense to cut him. 2. Adams was also probably a good cut- I think his player skills actually fit the Cover 2 well as his explosive first step would allow him to penetrate like we want and his big body can play the sam,e role Big Ted played in Chicago's Cover 2. But I also so think SA was a very difficult player to coach. One of the great ironies is that the Bills got more consistent effort out of SA than most others (he only took a quarter of the plays off for compared to as much as half a game in his hayday where he was such a sackmaster folks tolerated this cause he was so good when he tried and actually opposing OL players never knew when he was going on vacation in mid-game so they could never take the rests on any play SA could). Yet this improvement created a monster as he wou;d go into a mid-game tirade as we benched him on 3rd down in favor of Edwards who was not good enough to start and play a whole game, but when he knew he could blow the was on a dozen or less plays a game as a back-up rotating him with SA. Particularly given that SA was well into the backside of his career (I am plesantly surprised he has survived this long) and my sense he was playing for his opwn glory (sack stats) rather than for the good of the team (stay at home and stop the run, he may well have been a disruptive force on the team that mandatred a trade and you and I would never know this by simply watching games or video tape. All these cyts were either good or could habve been based on what we know.

I guess Jason Peters should just kill himself since he does not exist in the world you ex[lain which such certainty. Ge was an FA but certainly had no original team to want him badly at all Certainly with the added proviso of any lemgth of time it is hard to recall an ezxample. owever, as far as the current Bill OL braintrust is concerned JMac's work with his NYG would seem to have some relevance. I do not know a ton about the history of its other three members. However I do know that its center was former Bill FA Dusty Ziegler and the all important LT posidtion was manned by former Bill FA Glenn Parker. While one can certainly recognize they were not long term, it would simply be silly to claim they never made the SB that one year. My sense would be that if JMac found far better OL play from Fowler over Teague or from Reyes over he 05 Bennie Anderson (which my sense is he will as being better than they were last year is not an extraordinarily high level of play) you will here few complaints from folks whining about long-term strategies. Its the real world (or as close as pro football gets to reality) and the question here is not what is the best theoretical way to do this but given reality how do we get it done. The Bills need to win now because Ralph knows he will not live forever (maybe yiou have an inside source with the Grim Reeper but he does not seem to). Further, this team has missed the playoffs 5 years running and JMac's job in reality is to turn this baby around now. The deal is: LT: Gandy- Jmac assessed right in that he was adequate last year and the plan is to try to develop this relatively young player into being adequate and improving this year. Barring injury potential slight upgrade. LG: JMac missed with the assessment of Anderson. Reywa played good enough RG last year that Carolina was productive with him and his personal play was good enough they never sat him even though they wanted the youngster behind him to step up. In his FA year. though he played well for them they let him go as the youngster was there and already being paid and there was no way they were gonna pay Reues starter money to be on the bench. The Bills plan is to move Reyes from RG to LG and likely will have Anderson still here since we paid him big $ already in bonus money. He took his time looking for a better gig for the same or more $ and did not find it but came here because he should kick Bennie's butt out of a starting job Likely significant upgrade (if only because BA was so inconsistent last year). C: Fowler was well regarded coming out of college and played well from what I here as a sub who started for the Vikes when multiple time Pro Bowler Birk got hurt. Birk is back and judged healthy with upside and ain't going nowhere. They let Fowler walk not because he sucked but because as an episodic starter at C he was an FA who likely will get starter money from the market. Teague actually served the Bills well at times, but this Denver product is undersized for a C and goy bowled over a number of times as he learned the C job when the Bills shifted him from LT. No gurantee that Fowler can be a 16 game stud at center but there is a real potential he can be an in any case is a likely at least slight upgrade over Teague. RG- Villarial will be back and has been a consistent performer for the Bills and even shown a bit of the nastiness you want in an OL leadwe. However, he clearly is on the backside of his career and what used to be nicks he played through have cost him a couple of starts that he did not miss in the past. His sittting OTAs is interesting and somwhat surprising for someone viewed as a leader, but the bigger issue is thatevery practice, game or OTA is another mile or more on his body so I am happy to have sit home and not play except when we need it for a game. Back-up on the OL is probably most critical here and fortunately our most highly regarded youngster Preston filled in for him well last year. Preston is on the depth chart at LG, but my since is that this may be a little mind game to keep him focused on learning multiple positions with the possibility of starting. He ain't gonna beat out CV but will keep a potential starter mentality more competing at LG than at RG. He actually is probably most likely to get fulltime starting duty if Fowler flags as this natural center seems a better candidate than current #2 C Geisinger on the depth chart. At any rate, the same level as before as CV goes til he drops and then Preston fills in. RT- Peters held his own when he took over for MW and this player who is a playmaker at skill positions will have a chance to fulfill the JMac plaudits as the best athlete on the OL he has ever seen, He even potentially could move to LT if he demonstrates he has the RT gig wrapped. Development of this youngster who never played OL consistently until last year points to a significant upgrade pver bust MW. The bottomline in reality is that as far as last year's starting 5 and this year's likely starting 5 we are likely to see upgrades of at least 4 of 5 slots and likely significant upgrade at 2 or 3 slots. This is not simply wishful thinking but is true because MW and BA were so bad last year (feel free to argue they were good if you want but I think it is hard not to agree that the situation can be improved over their play). You can certainly claim their replacements are bad players, buy in order to make this case you have to show Reyes cannot play LG (his team was productive last year and if he stunk Carolina had a prospect they wanted to use but never did) and that Fowler cannot play C (it is unproven whether he can go 16 but I have seen no credible evidence nor heard any credible claims that his play in relief of Birk last year was bad, The key for OL development for the Bills this year in my mind will be whether we will have the back=ups to play if the starters get nicked (I hope none prove as injury prone as Jennings who some folks wanted to give a stuip contract to like SF so that he could sit on our IR as well, One good TD move on OL amidst many disasters was letting him walk). Right now we have 5 likely starters who on the face of it seem to be more talented than the crew JMac trained to an SB for NYG. The question is whether we can find 4 or so quality back-ups as subs and on the PS to fill out this crew, The candidates are: Preston- I think he is in and can fill in when CV goes down or if Fowler does not play at the level his resume and experience says he should (JMac has enough confidence in Fowler he clearly by contract amount and Geisinger on the depth chart as his competition is gonna be the starting center. I think Preston is the more credible chocie for back-up but by putting him on the depth chart at LG where he at least has a small chance of winning the starting job (he would have zero chance of beating out CV or Fowler as they are given the jobs to lose) he will keep the potential starter mentality though I think it is likely Reyes will quickly lock up that job as well. Anderson- The fact he has a good shot at hanging around is mostly testimony to how thin back-up is. If anyone steps up or unless he has gotten religion and is once again good enough to start my guess is he is gone. Gibson- If this big boy ever gets his act together he could really help this OL out a lot as a flipflopping sub for both tackles. Doubtful but we will see. Jerman- I was not impressed but if worse comes to worse JMac will know exactly what he has and does not have in this journeyman. Butler- Probably dropped a couple arounds below his talent level and real character and intelligence due to a nationallt televised cheap shot he made and due to an injury which required surgery. If he rebounds from surgeri he could be a surprise, but if not then it is PS. Pennington- PS or gone, Geisinger, McFarland, Thomas- Gotta show us something or gone. Morgan et al- camp fodder. Overall, the plan looks quite possible to work as best as I can tell and since the starters are better than JMacs NYG unit, if we get lucky with injuries it will be quite good. Ihe idea of the draft being central to development of an OL under this new CBA in this reality is good theory but not reality.

