Hplarrm

The trend in sports arenas seems to be going away from massive attendance places like the old Rich Stadium to smaller venues where the stadium owners can charge even more $ for the experience of going to the game. Ironically, the Bills played their role in this movement with the reduction in attendance moving from 80,000 + often soldout seats back when the Bills offered a consistently quality product to the current smaller Ralph where bigger seats (to accomodate the reality of bigger butts of fans) and heated premium seats. The Bills did this for mercenary reasons regarding the CBA as premium seats were mot part of the designated gross in the CBA and owners did not share this with players (who simply took note and the new CBA cap is based on total revenue. The trend continues though as attendees are critical to the ambience for the real cash cow audience which is TV,

I saw a report on ESPN that last weekend set a record for NFL TV viewers. These results are in line with the draft also setting a record for TV viewership. The main rule with the NFL owners seems to be follow the money and it is quite clear that the money is found today in the large % of revenues provided by TV and per your mention the declining #s of folks actually attending games. Look for the nail in the coffin of the importance of attendance to be when the NFL essentially does away with the blackout rules as they realize anything that cuts the TV audience hurts their cash cow and ultimately simply means less advertising of their product and fewer dollars. This is a mixed bag for the Bills as attendance and fan fervor even with a loser team is quite high (though season tix #s for the Bills took a hit in this economy with a bad team). However, the good news is that it does not matter a ton which town a team is in as the customers are anywhere with a TV. The rabid Bills fan base (even if all games are not sold out as in previous years Elvis is always there for the TV cameras) and dramatic shots of Niagara Falls provide a good narrative for the NFL to sell its product to the customers.

The worst thing about this quote may be that the Bills coaches are as distracted from getting better by the QB question as the fans are. My sense is that in order for the Bills to win games the key is for them to figure out as Gailey has done in the past how to win with an inadequate QB not to find an adequate QB. The main reason I would have stuck with Trent once he was chosen is that though I agree he is inadequate I do not see Fitzy as being adequate. The key this year is to choose an inadequate QB and then stick with him and build a better working team with him. Next year, we then go into FA and get our QB to make a playoff run.

But again, back here in real life (or in the fantasy world of this board about the fantasy world of the NFL, do you advocate getting a specific better #1 WR? I do not see a Randy Moaa, Wes Welker or even a TO that is available? I am sure inquiring minds would love to know the suggestion or simply ignore this as a fantasy thread about a fantasy based on nothing. On the other, hand there are those of us who see that the reality contractually that Evans is that our #1 WR for a few more years. He certainly has not put up #1 results and is by no means the perfect receiver, but he does have some undeniable talents and they can only be helped by having a serious #2 WR. Looking at our roster I propose that even though Spiller would be not use to his greatest capacity as an athlete at #2 WR, the goal is not to do well for Spiller but to do best as possible for the team. Spiller demonstrated that at least in his first go round in our O he is not likely to get 15 touches per game at RB. He is not schooled at running WR routes, but he has demonstrated he is an extraordinary talent who if plunked out in open space basically demands a double team to allow for pressure coverage or he will not even need to run a route if he steps back and catches the ball against a light covering CB he need only beat that one defender and its off to the races. If you dt him it makes it harder to dt Evans and this allows him to be the best he can be even if you do not believe him to be a #1. The other advantage of playing Spiller out wide is that not only do you get closer to getting him 15 touches (though I would use him as our #2 WR in our base O, I would also from time to time line him up at RB and hand him the ball and line him up in the backfield and then send him out for a pass in motion) but I also run the end around from time to time and force the D to guess how we might line up even when they see who is in the huddle. By putting Spiller at WR you also get to run Jax and Lynch at RB where this duo proved effective in their appearances Sunday. The basic question raised by your complaints about Evans which no one sees any real reason to dispute is whether it is easier to find a new #1 or to find a better #2WR than Srevie. If you do not like Spiller at #2 are there any real suggestions you have or is whining about Evans it?

