Hplarrm

The problem with this wishful thinking is that if we pick Luck, the conventional wisdom starts virtually immediately that a first round pick must start in his first year or he is a bust (and a cw that a top pick or top 5 pick must start immediately or he is a disappointment. Led by folks like Sully who must produce column inches regardless of consistency and folks like GR who blather to fill air time around commercials there will immediate pressure on the Bills to Todd Collins him into the starting line-up whether he is ready or not. Even worse having forgone the opportunity to strengthen the OL with the first pick or get a critical defender who helps the QB not to have to play from behind, Luck gets teed off on by the blitz. Even if the Bills have the discipline to sit Luck to learn for a whole year, he really is the #2 behind Fitzy who is expected to survive 16 games with a rush like Sundays since our #1 pick is doing the needed sitting his first year. The sad thing is that Luck may well be a once in an eon talent but even if he is he likely ends up a disaster pick for the Bills.

He might but then again he better because as it stands right now the Bills OL is a player and a half away from being an adequate unit, The one is obviously the RT slot where I hope you are right that Wrotto will one day shape up to be the man but right now its a fairly reasonable assumption that a big part of the story on Sundays was that opponents did not have enough film on him to develop his tendencies and identify weaknesses in his game that he may well be talented enough to improve. However, his performance Sunday became more impressive as the Bills finally got their O together and Wrotto was a part of that success, Even if opponents had not yet been able to figure out a gameplan to take advantage of his weaknesses he did a good job simply reading and reacting against a talented O. If things work out well for him you gotta figure a good year til he is adequate. The half player comes in because the significant injuries which unfortunately have cost both Wood and Bell some significant PT and practice time, nagging injuries (and age in Hammy's case) and the role IR has played in the revolving door at RT speaks to the need that even with some good position flexibility from out OL players we need another experienced swing guy, When you add into that the fact we have not found a TE with a well rounded game making him both a receiving threat and 6th blocker when needed we are a player and a half away on OL.

Its interesting one could write an alleged football article about the Bills passing game (even if the article is about the exploits of Stevie Johnson and not mention Lee Evans a lot. I think that the analysis of almost all Bills fans is that the most significant thing from Johnson's great production are either that a key to it is the Evans has racked up more 70+ yard TDs than any other player in the NFL for a bunch of years in a row and this free Johnson to run great routes against single or zone coverage. Alternately there are those who (foolishly in my view) call for the Bills to dump Evans because of SJs productivity (sorry Virginia this view is shortsighted as it does not seen to understand that it is the fear of the Evans fly pattern that sops teams from doubling SJ. Graham generally does a good job but this one is too long on personality and not enough about the game of football,

I think the lack of LBs in the top 10 actually will dovetail with the reality that this Bills team is in need of multiple quality starters. This means since it really is only a bit better than 50/50 that we will get even 1 starter in the first year from the draft (though the conventional wisdom is that a first round pick should start by the end of his first year the cw is simply born out in reality as only slightly more than half the players in the years I looked at were first on their teams depth chart at the end of the season. While it certainly is possible for a team to have multiple first year starters this is a rarity actually and the Bills really should not count on getting more than 1 starter from the draft. Instead, this very young team is going to need some vet help anyway and its looks like LB may be the way the team gets better at the several positions it needs to improve.