Yep, you cut is certainly possible, but while one would have to be outrageously a homer (which actually anyone is well within their rights to be) to really expect the playoffs, my since is that the chances of going 1-15 and the chances of making the SB are at about the same scale. Granted someone has to lose (but also someone has to win) in this leagie and prediction of DDOOOMMMM have about the same currency of predictions of victory for the Bills. While i think the results may well be the same because one major factor is the same (Ralph owns the team and pays the bills and it actually is the refelection of his non-winning over-desire to find the next Jim Kelly which i think has led to his meddling and misreading the Butler situation and resulting his firing the loser Wade with time left on his contract, his being rushed by surprising departure of Butler to hire TD and give him to much authority to exercise his demons over Cowher firing him leading to a series of bad choices and bad management on his part is still the man. We owe Ralph alot and the Bills would not be here or probably would be gone without him so thanks for all he has done. However, a long with this truth, Iu think there is also the truth that from his misguided attempt to find the old Jim Kelly by making a handshake deal (he had to pay a million bucks walking away money to Jimbo for reneging), and then foolishly promting allowing Butler to sign RJ and then start him, and then trade for Hobert, and then give the job to JP, etc. Ralph is still the boss and unless he can be managed into staying out of the football game by fellow golden boy Marv this could be bad. However, in terms of the players and field management, i think this team is easily competitive in this league and though evening sporting a winning record will be a good achievement, worst to first is possible in this league like never before (and vice-versa) and 1-15 predictions seem to say as much about the attitude and approach of the predicter as they do about their blinding football knowledge. In terms of the games themselves (the ultimate reality versus folks value assessments i look at it this way. Sept. 10 @ New England 1:00pm - NE is a team going in the wrong direction (finally as both Weis and Crennel played critical (though definitely not essential and they can be replaced) roles on this team. Many accomplished players are getting older. I do not expect the Bills to have much of a chance of winning this one on the road and this is almost certainly an L, but can easily be competitive for us. A very likely L Sept. 17 @ Miami 1:00pm - This a team which even last years 5-11 flawed Bills crew should have swept and if the Culpepper knee does not respond, then the Bills can even win this one so we will have to see. Saban is a good NFL HC, but as best i can tell at least 80% of HCs can win anywhere or lose anywhere (and the majority of the consistent 20 % are Rich Kotite rather than Bill Parcells). The Fish are a squad that may compete for the division championship but also I think can easily compete for the cellar depending upon what happens on the field rather than on paper. We will know a lot more as real events occur but I put this as a potential L rather than a likely or even probable L- Sept. 24 NY Jets 1:00pm - I agree with those who see the Jets as a troubled team and we will be back at home in a likely must win situation where we either reverse losses in the first two game or can establish ourselves as a creditible team because of one surpirse win on the road. Either way I think this is a likely W. Oct. 1 Minnesota 1:00pm - Again we are at home against a good but not great team. This one is close enough that the injury reports will determine alot. Momentum and what happened in the first three weeks will tell alot. Advantages we had the first three weeks as opponents will not have much film or our tendencies yet will begin to dissapate. Still, all things being equal, if jauron targets this game as one he can really help win with good gameplanning and playcalling to take advantage of teams just learning our O and D tendencies we should be able to beat a MN team which has good points but is not dominating as we are at home/ I'm comfortable marking this one down as a possible W. Oct. 8 @ Chicago 1:00pm - My default is to feel while homefield is not determinative it gives the home team and advanatage. If Jauron can fire his team up with a special fire to beat the team that fired him maybe we can do somethings here, but this is a likelyloss to a 13-3 team. However, their O really sucked last year and if they do not find an O footing or their D has injury issues, this may change. I'd say this is a probable loss. Oct. 15 @ Detroit 1:00pm Again Detroit starts with a field advantage. However, their history of failure is longer than even ours. Jauron should know this team well and I think this one is a likely toss-up unless someone can demonstrate why they think Detroit is so good. Oct. 22 New England 1:00pm - This will tell us a lot whether to be hopeful for the second season or to hunker down. It amazes me how anyone who remembers way back to NE losing to ua 31-0 at home in the first game and then beating the crap out of us 0-31 in their house can be so certain of the outcome of both games at this point. NE is going in the wrong direction right now, but it would be a mistake tp cpmclude they are going into a total meltdown. However, again it would be a mistake to peg this one as a certain loss, a likwly or even probabable loss at this point. In fact given the usual slight homefield advantage and what by mid-season is likely to stll be a tight division race. I think pessimism is the main driver for anyone sealing this one up as a loss (the Bills woulda/coulda/shoulda beat the Pats on the night game last year they threw away. I peg this one at least as a possible W for the Bills. Oct. 29 Bye I gurantee we will not lose this week Nov. 5 Green Bay 1:00pm - Again a home game against a bad team and a possible win. Nov. 12 @ Indianapolis 1:00pm A probable loss against a good team on the road. Nov. 19 @ Houston 1:00pm - A possible win against a bad team on the road. Nov. 26 Jacksonville 1:00pm - It will depend a lot on the momentum of how the season is going for these two teams. However, I do not fear at all playing this team at home. Dec. 3 San Diego 1:00pm - A tough game against this almost playoff team at home. However, traveling across country they better eat their cheeseburgers as I suspct even a bad team playing for the second week in a row at home is going to end up slight favorites against up and down Chargers at home particularly if this is in anyway a tough travel streatch for them (I did not check. Dec. 10 @ NY Jets 1:00pm - Our best shot at a road victory Dec. 17 Miami 1:00pm - We usually squish the fish at home and I think we will be favored against this psudo juggernaut of a team which has a history of huge el foldos in full bloom at this time. Dec. 24 Tennessee 1:00pm - Again a homegame against a team which has been pretty bad the last few seasons and likely will be again even if they catch rooie lightening in a bottle. Dec. 31 @ Baltimore 1:00pm - The outcome likely will be dictated by what likely wull be a meaningless game for both teams means for the individuals. Whomever is thinking most about what to wear to the New Year's party that night likely gets their head handed to them. Overall, I think the Bills will flirt with .500 and can finish significantly below that with bad injuiry breaks and bounces by this oddly shaped ball or can finish even comfortably aboce .500 (but likely still miss the playoffs) if momentum and other issues break correctly. Particularly with this newly coached and managed team I think it is still way too early to make even remotely credible predicitions of records. What i think can be credibly done is to predict which games will likely be competitive. At NE, at Chi and at Indy are the only games I am pretty certain we will lose at this point. We will also likely lose a majority of the 5 other away games, hpwver, when facing teams like the Jets, Houston and Detroit, i will be shocked if are not mostly given one of these games by a bad team and can easily get two Ws here depending upon the inury reports, the bouncing ball or Phil Luckett blowing the call on a coin flip. I really doubt we go 8-0 at home but again none of our opponents scare me and does anyone want to make a case any of them are unbeatable on the road. Anyone who has such great confidence in all of our opponents even if we are a bad team is looking at this with their pessimistic eyes and not with a football view. The NFL stands for National Football Lotto and the team owners and league recognize that they can make more money and sell commericials at the highest price throughout the game if the Any Given Sunday rule playsout.