It is a simple fact in terms of contractual amount that like it or not Evans is our #1 WR. I generally agree with the original assessment in this thread that in general he ain't as good as we want but does have some talents that are #1 like. We are not going to get a player capable of being the #1 (except the odd TO circumstance like last year or taking the good and downsides of a Randy Moss) so I think the real question is how to we find a #2 which accentuates the positive and minimizes the negatives of Evans. Johnson is not it. He seems to have some OK fundamentals like good route running and size but alas he simply has not been the demonstrated threat that makes it difficult for the opposing DC to simply take Evans out of the game with a dt. INHO, the Bills would have (and potentially still can) profit the most from using Spiller as the #2. The downside is that he has not demonstrated yet he has the route running ability to be the standard possession WR of an NFL #2. I do not think this is a stopper in that the big advantage of having Spiller on the opposite wing to Evans is that it makes it a lot more difficult for the opposing DC to dt Evans or have his fastest or his best cover guy assigned to Evans. Also, if we can do this, it allows us to routinely put Jax, Lynch and Spiller all on the field at the same time. It also allows us to give Jax and Lynch the number of RB touches they seem to need to most effective. This maneuver also gets Spiller outside and in space immediately were he seems to be most effective (imagine Spiller lined up wide and the opposing DC decides to leave his CB on an island with Spiller (if he had decided to neurtalize Evans with an over and under dt). The CB on Spiller either had to try to sit on Spiller's route to cut off the quick pass and thus be vulnerable to the fly flag pattern or instead he gives Spiller cushion which makes the quick pass even easier and Spiller simply needs to make the one guy miss. My sense is that a Evans Spiller duo actually forces the opposing DC into a zone. If we are running a 3 WR set with Parrish the dc almost must nickel (if not dime) up. Jax or Lynch would then have a field day running against a spread D rather than facing 8 guys in the box. This approach would lessen the # of touches Spiller gets. but given our failed attempt to try to have Spiller carry us in a stadard RB role on Sunday I am willing to sacrifice this for using Spiller all the time to get the D we want and some of the time on quick passes, fly patterns (when TE and Spiller read the CB as cheating to the LOS) and sometime lining Spiller up as RB even though he is my #2WR in our base O. I am confident that Spiller can learn the #2 WR role as he has run routes before as a receiving threat in motion from the RB slot. The work is different but not that different from what he is used to.

It all comes down to comparison of options with the primary factor for most athletes being which option provides the most $ up front. There actually has tended to be a fairly minimal amount of movement in the FA market generally as far as it goes as it beyond movement of players who are at the bottom of their roster and reasonable fill-ins on ST. The Pete Rozelle model where virtually all teams are mathematically in the hunt until the last 2-3 of the season has become a reality (the key thing IMHO was the wildcard and expansion of the playoffs) and even a team which has been as mediocre as the Bills for a decade in producing results is still in the hunt mathematically (and even practically as the nets described them as "in the hunt' until very late last season). My guess is that this pool will expand even more this year with Goodell leading the charge into playing division games early and late. Most players really do not have much of a choice in terms of locale and add-ons and are happy to take a marginally higher offer from the Bills or other teams. A player who does have a choice like a Brett Favre or a Donovan McNabb may simply dismiss us out of hand (or merely use us as leverage in negotiations with others) but these players are rare and as the problems with this team extend far beyond one person (even someone worshipped like QBs are) this does not strike me as a real issue with the goal of getting good. The team has actually been able to attract an FA like TO who like it or not was pretty much the #1 producer at WR for this team last year. They also got one of their starting CBs from FA last year in addition to signing add-ons like Scott who were rejects from other teams who have performed for us. In addition, to holding our own among most higher profile FAs, the team also had had a few examples of very good UDFA signings like Peters (who had his choice among several teams but belief in Mouse MacNally and other things got him to come here. Mismanagement of his contract cost the Bills his play but actually says a lot about this from a player perspective. If making big bucks is your primary motivator then signing with the Bills is not a bad move. Ask Dockery, Langston Walker, Schobel, Kelsay or Peters (who got everything he was demanding contractually by following the Schobel model of hanging tough with the Bills. Of course, there are other factors (being close to winning is a key but we are not there) but in the end, the buck stops with the owner. Mr. Ralph has utilized his capitalist given right to meddle and from his handshake deal to ignore the salary cap and shake hands with Jimbo to reward him in his next contract (which due to Mr. R's bad football judgment never happened). IMHO, a big part of our 0 for a decade playoff streak has been our relentless mismanaged search for a savior at QB which led us to: start a year later than we should of looking for our next QB draft TC at least a round early make TC the starter when he still needed training to reduce his happy feet (if that is even possible) overreach for that idiot Bill Joe spend not an unreasonable amount to get RJ but then guarantee his contract too early w/o proof he was not injury prone set-up a situation where if DF played as we hopped we ended up with both RJ and DF cap hits (which led directly to the having cheaper ST guys who did not stay in their lane on the Homerun Throw-up. Extending Bledsoe when we should have cut him and declared his pick-up a wash (1 deserved Pro Bowl and 1 bad seasons) rushing JP to start before even he admitted he was ready the current QB folderol. Ultimately Mr. Ralph played a direct role in each of these decisions (he made the original Jimbo error and had public finger prints on the end of the RJ/DF saga. He almost certainly played a direct role in some of the big contract decisions (extending RJ, Bledsoe and signing Hobert may have not been at his specific initiation but he had to have some clear sign off), and in the end the buck stops with him even if he is hands off. My GUESS is that the ultimate FAs like Shanahan have no interest in coming here because though the owner deserves great credit for keeping the team here he also exercises his "right" in our system to meddle and he does this badly.