One time? Hmm? Lets think all the way back to last Sunday (I know for some folks anything over 15 minutes is long term memory but hang in there). The ball was lying on the carpet because another Bill had dropped it and if memory serves me correctly, it was Lee Evans who dived down and collected up the ball saving it for the Bills in a critical moment. This clearly is one time he dived for the ball (and even better won out for it in the fight for it). This does meet your request to name one time he dived for the ball (but perhaps you are in John McCain mode after you have been given what you asked for now you will demand another study but is one that gives you the answer you want). Personally, I agree with those who want to claim Evans is not a #1 quality WR as he simply has not produced all the results of a classic #1. However, though he ain't perfect I think it shows a lack of understanding about football to say that he is simply a #2 quality WR. Maybe call Evans a 1.25 quality receiver (though mostly this indicates how insufficient the #1 designation is in terms of accurately describing the game). He ain't Jerry Rice (but then who is) and he ain't even Eric Moulds (but due to his own failings which included reacting badly to Evans becoming the go-to gut as Moulds aged this also is not the prime measure. Evans may not be #1 quality (yet?) but he is a lot closer to #1 quality than being a mere #2 (though the key is not simply how good an individual player is but how does the HC/OC make use of the strengths and weaknesses which ALL players have to make an effective TEAM. My sense of Evans is this: Positives: 1. Freakishly great speed. 2. Freakishly good ability to not only run the fly pattern fast but time it well and collect the ball for big scores (not a skill to be dismissed as Stevie Johnson unfortunately demonstrated for us on Sunday. 3. A better ability to make circus catches on sideline routes than he showed as a rookie such that if he has chemistry with his QB one should not fear throwing it up and letting him fight for it on sideline routes. Negatives (though less than positive might be a better descriptor as none of these areas are problems for him of the severity that Josh Reed showed with his second season case of the droppsies).- 1. Has not shown any consistent ability to patrol the middle of the field and show the command there he has shown on fly patterns. This inability to establish his presence in the middle of the field (or on curl routes as someone said above is the primary thing which makes him a 1.25 rather than a #1 for me. He has done this at times but never with the consistency you want from a #1. 2. He has shown raw speed but has not demonstrated the in traffic moves which would allow for greater use of him on end around runs or makes for great RAC when he catches the ball in traffic. I think that the complaints about Evans are rooted in reality in the sense he has not demonstrated that he is a player deserving of the Pro Bowl virtually every year. He does not produce like a Pro Bowler every single time and the real #1s threaten at least to produce like this every game. Evans is not a threat IF an opponent has a good combo of a cover guy and an ability to double-team him over and under so the cover guy does not have to get it right every single time. However, though they are rooted in a real issue, it also is true that what DCs must do to solve this problem creates major room for the Bills #2. Stevie Johnson has shown this big time under Gailey's direction. The Bills never sorted this out with confusion last year on running an O which made use of the talents of both Evans and TO or with a fading quality #2 with Peerless. Evans has pretty clearly demonstrated a skillset which should have made for an effective passing game. However, the Bills offense has been so troubled or virtually non existent under Jauron who never has been able to name an effective OC (even his best year where he won NFL coach of year saw a confluence of his riding the D to win an incredible number of close games) that it simply is far more likely that the problems were the lack of QB side of the equation or the inability to design routes well (even us non-professionals could see the lack of slant routes and the lack of close to the penalty line pick plays). Feel free to not believe me even if I provided you with the one play you asked for that Evans dived for the ball (please do not try to make the claim that this dive was for a loose ball and not going horizontal for a pass as quite frankly the dive for the ball last weekend was an even tougher gutsier play than diving for a pass as it was guaranteed he was going to not only going to get hit on this play by opponents also diving for the ball but even worse he decided to dive into harms way where he knew he was going to get worked over under the pile for the loose rock and no penalty was going to be called so nobody was holding back. Evans not only dived for the ball but won the damn fight which ensued. This play may or may not say anything about his skill set but it does give a lie to the claims that he is a chicken as he clearly put on his man pants in this case and anyone who claims he never mans up at all is simply wrong wrong wrong. If one wants further evidence, then I posted last week some interesting stuff from the Bills Daily site which cited Evans having moved into the #3 position all time for Bills in yardage and I also think for catches (this is simply lofty area where Evans is simply producing over the course of his career at a high level. He also leads the NFL for the last several years in 70+ yard catches (this is a big part of why the strong route running of Stevie Johnson has created a fearsome result as seen in actual TDs to his credit this year because Evans is very effectively at running clear outs which leave the middle of the field open for SJ to run precise routes or dts which occupy the DBs. Is Evans great? Nope, (not the way he is used and with his #2s not demanding much attention until SJ performed as he has this year). Is Evans a #1 WR? Sorta. He ain't your classic #1 in that he has not yet evidenced the ability to consistently patrol and dominate th middle of the field. However, he is a lot closer to being a #1 quality WR than being "only" a #2 quality WR and those who advocate trading him (anyone can be traded for the store if you find MN willing to guarantee you the SB in exchange for Hershel Walker but it is simply silly for someone to claim that both he is bad and that they would trade this bad player for the store) or cutting him (a cut actually hurts your team as all his bonus gets accelerated into one cap year and even worse Johnson now not only does not have the advantage of running routes against Ds leaning toward Evans but he likely gets dted himself. Is Evans perfect No, but to claim that the course of action should be to turn this pain into agony by cutting him is just stupid and bad football.

More exactly in terms of what someone noted generally before. Freedom of speech is a right guaranteed to us in the Constitution not giving all the ability to say or believe whatever they want without comment from anyone else. It guarantees that GOVERNMENT SHALL MAKE NO LAW abridged free speech, establishing a religion and stuff like that. Unless the police want to arrest or hassle Stevie in any way about his speech or hassle someone about how they talk about his speech then this not a freedom of speech issue at all.

This actually explains the drop more clearly. The extra weight of having his heart on his sleeve probably through his arm off when he was trying to make the catch. I say the Bills equipment guy's head should roll on this one!

Agreed! Its one thing if the problem was a clear mental error on a players part (an OL player not alerting the ref he is an eligible receiver if he lines up at TE, lining up in the neutral zone, etc). However, no doubt McKelvin tripped over his own guy in front of him, but this was a bang bang play with McKelvin worrying about Steelers coming up from behind him as well as clearing the blocker in front of him. A definite mistake during a great return by McKelvin but pretty picayune to get on his case about this when he made a bigger mistake with the fumble (again a bang bang play but this is the second time this happened and he needs to calm down on ball control without losing the killer edge of a return guy. Even sillier to pick on this when the big physical error was from the Joker not being serious enough about this.

