Hplarrm

Possible but it would be bad football to give him a higher depth chart position than he deserves from his play, but also bad football to declare a player a busy prior to three seasons of play. There is no need to panic and not give a 1st round pick with Maybin's speed several shots at making it work,

Spiller at WR!

The best thing Pyrite has written. I usually skip over posts that long but it held my interest the whole way through. I am now curious what the heck I wrote and am going to have to go back and find it.

Thanks/ I actually have been around and about TSW though not as consistently as I have been in some past eras. A new season springs forward though so I likely will ramble on from time to time.

Even better for us. This is a move year for Whitner. Either he demonstrates that the thoughts of a couple of seasons ago that it was gonna be a breakout year for him was merely premature or we are happy to see him move on to greener pastures. If he steps up and shows real production this year then I have no problem with the Bills rewarding him with an extension before next season. However, if he does not impress this year I have no problem letting him play out his last year or maybe even cut him if we have a better alternative.

I think the important judgment Gailey likely is making (this assumes that he and Nix are the very good judges of football player and in particular offensive talent that they demonstrated very good evidence of being in their previous jobs) is that yes Losman was an unproductive and ultimately too inconsistent a producer to be worthy of being the franchise QB we all wanted and this team and its fans richly deserve. However, my pretty firm sense is that Gailey understands (but likely is appropriately judicious in saying that yes Losman was an unproductive QB, but in the real world he actually was a great athlete no matter how many Bills partisans want to deny it. The difficulties and failings in Losman's game were real and were evidenced consistently. However, anyone who makes the judgment or reaches the conclusion that he was incapable of becoming at least an adequate and effective as an NFL starting QB is likely all wrong! No one can say for sure as reality is reality and Losman never consistently demonstrated in the real world he could do the job required of a consistent NFL starting QB. Thems the facts! However, my sense from too many years of studying the NFL as a fan (years which ironically to me are probably better expressed as approaching 4 decades as was the case this 51 year old really began to follow the NFL with some seriousness when I was at the young age of six but actually had some real appreciation and an ability to make some reasonable football judgments about my hometown Chicago Bears who were led by Dick Butkus and Gail Sayers on the field and most importantly for us by spiritual and practical football leader Papa Bear Halas who was our GM and Bill Polian in the NFL and for the most part really was the HC even when he was not patroling the sidelines. Gailey comes with a reputation honed in his ability demonstrated in the real world of actually getting productive play out of some fairly marginal athletes who played QB for his teams like a Mark Bulger. My GUESS is that if Gailey had been in charge of the Bills a few years back he would have likely demonstrated that JP proved to be an unproductive QB not just because he is a failed athlete, he likely would have found a way to get the most productivity he could out of JPs skills and minimized his failings in order to produce a consistently above .500 record with the Bills. No one can say for sure (which is why football makes for some fun arguments!) what Losman's career would have been like if he had different leaders of the Bills coaching staff and FO when (and if) he got here, but my sense is that the football pundits and experts actually were not wrong when they judged Losman to be a great talent who was in the view of most the 4th best QB in his draft class. In fact, there was very little squalling and in fact a number of compliments given to TD for him stepping up back into the first round to snag Losman as it was pretty certain that the Bills were going to need to acquire the next Bills QB as it had turned out that though Bledsoe had been an outstanding pick-up based on the results of his first year (he actually did deliver as our starting QB his first year at a level which made good on the excitement which thousands of season tickets purchased merely on him being acquired by the Bills. Even those who choose to judge the quality of his play by its sad ending of performance as a Bill also have admit if they want to be rational that in his first year here that though Belicheck exposed his weaknesses twice that Bledsoe was quite good leading a pretty bad team to an 8-6 record in the other 14 games. Yet, rather than admit reality after Bledsoe stunk up the the joint in his second season and TD should have let Bledsoe hit the free market rather than extending him, TD did resign him, only to have to eat his words (and have Ralph eat the remainder of the bonus paid when he signed and TS cut him. Yet, at that point many Bills fans were at the very least willing to trust but verify how JP would do taking over the starters role. Even JP publicly admitted that he had gotten the starters job in less than the preferred way when he was simply given the starter job by TD rather than him earning it on the field with his play. However, make no mistake subjectively most of the pundits judged JP as clearly a cut below the first 3 QBa who ended up drafted that year. However, there also seems to be consensus growing just prior to the draft that JP clearly merited an early second round pick and might reasonably squeeze in as a late first round pick if there was a team desperate for a QB who might trade up to get him, As it turned out that team was the Bills and actually TD made a far sighted judgment which read the prospects available in the next draft and judged that JP though clearly 4th among the QBs in his actual class, he was also clearly the class of the next group of QBs who would be available the next year. Sure the Bills had given up their first the next year to get Losman that year, but actually there was a pretty fair chance would have been forced to draft a QB with their first the next year and as it happened I think the first QB off the board the next year was Alex Smith who may finally actually prove to be the niners QN of the future but he did did not play a game the year before last and logged just over half a season last year. Losman actually was quite productive his senior year in college behind a complete turnstile OL at Tulane. There are legit questions as to whether the Bills should have drafted him unless they were committed to having hm learn what he needed to learn if he was ever gonna be a consistent pro. He certainly was not gonna make it with the situation, dysfuctional offense and confused teaching style offered by the Bills.