It is not surprising that on a sports bulletin board that folks would talk about the game aspects of this competitive endeavor. The thing which is problematic to me is that CNN, Fox, and MSNBC seem to go to the easy default of reporting on this as a game rather than doing the in-depth hard journalistic work of reporting which has traditionally been the role of the 4th estate. Even wore troubling is when the supposedly objective media (all human beings have a bias but a good reporter or journalist recognizes that and tries to do work which fights against the natural human tendency). Fox giving a cool million to one of the political operative groups. Treating this as a sport is sloppy. Picking a "team" to root for is not good reporting or journalism. Marketing yourself as fair and balanced when you overtly have picked a team is simply insulting.

In order to own an NFL franchise the new potential owner or owner group MUST win the approval of 75% of the current owners. This is what got Limbaugh killed as a potential owner as the NFL's majority partner, the players (under the current CBA the playwes get 60.5% of the total gross receipts (a number basically dictated by NFLPA head Gene Upshaw who said the final deal must start with a 6). Between Paladino forwarding a photoshopped picture of Obama as a pimp and his association with other bad business concepts like beastiality it is merely a question of whether the union uses it influence to nip Paladino ownership in the bud or current owners do. Just as folks who assume that the Bills will be sold to the highest bidder regardless of his impact on the business model are wrong, the idea of Paladino owning the Bills will simply not happen no matter how much money he has taken from taxpayers.

There are two different but related issues here. One is a question of style and morality as to whether she was dressed appropriately. The other is a business issue of how the NFL reacts when its well-paid players act in a manner that while human is unbecoming to the NFL's economic interests. I think most folks agree that the Azteca reporter like the other Azteca reporter who showed up at an SB game in a wedding dress and asked Brady to marry her was looking for attention and succeeded. The silly hazing and catcalls she got from the Jets was unprofessional and stupid but it was a purposeful act by her that triggered their juvenile reaction. Every individual is entitled to their own moral views about this stupidity, and fortunately it did not tread into any area that mandates government sanction. It is not a first amendment issue at all (nada, zippo, zero, etc) as this episode involved no government sanction at all (much less Congress passing any law that undercuts the right to expression which is what the free speech amendment is all about). However, this does kick into the separate but related to folks sensibilities (or lack thereof) in regard to the business of the NFL. 1. A level of professional behavior and advertising their product through media coverage means that these well paid athletes and anyone associated with the Jets is well compensated to handle this with professional behavior that ignores any provocation the reporter supplied. If someone is scandalized or gets a hard-on they cannot control due to her dress then they should forgo their compensation if they must say what they want. 2. The problem here strikes me as an NFL issue as they should not accredit reporters who are more interested in promoting themselves than promoting the game. 3. The NFL, WNBA, and NBA for that matter are private businesses and have no demand that they perform in any manner which does not violate and individuals right to reasonable expression. Any of these parties can choose different rules for setting up press availability as long as the rule is applied to all without bias on a non substantive issue like gender.

