JohnC

Not one team in the league other than the Jets is interested in Fitz's services as a starter or backup. That's an indication of his value. Fitz is Fitz. You don't get anywhere serious with Fitz. He may have had a top 15 performance last season from a statistical standpoint but in reality he is a bottom feeder starter who at best is an adequate backup. When the Buffalo Bills, a qb starved team, are willing to let a qb go what does that tell you? Acing the SATs and the Wonderlic do not mean that you can accurately throw the ball.

It should be a fun day. What will make it even more entertaining is if a number of deals are made and are announced at the draft. I know that our GM is itching to make a deal/deals.

I'm not a fan of DeSean Jackson for the Redskins. He is too much of a temperamental diva for me. But when he is on the field and running deep vertical routes it opens up the field for everyone else. The major beneficiary of his vertical threat is the TE, Jordan Reed, who is one of the best route running TEs in the game. The Redskins are qualitatively different (better) offense with Jackson in the lineup whether he is getting the ball or not. Karlos Williams by himself is a solid player. Rotating with McCoy he becomes a very good player. Or another way of saying it is that by being part of the tandem each player is more effective. My basic point again is that there are a limited number of players whose mere presence on the field affect the unit. That type of player is not readily available. The Bills with McCoy and Watkins have two players who fall in that lofty category.

There is a difference between being a good player and a playmaker. Excluding the qb Watkins and McCoy are the two big playmakers that not only make big plays but are players in which the defenses have to account for. So even when they don't have the ball because they are a threat the defenses have to account for them. Their value most often goes beyond their individual stats because their presence elevates the play of the other players on the unit.

For the first day don't you have to pay? How much?

Search the market for garbage. Plenty available.

The Jets are doing the same thing as what the Bills did with Fitz. They are willing to keep him on a short term deal (related to actual $$$) at a particular price range. It is a talent to contract ratio. There is nothing out of the ordinary or irresponsible about their position. When it comes to options Fitz has little leverage because no other team is willing to have him on their roster, let alone pay him. The Jets simply need a bridge qb for a year or so. Fitz is a backup caliber of qb who happened to start on teams without a starting qb. He is the type of qb who falls in the category of "let's just get by with him" until we get a real starter. Fitz is a smart guy with a secure ego and is aware that he is at the end of the line in this phase of his career. The Jets are aware at this point he is the best immediate option they have. So I'm sure that a deal will eventually get done. The bottom line is Fitz is Fitz. You don't get anywhere serious with a Fitz type of qb. If even Buffalo can recognize that then the Jets and every team in the league can also recognize that which is so obvious. If Fitz should take an uncompromising stance (which I don't think will happen) then the Jets would just move on and find another mediocre qb to fill in.

Pettine worked under Rex but the defense he ran was somewhat different from the one Rex ran in his first year. But that isn't the point. The defense under Pettine was much more effective than it was under Rex. Explain that disparity! I'm not absolving the players of their culpability with the decline of their collective performance but there was a disconnect between the players and Rex that didn't exist between the players and Pettine and with the players and Schwartz. That's my basic point. Again, if Pettine's approach was so similar to Rex's then why did it underachieve so much last year? Of course that Schwartz defense isn't going to be brought back. That's obvious. The reconstruction of the defense, as demonstrated by the draft, is going on full throttle in order to prop up a coach who mismanaged the players he worked with. In other words tear it down to build it back up. Instead of being down the road you go back to the starting point to begin all over again. That's not a smart way to run an operation.

There were two different DCs with the Bills prior to Rex's arrival. Schwartz's approach was different from Pettine's approach. Yet both were effective. You don't have to have a cookie cutter approach to run a successful defense staffed by quality players, mostly located on the line. If players didn't put in the required work to grasp his defense then not only is it a player problem but it certainly is a coaching problem. Mario clearly resisted what Rex wanted him to do. How did Rex respond to his recalcitrance? He kept him on the field. Not only is that a player issue but it certainly is a coaching issue. The coach can run any system that he wants. He makes the determination. There is no question about that. The bottom line is simple: How well did it work? Did the players play up to their potential? If they didn't then what were the reasons for the lack of achievement and what was the response of the coach to fix the problem?

Last year.

