GrudginglyOptimistic

Making things short is something I rarely do so my apologies for either simply beating a dead horse reiterating points already made with my typically wordy posts or for not reading the whole thread (as I usually do not do since I tend to bop in and out of TSW as I am off blathering on at too great a length in my real job or on other things. I certainly did not pick up from my too spotty viewing of the full thread ant sense that you have a full view of Mr. Wilson (or simply Ralph as I tend to refer to him). Perhaps my spotty reading has only had me stumble across the parts of your fully fair and balanced view in which you are defending him against attacks that do not take into account the good things he has done. I feel strongly that an essential part of the Ralph story is that he performed a necessary element in that he has kept the Bills here when he could have cashed in and moved or gotten a big cash in by moving to some other town like St. L or B-more which paid a queen's ransom to steal the Browns from Cleveland or the Rams from LA. Ralph has never pursued or taken these deals and Buffalo owes him gratitude for this. However, along with seeing this broad truth, i think the issue of more immediate concern and also which sets the tone for the future is a clear acknowlgement that how wrong Ralph has been in the way he has exercised his right to run the team he owns. I think my overly lengthy posts have found fault with any claims such as ones which lay sole or even primary blame on tools hired by Ralph like TD for messing things up. Such a view might be useful in reminding folks we do really owe Mr. Wilson gratitude for keeping the Bills here when he could have cashed in big time by moving. However, it simply departs reality and goes to far to let the memory of the good things he did somehow obscure the truth that he has presided over a team that prior to the late 80s and post the SB years has been run about as badly as any team in the NFL. In particular a bow to reality must acknowledge that It was Ralph alone who could make a handshake deal with Jimbo that was simply a bad misread of how much he had left and set the course for over a decade of stupid QB tricks some of which seem to link in a pretty direct way with Ralph's bad work. True some of this seems to link pretty directly to poor work by TD, but even these fauz pas only demonstrate Ralph's failings in that it seems pretty obvious in retrospect he shold have checked and balanced TDs failings as many of his stupid activities seem linked to his efforts to make sure no HC he hired would suceed in running him out of town like Cowher did. Mr. Wilson is clearly a mixed bag in terms of the outcomes of his work, but Ralph seems to be clearly screwing the pooch big time in the past decade of action. I am glad you agree with this fuller fair and balanced view of Mr. Wilson/Ralph!

No, I am saying that under our system he has the "right" to "meddle" as much as he wants to. However, I am also saying that just because he has the "right" to do this does not make it the right (meaning productive or producing good things) thing to do. Ralph has exercised his "right" of ownership of this team to do generally what he wants. The problem is for those of us who want to see this team do well in terms of more Ws and fewer Ls is that what he has wanted to do have led to: 1. Him personally making a handshake deal with Jimbo to reward him in future deals when he (and Butler as well since it at least happened on Butler's watch) in reality had no future. Ralph simply blew it when he made this football assessment as thanks to Jax when a comatose minded Jim was wheeled off the field the reality which could be seen by all, but was ignored by Ralph and those in charge in his struggling leadership in his last season. This error which had Ralph and Ralph alone fingerprints all over this handshake deal kept the Bills on the same course which did not see them either draft or acquire as an FA a credible replacement for Kelly in 1994. In 95 they reached a bit and took TC in the 2nd and then rushed him into a starters role to try to replace the fallen JK when he at least needed another year to try (if they could) train the happy feet out of him. It seems ridiculous to me for anyone to try to absolve Ralph of any blame for the any of the Bills post Jimbo QB reign of errors or attempt to lay the blame solely on TDs doorstep when it stemmed from the from a demonstrably wrong misassessment of how much Jimbo had left which had Ralph's fingerprints literally all over it since only he could make a handshake deal with Jimbo. Arguably Ralph as a "right" to meddle in making this deal (though ironically, this handshake deal actually violated on the face of it the salary cap and I GUESS is part of the reason his HOF entry was delayed) as he is the one who ultimately signs the checks, but to the extent that bludgeoning of the QB situation (rushing TC along, trading for Hobert, giving a guaranteed bonus to RJ AND signing an incentive laden deal with Flutie which when RJ proved to be injury prone and Flutie performed like AJ thought he would forced us to extend Flutie and still have a huge cap hit locked up at QB, and on and on through the mistaken extension of Bledsoe which TD led us off the cliff into) it all goes back to Ralph's handshake deal. 2. Again I am saying Ralph had the owners right to meddle in this series of QB miscues such as acquiring Hobert, signing both deals with RJ/Flutie, etc. but also see that a good chunk of these mistakes were not the right thing to do demonstrably at all. It is an irony that in fact Ralph would be guilty of malpractice as an owner if he simply allowed TD, Butler, and whomever make this QB mistakes without any significant input from Ralph (my GUESS is that Ralph had his fingerprints all over the handshake deal but likely Butler also made the bad assessment Jimbo would survive as a player to have a future contract so though this was demonstrably a Ralph led decision (no one else had the authority to make an off the books handshake deal). My GUESS is that the lead fault for each miscue was stretching for TC and rushing along- A Butler led mistake to deal with a Ralph led misread of Kelly, Hobert- a Ralph led error since significant Bills resources like trading a 3rd, signing him to a big deal and then cutting him with a huge loss with Marv doing the public dirtywork was likely a Ralph led miscue but I may be wrong and it was a Butler led miscue but somethings led Butler to simply screw the Bills and Ralph when he left so something pissed him off and if he had led the Hobert misread I think he already would have screwed the Bills and his jumping ship to SD would have been piling on that did not fit the situation and seeming trust Ralph gave Butler in his final season. The foolish dual signing of RJ/Flutie which set the Bills on a track of overcap allocation to the QB spot when RJ was guaranteed and Flutie hit his incentives- I think this miscue had multiple cooks as AJ and Butler thought Flutie was good enough to hit the incentives and Butler/Ralph had to be pivotally involved in a decision to guarantee the RJ contract. The Bledsoe deal was actually a good move to acquire him as we had nothing at QB when he walked into town, his first year record was demonstrably good but the mistake seemed to be a TD led effort when his contract was stupidly extended when we should have simply counted his work here as a wash with a very good first season and a very bad second season. There were tons of other miscues in our decade plus long search to replace Jimbo but the bottomline should be that Ralph was all over a bunch of these decisions and it makes little sense to blame someone else like TD for all of them. 3. Whatever in that one can try to trace blame to Ralph on any particular decision and in some cases one would be right and in other cases one would be wrong to primarily blame Ralph. My main point is that what would clearly be wrong would be to blame Ralph for all of the decade+ long disaster, but one would be equally wrong to exonerate him of all sins in how this team managed itself over the past decade +. It's Ralph's "right" as the owner in our system to "meddle" if he chooses, but it is pretty clear that in particular with the series of QB choices that though Ralph had a "right" to meddle his meddling proved time and again to be the wrong thing to do if your goal is to produce a lot more Ws than Ls.