There is no question McCargo is a flat out bust. However, it does strike me as a little bit football blind when one can blast the Bills (even if correctly) for the mistake with McCargo and not also since one chooses to site this draft not give them some praise for the incredible rarity of getting a first year starter in the 5th in Kyle Williams. To some extent he got the start because McCargo was so bad and the roster had no talent on it to compete. However, Williams strikes me as having earned the extension he got and has seemed to earn the attention and respect of other players and opposing coaches around the league with a Pro Bowl alternate nod. If he succeeds in playing a positive role in the 3-4 then he will have earned respect big time, I can't see the logic of panning the Bills for bad scouting or picking in regard to the bad pick of McCargo without at least giving some nod of the hat for Williams as a pick,

It was tough for them to make this claim though the time the ref blew the coin flip.

I would say any two year plan that involves using the draft to get a franchise QB is somewhere between foolish and just stupid. With the selection of Peyton Manning, Indy found this addition did not result in any results in terms of Ws until his second year so there is at least a likely chance that we are looking at a 3 year plan if it involves picking a franchise QB. This is but one variable in this equation where the nature of the league being a future is now kind of place the big variable of how long Mr. Ralph is gonna be around (not just in terms of needing to use his will but simply to be as healthy as possible to travel with any frequency from home to games). I think yes there is a two year plan in place, if only because it would be foolish to commit to expect results in one year that is going to result in a hiring/firing decision. However, it does not make a lot of sense for the Bills to invest in a two year plan for the possibility of success as this does not fit the business, nor does it fit the personal needs of the Bills.

I also suspect this variation will be the case. I suspect Gailey to some degree will defy naming the offensive style so as not to typecast the Bills into one set style of operating and also so as not to tip off the opposing DC, I also hope that Spiller can quickly master his use essentially as wide out in our O as I think we simply do not have a proven #2 WR (the best we have I think is Steve Johnson who unfortunately is not only unproven in his brief career as a #2 but actually regressed statistically across the board last year. If Spiller proves able to fill this gap it will help us immeasurably as it has already been shown that even if you believe in him as #1 WR (which many do not as he was not even statistically the #1 WR last year) it has been demonstrated that a dt can make him ineffective. Our #2 must attract attention away from Evans. If Spiller goes wide (either in motion from RB or simply lined up there, his speed instantly creates some severe match-up problems for the dc who now likely has to play a zone or dt both WRs. Throw Parrish into the line-up as a slot receiver and it forces the DC to assign his third fastest DB to a WR who deserves their fastest guy. It also allows Beast Lynch or the reliable Jackson to run against a dime coverage in spread mode and the running game is helped by our showing the pass.

