JohnC

I can't comment on how Pysyk is playing in Florida. What I can say is that when Pysyk was with the Sabres he was a very fundamentally sound player. Although he wasn't a banger he was consistently in position and moved the puck quickly and efficiently out of the zone. He wasn't much of a scorer and he was not much of a shooter. But in general he was a smart player and a quiet player who didn't draw much attention because his game was so clean and efficient. Although Kulikov is more of a banger he is very erratic from a positional standpoint and a decision-making standpoint. His too often mistakes are usually costly, especially for a team that struggles to score. To simply categorize each's game Pysyk plays with intelligence while Kulikov plays like he is a dumb ass! This was a horrible trade by Murray that diminished an already thin defensive corps.

Rex Ryan is the type of person who works hard to demonstrate how smart he is to others. One of the central problems with his defense was that it was too complex with too many moving parts (player changes). It's freaking football---not nuclear engineering! A system that calls for too much thinking is a system that results in more confusion and less instinctive play. The added staffing to teach his inscrutable system got to the laughable and absurd level. As an example Dareus is far from being a cerebral person or player. The best approach for him is to have him play a simple game where he just pushes forward. It's just stupid the way he and the defense were handled. Under Rex talent was suppressed instead of expressed because he complicated that which should have been simple. Although Pettine and Schwartz had different approaches to playing defense both were dramatically more successful than the underachieving Rex. Instead of coaching to the players he had he had the players adjusting to him. Something so basic in management was out of this coach's mental grasp. Bill Billicheck is a coach who each week changes his game plan on both sides of the ball. But he is able to do it because he has built a collectively intelligent roster capable of handling the mental challenges he demands. That's not the case with our roster. In addition, he is arguably the best coach in the history of the game. That's obviously not the case with our obtuse HC. I'm aware that this roster has its limitations. But I do believe with the right coach and some smart and reasonably priced roster additions this team can be a playoff team.

I'm glad to hear that. By the way was he sober?

The next obvious question is does a new coach with a better grasp of defensive concepts in this current era of football make a major difference and a quick turnaround for this team? There is no doubt that the LBing corps has to be upgraded and the safety positions have to be upgraded but that is doable in short order. I thought we had talent on the line. But they were very frequently gashed. Was it scheme or talent issues or a combination of both? I don't have the answers to all the questions posed but I can say unequivocally that Rex with his archaic philosophy of defense set this franchise back. It was a bad hire and the repercussions were devastating.

After being with him for a short duration they would be willing to give up their nuclear weapons just to have someone take him of their hands.

I admire Beerball. He took away some penalty points that were unfairly assessed against me. He is very judicious a man of great wisdom. He can at times be irascible and cantankerous but for an old codger he is cool. I hope he is doing well!

On this issue of the qb and TT I have gone back and forth. There are games such as the Miami game in which he looks dynamic, extending plays with his feet and making terrific throws. And then there are games in which there are open receivers and he doesn't seem to see them at all. His ability to see the whole field and go through his progressions is a question that I have about him when I watch him play. I'm simply not sure what he is capable of in that area of the game. When I watch top tier qbs play I frequently see them consistently hitting receivers in stride while TT is more likely to hit the stationary receiver than throw the ball to the open space with an anticipatory throw. In the Miami game he was making exceptional throws all over the place. So I'll happily give credit where it is due. However, the issue for me is was this game more of the exception than the rule? When evaluating a qb very often it is a mistake to evaluate a qb in a conventional manner when each player brings a different skill set to the position. Without a doubt TT is the best qb the Bills have had in a very long time. Is he the long-term answer at that position? I just don't know.

When you have such an excessive number of coaches the line of communication is not only garbled during a game but it sows confusion during the week of preparation. If you ever tried to write a report with a number of people involved in the writing the report ends up being disjointed and lacking in coherency. It's unavoidable. I still don't know what the line of authority is among Rex, Thurmond and Rex's brother in game planning for the defense. There are just too many voices in the room and too many layers of bosses to end up with a clear and simple game plan. And the confusion shows on game day, most often in critical situations. What's apparent is that Rex lacks organizational skills. A talent that he has never had even before he joined this team. The next question is why was he hired in the first place?