Gailey is on record stating that he was expecting big things from Roscoe Parrish (the oft injured Roscoe unfortunately as his heart is much bigger than his body). My guess is that he knew Evans would command a dt often (do any of the Evans bashers out there want to make a case that the man with the most 70+ yard TDs in the league for years will not command a dt quite a bit and when he is singled if the Bills show any weakness at #2 WR the coverage is gonna cheat toward Evans big time). My guess is that it did take much tape review and practice for Gailey to see that if SJs solid route running turned him into s legit TD threat (which he is bigtime now) then if both WRs present a legit case for dts the winner is this equation could well have been Parrish who would get the chance to run against either 4th best DB if the other team went nickel or to exploit the zone. Its too bad that our OL is a player and a half (and some time to build chemistry short of adequacy that we have yet to get consistent production out of the TE slot, and RP is a wounded warrior because this O has great ability to be explosive,

As part of a game summary provided through the website Bills Daily, amidst a zillion factoids about the Bills and tomorrow's game they had these Lee Evans items: Lee Evans is now 3rd on the team's all-time list with 43 TDs. Lee Evans has more 70+ yard TD catches than anyone else in the league since 2000 with six. Lee Evans moved into third place on the team's all-time list in receiving yards (5,670). Granted, Evans output individually has equalled the level of disappointment I have gotten from my team. I do not think it is reasonable to blame him solely or even primarily for the poor results achieved by the Bills. On the other hand I think any credible assessment of the Bills team or its individuals has to concede that Evans has in no way proved to be the team leader and perennial Pro Bowler which his enormous salary demands that he be. Like the results produced in total by this team during its 0 for a decade playoff free run the team and Evans have been in adequate. Nevertheless though Evans has been disappointing these factoids seem to indicate why it was notunreasonable to hp[e Evans would prove to be a number 1 quality WR. He is not (yet) but perhaps if Gailky can get the entire offense cooking we will see some phenomenal production. Also while these stats highlight as much disappointment in Evans as worship, they do indicate how stupid it is that some folks want to simply cut or trade Evans because Stevie Johnson is statistically better than Evans in many ways. In particular the fact that Evans leads the NFL overall for a lot of years in getting 70+ yards TDs has simply got to be a big part of the story as to why Johnson has been so productive. Opposing teams simply realize that they better figure on doubling Evans sure their DBs are playing loose on Evans or he will simply get a chance to add to his long TD results if singled. If Evans were to be cut then Johnson would simply face more and better competition and likley his production would drop.

My sense is that the difference here is whether you would prefer that the decisions be made based on giving the collegian the best college experience or whether you feel the ruling motivation should be to give the TV viewer the best possible experience. Us TV viewers find it difficult to focus on more than one thing at a time so we want a clear answer as to who is #1 and all this stuff about giving collegians the experiences which come with the multiple bowl system is secondary to my needs. next thing you know folks may actually expect these athlete-students to be student first and athletes second. In general the whole call for a playoff really comes off as pretty pathetic to me.

I think this post actually neatly lays out where folks tend to come down on this debate. If one judges college football to be primarily about football (providing entertainment for us sports fanatics) then a playoff system and choosing one winner each year is critical (though this does bring to mind faint recollection of some Dallas Cowboy who when asked if the SB was the most important moment in his life to date he replied "if it is so important then why do they play it every year." If on the other hand one view's college football as being primarily about college then one can really not care about having a playoff system and the usual there must be only one winner approach to sports. As one who judges college football to be primarily about college I realize the BCS is a sham and I could not care less about the fact that it is a sham. The NFL owners have profited for years by having developed as a singular art having taxpayers subsidize their player development by not only training their workers and testing them in college football, but even collaborates with the NCAA to have their training feed into an orderly combine system where the rough edges of comparing one college to another (and their diverse schedule strengths and travel requirements are minimized by common testing and assessment of athletes in the spring combine. NFL teams use to compete with each other totally in terms of commitment to scouting and development of contacts across the country. Now there is a lot of sharing of scouting and ranking of players which began with the BLESTO-V scouting reports. Now this corporate monolith has the workers not only as clearly being partners with the NFL (the final gasp of good ol American economic competition was eliminated when the team owners kicked the butt of the AFL-CIO led Ed Garvey led NFLPA and the proud athletes of the totally defeated union bought the arguments of smart NYC lawyers that the best strategy for the NFLPA was to threaten to dissolve itself. This strategy would have denied the team owners a willing partner in fostering the NFL draft which actually took the un-American act of forcing individuals to sell their services to only one team and not to the highest bidder (aka the American way). The team owners ran kicking and screaming to agree to the CBA with the players thus securing their status as an operating partner with the NFL rather than simple vassal workers. It is a great irony that by managing to hand off almost all player development costs to the colleges (many of which are state schools and pro football breeding institutions like Univ. of Nebraska but one downside is that unlike other major pro sports like MLB and the NHL where teamowners must give huge speculative contracts to 16 year old minors, the NFL gets the advantage of having taxpayers and others pay for training, but the downside is that they do not get ownership of the players until not only they are adults, but actually because they officially restrict free trade for workers until their college graduating age class graduates. Thus the college educated NFLPA leadership of folks like Gene Upshaw, Troy Vincent, etc had an adult understanding of the CBA. Upshaw saw the first CBA as an interim step which gained the players partnership. The last renegotiation he dictated publicly that the new CBA would see the salary cap cover total revenues (rather than a designated gross (which saw maneuvers like the Bills chucking several thousand general admission seats at the Ralph for premium seats where they did not have to share the take with the players) but would be for a % of player take which began with a 6. The final deal which Tagliaboo-boo and the other children of Pete Rozelle talked Mr. Ralph and the others to bend over and ask for another was for a 60.5% of the total gross receipts. The bottomline is of course that in the end its the golden rule\ AKA he who has the gold rules! In this case significant financial benefit goes to many forces who profit from the status quo and unless there are some big buck forces out there that would profit a lot from a change no change is going to happen to create a playoff system. If someone wants to make a financed base case that some force will push for change AND entrenched rich forces will not successfully resist change AND rich forces in the middle cannot be easily bought off with payoffs rather than endorse change change will not happen,

