Last Guy on the Bench

I just don't understand how you can continue to look so favorably on that administration. TD and gang had a five year run. While not a long tenure, it is certainly not short by NFL standards, so I don't think you can accuse Ralph of pulling the plug crazy quickly. I also don't see how you can ascribe our mediocre record over five years to just the Bledsoe decision. I agree it was a killer (both bringing him here in the first place and then re-doing his contract). But the coaching hires were worse IMO, and the general adminstrative atmopshere (though I admit this is based on rumors, ex-player comments, and pissed off press people, so it can't be totally true) may have been the most troubling factor of all. I do not demonize Donahoe, Bledsoe, Mularkey, Williams or anyone else. They all had their strengths and weaknesses, but the overall picture seems clear: a franchise that was treading water at best and didn't have a real spark to it. I readily acknowledge your football insight (in all sincerity), but I really don't get how you can be so critical of the new gang so soon. I feel humbler about them myself and mostly curious. (Also very optimistic, but that doesn't mean much, because I'm always optimistic.) I don't think anyone pro or con has enough real material to judge Levy and Jauron just yet. But how can you think Donahoe's five years was too soon to pull the plug, yet be ready to write off Levy and Jauron with such gloomy predictions after only one year?

Looks to me like we could easily start off 2 and 5 or so and then go on a nice streak of wins. I predict we end up 10 and 6 after a 2 and 5 start. From the @Jets game on, every game looks winnable to me, except maybe for @Philly. That would be a roller coaster. People would be suicidal around here in October, but it would be worth it for the fun of an 8 and 1 finish after everyone had decided that we stunk.

Yeah, I'd be happy with him too, especially if he could move inside. Before the Kelsay signing, I thought there was a good chance the Bills would consider him. He's a man among boys at the college level.

Well, first of all, I'm not obsessed with avoiding skill positions. I like them. Give me Peterson, trade for Turner, I'm happy. Draft Lynch, I'm cautiously optimistic. Secondly, unlike many of you, I don't think there is only one way to look at this draft. I can see a reasonable case for a lot of positions and a lot of different players. I don't think someone who wants to draft an RB or LB or even an OL (Bill in NYC) is crazy. I think those would be nice upgrades to have. I just think creating one dominating unit is the way to go, and if I had to pick one unit to focus on, it would be the DL. Whatever. Third, I don't think that is true about Branch. I think he will fit any kind of defense. As for the motor, that's what people are saying, and it might be true, but if it weren't there would be ZERO chance he was available at 12 (and even now there is only a small chance). Rotate him in for half of the plays. I guarantee no one will run on us. And the guy playing the other half of the plays at that spot (probably Williams, maybe McCargo) will be all fresh and pretty good as well. And finally, I'm not predicting the Bills will do this. I have no idea what they are thinking. I just think it might make sense.

Nope. That's because I'm uncoordinated, legally blind, and 94 years old. (But I have good character.)

Fair point, but it's not that unusual to carry nine DL. As for dressing them, probably not, but I could see dressing only 3 DEs or sitting out one of the DTs (there are always injuries anyway) and dressing 8 altogether. You could still have a nice 4-DT rotation on game day (and Denny can swing inside as well), and have a good chance that all 4 are pretty fresh and healthy (since you can sit the one who is most banged up at any given time).

Exactly. I'm like most people in that I don't find a DT pick particularly exciting. A shiny new LB or RB would be more fun. But I think the team would see the greatest improvement by turning the interior DL into something to fear.

Can't promise that, but I can promise to take your incisive response into consideration as I continue to muse on this matter. You make several good points and present them very logically, but your post is a lot to take in in one sitting. Perhaps after I've had time to digest your argument, I'll come around to your point of view.

I know DT isn't our weakest position, but I keep thinking about what could really help the Bills make the leap this year. The number one answer is that JP improve as much this year as he did last year (i.e., basically move from middle of the pack to a top 10 QB). But I think turning the middle of our D line into a freaking shark tank is the next most effective maneuver. I think Branch will be long gone at 12, but a lot of people see him slipping a bit. If he were there, I'd take him without pause. He may be a little lazy, but he can play any DT position in any defense. If you have a rotation of Branch, McCargo, Triplett, Williams, and Walker, with no one playing more than about half of the snaps, by the 4th quarter the interior of the oppponents OL will be DONE. Won't be able to run. Won't be able to maintain a pocket. And our dudes will be fresh. Everyone else on the defense will look better. With that kind of DL interior, guys like Ellison and Crowell can really use their athleticism without having to fight through too much traffic, and you could pick up Buster Davis or HB Blades in the third round - two guys who could also use their great instincts to dominate in the kind of space the DL would create. (They're probably not physically gifted enough to play well behind a mediocre DL.) Okoye would also be good (and I know they might both be gone), but Branch is my current draft dreamboat. I think you improve your team more by having a dominant unit or two (particularly DL and OL) than you do by spreading your best players around at various positions. And to save all you witty bastards some typing, yes I am smoking very good crack as I ride the short bus to the park where I have a season pass on the retard roller-coaster.