He is far from being a perfect player. The criticism that he is not a good tackler is valid. But it is not unusual that a top cover corner isn't a superb tackler and isn't a thumper as some safeties are. His biggest asset is covering ability. and it is an asset that should be coveted not diminished because of his lack of crunching physical play. You are right that the primary source of the hostility towards Gilmore is his status of being a free agent. There is a recognition that he will receive a big payday from the market that the Bills may not be inclined to match. That in itself is an admission that he is a valued player. If the Bills don't resign him because of cap considerations or they simply make a judgment that the value ratio to contract size doesn't match, then so be it. Those are the the type of decisions all teams are faced with. Good players leave teams all the time. That's an inescapable part of the business. It just seems to me that the general fan attitude towards Gilmore is a demonstration of resentfulness. I just don't like that attitude. It seems so small to me.

He's a top tier cover corner who if he leaves this team will pay handsomely to try to replace him. The same people who criticize Gilmore will react with indignation when a high draft pick or a high cost free agent is brought in to fill the vacancy. This league has a large number of game breaking receivers. Those types of special talents are going to win their share of battles with the corners covering them. That's a reality that even the best corners in the league have to deal with. Having a corner that can stay with elite receivers and straight up contest them , even if some battles are lost, is a precious commodity. I don't understand the hostility directed toward Gilmore. He was a highly ranked player coming out of college for the simple reason that he was a very talented player playing one of the most challenging positions in the game. What's so perplexing is that overall he has been a stellar player for us. Yet the hound dogs continue to bark at one of our best defensive players. There are plenty of underachieving defensive players to focus one's attention on. In this case it is misplaced. I don't get it! My recommendation is to pay the CB with dreadlocks his market value (not go beyond) and address other positions of greater need. There certainly are plenty of areas on this porous defense that need addressing. Where he plays is not one of them.

I blame you for the loss. If you would have left the game sooner and got to the church earlier and then prayed harder the outcome could have been much different. You are simply not devout enough to get this team over the hump. Next time try lighting some candles to help the coach act with more wisdom and intelligence.

I never heard of a player named Spiller? What sport does he play? Soccer maybe? Wasn't Spiller the nickname of the slovenly frat boy who would get obnoxiously drunk and end up knocking over the drinks of the more sober frat brothers?

Bill, this game was filled with missed tackles by almost everyone on defense. Of course that Gilmore shoulder bump was a big play that was very costly. You may find it surprising but I don't that a top tier cover corner isn't the best of tacklers. In my view Gilmore falls in the top fourth or third rankings at his position. If he hits the market he will reap a contract that will fall into the category of a bonanza. You may not place value on cover CBs but I do and so does the rest of the league. You have been denigrating him since he was drafted because the position he plays doesn't fall into your value system. I disagree with how you rank the position in importance to other positions and I disagree how you rank him as a player. If the Bills lose Gilmore to the market it will be create major void that will have to be filled. On this issue of Gilmore I haven't agreed with you from the beginning and I will continue to disagree with you. The problem with people who take notice when he doesn't make a play is that it is too often ignored when he does make a play. My recommendation to Whaley is to sign the man and pay the man. I'm confident that my take on this issue will irritate you.

I don't think it is unfair to criticize him for his lack of ability to go through his progressions and hit receivers in stride. At least to me that has been evident all season long. But as I stated in my prior post I thought he had a very good game today and made a lot of good throws to mostly Watkins and Clay. The organization has to make a tough decision after the season whether his overall talents warrant the contract he will be getting from his original deal. We'll just have to see how this plays out.

I've been a critic of Tyrod for his limitations. Today he made plenty of good throws and had in general a good game. Getting the ball to Watkins and Clay demonstrated that we can have a potent office. My problem with him still relates to his ability to read defenses and go through his progressions. But in general I have to acknowledge that he played well'

There is such a thing as having too many coaches and too many voices. The opportunity for confusion rises with so many staffers on the sidelines with overlapping responsibilities.

Make no mistake I also have a scathing view of Rex's defense. However, there is a good reason why Whaley is going to seriously consider not agreeing to TT's option unless the contract is redone. His performance level doesn't justify it. My response to the highlighted are is simple. If the Bills are scoring at a really good clip with a stunted passing game then it stands to reason that it will score at a better clip with a more credible passing game. Again, this discussion is more than about stats. It is about outcomes. Upgrade the level of play at the qb position and the odds improve that this team will be participants in post season games rather than spectators.

You are missing the point. The issue has nothing to do with conventional vs unconventional qb play. The issue is quality qb play vs inadequate qb play. Our offense has an unconventional design to it for the simple reason that our current qb has so many limitations. You can't run a full/well-rounded offense if your qb is incapable of running a full offense. Accepting your limitations instead of finding someone who can play beyond the current limitations is a recipe for entrenched mediocrity.

