hondo in seattle

Roland Hooks. Coming after OJ and before Cribbs (and, at times, playing behind each of them) he tends to get forgotten. Hooks scored 4 TDs on his first four carries against the Bengals in 1979 including this amazing beauty: Then there was the 1980 game against the Pats with the Bills fighting for a playoff berth but losing to the Pats with 35 seconds left and no timeouts on their own 27. Hooks makes a phenomenal catch while getting nailed to gain 37 yards. The Bills run up to the line of scrimmage. Fergy snaps the ball before time expires and heaves the Hail Mary to the endzone. Hooks grabs the deflection to win the game. The Bills went on to make the playoffs with Cribbs injured and Hooks starting most of the rest of the season. http://www.nfl.com/videos/buffalo-bills/09000d5d8208e9c1/Hooks-Hail-Mary-catch He could have been a starter on some teams.

Years ago, most teams built their offenses around their workhorse RB. Now most teams build their offenses around their QB and run the ball by committee with RB specialists (a between-the-tackles back, an outside back, a short yardage back, a receiving back). In the 1950s, RBs won the Heisman 9 out of 10 years. But QBs have won the Heisman 13 of the past 14 years. While rushing attempts are not down tremendously in the past 15 years, they are down a lot if you look deeper into the past as the focal point of the offense has transitioned from RB to QB.

I was just involved in bidding on a company that was controlled by a trust. The process isn't as straightforward as some might think. At least, it wasn't in this case. Different bids were structured differently and so it was hard to truly compare apples to apples. Several bidders were eliminated early because doubts about them securing financing or the necessary approvals. Each of the bidders in the top 5 were told what the trust didn't like about their bid and we were allowed to restructure or increase our offers.

Let's see, we have an unproven head coach, an unproven OC, a new DC with a new scheme, a new LB coach, a new QB coach, a new Assistant OC, an unproven QB, maybe as many as 4 new OL making the squad, a bunch of young WRs, a few new starters on defense... Put that in the blender, hit the button, and what do you get? I have no idea. But under the circumstances, I can see why most in the national media are not predicting a winning season. Too many unknowns. And that's why I think this season will be especially fun to watch.

Whatever we think of Sammy's potential (or his value as a draft pick), it's interesting to see what Whaley is doing here. Last year he got himself a young, coachable QB with - hopefully - a high ceiling. We have a stable of good backs so the team doesn't need to depend entirely on the kid's arm. Whaley and Nix have collected a bunch of speedy, mostly tall, talented WRs who seem to have potential. And this year we drafted 3 OLs to protect the young QB. IF Whaley is right in his talent evaluations, this offense will be good for years to come as EJ develops chemistry with his young wideouts. There's not a ton of proven talent on this offense... but it oozes potential.

Great post.

$1.27B Pegula

I think Moulds, at his peak, was on of the best WRs the Bills have ever had. I think Sammy is more athletic than Moulds and I'd be thrilled if he could match Moulds' '98 season.

Here are two interesting sources... The National Congress of American Indians represents, I believe, about 3/4 of the Indian tribes in American and they are vociferous in their condemnation of the name. That suggests a "significant number" are offended by the name as I asserted earlier. And the Oneida Nation did a poll just released asking people in the Washington area if American Indians have a right to feel offended if called "redskin." 52% said yes. You're right, Dan Snyder and most white folks don't have a problem with the name. But even Miriam Webster dictionary says the usage of "redskin" is "usually offensive." The Cambridge online dictionary says it's "offensive." WordNet's online dictionary defines Redskin as an "offensive term for Native Americans (Synonyms: Injun, red man)." Dictionary.com says the term is "often disparaging and offensive." The MacMillan Dictionary says it's "offensive." Et cetera... "Redskin" - by definition - is offensive. Can you imagine if all NFL teams had names like this; Houston Spics Buffalo Honkies Detroit Darkies New York Kikes Etc. I get that "redskin" isn't offensive to every American or even every American Indian. But it clearly offends some and I don't think those offended are unreasonable. And I think the more we stay away from racial epithets, the better our society will become. It's simple. Names that promote unity and pride are good. Names that promote racial stereotyping and divisiveness are bad.

