Brandon

Sean Taylor is now leaving the field (ejected from game?).

I have a feeling that there was more to that than we know.

The total value of the contract the player signed for, his amount of playing time (injury does not count, I think), and any postseason honors such as the Pro Bowl are all factors.

Actually, he did not have a sack in 8 games this season and had 4 games with 2 sacks, so it seems that his sacks largely did in fact come in bunches once again. In games 2-6, he had none. He had two in the opener against the Texans. He had two against Nick Kaczur of the Pats, a rookie starting only his 1st or 2nd game (he got another one later in the year vs Kazcur). I don't think Willie Roaf played the next week for the Chiefs, another game where he got two sacks. To his credit, he did have two more against Levi Jones, and Jones has become an excellent LT.

You are correct, of course, but that makes for an awfully boring message board.

You should not take a RB in R1 then, either. Only two first round RBs have won a Super Bowl with the team that drafted them in the same time frame. It really shocked me that the same holds true for WRs. Only two of them have done it. Been a LOT of WRs and RBs taken in R1 since 1990, too. TEs? Two, but this one is kinda cheap considering that both are on the same Patriots team. OTs are a little better, I think there are 5 of them, but one was a total flop (Michels for GB). 1st round OGs have put up a goose egg. Cs? 1, Damien Woody. Granted, that's just a quick skimming over them, but it doesn't look like any other position offensively is much, if any better. There were five OTs, but probably 3 times as many OTs were picked in R1 as QBs. I have not looked at defense yet.

Good matchup in this one today. Auburn DE Stanley McClover going up against Wisconsin LT Joe Thomas. Both are juniors, so its possible neither one will be available, but both are R1/2 prospects. McClover is a guy I think is very underrated at this point. Also, its a chance to see Auburn LT Marcus McNeil play.

Don't completely write it off. If there's one knock on Ferguson, its that he's a bit undersized for an OT. That could be just enough to push him out of the top 5 on draft day.

Wow. Sounds like you and TKO are talking about the same guy.

You are correct, it does not show up in the stats. But from watching his first four games compared to his last four, my eyes tell me he was throwing the ball much, much better later in the year. It did not show up in his completion percentage, and I think at least part of the reason is that he attempted more low percentage downfield passes than Holcomb.

Lee Evans taken too high??? All he has done is score 16 TDs in two years. That matches the best two year stretch that Eric Moulds ever had. He's got room for improvement, sure, but I'm pretty happy with what he's done as a 2nd year WR, especially given that his QBs have often locked onto Eric Moulds and have had their own struggles as well.

BTW, for those interested, its not a big suprise but ESPN is reporting this morning that Mario Williams will enter the draft.

Yeah, that pretty much sums up my thoughts on the issue. About the only thing that was really wrong with JP this year was that he had problems with accuracy, but even that substantially improved over the season, even if it doesn't show in the stats. As I said when the switch was made, it would only be worth it if this team made the playoffs. As it turns out, JP won 2 games and Holcomb won 3. Oh, but at least it gave us the best chance to win.

Considering that we should have 10 picks this spring, we can afford to take a somewhat lesser need in R1. For my part, I think an elite DE is pretty high on the list of needs, anyway. I also think Mario Williams is the best player in this draft, so if he's there and the Bills don't take him, I'm not going to be too happy.

They are. The Bills HC, at least some of the assistants, and the top levels of the scouting staff usually are all there on draft day giving their input to the GM. I don't know the level of involvement RW has in the process, if he is usually even there. Even if he isn't there, I'm sure that they at least call him a few picks before their own to get his opinion on the players they're considering.

If the Bills plan on replacing Donahoe with Tom Modrak, then it may be that Wilson and Modrak have already spoken and agree that Mularkey should remain. Just a possibility.

The quote in your post sounds like a reporter paraphrasing his comments. In the actual quote, it is pretty clear that he's taking a shot at the hype surrounding the team prior to the season. Donahoe, and to a lesser extent Mike Mularkey were the ones who sold the idea that this was a playoff team to the public. I think he mentions Losman as but one example of why they never should have hyped this team the way they did. http://www.buffalobills.com/news/news.jsp?news_id=3553

Amazing what this team has become, isn't it?

I think you are interpreting it wrong. Its not a knock on JP Losman. Its a knock against Donahoe for building up so much hype about this being a playoff team.

Sounds to me like Mularkey is staying, but some assistant coaches are going to be shown the door. Certainly that applies to players as well. It also sounds like Donahoe's days as Bills GM are all but over. I think the comment about the hype entering the season was directed squarely at Donahoe, who sold the whole song and dance about this team being a playoff contender. Clearly, he's not happy with the job Donahoe has done. Good to see that he's not going to be content with just hoping we're better next year, either.

That may be the official way its calculated, but when taking the SOS off of fan or media websites, its something to take into consideration.

Depends on how you calculate it. Going into this weekend, for instance, you could have calculated the Bills SOS with or without the Jets then 3-12 record. In other words, factoring in records of opponents yet to be played. If that's the case, there will be very little variation in the SOS for the 5 win teams.

You know as well as anyone else that the Bills were down 3-0 to the Chiefs when Holcomb went out. The team scored all of its points with Losman at QB. Maybe Holcomb could have engineered a win. Then again, maybe Losman could have made a play or two to win those games where he was benched and they lost? Losman deserves credit for KC. 2 wins vs 3 for Holcomb.

You know what this team really needs to do? Cut Holcomb, draft another QB in R3-5 and go into the 2006 season with Losman and the rookie. Its going to guarantee that this team is going to struggle in 06, but its also going to guarantee that this damn team finally has to attempt to develop a QB instead of playing this best *chance* to win bullcrap we've heard for 10 years. But we won't do that, because we're complacent and content with playing not to lose instead of playing to win, so to speak. Ironically, its that attitude that has led to the satisfaction with mediocrity we've seen and all of these losing seasons. They'll never win if they don't roll the dice. We may go 5-11 in 2006 if we do that, but I'd rather win 5 games trying to get better than win 5 games on some meaningless 'best chance to win' BS.

3 wins with Holcomb, 2 with Losman. I'm so glad we made that switch in week 5.