OCinBuffalo

Right on, bring back the HB sweep plays with Reed coming in from motion as a blocker on the OLB/DE, or HB toss to the outside lined up as a back. Brutal. You line up a tight end on that side and our RB might not get touched till ten yards down the field. I have liked this idea since it was posted - by you? - after the Miami game? So many options/mismatches. Makes me smile I wonder if Reed can throw. Not to get Mularkey here, but how about a HB pass option as well?

Mind the Karma buddy, we don't want these things coming back on us

Clayton just said that Denver lost this bid, and because they lost??? they went on to WAY overbid for their own? tight end(Patrick Ramsey?), because they didn't want to lose again to Seattle again????? . One of two things is true: 1. Clayton is retarded 2. Denver is retarded If it's #2: WE HAVE to make some kind of deal with Denver, they are friggin' nuts. Let's offer them TKO for their 1st round pick. It's like the NYS lottery - hey you never know!

Another example of Matt Millen's sheer incompetence as a GM. If that's the case, no one will ever, nor should they, trade with Detroit again. If I'm a Detroit fan - I at least slash that guy's tires once a week.

With this and the Clarett fiasco, and Denver's collapse last year, I'm starting to seriously question Mike Shanahah's abilities. Why the hell do you trade for a guy who won't play for you? Seems like that would be a key question to ask before the trade

Yeah but...but...(ok I can't do that anymore) Seriously, they are presuming a lot, as though IF this trade happens we won't use both or at least one 2nd(one we had one we get) to pick up a running back. And supposedly RB is the easiest position to make an immediate contribution in. Love to see that guy from Airizona with our first #2 pick. I do not see us simply signing old guys and trying to make them stick. However, this all depends on how good the line is. I seem to recall multiple Denver RBs who were "AWESOME" move on to other teams and suddenly become average. Perhaps that "phenomenon" can happen in reverse for us? With that said there is no doubt that we are taking a huge risk moving Willis. The real question is: what is the risk to the team if he stays? I think with all that's already happened, he's got to go regardless just for the sake of team chemistry. I blame the fuggin' Giants GM for opening his mouth - douchebag - and locking us into a move. The other thing I don't get is: What happened to the RB we cut last year - Lionel Gates? I didn't agree with that move and I still don't. I think Gates was a much better player than A-Train. I think A-train was a safe bet/good transitional player - like Reyes - but that's it. You obviously can't have Gates and McGahee on the same team but, now we won't. I say we get old Lionel back in training camp this year and see what's what.

I have resigned myself to the unfortunate truth that we will never see the proper use of the word re-sign on TSW. In other news, Al Gore is still not President because Republicans lie and cheat, and George W. Bush is because Republicans lie and cheat. Inexplicably some people still seem incapable of resigning themselves to the fact that Gore lost the election, and feel that Bush should resign. Also, General Francisco Franco is still dead because Republicans lie and cheat, and, he was not re-signed to continue playing President for Spain due to his death and his sub-par 40 time. -- Headlines from the new Dan Rather and John Stewart Show to air on the WB(Produced by Oprah and George Clooney)

Yeah, the same team(and same guys now a year older) our so-called weak team swept, and shutout 21-0, last year - or did you forget about that? Porter is comparably weeeeeak against the run. But it's our, widely acknowledged as mauling, run-blockers that should be worried? I hand Willis the ball and laugh at them; and you.

Not even close to 100%. Not even close. Again, how do you answer for the LBs that suck and aren't getting any better? When this team won Super Bowls it was, contrary to all Brady knob-slobbers, mostly because of their LB corp. How does Welker or Stallworth resolve crappy linebackers? Nothing in your post, this or last, points to you being 10% right never mind 84.3% right. So, because Welker is better than Chambers(if this is even true) = Welker is a #1 receiver that will be smoking the Bills next year? Nothing like a good old "excluding the middle" argument to fire me up. In case you don't know what that means - what you are saying = like saying: It hasn't rained in days, if it rains today, it's now "raining all the time". No - it just rained today. Welker represents a little rain, not thunderstorms. You can't draw the conclusion that the Pats have "gotten well in a hurry" based on Thomas, Welker, and maybe Stallworth. Well actually let me rephrase that: I PRAY that the Pats are dumb enough to believe that(2 late first round picks and 0 second round too - Brilliant! ), because that takes us a HUGE step towards putting the 2 Pats games in the win column this year.

