JohnC

The difference is that Namath had the star quality that neither of the qbs you mentioned possessed. Because Namath played in NYC and was promoted as an AFL signiture player he helped increase the TV contract and revenue. He brought more credibility to the upstart league as much by his promoted personality as he did as a player.

What Sandy Koufax was for baseball in his throwing motion Namath was in the same category in the football realm. He threw a magnificent ball. He had a star quality that forced you to focus on him whenever he was on the field. If he would have played in the era of arthoscope surgeries instead of the full zipper surgeries his career would have been better. One of our qbs who had a terrific natural throwing motion and threw a terrific ball was James Harris. I got the impression that the "times" and that particular less than enlighted racial "era" had a negative affect on him and the lack of him playing up to his potential.

What a phenomonal restoration! Your neighbors should be proud of the their magnficent transformation of that property. I very much hope that it turns it out to be a very profitable endeavor. Maybe some day in the not too distant future there will be a full restoration instead of the partially done project at the Statler. It seems that there are numerous mininature hotels popping up all over the place in the restoration business.

I agree with you that Cassel is an Orton type of qb. He is a limited qb who can manage the offense. If Orton would have played at the standard Orton level the Bills probably would have been a playoff team (even with an atrocious OL). I used to be a strong defender of EJ and strenuously argued that he needed more time. But when watching him play I am very distrubed by his level of accuracy and by his jittery comportment in the pocket. There is no doubt that EJ is periodically capable of making plays that will wow you giving one a glimmer of hope that he is the answer. But there are too many instances where his erratic play overshadows his few exceptional plays. I'm a strong believer that you enter the league being an accurate passer or not. There are few instances where a prospect with poor mechanics develops consistently good mechanics and takes the quantum leap forward as a passer. I would love to be wrong on my admittedly early assessment on Manuel. But reluctantly I don't believe I am off the mark with him. Odds are that after what Ryan experienced with his young qb in NY he is going to be more inclined to go with the steady vet qb over the more physically imposing young qb who has a tendency to be erratic.

Whether it is Cassell, EJ or Mettenberger the ceiling for each of these qbs is not very high (in my opinion). The question comes down to are you looking simply to upgrade the position marginally so or are you looking to establish a qb who can make you a serous contender. None of the previously mentioned qbs are the long term answer. This franchise has been out of the playoffs for 15 consecutive years. This front office and new ownership are determined to qualify for one of the wildcard spots this year. This team is built to compete for a playoff spot with a qb who is adequate and plays with prudence. That is a job description perfectly suited for Cassell or a Cassell type qb. The Bills are not in a draft position to draft a stud prospect. So why waste a draft pick when the odds are against you hitting on a qb prospect? The best approach is to put that issue aside for this season and wait for when there is a better opportunity to find your long term franchise qb. If I was offered a trade deal of Manuel for Mettenberger I would make the deal. I believe that Mettenberger is a better passer (mechanics) and has a better grasp of running an offense (making reads).

The Civil standard is not as high as the criminal standard. But even in this case it is not going to be easy proving exactly what happened.between the two parties from a consensual standpoint. The reluctant witness is probably going to take the position that he simply isn't sure as to what exactly happened between Winston and the girl. You and I are in accord as to what "probably" happened. That doesn't mean that in this civil case that it is going to be proven that something sinister happened. I am less convinced than you that from a legal standard (acknowledging civil standard is lower than criminial standard) that the outcome is as clear as you think. What usually happens in this type of conflict is that the perpetrator settles with the accusing party prior to the case going to trial. That's how I see it. I also see the school and the police department settling with the claimant before it goes to trial. In my mind the bigger issue is that the authorities failed to fulfill their responsibilities and corrupted the process.

The claimant's civil case is going to be more focused on the way the case was handled by the school and the police than by what what happened between Winston and the girl, which is under dispute. That is where the real liability is. No one is suggesting that Winston is a sterling character because obviously he is not. What is most outrageous about this episode has more to do with a contaminated/biased process by the authorities (school and police) that was designed to protect a prominent athlete and a football program at the expense of a potential victim. I agree with that statement. In my view the corrupt process is more of a serious and central issue than the incident.

Your criticisms of Winston's attorney and Winston for being shameless in being non-responsive in a noncriminal and non-civil setting is off the mark. Any hack attorney knows that providing any material information when not necessary is foolish to do. The real concern is not about the preliminary non formal proceedings but the concern is how it affects the potential later formal legal proceedings. What is stated in the college judicial settings can be used at a later time against the client (Winston) in the more serious legal proceedings. There is no doubt that Winston and his family were well aware how serious the stakes were for his future. He sought good counsel prior to the hearings and he acted on the sound legal advice i.e. to say as little as possible. I have many doubts about the character of Winston. But from a legal standpoint at the hearing you made reference to he took the right reticent approach in order to protect his interests.

