st pete gogolak

I watched most of the St. Louis - Arizona game last night and it struck me that the Rams are the Bills doppleganger. Really, really good defense. Tremendous front seven. Some talent on offense. Mediocre offensive line. Lousy quarterback. Shaun Hill looks like he should be in an over 40 slow pitch softball league instead of an NFL starting quarterback. Given all of that, why in the world would the Rams cut ties with Sam Bradford? I understand that he's due a ton of money (maybe he renegotiates to lessen the cap hit), but I just don't see the Rams cutting him unless they find a replacement that they think is an upgrade (Griffen, Cutler, neither of which is much - if any - of an upgrade). It also shows the folly of the criticism of the Watkins trade (at least the criticism that we will miss the opportunity to draft a franchise QB. Tell me what franchise QB the Rams will draft after finishing 7-9?

So I'm reading the Tampa Bay Times sports section and they have an article on Jacquies Smith, a DE with six sacks who was picked up on waivers after the season opener. He had two sacks against the Lions and is looking to be a "double digit sack guy" this season. Then I read he was picked up on waivers from the Bills! Is that right? Does anybody remember this guy? I don't. It says something about our talent level when a Bills reject can approach double digit sack numbers. Too bad he didn't play offensive guard.

I'll admit to a partial mea culpa in regard to the penalties (the "big four", ignoring the obvious head butt on Lee Smith that wasn't called even though a ref was looking right at it): 1. Defensive holding on Robey - assuming the call was on A. Williams (again what is basis for this? pure speculation?) it appears to be a very ticky-tacky call. Denver receiver appears to run right into him. Even if flag was against A. Williams still think it was a bad call. 2. Holding call on Kyle Williams. I'll concede on this. Dumb, dumb play. Don't think the guy he was engaged with would have had shot at Graham but it's possible. To me, this was biggest call of the game. If we punch it in from the 20 and go up 10-7, totally different game. 3. PI call on Gilmore. Bad call plain and simple. Ball got there same time as Gilmore. Hit was legal. 4. Call on Graham on Gilmore return. l'll concede on this one as well. Couple of questions. Was play by Denver player legal? If not, why wasn't it called? It's frustrating that an out and out dirty play gives Denver an advantage. Bottom-line, whether deserved or not, the penalties killed us. Incredibly frustrating game to watch.

Really? They got them all right? Please elaborate.

If firing Hackett isn't a possibilty, how about bringing in a "consultant" like they did in 2004 with Dick LeBeau (number one ranked defense that year). Someone with some experience. I'd be happy with Chan Gailey or Mike Martz.

I'm curious what is the NFL's best spin on the four key calls: Robey defensive holding - it was pretty clear Robey didn't commit foul - no PI, no defensive holding, no illegal contact. Speculation that call was on A.Williams and that they just got number wrong. Couple of things about that. Is that random speculation or is that from the league office? Anybody see any film of A. Williams on the play? Also, that seems incredibly incompetent to call erroneously call the number of the guy who just made what appeared to be a great play. Graham pick - holding call on K. Williams. You can see Kyle engage an offensive player. if it was holding, it wasn't blatant. It seemed at best an incredibly ticky - tack call under the circumstances. Gilmore PI - got there same time as ball, legal hit. Is there any spin on this? Just seems to be a bad call Gilmore pic - Graham personal foul - this seemed to be ultimate phantom call. Has anyone seen any film showing anything Graham did which would justify a flag? Doesn't seem like you can spin this either.

OK, one more in regard to Manziel's post-game reaction. Doesn't that end the speculation of whether he was trying to throw the ball or bring it back into his body? He said it was a fumble. HE SAID HE WAS TRYING TO BRING IT BACK TO HIS BODY!! That's relevant - maybe not to the ref's ultimate call, but it's relevant to this discussion as proof that the ref blew the call.

Last post on this because it's clear that I won't change your mind and you won't change mine but you have to admit that it is far, far from obvious that he is following through on his throwing motion when he is initially hit by KW. It is just as plausible (in my mind much more likely) that he is trying to bring the ball back into his body to protect from a fumble. It's obviously a relatively close play. The key is how it's called on the field. It's not supposed to be a de novo review. It was ruled on the field as a fumble. If the ref was following normal protocol it should have been affirmed. For whatever reason, maybe he forgot the tuck rule had been changed, he blew the call.

How can you possibly say it is unrefutable that he is throwing the football when he is hit? It certainly appears that he's actually bringing the ball back into his body before he is hit. Again, that's beside the point, The call on the field was a fumble. There is no unrefutable evidence to overturn the call on the field. Case closed.

So, Cynical, let me put the question to you this way. The "official" NFL position (tuck has to be completed 100%) is clearly wrong according to the rules - only has to be "attempt". Ruling on the field was fumble and touchdown. Are you saying that there was unrefutable evidence in the replay that he was not attempting to tuck the ball when he was hit??? Under the rules there is absolutely no way the call should have been reversed. Conversely, if the ruling on the field was incomplete forward pass, I can buy it not being reversed on review.

First, I don't believe anyone is disputing the fact that Orton is an average starting NFL QB and that having Manning Brady or Rogers would make any OC look about 100 times better - BUT that doesn't give Hackett a free pass or mean that he has any business being employed as an NFL OC. He shouldn't be. Take yesterday's game. We did not run the ball on consecutive plays until mid-way through the third quarter! Granted, we didn't get much traction in the running game in the first half but in the second half it seemed we were moving the pile and picking up 3, 4 or 5 yards a pop. It was maddening to see Orton throw the ball constantly when faced with 2nd and 5 in the second half. My pet peeve for worst sequence. Third and three on Cleveland's 42. This should be four down territory. Run it and see if you pick up the first down. If not, still may be in position to go for it instead on fourth and short. Instead, Orton goes homerun ball to Goodwin with little chance for a completion. Boom goes the punt. Maybe that's on the HC but the formations and play calling all season have been laughably bad.