I normally don't like trade ups, but I just have a feeling that Adrian Peterson will be a Bill (though I'd be happy with Turner or Lynch or even a lower round, decent RB). They won't get AP at 12 no matter what those mocks say. So, I think, in a very risky move, they give Washington their first and second picks and take AP at number 6 (assuming he is still there then). 1-AP, RB 3a-Hughes, CB 3b-Buster Davis, ILB Not sure either Hughes or Davis will be there, but that's my prediction. Overall, I am not feeling that picky, and would be pretty stoked getting Willis, Poz, Okoye, Branch, or Lynch in the 12 slot. Maybe even Beason. All this reach stuff is crazy, as if people know exactly where a guy will be and should be slotted. All the mocks are wrong. All the predictions on how good people will be are wrong on the whole. If you like a guy, take him. That being said, I don't want to see a DB or WR in the 1st round. DB has been discussed ad nauseum. And WRs take too long to develop and are too iffy. A middle round WR - even a 2nd rounder, if we don't make my Peterson trade - would be fine with me.

The John Calvin of the NFL. (I completely agree about Lynch. I'd be very happy to have him on the team, both in terms of talent and in terms of character.)

Oh my God, Bill. I've been watching football fairly religiously for almost 40 years, and I'm pretty sure that that's the greatest catch I've ever seen. My wife just looked over at me wondering why I was staring at the computer screen muttering "Holy !@#$" over and over again.

Well, as long as you're "quite sure," I guess I'll back off.

What don't you get about the fact that there is no evidence that he battered his girlfriend at all? Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Maybe he's a creep, maybe she was just angry and made something up. No way to know for sure. As for the "mentality" you are worried about, few NFL players are particularly swift, and I venture to say that people who grow up in difficult situations and succeed (which he has done so far) are more likely to continue that success than are people who have had everything handed to them in the 'burbs. Either way, though, generalizations are stupid (except for that one). I'm sure if the Bills are interested in him they'll work hard to get a good feel for who he is as an actual person, not a symbol or a category.

Exactly. I don't get all this character stuff. Everything I know about Lynch sounds positive. He generally avoids attention, deflects credit away from himself and toward his teammates, busts his ass on the field, plays through injuries. He grew up in a tough neighborhood in tough circumstances. Toward the end of last season he was slowly becoming more of a vocal team leader, but still staying out of the limelight in terms of the press. He spontaneously drove a golf cart around the field after a big win (he said he didn't know why exactly, except that "the keys were in it"). Oh my God, arrest him. Or, on the other hand, draft him. I'm not into first round running backs unless they are very special. I'd be happy with Okoye or Willis or Brown (unlikely now) and then Hunt or Pittman etc. in the 2nd. But I would pretty excited if Marv pulled the trigger on Lynch. And given his experience with Kelly/Thomas/Reed and that of his old pal in Indy with Manning/Harrison/Edge (then Addai), he's gotta be into triplets. (Of course, who isn't into triplets? )

2004 Avg. 8.8 YPC (on only 71 carries, however) 2005 Avg. 6.4 YPC 2006 Avg. 6.1 YPC (OK, that's not really all I need to know. But those are some crazy yards per carry. I don't know of any other workhorse running back in the draft averaging over 6 yards during two full seasons of work.)

The Steinbach numbers kicking around right now (rumors, to be sure) are pretty close. But you might be right. We'll see.

Based on rep or on your own observation? I haven't seen much of the Skins the past few years (they bored the crap out of me), so I don't know. I just think it's interesting that reading the tea leaves implies that the Bills like Dockery better than either of the other two, straight up. They weren't just "settling" for a second-tier, small-market type FA (at least in their own minds).