Okay, I understand a bit better what you were/are thinking. However, this approach raises a couple of questions which seem unaddresed to me if one takes this approach: 1. By taking Mangold over McCargo (you still have to trade up your second to get Mangold) leaving you until round 3 to fill the DT hole (left by cutting Adams (not an unreasonable choice if we choose to make it dut to his play style, salary and feistiness with the coaches). If the Bills in essence are left with a choice of whether to concentrate of helping the team stop the run by ging DT or run by going OL. You have state you prefer bolstering the OL, but still what do you do to deal with our run stopping deficits that picking Mangold leaves us. 2. The other question is whether Mangold actually does much to improve our run game. I don't think getting him helps us at all immediately and probably not at all this year (and actually not for a long time if JMac does well with his work). I think it is an unproven theory that Fowler can perform consistently as a vet NFL center. However, I think he has demonstrated in the real world that he can produce episodically as he did well subbing for Birk for the Vikes last year. He just did not play at the Pro Bowl recognition levels necessary for the Vikes to pay him starting center money the market gave him in his FA year (Birk is a recent multi-Pro Bowler and a Vikes fixture), The Bills already have paid starting center $ to Fowler and based on his episodically sound play (we will see if this translate into 16 start soundness) I think he easily beats out the rookie Mangold as our center this year if he would took him. The only way I see Mangold helping the line this year is if we move him to another position (actually I think the vet Reyes who started 16 last year for a good Carolina run game but he lost his job to a first day drafted player behind him in his FA year as like Fowler he was not bad, but he and his competition could not both be paid starter $, the Vikes went with vet Birk and Fowler was available anmd Carolina went with the youngster ion their bench and Reyes was available. In addition Villarial beat him out initially and then he duals with the well-regarded Preston for the job when Villarial eventually gets nicked). Our OL needs are to get someone better than the merely adequate Gandy or the unproven Peters and do you think Mangold meets either of these asks? The OL needs help certainly, but I think this team would be nuts to trade up to the 1st to get a player who likely sits on the bench all year waiting for a starter to founder. The Bills instead drafted second day guys Butler and Pennington who I think they plan to develop into the OL depth we need behind the not unreasonable (yet) starting talent they have. Our likely starters are: LT- Adequate at best it appears LG- OK play if Reyeas makes doable transition from RG C- OK play of Fowler builds from good episodes to 16 game starter RG- OK play until age nicks Villarial who is in backside of career RT- OK play if Peters builds on talent he showed passing MW last year. Our OL problem is that we almost certainly will need some sub somewhere and the only justifiable rookie I see taken in the first day of draft is one who could potentially start at multiple positions when called upon. I simply do not see this player among any potential draftees. Instead what makes football sense to me is that you attempt to get a couple of players on the second day who you think can develop into the more limited role back-ups we need. Butler looks like he might be that type of player at G. I do not know him, but they seem to see Pennington as that player at T. When you add in the competive thought that Preston is actually the potential back-up C if Fowler is nicked or fails, that we are forced by his large bonus to give Anderson a chance to earn a back-up G role, and we have taken a flyer on Gibson to be back-up T, then I see what they are doing.

I brought up the Bruce example certainly because his example should be extended to any current Bill because he was such an athlete he simply did not need the same prep as others, but because it does indicate that such conventional wisdom of the necessity of camp OR OTAs is simply different for different players. The Bruce example should also be considered as different in not only was he a better athlete than the norm, but his norm was not only to miss anything offseason or voluntary but to actually even try to avoid the mandatory. Folks should simply acknowledge that while it must take an extraoridinary player to skip mandatory work and play well, it may well be possible that a player who is "merely" starter quality does in dact need pre-season, attendance at these offseason gigs may well really be optional in terms of performance. As far as the specific question of whether Bruce would have been that much better if he had worked harder in camp OR attended offseason voluntary work, my sense is: 1. If he had consitently shown a slow start or demonstrated a need to play himself into shape, then a case could be made he would have been well served by more serious early play. On the contrary, he was known for his surprisingly fast starts many or most seasons. 2. If the team consistenly showed some since of being on different pages due to his missing practice time, a reasonable case can be made that his malingering hurt. I know of case where this showing has been effectively or objectively made. 3. Switching to the WM case as this very young player is no Bruce and Jauron is no Marv in terms of Bills HC experience: A. Even though Bills coaches have gone on record being disappointed with the vet turnout. Jauron has also said that it works well for the rookies and younger players to get reps they would not get if the starters were here. This advantage of vet non attendance should not be simply ignored. B. In particular looking at missing vets like getting older Villarial and previously badly injured WM, I'm quite happy to see these players misses being put through any optional paces as I would prefer wear and tear on them happen later rather than in voluntary pracitice. C, If anything for McGahee in particular, even with him being sat too much on 3rd down there certaintly have been games where his number was called over 30 times a game. Even with the seemingly odd sitting of him on critical downs, I still worry about us overusing him rather than underusing him. I'd run him more on 3rd down and be happy to see him sit all the OTAs out if this reduces his use overall as we use him more on 3rd down.