My sense is that people are merging (and thus muddling two related but separate issues here. One is the issue of business and how that business decided to conduct it. The other issue is one of morality and fairness. These two issues obviously intersect here but really are different things and impact what the specifics are in a specific case. For example, the general moral rule is that all people should be treated the same unless there is some clear gender based reason for treating them differently (for example I am quite comfortable with a rape counseling group discriminating against me in terms of who they hire to counsel and help women immediately after a rape- one can conceive of a case where a minor male is taken advantage of sexually by an adult woman and this is rape but in either case the counseling institution can reasonably discriminate in the hiring of the counselor by the issue of gender in this case IMHO. In this case, what we have here would seem to me to be much more of a business decision and the adults involved in this business (from the well paid players to the however paid reporters) have chosen to suspend many of the basic norms of morality (such as a general unwillingness to display one's body) in exchange for the big enough bucks from the business. It strikes me as silly to require the standards of one business to be the same as a different business. I have no problem with the WNBA and the NFL having different rules about access of reporters to locker rooms as long as the rules are applied consistently by that particular business. If the NFL allows accredited male reporters in locker rooms then they should also allow accredited female reporters in locker rooms. Likewise, if the WNBA allows accredited female reporters in locker rooms they should also allow accredited male reporters in locker rooms. It bends morality beyond its purview to claim that the business models of the NFL and WNBA (or even the NBA and WNBA must be the same in regard to this issue as long as they are consistent within their actions on an issue such as gender. This leads to what I think are several other issues which are key to consideration of this case: 1. Is there a dress and behavior code which applies to all accredited reporters and is there a fault here that the NFL should have held all individuals to the same standards in order to receive accreditation? 2. There is a balance which needs to be understood and considered in regard to this situation in that reporting and journalism on issues of state importance like the government is simply different than reporting and journalism in regard to the entertainment product like the NFL. I respect what folks like NFL reporters do and it can be hard work, but in the end, reporting on this entertainment issue and reporting on affairs of state are simply of different goals and import. Sports reporters are to a serious degree part of the business model of NFL promotion. I actually give little public import to getting on the spot immediate reactions from players which undoubtedly the locker room interview can provide. There may be important insights into the human condition one can get in the locker room, but it really makes little difference whether we get these facts presented immediately or with a few minutes, an hour or whatever for the athlete and the business to choose their answer. Locker room honesty is important to this business and to the reporter but is really insignificant compared to what is truly important in life. 3. I have little concern about the sensitivities of athletes who are outlandishly compensated for playing a boys (and increasingly thankfully a girl's) game. These athletes are well compensate for putting their bodies on display for our our amusement during the game and it strikes me as a relatively small price in exchange for massive compensation for the business to require them to be on display a little while longer. I think one need only go back to the renaissance artistic presentation in the film Billy Madison to understand that Business Ethics is a very slippery and often contradictory concept.

Your comparison of Patterson to Stevie Wonder merely because they are both blind is entirely baseless and shows a shallow analysis not grounded on anything factual about talents. Its completely offensive and a fact-free belittlement of one of man who has proven time and again he is a real producer. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Patterson can in fact sing like Stevie to make your comparison more than simple idiocy?