Its makes little sense if you are rejecting the concept of Wilson having significant blame for the hiring of GW and MM because you view TD as the one who made the hire. Do you not agree that: 1. A key job requirement of a GM is having the ability to hire a good HC and TD was a Ralph choice who failed twice in picking an HC who could handle the HC job. The results achieved by GW and HC are real world indications that Ralph failed miserably at the job of hiring a GM. 2. TD may have done the picking of an HC, but Ralph signs the checks and it is difficult to believe he had nothing to do with the hiring and in fact if he did this is probably evidence of not being involved enough as an owner. 3. Another key part of Ralph being an owner is setting up a system that provides appropriate checks and balances for the team. He failed utterly at not having a check and balance for an obvious and human problem TD gas. The HC he hired in PItts ran him out of town. TD seemed to pick HC who along with some good things on his resume also clearly had failings (lack of previous HC chops which seem to lead him to pick a young staff which lacked experience so he could be the top dog with no older hand around. The owner needed to require TD to get some experience around even though TD himself seemed to fear having top notch lieutenants around. In hiring GW he chose a man who was quite beatable if he fought the GM and thus he proved pretty beatable as a coach is as well. Ralph screwed up badly not only in hiring poor HCs (a major if not his major duty to measure the quality of Ralph's success or lack thereof in hiring, but he failed to produce a system which created a good dynamic tension as he had done with the Marchibroda/Marchibroda/Polian groupinng. The issue you seem happy to not consider at all is a clear indicator why Ralph is a nice guy to have as a father figure but lousy as an owner of your team for your team.

One needs to recognize however, that the facts simply are that the NFL is a long way away from what folks think of as a classic free market. In a classic free market, there is actually open access to capital which does not exist in our society where capital is concentrated among a narrow stratus of the population. it is no where near as bad as what you have in communist systems where the entire state and its wealth are really controlled by relatively small elite that using a claim of power for the masses this small group exercises totalitarianism, but the US based system of an alleged free market begins to look alot like its communist rivals or even the old royalty models as folks named Bush or folks named Clinton seem to be passing power back and forth. The NFL had a pretend free market up until the mid-80s when a small group of owners used their power to simply kick the snot out of the NFLPA led by Ed Garvey. However, a smart bunch of NY lawyers joined together with a college educated group of workers and threatened the owners with simply dissolving the NFLPA as a fellow conspirator with the owners to restrain trade with the NFL draft and rules such as one which banned adults from signing contracts until their age group would graduate from college. The NFL owners were confronted with the potential that they would have to operate in a truer free-market and negotiate individual personal services contracts with each player. In the face of a more true free market, the owners ran to sign a new CBA which restrained and organized trade. The irony is that the individual owner makes more money than they could image under the new CBA which arguably makes the players a majority partner in the deal. Tagliabue and the other owners beat down Ralph and the other old guard owners that wanted a system where they could at least pretend to be a free market. Instead the NFL opted for a more collective (shall I say socialistic or even communistic) system where the players cut of the tal gross receipts is 60.5%. Sure the market defined the NFL because the market is what is. However, the concept that the NFL is anything like what people think of when they use the phrase "free" market is an illusion. The real money is produced when one has the stable product a controlled, collective, or more socially interactive market is created.