I don't see this as political correctness run amok. Names matter. Labels matter. My dad fought in WWII. His generation used words like "Kraut" and "Jap" to refer to their enemies. I fought in Desert Storm where many of our soldiers called our enemy, "rag-heads." It's easier to kill an enemy you have first demeaned. None of us wanted to kill "Mo" who had a wife and three children waiting for his return back in Baghdad, but we didn't mind killing rag-heads. It's not just political correctness to avoid using works like "Sp*c," "N*gger," K*ke," "Go*k," "Redskin" and so on. The more we use pejorative labels (and, yes, many find the "Redskin" name pejorative), the more likely we are to mistreat the group so labelled. Mexican farm workers used to be called, "migrant workers." Now the people in favor of deporting them label them, "illegal aliens." This is no accidental change of verbiage. It's hard to be in favor of deporting a family of migrant workers. It's much easier to get behind deporting illegal aliens. A significant number of Americans feel the word "Redskin" is demeaning and racist. As such it promotes certain negative behaviors and mindsets in certain people. America becomes a better place for everyone when the pejorative labeling stops. Change the name! Confucius observed: "A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. He knows if names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success... Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately."

Before seeing the choices I was ready to vote for Houston. But... Yikes!... there are a number of teams with unsettled - if not downright hopeless - QB situations!

And what would have happened if we had drafted Butkus in 1965?

I think ST will be the poorest performing unit on the Bills and Crossman will be fired at the end of the season. So, yeah, I'm worried.

Conan is paraphrasing Genghis Khan who said: “The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.”

H&A, good find - that was better than the average football article. Favorite quotes from the article include: "The Titans are defined by multitalented players who are effective in different styles. The Titans used eight-man fronts to stop Jacksonville’s running game in the season opener, then played a cover-2 defense to thwart Cincinnati’s passing the next week." Pettine is sometimes described as a mad scientist who's always trying something new & unexpected while Schwartz is supposedly a conventional 4-3 guy. In fact, Schwartz may be more creative than some people give him crediit for. This is encouraging too: "Belichick regards Schwartz as one of the smartest coaches he has been around." There is one finding from statistics that worries me: "the best predictor of future success is past success." Schwartz's track record as a DC is hardly unblemished. I agree with NoSaint, it's going to be interesting to watch what Schwartz does with the talent he's been given.

Yes, Hackett was in over his head. It was essentially his first year in the NFL. Marrone, a former OC himself, should have spent more time with Hackett (Doug later admitted this himself). Sometimes the team didn't seem prepared on Sundays. Sometimes Hackett's play calling was suspect. I'm not sure why he rarely called screens and it was frustrating to watch his inability to create space for CJ. While Spiller was dinged a bit, I think most of the reason CJ's YPC dropped from 6.0 (2012) to 4.6 (2013) was Hackett's flawed schemes and play-calling. As a first time OC, Hackett should not have been trying to be OC and QB Coach at the same time. Especially when our roster had only rookie and inexperienced QBs on it. Just being a OC in the NFL is demanding enough. And our young QBs deserved a full time QB coach. Having said all that, let's give the man a chance. Let's see how much Hackett's learned in the past year. Hiring a QB coach is a good sign and Marrone says he'll spend more time with Hackett and the offense this year. A more stable QB situation could help Hackett too. Few people are big successes in their first year on the job. I'm hoping Hackett has a much better sophomore season and eventually blooms into a great OC.

Marcel's talent is very hard to replace. And his infractions, not to make excuses, are relatively minor. He was caught with imitation marijuana (which, depending on the composition, might actually be legal in some states). And he was caught racing. When I was an officer in the army, I was also caught racing. While I got my ass chewed on three separate occasions by three different higher ranking officers, I wasn't thrown out of the army. Driving too fast doesn't make you a bad person or a bad teammate. And what NFL team ever cut a player for one fake marijuana arrest? Marcel is immature to be sure. Hopefully Marrone can help him grow up. I think a suspension might be in order to wake him up and send a message to the team. Cutting him would be perceived by his teammates as an over reaction and, in effect, punishing them by making wins harder to come by.

Wow, I love your optimism! But not one of these guys is a proven NFL star. With Woods only bringing in 40 receptions last year, you could argue that Williams in the only proven NFL starter. There does seem to be a lot of potential in our WR corps, though, and it will be interesting to see who develops their potential and who doesn't. And I do think/fear we'll witness both those possibilities.

