vincec

To this point in his career, Peters is one of the most overrated players in the league. He has had one good season. He is basically living off of his potential as a young athletic player who has a high up-side. Everyone is imagining how great he will become when he re-commits himself and has a few more years of experience. He is not great yet. He may become a consistent pro-bowler, but there have been a lot of young players on the brink of greatness before they got derailed. In fact, it's more the norm than them making it. Either way, Peters basically forced the Bills to trade him. At least Graham got that part right. The Bills got good value for him, so it is what it is. Maybe both teams will benefit or maybe neither, we'll see how the next two of three seasons pan out.

Yes. It's Scott + Simpson that are going to be relegated to utility roles or released, not Donte. There are many worthless "journalists" out there.

So, if Vinatieri is over-rated, who is a "great" kicker? Morton Anderson, who had a strong leg, makes every kick during the season and then misses the one that would put his team in the super bowl? Great players are defined by making the money plays. Vinatieri has made them.

I don't think that Bernie Kosar, Dave Kreig or Drew Bledsoe are in Warren Moon's class... and Moon isn't even a top 10 all time QB IMO.

I like JP. He's got a solid professional attitude. He wants to complete and play, and believes in his abilities. He doesn't want to be the backup, but he didn't cause a major stink when he was relegated. He worked hard and bided his time, but he didn't accept it. I think that's a good professional attitude. He may end up as a career backup, but he's too young and has too much physical ability to accept that yet. I'd make a play for him if I had a spot. Sign him for the minimum and see what he can do in a different situation. What do you have to lose?

This sums up my opinion also. The Bengals O was not the same as the no-huddle. They didn't even call it that. And, as was mentioned in an earlier post, there is no "next level" to the no huddle. The overuse of that term is ridiculous.

I doubt that you can even see the neighbors unless you have a telescope, so who cares about them?

Thurman Thomas. It's easy to forget how good he was...

Well, now that it's only him, his wife and one kid they are looking to downsize... maybe down to 6 or 7 bedrooms.

The players can't be blamed for everything. Coaching does play a part in this game. Unless you think that it's just bad luck that DJ has had one winning season in his entire career and good luck that someone like Don Shula had only 1 losing season in 32 years of coaching. It's just the players that they happened to get. The coaches really didn't play a part in any of it.

Turnovers are not all luck. Defenses that can pressure the QB create sacks (with QB fumbles) and interceptions due to disrupted timing and poor throws. Defenses that get can stop the run create obvious passing downs which lead to better opportunities to create turnovers in the passing game. Defenses that get penetration into the backfield create broken plays and cause fumbles. On offense, teams that run the ball effectively turn the ball over less because they stay out of long yardage situations and force opposing defenses to reduce the frequency of blitzes and nickel/dime coverages. This leads to fewer ints. Also, some backs are simply more turnover prone than others because of their running style (upright) or the way the hold the ball (Tikki Barber before changes). It's a team game too. Teams with strong offenses get big leads and force other teams into riskier play calls to catch up. Strong defenses keep the games close so offenses can play more conservatively. So the Bills poor turnover performance is a reflection on the teams performance and coaching, not simply luck as is being implied.

The Bills have consistently lost their best players, for one reason or another, over the last 10 years. You can't always be rebuilding and expect to win and the Bills haven't. Some of this is the result of the Bills being "miffed", some due to cheapness and some to incompetence. Whatever the reason, the Bills are basically becoming a farm team for the rest of the league.

Strange. I don't remember this one.

A. Critical. They need to show that they can be competitive with New England for their own metal progress. If they get smoked, as they typically do, you'll hear a lot of talk about how it's just another game, but don't believe it. A blowout loss to NE will in all likelihood sink the first half of the season.

Uhh, no. Aaron Schobel, maybe.

Actually I think that the recovery rate for onside kicks is close to 25%, and that's mostly in obvious onside kick situations with the receiving team expecting them. At that rate, you'd think that teams would be using them throughout the game more frequently. I always wondered why teams don't just have the kicker try drilling one of the opposing up men with the ball. He's only 10 yards away. If he hits him, the ball ricochets and the kicking team has a great chance to recover it. If it misses, then it's a squib kick with only a moderate loss in field position. This type of strategy wouldn't be affected by the new rule.

Losman would be a decent backup for a good team if he had a couple of years under their system to settle down and figure things out. Look, if Todd Collins can play a few good games then Losman can as well.

The 1990 team was one of the better SB losing teams ever, that's for sure. However, I agree that the reason the Bills returned to the SB the other years was that the AFC was weak compared to the NFC. They were a better team than they showed in the other 3 games though. They played like crap against the Redskins and ran into a Juggernaut in the Cowboys. I argue with my friends about this all the time, but I honestly believe that the 1992 and 1993 Cowboy teams were the best teams ever to play- strong in every area, particularly the OL and DL; tons of speed and big play personnel at the key positions.

I'm fairly sure that #2 and #3 are Vince Lombardi.

Now that would be funny. As an aside, what does it say about NO and the NFL that they are thinking of adding a player with an outstanding arrest warrant out for him? Do you think NO even knows this?

I think that your post is the revisionist history. Peters was under contract and refused to attend mandatory camps as well as the preseason. He wasn't ready for the regular season and that obviously hurt the team. All of this was done in order to get more money. As an incentive for getting the Bills to renegotiate his contract early and pay him at the top of the league for his position, he offered... nada. His approach was, "either give me what I want for nothing in return, or I will only put forth the minimum effort even though am under contract and I don't care if it hurts the team." If the Bills would've paid him it would've set the franchise back 10 years in terms of their negotiations with their other players. Any player with a good season would be demanding renegotiation and holding out. That's no way to build good team chemistry or a winning team. Can you imagine the Patriots or Steelers agreeing to something like that? Peters is a very strong player, but the Bills had no choice in my opinion. He basically forced them to trade him.

Whoa, looks a little too mathematical for a football post. Are you sure that you weighed the relative importance of each position in your analysis? Maybe you should include a multiplier by position to factor in importance. Some positions, like the lines could be averaged and then multiplied by a factor which takes chemistry into account. Then the entire offense and defense can be summed up and compared. Or you could just use your gut. Mine says that the offense will be much improved and the defense as well. Unfortunately, our division is improved also so I still think we are looking at 8-8.

Still not convinced about the OL. 5 guys, all new or playing new positions with 2 rookies. That's not a line that's going to hit the ground running. Maybe if the rookies can play, if Walker can play LT and if the chemistry turns out to be good they'll be a solid group towards the end of the season.

So we are talking about: Walker - Wood - Hangartner - Levitre - Butler? This is going to be a fiasco. Our line is going to consist entirely of new players or players playing new positions, including two rookies? Given how important chemistry is, I don't see how that is going to work out for this year even if it turns out Walker can play left tackle and Butler can play right tackle, which I doubt. I don't know what other options there are at this point, but it's looking grim. On the other hand, I really like the Shawn Nelson selection. Plus, I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance.

It looks like Langston Walker, although I doubt that he is athletic or quick enough to be successful there. Frankly I guess I'm one of the few who thought that Walker was playing pretty well at RT and I'm not looking forward to moving him. Chambers looked ok at LT in his few appearances. Bell hasn't played a down in the NFL. I think that Chambers deserves a long look, just to avoid further disruption on the line. No matter what, though, this is going to be a problem position in 2009. It's going to make the Peters trade look worse than it really was.