Cash

No more Batavia Party Zone? That stinks. I always got a kick out of seeing that banner on TV.

At least we're not the only team with an embarrassingly pathetic offense. The Jets' last drive was a decent bit better than our last 2 drives, but still really really bad. At no point did I get the impression that there was any chance of the Jets scoring to win the game. In fairness to the Jets, they were playing the Ravens, who are bringing back most of a historically great defense from last year. But is anyone surprised that the Sanchise isn't living up to the hype? He's a 2nd-year QB who was promising as a rookie, but ultimately bad (like almost all rookies). He'll have a couple of nice games this year, but he's not ready to start winning games with his arm yet. If I had to take either Edwards or Sanchez as my QB for just 1 game this year, I'd probably go with Sanchez, but I'd have to really think about it.

Nah, he just needs 5 Hall of Fame O-linemen, giving him 8-9 seconds to throw every time he drops back. Then he'll be a B+ quarterback.

A little embarrassed, but used to it. The team isn't any worse this year than they have been. What new taunts can opposing fans come up with that I haven't been using for 3 years? I'm mostly resigned to idea of the Bills sucking at this point. I didn't even feel all that bad after the loss yesterday, because I was so mentally prepared for it, both leading up to the game and while watching the game itself. That's not to say I was hopeless while watching the game. When we scored on that 4th and 11 play, I had some legitimate hopes that we might win the game or at least force OT. But there's a difference between hopes and expectations, and while my hopes were up, my expectations were still zero. One good drive can't erase years of ineptitude from Captain Checkdown.

Yeah, McKelvin looked like a guy who deserved to be drafted #11 overall. Florence actually looked real good, too, and McGee only had like 1 ball thrown his way in the 2nd half. Our secondary is definitely legit, although we already knew that. And truth be told, the coverage units on special teams looked pretty good as well. I was very concerned about them after the preseason. And I thought Roscoe looked like his old self returning punts. Those are all of the positive things I'm able to say about yesterday's game.

Mortensen used to be a good reporter, but his sources seemed to have dried up, and his recent track record has made him a laughingstock. Schefter is a very good reporter who still has excellent sources. Neither's opinion as an analyst is any better than the average fan. ESPN tries to blur the line between reporter and analyst as much as possible, but there's a big difference between guys like Mort/Schefter/Clayton and guys like Allen/Golic/Hoge.

How exactly is Miami's gameday performance affected by Bill Parcells going from VP of football operations, with a GM underneath him, to a consultant, with that same GM now more empowered? Even if Parcells is some kind of football sorcerer, shouldn't his magic spells be about equally effective, since he's still employed by the team?

Any time my favorite team hires a head coach who: 1.) Got fired from his last job, which was offensive coordinator, 2.) has no other job offers pending, 3.) had 1 previous stint as NFL head coach, where he was a bit of a national joke, and was fired after 2 seasons, 4.) has gone 12 or so years between NFL head coach gigs, 5.) never won a bowl game in 5 or so years as a college head coach, then I'm going to need to see a winning record before I give him any credit or confidence whatsoever. Just a longstanding rule of mine. Hope he works out, but let's see it. Words are meaningless; nearly every coach talks a great game, regardless of how bad the on-field product is. Gailey's resume/track record is very underwhelming, and a few nice drives in preseason aren't enough to counteract that. And what's unfair to Gailey is that we got so burned in 2008 that even a hot start won't win me over. I'll hop on the bandwagon when he mathematically clinches a winning record.

I doubt it was a factor. If Wang was a higher-profile player (maybe 1st round, or plays a skill position), maybe. But for a 5th-round pick at an essentially anonymous position, who in China is going to buy his jersey?

Didn't TO last year show people that regardless of how much talent you have at WR, you need a decent QB to have a successful passing game? Vincenzo's a very good player, but he's not going to turn Edwards into Rivers. Now, if the Vikings went and got him, that would be a pretty good move for them.