No. We should not do something difficult to reverse (like picking up a player for a key role who may be damaged goods or trading away a player whom we do not know for sure whether he is gonna be very good or not in our new systems( based purely on a roster move we are making based on theory,

I do not think you give Sully enough credit, as a writer he is not only a horse's ass but also a horse's front end as well. As a writer he comes off like the dog in the Beggin strip commercial, full of sound and fury, but ultimately he cannot get the job done because of his particular fundamental failing on having no hands. Sully seems to hands (of stone likely) but his writing style and radio persona seems all about fundamental failings as an analyst. He simply emotes the word pathetic with virtually every rant he makes.

+ 2. I on the other hand think unlike some posters who seem to want him gone that though Hardy has busted so far, I hope he turns it around when the pre-season games start. The Bills are simply so lackluster tat WR that I think Evans will simply be dted and taken out of the game and thats bad for us. Be it Hardy, Jackson, Parrish or Easley someone has to step up and none of them have shown the real world production to be thought of as a legit #2 (yet).

This list strikes me as a not unreasonable guesstimate. Of course there are elements which will not work out this way if only due to an injury which forces another player who should be gone on a simple player assessment to stay, but this working model seems fine to me. Cutting Hardy did pop out to me as the clearest big decision of letting a first day pick go and having him beaten out by a player who initially did not impress the pundits like Hardy did. The main thing that this pointed out to me though was that I think we are in probably for a very bad time if Steve Jackson is the best we can do at #2 WR. I think if this were our line-up then it will be even more critical to utilize Spiller in motion becoming a receiver a lot otherwide Evans would simply be double-teamed and taken out the game. I have been happy to hear some good things being said about Jackson's play so far in camp, but the great failing our O last year was that the suddenly Schoenertless O never seemed to find a way to employ the threats offered by Evans speed and TOs gamebreaking ability to improve the play of both men and make the Bills O a quandary for opposing DCs. I do think that Jackson runs good routes and actually has good size, however, he simply regressed in terms of output last year in terms of receptions, yardage and PT. I know it was tough on him because even though employed ineffectively, Evans and TO sucked a lot of air out of the room for other WRs in our poorly designed O. However, if a player is really good, he simply demands that the ball be thrown to him because he beats his opponent. This is no guarantee of success (rookie Josh Reed was very good as the #3 playing with Moulds and PP who both hovered around the 100 catch mark but he still had a very impressive rookie campaign and it was a legit thought to let PP walk in exchange for a 1st and expect him to step up his second year- instead he developed the droppsies and failed miserably as a WR). Jackson did not even produce well enough to judge him anything but regressed and we expect this record to somehow be a threat at #2. Well maybe, but this is really scary. As unlikely as it may be that Spiller can play WR, if this is all we got such a move or its equivalent will be needed to make this O even competitive.