What Rex didn't do last year is adjust his defense to maximize the talents of the players he had to work with. There is no doubt that adjustments and strategies are a little different against different opponents. You can't have the same strategy for a team that emphasizes the run vs the pass or emphasizes downfield passes vs quick outlet passes or emphasizes running wide vs running straight ahead or emphasizes zone blocking vs man to man blocking. What the organization is doing as demonstrated by he draft is bringing in players that suit the scheme that Rex wants to run. That isn't the source of my criticism of him. He should have been more flexible to accommodate the abilities of the players he had on hand last year. No one can say that he did a smart job of utilizing the talent he had. The Bills were far from being a complete team but they were good enough to be a wild-card team. He squandered that opportunity because of his obtuseness. I'm not a believer in Rex, and never have been. Overall his tenure in New York was a failure. He concluded his last season in New York with four wins and then got fired. We then hired him. Peculiar hire! Many people like his bombast and bravado. I'm not one of them. If you want to say that I am biased against him I won't argue that point. My distaste for him originated prior to his arrival to Buffalo. What he has done so far has reinforced my negative view of him. I wish him well but my view on him is very unlikely to change.

I have a respectful but fundamental disagreement with you regarding Rex's past successes and his most recent (actually extended) failures. In my admittedly jaundiced view of him his core weakness is that he is not too adept at making adjustments to his approach to the game. The NFL is a game of constant adjustments not only weekly against different teams on your schedule but the game in general evolves year to year. The game in the two years in which he had success in NY is markedly different than what it is five years or so later. There is a stubbornness and inflexibility with respect to his defensive philosophy. That is evident with his "all in" approach for this upcoming season and with the hiring of his brother. His attitude is he is going to be even more determined to force the issue rather than make the adjustments more suited to his personnel. That rigidity in approach was on display last year. That is what I find most troubling about him and his prospects. I know we did interview other coaches. The person I wanted hired was Hue Jackson. In my opinion he would have been an excellent selection. Roman would have been a good option and in hindsight Schwatz would have been a reasonable conventional selection. There was talk that Whaley favored Hue Jackson.

Marrone was a meat and potato type of coach. Nothing special about him. To his credit the players played hard for him. Was he going to have a long term tenure with the Bills? I don't believe so. His football philosophy and personality didn't mesh with the GM and especially within an organizational setting where collaboration is required. So he left on his own accord. I have nothing against him and don't particularly care what his future career trajectory is. That's his business. With respect to the Rex I had little regard for him before he was hired and my feelings about are even more confirmed after his first year on the job with us. It appears that the owners were most influential in the hiring of Rex. As owners that is their prerogative. I thought the selection of a HC was rushed and there should have been a wider range of input from within and outside the organization on that important hire. All I can say is that decisions have consequences. When you get on a roller coaster you don't get off until it runs it's course. That's what we are waiting for now.

Overall, Rex had a losing record with the Jets and finished his last season with four wins. He was fired. He was hired by Buffalo and his team underachieved (my opinion). I stand by my view that Marrone did more with less as a HC with the Bills than Rex did with a better roster. If you disagree with that assessment then that is fine. You are right that Rex went to the AFC Championships his first two years. His last five years as a HC have not been sterling. When you make a judgment on a HC what he did in the distant past (short life span for HCs) is less relevant that what he is currently doing. I stand by my position that the unlikable Marrone did a better job than Red did for the Bills. If you believe otherwise then so be it.

The like/dislike button would not be a good idea. It would stifle contrarian responses more that promote candid views. I agree with you that there is a cadre of loyalists that don't tolerate challenging views. So what! Did you expect anything different? There are people who believe that they are the guardian of the gates and they have the sacred responsibility of making the determination who is worthy of entering the palace. Those are the type of dullards that are not worth bothering with. For the most part the exchanges on this board are reasonable and civil. Sometimes the discourse gets out of hand and devolves into personal assaults, as it has in this thread. But in general the tenor of discussion stays within the expansive acceptable boundaries. You are a tough crusty codger who is not only able to parry a thrust but you are more than capable of slicing up an adversary without the challenger knowing that he is profusely bleeding. When you go to the disco it is futile to complain that the music is too loud. That's just the nature of the environment. You are too resilient of a contributor to be bothered by the noise. I say this respectfully but I think you are making too much of this situation which admittedly did take a plunge but is not the normal for this platform.

What you are suggesting is that Marrone deliberately sabotaged EJ by assembling an incompetent line that in the end would result in sabotaging himself. That makes little sense. It is the GM who assembles the roster. Our line was one of the most poorly staffed in the league. In putting together a line he worked with what he had. The inadequacy of the line is mostly the fault of the GM. It still is a weak point. You made the comment that Marrone didn't like EJ. How do you come to that conclusion? I'm confident that if EJ would have been a more accomplished qb on the field he would have been infatuated with him. The truth is that Marrone did not believe in EJ as a starter. He watched him in practice and he watched him play. It didn't take too much time for him to conclude that EJ didn't have what it takes to be a starter in this league. What you are doing is criticizing him for making a quick judgment on EJ that proved to be right. Even Whaley has come to that conclusion. Marrone simply felt that he didn't have much of a chance to succeed as a HC with EJ taking the snaps. He was right. It's funny that you call Marrone a blowhard. That is a frequent description of our current HC. Without any hesitation I would take the more dour Marrone as a HC over the more personable HC that is now prancing on the sidelines. You might be reluctant to admit it but the former HC did more with less than the current HC.

