JohnC

Did you get an advanced copy of the Wells report? You are traumatized by a minimally under-inflated ball/s used in a game in which the Pats won 45-7. Having a sense of proportion is what is missing here. The Falcons were minimally fined by the league for mishandling game balls by warming them up in an extremely cold weather game. What was the response? You can hear the pin drop.

How have I mischaracterized your frequently stated position on this topic? What findings? The report hasn't come out. When it is finally rendered you won't believe it anyway if it isn't consistent with what you already believe.

I'm not bashing posters for stating their opinions regardless if there is much basis to their opinions. As you pointed out this is a football blog where opinions are freely expressed. Where I am very critical and have been for a long time are with those posters on this manufactured topic who not only express their opinions but repeatedly make claims to the point that it borders on fanaticism. Sometimes zealotry is understandable when there is a reasonable provocation. But when there is little evidence to substantiate the origin of the zealotry and it continues then something is wrong. There is nothing unusual about a Buffalo Bills fan who believes that there was merit to the claim of the inflation issue. Where I do have a major objection is not the position you or others like you make but the repeated claims of cheating when there is only a flimsy basis to it. Your default position is that an accusation can't be fully unproven. That's a twisted way of justifying your excessive responses. So you persisted in continuing to make the unsubstantiated claim over and over even while the relatively short investigation is in progress. Treating such a miniscule transgression, if it existed, (and that is probably unlikely) as if it is an existential issue is absurd. Again, I am not bashing posters for maintaining a position. I am criticizing posters such as you for continuing your never ending crusade against cheating when there is little/no proof. When it gets to the point that you won't even accept the possibility that the person doing the extensive investigation can't make a fair determination of what actually happened then that is another demonstration of your closed mind on this bogus issue. Telling people to STFU says nothing about me and a lot about you. If that makes you feel good then that's okay with me.

You were an unceasing fanatic in your frenzied treatment of this manufactured issue with countless intense responses and accusations. Now your latest response is to tell someone who was correct on this ridiculously exaggerated issue to STFU. That is very unclassy. Having an opinion is one thing. But to continue with your never ending harranguing before there was any solid evidence dealing with the serious charge of organizational integrity demonstrated how off the wall you were on this issue. I'm not going to tell you to STFU as you told me. You are entitled to your opinions even if they are a graphic reflection of your emotional control. .

Haters gonna hate etc!

Some people responded with more than many dozens of responses proclaiming conclusive evidence of deliberate cheating in this over-hyped scandel. Their fanatical reflexive responses will shortly be proven baseless. That will not stop them from continuing their slanderous crusade based on their jealousy of another's success. I have no doubt that those fanatics who have been proven wrong do not have the capacity to admit that they were wrong on this fraudulent issue. When this issue arose Alphadog gave the most reasonable and mature response to this topic. He was lambasted for his reasonableness and sense of fairness. He is owed an apology for the juvenile and harsh responsives he received by those who made assumptions based on their prejudices. The way to success is to work hard and build your own successful legacy. Tearing down what others have accomplished gets you nowhere other than demonstrates how small you are.

Next year Pysk, Kane, Bogasian and Rhinehart will be added to the roster with a top three or four draft selection (assuming we can't get one of the two top prize prospects. In addition, the GM is in position to make a trade for a young quality player ready to play using his second first round pick and added picks and maybe another defenseman as trade bait to get a player for one of his two top lines. Next year the team will have cap space to get at least a few additional solid players to add to the roster. I have confidence in the GM who is willing to make deals to bolster the roster and put this team on a path to be a serious team. If you add a high quality playmaker center such as Rhinehart to the Moulson and Enis line you will get a major increase in production. The stage is set even without the two star prospects for this franchise to make a quantum leap forward.

I don't understand your reasoning. We hopefully got an impact back for a potentially good defensive player who didn't even play last year on one of the best defenses. Not trading picks for a need allows us to address other needs with future high picks. Why do you believe Kiko should have brought more in a trade? He is coming off of a knee injury and he didn't play at all last year. We are getting a pro bowl running back for a player on a unit that excelled without his presence. It's apparent that we disagree but from a Bills' perspective they upgraded an impotent offense. If Kiko plays well for the Eagles then so be it. The issue for the Bills isn't so much what the deal does for the Eagles but it's what does McCoy do for the Bills. On balance I believe that this is good and fair deal for both teams.

Do you think the Bills would have been able to acquire a top tier back in a trade if they didn't give up a player of value? If Kiko becomes a quality long term linebacker the Bills certainly are not going to be surprised. The mere fact that they drafted him in the second round is a realization that they believed that he had the potential to be a starter in this league. The Bills needed to fortify an impotent offense. They got a good jump start in accomplishing that in acquiring an impact back who fits their intended offensive scheme. They traded a potentially good linebacker from a top tier unit that played well without him last year due to an injury. As I stated in a prior post the way to evaluate any player transaction is not from the perspective who got the better of the deal but from the perspective that does it improve your team. If it does then it is a good deal for you regardless how well the player plays for the other team. the other team.