My one question isL Who hired Marv to run his team? Rico makes key point above when he recognizes both the poor results he produced when Mr. Ralph rescued him from retirement and the not likely to be paralleled results of getting to the SB four straight times. However, if you are looking for someone to hate, the buck has to stop at the desk of the guy who not only hired him to amass the 0-4 SB record you cannot forgive (as though anyone asks for your forgiveness for 4 years of the greatest rooting I ever did as a sports fan) but then turned around and hired this miscreant to run the team you love. Any hatred you feel for Marv has to be doubled, tripled or more for the guy who hired him (twice). Personally, I do not hate Mr. Ralph. For me a true sign of mental feebleness is not to be able to hold two seemingly contradictory thoughts in your head and heart at the same time. I revere and have gotten great pleasure from Mr. Ralph being refused a franchise with the AFC in Detroit and parking his 10K om Buffalo. Even though it was a shotgun wedding at best, he deserves great credit from us for keeping the team here when there were likely bigger bucks to be made elsewhere. However, feeling hatred for Marv simply strikes me as letting Mr. Ralph off the hook for engaging in his owners ability to meddle and not leaving the football to the football guys who actually built this winner. From the moment Mr. Ralph violated the salary cap by making a handshake deal with Jimbo to reward him in his next contract (which never happened because Mr. Ralph made the wrong football judgment that Jimbo had career left which started us on the losing track of the search for the next Jimbo (a foolish search which saw us use a 2nd for TC when pundits had him as a 3rd rounder or worse, rushed TC to start when he still had happy-feet, traded for Billy Joe Hobert idiot, gave RJ the gift of a huge contract and then signed Flutie to a deal which set up us giving huge cap space to 2 QBs leading to us cutting vet ST guys so we got hit with the Homerun Throw-up when a youngster did not stay in his lane, etc etc etc. It strikes me as nonsensical to hate Marv and not instead devote the bandwidth to hating Mr. Ralph.

I hope this is not the plan, because if it is and Locker/Mallet have the same impact on the W/L of the team that drafted them then one can look forward to the 2-14 record in 2010 which gives them the first pick in the 2011 draft being a similar 2-14 record going into the 2012 season. If our strategy is to find glory from a savior at QB and our strategy for finding him is the 2011 draft this pretty much writes off not only the current 2010 season but also the 2011 season. Does anyone see this working any differently if we depend on the draft and if so then how?

This is a key point and one of the reasons why I was hoping to see the Bills use private practices in the pre-season to see how Spiller did lining up wide as our #2 WR. Spiller seems to do better in space and if he were wideout it puts him in space immediately. It also raises the question for the DC if whether if he has made the decision the Fish made yesterday to commit a DB to him whether it is sufficient to make the the CB on an island covering Spiller alone and what the implications are for how the team covers Evans on the other side. Its hard to tell from mere TV but it appeared that Evans was over and under dt'ed a lot. If Spiller is adequate at #2 WR (which is not really that hard to do for an RB whom we have no difficulty sending in motion into the pass route as we did with Spiller in the first series) the other benefit is that it spreads the opposing D in much the way we saw Jax and Lynch do well. In order to make the Bills better this season, the key is not to find a great or good QB (if this is your proposal then who specifically do you propose will get the job done). The key is how do you do what Gailey has done before in the past and make the playoffs with an adequate to even poor QB.

+1! How anyone could make a serious football assessment and claim that all we need is a better QB and all things will be fine is beyond lunacy. In fact, it is a series of miscues beginning with Mr. Ralph himself making a wrong wrong wrong football judgment when he made a handshake deal with Jimbo to reward him in his next contract which never happened starts a chain of the foolish and slavish devotion to finding the next savior which has been a key part of fatal decisions since over-reaching for TC, trading for Hobert and locking up a fatal amount of cap space into RJ and Flutie which is as close to a single cause if you want to try to identify A problem. This is not an endorsement of TE (whom I think is too injury prone to rely upon even if one thinks Gailey has a demonstrated record of winning with bad QBs) but a simple recognition that this team needs a lot more than a different QB in order to win.