I respectfully but strenuously disagree with your premise that having an impressive running game that includes TT's running prowess is a formula for success. Getting good YPC stats does not translate into meaningful success in this league. That's an old school formula that is outdated. (My opinion.) Would I trade a superlative running game for a more complete and sophisticated passing game? Unequivocally yes! So what if an exceptional running game is diminished to being average to good? If it gets you more wins I'll gladly accept the decline in stats to greater team success. Look at the difference that Derek Carr has made in Oakland. He has elevated a team that has flaws on both sides of the ball and turned them into serious playoff contenders. The dramatic positive change has little to do with their running game or even their defense. It has to do with his passing talents in a league where the rules promote the passing game. There is too much infatuation with our gaudy running statistics. What has it gotten us? Nowhere meaningful. My contention is strongly held that unless there is quality play at the qb position that includes a well rounded passing game you achieve little when all is said and done. Last year Denver was the exception to the rule on how to construct a SB team. To me it is a mistake to cite the exception to the rule as a recipe for success when the odds are stacked in favor to those teams that can proficiently pass the ball. The object of the game is not to win the battle of stats as it is to take the best approach that can win you more games.

Could you imagine how effective/potent our offense would be if we had a qb who could throw accurately and spread the ball all over the field? That would give our runners even more room instead of having the defense stacked up to focus on the run game. And yet, even when defenses know that our offense is run-oriented it still does well. Not having a qb who can execute a conventional NFL offense has a profound effect that not only affects the offense but also spills over to the defense that ends up on the field more. If the organization can get that position adequately upgraded the dynamics for this team (on both sides of the ball) will noticeably tick up.

The one deal that has come back to bite Murray is the Kulikov for Pysk deal. While Kulikov is a more physical player Pysk is more of an efficient player who cleanly and quickly gets the puck out of the zone. From a positional standpoint Pysk is a textbook player while Kulikov lacks positional awareness and roams all over the place at the peril of the defense. I remember someone from Florida commenting on the trade of Kulikov. His analysis was that Kulikov is a talented player who lacks discipline in his play and his too often lapses have disastrous results. Sadly the analysis was spot on. The bottom line is that Murray traded away intelligence for more physicality. In this case intelligence was more valuable to the team than unruly and dumb play.

Just think, Pegula paid in the range of $2 billion for the hockey and football franchises. It's not what you would call bang for your buck. What's worse than the repetitive losing is the irrelevancy of both of these franchises in their respective sports. It's not only sad to witness but the bigger insult is that both franchises are boring to follow.

If the Steeler game didn't demonstrate how much Rex's defense regressed under his tutelage then nothing will. It was men against pubescent boys. You are right that Rex shouldn't have the whole 17 years of ignominious failure attached to him. But that doesn't mean that he shouldn't be given credit for continuing the tradition of mediocrity. Rex has been a HC long enough to have a large enough body of work to make a fair judgment about him. He had a losing record in NY and a mediocre record in Buffalo. To his credit he may be befuddled on the sidelines but he is an ace at the podium. Getting rid of Rex certainly doesn't solve all the issues that plague this troubled franchise. But with his release it gives the organization an opportunity to find a replacement who is an upgrade over him.

The issue comes down to whether you believe that TT can advance his game. Can he learn to read defenses and go through progressions? Can he be more consistent with his accuracy? Can he utilize the whole field or primarily be a sideline passer? Those are the issues that the front office has to decide very soon because the contract issue will be upon them this offseason. The problem I have with TT is that although he has not been a starter for long he has been in this league for at least five years. How advanced and mature is his passing game? I would say not very much. Our passing offense is very limited and primitive not because of the quality of our receivers but because of his own limitations. If I had a choice between Dak Prescott and TT the decision would be very easy. Even acknowledging that the Cowboys are a much better and complete team than the laggard Bills I would take Dak over Tyrod without any hesitation. And so would every organization in the league! I have been very patient with TT and open minded about his prospects for developing into a competent starter. To put it mildly after seeing him play these two seasons I have major doubts about this veteran qb.

My sense of the Pegulas is that although they are new to the business of sports ownership they are the type of people who are not afraid to admit that they have made mistakes and they are open to learning. As you described the Pegulas are good natured and are approachable. Simply put they are good people. But you don't achieve the level of success they have achieved without being hard nosed about the reality of their employees' production and the outcome. Their competency was demonstrated by their Canalside development that included multi-faceted and complicated projects that got completed on time and done well. Joe Cappacio on WGR was talking about how the Pegulas go about their business. Their philosophy is to hire quality people and then empower them to do their jobs without much interference. As with the Bills and then probably later with the Sabres there will come an assessment followed by a reckoning for the employees in charge.