Since Lori took the Dolphins, I will do the Patriots: How does adding another 29 year old who(based on the history of ex-Ravens) has about a 30% chance of catching on, instantly make a LB corp whose starters average age is 32 better? At best he keeps things the same. He's not gonna cut the years off of Bruschi, Vrabel, Seau, or Colvin. I could see it if 2 or more of these guys were 2 years starters, but they aren't, not even close. In fact, show me any other team where any of those guys would start THIS YEAR and I'll show you the cellar of their division. Signing Welker does not scare me. Especially when you realize that this was done as much for his special teams ability as his WR ability. Seriously, would you be scared about major improvement on O if someone had signed Steve Tasker? I know Kelly said "no one can cover Tasker", but if that was really the case why didn't he start, ever? The only upside here is if the ONLY reason Welker was marginal last year is the QB play in Miami. If it isn't, so what? IF they get Stallworth yes, that is cause for concern. The guy did a fairly decent job for the Eagles - when he wasn't injured. There is no doubt that the Eagles got better at WR when he was signed, but if you have the worst receiving corp in the NFL(like the Eagles did last year, and the Pats have this year) signing anyone but the guys you have makes you better. So, I see a small potential for the Patriots to get better(10%), I see a hell of a lot more potential for them to stay the same(60%), and significant potential, due to the aging of everybody else on that team and that neither one of these WR are legit #1 guys, for them to get worse(30%). In all cases, the Pats have by no means definitely "gotten well in a hurry".

From BB.com: Crowell talking about MLB: "I've played the 'mike' (middle linebacker) before so if that's what they call on me to do then that's what I'm going to do," said Crowell. "I'm a team guy. I just want to be on the field. I know if I'm on the field I can make the plays. I can adjust to the mental side of the game to play any position. The way I see it I just want to be on the field. I don't care where it's at as long as I'm on the field first, second or third down." Also I found this part to be kinda propehtic: "It's time now for me to become a leader on this defense and begin to help the younger guys and have guys look to me for leadership," said Crowell. "I think that's the next step that has to be taken in my game. I've been tutored by some pretty good players in Fletcher and Spikes and I think it's time for me to break away and become a leader like those guys were. When I get back we'll pretty much see the changes of who is going to be back with us and who will not, and I'll approach it from that angle. The opportunity has been given to me and I'm going into this offseason with that on my mind." Hmm. This is an article from the very end of the season. Make we wonder if LF-B was as good as gone for much longer than we realized. It also makes me wonder if the fact that Fletcher, and maybe even Spikes, is on their way out has been common knowledge in the Bills locker room since at least the date of this article(4 Jan 2007). Link for the article

Hey check out my sig - if you want to come watch the game in Center City. We have a great crew - very funny people and great fans(we have about 40 regulars - sometimes - when it's not a holiday - we get as many as 80!). And, you can take the train the whole way there. Last time I went to Wilmington I think it cost me $14 on Amtrack and but that was in 2000. It's $2 fitty to get to the bar(stop is right next door) from the amtrak station. With the deals we get, the whole thing will cost you about $50-60(of course that is if you drink like we do ).

10th and Arch St. right on the border of Chinatown(or Center City East or whatever gay thing they are trying to force on us this week like Convention Center Place - bah! that is annoying! it just makes the tourists more confused which means 50 more people bugging me for directions every time I go to the store - hah! rant/over)

Exactly. I like an offense that is balanced, that has the ability to score quick or play ball control depending on what is actually going on during the game, as opposed to what is says in the "system's" three-ring binder(Mularkey Frankenstein Football). Based on last season, I saw that bringing balance is exactly what Fairchild is doing, so I don't think it's fair to characterize the team as "ball control" or Martz-derived. In all cases, having maulers up front allows us the flexibility to do either. So yes, these offensive line signings help the defense without a doubt, if nothing more than keeping the D off the field if we play ball control, and if we score a lot(Martz), it takes the run game(the thing that we got killed on last year) away from the other team. Hell of a lot easier to play defense leading by 21 in the forth quarter, or the second quarter for that matter.

No you missed it! SD was playing well, so well that the "AWESOME" Patriots were staring at 4th and 13 on a must score drive. Brady(part of your TEAM) throws a pick, and the guy, rather than simply knocking the ball down, picks it off and then rather than going straight down, fumbles. Ummm, where does it say that good TEAMS throw interceptions? Because that was all the Patriots did on that play. They just happened to be standing there when the SD guy made two bad choices in a row. How did the Patriots "find a way to win" other than stand there? Is that finding a way win, or is it standing there?

Agreed - but how does being a good team account for the other team handing you the game?

By finding a way to win do you mean happening to be on the other sideline when another team that is clearly better than you self-destructs?