Whaley is making addressing the OL a priority not because he was satisfied with the status quo. He was willing to take a player with a troubled pass, Incognito, because he wasn't satisfied with the talent he had. Pears is another lineman who falls in the big and bulky class who was let go. There is a strong probability that an OLineman will be taken with one of their two top picks. I want Kujo to be a contributing player for us. But I have some concerns that he is capable of playing either tackle position because of his lack of mobility and athleticism for the position. As a fall back option he might be more suited for the guard position than the tackle positions. Joe D is a HOF lineman. His views on the position are based on his experience as a player and as someone who has coached the position. You don't have to agree with his philosophy on how to approach evaluating prospects for the line without acknowledging that his approach is well-thought out and reasoned. The best players on the DL and OL are players who are athletic and can move. That includes Dareus and Williams on the DL.

For me on this issue isn't about hindsight and gratuitous second-guessing. This issue comes down to how do you evaluate players and positions. With linemen the Bills took the approach that bigger is better even at the expense of mobility. Joe Delamilure (sic) was on WGR last year and gave his opinion that the felt that the Bills approach toward drafting offensive linemen was very flawed. He said that he places more value on athleticism, mobility and the ability to use leverage over big and brawny prospects who have slow feet. If you compare the physical profiles between Richardson and Urschel you are comparing competing physical attributes that go into evaluating a position. If Joe D was making the evaluation prior to the draft his preference would overwhelmingly be for Urshel over the lumbering Richardson. In the same WGR segment Joe D was asked about Kujo. He said that he wouldn't have selected him because he had slow feet and wasn't athletic enough for him to react to the quick defensive linemen he is going against. Especially under Nix the Bills had an evaluatiion system that was biased toward one's physical profile. His evaluators in tune with his approach very often favored the bigger prospect over the smaller prospect who was more productive on the field. Under his physical profile evaluating system Nix would prefer the classic sized EJ Manuel type qb over the smaller Russell Wilson when evaluating them as prospects. I consider Ozzie Newsome to be one of the best GMs and talent evaluators in the business. His drafting of Urshel after our drafting of Richardson is a good demonstration why his team has been immensely more successful than ours.

One organization drafts a player in the same round but after us who is more pro ready because he played in a more pro style program in college By the end of his rookie seaon the former Penn St.player is playing as an accomplished player. The Bills drafted a player who played in college in a system that doesn't translate well to the pro game in the same round ahead of the Penn ST. drafted player. The end result is that in his rookie year he is so overwhelmed that he is yanked off the field and anchored to the bench. Which organization do you believe made the wiser draft selectiion?

I thouoght Kevin Everett who was drafted in the third round out of Miami was going to be a good TE. His tragic injury on the field cut his career and almost his life short. He had appealing physical tools but it didn't result in much production on the field. Gronk was a physical risk prospect who was available for us in the second round. His history of injuries in college made us and many other teams reluctant to drafting him. He was the best TE in the game last year but his reckless physical style of play made it a challenge to keep him on the field. In my mind his return to the field at the end of the season was a very big factor in rhe Pats getting to and winning the SB.

The best blocking TE we had was Paul Seymour, a college OT. He was a very good blocking TE for OJ. The Bills drafted Tony Hunter two picks ahead of their selection of Jim Kelly in the first round. As you noted the Bills have not been too successful in identifying good TE prospects. Clay may turn out to be at the top of ranking of a very nondiscript list.

It was enough of a point for you to repeatedly argue over.

With respect to the stats you presented for the two years it doesn't matter to me. What is apparent to me (not necessarily you) is that he was an important factor on defense and the team in their SB run. Revis is a max player. The Pats were able to fit him in from a cap standpoint on a rich one year deal but from the way they manage their cap they couldn't do it on a long term deal. On all the teams that Revis played for he played at a very high level. Even on the teams he left he departed mostly because of financial considerations for himself. The Pats were very public that they wanted to keep him but they wouldn'ty deviate from how they managed their cap stucture to keep him. As I stated in the prior post he is a HOF player and a very costly player. The teams he played for were more than satisfied with his high level of performance but from a business standpoint they couldn't/wouldn't fit his expansive constract into their respective franchise's salary structure.

Read my response to Greggy T in post #90 that made the same point that you just made. Chandler being a starter for the Bills is a reflection of a long term flawed franchise.

Absolutely! That's my point. The Bills have had for a very long time had below average qbs. Any receiver (including limited players) playing with an immensely better qb with his new team compared to the mediocre qbs formerly played with is going to be more effective. I don't understand your and others gottcha approach to something that is so obvious. To go further on this issue the Pats to a greater degree than the Bills have been much smarter in utilizing the individual talents of its playlers while also minimizing their limitiations. In my mind they have a history of being a better coachedteam than the historically struggling Bills. Stating the obvious is simply stating the obvious. Without a doubt Chandler was a below average TE in the league. But for a long time he was the best TE on the roster. That is why (the level of talent) the Bills have been out of the playoffs fr 15 consecutive years.