The primary measure for me is usage. If the Buffalo News is providing useful information or is at least entertaining I buy ans read it. If it is not useful or if there are better alternatives I do not. Several years back my wife got tired of all the paper we had to recycle and advocated getting rid of the News. I finally relented as I felt more and more of the general stories were simply wire reports or simply so bad or repetitive they were not worth much $, The main reason I gave in was my feeling I could see or replace the News with online sources. I committed to simply checking the BN each day. The interesting thing was that of course I often for got to check the News and found that I did not miss it as I got the info elsewhere (ans often that the writing was simply bad or slanted to not be reporting but reading like a teenager keeping a journal. The News has simply declined as a good information outlet and as the approach has descended from a Larry Felser style whom I might disagree with but respect his work to a Sully style which seems neither well researched or showing a good history of learning the game. The News is going away as new alternatives are here and because the writing has declined.

And it is exactly this complex calculus which gets folks to fixate on single players as IF one person is THE solution because it really is too hard to think about a lot of variables. While this tendency to simplify is pretty appropriate for the amount of thinking one should devote to something which is merely a game. Many of us Bills FANatics love TSW because its a chance to commune with others who overthink this game. I guess if this was all so simple as those who want to insist there is ONE right way to do this seem to offer, the game would be a lot more boring. The only real simple truth is that there is more than one way to build a winning team and also that a dose of dumb luck from the way this oddly shaped ball decides to bounce or whether the referee blows the coin-flip is going to be essential to determining a specific game outcome makes me come back for more and also hang around until the final whistle blows in case the TV coverage does not switch to show Heidi while something impossible actually happens. Rule 1 is that there is no rule and Rule 2 is see Rule 1.

You are correct about the specifics but incomplete in not taking into full consideration the full array of events. Yes, Brady is a rarity in and of himself (well actually the fact is the other QB of similar achievements (multiple SB wins) Joe Montana was a 3rd round pick and while not at the end of the draft like Brady would not have been a first day pick in today's draft). What I argue is simply this. Does picking a QB with your team's first round choice make sense as a team building strategy? The answer is that almost certainly no based on what has happened in the real world. The two examples of success in using this technique are actually quite recent, Peyton and RoboQB are actually the first QBs to deliver a QB to the team that drafted them in the 1st. This is interesting since many posters seem to argue not based on the fact that even these two successful picks were the first working examples of this approach since the late 80s when Dallas chose Aikman (and even these two real world examples fall behind the # of SB wins delivered by 6th round pick Brady. Also, advocacy of recent approaches to replacing Jimbo by picking the next RoboQN (Leinart? trading the world to get a shot at Bradford) ignore the fact that the Pitts situation with RpbpQN providing the addition to what was already a playoff ready squad or committing your team to the decade of Polian led team building before Peyton pays off is a strategy the 0 for a decade Bills cannot risk (and this even assumes that your QB pick is as good as the rarity Peyton and not like Leaf who went with the next pick). In fact, if one wanted to try to use your first round pick to get a QB, rather than drafting him what has worked at all in the past is to trade for your Elway or Eli Manning as your mechanism for getting the franchise QB rather than trading away value merely to move up a few draft spots to take the QB targeted. Its cheaper and more cap efficient to let someone else pick and then trade for him rather than trading the fantasy commodity of draft position. The simple facts are that franchise QBs (and even first round or at least first day talent like Brees) are more often found by teams which achieve the goal of winning the SB by making more rational proven choices of getting talent on the waiver wire like Dilfer or two time loser Brad Johnson, from being a boxboy at Walmart (one of the last jobs held by Kurt Warner before this stud QB was acquired) or a late round pick like Brady. Is any one of these approaches a rare event to succeed in leading a team to SB glory? You bet. However, the only thing more rare is the individual cases of a team drafting their franchise QB with a top 10 pick. Poster seem to want to argue that the Bills problem has been not committing a top 10 pick (actually the #9 likely will not do it and one would have to trade even more precious resources and all you get in reality is Jamarcus Russell). Folks whine about the Bills using the #4 when they had it on the failed Mike Williams when actually if they had traded yet more value from our weak team to move up to get the best QB available in reality it would mean Joey Harrington. The simple facts indicate that rather drafting a QB in the top 10 as a road to glory that instead the Bills are MORE LIKELY to succeed by passing on picking a top 10 QB and in fact shopping for the franchise QB elsewhere.

