2003Contenders

I still wonder if Polian didn't have some sort of buyer's remorse and begged the medical staff to find something -- anything -- that could conceivably justify McCargo failing a physical.

One thing that I have found encouraging is that -- Arizona game aside -- they have shown a tendency to get better as the game moves forward. Part of that, I believe, is a product of the big men wearing down the defense over the course of the game. Peters has now played in 4 games. That is his preseason. He's had the extra week to help with the cohesion factor. Lets hope he looks like the LT he thinks he is beginning this weekend.

Saw Charlie Cassely on the CBS pregame show yesterday. He said that the Chiefs will indeed settle for a 3rd rounder. When asked why some team hasn't already jumped on that, Casserly pointed out that the 2009 draft class is expected to be the best EVER. That is because so many juniors are expected to declare themselves draft-eligible because the the subsequent collective bargaining agreement is expected to put a heavy cap on rookies.

I will have to say that I have come full circle on this one. At the time I was angry because no flag was thrown. However, after watching all the replays it did appear to me that it was not a deliberate helmet-to-helmet hit. So I do not feel that the hit was illegal -- and the officials were right not to throw the flag. My next bone of contention was that, while the hit may not have been illegal, was it justifiable? More pointedly, was Wilson TRYING to hurt Trent? My immediate reaction was Yes he was. It certainly seemed like he could have at least let-up. For one thing that point is debatable. We are talking about a large, fast athlete who was coming at TE at full speed. Also, Wilson's reaction when Trent didn't get up -- motioning to the training staff -- was not the act of someone intent on causing injury. Also, I had to ask myself, how I would have reacted if, say, Poz or Witner had laid a similar lick on the opposing QB. I likely would have applauded their effort -- and, in fact, did so when Mitchell popped Warner's chin open. For me personally, it was a legal, "clean" hit.

While I agree with the well-analyzed criticisms of the pass defense on Sunday. I have to say that we do have to give Kurt Warner some credit for staying cool, patient and not making any mistakes considering how many time he put the ball in the air on Sunday. That he completed so many passes (over 30) and wound up with only about 250 yards passing tells you that the defensive gameplan of not giving up the big play was working. Indeed, considering how the Cards offense was scoring at will and our offense had really only sustained one long drive, it is worth noting that we were only down by a single TD early in the 3rd quarter. That is why I am not TOO worried about the sub-par performance of the defense going forward. They are not going to face a QB that is in the zone the way Warner was too many times this year. Still, it should would be nice if our front 4 could get consistent pressure on the QB...

The good and bad with this scheme were on full display Sunday. The good is that is that it does effectively prevent the big play. That means that it will take an opposing offense more snaps to get into scoring position -- which ordinarily means more chances for the opponent to make a mistake. Give Kurt Warner and the Cardinals some major credit for playing almost error free. He was patient and took what the defense gave him -- and was also quick to get the ball out of his hand. I think the reason that there were fewer blitzes is because the Cardinals used so many multi-WR sets, and Jauron was frightened of getting burned in the event that the blitzers didn't get there. It's the same failed fear strategy that he always seems to employ against Brady, who like Warner (at least the Warner we saw on Sunday) is patient, accurate and decisive enough to pick the defense apart. It certainly would help if the CBs would occasionally play closer to the line and get a jam here and there to disrupt the quick slants. It would also help if the front 4 could get some pressure WITHOUT having to rely on the blitz.

What could Davis' argument be for not paying Kiffin? Since the end of last season, Davis has done everything he can to provoke Kiffin into resigning -- and no dice.

Actually I believe that we have seen the past few weeks will be somewhat emblematic of what lies ahead offensively speaking. The gameplan will continue to be pound the ball for the first three quarters. If we are ahead (as we were against Seattle) then continue as before. If behind, then unleash the full offense. Remember, we have the biggest OL in the NFL. It was very clear that the defenses in Jacksonville and Oakland both wiltered by the 4th quarter, which gave our offense a considerable advantage. I am not saying I agree 100% with this philosophy, but it appears to be what Dick Jauron believes in.

I know Bruce was probably not far from being correct in his "modest" assessment of himself. I mean he is so CERTAIN that he is a first ballot Hall of Famer (which he obviously is). B part of me would almost like to see the Hall of Fame pass him over for just one year (as they did with Thurman), just to hear him moan and whine about it.

And to make it worse, the stupid Canadians will probably be rooting for Ricky.

I have always believe that the Whitner pick was a symbolic one by Marv. After five years of Donahoe's alleged micro-management, I believe that Marv wanted to start off on the right foot by building a strong sense of unity and consensus with the team -- and not leaving anyone out. I imagine that there were some in the War Room that wanted a QB (and Cutler is reportedly the guy they had graded the highest). There was also some disagreement about the DTs, as Nagata wasn't the prototypical Cover-2 DT, and Buckley was a better fit but had question marks. I think Whitner was a guy that everyone in the room was on board with -- and he was a SAFE pick in the sense that he was very unlikely to be an outright bust. From that perspective, the pick was a very, very good one.