Is racism the issue that it used to be? Thankfully the answer is completely without a doubt no its not for both the NFL and society as a whole. Thanks to the leadership of Lincoln and the amazing sacrifices of thousands of people, the legalized racism of slavery is over. However, though this improvement is undeniably true, one would have to be flat out stupid to not understand that just because slavery ended, racism in forms such as the Jim Crow laws did not end. Likewise, thanks to the leadership of MLK and the amazing sacrifices of thousands of people, legalized institutions like Jim Crow or miscengation laws have ended. However, though this improvement is undeniably true, one would have to be flat out stupid to not understand that just because Jim Crow or other actions have ended, racism in forms such as the individual acts of discrimination, prejudice or stupidity did not end. Yhe NFL is a microcosm and part of society. Again it would be flat out stupid to expect that racism in the NFL did not or in fact does exist. The great thing about the NFL is that to the extent it is a meritocracy (to some extent but not completely) racism often tends to be ended because though it gets maintained by the good ol boys network its practice can make your team not as good as the opponents. Again its not perfect but it is getting better. The Rooney Rule has been such a success as it forces NFL teams not to meet some quota of hiring which may not have anything to do with performance, but instead forces the good ol boy network (and believe me it does need force by good people)to give people a real chance and allows the competition of the marketplace where Indy realizes that Peyton Manning cannot get the job done on his own but Tony Dungy adds a skillset which put them over the top. Likewise Pitts needed to replace Cowher and the proof is in the pudding that men like Tomlin were again proof in the pudding that a man of A-A descent could get the job done (I mean there were others around who gladly would have taken the job such as a Dick Jauron and though they were nice guys Tomlin was the man_. Its a mistake to claim the problem has not gotten much better. However it is also a sign of a small mind to not understand that simply because things have gotten better that does not mean they are completely solved and racism can be ignored.

The reason is that though the views of some are motivated by the principles they choose, most folks back here in the real world tend to also be heavily motivated by the practical aspects of situations. It does makes sense if one chooses actions based on a single principle of equal treatment for all based on race that something like the Rooney Rule would be applied equally to all races, genders or whatever you choose as areas to hamhandedly apply this equality principle. However, back in reality the NFL (and most folks actually) recognize the reality that teams are managing a set of employees of which the vast majority are African-Americans. It creates a real management problem and is in fact offensive to an increasingly powerful NFLPA which is mot only a partner with team owners but actually command a substantial majority to total gross receipts under the current CBA. If the majority of NFL players were Asian and virtually all these players were restricted from getting HC jobs with no other perceptible rational other than their ethnic heritage then my guess is there would be a Rooney Rule about Asian HCs. If the majority of players were women and gender was seemingly a restriction to good players or bad players with good football minds and skills were restricted from HC jobs then there would be a Rooney Rule for women. Likewise for a plethora of disabled players. The problem is that here in America everyone generally has a right to select which principle you want to advocate or live by even if this limited selection would be stupid if applied in real life. However, back here in the real world it is about much more than simplistic application of a limited set of principles. A solution needs to be found which reaches for the best production of E pluribus unum, one from many ideas even if some of them are simply stupid (this same idea applies to consideration of views not only of the NFL but in terms of politics not only from Sarah Palin to Barack Obama or someone who actually pursues views which are way to the left of Obama or way to the right of Palin. The actual reason there is no Rooney Rule for women, Asian, the disabled or most other gotcha one would conjure up to try to validate some limited application of principle is that these Rules would be stupid in those cases.

I for one hope the #1 changes every week. If opposing DCs decide Johnson is the #1 after last week in Cincy and dt him giving Evan isolation to hit him on long fly patterns (as JP did with him in one game where he scored two long TDs in one on one coverage as he racked up over 200+ yards in one game) then SJ is a being a great #1. If in the next week the opponent dting Evans frees SJ again that would be perfect for us. It really takes having a small brain not to understand that these two add a lot to each others games as long as Gailey chooses routes which accentuate their games.