Wilson is the owner and under our system has every right to "meddle". The problem is he has meddled poorly. Like it or not he ultimately signs the checks and he is responsible for both the successes and the failures. Thus he bears a huge amount of the blame for the O for the decade run. He has a pretty clear record it seems to me of him personally doing stupid things. He completely misread how long Jimbo's career would last and it was only him who made the "handshake" deal with Kelly causing the Bills to pay him a million in walk away money (flat out violating the salary cap in doing so and my GUESS is that this is part of the reason it took him so long to win the popularity contest of getting into the HOF). Ralph's stupid handshake deal triggered a decade of Bills screwing up trying to find a new Jimbo (some of which Ralph had to have played a key role in making the decisions such as trading assets for Hobert and the dumb deals with two starting QBs with the cap collision of RJ/Flutie- if Ralph actually did not participate heavily in these decision that in itself is owner malpractice). Ralph deserves credit for keeping the Bills here when he could have left for more bucks. However, along with this recognition of reality needs to be a recognition that Ralph has led a total screw-up of actions the last decade from his horrible management of employee relationships with Polian, Butler, Wade, MM, TD eventually etc. Fish rots from the head down and so does an organization as well.

The local media and a vocal element in the fan base are not mature enough to deal with a QB controversy and would create such disenssion that it would hurt the development of both QBs. I do not see the Bills fostering this.

Not since it became obvious from his play that this diamond in the rough is at least a couple of years away from being starter quality (if ever).

This issue flagged the key thing this season will tell us about TE: Is he injury prone? I have set an objective standard for myself in hitting the player with the injury prone label: Has he missed playing time for 3 or more games to different types of injuries in his career. Some folks like Kelly or Favre have a nagging injury to the same body part that can cost them PT but if they are tough they muscle through it or the training staff pads them well to protect the damaged body part. However, the classic injury prone case was Rob Johnson who would light up the world and get us all hyped up but then in a game or two a seemingly normal NFL hit would result in some new malady like a broken collarbone, s joint injury or something that would cost him PT. In his rookie year, Edwards missed a couple of games with a an ankle (I think that was the body part). Ok, its the NFL and things happen (of greater import to Edwards, JP took advantage of the chance and led the Bills to several wins in a row and could not be benched though the coaching staff wanted to) The next season was followed by him getting stung in pre-season and losing some valuable practice (he is a young player afterall so every minute of PT can be useful). he missed a game and some practice, Regular season saw him miss a couple of games (and seemingly have a slow recovery) from sustaining a concussion in a game. Well maybe the pre-season injury does not count. On the other hand he does have a record of losing some PT to injury in college and as said even though if it was the regular season he apparently could have played, but missed PT at any point is critical for TE. The jury is still out but I live in fear each time he gets hit. We will see.

Its hard to tell where things went off track in terms of the Peters/Bills relationship as we on the outside are not privy to their conversations. My sense of where the Bills FO and the Peters relationship went the way of the Ralph/Butler or Ralph/Wade relationships (two examples of like it or not Bills management not keeping a positive relationship with their employees which is known as good leadership in some circles) is that things seemed to be a positive relationship with good public encouragement and strong goal setting for Peters by Mouse MacNally and Peters responding with outstanding results on the field when he maneuvered outside interest in signing him off our PS into a roster spot, proved to be unblockable on ST, and then performed the hard work needed to switch positions from TE to OL and won a roster spot as our starting RT. I am not sure what happened but Peters continued to produce on the field winning the LT slot and performing well enough he won the popularity contest of a Pro Bowl slot, but somewhere as this happened the Peters/Bills relationship went off track and his performance suffered in most objective judgments and perhaps at the end of 09 it will prove true that he is in fact the fat slug that some claim he was in the past (when demonstrably he worked hard and achieved great things on the field from 04-07. The real irony here is that if Peters does turn out to be the slug athlete that some loudly proclaim this is also a declaration that his agent Parker is even better than those who have been impressed with him feel. If Peters turns out to be an idiot then kudos to Parker who read the Bills correctly that if he stood up to our FO he could get them to cave and send Peters to fools like the Iggles who would give him the 6 yr./60 million deal to this moron, My summary of all this is: Peters- likely mortgaged a career of amazing achievement on the field from his UDFA TE stint to an onfield demonstration of potential LT greatness. However, he turned into a slug allowing fiscal issues to cost him good training time and a positive attitude and this appears like it may cost him a potentially great career. Hard to label him a complete loser in this though as he is crying all the way to the bank. Iggles- Big potential fools who at best will pay a lot for play that better remain Pro Bowl great for the Iggles to even break even on this deal. We'll see but initial word does not look good for them. Bills- Totally mismanaged development of an employee who had really produced big time on the field early in his career. Jury is still out on whether the replacement retooling of the OL will work. I remain grudgingly optimistic it will produce good results this year (the best bet is that we are so aggressive and good at WR we force opposing Ds not to be able to throw complex stunts at our youngsters- the no-huddle may help) but realism indicates this may be another year without playoffs and we have a 2010 season plan at best. Parker- The hands down winner in this fun fest. He made a great read of the Bills FO after they caved to Schoebel when he skipped voluntary practices after they made a stupid deal with Kelsay that he could pull the same game after the Bills FO made a stupid deal with Dockery (and maybe with Walker but we'll see). He also read the market well that he could get someone to come running to the Bills who were running in fear from Peters to deliver him exactly the deal he wanted. If Peters proves in fact to be a stiff this year, then Parkers' stock goes even higher. Amazing.

