Last Guy on the Bench

Dude is money. I can envision watching with only mild nausea (rather than a full blow panic attack) as he lines up to kick the game winning field goal in a playoff clincher/playoff game/super bowl. A fella can dream . . .

Exactly.

I have to say, I'm amazed at the reaction in this thread. What is so threatening about an NFL team in another country? That's a real question; I'm not trying to bash anyone. To me, it seems like it would be fun. Different cultures getting involved. New traditions emerging. New rivalries. International tournaments in other sports are often tremendous. I understand the logistical and financial concerns. Can this really work in terms of travel? Will people in other countries be sufficiently interested? Will players want to live part time in another country (though I can imagine a whole lot of players being more interested in living in London than in one of the smaller American cities). Fair questions, but they are empirical, not moral. Either things could be worked out or they couldn't. I just don't get where the moral outrage is coming from.

Ticos! CONCACAF! Love it!

Ditto. Would I change some things about soccer, e.g., the diving? Sure. But I could say that about any sport. Soccer is a fantastic game and there is no sporting event in the world that is even close to as thrilling as the World Cup. I have watched every match so far, and though I doubt I can keep that streak going realistically, I intend to come as close as I can.

Good game to kick everything off. God, I love the World Cup. Agree that the penalty call was shite. But the Oscar goal made the result feel a little fairer. Plus Oscar was a maniac the whole game. He worked his tail off and deserved that beautiful goal. Fasten your seat belts. It is going to be a great month.

Yes, that was really heartening. More generally, I like the way Schwartz comes off in his press conferences. He's smart and will actually give fairly specific answers. For example, when asked if there is an area of the defense that they are most excited about, most coaches will just say "all of them." Schwartz actually said the secondary. He is growing on me.

I'm in Cape Town, Van. Been here three years, but sadly, except for a quick business trip, I haven't spent any time in Joburg, so no inside info for you, unfortunately. But it's a really interesting country. Enjoy your trip!

And that video doesn't even show one of his best plays - the forced fumble and recovery against the Jags. It's the first video clip in the right hand column here: http://www.nfl.com/player/nickellrobey/2540197/profile

The difference is you would still see e.g., Glenn and Spikes taking snaps with the first team, and you would definitely not see them taking snaps with the 4th team. Again, I don't think this is a huge deal or a definitive statement by the coaches in anyway. But I don't think it is completely meaningless either. It does say something about how they currently view Robey. Practice rotations are no the endgame, but they do have meaning. And this particular move surprises me. That's all.

I think there is a difference between alternating guys in a level above their current spot (e.g., giving second stringers some snaps with the first unit, while still giving the starters some snaps) and seeing Robey get less time on the field than two new guys and a guy that has played nowhere near as well as Robey did. I definitely agree that this is not a final snapshot of the September depth chart, but it does say something to me. I will not be one of the people freaking out in August if Preston Brown takes some snaps in place of Spikes or if Henderson gives Cordy Glenn a blow with the starters. These seems different to me. But I guess we'll see.

I hope you're right. I do think these OTA rotations say something, though. Maybe not that they have a firm pecking order, but at least that they have some doubts about Robey. At other positions, they are not putting the youngsters and newcomers in ahead of firmly established players to see how they look. I would have thought Robey was a little more established as the nickel slot (at least over Brooks and newbie Cockrell - though I can see giving Graham a long look since he has established himself in the league).

Habs are out, I'm out. (Plus it's a little tricky to follow hockey from South Africa.)

Good point. I may be giving too much weight to Robey's great plays and forgetting his weaker plays.

I call BS on your complete reversal of the thread's premise (no offense). The premise of this thread isn't that we shouldn't put the best 11 on the field. Quite the opposite. I just don't get how Robey has fallen in the pecking order (if he has) BEFORE his competition (Brooks, Graham, Cockrell) has had a chance to show anything. It's a weird move to me. But of course, if there are other people that turn out to be better than Robey, they should play.

Dude, what else am I supposed to do in May? The World Cup doesn't start for two weeks.

I've been wondering why Robey seems to be rotating in so late, according to OTA reports. Joe B. is wondering the same thing: http://www.wgr550.co...4669?pid=405020 I confess that one of my biggest worries about the team is that Schwartz will reconstruct the defense according to his preconceived ideas. Couldn't really blame him, but it will still suck. Last years defense was dangerous and fun to watch for the first time in a decade, and I loved every minute of it. And Robey really stood out. He's a playmaker. In one year, as a UDFA, he cracked my top three or four current favorite Bills to watch. I hope they are not going to limit his playing time because of size or scheme fit. If he doesn't fit the scheme, adjust your bloody scheme. There is no universe in which Ron Brooks deserves to be playing ahead of Robey. The same likely holds for Graham and Cockrell, but we'll have to see about that. Free Nickell!

Quite right. Good call. The Rams were always in the mix.

Here's another vote for the 1970s. The hairdos alone would seal it for me. Plus the rise of TV and Monday Night Football with Howard Cosell. The Steelers/Raiders/Dolphins/Cowboys of that era are all time teams. And so are the VIkings to me. The Purple People Eaters - Alan Page and Carl Eller. Fran Tarkenton (favorite player as a kid), Chuck Foreman, Ahmad Rashad, Sammy White. Four Super Bowls no wins (an obvious mark of greatness). The OJ years for the Bills. It was an era that combined the tough play of the 50s/60s with hints of the aerial ballet that would emerge in the 80s/90s. A beautiful hybrid.

Sammy in high school:

I was just about to post that quote myself. It's amazing. Very Churchillian.

This is just highlights, so it is deceptive, but he really works through the trash and is a good tackler. There are a lot of pretty impressive plays in this.

Fair enough. I'm not saying he's Bruce, by any stretch. Just challenging the idea that a great DE doesn't win games. A great DE does win games. Not as many as a great QB to be sure. I do agree that that price is too steep. But I'm not as outraged about it as most. If you love the guy, and you're right, and get a 10 year all pro and HOFer, what then? (Again, no idea if Clowney could be that or not.) Would I give up Whitner, Maybin, Troupe, Hardy, and TJ Graham for that? Um, yeah. Would I give up Gilmore, Dareus, A. Williams, Glenn, and Goodwin for that? Maybe not, but I would think about it. For me it is less about the price than about how sold you are on the guy's potential greatness. If the Bills LOVE Clowney it is not an insane price (though loving Clowney might be insane - we'll see).

Bruce Smith disagrees. In all seriousness, I am agnostic on a move like this. I think people are too fearful and a little bit delusional about the value of draft picks. On the other hand, you never know if the guy you are moving up for will really work out. I think the idea that a move like this would doom the franchise for years is overblown, though. Teams survive crappy draft picks, so teams can survive giving away a few. And anyway, we've already been doomed for years. The last time we made the playoffs I was in my youth (ish).

These are my concerns too. I would love Donald. I think he has a very high floor (at worst he is going to be a solid, long-term pro) and a pretty sweet ceiling (difference maker, perennial pro-bowler). Great character. Great production. Great speed/strength measurables. I don't think he'll be there at 9, though. I could see several of the teams ahead of us grabbing him, or someone trading up with Oakland/Tampa/Minnesota. If he does happen to be there at 9, I would take him, but I think we would also be in prime position to trade down with someone like Chicago or Dallas.