st pete gogolak

For those of you keeping track at home, the statistical probability of missing the NFL playoffs fifteen years in a row is 0.087%. If my math is right, that's about a 8 to 9 chance out of 10,000. Of course, that's "coin flip" probability. It doesn't take into account management, coaching, having a franchise QB, injuries, dumb luck or thousand other variables. It does, however, point to how staggering it is to miss the playoffs 15 years in a row!

I don't think the article is implying that Hackett is qualified. I think it's implying that Marrone is unqualified to run an NFL offense.

Just out of curiosity, went to Hackett's Wikipedia page. What a joke. He's 35 years old and four years ago (four years!) he was Syracuse's QB/TE coach. Two years as Syracuse's OC qualifies him to be an NFL OC? He is utterly unqualified to be an NFL OC. I'd take Gailey in a heartbeat. I'd take Mike Martz in a heartbeat. If for some bizarre reason, he stays as OC, bring in a Gailey or Martz or someone similar as an offensive "consultant" like they did with Dick LeBeau in 2004. If I remember, that was the year we fielded the #1 defense in the entire league with the immortal Jerry Gray as our DC.

If the Bills had their current team in 2012 and Peyton Manning was released by the Colts and shopping around for a team, I have to believe he would have seriously considered the Bills. Maybe that's what we hope for. It won't be as good a QB as Peyton but if a quality veteran is released for whatever reason (Eli?) and has his pick of teams, the Bills will definitely be in the running to secure his services.

Polian had nothing to do with drafting Jim Kelly. In fact, if you remember an ESPN special a few months ago about the '83 draft, the Bills front office came off as absolute idiots. They had the #12 and #14 picks and liked both Marino and Kelly. So instead of making a determination which one was better or which was more likely to sign with Buffalo (hello - both Kelly and Marino were Pittsburgh guys. Marino went to Pitt, Kelly to Miami. Again, hello!!) they figured one or the other would be there at #14 and picked Tony Hunter at #12. Morons.

Hairston's a free agent after this year. To me, Hairston is one of the biggest mysteries of any Bill ever. He looked great at RT as a rookie, even decent at LT as a rookie. Thought he was going to be our RT for 10 years. Then he missed the year with the mystery illness. I don't recall him ever even being on the field after that. I assume that they don't make an attempt to resign him and Kujo is our no. 3 tackle next year.

So Cincinnati gets a 15 yard taunting call when a player does the money sign in Manziel's face. Manziel flashes the money sign after scoring a touchdown against us. No call. I'm sure there's a reason why one is taunting and the other isn't but if someone knows I'd like to hear it.

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.