Actually in terms of reality and an OK person being more in touch with reality when a lifelong fantasy does not come true, rather than having one's pro football dream not work out really should not be simply rough but a good thing on the road to becoming a better person. Its really hard for me to feel too bad about a young man in his early 20s who has his health generally (even when one suffers a football injury that makes it impossible to succeed at the NFL level, these athletes generally do have their health- they can maybe only run a 40 in 4.8 rather than 4.8 because of a gamey knee lets say and this combines with them with some other factor like having OK but not great hands and their NFL dreams end. No matter how disappointing this may be to them (he slept with his uncles tattered football card when unc was briefly a pro before he got killed in a weird brothel accident and he had his hopes and dreams set on having his own football card to give to his nephew or some worse story) I cannot feel sorry for this man. He is a young man who cannot cut it as an NFL player, but at that level he has the ability to do so many other things that are not only good for him but are good for others as well. I simply know too many people who are disabled and cannot walk, my own lovely wife who due to a childhood disability was forced to get a lung transplant and through her diligence has beat the odds and simply survived more than 5 years after transplant who for years has worked parttime as a volunteer coordinator for a not-for-profit that supports good parenting, etc. I feel a little bad for almost all athletes whose NFL dreams run acropper, but it is hard for me to feel too bad for this young person who even if not NFL worthy has a wonderful life ahead of them if they choose. The person I think really has it rough is the person who is actually rooting for someone's dreams to fall apart. It really strikes me as incredibly sad (bordering on disgusting) to think that a person is actually getting pleasure from someone else's failure. Yeah, I think some of the platitudes I have heard roll out of Tim Tebow's mouth strike me as odd and sometimes offensive if he appears to be making a judgment on another person without trying to walk in their shoes, but I would think it would be pretty pathetic for me as a person to wish him poorly or draw pleasure from him being cut. The whole idea presented in this thread of wishing someone to be cut really saddens me about the human condition. I hope I just misinterpreted and there really is no vitriol behind the sentiment expressed.