This is an interesting factoid if it is in fact true. It actually undercuts the argument that the Bills were merely upholding the agreement which Peters being of sound mind and body made. If the Bills in fact paid him an extra mil for the new job this a pretty direct admission that the Peters RT based salary was too low for the LT work. If this is true it takes the Bills away from arguing from a position of morality to merely arguing over the issue of how much it costs for the Bills to re do his contract off timing. Its like Noel Coward long ago asking some socialite would she sleep with him for a million bucks (this was real money back then) and she sheepishly admitted yes. He then asked her would she sleep with him for $20. She said no what do you think I am. He said we just determined who you are, now we are just arguing over the price. A million bucks a year over the general RT market rate seems to be pretty small potatoes for a starting LY (not to mention one able to win the popularity contest of the Pro Bowl). All in all it looks to me like the Bills FO screwed up the relationship with their young LT (by clearly overpaying the LG and probably their RT at the time) and then added injury to the mismanagement by not maintaining a good relationship with their new found LT who made the Pro Bowl. They added further mismanagement in my view by then giving Peters a result which gave him his financial goal after he pouted and sat out voluntary practices. I think it was not a good sign for the Bills FO at all that Jackson took the same route of pouting before he got his new contract (I wonder whether the Bills caved again) and now Maybin and his agent refused to sign for quite a while (I wonder whether his new deal is off the slotting set by other draftees, I do not know). At any rate, my guess is that other agents quickly saw from the Schobel and Peters examples (and maybe Jackson and Maybin) that the move if you want to maximize your bucks is to stand up to the Bills and they will give you what you are demanding.

My recollection of the events and timing is slightly different. I do not remember exactly when Peters made the switch to LT (whether he had more of a full season at LT in 07 or more of a drive-by where he showed promise) but even if he did not start there for the full season it came on top of him starting all 16 games at the tackle position in 2006. He had achieved phenomenally and worked incredibly hard to grow from being a UDFA TE to being what Mouse MacNally called the most talented OL prospect he had ever seen (which given whom JMac saw up close and personal is saying a lot. Would it be unprecedented for the Bills to rip up the contract of a player so soon after they signed him. You bet. However, if they set a precedent that in the future they would rip up every contract of a UDFA signed at one position who became a starter at another position who then became a starter at a third position and made the Pro Bowl at that slot, I think the Bills or any team should be content to give new deals to all the other players who score the same achievements. The problem is here that the huge (and clearly mistaken in one case) contracts that the Bills signed with Dockery and Walker do not simply make it a travesty for them to give Peters a new deal. These stupid contracts actually make it imperative that the FO make a new deal for Peters or at least bow and scrape to him if the cap does not allow them to do a new deal. Granted Peters got more money than he had even dreamed of with his new RT level deal with the Bills. However, the reality is that this athlete became clearly the third highest paid OL player on a team where he was clearly the most highly acknowledged and generally agreed after the 2007 season to be the best OL player on the team. Unless one has some belief in Dockery, Walker, Butler, Fowler that virtually all the rest of the world does not have quite early in 2007 (if not 2006) Peters was the best player on our troubled OL but was compensated as the third best player. In the face of these facts, the Bills could take a high-handed approach and simply say ha ha too bad for Peters, or instead they could have made public statements and behind the scene individual statements that timing does create oddities (or if they were real men they would own up to the fact this team overpaid Dockery badly enough they eventually cut him). Instead the Billd made public statements about Peters having to wait in line and in fact said they would not renegotiate a new deal with him yet. The simple facts are the Bills negotiated badly with their OL (or do you agree with the Dockery contract) and then tried to live with this mistake by not paying Peters a Pro Bowl LT contract when he played at a level which won him a Pro Bowl nod. Why anyone is surprised that Peters/Parker took a stance which said pay me for my performance when the Bills had a clear history of both overpaying for non-performance in the case of a player like Kelsay (or Dockery more to the point) and also a demonstrated history of tearing up recently signed deals and giving a raise because they were overpaying another player (Schobel getting a raise after Kelsay)is beyond me and I think beyond reality. I agree if the Bills want to say to Peters and to the public that the salary cap and their contract faux pas with players like Kelsay and Dockery precluded them for paying for performance for Peters when they had no contractual obligation to do so. However reality dictated they crawl across glass and not be high handed at all in making this case.