I think that this fine is fine by me. The NFL needs a system which is designed to impact the behavior of not only good guys like Stevie Johnson but idiots like Terrel Owens. If players were allowed or encourage to have "fun" then every single touchdown would see players signing Sharpie aurographs, quoting the Joker (an amusing quote from my view given the Batman and Robin theme of TO and Ochocinquo), dropping trou, humping the goal post or doing some other exhibition designed to get attention. In general, the attitude I find most appealing is when a player acts like he has been there before and does not feature a planned exhibition when he scored (at least the Stevie Johnson exhibition did involve some type of thought but if the Bills had lost the game I would have found this planned demo pretty annoying). However, this relative minimal fine (compared to the 10s of thousands SJ makes every game and actually the ten of thousands he could make by presenting himself as the Joker to make a ton of money from endorsements of local companies (I can say without joking that XYX autos gives you a great deal.... or something like that) is small # for an NFL player. However, if this small fine is enough to stop every NFL player from launching some demo after he scores and the threat of larger fines for a second offense is enough to keep this from happening a lot that is more than fine with me. This was a special occasion with TO playing against his old teammates and the SJ T-Shirt was at least a semi-literate gibe back so having him pay 5K for this joke is fine. However, I agree with the fact the No Fun Leagu has a procedure which stops this Man-Boys from getting so invested in themselves that they lose track of the team natures of this game. If Johnson really believe 5K is a small price to pay. If he is all about self-promotion then I welcome a huge fine for a second offense that would make him hurt.

I actually do flat out disagree with taking a QB in the first because my sense is that virtually without regard to how good of a player this athlete is it is going to be a non-productive choice for this team. I feel this is true for some specific reasons which I think are difficult to disagree with completely (and if you or others do I would be happy to be enlightened). They are: 1. The first question is what are the chances that the player drafted is going to be as good as Peyton Manning. It could happen, sure but the odds of this 1st round draftee being Peyton or being Ryan Leaf are pretty close. Omdy made the correct call and deserves credit for that, However, there was honest debate between the professionals as to who would be the better pro and the close draft position (Leaf went right after Manning) and the huge result difference demonstrates how picking a franchise QB even for the professionals is pretty close to a crapshoot in terms of results. There is a conventional wisdom that a first round pick should be a starter his first year, That would be nice but the CW is wrong as when I looked at a fairly strong draft class in depth and at the beginning of their second season only slightly over 50% were first at their position on the depth chart. So far the flavors of the month and a stone cold lock to be the next Manning has gone from Locker to Mallett and now Luck. 1st rounders are a crapshoot and QB is the most difficult of them all to pick. My guess right off the top 50/50 he is a pick we will wish we passed on. and this is just the start. 2. The media here led by Sully and GR and a small but vocal fan base will do everything can to throw this rookie under the bus when he plays like a talented rookie. Even if he is a future HOF player I argue it will be a bad move for the Bills as this town ruined by years of seeking the next savior Jimbo is far more likely to give this athlete the career path of a Steve Young, Brett Favre or a Drew Brees than a Peyton Manning. 3. Again even if we simply assume he is Manning Manning led Indy to the exact same record and if that is true for the Bills in 2010 and 2011 I doubt Gailey survives and perhaps it is hello Toronto Bills. Again franchise pick even we catch lightening and he is a HOF player it is a disaster for the Buffalo Bills. Our investments in the OL have simply been mismanaged. Even if you are excited about Wood Levitre (which means ignoring him missing PT due to injury for the second year in a row) it seems clear we are still a player and a half away from adequacy in terms of talent. Add a year for chemistry to build and your rookie QB is going to need the lightening fast throws of Manning and/or the vet play reading and quick throws of Fitzgerald or simply get life insurance for your rookie QM/ Again if we take a rookie QB in the first and play him I think there is a fair chance of disaster. 4. What is Gailey;s record of productivity with vets like Fiedler, Bulger, Kordell and now Fitzy versus any proven record of developing talented rookies. You treat this as a mo-brainer when I think reality says we go vet and if we do pick a franchise QB in the first if he plays it likely will be a disaster even on the no where near a sure thing he is as good as Peyton Manning. I think you at least reality needs to acknowledge these points or if you want to insist this is a no-brainer you should be able to easily state reasons why these points are not true or simply beyond debate.