I'm not sure at all what this would mean in real life as this draft's results was actually fairly weak in terms of projected OL talent. The 1st rounders picked were: 1. D'Brick- a likely first day starter who would clearly get the nod over Gandt, but trading up to draft him would have killed the Bills as it would have resulted not only in the Bills failing to plug holes at SS and DT in the first (or likely from this draft at all as no DTs went until the 3rd round and even the third best S taken by the Fins at 16 may well not start immediately. If we had emphasized OL by trading up we would have likely signed off until the third or maybe even day 2. 2. Davin Joseph- A definite reach at #8 so maybe the Bills trade down into the 20s and get him and use these extra resources to still trade our 2nd up to get McCargo but we still have a hole at SS to fill so I'm not sure a strategy makes sense getting him. It still is a question whether this rook beats out Reyes and certainly would not replace Villarial until he likely goes out with a nick later in the season. 3. Mangold- I like Melvin Fowler who has done a good job in episodes as an NFL center though he has yet to be asked to play a full season yet to beat out even a talented rookie like Mangold who as a rookie has not even demonstrated he is even an episodically good center yet. After round 1, the players available begin to be dicey as immediate or even first year starters at OL and the pick of a first round talent CB with third round talent experience who really needs another year looks like a great 3rd round pick with our tagging of NC. The Bills did begin to pick some potential development talent on OL so who would you have chosen instead of Butler or some other player? I'm simply not sure what you would done given the real world of the limits of the draft as an OL improvement tool this year?

If it has no real world effect I'm not interested in it. The real world does not begin until real games. By agreement between the team owners and players they have made camp and a few OTAs mandatory, so even though they are not real things we can assess with the same accuracy as real games, those sessions are something I am interested in and demand attendance. However, until the players show real problems in real games under this coaching staff I think that voluntary OTA attendance is nice but really soap opera stuff. In the real world we have seen the most extraordinary of athletes such as Bruce Smith even malinger his way through preseason camp and still show up to play. While such activities are clearly unfair to both his teammates and fans because attendance is mandatory, it does show that the most extraordinary players can perform well even missing mandatory practices. In this light I have little trouble with players (particularly the small number of starters involved) missing voluntary practices. This particularly true of WM who while not a premier player yet, has already shown in his brief career some great rushing production and is missing these voluntary sessions doing organized intense activity at the U rather than simply hacking off. These are all big boys and if they fail to produce when the real games beging retribution should be swift, but until then these men get the benefit of the doubt that they will show up and play IMHO.

I do not think your assessment gives justice to the actual performances. The 04 play was not stable and thesame throughout the year (as shown in the radical differences in record) and the assessment does not reflect that. In both 2004 and 05, there is a legit question of which is cause and which is effect. Do you present evidence tbat it was the OL play which led to the results, or did other factors (such as playcalling) provide a lead factor in results and then you judge the OL play based on the results. The argument is superficial enough as not to be compelling.

I think one mistake that is made is to consider that a player missing the OTAs is the same as another player missing the OTAs. This is simply not the case. If a player sits it out with no word to anyone and goes off drinking and recruiting additional baby mothers that is one thing. If a player misses this organized training activity but participates in another training regime seriously like the one at the U or something like that it is something else. If a player misses to be inducted in the Division IIA HOF (as happened with Moorman) that is one thing. If a player is at home diligently pursuing his own regime and he always shows up ready to play historically (as Larry Centers always did and in essence he told HW to back off when GW whined about players not attending voluntray activities) thats something else. If a player's big problem seems to be mileage and he stays away to give his body another week of rest (as I guess that may be with Villarial) that is something else. In fact, id a player blows off visiting his sick Mom or Dad in the hospital to go do a valuntay worjout with the boys, I'd question seriously whether a player who attended an OYA was a high character guy. One size fits all simply does not apply to these "voluntary" workouts.

The interesting thing for me when you compare the 2003 Bledsoe performance to the 2004 Bledsoe performance is that I think that Clements/Kevin Killdrive demonstrated one of the ways you make Bledsoe more effective is to run him. This is not because Bledsoe is in any way shape or form a good runner. No one is going to forget John Elway watching DB run the ball. However, a big difference I noted between the pass-happy non diverse and non-changing Killdrive approach and the 2004 success of the Clements/MM approach with its use of trick and gimmick plays was they were willing to occaisionally run a QB draw with Bledsoe. They also made healthy use of some very good B;edsoe ball handling skills and his ability to run some fakes afte taking 10 years of snaos. When DB ran there was not going to be a TD as he evaded hit after hit and danced Micheal Vick like into the endzone. However, he was gonna get the snot knocked out of him by a blitzer standing back in the pocket, and TC had no fear of sending this big boy up the gut on a run where by surprising folks and falling forward he was going to make 5 yards or even a first down if the LBs took circular blitz routes in to get a free run at the pocket. By running Bledsoe, TC did a ton to slowdown the blitz because opposing D players had to stay at home on passing downs and guard the center of the field and not sell out to blitz. As, Killdrive was never ever never gonna run Bledsoe, the opposing D players did not fear giving up the center of the field. Likewise, when it was 4th and 1, the D had to pinch up to stop Bledsoe from diving into the line for a 1st. Thus, they were vulnerable on the play where Bledsoe faked the dive/run and turned an pitched it to WM who scampered 40+ yards for the TD. Likewise a good result happened when the D swarmed toward WM when he was handed the ball and when suddenly turned to pitch it back to DB, a moment of hesitation toward the line was all Evans or Moulds needed to keep soing upfield to be hit deep. None of this trickery was enough to make a playoff team out of the Bills led by DB who was the best of passers at his peak but now is well into the backside of his career. The problem is folks seem to make the mistake of concluding because Bledsoe cannot carry a team to a good season it also means he cannot be part ofa TEAM that has a god season, with luck even makes the playoffs or can even be an important role player in a team that wins it all like NE did in the 2001 season.