There isn't a lot of blame to go around as you state it. The person solely responsible for his being cut is the player who got cut. Williams was dispatched because of his self-centered attitude and less than impressive work ethic. Mike Williams was a fringe player with a diva attitude. MW was an unproductive player dropped behind a more productice player, Hogan, who even in the limited role that he played, worked harder and was more effective. Tampa basically gave him away for peanuts. When he was cut by the Bills I don't recall any team being interested in him. As far as I know he hasn't signed with anyone else. If he did or does, he will be at best a fringe player assuming he is capable of making a roster. Mike Willians is your typical punk player who perceives himself as being the next Jerry Rice when in reallity he would be lucky to make a CFL roster.

The issue of running or not to run was not the primary problem associated with EJ's performances. The main problem with EJ's play involved his reading of defenses and his accuracy. His decision-making regarding whether to run or not or when to slide in order to protect himself is related to his decision-making and feel for the game. No one can deny that he has physical tools. But those talents don't translate into productivity if you don't know how to play. As bad as Orton was at least he knew how to play. Manuel is to put it in basketball terms is playing a point guard position with no feel on how to manage an offense with instinctive decision-making. With experience he can get better in that area but only up to a point. He is a quality person with a good work ethic. But he has a low ceiling regarding his instincts for the game and his accuracy level will never be consistent enough to be an impactful starter. The question of whether he can be a starter should not be the defining issue. The meaningful issue/question is if he becomes a starter how good can he be and how far can he take the team? Teams that are serious contenders usually have very good starting qbs. That is a level that I don't believe he can attain.

He is going to be the first pick in the draft. As the draft approaches there is little doubt that his behavioral history will not only be brought up but it will be highlighted. It is understandable why he and his family don't want to be subjected to such unattractive commentary. I want to stress that my following comments are me conjecturing on this issue. I have no factual basis for this conjecture: Just maybe it was Goodell who suggested to him that it would not be a good idea for him and the league if the topic of his multiple trasgressions were brought up at the well covered draft. I'm not sure if he was called in to see the Commissioner or he made the overture to see the commissioner but it is possible that his non-appearance at the draft was "encouraged" by the commissioner.

The face of the franchise is going to have more than enough exposure for himself and the franchise at the team's facility the next day or so. If he attends the draft the stories about his "incidents" will be the focus of attention. Why put yourself in that ugly spin machine? Don't be surprised if the Bucs prefer not having him in Chicago so that they also don't have to contend with an ugly storyline that is going to be magnified on draft night. In the end if Winston and his advisors don't want to be there for obvious uncomfortable reasons then he shouldn't have to be there.

You are making up a scenario that is not based on reality. Whaley publicly stated that he was surprised when Marrone opted out of his contract, as it was allowed. Marrone made some requests regarding his staff and possibly relating to his authority. They were denied. But everyone in the organization, including the owner, thought Marrone was going to stay as the HC. Your description of the scene is very much off the mark. The reality is that Rex was fired and Marrone was not. The team that Rex formerly coached was on a downard trajectory while Marrone's team was on an upward trajectory. Marrone's two year record with the Bills was better than Rex's two year record (during the same time frame). Competing head to head Marrone beat Rex more often. In my view Marrone did the right thing in leaving the Bills. He and the GM were not in sync. Instead of being criticized DM should be praised for doing what was right for himself and for the organization. Instead of letting an irreconcilable situation between them get worse (and it would) he cut the chord and moved on. His moving on allowed the Pegulas to choose their own HC and give the organization a fresh start under the new ownership. In my view based on his mediocre record Rex is not a better HC than Marrone. Having a different style or approach in itself doesn't make a HC better or not compared to his predecessor. But that's not to say he isn't a better fit for this organization. Without a doubt Rex is willing to be more collaborative within the organization. The reason why I have so much commented on this topic is that I find the gratuitous distortions of each of these coaches' records objectionable. On the one had the boisterous critics make the claim that Marrone's successes are due to others and his failures are due to himself. On the other hand those same inconsistent boisterous critics make the claim that Rex's successes are his own and that his failures are due to others. Using a dual and flexible standard when making a comparison between the two HCs is patently unfair and illogical. What is good for the goose is good for the gander!