I have never made the argument that he is an exceptional talent. So I don't understand your response. What I have repeatedly stated is that he will be a contributing player and even a better player playing for a team with a good qb and for an organizatiion that has a good record utilizing the talents of players and managing their limitations. How he fits in with the team he left is not the issue. He is gone and signed with a team that wanted him. The issue is how will he do with his new team? I believe he will be a positive contributor. I didn't say that all his drops can be attributed to the inconsistently accurate passers that he played with. He dropped some passes and he made some tough catches. What I have stated is that I believe that he will be a more effective player playing on a team with an accurate passer and an organization that is smart in utilizing the individual talents of its player. There are things that Chandler does not do well, such as blocking. But as a secondary receiver in an offense that very often utilizes multiple TE sets he can be productive and an asset to the offense. Whether there was no role for him with the Bills isn't the issue for me. Whether he can be a contributor for his new team is the issue for me. I believe so.

Revis left teams in pursuit of more money. It had nothing to do with his former teams not wanting him. All the teams he played for coveted him and dealt for him. His departures were mostly due to him pursuing his financial interest. In that respect he is a wise business man.He is a tremendous player who will probably end up in the HOF.

All receivers drop passes. If you are disturbed by the words "tremendous hands" then I will change it to "good hands". As I stated in prior posts he is on the receiving end of a lot of less than precise throws.

Chandler was not added to the Pats' roster because he was going to be an instrumental player.Clearly he is not that type of player. With the Bills he was a secondary player who was less effective because of the caliber of qbs throwing to him. My primary point regarding Chandler is that although he is a limited player for his position that doesn't mean that he won't be a contributor to an offense that has an elite qb who has a tendency to utilize his TEs. Even if Chandler is inactive in some games that doesn't mean that in the games he is active (assuming he makes the roster) that he won't be a contributing player. When healthy Gronk is arguably the best TE in the game. However, because of the physical way he plays his position he does have a tendency to get hurt opening up more playing time for reserves. I'm in no way exaggerating Chandler's abilities. My point regarding Chandler regardless if he would have no role with the Bills is that with the Pats there is a good chance that he would be a productive (useful) player for them because he is playing on a team with a HOF qb and he is playing for a coaching staff that is exceptional at accentuating the strengths of players while managing their limitations. The Pats have a history of successfully using the talents of role players as well as any team does. That is one of the reasons why they win at such a high rate.

He will be a more productive player on a team whose qb is an accurate passer and who has a tendency to go to his TEs. Gronk was the best TE in the game last year so let's not get silly with your comparison. Even as a non-starter I'm confident that he will be a contributing player for the World Champs. Their coaching staff is much more adept at utilizing their players' individual abilitites to a greater degree than most teams do.

What you don't mention is that the qbs throwing to him during his stint with the Bills were in general inaccurate. His getting open has little to do with his quickless, which he doesn't possess, but his ability to react to plays as it develops and get to the open spaces. Being a target because of his size is another way of saying that he is taking advantage of his height. That isn't something to scoff at; it is an attribute that should be exploited. No one is suggesting that he is a high end starting tight end. What I and others are saying that although he has limitations he also has assets that can be better utilized in a system where the qb is accuarate and there are more two TEs sets, as it exists with the Pats.

In my view Gilmore is on the verge of being an elite CB. If he doesn't attain that lofty category at the minimum he will be at the doorstep of the caliber of player all GMs covet. I never understood the reluctance to embrace his talents. Even when receivers make plays on him he is usually around the ball. He played with a broken wrist and played with a cast, essentially playing with one hand. He still played well under the circumstances. There are some people who down-graded the importance of the position. That never made much sense to me in a game where the rules favor the passing game. Under defensive inhibiting rules you need even more talented CBs to slow down the production of the advantaged passing game. There is hope that there is a changing attitude toward CBs. If NYC Bill can belatedly and reluctantly become less of a critic of Gilmore then anyone can change their perspective towards that critical and most challenging position.

As you stated there are limitations to Chandler's game. On the other hand there are strengths to his game. He has tremendous hands and he gets open.Even when defenses know that he is the secondary receiver on most pass plays he has an uncanny ability to still get very open. You don't think that those assets will be utilized by one of the most accurate passers in the game who has demonstrated a tendency to utilize his TEs? Chandler is a very earnest blocker who is better screening the player he is blocking than moving him. Maybe the fairest way of viewing him is not as a conventional TE with receiving and blocking responsibilities but viewing him as an in-line big receiver who gets open and catches the ball. Small deals that make you a little better are smart and good deals.