Not only are your views on target but when it comes down to decisions about team building, another factor to consider is that even though no one (including Belicheat and Pioli had no expectation of Brady becoming one of the best players ever (if they believed that I doubt they would have passed on drafting him 5 or more times in a row). There were two keys to this story that determined Brady to be the player he was in addition of NE proving to be great talent evaluators. 1. One of the big differences between Brady and Ryan Leaf is that by drafting a QB later NE took far less of a risk than SD drafting Leaf, Cincy taking Smith or any of the other early round bust who get a cap premium payment it takes to sign a QB. The main lesson to be taken from the Brady pick is look for your franchise QB later in the draf. 2. Dumb luck plays an enormous role as if Bledsoe had not suffered the unusual lung collapse injury likely ME would have had to suffer through a couple of near miss Bledsoe years until they case was built for Belicheat to sit Bledsoe and give Brady a shot. The main rule is do not spend a big draft pick on a QB.

Winning games is one thing winning credit and fan adoration is different thing. Its a quarterback league in a big way in terms of fan adoration and celebrity, However, the great thing about the game of NFL football is that this is a team game. Any team which attempts to focus only on what one player does ends up getting fans and some nice highlights on ESPN but does not win it all. Micheal Vick is actually a great example of how this is a QBs league. The level of talent shown by this athlete is demonstrated by the fact with their reliance on this one player essentially they actually were good enough to make the playoffs. However, this team despite having a far and away superior athlete at QB knew it could not even run an effective O with him alone and made stupid investments like Peerless (a great idea on paper but the game is not won on paper. In the end, this over-reliance on the QB fail prey to his inhumanity and stupidity way off the field, He is the exception in that he is a far superior athlete to virtually all and inhuman morally to horrible levels, but this extreme case highlights the folly of confusing winning it all with making bucks. Even the case of the best QB arguably of all time Peyton Manning was unable to win the big one without the essential support of the best GM in the game, the best kicker in the game, a defensive guru as an HC, one of the best WRs ever, a strong core of RBs and blockers. You have think that he won way more SBs than a certain 6th round pick given all the money and commercials they throw his way. In fact it is my theory that it is the QB distraction embodies in the marketing concept of this being simply a QB league that really is at the base of our 0 for a decade playoff streak as the Bills starting with Mr. Ralph making a horrible football judgment when he made a handshake deal with Jimbo and triggered a rash of over and foolish investments in a search for the next Jimbo that is at the root of our problems. Flat out the last time we made the playoffs was it more intelligent to allocate huge salary cap room to RJ and DF in the football stupid attempt to get the "next" QB savior or would it have been better winning football to have a relatively small amount to keep a vet on ST who would have stayed in his lane to prevent the Homerun Throw-up. The problem we had was not that our "chosen" QB left the field with his team losing. The problem was that the QB position sucked up so much cap room we were forced to play a talented youngster on the wing on ST who got all excited and did not stay in his lane as an older vet would have done,

It sounds to me though like the practical question you are asking for Bills fans is whether there better chance of winning an SB is with TE or of finding an HOF QB? When put this way, my sense is that trying to put together the factors needed to produce the 1 out of 8 outcome is far more likely than producing an HOF QB. The methods of finding an HOF QB seem to run the range from picking one in the first round of the draft (this seems to be such an unlikely proposition with only rarities like Peyton Manning and RoboQB working out that the best bet judging from the stats you present are for the Bills to focus on building a winning team and look for a cutrate option of finding a cheap Tom Brady or Kurt Warner or win with a bad QB like a Brad Johnson or Trent Dilfer. How do you interpret your stats as to what the Bills to do. While replacing TE with an HOF QB would certainly be a fine thing to do, reality is simply not that easy. If the Bills cut TE this does not guarantee and SB win. What do you advocate as the method of getting an HOF QB?