I know my opinion remains the same despite the two "ugly" wins (quite frankly no win is ugly IMHO. Drafting a rookie (even if he is as good as Peyton Manning was) is probably one of the worst things the Bills could do if the goal is to build a winning team. I thought this was true two games ago because: 1. The Bills as a team are simply not good enough as Pitts was when the rookie RoboQB led them to an SB that not only would drafting a one day stud QB make little difference in Bills productivity but in fact as even in the Manning case, this rookie who has become one of the best ever not only made no immediate productivity difference but due to a combination of previous OL investments Indy did prior to Manning but the Bills have not done Luck or any stud QB quite likely gets killed his first year. 2. The Buffalo media led by WGR and Sully fanning the flames of a small but vocal minority of fans are simply not mature enough to allow a rookie QB the time and mistakes to become a vet. Basically any QB we pick is like Manning going to hit some rocks his first year and it is quite doubtful IMHO that a rookie QB would end up being declared a bust and run out of town like Young or Favre on their way to likely HOF careers. 3. A great performing QB can in fact lead a team (even the D and ST) to higher levels of play with a refuse to lose performance and ethic. However, a rookie QB will like it or not still be a rookie QB (even if he is the next Peyton Manning) and he almost certainly is not going to help Bills production immediately and we all will die. 4. By spending the first on a QB by definition we pass on adding to the OLB slot, the OL, and the DL which will be a death blow to the 2011 Bills even with this stud QB. 5. Chan Gailey has excelled in the past in building an O around a smart vet like Fitzy, Bulger or even with playoff qualifying run with folks like Fiedler or Kordell at QB. I do not know of any evidence where Gailey has proven to be a breeder of stud rookie QBs. 6. The repetitive last 10 years of Bills play has seen us overreach again and again and rush inappropriately players from TC to RJ, to Hobert, to JP, and others into a fruitless search for a savior at QB. Drafting Luck or any any other first round QB was a bad idea two games ago and it is a bad idea now.

The thing I see as a total miscue for some observers is what chance to do think Luck will be a top 10 QB his first year or what are the chances he will even prove to be a top 10 QB at some point in his career if the Bills picked him. I think I can pretty confidently say that there is Zero (I mean nada, zero, the big 0, or however you want to state this). This is not a comment or conclusion about how good Luck is. Lets start with a flat out assumption that he will be as good a QB as Peyton Manning is(a lofty and unlikely goal but lets simply assume he is that good of a player). In his first year, Manning hurtled Indy from a 3-13 record to a 3-13 record. Even more amazing he did this with Indy already having invested heavily in their OL with a couple of early picks while it seems quite clear that the Bills OL is at least a player and half away from adequacy in terms of player talent Ia credible starter at RT and a swing guy to fill gaps left by events like today when Wood went down hard. Add to these new players being acquired that figure they will need to play together for a year to gain chemistry and even if Luck proves to be as good as Manning we are looking at not only losing almost all the rest of their games in 2010 to get Luck but then having an equally unsuccessful 2011 if Luck turns out to be just as good a QB as Manning. Luck would be quite lucky if after his first year he survived as Manning did and we were hopeful. This strikes me as the best case. The reality would actually more likely be that patience with Luck's rookie learning will not be the hallmark of the Buffalo media led by Sully and WGR or a small but vocal part of the fanbase who will immediately designate Luck as the next holy savior and then will be deeply disappointed when he performs like a talented but very human being. Drafting Luck has disaster written all over it. No one should mistake these Bills for either Pitts team where a rookie QB could join the Hines Wards, Polamalus and others who had Pitts one player away or even the Giants where Eli could come in as a rookie QB they targeted and traded for to put them over the top. The Bills as a team and a local media interested in fanning QB controversy where a Luck even of he were as good as Manning was will survive here. Does anyone have that much faith in the Buffalo media and a small but vocal part of the fanbase?

I think thst it is useful for us fans to understand that immediate effect of the Bills sitting Evans down would likely be a steep drop off in the effectiveness of Stevie Johnson. I think this is true not because Evans is such a producer, but it is true because though Evans has not demonstrated he deserves the huge contract the timing of his free agency and some very good (but not great) production established some reasonable hope he might blossom into a legit #1 WR/ He has not developed into the #1 WR threat we hoped. However. Stevie Johnson has clearly benefitted from what I see as the fact that opposing DCs understand that they must assign their fastest CB to Evans leaving Stevie who had good but no where near world class speed to feast upon the opponents slower CBs. Evans has demonstrated that he is quite difficult to cover with any consistency with one on one coverage. When the opponent dts Evans this also give SJ the ability to use his great route running talents well against single coverage/ The key to the outstanding SJ performance today struck me as both starting safeties going down for Cincy. When this happened, Cincy tended to shift their coverage toward Evans side and it left SJ with great opportunities to get one on one coverage on deep sideline patterns and also once he crossed the field against zone coverage to turn upfield and run for the endzone. If you sit Evans, then the coverage bias tends to shift toward Johnson and with dt coverage over and under on him he will get jammed more at the line and would lose the ability to run sharp routes and timing patterns across the field. Its a team game and it is simply a showing of a lack of understanding to merely compare Evams amd SJs output. Its all about Fitzy being able to do excellent reads on plays and taking what the opponent gives him which today played into the Bills hands once Gailey got a chance at halftime to call and run routes that exploited the Cincy problems.