I think it is silly that folks seem to want to give the players a free pass on the idiocies of the system and instead want to blame these excesses on the agents taking over the sport. Unless folks did not notice, the agents are mere employees of the athletes and pretty clearly in the big picture and almost always in the small picture an agent acts on a players direction and even behalf or the market does not allow him to represent players for very long. This is a very small market and universe of active contracts and word seems to travel pretty quickly as to which companies do a good job of delivering the cash and representing a player. Individual relationships do vary and players CHOOSE different agents to represent THEIR views and interests. However, the irony is here that these coddled and spoon fed boys who are the athletes who DECIDE whether to sign a deal or not have little experience except in one thing. Usually since choosing a high school these players do have significant experience in choosing a college program and a college HC to serve their interests in getting them to the point where they are selecting between various companies to represent them. Agents are an important tool in this process but make no mistake they are tools and employees of the players. In fact, if they are not providing a layer of insulation between the athlete and the public's view of who is driving the negotiation the agent is likely not doing a good job at a part of his work. No free pass for the players in taking responsibility for the way an agent does his work.

If the clubs want to blacklist Parker they will need to do so by not rolling over like the Bills did and deliver just about everything Peters wanted by trading him to Philly were he got the long term $10 million annual cap hit deal he said he deserved. Parker represented Peters to a result where he not only cashed in to the maximum reality could have offered, but he did so with a minimum of rancor as the Bills caved without many a cross word being said by Peters or Parker. There is no way that the NFL is going to stand-up to the positive advertising it gives Parker by giving in to the players goals after the Bills overplayed their hand by trying to hold him to the RT level contract he signed before he made the Pro Bowl as an LT. The real irony here is that if Peters in fact does turn out to be the dog some whiners on TSW accuse him of being or he simply has bad luck with injuries this will only increase the validity of Parkers's claims to being a super agent as he not only got a huge payout to a player under contract but got a huge payout for a bum. Parker is the only one guaranteed to come out of this as a winner.

I think that "internationalization" (as you call it) is actually the best hope for the Bills remaining in Buffalo. if the NFL goes international then: 1. Not only does it take the immediate stress off capital needing to buy an existing team as there now would be several other franchises available based in other countries, but it enhances the value of an original AFC team remaining its its original town to link the "new" league with the old traditions. 2. As far as internationalizing goes, Toronto is one of the obvious places to go in terms of a large market already familiar with our version of football. The concept of a Buff-Tor Bills team which Ralph is playing with right now is a possibility (or Tor-Buff based on market size. More likely Toronto is a big enough population base and the Bills have the existing 55,000 season tickets (an asset not to be blithely tossed away unless one is a fool) that the default is most likely two franchises in the two towns. If anything Toronto is most like NYC that its population base might eventually allow it to support two teams so one in TOR and a nearby separate one in Buff is not a big stretch. The mutual existence of thriving franchises in Buff and Tor in the struggling NHL shoes that this can be done. My sense is that if the NFL goes international it makes it even more clear that the client base in not simply the resident town but actually is a global market of eyeballs glued to TV screens. In this world, the advantages of the historic Buffalo connections to the founding of the AFC greatly outweigh the limitations of this being a smaller market.

It really depends on what the overall Bills O strategy is and with that last stinker of a starting O performance, with the failure of the starting O to establish an effective O scoring game, with TOs injury, the wildcard of Lynch being suspended to start the season, and Schonert having marginal success running a smashmouth O and the Bills now being built (sort of with this young OL) to be an attacking passing game, ya got me as to what the O strategy is going to be. My sense is that the Bills ought to throw caution to the winds, make 3 WRs their base O and in that case I would probably cut McIntyre as I am going to go with 1 RB a lot. The other effect of this would be that you do need to employ the fullhouse backfield some of the time in short yardage and goaline situations. However, my answer to this would be to go with more of an H-back approach and my TEs would need to have the flexibility to play FB when needed. I do not see the Bills doing this as a way to deal with going with no FB, so my since is that McIntyre stays, though overall this strikes me as a bad idea. McIntyre has some skills but is not great at any one facet of the game. If he is the sole FB we are dependent on him not getting hurt or nicked badly in this season which is too much of a hope to bank on. My guess is we keep him for special needs but in doing so sacrifice some depth and also hold a chunk of our playbook hostage to his health and play quality. If true this is not a smart approach. I like it if he is cut as it really commits us to throw the ball deep, but depend on the speed of our WRs and not a likely fatal reliance on the blitz pick-up to throw deep.