Pete Carroll is one of the most player friendly coaches in the game. He will go to the max in trying to relate to his players and will do everything he can to accommodate players. Even he had to dispatch him from the team in order to prevent him from irretrievably poisioning the locker room. Marshawn Lynch is a challenging personality for outsders to deal with. But within the team and the locker room his teammates admired and loved him. They were more than willing to tolerate his foibles. Harvin is a different brand of person. Wherever he goes he is reviled by the staff and his teammates are less than fond of him. There is a collective sense of relief when he is gone. When your behavior pattern in HS, college and with multipe pro teams is repeated then you have to conclude (obviously) that he is what he is. It is understandable why organizations are willing to be enticed by his scintillating talents, but there should be no surprise when he reverts to his problematic behavior. In one respect I am excited by his acquisition; on the other hand I am very wary of it. For me, on balance it is worth the gamble. But it must be acknowledged that for this type of combustible person the clock is always ticking before the predictable explosion happens.

If DM was such a bad coach then why were the Bills going to retain him? If Rex was such a successful head coach then why was he fired? There is no doubt that Rex is a more personable person and interesting character than the dour Marrone. But let's not allow his more engaging personality cloud his actual record. In the two years that Marrone coached in the league with Rex he demonstrably outperformed him. and head to head beat him more often. Rex is a very good defensive coordinator. But as a HC he is average at best. You may be impressed with his juvenile tattoos, his souped up truck and his bombastic predictions that don't come to fruition but I'm not. If Rex is to do well it is because the team improves its personnel. As demonstrated by his record in Jersey it certainly won't be due to his brilliant coaching.

Let's be clear to what I have consistently said all along. The primary reason for the offense's ineptitude and wretched performance had to do with the mediocre staffing of the OL and qb position. I have never stated that our coaching of the offense was of an elite or even a good level. It was adequate at best. Anyone who watched Orton perform and not come away thinking that he stunk was watching different games than I was. What makes the situation so ridiculous and pathetic is that the HC believed that the middling veteran qb who was glaringly out of shape offered the team a better chance to win than our first round selected qb. What is sad but true is that the unpopular HC was right in his assessment. Anyone who watched our OL play and not come away thinking that the play of the OL was wretched was not watching the same games that I watched. It is not unusual that teams have weak units. But when the weakness are at such a dramatically bad level that you can't mitigate your weaknesses then that is a staffing problem that can't be corrected until the staffing changes. Whaley has consistently stated that upgrading our OL is a priority entering this season. He has stressed that point not because our OL was adequate last year but for the obvious reason that it was blatantly inadequate. On the offensive side of the ball Whaley failed the unlikeable HC much more than the HC failed the GM. That is why the GM is putting a lot of effort in upgrading an offense that was very impotent last year. While most people are directing their harsh criticisms of DM for his misuse of players on offense (mostly OL and qb) my take on the situation is very different. The criticisms should be redirected to the person most responsible for assembling the talent on offense. And that is the GM---not the HC!

The GM and his scouting department evaluate and rank players and prospects. There is no doubt that a HC has some input. But the selection is made by the GM. It's not fully known if EJ was favored by Nix and/or Whaley. But there is no doubt that Whaley was instrumental on evaluating and ranking the qb prospects in that particular draft year. Could you please provide the link indicating Marrone's role in the selection of Chris Williams and EJ? The bottom line is that the GM, not the HC, has the last say on the selection of players.

It doesn't matter what scheme a HC designs, brilliant or not, if the players implementing the offense are inadequate it will not work. Success in the NFL is mostly about talent level. Marrone on offense, most notably the OL and at qb, was working with significant deficits. Whether the qb option the HC had to draw from was EJ, Palmer, Orton, Thad Lewis or Tuel the talent level at that critical position was the primary reason why the offense was deeply stuck in the mud with no wheels. Doug Marrone preferred linemen who were big and bulky over light and quick players because it fit his blocking scheme better. There is nothing unusual about that preference. But it was Whaley who used three draft picks on o-linemen and brought in a free agent to bolster the line. All three rookies were overwhelmed, including the second round pick who didn't deserve a roster spot. The veteran qb that was brought in, Orton, who didn't even work out in the offseason (and it showed) was atrocious. As bad as he was the coaches believed that he gave the team a better chance to win than their former first round pick. That is a commentary on the talent level, not the coaching philosophy. Success in the NFL is mostly predicated on talent level rather than the likeability of the HC. DM got a very flawed team to play up to, if not a little beyond, its talent level. What is there to complain about?

eball, Without any equivocation I say with confidence that our OL last year was either the worst or near the worst in the league last year. I will aslo say without any equivocation that Orton was the worst or near the worst starting qb in the league. Those staffing deficiencies had little to do with the unlikeable HC that you continue to rebuke even while he is gone from the organization. The departed HC that you revile got an 8-8 caliber of team (9-7 record) to play to its talent level. What more do you want? Is Doug Marrone an elite HC. Absolutely not. He is certainly not an innovative coach but he is a legitimate HC who during his stint had his team moving in the right directiion. Compare that to the loud talking HC from Jersey whose team over the past three years was on a downward trajectory and whose record against DM was not very sterling. You don't have to be reminded that Rex was fired by the Jets and DM was not. He left under his own volution. I don't know what the source of your animus is towards DM. He made a decison based on his own interest and was permissable within the terms of his contract. The former HC and the GM had different visions on how to build a roster. Because of that he did what he felt was right for him and his family. In the end not only did he do what was right for himself but he did what was right for the organization. What is wrong with that? Success in this league is about talent. Being a more personable and appealing character doesn't trump talent. eball, look forward and don't let the past weigh you down. It is better to gain satisfaction from one's own successes rather than delight in the tribulations of others who have departed the scene.