Yep. I think it was unreasonable to expect Bledsoe to have that kind of production for us and that is part of why I would have cut him before 2004 because I did not think he coul deliver for us. However, this is a different question than whether I think he had a great career. I think he did before we got him and is in the process of adding to his accumulated numbers such that I think he will likely get into the HoF. However, by the time we got him there were things Bledsoe couldn't do (like carry a team to the SB or have a good shot at the playoffs with him as your QB starter, and I think it is not smart football and is pretty unreasonable to think otherwise. Again, this does not mean he cannot do anything or that he has no value as a player. He had just played QB in the majority of a just win game for NE the year before in their SB run and totally earned and deserved his SB ring because of that. However, anyone who thinks that he also is good enough anymore to lead a team to the SB as he did early in his career under Parcells is simply fooling themselves. He was a very good acquisition by TD in 2002 after our 3-13 season where we had to pay the Grim Reeper for Butler robbing Peter to pay Paul to keep this team competing for glory in the mid 90s and beyond when we more gracefully should have cut some vets and reloaded with a couple of years of slight losses rather than really hit the wall with cap hell in 2001. Bledsoe was easily the right guy to cut so that the Pats kept brady in 2002. however, this does not mean even though Bledsoe could no longer carry a team to the SB or even the playoffs unless you got very very lucky that he was a bad acquisition by TD. 1. We had no choice but to upgrade at QB over the horrible injury prone RJ. 2. Our only two viable choices in FA we seemed to have with our quicker than expected (but yet not complete at that time) folks like chris Chandler or Jeff Blake. Bledsoe, despite his clear limitations as not being more than a role player in a successful SB run was clearly a much better QB than the injury prone Chandler and the was not a has-been because he never really was Blake. At least Bledsoe was a has-been. 3. The big deal for us was that he was cost-effective. There was simply no other way we could get a recent pro starting QB (not to mention a just past SB winner) for a song because NE was going to absorb his accelerated cap hit. 4. Ironically, even though Belicheck totally had Bledsoe's number because he knew him so well and this guaranteed us two losses to NE in 2002, this did not matter for us because we simply needed to show substantial improvement over 3-13. Even with two guaranteed losses, Bledsoe led the way in doing this as we finished 8-8. Ironically, even though keeping Brady over bledsoe was the right thing to do in the big picture for NE, this move absolutely killed them in 2002 as the accelerated cap hit from trading Bledsoe made things so tight for them with the salary cap they even missed the playoffs that year even though this foul season is bookended by SB wins. Bledsoe was done, nada, over and it was unreasonable for anyone who claims any football knowledge to think he was gonna carry a team to an SB or without a lot of luck and great play by his teammates even get a team a playoff berth. However, bledsoe was a very good cheap acquisition by us coming off a 3-13 season. He demonstrated how past his good old days he is and why the Bills should have called it a wash after his horrendous 2003. The big mistake TD made was letting the QB psychosis and our desire to find the next Jim Kelly lead to him extending rather than cutting Bledsoe. He then added insult to this injuy by giving the starting QB job to JP when he had done nothing to earn it on the field and even Bledsoe who we foolishly extended would have been a better choice than JP. Am I saying that Bledsoe would have been an adequate QB in 05 if we kept him? No (I would have cut him after 03). Am I saying that even an inadequae Bledsoe would have done better than JP last year? Yes. Do you disagree?