I think the jury actually can conclude about Eli and Brees is this: 1. Eli demonstrates that if you have a good enough TEAM then the right QB can put you over the top. Thus do not worry about drafting that one right QB as Eli is a clear case where you can acquire the QB you want in a trade. 2. Brees is another perfect example of why one should not get all psychotic about you must draft this or that QB since the reality was this franchise QB whom you yourself the jury is settled upon was acquired by other means than the draft. Talk about making the case for not getting so psychotic about the draft that the team must take the current QB of the moment be it Locker, Mallet or Luck or whomever Mel Kiper declares as the cannot miss pick next week. The Bills should pass on taking a QB in the first because: 1. There are ample cases of QBs drafted in the first who become available when they get run out of their first town only to become HOF players. 2. Gailey's O style depends on factors which good production out of fairly pedestrian vet QBs. We have seen him do this with Fiedler, Bulger, Kordell and now Fitz. If there is evidence of him developing a rookie into a franchise QB I would love to see it. The signs point to a vet being the thing which gets the most production from the Bills. 3. This team is a player and a half (starting RT and a swing guy who fits in lots of places when the usual dings occur. In addition, the Bills still have not gotten a handle on adequate use of the TE position. I do not see the Bills acquiring all these players AND also filling the holes we need to fill on DE and LB if we waste our 1st rounder in a franchise QB (who likely is gonna get killed his first season behind our short of talent but developing OL). 4, Virtually without regard to how talented this rookie may one day be one can easily see how the media moneymakers like Sully and WGR are going to delight in running this rookie out of town as soon as they can. Ironically, a small but loud faction of Bills fans will actually participate in this anti-Bills effort by first raising expectations for the next savior and then turning on him if like Peyton Manning as a rookie he leads the team to the same record. It seems pretty clear to me that if we take a rookie with the first this team almost certainly will be condemned to failure.

The point though is not a count of how many of these SB worthy QBs were #1s, but in fact how did these SB worthy teams acquire them. From your own list of notables, Aikman, Peyton and RoboQBs were the ones who delivered an SB win to the teams which drafted them. When I started my ongoing rant that #1 drafted QBs were quite available through means other than drafting them in fact it was prior to the aberration of Manning FINALLY delivering an SB win and RoboQB finding his way onto a team where he was a critical addition. The simple fact is that drafting a QB who will bring the team that drafted him an SB is far from the no-brainer that folks who insist we draft a QB with our 1st pick insist. Again, the simple facts are that your franchise QB can be found in bargain basement haunts such Wamer getting his last paycheck before his SB season from Walmart where he was a boxboy. Sure a Warner is a rarity, but so too was an Aikman. Even if you choose to pump up the rare cases where you draft a QB who delivers an SB win to the team which chose him in the first with the real world examples of Peyton and Robo, this gets you to the real world problem that there are unfortunately a lot more examples of Akili Smith's, Ryan Leafs and JaMarcus Russells than there are of winners. Add to the list of not going #1 for a QB the real world examples of the Tom Bradys where arguably the best QB in football cost a mere 6th rounder and was passed on by everyteam multiple times. Add on the "busts| like Dilfer, Young, Favre, and even Brad Johnson twice who were run out of town then led another team to an SB win and again the no-brainer of picking a QB in the first starts to show no brain. Perhaps the strongest reinforcement for your argument is to choose to simply ignore the real fact that Elway and Eli were in fact acquired by trade rather than the draft and you can claim to expand your list. However this convenient reading ignore the fact that the teams which acquired them did so for a specific reason as they judged their teams were a player away and a specific quality QB would put them over the top. Do you really want to argue that this Bills team is a player away from the SB. Think about what you are expecting. This QB is NOT going to come here and be the missing piece which helps raise all games to put us in SB contention. Instead you are expecting this wunderkind QB to come here with inconsistent OL protection, virtual zero TE production, a hopeful backfield situation that like it or not is in development, amd a D which appears to be a couple of players away from consistent adequacy. Even in situations like Indy or Denver,these prototype QBs were building on an existing state of excellence and they still needed big time help before the ultimate goal was achieved. Unless Luck, Malllett, Locker or whomever is the flavor of the moment comes in here with a pro quick release and a vets ability to read pro Ds, AND the command to help Hamgartner with line calls against DCs, quite frankly the first rounder is likely to be killed. Why do you think not that this yet to be clearly named QB is good enough (the fact is he probably will not be as a rookie) but actually whether the Bills are good enough to win with even a very talented rookie QB? Will the Buffalo media led by Sully and GR and stoked with a loud minority of fans demand that this rookie QB produced immediately as they insist a 1st rounder should (an in depth look at one year with a general consensus of a strong draft class found that only 50% of first round picks were starters as the second season began. The conventional wisdom that a 1st round pick must be a starter is simply wrong. The facts are tough but cannot be ignored if you want to win. The simple fact is that it is a rare 1st round pick who delivers an SB win to the team which picked him. You can spin all you want by ignoring the fact that the many 1st round winners you yourself site were in fact acquired by their team through non draft means, but at least acknowledge that you are spinning. Even worse, there are significant downsides which a rational fan should at least acknowledge why this is the team and the situation where making the no-brainer pick might easily be fatal and the more holistic approach of merely risking a late draft pick or signing a failed FA makes a lot more sense for this Bills team in real life,