I don't want to belabor the point but the Demarco pickup was an unexpected pickup, at least that is what I read and heard from a number of reports. As I stated in the prior post it was Murray and his reps that got in touch with the Eagles, not the other way around. Again, Kelly didn't expect to use available money for another RB, but the talent was too enticing not to explore and bring into the fold. They were in position to sieze an unexpected opportunity, and they did so. Sproles, Mathews and Murray make up a very deep and varied running back corps. If you factor in that their OL is near the top of the league in run blocking then it is probable that they will continue to get a lot of pruduction from the backfield despite the loss of a an excellent back in McCoy. That is the bottom line. Unless the Bills do additional work in upgrading their OL they will get a lot less production out of McCoy (elite talent) than the Eagles got out of him. Watkins is a very dynamic receiver. His talents were very much underutilized because the caliber of qb play was less than mediocre. I'm hoping that that type of scenario doesn't repeat itself for McCoy this season because of a lack of supporting cast (OL).

I disagree with how you are characterizing my position. When Kelly traded McCoy for Kiko he got in addition more cap room to also acquire a DB from Seattle .He was then able to get a good back with an injury history (not as good as McCoy) who should be productive behind one of the best run blocking lines in the game. From what I understand Kelly had no intention in pursuing Murray. It was Murray who called the Eagles and exhorted them to consider a deal for him. The Murray deal was not originally associated with the McCoy deal. It fell into their lap and they seized the opportunity to get a premier back. Where I respectfully disagree with your perspective is that you are collectively viewing these transactions from the primary viewpoint that they overspent on a position. That is not how I am analyzing these transactions. All the players Kelly signed are good value $$$ pick ups. Kiko and the DB they added should bolster the defense and the the backfield grouping of Sproles, Mathews and Murray more than compensate for the loss of McCoy. No one can predict how the free agent market is going to work out. Players come and go on their own volition seeking better deals and organizations respond by letting players go and picking up other players to compensate for the vacated players. The Eagles wanted to keep Maclin but he decided to sign with the Chiefs. The process is quixotic, face paced and to a great extent is uncontrollable and messy. From what I read and heard on the radio it was Demarco Murray who notified the Eagles and not the other way around. It was an unexpected player availability. So they did what good organizations do by seizing the opportunity to sign a talented running back when initially they didn't plan for it. What I find most intriguing about Kelly's dealings is the qb trade he made to get Bradford. Kelly is making a big gamble that he is getting the right qb to implement his imaginative offensive schemes. In my view Kelly is ahead of the curve in a league full of conventional thinkers and followers. Only time will tell whether he is very smart or foolish.

From what I read he didn't expect to sign Murray. But because he made a number of deals and cuts that gave him a lot of cap space he was in a position to sign Murray. With the McCoy trade he acquired Kiko and added a good DB from Seattle. So the end result is that even with the loss of McCoy he has a strong running back corps and he has added players to help the defense. You can't look at his salary dump maneuverings only from how much he is now spending on his backfield. The end result is that he has more depth (Mathews, Sproles & Murray) at that position and arguably isn't very much diminished and his defense is bolstered.

When the free agency market opens up things happen quickly and unexpectedly. Players that you target and expect to sign often go elsewhere. Players that you didn't believe you are in position to get for a variety of reasons become available. Teams that are in a more flexible cap position are in a better situation to respond to the quickly changing market. Kelly put his team in a good position to take advantage of the situation he didn't expect to happen. That is the nature of of free agency.

Kelly knew what he was doing when he made the McCoy deal. He gave up a very high quality back and not only got a good young LB in Kinko but also got enough cap relief to acquire a good CB in free agency. In additon, not only did he sign the back from San Diego there is a good chance that he will also sign Murray, thus fortifying the backfield and to a great extent offsetting the loss of McCoy. From a roster standpoint he is being very creative and courageous in rebuilding his roster. The big gamble he made is in trading Foles for Bradford. That will be the main factor in determing how successful his numerous transactions turn out to be. I'm not suggesting that he got the better of the deal in his trade with the Bills. The Bills did what was right for them and he did what was right for his team. But without a doubt it is very interesting watching Kelly make his many deals and observing his outside the box thinking. He is not a follower of the conventional NFL way of doing business, he is a trend setter.