I'd be disappointed if they had the exact same season as the initial situation was so bad (centering around the near meltdown of Williams) that this unit simply needs to show more stability than that crew. The good news is that on the face of it the likely 06 starter look like better players almost across the board than the 2004 crew. Peters v. MW- Peters has actually more potential to be a very good RT than MW turned out to have. This ain't a done deal at all as potential simply means you have not done anything yet. However, I like theunprove peters more than what MW proved to be. Villarial v. Villarial- I think this is actually the weakest comparative position we have as Villarial was entering the backside of his career when we got him and losing starts and games to injuries which would have been nicks he played through before is what he is. The real question I think is how good will Preston be when he has to start for him once again. Fowler v. Teague- I can see why the Bills feel thi s is an upgrade as Fowler was an impressive and highly draftable center in college who has come to the pros and while he has not immediately forced his way into the starting line-up has proved to be a quite competent fill in for consistent Pro Bowler Matt Birk of the Vikes when Birk was hirt last year. Fowler was not given a contract by the Vikes in 06 not because he was bad, but because the market was going to give this FA starter money and the Vikes were only gonna give starter $ at C to Birk. Fowler is no dead lock certainty to be a great starter forever at C for the Bills and almost certainly will not become the next Kent Hull. However, it is a fairly good bet that the Bills have upgraded at C where Teague proved to be a competent though not great LT who became a competent and not great C. Fowler will get the chance to make his mark at C and may well do so. Reyes v, eventually Tucker in 04 and now Anderson- The Bills have not found a competent LG despite years of trying different players there. JMac made a point of saying he brought a bunch of successful experience as an OL position coach to the position (most recently building an SB berth achieving unit for NYG based upon FA acquisitions like Glenn Parker at LT and Dusty Ziegler at C) but that he was no miracle worker. Both of these claims could be seen with JMac's work with the Bills as he A: Made a nice assessment and acquisition of Chris Villarial to replace our loss of our only OL vet Ruben Brown and stabilize things as best h could around inherited bust Mike Williams, B: He did a nice carrot/stick reclamation job on Williams whp was busy melting down after the death of the Grammy that raised him, it was too late to save this failed choice but JMac squeezed what little there was to be gotten out of him, C: Has found and prmoted a real diamond in the rough overseeing the switch of UDFA Peters from TE to RT where he seemingly has nailed down the starter role, D: Made a nice acquisition on the cheap of Gandy who was adequate (no more and no less) at LT last year. However, JMac looks like he struck out pretty badly with acquistion of high priced FA Bennoe Anderson at LG last year. It would not be so bad if Anderson had been someone gotten from the crapshoot known as the draft because a player can be very good in college and simply suck as a pro (MW, Ryan Leaf, etc.) it happens. However, Anderson was simply a bad choice by us to invest major $ in. Even worse, he failed last year because his attention simply seemed to wander at times and he was inconsistent. its odd since JMac had already used a Ravens trained player plucked from their PS, Lawrence Smith to be inadequate at LG, but still an upgrade over the inherited Sully and Pacillo. In 2004 he eventually stabilized the LG slot using Ryan Tucker, but an injury led to us cutting him lose in favor of Anderson (at least their is the solace that Tucker still has not recovered from the injury as it would be really bad if we chucked him for Anderson and Anderson imploded while Tucker proved to be a capable starter elsewhere. At any rate, we now Reyes who did a good job at RG last year for Carolina and whose MO looks similar to Fowler in that he was not offered big FA $ by Carolina not due to incompetence on his part (if they had a problem they were ready to go with 05 first day pick Evan Mathis as soon as he was ready, but Reyes was playing well at RG and the O was productive so why switch). Reyes has played LG as a pro before and he looks like a definite upgrade in performance here. In addition though JMac made a point of mentioning other starters last year by name and that we looked forward to imprivement this year in the games of folks like Peters and Gandy he did not do so at all with Anderson. Yet, we have already invested bonus money in him that is spent and he will get a chance to right his play for the Bills this pre-season before we throw him out of the airlock completely. Gandy v. Jennings- I'm not sure why fiolks seem to be foaming at the mouth that TD made such an error in failing to resign JJ, because in significant part if was JJ's injury issues during the 04 season (and record during his career) that led me to wish im well with a new team but urge him not to let the door hit him on the way out. I felt Jennings proved to be a far more competent LT than I suspected he would be when the Bills gave him that role in 02. However, he is only second to RJ in my mind of deserving the lable injury prone. There is simply no way I thought he merited what the market was likely to provide him as an FA, and there is no way the Bills should have done anything but give a lowball offer to JJ and hope that the bullrush which led to overpayments of many LTs at the level of a Luke Peitigout had loced in enough teams to dry of the market. Instead, SF had finally settled their owner dispute and entered the marketplace looking for their LT of the future and gave a huge deal to JJ. it was no schock whatsoever to me that he basically ended on the IR in the first games last year and their is a well worn track already in the Bay Area running from JJs house to the hospital and to the bank to count his money. In 4 years as a Bill JJ never played a full season at LT which doing this at least once in his four years was essential to me to merit a big contract. His last year saw him miss two starts, but when you figure he also ended up sitting early with injuries in the two games prior to missing those starts, we actually saw JJ miss time in 4 out of 16 games that season. Not only did the market require you to pay big bucks to JJ (thanks to SF foolishness), but yiu needed to also pay for a Marcus Price back-up who is going to see serious time at LT in a quarter of the games that season. JJ's injuries would not have been problematic if it was always one particular injury which can be fixed surgically or needs to be watched and assessed. however, this week it is a leg injury, the next week a concussion, the third week some other nick that limits his play. I have no problem with folks faulting TD for the OL as it sucked. however, it seems more football intelligent to fault him for drafting a player not worthy of more than his rookie contract at LT rather than blame him for notresigning or extending JJ, because JJ simply was not worth the money. Gandy on the other hand also surprised me that this athlete who was cut by Chicago could actually be an adequate LT for us. Yet adequate he was (no more than that but also no less than last year) and that pedestrian level was about the best OL play by a Bill last year. it was the first time in his career he started all 16 games as well, but the fact he had not done so does not mean you give him a try at LT if you think he can do it, it simply means you do not give him the bog buck contract SF gave to JJ because you hope he can stay healthy when he never has before. As long as Gandy stays healthy and is adequate and has a low-budget contract he is fine by me on our OL.. I would say at 4 of 5 positions the quality and potential of the starters is better than the reality of what the Bills had in '04. the question to me is whether the back-ups are adequate as none of our starters are a certainty to be excellent (or more than adequate) or healhy for 16 games. Right now I would say I feel good about Preston as a back-up to Villarial (the most likely Bill on the OL to go down with injury) and hopeful about Anderson who is not starter quality, but if we already have paid him the bonus he may not be a bad back-up at either guard spot. Aaron Gibon is an intruguing back-up at RT but the jury is still way out on whether this inially well-regarded big guy can be a player. The rest of the back-ups like Morgan, Thomas, Merz, Jerman, or McFarland strike me as real problems if they have to play and folks like Butler, Pennington,Merz are at least a year away from contributing.

Thomas showed starting RB chops in the semi-distant pass in Chicago. One reasonably assumes he is no where near that level, but that is not what he is called upon to achieve here as our #2. We simply need to see what he has left on the field. The best thing going for him being our #2 is that his main competition Willians and Gates have shown less in their past thant Thomas and there is little beyond hope in their favor. I think all 3 fall well short of the Kenny Davis standard and our best hope is that WM stays healthy, is used a bit more intelligently than MM/Clements used him and that the back-ups primary job is to provide a good blow for the starter and not be relied upon to start more than a couple of games.

Nut he led a team to an SC under Parcells early in his career and played QB and threw the winning TD ib a must win game late in his career. He had a few outstandig seasons over the course of his career and merited being NFL comeback player of the year in 2002 when he deserved Pro Bowl reserve recognition that year. Is he the best QB ever? Nope. Has he had a great career which featured being around and accumiulatimg massive numbers, a few outstanding seasons and the resiliency to achieve good performances after he was surpassed in NE (correctly) and in Buffalo (foolishly since though he was inadequate his replacement was worse). Yep. i simply do no see why folks have such a big problem here. Where expectations of him unreasonable? Yep. However, that says more to me about the unreasonableness of those who set the expectations than of his play.

Boy, I hope you are not to upset when this not great QB likely makes it to the HOF. Its a vote and thus to some degree a popularity contest. Hiowever, in order to even get into the popularity contest you have to be able to put together a some combination of achievements. Bledsoe supporters will be able to put together the following combo of facts: 1. He will end his career with accumulated stats placing him within the top 5 QBs of all time ins such stats as total yards, total TDs, attempts etc.- Personally, I think that while this cumulative stats do not compare with percentage stats which show efficiency over an entire career rather than a few outstanding years, the NFL is a tough racket and simply sticking around as a starter long enough in pass happy offenses is an accomplishment which cannot be ignored. The facts are that these accumulated stats are not nearly enough in themselves to make one the best, but having the ability to impress folks enough to play year and year out is an accomplishment which is noted in the accumulated stats. I agree it ain;t perfect but it is very impressive to finish in the top 4 all time of any of these basic stats. 2. He will have led a team to the SB (something many great players like Peyton Manning so far only go to when they buy a ticket).and even better for him got an SB ring on a team Brady definitely led, but he played QB, and threw the game winning TD in a must win game or they do not even make it to the SB. Like the circu,stances or not, he simply accomplished the goals that the game is all about Charlie Brown. 3. He was really outstanding in his younger days a few times and has risen from the ashes of failure to achieve notable accomplishments after his fall. Like it or not, after Tom brady bounced his butt from his job because Brady was a better player, Bledsoe did play QB in the majority of a must win game. Like it or not, after the Pats correctly chose to stick with Brady and cut Bledsoe. He did put up great numbers with a Bills O which had been pathetic the year before and deserved the Pro Bowl reserve acknowledgement he received (if you disagree that is fine just simply name the other AFC QBs wo deserved the reserve honor the he beat them out of that year. Like it or not, the Dallas team led by him came within a game of making the playoffs last year and has a fair shot this year. If they do I think he cement hi entry into the HOF. These accumulated accomplishments will get him seriously considered and then it is mostly a manner of who else retires the same year he does. If the competition is Brett Favre he has to wait, if the other lead QB on the ballot is Jeff Blake, given the over fascination with the QB position inherent in the NFL, Bledsoe probably make it in on the first ballot. Again like it or not, he was quite a team guy in not whimpering much if at all when the better player Brady brushed him aside after he was injured. many accomplished players like a TO are jerks for no reason, but he has been a team guy and that should be more than enough to get this not great QB into the HOF and probably on the first ballot.