I never watched the game. I was in Desert Storm at the time, deep in the Arabian Desert. I had one of my soldiers who was on "radio watch" scanning a short wave radio looking for news of the game. He woke me around 3am and told me he heard on the BBC "Voice of Freedom" that the Bills had won in the final seconds. I was bouncing off my tent walls but quickly glued myself to the radio to hear for myself. When the truth became known, I wanted to puke and have shunned the game like it was a case of ebola.

Jim Kelly ($5) – Clearly the best QB on the list and maybe the best leader (Jack was good too). Freddy and CJ ($2) – this is great value. With the Electric Company blocking for them and a real passing attack to complement them, Freddy and CJ would be an awesome duo! (Assuming a good OC). WRs – Eric Moulds ($4) and Lee Evans ($1). With Kelly as the QB, Moulds – at his peak – would be as productive as Andre. Lee’s speed will stretch defenses and give defenses matchup problems – do they put their best DB on Moulds and let Evan fly by their next-best DB? TE – Scott Chandler ($1). I need to save some money here but Kelly would use him well. For a mere $13, I think this would be a great offense. DEs – Aaron Schobel ($3) and Ron McDole ($2). Youngsters don’t remember how good McDole was but maybe it’s enough to point out that he was named to the second-team of All-Time AFL Team. At $2, he’s a bargain. Schobel had a solid career but never reached his full potential because he wasn’t surrounded by tons of talent. DTs - Kyle Williams ($3) and Pat Williams ($2). Both players are great value. Apparently this game is set up to run a 4-3 and we need 2 DTs. LBs - Jim Haslett, Shane Nelson, Isiah Robertson ($1). Good value and gets me two members the famed “Bermuda Triangle” (Haslett and Nelson – the third, Smerlas, was too expensive at $5). Corners. Nate Clements ($2) and Mario Clark ($1). I think both offer good value for their price. Safeties. Jairus Byrd ($3) and Leonard Smith ($1). Both offer good value. Oh, crap! That’s $31. I’ll need to convince Russ to open the purse strings a little wider this year.

But this comes from a very small sample. How many 37 year old NFL QBs did they actually analyze? It's easier to be an outlier of a small sample set than a large one.

We need a new stadium mostly because the NFL says we do. Otherwise, I don't think the stadium is vital to the financial viability of a NFL franchise in Buffalo. TV revenue is shared equally among the 32 NFL clubs. So are NFL licensed products. Together, I believe, they account for something like 70% of a team's revenue. Even gate receipts are shared with, as I recall, 60% of ticket sales going to the home team and 40% to the visiting team. What the Bills make at the Ralph is only a small portion of their overall income. The sale of luxury suites is a big thing for teams because I believe the home team gets all the revenue from luxury suites. In Dallas, for example, that can be a very big deal. Nonetheless, thanks mostly to revenue sharing, the Bills pulled in revenues of about $256 million last year (despite not fielding a winning team since woolly mammoths walked the earth) which is average-ish and more than viable teams like the 49ers, the Vikes, Chargers, Chiefs, Falcons, Raiders, etc. Our new owners can make more money somewhere like L.A. where they could fill more luxury suites. But they'll make money in Buffalo too, regardless of what happens with the stadium debate.

Polian's opinion is interesting because obviously he knows both the NFL and Buffalo. I believe if Poloncarz keeps his mouth shut, he's not doing his job as an elected official. He should advocate for Erie County because the future of the stadium - and the fate of the Bills - are hugely important to his constituency. I just hope his counsel is wise and that his work effectively helps the process.

We gave up a lot of rushing yards simply because we faced a lot of rushing attempts. Bills opponents ran against the Bills 507 times last year - most in the league. This was partly because we ran a up-tempo offense that didn't stay on the field long and partly because our opponents were often comfortable to sit on their lead given our offense rarely did much. Bills opponents averaged 4.4 yards per rush which is a little worse than then NFL average. But now we have Brandon Spikes. And if Hackett can find a way to build an offense that moves the chains and actually score once in a while, our D won't face so many rushing attempts this season.

When it comes to on-the-field behavior, I'd rather have Williams mentor Watkins than Stevie. Hopefully Williams will prove a good tutor to all our young wideouts.