I really liked you using the word IF in your litany of possibilities as it actually presents a very different level of uncertainty and wide ranging possibilities to this situation than I took from previous messaging by you that seemed to present much more certainty about an issue you described as that simple. It clearly ain't simple at all and I think this post provides a nice contrast to the impression I gathered from the declaration of simplicity. I also was quite pleased to see you agree with there are outside bidders who even if they were the highest bidder would not be acceptable to the league. I also believe there are outside bidders who MAY be acceptable to the league. I have no problem with these two maybes being true as really these two truths are what demonstrates it ain't really that simple. I am a little confused though about how it can both be true with your first statement we agreed about that there MAY be high bidders out there which are unacceptable to the league but then you say that the owner has established that the team would be sold to the high bidder. Unless you feel that it does not matter what the league thinks (if you and I are right that there are potential bidders out there who MAY not be acceptable to the NFL and what Ralph has established of selling to the highest bidder without regard to what the other owners think then you are right the team might simply go to the highest bidder. However, this makes no sense in terms of business practice and the little I know of the law: 1. It appears to me that Ralph has contractually agreed either when he bought the franchise or participated in ongoing processes like the merger, the first CBA, and clearly in the last CBA where he voted one way with GB and everyone else voted the other way and Ralph has lived by the majority vote. I see lots of signs that Ralph and the Bills will live by NFL rules and no evidence that they would not and the rule is not that Ralph can simply force the NFL to do business with the highest bidder but only with the highest qualified bidder. That bidder would need to attract 75% support of the other team owners. Does this mean the Bills won't move? No not at all. However, what does this mean about the declaration of certainty that the Bills will definitely move? It actually adds a wrinkle to this that it just ain't simple. Unless you have some factual information or merely even want to engage in fact-free arguing that a dead Ralph can do whatever he wants without regard to what the NFL wants then feel free. However, back here in the real world, we realize that if the agreement of 75% of the owners is essential to any move and Chuck Shumer or Gillenbrand and their desire to curry favor with their WNY voters announce that if the Bills are gonna be the only team which plays in NYS and may leave if sold to someone who wants to move them, they are gonna initiate hearings into jettisoning the NFLs limited antitrust exemption, Shumer needs to only find 8 wimps among the owners he can roll into opposing potential owners who may move the team. Will it happen, I do not know. But the key is that you do not know either and it ain't that simple. 2. Does Ralph's will actually state it will be sold to the highest bidder (though in real life it actually must be to the highest qualified bidder but we can ignore that for the moment)? I have not seen Ralph's will. Have you? Ralph made some statement it appears that the team will be sold to the highest bidder (I have not seen the actual quote though I have heard it referenced but do you have a link? Has he changed his mind since his daughter died? Might he change his mind and thus his will in the future due to a change of heart or senility? The bottomline is I think that really none of us really knows what Ralph is gonna say in his will and anyway though what he says will certainly matter he will be dead. Any disputes simply go to the courts and actually given the speed of the probate courts if there is any dispute the Bills will remain in Buffalo for years while the case wends its way through the system. It ain't that simple. 3. At any rate I think there is a thing most of us agree is the truth that drives this thing. Namely, that the owner being a person will likely go for the thing which gets him the most cash. I know I think that. However, I think the fallacy in most folks thinking is that they are assuming that the question is whether an owner in the position of Ralph or the NFL owner of your grandma's era makes more money with the franchise in Buffalo, LA, or some other dot.com city. Actually, as best as I could tell Ralph lost the last vote on the CBA badly because he is among the last to accept that it ain't like the old days where owners like George Halas did whatever they wanted. Its now a corporate world and actually with the late 80s CBA the NFL rejected the free market model (individual owners without the collaboration of the NFLPA had dissolved itself would actually have had to negotiate personal services contracts with each player in a true free market. Instead the team owners gave the NFLPA what it wanted which was to become a partner rather than simply employees and actually get as much as 70% of what was called the designated gross. This started formally the end of the illusion of a free market (the owners were individual gunslingers but did not really participate in a free market which paid market rates for players skills. Instead with that CBA the NFL owners and the NFL players went down the road together to a much more socialized brand of capitalism. Everybody made more money than than was remotely possible under the old psuedo free market, The decision-makers now is not the individual team owner for the entire league, The last CBA which awarded the players 60.5% of the total gross receipts was accepted by the Jerry Jones and the Snyders of the world because they realized that they actually made more money with 39.5% of the NFL total receipts (with its lead source being the TV nets) than they would with a disputed contract and labor war. It did not matter in terms of maximizing profit that he owners could kick the tar out of the players as happened in the 80s lockouts. As long as the provision of a product was dicey the TV nets would not invest heavily. With the CBA and the collusion of the NFL and NFLPA in place the TV gave the NFL billions. This cash cow is once again at risk with the reopening of the CBA and the haggling will go on until the last minute as millionaires fight with billionaires. However, the fact remains there is no money unless they play so play they will. As far as playing Buffalo or elswhere. I think the NFL owners and the TV nets that really pay for it maximizes its profits not by collecting the chumpchange of a licensing fee for the new owner split 31 ways. but by pursuing what appears a strategy of getting additional eyeballs in markets like Mexico City, Toronto, Europe, Tokyo and even Johannesburg to turn on to the American version of football. If this is the central strategy, the game here is not for individual owners to maximize their personal profits by extorting money from citys, but instead to realize the real cash market is eyeballs around the world. In this configuration the Bills value actually comes from the tradition it brings as an original AFL town. The positive it brings to the NFL is that its history with the greatest game ever played and a lot of HOF players is that as other cities join in they become part of the rich tradition. If it leaves the negative is that as each town around the world considers whether to join, the sad pictures of abandoned Buffalo fans is not a good backdrop for selling the NFL experience to a potential new city. The league will follow the money and given the choice between a Buffalo or Toronto franchise the great answer for the NFL if it can pull it off would be to have both cities.

Reality says it ain't that simple. Lets say that the highest bidder is a group led by (or even has a prominent member) Rush Limbaugh. Does the highest bidder automagically get the team? Nope. This already happened. Let's say that the highest bidder is some Saudi rich guy with Toronto chops. Lets say he is Osana bin Laden's cousin has the name has not expressed a love for jihad but refuses to disavow and rag on his cuz is the high bidder. Is the NFL forced to make this a part of the business promotion strategy? I think not. Both logic and the contractual agreement between Ralph and the NFL mandates that 75% of the owners must agree to the new owner and they have in essence an absolute veto on who is their partner, so this must go to the highest bidder thing ain't always the case. Its the golden rule in this league (he who had the gold rules) but just being the highest bidder is not the same as this purchase being good business.