Qutie easily actually. GW took bad teams and made them worse. 1. He demonstrated a horrible feel for the actual game which could be seen in his poor clock managements, a horrible record on ref challlenges, and play calls like the punt when the Bills had moved the bakk well into enemy territory (the difference in the resulting yardage between a missed FG and a touhcback was not huge and even if you assumed we would miss theFG, the team probably does better running a 4th down and turning it over on dowbs than the resultingsilly punt. 2. He had a horrendous sense of hiring lieutenants. Hi first OC choice was so bad even GW canned him with time left on his contract. The defensive genius that he was and is thought he could add value merely through scheme but he tried to run his scheme with acquring a Jevon Kears or Blaine Cishop type which made his sche,e work. The D and his DC gray improved dramtaically as soon as LeNeau was hired and installed his scheme. Also on O he finally got a former HC in when he hiired Kevin Killdrive, but the result of this hire is legendary as this group prospered when oppnents did not have film and until BB drew a roadmap of Bledsoe weakenesses. GW's falure to make his OC diversify his apporach was a killer for us in 2003 as the O went something like 9 straight quarters with no TD yet the HC did not force a change. 3. He hd a sophomoric sense of team development and management with is stupid airhorn and initial attempt to call out vets who did not show up for voluntary practices and his own guy whom he brought in Larry Centers put him in his place and he backed down. 4. He and Gray kiiled the D in 2002, wasting a good offensive effort leading to TD attracting his buddy LeBeau here. GW abd Gray knew Robinson ans Jenkins as well as anyone yet they attmpted to make starters out of two players who were sumply done. His lomgtime buddy Roony Vinl;arek was hired as OL position coach when he had never done the job before. probably his best hire and management of a group hring Ronie Jones to coordinate ST and if this is the best of our three you gootta be bad at hiring. As soon as April came in the team skyrocketed to far better performance. You can't blame the players as he simply took bad players and made them worse.

From my look at Schobel's play he definitely had variable games. However, I did not see a conistent reason why he did not produce sacks. Some games he was in fact nullied one on one by a defender/ However, in other games he was doubled but this likely because the opposing O decided to run at him rather than away from him and he was at the point of attacj. We were really blitzing rhe LBs with the zone blitz and when the LB s are coming this means a DE is dropping back in short zone coverage, this was often Schobel who has really develop some athleticism and shed weight to do this.. I wish I had paid fuller attention to specific players but I must admit as the went down the toilet my note taking on players took a hit as I could not stomac much tape review, Still, it seemed that one reason why Schobel did not provide a consistent pass rush is that Gray did not sue him that wat. Schobels job in the zone blitz was to show rush and drop back into pass coverage or show driooing back and rush. I remember watching him with a couple of buds and for a quarter we played watch Schoble and call wether he was ruahing or dropping back and he was pretty good at disguising his intent. In order to make an accurate assessment of how hos rish game was doing it became important to watch his teaamates and to attemopy yo figure out his resposiilitities. From watching the variation in his olay and utilization (which actually mirrors that there was a significant variation in hs sack production fro game to fame. A belivable analysis would be one which attempted to match the variations in his sack/pressure numbers. However since wr are going to ise a whole defense this year I'm not sure anyone will take the time.

It certainly is not dumb to question the wisdom of the Bills picks. In fact, I myself think that from what I hear of Whitner, he shows great potential and even a strong likelihood of being a good enough player to merit being a first day starter for the Bills. Given the decision by the Bills to cut Milloy (again it seems to be a smart decision given: A. his history of recent injury on the backside of his career that likely means his peak effectiveness will be diminished and we will have to start Bowen or Wire anyway, B. his cap hit and C. that we are switching from a zone blitz which suited his talents to a Cover 2 which does not, I do not see how you keep him) we had to get one of the two SSs in this draft rated to have a good chance of starting the first day. Given that Huff surprisingly to most went at #7 and rhat #9 Detroit had a credible interest in Huff but now only 1 likely starter at SS was in this draft and that the trade down offers (if they were true) would provide teams with potential shot to trade up above the Bills if they traded down. However, I really do not expect McCargp to be an immediate starter for us, even though I am hopeful he will at least be an immediate contributor to the rotation. However, his selection insted of going for a credible possible or even likely run stopper to play the same role in the Jauron Cover 2 Big Ted played for the Bears. It creates a big question what new version of a working Cover 2 which can stop the run as well as have the DTs hit the gaps and pressure the QB will work with the top 4 DTs on the depth chart maxing out at 304 lbs. and none having a rep as a top run stopper. I do not consider it stupid or glazed over to debate whether Whitner will in fact be an immediate starter. Even though I think almost all think he will be they question whether he would have been there at his lowrer consensus alleged draft value. The consnsus has been way wrong before. I also do not think it is stupid to question whether the Bills were smart to put themselves in a position where they were forced to trade up for what many folks felt was the third best DT in the draft since no other DT even merited a 2nd round pick and even more interestin what the implication of the Bills DT picks and current roster have for us to stop the run. However, what I do think is glazed over or stupid is to whine repetively about this situation without stating any real alternatives or even doing s half-butted analysis of the situation. The fan whining on draft day is understandable though even this get real old real fast without either seeing that there is question here and it is more than Alzheimers from Marv. There is a plan, but the plan may not work and its simply mindless abbreviation or just dumb to not address this issue. It speaks highly of TSW that most folks have gotten over their initial shock and even if they are not true believers they either are simply hoping for the best or stating reasons why they think it will not work. Though the fan issue is understandable (I was a little glazed myself as draft day wore on (the general media action has been so vacuous and inane generally as to deserve total disdain. Particularly the ESPN folks like Salisbury and Shein have repeatedly demonstrated they neither take nor even have the time in broadcast to make even a semi-intelligent argument or have more than a stupid take on this situation. I think questioning moves is why the NFL is interesting. I think asking the same questions without any detailed discussion is stupid. I myself am repetitive but at least I go into exccruiting long detail about my repetition. Ignoring my posts as their too long is NOT stupid. Ignoring ESPN for taking the same baseless take is NOT stupid. Repeating the same baseless take or buying it with some analysis is STEPIB IMHO.