Its the internet who says I am a man?

The thing I do not see is why anyone thinks that if Jauron were canned that Ralph would not go forward and make a decision for a new HC with roughly the same MO of high character failure. The common denominator for all the Bills FO failures since the glory days is one and only one guy. 1. The innards of the early 90s Bills teams are set when Polian and Ralph collaborate to pry open Ralph's wallet and draft and sign Bruce. Director of scouts and personnel John Butler also contributes to Bills glory with a great call to get Thurman and a host of other acquisitions of HOF worthy talent and even the hiring of wildman Marchibroda as the OC. The era begins to screech to a halt when Ralph in what pretty much seems as a personal move by him cans Polian, the good news is that the ball has started rolling down the hill and takes a great long run before it is knocked off track by a series of bad football decisions that Ralph has his fingerprints all over. 2. The Bills completely miscalculate how much Kelly has left. Some of this falls on Butler as they waited at least a year too late to draft a replacement for Kelly and ended up stretching to pick Collins (in retrospect hindsight is 20/20 and his career was long enough that a first day choice seems reasonable, but clearly he was from a running school at U Mich and he needed another year of training before he was asked to run a pro offense and we paid for rushing him to start with him having happy feet). Ralph personally miscalculated badly by making a salary cap violating handshake deal with Kelly to reward him in his next contract (my GUESS is this is part of why it took him so long to make the HOF). He ended up paying Kelly a million to simply walkaway without a stink when he got concussed by Jax out of the NFL. 3. Ralph signed the check and had to play a role in the idiotic decision to get Billy Joe Idiot when it became clear the rushed along TC was not gonna make it. 4. Ralph also had to have played a central role since he wrote the checks in the decision to sign Flutie to his incentive laden deal (a good move IMHO) but then stupidly hand RJ a wad of guaranteed dough to be our anointed stater when we had promised Flutie a fighting shot. This stupidity set up a situation where if RJ proved injury prone or failed (one could see from his record in Jax he might be well be injury prone even though he was talented. Ralph signed contracts with RJ and DF which essentially doomed the Bills to a cap disaster if RJ got hurt and DF played like AJ Smith thought he could. Ralph cannot reasonably escape blame for this disaster. 5. The general though is that it was Ralph who completely soured the situation by forcing Flutie to the bench and then starting RJ whom he over-invested in against an Indy team which simply gave up when it became clear from the scoreboard that they were not going to improve their playoff position in that game and Indy LB Bennett ended his season that game. RJ shredded an Indy team going through the motions and lost the last playoff game the Bills have seen this decade. 6. Ralph totally mangled and mishandled the resigning of Butler his last year here, Even if you want to blame the now dead Butler for playing Ralph, Ralph handled the relationship such with Butler that he wanted to play him and he had little plan B if he had even seen Butler playing him. 7. Ralph canned Wado (who deserved to be canned after he publicly gave up with 3 games left to play) but stupidly then tried to appeal his way out of paying him. Everyone told Ralph he would lose and he lost. 8. Having bollicksed up the GM/HC situtation, Ralph then hired TD. Not bad in terms of football knowledge and negotiating balls but horrendous at HC hiring as the last guy he hired Cowher ran him out of Pitts. Clearly having pledged this would not happen to him again, TD hired Administrative Assistant GW to HC the team and together with one hand tied behind their backs (if not two hands) they mismanaged the team leading to GWs firing. 9. Next was the Mularkey episode and this disaster wrought by TD and Ralph leading to TD getting the boot. 10. is the Marv/Jauron debacle- What makes anyone thinks that the results would be any different if Jauron got the boot?

I agree that Schoebel and Kelsay are inadequate pass rushers. A big part of the fantasy that you describe though is the belief that the problem will be solved if the Bills simply get better pass rushers. If this is true, the potentially the problem is solved now that we got mutant pass rusher Maybin. I do not think so. The problem strikes me as the Bills still are not running a D scheme which allows the players to do the limited things which they can do well. The fact remains it seems to me that Kelsay and Schobel are better suited for a run-blitz scheme of the type LeBeau/Gray were building before they got the boot. Merely pointing out that Schoebel/Kelsay are not the sack/pressure DEs we need for the cover 2 scheme we run is obvious but pretty pointless without a plan to do something about it. Maybe Maybin can provide the sack/pressure we need from the DE and Ellis can become a credible back-up to Maybin but in the interim it looks to me as though we are a couple of years away from cycling through the Schoebel/Kelsay contracts and can make a personnel switch. We are then a year or two away from training the new personnel to be what they need to be. Unfortunately, if you want a winner this year and probably even next the better part of valor would be to go with a run/blitz than try to use Schobel/Kelsay for something they ain't at all.