I guess that makes me #3....and I don't understand something: If we know that signing Moulds to 10% of the cap wasn't such a great idea, why is signing Nate to 10% of the cap automatically a good idea? I'm not interested in "mitigating factors" that have already been offered. I'm only talking about putting that much bank on one player who clearly is not in the top 5 at his position. Seems like too much of a risk to me. The arguments about: "well, that is what we did for Dockery" do not hold water since he IS in the top 5 at his position. Also, this thread reminds me of the "fantasy football/Madden mentality" that unfortunately seems to be the thing today. You can't "snap in" guys and have them work without first making sure that you have a great coaching staff and solid scheme for them to "snap into". Marv and Dick proved last year that they have a plan, that plan seems to be accomplishing the things we were told it would, so I suggest that we see what phase 2 looks like before we judge the whole plan as faulty. Moving on to the "right now" question, YES the Bills have some work to do right now because a case can be made, as Badol and others have made, that we have some holes to fill. If we don't see some significant moves/draft picks, then yes, those holes will still be there. What I cannot agree with is that the Bills have the "WORST" defense in the league because I believe that there are other teams, such as the Redskins, with much bigger problems than us - hence the need for them to go and get Fletcher(umm... 32, lost a step, MLB on one of the worst run Ds last year). Think about it: why else would a team want to go out and get a guy whose original team(Bills) doesn't want him unless they were in much bigger trouble d-wise than that original team(Bills). I'm not saying that we look GREAT right now, but we look better than a lot of other teams. (I would also like to remind all that we could be Patriots right now - with what amounts to having to fill 3 out of 4 starting slots on LB - since they just signed a 29 year old and whose remaining starters wouldn't be starting anywhere else - well unless you like 33-38 year old linebackers. I would much rather be in our position this year - for all you tools that want to talk about 5 years ago - than theirs.) So, compared to other teams in the league, which is what the original question is based on - who has the worst d?, I would say that we don't have the worst d in the league right now, and, I would say that we have a hell of a lot more upside than most teams in the league. How far that upside will take us, who will be a "JAG" and who will be a pro-bowler, no one can say. It is clear that 90% of the guys we have on D right now have the potential to improve. And, since this is a team sport(not fantasy football), we have no idea how well the improvement of one player will affect others. In all cases, the fact that there is a significant chance for improvement from more than one guys lead me to be fairly optimistic. And, anything(rookie, FA, Pro-Wrestler) is better than chasing a guy down after 5 yards - I was at 2 games last year in good seats(Jax and Miami) and I saw for myself that precise activity occur throughout both games. My father, a pretty darn good football coach, who was with me is yelling about getting rid of Fletcher to this day(I haven't told him about F-B being gone yet cause it's fun to get him going). I still don't know why Miami stopped running because Fletcher was getting chewed up, Jax ran on him the whole game(who's more to blame, when Garrard picked up that 4th and forever to set up their go ahead score in the 4th qtr., than the Middle linebacker?). I don't care who we bring in, they will be just as good as F-B in the chasing people, not sticking people, department. Hell, Coy Wire can do that and we already signed him.

Pass. And not because of the off-field stuff. I remember how hard he ran, but more importantly I remember the fumbles. He seemed to take over the story of every game because the offense would have to erase the problems he created by fumbling. Then it was: "See how hard Travis runs, he's great" But we never would have been there if he didn't fumble in the first place. Instead of beating teams 31-10 we were beating them 21-17 or losing. I suppose I can see the logic but - compared with drafting a guy in the second round, well, there is no comparision, IMO.

I like it - for whatever that is worth. I saw a special on Posluzny - he would be perfect for Buffalo. I like the idea of getting a Penn State guy to eventually lead this D. I like the idea of getting two diverse RBs. I think corner is not our biggest problem so yeah, draft em in the 3rd and see what happens. Hell. take a 4th or 6th round corner too. BUT - here's the problem: We need help in stopping the run. If we don't do something significant in FA to deal with that, I don't think this idea has a chance.

This may have an effect on McGahee. The Broncos were interested in Green. Now that that ship has sailed, they may be even more "serious" about a trade.