If there is a franchise in any sport that needs to be challenged it is the Buffalo Bills. This is a franchise in a sport designed for parity that his been out of the playoffs for a generation. What do you want him to do? Compliment the organization for its outstanding record? Do you want him to throw rose petals at them for their organizational wisdom? The suffering fan base doesn't need Sullivan to rile themselves up. You don't think that after watching garbage for so long that they can't make up their own minds that this organization is a ramshackle organization. They don't need to have a prickly reporter to tell them anything because they can see for themselves the consistent product coming from a systemically mediocre organization. Too many get upset with the messenger. Focus on the product and judge for yourself.

I made plenty of bad decisions. But not to almost kill innocent bystanders. I disagree with his position but I wouldn't characterize it as being ridiculous.

With the highlighted comment you succinctly and with great clarity state my position. At times you can be astute and perspicacious. There are plenty of good models of disciplinary offices in all the professional sports that could be used to come up with a reasonable approach that would satisfy all sides.

Dareus's behavior was beyond being " non-egregeous" behavior. It was a criminally reckless behavior that could have gotten innocent bystanders killed. This was a near miss tragedy caused by someone who acted like a fool. I don't agree with Sullivan's position of cutting MD but I'm not going to condemn him for it.

Most often reporters who have little association with the team/s are in a better position to report about a team than those who are allowed to be insiders at the discretion of the team/s. As an example Sal Cappacio (who I like and consider to be an earnest reporter) is granted access. Not once last year during the season or shortly after report that Mario willfully quit on the team. It wasn't until he left that he made the comment on WGR that Mario basically made a decision to quit when Rex was named the coach. The point I'm making is that he was either co-opted by the team or afraid to make a controversial claim about a player he would come in contact. Jerry Sullivan is a columnist. He is not responsible for the daily coverage of this franchise. His task is to provoke---and that is what he does well. You may consider him to be a hack but what you can't say about him is that he is afraid to challenge a franchise and ask the pointed questions that a consistently losing franchise is uncomfortable responding to. The Buffalo Bills in the market they reside in have had to face an insignificant amount of criticism relative to their level of competency compared to most markets. Compare the NY or Philly media market to the Buffalo market? Without a doubt Jerry Sullivan can be irritating and full of himself. But overall to his credit he is one of the few voices in the room willing to call people out who should be called out and challenge those people who should be challenged.

The highlight has been the focus of my attention on this topic. There has to be a more inclusive process where there is more consistency and proportionality in the disciplinary rulings. Repeating what I have stated before almost all the rulings that get challenged by the union gets overturned. That is not a demonstration of good judgment on the part of the disciplinarian as it is a demonstration of incompetency and unfairness in administering his authority. The issue for me has never been about one's authority. It is about how that authority is administered. Being in a position of authority doesn't give one the right to act in an arbitrary and capricious manner. You might believe that to be so but I don't.

Even for the players who went along with the deal (almost all of them) they couldn't have imagined how erratic and inconsistent Roger could be in his rulings. I'm sure that in the next CBA the players and the union are not going to allow the commissioner to have so much authority with issues related to player discipline. As I stated in a prior post even in the current system where Roger has almost unlimited authority many of his rulings that have been challenged have been overturned. What does that say about his judgment?

There was a chance encounter after the case was concluded If you want to believe in zany conspiracies then that is your prerogative. http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/09/07/patriots-robert-kraft-deflategate-judge-richard-berman-have-chance-encounter-at-party-over-weekend/ Judges are certainly not infallible but in this case they will have the last say.

Yes, the players agreed to the CBA. But that doesn't mean that all of Roger's decisions have fallen within the confines of the CBA. Almost every ruling that has been challenged by the union has been successful. His inflategate ruling was challenged and the union won its case before an appeal's judge. The league then challenged that ruling and won its case in a 2-1 ruling. My point is that Goodell's judgments have been far from infallible. This issue has been debated to the point of exhaustion. This case is going to be reviewed by a full body of appellate judges. It is near the finish line. Many people believed this issue was a simple black and white issue. It is not.