My sense would be economically about the extent to which the NFL as part of its strategy to reach more eyeballs by setting up franchises in foreign countries, does the NFL do this best by moving the Bills to Toronto, or instead my sense is try to create a Maple Leafs/Sabres dynamic with the Bills/whoever they are. The Bills by pursuing their current strategy are doing a number of things: 1. Asserting their territorial rights so that if.when the NFL gets a Toronto franchise part of the buy-in price is a payment to the Bills (and Mr. Ralph is he is still with us) for encroaching on the Bills territory. 2. Supports the current Bills regional marketing strategy. In fact, even if there is a Toronto team, Buffalo will be closer and still market to get folks Hamilton and South to Ft. Erie. 3. Tests what the market will pay for football. 4. Builds relationships with Toronto based companies and gets them into the habit of buying football and using it for entertainment. I think it works well together. Franchises co-exist in hockey. There are a lot of advantages to see if and how they can coexist in football.

In addition, the pro teams are about playing ball with 100% of the time they can devote to the game. In college, though often the scholar-athletes are at best athlete-scholars if only to the extent they pretend to put effort into education it is a different thing than when your fulltime job is playing the game. Merely the distractions of being 19 and learning about yourself and being 25 and having at least already made a bunch of decisions is a huge difference. There are even physical maturation differences where collegiate athletes are still growing and pro athletes have hit a peak in their physical abilities (and modern neurological theory is demonstrating that full neurological connections between the action parts of the brain and the logical decision making parts of the brain are still not fully formed until the early 20s (this is in part why youngsters are such risk takers and why giving an 16-21 year old a license to drive several tons of metal which can go 100 miles an hour is not necessarily a good idea. Why we give kids a license to drive at 16, allow them to vote at 18 but understand that when they drink before 21 bad things happen is somewhat interesting. At any rate a collection of young pros has it all over collegiate athletes in a number of ways which often have an impact when it comes down to the final seconds of a tight game. I do not think that the game would even be close though. Perhaps with the right Herb Brooks type to challenge these youngsters to take on the professionals it would be like the Miracle on Ice. However, the fact that this was a miracle provides you with a general sense of how hard and rare it is to have plucky lads do in paid professionals.

What I suspect is that in the same way that Tagliabooboo and the other powers that be which manage the NFL as a profit making entity for the owners will make a similar compelling case to the individual owners that they made when they got them (over the voting objections of Ralph and GB) that the way for them to maximize profits is to do things which convince or allow the TV networks to continue delivering money to the team owners. In this world while Jerry Jones, Snyder, et al can do well on their own for a while (a short while actually but then the free market creates such few big winners and a lot of smaller losers that the whole product founders. Pete Rozelle's ultimate vision which is finally coming true is to create a business called the NFL which actually is much more of a socialized collective than a classic free market business. The socialized collective does such non-free market things as reward failure (the losing teams get better draft picks) and the law allows this collective to make deals with the workers socialized collective, the NFLPA to do non- free market stuff like restrain free trade through the player draft (even adults are kept out of the player market as unlike baseball which begins bidding for talent at 16 or the NBA where high school graduates can apply to enter the draft, you are kept out until the men of your age would graduate from college. While the actual decision-makers (in essence the TV nets because its the Golden Rule- he who has the gold rules) decide to maximize profits the market they are selling to is not this urban area or that urban areas, it the eyeballs around the world. The main reason I suspect a team will remain in Buffalo is that its a good part of the story which the nets are happy to ship billions of dollars to the NFL in order to sell it. Ticket sales and local advertising is a substantial cash cow which will not be ignored. However, it is a relatively small cash stream compared to the real deal of selling eyeballs to show beer, car and soap ads to. Buffalos greatest value to the NFL is that it is part of the tradition of the league as they move to buy access to more eyeballs in Mexico City, Toronto and Europe. My guess is that the main determinant on future location of the franchise is whether there is more money to be made simply by moving the Bills to Toronto or by opening a new franchise in Toronto to do a Maple Leaf/Sabres kind of thing. Otherwise it is just a bird in the hand calculation as there may be money to be made in another municipality but moving the Bills somewhere else means walking away from 40 years of marketing which created a near billion dollar entity. When given a choice between Buffalo and some other city an individual owner might make a choice to go one place or the other, but the NFL choice will clearly be both. I say the NFL should be careful because if the abandon Buffalo, in addition to the bad and sad press it creates while they are trying to sell a story of gleeful expansion to new markets, it also means they simply walk away from a lot of assets created here. Some of these assets they can load in a Mayflower van and take with them. However, a lot of them representing a far from majority (the market is the TV audience) but still is a huge often cash asset. If they leave that I think that someone will try to come in and collect those assets (40 years of football madness, local advertisers, 40.000+ season ticket holders, local media excitement, the county owned stadium, etc. In particular if the timing of the Bills leaving town coincides with CBA negotiations then it would make perfect sense for the players to launch their own league with Buffalo as a tie to the old days and traditions. A competing league would likely have the same benefit for the players that the AFL had when Ralph and others launched it and the USFL had when they signed players like Jim Kelly in that it escalated salaries and union power to new heights to have some good old American competition for talent. Would the NFL powers that be want to keep Buffalo a franchise because of its beliefs in the old traditions? NO (are you kidding me-show them the money) However, would they want to keep the Bills in Buffalo because that maximizes their profits (they prefer to have Buffalo +other eyeballs and the market does not force them to choose like it does an individual owner ) and also leaving does not create opportunities for successful competition. My guess is the Bills stay because there is more money for the NFL if they do.

