2003Contenders

I've never understood this criticsm myself. Let's not forget that the Giants boasted the #1 defense in the NFL that year -- and our offense managed to score a point per minute. The fault squarely lies on the defense for allowing 9 and 10 minute long drives, which kept the offense off the field. If you look back, it's not as if Kelly went completely pass-happy. The dude completed 60% of his passes in that game -- and didn't turn the ball over against a superior defense that routinely had 8 or 9 guys in pass coverage. Also, as mentioned, that doesn't even account for the numerous drops -- which to be fair to Andre, he was beaten to a pulp by LBs and Safeties. The real story of the game is that we lost the battle of 3rd down conversions. The Giants were better than 50% on converting 3rd downs -- and we only converted (if memory serves me correctly) one or two all game. Indeed, when it mattered most and when we needed to make plays to keep the chains moving on offense we didn't get it done. And when the defense needed badly to get off the field, they couldn't force the Giants into 3-and-outs. I've always felt that the Norwood missed FG obscured this fact. In a sick, twisted way, the Norwood miss in the closing seconds has served to make the Bills almost like a tragic folk hero. The added notoriety has probably given that team more notoriety than they ever would have generated had they won the game. No one, for example, really talks about the Giants, who actually won the game. Instead of praising Parcells and his staff for putting together one of the great gameplans in NFL history, all we hear about is the Norwood miss. Maybe that's why I wasn't so upset back then with the outcome -- especially, since I had a feeling that we'd make it back. But if I had known how the other games would turn out -- and the fact that I really think we would have won at least one more of the others if we didn't have this loser's albotross around our neck -- well, it just makes that missed opportunity 15 years ago that much harder to take.

The more this unfolds, the more I'm starting to come around to being on TO's side. Owens still shouldn't have gone public with the lockerroom friction, but Donovan's "Poor me!" act is getting old. In a way I've always understood TO's dissatisfaction. Here he is playing in the Super Bowl -- laying it all on the line with a broken ankle. Meanwhile, McNabb is behaving like a pansy and moving like a sloth with no sense of urgency during clutch time. Personally, I think a coach and QB that don't allow their feelings to get hurt so easily will find a way to live in harmony with TO. There is no question that Owens is going to run his mouth -- the question is why anyone cares about what he says in the first place? Just ignore him -- and throw him the ball on Sundays.

If I recall correctly, Bruce's "sack" was a matter of being in the right place at the right time, as Hostetler tripped over one of his linemen's feet and fell down in the endzone. Even on the one good play that I can recall that Bruce made during those miserable Super Bowls, he failed to get the strip, when Hostetler's arm was exposed with the ball.

Hmmm. That is an interesting observation coming from Smith. And I bet it stems from that game we hosted against Carolina, when Smith was held pretty much in check. Recall that Nate entered that game being heavily criticized after a subpar perfromance against the Chargers. The Carolina game did witness the defense's conversion more to a zone coverage, which worked well for them defensively in that game, since the Panthers weren't prepared for it. However, the scheme proved less successful in subsequent weeks, most notably the very next week against Chris Chambers and the Dolphins. While I tend to agree that Nate is a bit overrated, he is still an above average player at a position, where good players are hard to come by. Thus, I hope that we can re-sign him. Also, with the DL's inability to put pressure on opposing QBs without blitzing, there's no CB alive who wouldn't have had some pretty bad games this year in Nate's shoes.

As we stand today, I agree with you 100%. However, if we address, say, the OL and DL in free agency in a major way, then I can see investing one of our four Day 1 picks on a QB.