His job is being Jim Kelly and I would hazard a guess that no one does it better. In terms of the specific financial arrangements between the two I think the ruling line is the one where the Bills traditionally say about all contractual interactions that they do not reveal details of contracts. The general thing which we do know is that Mr. Ralph made a "handshake" deal a number of years back to not sign a new contract a year before he hit FA as the Bills were hard up against the cap but to reward him in his next contract (this strikes me as a clear violation of the salary cap but given this was a personal and not a written deal between a player and an owner neither the NFLPA or the team owners were not benefited by complaining- though I would not be shocked if part of the reason why Mr. Ralph took an inordinantly long time to make the HOF was the cavalier manner he blew off the cap. At any rate, only Mr. Ralph could make such a deal and he simply made a bad football judgment that even this fan could see from the upper reaches of the Ralph and on TV saw Kelly was done a year before the Bills reached taking TC arguably early and then rushed him a long to start. It would be my GUESS that either Mr. Ralph simply wrote Jimbo a check for a cool million or instead he gave Jimbo what in essence was an annuity which paid Jimbo the million in upfront worth over several years with a kicker which guaranteed a specific rate of return on the million as it was paid out over 10 or even 20 years. Such a payment would benefit Mr. Ralph as the upfront outlay of a large was of cash is not on the books, Jimbo is financially bound to the Bills for a long time and has to answer to Mr. Ralph. For Jimbo there is likely no investment he could make with a wad o cash if he received it upfront than investing in the Bills who are committed to extensive payouts. Even better for both, with this type of deal it is virtually impervious to challenge by either the NFL or the NFLPA (hence they penalized him by keeping him out of the HOF. My GUESS is that this the type of deal that the Bills and Jimbo likely have since they do not generally release details.

On the other hand- 1- Chan Gailey. Buffalo has an offensive minded coach in Chan Gailey who seems to be able to get the most out of his QBs. He's turned turds like Kordell, Thigpen, Fitz etc, into legitimate starting QBs while he was around them. He has a solid playbook that is heavy on passing options, and he calls an excellent game. Gailey's MO with QBs is not success at the very different task of developing a talented rookie but instead getting production out of a vet who has failed elsewhere. IMHO, his O production depends on a vet who reads NFL Ds well and then makes quick decisions to get the ball out to the hot WR diagnosed by the vet. I do not see any real evidence of Gailey being the type of HC that has much appeal to Luck, nor Luck having the failed vet skillset which appeals to Gailey. 2- Fitz. Definitely not a threat in the eyes of rabid fans, but this merely means that in face of legend in their own mind reporters like Sully or Schoop they are gonna push hard for Luck to start and produce immediately. The situation that should have the most appeal to a QB like Luck is a team which is set at QB with an over the hill guy like a Bledsoe who is not gonna do anything and the fates conspired to give Brady a chance to play with zero expectations. Instead in our likely situation if we spend the first rounder on Luck and neither use that resource to protect the QB by adding the OL player and a half we need to be adequate or an OL player to improve our pass rush. Instead Luck either blows past Fitz and gets to start with an OL than only can be adequate with a vet QB smart enough to help Hamgartner make OL calls, AND pick-out hot receivers, AND release the ball quickly, AND defeat opposing DCs trying to fool him with false coverages. In no way is our situation next year likely to be a good one for Luck. 3- Skilled position players. Agreed except for TE. 4- Buffalo has an improving OL. Not necessarily a good one, but with a another high OT draft pick and development of those on the roster the Bills will have a solid OL that can keep Luck from getting killed. Doubtful as we are a starter (RT) and a sub away from adequacy. Ad the need to build chemistry and we are a year away from OL adequacy. The situation actually gets worse with Luck replacing the vet Fitzy. Luck is a far better athlete than Fitzy, but he has the game experience to read pro Ds and also help Hamgartner and no rookie no matter how good will not be a vet until after his rookie year.

Another reason is that vets do better in the Gailey scheme. Its a particular type of vet in that this player though he need not have extraordinary physical talent to win in Gailey's scheme (for example he experienced success with non talents such as Fieldler and Bulger at the helm) his QBs must be able to read pro defenses and make quick decisions to make the O work well. This is a big reason why I do not see the Bills going for a it is to be hoped franchise QB with an early draft pick as my sense even the most talented of these college QBs (used to be Locker and not apparently is Luck) is simply not going to be effective learning to be a vet his first year. Even worse, this team is at least a player and a half away from being adequate on the OL. A rookie learning on the job to read pro Ds and opposing defenses which have schooling and fooling the rookie as their primary job are likely not only to be ineffective with a rookie but also there is not an unreasonable chance this rookie will get hurt behind and OL that at best would be learning. My guess is that barring injury Fitz will be the guy,