During every actual game, I will want the Bills to win, be happy if they win, and be upset if they lose. But from a "take a step back and look at the forest" perspective, I think we may be better off next year if we went 1-15 this year. Another 7-9 year might be just enough to give Edwards 1 more year, or maybe we just miss out on any blue-chip QBs in the draft. 7-9 isn't a strong indication that we have the right coach/schemes/personnel, but it's decent enough to give them another chance. That's how we wound up with 4 years of Dick Jauron. Maybe it's just because that regime has left a bitter taste in my mouth, but I think the team is better served by spectacular failure than another year of mediocrity. Doesn't make sitting through it any more palatable, though. Here's a slight variation on the question: Would you rather: A.) The team goes 2-14, but in entertaining fashion, i.e., losing 42-37 on amazing last-minute drives, lots of highlight reel plays by both teams, the Bills are aggressive and go for gambles, but we almost always come up a little short, or B.) The team goes 7-9, but it's as listless and boring as Jauron Ball. More 6-3 wins (and losses), the team never takes a chance on offense or defense, the highlight shows gloss over all of our games. For me, it's A. At least then I'd feel like we've got something to build on.

I think I'm keeping my expectations for Maybin as low as possible. I.e., I'm assuming he'll be an abject bust until I see him do something useful in a real NFL game. This way, he has nowhere to go but up.

Actually, most of the time the QB stays on the field, but lines up as a wide receiver. I assume it's because if the defense sees the QB running off the field, they'll substitute a very run-oriented defensive package.

Honestly, people. Schefter is a respected NFL reporter who has an excellent track record. He has two sources who say that "the Bills had ongoing discussions this summer regarding Leinart." He also apparently has a source that says that the Bills are interested in trading for Leinart right now, but it's not by itself a good enough source to merit printing that in an article. Chris Brown works for the Bills and is obligated, at times, to serve as a corporate mouthpiece for them. Consider also that Brown cited no Bills source in his denial of the rumors, and the denial was posted on his blog, not as an article. This is about as weak a denial as you could possibly see. Now, just because Schefter isn't the drooling boob that some posters are making him out to be, doesn't mean that we'll be trading for Leinart any time soon. Even the ESPN article that mentions us specifically states, "Buffalo is unlikely to make a trade for Leinart because the Bills are uncomfortable about bringing aboard the quarterback's contract, which carries a $2.485 million base salary this season and balloons to $7.36 million next season." Which makes perfect sense. Why would we trade for a guy who's stunk in preseason, has never particularly been good, and carries a high salary? Plus, given Leinart's crappy preseason, can anyone really say with confidence that he's actually an upgrade over Edwards? It makes a lot of sense that the Bills would've discussed trading for Leinart extensively over the summer. It also makes sense that they'd be much less interested now, even if talks are still continuing in some form. But all of this head in the sand stuff, where they'd never even dream of thinking about even talking to the Cardinals about Leinart, I don't get it. I don't need to be a pro coach to know what I've seen in Edwards over the years. And I can't believe that the front office could be so sold on Edwards that they wouldn't explore options for an upgrade. I realize that 2 good preseason games has gotten a lot of people back on the Edwards bandwagon, but enough is enough. This is Trent Edwards, not Peyton Manning. Don't get so upset when it turns out that our team would prefer a better QB. That's actually a really encouraging sign. I don't want my team being complacent at the most important position in football.

I think ranking Edwards ahead of Matt Moore is pretty generous, based on last year's play. And while Delhomme was definitely worse than Edwards last year, I'm surprised that Clayton didn't rank Delhomme higher based on his past success (he certainly took pre-2009 success in account when ranking Brady above Brees, or Roethlisberger above Rodgers). All in all, this was a pretty positive Edwards ranking from a neutral observer. Nice to see Clayton finally showing the Bills some love.