That's the official NFL position?!!!! That the ball has to be brought back 100% into the body for the tuck rule NOT to apply? So if you bring it back 75% or 90% but not 100% the tuck rule applies??? That's absolutely asinine. Why don't they just admit that they blew the call?

It's too bad that Chris Berman doesn't do the lame nicknames any more (or maybe it isn't so bad). This one is easy. The Marqueis "de Sade" Gray - the Inflictor of Pain!

Also, everyone who is critical of the trade is way overrating a draft pick between 15 and 20 (hopefully where Bills end up). It's a crapshoot whether you find an impact player at that point of the draft. It's not the end of the world.

Is the question, if you use perfect 20/20 hindsight, would Bills have been better off staying at 9 and selecting Beckham? After seeing Beckham play a couple of games, the answer is probably yes. If that's not the question, then the answer is no, it's not clear. I don't remember a single analyst having Beckham as a top 10 pick. If I recall correctly, most had him between 15 and 19. The consensus was that we were looking at Anthony Barr (gone before our pick), Taylor Lewan or Eric Ebron. Would I rather have Sammy in exchange for any of those three players plus next year's no. 1? Absolutely.

The Watkins trade wasn't "folly" (thanks for the insight Jerry) unless you apply total 20/20 hindsight. Yes, if you traded down and picked Odell Beckham exactly one spot before the Giants drafted him or picked Kevin Benjamin exactly one spot before the Panthers drafted him and used the extra pick on a quality guard, and picked a TE instead of Kujo, yes you could have done "better" than Watkins. But neither Beckham or Benjamin was considered Top Ten pick worthy. (No way is Mike Evans there at 9 - that's just fantasy.) I'll take Wakins over Ebron or Taylor Lewan plus the #15 or #16 pick in next year's draft every day of the week.

My favorite short QB was Doug Flutie. Old timers say Eddie LeBaron was pretty good too.

The Network quote is the winner. Great movie. Great rant. And it fits the situation on hand like a glove.

Yeah, that Vince Lombardi guy just never panned out as a HC. Too bad. Sorry, prior post was supposed to be in response to poster who said offensive linemen never make good head coaches. It loses something if it's not in context.

As someone not enamored of the trade (understood the rationale but still didn't like it), I'm ready to declare the trade a win. The real danger in the trade was potentially giving up a top 5 or top 10 pick (irrespective if you're going to use that pick on a QB or another blue chip prospect). Absent a total and epic collapse, that ain't going to happen. So you've obtaining an absolute budding superstar in exchange for Anthony Barr/Eric Ebron and next year's #19 or #20 pick. Let's assume that pick is a Zach Martin type (which is assuming a lot). Would you trade Sammy Watkins for Eric Ebron and Zach Martin? Hell, yes. The trade's a win. You can declare it right now.

Is some of this on Marrone and the ridiculousness of Mike Williams being in Marrone's doghouse? When Woods was out of the game (most of the second half), I saw a ton of one wideout, two TE's and one fullback sets - geez, what is this? 1974? Not only that, you're going up against a good if not great Jet's front seven. Really -you'd rather have Lee Smith, Chris Gragg or Frank Summers in the game instead of Mike Williams? Really? Stupid, just stupid.

Two pressures up against Sheldon Richardson? I'd say that's pretty damn good. This is really an indictment of Marrone. Urbik should have been starting from game one - ahead of Chris Williams, Richardson and Pears. Now we need to get Pears out of the lineup. We got the bye week so it's our last chance to put together a decent O-Line. Cordy Glenn is our long term answer at LT, but he's also our best OL. Can you convince him to play LG for the remainder of the season for the good of the team? Can he? I'd give him an extension with LT money if it eases his pain. I'd move Henderson to LT where he looked very comfortable in preseason. So left to right it would be Henderson, Glenn, Wood, Urbik and Hairston. I still can't get over how decent Hairston looked as a rookie. He looked better than Pears ever did at RT, certainly as good as Henderson looked at RT. If you don't want to move Glenn, can CK play guard at this point? Left to right Glenn, CK, Wood, Urbik and either Henderson or Hariston (not thrilled about two rookies in the O-Line). It was obvious Richardson had to be moved out of the starting lineup. I think it's equally obvious with Pears.

Cordy Glenn is our best O-Lineman and a potential All-Pro or Pro Bowler at LT. That being said, the guard situation appears to be desperate enough to call for desperate measures. Henderson looked very comfortable at LT during the preseason (granted it was preseason). How about a short-term fix of Henderson LT; Glenn LG; Wood C; Urbik RG and Chris Hairston RT. I still remember how good Hairston looked as a rookie and thought, man this might be our LT of the future. It's obviously not an ideal situation but it has the advantage of getting Pears out of the lineup and reducing the number of rookies starting from 2 to 1 (as opposed to replacing Pears with CK and having three rookies OL starters). Again, desperate times call for desperate measures.

Dan LeBatard (who I think is pretty much a jerk) was discussing who is a better receiver - Jordy Nelson or Brian Hartline. Bottom line is that it's not as ridiculous a question as it appears because one has Aaron Rogers throwing to him and the other has Ryan Tannehill. Put the Bills' wideouts on Green Bay and they'd all be under discussion for All-Pro.

He is who we thought he was. . . and we let 'em off the hook!