Off hand I would say no. It has consistently been the case that the Bills FO sees something in Kelsay's production or potential production that I (and a long growing cadre of loud typers on TSW do not see. This is fine as I know for sure that the Bills braintrust has forgotten more about pro football than I can remember. This probably goes double for many curmudgeons on this board. However, there are several wrinkles which have emerged which make this seeming long shot a possibility: 1. Even with us going even more clearly to a DL rotation which creates more spots for significant PT on the DL, we have seen production in the 3 exhibition games this is season from other players which make at least a strong bid to be part of this rotation. Specifically, the DL candidates for the 8 likely slots are: Schoebel- definite due to contract, NFL stature (as seen by his Pro Bowl nods even if undeserved in many TSW opinions, and the potential that if healthy the rotation should help his game a lot. A definite keeper with only an injury to his arm (rather than the ankle which cost him PT last year) raising any doubt whatsoever that he will not occupy a spot. Stroud- Good play on a sorry DL last year earned him a contractual bonus and thus he is a definite keeper. Williams- Surprisingly great achievement with a cheap investment for this second day pick who became a credible starter for us (in part because the competition at DT was so bad)- a likely certain keeper Maybin- First round pick brings mutant pass rush abilities which is the big missing element on this DL- a definite keeper Spencer Johnson- Probably merely an adequate player from all I have seen in terms of play and statistically, but adequate should be good enough to win a DT slot on this team (see Kyle Williams) in the rotation we are gonna mount which has more talent on the outside than inside so far and the outside talent has clearly failed to produce in the immediate pressure on the passer game. Not a definite but a quite likely keeper. Denny- He actually has shown a enough of the field that the long-term extension he won did not seem at least weird (or outlandish which Kelsay's deal did). In Denny's favor, this DE has also demonstrated ability to line up at our weak DT position and his best game in the last few years was a 3 sack game. I know some folks want to get rid of him, but on the face of it since he can line up at DT and he at least has produced the one sackmaster games he has it all over Kelsay as a likely keeper. He disappointed folks early when he was simply unplayable as a rookie, but he was so easily defeated by even a pedestrian OL opponent because of a specific problem he has been cured of (apparently he did not bend his knees properly on the attack and his strength could be easily neutralized his rookie year). He demonstrably has solved the problem and brings some value to the rotation in specific areas we need. This makes 6 of 8 likely or definite with Kelsay not yet making the list. Two slots should go to 2 below A. Kelsay B. Bryan- on the active roster last year and has produced sacks/pressures so far this pre-season and has looked OK against run (our starters have not looked good but the second unit has looked better against the admittedly weaker opposition. C. Ellis- has also shown some of the sack/pressure chops which made us interested and done well enough standing up to the run in his later game stints. He is of particular interest to us in that he plays a potential same role as the mutant Maybin and thus makes us less dependent on his health and also lessen us being typecast depending upon which personnel we have on the field. D. McCargo- The only thing keeping him in the mix is the fact he is a 1st rounder still in his first contract. The Bills even concluded a deal to get rid of him but had it reversed when he failed his physical. He appears to be working hard but almost is certainly trying to impress others as he is quite likely to head elsewhere despite our weakness at DT. I think it is likely though that Kelsay makes it unless Bryan is the odd man out. Even with this equation it is not unlikely that the Bills keep 9 DL players (particularly if Schoebel is hurt) and McCargo is the man on the outside.

My sense is that there is some general resentment of these athletes for getting a king's ransom to play a boys game. Add to that Schobel throwing a bit of a hissy fit when already under contract he sat out all of the voluntary minicamps when the FO stupidly signed the worse performing Kelsay for a ton more than Schoebel was under contract for. There is some resentment, but the difference is that the FO simply caved for Schoebel but then drew a line in the sand for Peters. Peters ran with the Schoebel model as he never said negative things about the Bills he simply refused to show up for voluntary practice and then escalated to not show up for mandatory practice when the Bills refused to negotiate. In the end though, just as they gave Schoebel the cash prize he demanded so too did the FO give Peters the cash result he demanded. Now Maybin and his agent made a special effort to push the Bills FO around. I suspect that as the Bills FO demonstrated their willingness to cave to a players cash demands both in the case of Schoebel and Peters we likely will see more Bills FAs doing what Maybin appeared to do and what Jackson appeared to do when negotiating with the Bills FO. Schobel set the precedent though. I think even fans who do not care about this or understand the contracts still feel underlying discomfort with the way Schoebel pushed the Bills FO around.