To be fair, McKelvin was also great at both in college, just better on punts than kicks. He's been great on kicks in the pros (last year's opener notwithstanding), but underwhelming on the few punts he's returned. I'll be surprised if Spiller or Jackson get thrown out there on KOs, but I expect Spiller to be the primary punt returner at least part of the year. Maybe only if Roscoe gets hurt, but we'll see. Back to KOs, I'd love to see my main Terrance McGee back out there, but I guess that ship has sailed. Too bad, because supposedly he's still game to return kicks if the coaches want him to.

Being out of town and with no streaming capability of late, I haven't seen much of the Bills this preseason. Does anyone have a good bead on who will be back on kickoffs once the season starts? I would think McKelvin would be the primary guy, but the only thing I heard of him in training camp reports was that he dropped a ton of punts. Anybody got a clear idea? Also, have we been mostly putting 1 guy deep with a lead blocker (like in most of the Bobby April era), or having 2 returners back with no real primary (like in the previous DeHaven era)?

RFA. The Bills chose not to offer a tender, which was surprising to many. I am glad they let him go, though. I don't like being forced to root for dirty players.

A Bills fan ragging on another team for losing the Super Bowl? Pardon me while my head explodes.

1. Editors write headlines, because headlines have to fit the layout of the page, and editors are the ones who arrange stories on newspaper pages. Reporters hand in completed articles, but don't find out what gets edited (or what the headline is) until the articles appear in the newspaper. Even though we're reading the article on a web page, where space/layout is no longer a consideration for the headline, the same headline will typically be used for both web and print. 2. Depends on your interpretation. I interpret it as saying "the remarks were somewhat unjustified, but not totally." One could argue that the proper way to express such a statement would be "the remarks were not fully justified," but my counter to that would be that emphasis and implication matter. And by phrasing the headline in that way, the editor is emphasizing the lack of justification. In other words, starting from the assumption that most observers consider the remarks not justified, rather than starting from the opposite viewpoint. Grammatically, I have no problem with the headline, particularly since it's in sports journalism, where all style rules get relaxed to an extent. Good sports writing usually won't have as formal a tone as good political or economic writing.

Outstanding! Is there a higher-res version anywhere?

I agree with your last sentence, but not your first. Here's the quote from Gailey (via Chris Brown): “No, I’d rather [Trent] make the right read. And I have to give him enough opportunities. If he checks it down, it’s not him, it’s me. If he throws it under four yards every time, we’re not doing the right things to get people open down the field,” said Gailey. ”So I want him to make the right reads and go to the right place. And if we’re not getting people open, then we either have to get different people or we have to create better schemes to get those guys open.” “Nobody can throw it laying on their back or running around for their life back there. So our protection has to get better.” Gailey goes out of his way to deflect all blame away from Trent. I understand that he wants to give Trent every opportunity to succeed, and that means propping up his confidence, etc. I get that. But by refusing to acknowledge the very real problems with Trent's game, Gailey just keeps reinforcing them. Implying that Trent has consistently been making the right reads is just nonsense, and I hope Gailey knows it. You can't tell me that a checkdown on 3rd and 13 with no pass rush is the right read. I think Gailey's attempt to protect Trent by putting the blame on himself (and the O-line) is only going to hurt Trent even more in the long run.

Wow, I've never heard a coach express confidence in his team before. I'm sold -- playoffs here we come!

The real problem is that, under Jauron, we weren't just bad, we were MIND-NUMBINGLY BORING. The Williams and Mularkey teams were mediocre to bad, but in much more entertaining ways. We don't have a lot to go on in the Gailey era, but the early returns suggest more boredom: No downfield passing game, Captain Checkdown at QB, trying to draw the other team offsides then calling a timeout instead of going for it on 4th and inches, etc. Hopefully those early returns are wrong. The losing is bad enough without also being boring. Last year's Cleveland game was about the biggest waste of 3 hours in my life. Even worse teams, like St. Louis, were more fun to watch. So basically, until we do something interesting, I can't fault non-Bills fans for saying they don't want to watch Bills games. I wouldn't either.

Yup. Give the pollyannas their due: On this issue, they were dead on. All of us haters look foolish.