I think you ask a key question has to how much worth/value should one get out a 1st round (or any acquisition balancing the benefit received against the cost spent(. I think looking at a first round pick is a good way to go since though the reality of all this is too variable due to injuries, off field behavior and a variety of factors difficult to predict regarding pre=evaluation of a player o make one fast rule which is right in all cases. Many of the usual variables like contract size are set by draft slots so a good run can be made at this question. In general I do not think a 1st round pick MUST produse at a performance level at a particular position to be the right choice to make in the 1st round. In general, you want a first round choice to be an immediate starter who contributes a grpwing amount to the teams over the year as he becomes a vet. If you drafted this player in the first 5 (maybe 10, but draft quality varies from year to year which is one reason you cannot rationally set a hard and fast rule for all 1st rpuncd choices). You want to see this player mopping up Pro Bowl acknowledgments and eventually even be a real candidate for the HOF. This may be hoping for (or expecting) too much, but by measures much lighter than this one it is clear folks like #4 pick MW and #3 pick Harrington were busts in this draft. Even other alternative at T McKinnie while not a a bust (yet) because he is still with the team which drafted him really also is a big disappointment with the holdout which wasted his rookie year, his inability to hold his blocks long enough for the scampering Culpepper (though the good decision making and ability to make the quick release when need that vet Jphnson bring has helped MvKinnie's game. However, it looks like it is only a matter of time until this week convicted of a midemeanor for the Vikes party boat (my guess is he walks away without jail time and thus dodges the bullet on this one), drunking driving charged when he wrecked his car and failed a breathylyzer. and WM's favorite party animal and leader, before his off-field antics affect his play on the field as they did during his holdout. The bottomline is that in retrspect with 20/20 vision the Bills should have traded down and gotten Levi Jones but this is all retrospect that few if anyone foresaw and even if they did maybe TD tired to trade down but there were no takers. Not only is each individual draft a crapshoot even among the first 10 chosen talents, but actuallly, if I am a team I believe is a player away from an SB and lets say that player is nickel back but my weakness is pass coverage behind my two stud CBs, if there is a run on DBs and the bwar two CBas left are a nickel viewed as a good 2nd round choice and a player viewed as a 3rd round takent, then I think this one player away team should use their later 1st rounder for this nickwl who will not start and potentially even trade up to get him if I fear someone else is gonna take him. I think it is clear that even a consensus about his draft value as a player is a very different thing for what I want/need to build my team. Mel Kiper be darned if he judges this a reach (he and other ESPN gurus are actually correct if what concerns you most is draft value rather than team building) but O assess for what I hope are good reasons to get the player to help me get to and win the SB. This situation is clearer looking at a quality team that is one player away. However, I think it is also true for bad teams who look for particular value for team building that do not factor into the pre-draft value equation (or post draft equation if your goal is to be contrversial to attract eyeballs so your boss can sale commericials). I think for example the 06 Bills draft was pretty clearly a complete failure in terms of draft value (they reached for and even traded up to get their first two picks whixh in the ESPN driven draft world outweighs easily seond day potential hits and even the 2nd round as we Bills fams get too drunk after round 1 and our sporses eyes glaze over anyway). However, the jury will be out for final judgments (though reasonable guesstimates can be made pretty quickly) for three yeats about how this draft really turned out). Overall, there is some potentital (and even good potential that Whitner was a great choice at #8 and some possibility that McCargo may be a real contributor to the rotation immediately and if he is developed correctly, the Jauron scheme works and the funny shaped ball bounces well for us hw MAT be a quality starter for us this year. The draft value sucks but this may be a very good draft for us. Even more strangely, I Bledsoe was a great move in terms of not only what he provided for this team off the field in his first year, but more importantly I think it would be more productive than he turned out to be as part of the Bills in 2002. However, he sucked so bad on the field in 2003 I think that TD should have cut him rather than extending him. The real irony here is that even a bad Bledsoe was so much better than a learning JP once he did the idiot move of resigning him he should not have added insult to injury by then cutting him. I feel very secure in saying that even if TD had been smart enough to cut Bledsoe after 2 years he arguably would have been a wash even if he did not produced for us for 3 years, 5 years, or a career (if even the Bruce standard is too low for you because he failed to lead us to an SB win). The need we had to replace the hole we had having trade our 2003 1st for Bledsoe clearly played a role in TD taking the risk of doing the unexpected move of transition tagging PP. Even if one wants to try to sale the concept that TD was such a bold goshead he would have tagged PP anyway and we would have had two firsts. However, even someone who chooses to be foolish enough to believe this would have to admit that our need for a first at least made TD demand a first from AT and not settle for a second which still would have brought TD a bunch of praise for turning nothing into something. Merely getting two years and a wash out of trading away a first rounder for Bledsoe was worth by my judgment and the role this gap played in inspiring us to get a new first for a UFA makes this a no brainer as we essentially used a future first rounderas collateral to borrow Bledsoe for two years. Unfortunately TD had no brain and in the third year bought high and sold low. The bottomline (in a Cliffnotes kind of way) is that there are so many variables in the reality of player performance and so much variance from year to year in the quality of a draft and in terms of team needs (I think BAP is usally the right thing to do in this crapshoot, but sometimes if you are a player away from an SB or so bad you have an essential hole to fiil a BAP approach would be a dumb thing to do). There is not set amount of performance or time that is mandated for a player chosen in the first round. The GUIDELINE us a first round pick should be an immediate starter or at least an immediate contributor. However the reality is this guideline is made to be broken for good reasons (the test to discuss) and is not a rule at all.