If mere contradiction is indicative of the best you got when I clearly have the facts on my side well, God love ya! You know that is BS. You know that because you have watched the same games we have. Over and over and over they talk about the LBs - you are being silly here. You know exactly what I am arguing and now you are trying to shut down the conversation - rather than address the points that were clearly stated. Great - so rather than addressing a logical argument now it's OCiP=Crazy. Ok, how about this: Your posts are simply the deranged ranting of someone who's in denial over that fact that the Patriots are in obvious decline and simply made a stopgap move this weekend to try and get one more year in. See, I can do it too. So now you can predict the future better than anyone else can? Who's deranged again? The only thing that's tough to handle here is how you can deny the reality of the following: 1. Your LBs are old and wouldn't be starting anywhere else 2. Your stopgap measure merely serves to maintain #1 3. The draft has a low probability of solving this problem. EDIT: 4. Based on history(which according to you is the exacting mirror of the future) Thomas is much more likely to fail than succeed. That is reality - sorry, dude! Attacking me has nothing to do with changing #1-4 so don't waste our time.

No it isn't. No more idiotic than(with the way FA is going, the salary cap increase, and the weakness of this draft) comparing what you did last year is indicative of anything that's going to happen - THIS YEAR. The difference is I am not talking about what we did last year(s) - you are - so who's the idiot again? The main reasons everyone points to when talking about the Patriots success is the linebacking corp and Tom Brady. Or do we need to bring up the knob-slobbing of Bruschi, Vrabel, et al. Now you are trying to tell me that your new and young O/D line is why you won all those Super Bowls? You can't have it both ways. If you are saying that the old days is why you will win now, then you saying that the old players are why you will win now. The new guys weren't around for the Super Bowls: so by your own logic they have nothing to do with this. Now if you are saying that the FO is the reason you won then and will win now, okay, I guess, but that doesn't address the fact that no FO in the world is gonna get past the fact that you now have linebackers that wouldn't be starting anywhere else and last time I checked, one guy <> 4 LBs. So we agree. It is a crapshoot and the best you can hope for is getting lucky. Hmm. So the "secret" to success this year is get lucky - good plan. YES now we are getting it. But here's the thing: He helps you get better because he helps you stay the same for this year, maybe next. But at best all he's gonna do is maintain the situation you have: old linebackers. So he replaces Brushci, Vrabel, or whoever. Is that an improvement for the TEAM? No, but it does maintain the status quo nicely so that maybe you can take one last run - like I have been saying all along. You'd like to deflect this issue onto me wouldn't you? Too bad - it ain't gonna happen. I'm just the messenger. It's not my fault your linebackers are old, so don't try to project something onto me because deep down you aren't happy with this situation. Typical. When you're clearly wrong - sometimes you like to start attacking the person rather than the idea. But please know that you can attack me all day - it's not gonna change the facts one iota. You still bought a "stand and maintain" guy for your team and you still haven't really addressed the age of your LBs - who were the main reason you won all those SBs. Deflect it on me all day - when you wake up tomorrow these facts will still be with you.

Ok so now that means I can say we are gonna win the division this year because we won it 4 times in the early 90's? How about that. I'm super psyched now Like I said, you guys may have one more year left in the tank, but more than likely you don't, that is also undeniable. Yes and given the history of ex-Ravens FA actually being good(I'll be generous and say they bat .300) you have a 2/3 chance that he won't be good, never mind whether he holds up till 33. And again, why are you saying that one more 29-year old is gonna help your starters not be old? I don't get that. There's this big event coming up at the end of April = crapshoot this year. Hang your hat on that if you want but I wouldn't. The only thing that saves you in this situation is if the Pats coaching staff can take draftees and get them into the game as starters either this or next year. I dunno, with the quality of this draft class, I'm guessing there's about a 20% chance of that. But to stay on topic: You are now saying, in response to my question, that in fact Thomas doesn't help you get younger - hence you are pointing me towards the draft. Well, no kidding! This is why I said what I said: Thomas is a right now/maybe get in one more good (playoff?)year player. Which means your guys don't run very well. Again, with as old as they are, what'd you expect? And by the way, the reason your LBs were sucking wind against the Colts was because they were being run on - not passed on.

Here we go again, hey if you want to rest on your laurels, who am I to stop you. But, the last time I checked, we are talking about this year, not 5 years ago. I will be glad to see you say next year: "Yeah we won 5 AFC titles and 3 super bowls over the last 7 years." You can say whatever you want but it doesn't change the facts at hand. Of course they signed and athletic guy - did you expect them to sign a statue in a 3-4 D? What does that prove? I mean he's an NFL football player - I expect him to be somewhat athletic . But, the question you haven't answered is: for how long? The better question is: what about the rest of the LB corp? Does a 29 year old on improve the youth of a group whose average age is 29.9? Off the top of my head I would say no - but according to you that is SPIN! How does one more older guy who has been seen(I acknowledge that this is one opinion - but it is the neutral opinion of an AFC North Executive) as "questionable" against the run solve anything about the geriatric state of your linebacking corp?