Everyone assumes that Steinbach and Dielman are the top two guards, but with the kind of money the Bills apparently threw at Dockery (i.e., essentially Steinbach/Dielman money), it's clear that they disagree. They are in the ballpark of what it would have taken to sign any of the FA guards (give or take a few million). Most of us (and the media) assumed that Dockery was a bit below Steinbach and Dielman in terms of talent (and therefore money) - a good 2nd-tier option for a team that couldn't compete with the big dollar boys. But maybe not. Steinbach might be a better pass blocker and Dielman might be a better run blocker, but looking at the $ and listening to the comments, I think the Bills like Dockery better overall for their offense than either of the other two. And who's to say they're wrong? Basically, for that kind of jack they could have been a player for any of the guards, and they chose to focus the Full Frontal Day One Free Agency Assault on Dockery. Hope they're right. Pretty exciting.

http://thebrushback.com/respect_full.htm Also, this little note on Budweiser's ad campaign: New Budweiser Ad Doesn’t Mention It Tastes Like Pee LOS ANGELES--A hilarious new Budweiser ad, which aired during the Super Bowl, depicts two men playing “rock-paper-scissors” for a bottle of Bud until one of then throws a rock at the other’s head, knocking him out cold. “I threw a rock,” the man notes. What he doesn’t note is that the beer he just assaulted his friend for tastes like pee. “Well that’s an interesting strategy,” said advertising executive Jim Hinkle. “They made a funny, engaging commercial, while at the same time avoiding mentioning that the product tastes like piss. Then again, they never mention that. It’s kind of the elephant in the room with them. I’m sure their focus-group research indicated that most people don’t like drinking piss, so they tailored their ad accordingly. They were going for the coveted ‘everybody in the world’ demographic.” Hinkle indicated that he, like the rest of the world, also drinks Budweiser, because it’s cheap and gets you just as f##ked up as any other beer.

I'm with you. I'll be totally happy if we draft DL or OL or even LB with the first pick (though I think the value is better in the 2nd round for LB). BUT I am really intrigued by Lynch. I love the way he runs, he's got the all around skills, and he's got a great presence on and off the field from what I've seen. (I'm no college football expert, though. I've only seen him a little bit, so if anyone who's watched him a lot has a different opinion, I'd be happy to hear it.) I actually like him a lot better than Peterson. I admit that Peterson is the better pure athlete, but I'm not a big fan of RBs who rely so heavily on superior athleticism (as opposed to moves, feel, etc.). I don't think the Herschel Walker/Bo Jackson types are as effective in the long run as the guys who really move like running backs. As soon as the athleticism starts to wane a bit, they're done. Whereas a Thurman/Smith/Payton, etc. can keep on rolling. McGahee is the in the superior athlete category to me, not the born RB category. He's got great balance and strength and decent speed. But he doesn't really run like a great runner, IMO. I'm biased toward the guys that are just fun to watch like LT, or even Barber at a lesser level. Lynch just looks like an RB to me. I haven't really liked any of the big name RBs in the draft for a few years now, but there's something about Lynch that I love. If Marv grabs him, I will be quite happy. If he doesn't, I hope he doesn't even look at RBs until the 4th round or so. Focus on the big boys in the trenches.

Nice. And if the Bengals give up more than 12 to the Colts (likely) we'll be 7th. Four rookies starting. Ridiculous run defense at times. But we aren't such an easy touch.

Cheers. Happy to be on such a distinguished page.

I agree. I don't think he'll be here next year. But I think that will be a big mistake. I definitely agree that a 1st round DB is not the way to go next year, with or without Nate. If he's gone, though, I do think they'll have to look at one in rounds 2-4. For me, though, round two is linebacker round - you can always get good-to-great LBs down there. I think next year round 1 for the Bills has to be OL or DT unless there is a TE or LB that you just can't pass on. My worst nightmare would be blowing a 1st rounder on a WR. I love Lee Evans, but I really don't like spending 1st round picks on WRs. They're too hit-and-miss, too slow to develop, and too available in later rounds. We got lucky with Lee.

I think Nate is worth it even if he doesn't match his great play of recent weeks. Pay him as if he's the best CB in the NFL (he's pretty damn close right now). Even if he drops off a bit, the contract won't be all that big in a couple of years time, since prices just go up and up. I also think it's possible that coaching is a big part of his recent upsurge. It seems to have coincided with Fewell's decision to stick him on the number one receiver for most of the game rather than keeping him on a particular side. That being said, while I myself would pretty much break the bank to keep him, I don't think the Bills (i.e., Ralph) will. I agree that Ralph can't fork out 15+ million dollar bonuses while he's busy crying poor. The only good thing about letting Nate go is that it increases the possibility we will take another DB relatively high in the draft thus ensuring a steady supply of apoplectic and entertaining posts from Bill in NYC. I always enjoy those. I just hope he doesn't spontaneously combust.