I think Graham's overarching point is a good one, but it does make the mistake of prescribing too broad of a solution based on his good point which ultimately leads to your post which also I think makes too broad of a point. Should we NEVER take into account or make any mention of sacks allowed or some other subjective stat? No! Such a broadbrush response would be silly and when this type of approach is broadly applied in other situations (or in other sports as you do) the oddity of such a general rule becomes clear. However, as much as folks may hate to do it as it does not lend itself to short pithy posts, I think the proper response is to utilize stats such as sacks allowed or even INTS but to clearly understand that these stats are generally not conclusive of anything with adequate accuracy, but that they are useful as INDICATORS of what may be the truth. In this light, the sacks allowed stat may well be an indicator of some problems wth Peters game at LT. However, there is a pretty long list of counter indicators (such as the huge contract Philly gave him that put real money where their thoughts were, the very good rushing yardage the Bills RBs stacked up behind his blocking, other OL players like Dockery being clearly found wanting in that the Bills would not hold onto him because he would get a roster bonus, alternative explanations for the sack totals (potential breakdowns by other players which MAY explain the sacks, and even him winning the Pro Bowl nod from his peers and fellow coaches (this is ultimately a popularity contest and also is not conclusive but it is a real indicator as knowledgable folks are making the popularity judgment) which to me are quite strong in total countervailing indicators that Peters was far better than the sacks allowed # indicates.

Granted there are the special cases (a Parcells for example and maybe a Gibbs though he sucked badly in his last outing with the Skins getting outcoached by non other than Jauron in one of our too rare victories) There are also seem to be examples like Rich Kotite who not only coached a team to a horrendous record but some how got another HC shot after sucking and sucked again. However, history seems to be even fuller of coaches who like Marv positively sucked in his first stop and then earned HOF status with his Bills gig. Even the best Xa and Os HC around Bellicheat just sucked in his first go round with Cleveland, demonstrated his marginal character by publicly accepting and then pulling a Sarah Palin in his next HC go round and proving lucky that Bledsoe got hurt so his great pick of Brady could lead them to victory). The bottom line is that most coaches are capable of winning in the right situation but also the same talent can suck in a different situation with same coaching skill (look how great Lombardi was with GB but simply mediocre at best in DC. Most coaches seem quite capable of both winning or losing badly depending on the situation. I agree with you for example that Bill Walsh is one of the great one, but I also realize he actually never accomplished what I think is necessary for an NFL HC to be ranked as a great which is to win in different places or very different situations with different personnel (I consider Gibbs to be one of the greats despite his late career faux pas as his two Skins teams were quite removed from each other by time and the personel he had to employ). Walsh one of the best O architects and game schemers, but he never proved his greatness by being a pro success except as an assistant elsewhere. For the Bills, if one is looking to establish a losing habit and it was Ralph who hired eveyone of the Admin losers who produced the 0 for the decade run.

The big problem with this strategy is that it would not be effective. The players clearly became a partner with the team owners when they forced the owners to agree to the CBA when they threatened to decertify themselves as a union in they forced the owners to either compete in a truer free market system negotiating individual contracts with individual players or instead acknowledge the NFLPA as a partner in together forcing individuals into the more communal system of a player draft. The owners chose a more socialistic system (small s here and small c above) rather than take the free market. This was a rational choice for the team owners as the system was far more stable under a more socialistic system than it would be under a free market and stability meant an individual team owner making far more money. The current CBA produced a result which saw the NFLPA not only become a partner but arguably the majority partner as they eliminated by agreement the concept of a designated gross as the portion of the owners take dedicated to the players to guaranteeing 60.5% of the entire gross receipts to the workers salaries. The agents are not really in control of anything here (they are merely employees of individual athletes and they are not organized like the NFLPA union to collaborate on strategy and thus they are a tool rather than a power- a well-paid tool but they are not in charge here). The IMHO to understanding this is to know that the agents will not really be controlled (and thus the rookie salaries will not really be controlled until the majority partner, the NFLPA decides to control them and reaches agreement with the team owners on this point. The irony here is that since the owners are in the midst of making a push to force negotiations with the NFLPA by reopening the CBA early as is their contractual right, it actually is likely to stall off an agreement to change the salary cap to lower rookie salaries. The NFLPA likely will not want to muddy up their current dueling with the owners by giving the additional leverage over whether they want to agree to a salary cap revision. its interesting economics (an anti conventional wisdom ideology) to me but likely an issue for another day.

It is totally true it can be done in a rookie year. However this fact does not mean that a player who showed little his first year pr even with bad showings his forst two years cannot become a productive player in his third year. There is no need to panic and cut Hardy even after a less than productive rookie year.

I too prefer a player who is reserved and acts like he has been there before. However, my preferences are simply mine and as long as its not done in a way that draws a taunting penalty or is some me-first pre-meditated act like the Sharpie and TO at his worst I have no problem at all with McKelvins antics. Its a team and it takes all kinds and different players have different attitudes and roles. I think a good team has room for the just prove it on the field Bruce Smith work, the hyper enthusiasm of a Talley, the quiet rock leadership of a Kent Hull or the antics of Jim Kelly even had a role. McKelvin's histrionics were juvenile, but the key thing is whether he really means it or not. The folks I hate are the ones who have learned how to fake sincerity. I like enthusiasm that does not go over the top and draw a flag. Sp McKelvin is an idiot until he makes an actual play consistently in real games, but that is fine with me.