He is the third CB and thus the nickel guy (a virtual starter in today's NFL with the greater use of 3WR sets by opposing Os) on most unofficial depth charts. As is the practice in the NFL the Bills do keep an official depth chart on their site, but Hailey seems quite reluctant to disclose info that the next opponent will use. The official depth chart does list Florence as the starting RCB with McKelvin backing him up. No nickel is listed though I would say there is a consensus that McKelvin is that guy )particularly with some of the struggles #4 CB Reggie Corner has had. The most interesting thing about the depth chart however IMHO is that McKelvin is not even listed as a back-up kick returner. Given his demonstrated ability to take punt returns to the house I think this is weird. Still as far as it goes this only shows the embarassment of riches we have in terms of deadly return guys. As far as a top tier draft pick beginning his third year on the bench, my sense is this says more about what disappoints you than it does about McKelvin as a player, Folks tend to seem to expect any first round pick to be an immediate contributor to the team that chose him. This simply is not reality as I actually looked the depth chats to see how the draftees did in real life. Interestingly I looked at a year which the consensus was a prettu strong draft class. However, as the next season began only slightly more than half were first on their team\s depth chart at their position Good players have to come from somewhere so I believe the draft is a key, but I think that thanks to the marketing saavy of Mel Kiper and the ESPN folks I think most fans oversimplity. It makes less difference to me whether he starts as a position than whether he is a contributor. The best way for MJKelvin to contribute is to run a few returns for TDs would make McKelvin a great contributor which is what I care moat in terms of back-up.

I see the Bills developing a 2 RB scheme with a hybrid WR position with any of these 3 positions being manned by any of these three athletes in order to put all three players on the field at the same time.

What do you think is the plan for getting the 15-20 touches you dictate for Spiller with him being the 3rd RB on the depth chart (When asked about this Gailey flat out emphasized this was in fact true). From my outside observation, Gailey likes Jax as his starter and he has demonstrated that the determination he has displayed which got this Coe College guy to the NFL was shown to be real by his production as our #1 rusher, top receiver, and even return guy last year. My guess is that it is going to be a great problem but DeHaven is going to have to parcel out the return touches between McKelvin- (got a little excited a couple of times and left the ball on the carpet but I think the most talented and lethal return guy on the team last year). Spiller- you are right that the man must touch the ball if the Bills are to succeed and the open field running ability he has already shown points to trying to get him some of the touches on returns. Parrish- a proven return threat who Gailey has publicly identified as someone he expects big things from him this year. Jax- demonstrated an ability to be a reliable and solid performing return guy but the potential of the three above to take it to the house anytime they catch the ball mean Jaxs sits on returns. McGee- He is our #1 CB so is a full time position player but it speaks as much to the incredible depth we have at return even more than his need to focus on pass pro that a former Pro Bowl returner is not even in the mix. This calculus becomes important as in the quest for 15-10 touches it seems unlikely to expect more than a couple a game will come to Spiller from kicks. My sense is that Spiller as a rookie and while by no means a smurf he is not not a huge man either. Both Lynch and Jax have done well in the type of game which historically has run (though historically he has had no depth at RB) which is to run the ball 20+ times in a game and wear down the opponent. Gailey seems to have presented buddies Jax and Lynch a plan where the two of them seemed quite comfortable with co-existing as RBs. Many felt that for sure Lynch was gone this off-season as though he deserved the Pro Bowl reserve nod he received the brain farts with the law make him a bad bet even though he has starter ability. My guess is that Gailey let them know he planned to use 2 RB simultaneously (FB McIntyre is for specialty goaline and sometimes max protect. Either Lynch or Jax has the ability to go into the pass route in motion or even be split out wide. Lynch in beast mode has the ability to be the smashmouth blocker for Jax as well. The great play by Spiller augments and fits in well with this plan, but if you divide the two RB starts among three people it gets to be a little tight for getting touches and for playing consistently. I am just looking for a way for us to get all three players on the field at the same time