OK.... 1. Anyone who blames TD for "letting" O'Donnell go has a very faulty memory of what happened in the off-season between 1995 and 1996. O'Donnell was a free agent -- and the Jets offered him an insane contract, one that TD and the Steeelers had no business trying to match. The contract made him one of the highest paid QBs in the NFL, despite the fact that he was more of a caretaker QB than a stud. How did the decision work out? Well, the Jets went 1-15 the following season with O'Donnell (who was admittedly injured for much of the year). The folowwing year he lost his starting job when the Tuna took over as head coach. Meanwhile, the Steelers were back hosting the AFC Championship Game (which they lost to Denver) by 1997. 2. I won't repeat what many others have already said about the Bledsoe acquisition. Suffice to say that we were in a bad situation at QB. Jeff Blake was the top free agent on the market, and we lost out (looking back, thankfully) on David Carr and Joey Harrington in the draft. I know others will diagree, but even knowing what we know now, if I'm TD I still WOULD have made that trade for Bledsoe ten times out of ten. If nothing else, it brought instant credibility to our team -- and I seriously doubt if free agents like TKO would have signed here otherwise. 3. Again, the verdict is still out on JP. He has clearly shown flashes -- but he was also so mishandled by our coaching staff last year that it isn't funny. With everyone that had a stake in his doing well -- TD, MM, Clements, Wyche -- all gone, I wonder if the new reigme will give him the latitude to sink or swim.

I just heard Kiper say something about Cutler that makes him undraftable as a Buffalo QB if true. He has small hands. In bad weather conditions, that is the kiss of death for a QB.

Since the Jets have SO many needs, I would expect them to move down if given the opportunity. If Mangini has learned anything from his days in New England, you have to think that is exactly what the Jets plan on doing. That being the case, the partner willing to trade up with the Jets would likely be targeting Ferguson. So I don''t think it is fair to assume that the Jets' trading out of that spot is good news for us.

Well, suppose that we address the glaring OL and DL needs in free agency, which I expect Marv and the gang to do. Remember also that we have 4 day-one draft picks, all in the early part of each round. From that perspective I would not be nearly as upset about drafting a QB in the first round. Let's face it. With TD, MM, and now apparantly Sam Wyche all gone, there is no one left willing to go down with the ship over JP. I am personally not ready to give up on the kid just yet, but if the new administration isn't sold on him... Still, I think some of this could be gamesmanship from Marv, trying to see if some team that is interested in selecting Cutler may trade with the Bills -- or even trade up ahead of them so that another top 7 player falls to us. And it could just be that he likes the kid -- even though he may not want to draft him. After all, there are a lot of players to like in this draft -- but only a small number will be drafted by the Buffalo Bills.

Note that the report on the Jets' liking Cutler said that they would be interested in trading DOWN to draft him, meaning that they would not take him with the #4 pick.

In that scenario, I'd be inclined to go with the CB Williams. In fact, if he is still there, I suspect there would be a market to move down with a trading partner.

Actually there is some misinformation being spread around about Henderson. He and the Lions have agreed in priciple, but he has yet to sign a contract with them. Hmmmmm.

One other thing that just occurred to me. If memory serves me correctly, the Packers were not the only team interested in drafting JP. The Rams were supposedly very interested in him too. Now, was it Martz that liked him or Fairchild? One would assume that Fairchild, the team's former QB Coach would have had a say, just as Wyche was a big proponent of our trading up to get JP. Thus, for those who thought one of the advantages to bringing Sherman in was that he was high on JP -- well, maybe we are in the same situation with Fairchild. Count me as one of those who is cautiously optimistic. He managed to get pretty good QB play out of a variety of different guys over the years -- and I don't think that it was all Martz.

I wonder how close he and Sherman are? Is it possible that during his deliberation he gave Sherman and call to get his take on the situation? If that is the case, you'd expect that the feedback he got wasn't good. Either... 1. Sherman has sour grapes for not getting the job and tells Bates how much the opportunity would suck. Or... 2. Sherman turned down the Bills job -- and he emphasizes his reasons for having done so, letting Bates know how much the opportunity would suck.

Any idea how much he was scheduled to make as Packers' DC?

Also, let's not forget that the most important place to find quality OL and DL that will make an immediate impact for us will be in free agency. Remember back to the 2003 draft, at this time that year our greatest need was at LB. After we went out and got TKO, that need was mitigated. We're still going to need some linemen, even if we do land 2 or 3 really goo dones in free agency, but remember also that we have 4 day one draft picks this year. Even if we only invest, say, 2 of them on linemen, that still gives us 2 picks to use on other positions. Remember also that we have a new regime in charge now, which means that they are going to be less inclined to ride the wave of players that the former regime placed a great deal of faith in. That is to say that if Cutler is as good as some of these recent reports suggest, then it may be worth the risk to pull the trigger. With JP still being an unknown commodity and Holcomb inadequate, it's not as if the QB position isn't one of need for us.