I think he is talking about Keith Rivers, not Philip. Anyway, the linebacker Rivers was gone when the Bills picked anyway.

My guess is that it was probably Sullivan who asked the question. He has a knack for being somewhat tactless. Although I personally believe that any such question would be fair game, perhaps if worded tactfully, Sullivan (or whoever asked the question) may have actually gotten a decent response from Marshawn. Instead, the question was presented in a way to provoke him -- and that is probably what the intent was in the first place. Now, if Marshawn can just pin up this anger and take it out on the Raiders...

Aside from the good point about free agency looming for Greer -- and how crazy the market has become for CBs in the market -- last year is testimony to how long the season can be when injuries occur. McKelvin was their top-rated player, so I suspect they would have taken him anyway.

The emphasis should have been on "Kurt was killing THE DOLPHINS". Recall that Trent Edwards threw 4 TDs against this sorry bunch last year. You are right that Warner is a fine QB when his protection holds up. However, he is not mobile in the slightest and is very reliant upon a great offensive line and quality receivers to perform well. I dare say that Bledsoe would perform quite well given the supporting cast that Warner currently has. Perhaps, more than anything else, that is a major indictment of Matt Linart. As for the Rams, looking at their woeful OL, Kurt should be happy that he is playing in Arizona.

No it is not true. And this is the kind of nonsense drivel on message boards that leads to falsehoods and character assassinations. Del Rio did, in fact, trot across the field and gave Jauron a hearty congratulatory handshake.

True -- and if Lynch hadn't slightly stepped out of bounds on that run where the offense was backed up against the goal line, he would possibly have scored on a 90-something yard TD.

It's nice to see quality plays WANTING contract extensions to stay in Buffalo.

I am searching for silver linings and starting to find them with the holdout: 1. Last year when Peters went down, Chambers was a mess filling it at LT. By holding out all of training camp, it gave the team time to try different options, and Chambers proved to be pretty good at RT -- and Walker didn't embarrass himself at LT. Believe it or not, we actually have a little depth now, and it isn't the end of theworld if (God forbid) either Peters or Walker go down for any period of time. 2. Through it all, at least publicly, Peters' teammates have stood by him. In particular, Trent Edwards has had his back. Edwards even stayed late after practice the other day to work more on-on-one with Peters. In at least a small way, this helps Edwards to grow as a leader and to build trust and comradare with Peters and the other teammates. Suffice to say, GOd help any defender foolish enough to take a cheap shot at Edwards, when Peters is in the game. Look, I am as annoyed with Peters and Parker as anyone. I think they went about it all wrong. However, in the final analysis, no one got hurt and everything appears to be OK. Let's just hope that Peters in indeed 100% ready to go and that his stamina holds up if he does indeed play on Sunday.

That 2005 draft wasn't a very good one - and it was even seen AT THE TIME as a weak crop. Three RBs going in the first 5 picks -- all three of whom had sizeable question marks -- tells you something. That is one of the main reasons why Modrak and Donahoe were content to trade that #1 pick to move up in 2004 for JP. I remember at the time that there were discussions that had JP been available in 2005 instead of 2004, he may have been the top pick. Of course, there will be those who say that we could have just waited, used our 2nd round pick in 2004 on an OL/DL and taken Aaron Rodgers with our own original 2005 pick. Maybe. But hindsight is 20/20 and who is to say how well Rodgers would have fared if put in the same position as JP? Moreover, the verdict is still out on Rodgers too.

Actually, as I watched that game last night, I wasn't thinking about Hardy. Rather, I was thinking about Roscoe. Notice how much movement Royal was making PRIOR to the snap? The Broncos did a great job moving him around and placing him in situations where he could find mismatches -- or was outright uncovered. It would be nice to see formations like that to best utilize Roscoe's unique skillset.

I wouldn't worry too much. 1. Evans racked up over 100 yards. And that doesn't count all of the near-hookups that he and Trent had on Sunday. 2. The game never got to a point where we needed to get into a pass-happy mode. 3. For as much as folks are down on Reed, he really does a lot of things in addition to catching the ball that helps the offense. 4. It is nice to see our team (for a change) set enough with talent that we don't HAVE to rely on the rookies to contribute right away.

Agreed. And part of the reason that Garrard had so much trouble is that the Titans' D did a great job shutting down the Jags' running game. For the Bills to win, they must also have success stopping Fred Taylor and MJD.

Once again someone in the national media scoops the local ass clowns in Buffalo.

No link, just pure speculation on my part. I just find the timing very coincidental.