Though your description of reality departs from reality in terms of interpretation and recitation of the details, in the big picture you are accurate in describing the task of the Bills coaches to make something out of tools found to be less than nothing in previous efforts (less than nothing based on inputs like GB letting Brohm go or Edwards getting tons of grief from fans/media hee in WNY). The good news is that Gailey actually has a track record of having productive Os run by QBs judged by many to be failures in their previous gigs. Actually given that all 3 QBs have experienced some success previously (Edwards really did look quite good until he didn't for several months, no one mistakes Fitzy for a franchise QB but he has been able to at least be a credible reserve, Brohm has proved the least in the real world though on paper he is the most athletic of the trio) there actually is not an impossibility that though the Bills will not find a savior franchise QB from these 3, they will find a signal caller who runs the offense at an "adequate" level. By this I mean no where near good enough to go deep in the playoffs but perhaps good enough to lead a team to the playoffs one day.

Why cut someone you can trade for something that will help the Bills? A young former starting QB in the NFL . If you can get a 7th you trade rather than cut him.

Its the ongoing battle between momentum and inertia. It takes a lot of momentum to change current reality such that the Bills move, Inertia keeps things locked into the same state of existence. Inertia tends to have the advantage in any battle as it takes doing something to get things to change. Time marches on relentlessly so things much change and momentum eventually wins. Will the Bills be here tomorrow? I can say with virtual certainty yes (the planet pr gravity may not be here so one can never say something with total certainty but virtual certainty): YES. Will the Bills be here forever? NO. You are picking a point in time somewhere between tomorrow and forever.

The approach is a bit odd to me in that while I think there are players who I believe will get cut it is the rare player that I actually wish he gets cut. However, some fans get enjoyment out of seeing others suffer so I guess whatever floats one's boat.

A couple of good columns should not create a bad day for anyone. Even a broken clock is right twice a day so a good column from time to time does not invalidate a solid record of poor writing and thinking. As a columnist rather than a journalist Sullivan's job is to attract attention and have folks talk and care about his stuff. He does that in a perverse George Bush kind of way. Bush took the presidency with the goal of uniting huge groups and forging unprecedented agreement among vast swaths of people. He did unite people with him leading the country into an unneeded war and imploding the economy that everyone agreed he was an idiot. Sullivan also has proven to a wide group of folks that often disagree about things that he is an idiot.