If you're right that there are 7 blue chippers in this draft, then I say our odds are pretty good to land one of them at 8, since one of the teams picking 1-7 is likely to do something really unorthodox (i.e. stupid). If all else fails, it wouldn't be the end of the world (to me) if we took Cutler. I saw on the NFL Network the other night where Mayock had him ranked AHEAD of Leinart.

Mike Martz is still lingering out there.

Recall that the 82 Dolphins went back and forth between the supremely talented but inexperienced David Woodley and the weak-armed but very cerebral Don Strock. Word was that the players had little faith in Woodley -- and that they didn't especially like his personality. Meanwhile, Strock was a locker room favorite and the chosen starter by his teammates. Their #1 defense was good enough to get them to the Super Bowl, despite the shortcomings of both QBs. Of course, they lost to the Redskins. I bring this up because I see some of the similarities between those two guys and the two we have on hand. How did the Dolphins' situation resolve itself? Well, the front office must have felt that a NONE OF THE ABOVE answer was in order. With their very next draft pick they selected a guy named Dan Marino. Woodley faded into oblivion, Strock became one of the all time great clipboard QBs, and the rest -- as they say -- is history.

Actually a change in scenario COULD do Ramsey some good. He's always been treated as something of a red-headed stepchild in Washington. His first coach, Spurrier, was so disenchated with the team's decision to draft him, that he tried to trade him BEFORE he even showed up for training camp. Truthfully, he was never a good fit for "the ball coach's" Fun N Gun offense, and Spurrier preferred our own Shane Matthews for that cap-gun attack. When Joe Gibbs came in, the first thing he did was sign Mark Brunell to a ridiculous contract -- and annoint him the starter. Brunell stunk it up so bad, that Gibbs was forced to indert Ramey for the final few games of the season. Ramsey proved to be an improvement -- and was named the starter going into 2005. That lasted all of two quarters. After getting knocked out of the season opener against the Bears, Brunell came in -- and never relinquished the starting job. The injury gave Gibbs the excuse he needed to make the inevitable switch back to his chosen QB. Considering the success the Skins had this year, I can't say that anyone can blame Gibbs for going that direction. The bottom line is that Ramsey simply was not HIS guy, as he inherited him from a coach that really didn't want him either. I fail to see the comparison to JP -- other than they went to the same school. In fact, JP's first season there he backed Ramsey up. Think of Ramsey as a younger version of Bledsoe: great arm but little mobility. I think in the right system with a quality OL, he could be a quality NFL starter. Based on what I just said, Ramsey and Buffalo may not be a match made in heaven. Still, if he comes cheap he could provide a reasonable alternative to Holcomb and/or JP if neither QB proves to be up to the challenge.

Nah, I think Pittsburgh still would have found a way to beat the Bengals even with Palmer in there.

I live in the DC area and am pretty much forced to keep up with the latest Redskins' goings on. This is the first I have heard of any such trade. Everyone knows that Ramsey is the odd man out in Washington, who is facing some serious cap problems this year. I suspect if any team is interested in acquiring him, all they need to do is wait until the Redskins cut him. The Redskins' front office has a pattern of ineptitude when it comes to dealing with the players that they plan on cutting. Last year they made it no secret that they were prepared to move on without Rod Gardner. They were lucky to get a 6th round pick for him from Carolina as a result. They've telegraphed the same message regarding both Ramsey and Lavar Arrington this year. Look for them to get a mid-round pick at best for Arrington now.

Great work! Still, in the final analysis, any head coach is only as good as his supporting cast. That includes assistant coaches, the front office, and the players. Jauron had some issues with all three of these phases during his time in Chicago -- some of it out of his control and some of it not. He can start things off right by binging in some high quality coordinators.

And in the What-Have-You-Done-for-Me-Lately world of the NFL, Sherman's Packers will have a top 5 draft pick in April.

I vote for the third category but add the caveat that I think Soprano believed his "source". Perhaps it was that the joke was on him in the sense that his "source" probably buffaloed him.