yungmack

What makes Money Ball work in MLB is the absence of shared revenue, which leads to massive differences in the amounts of money available to spend on salaries from the "poorer" teams to the extremely wealthy. The "money" part of Money Ball is useless in the NFL where teams each receive the same amount money and now have to spend a minimum on salary, and all are capped on the maximum. HOWEVER, the formulae for identifying and ranking the value of one player over the other is still highly useful even if finding bargains is virtually nil. In other words, the money you intend to spend on players still gets spent but hopefully the sabremetrics approach does a better job of identifying the right players on which to spend that money.

To me, "Elite" is a very special category. It's not "Mostly really good." And it's certainly not "Comes Through Big Time...Sometimes." Elite QBs can be counted on to perform at a high level week in and week out, to carry a team that's not having its best day, to be reliable when the game is on the line, just to point out a few of the characteristics they have to have. They do not need to have "big arms" necessarily, nor do they have to be fleet of foot. They might be "gunslingers" but that's not a universal characteristic either. With that in mind, the only current NFL QBs I think are elite are Brady, Rodgers and maybe the aging Peyton Manning. Eli, Brees, Roethlisberger are in the next level down, the "Very Good" category, as they are somewhat erratic in their performances week to week but definitely high quality. Flacco, Ryan, Cutler, Rivers, Stafford, Bradford are in the "Okay, But Overrated" category. With the exception of two or three QBs, the rest -- Fitz included -- are in the "Good Enough, But Not Great" category. As to the young guys, I believe Andrew Luck will soon be in the "Elite" group, and RGIII might join him if he can withstand the physical beatings for a couple of more years. As to the rest of the youngsters, from Dalton to Wilson, I think most of them will wind up in the Good Enough" category. I don't believe any of them are truly "Elite."

Over the last 4 games, the Bills are the number one defense against the run, and in the top 5 defenses overall which just so happens to coincide with Mario's post surgery resurgence. So to answer your uninformed screed, yeah, he's made a difference, yeah, his presence has made the defense better.

I wonder just how much attention Fitz's critics pay to the other QBs around the league. Because of where I live -- Los Angeles -- I am afflicted with more Raiders, Rams and Chargers games than you'd ever want to watch, which naturally includes their divisional rivals. And one thing that this seemingly endless repetion has given me is lots of exposure to QBs who probably don't get nearly as much national game exposure as Romo, Vick, Eli, RG3, Brady or Rodgers (mostly this is because of the entrenched bias towards the NFCE, Green Bay & the Pats). And it's only after watching them in multiple games that you can come close to a reasonably informed opinion. Based on my viewing over, say, the last three years, it is my opinion that there are only 3 or maybe 4 truly elite QBs in the league (with maybe 2 more just starting out who it seems will be elite), and probably about 4 or 5 who are not very good at all. The other 24 or 25 are in that grey area of "average," meaning they are capable of great performances one week and poor ones the next. There is no sense in trying to rank this middle group as their individual performances are too erratic to say this one is better than that one over a 16 game season. And that's the group Fitzpatrick belongs to. If you want, you could rank him 26th or 27th best. Or you could rank him 5th through 10th. Let me give an example of a QB who is generally considered one of the elite: Drew Brees. As you know, he threw FIVE interceptions this week, and has generally been "off his game" all year. Yet he's held up as being much much better than Fitz. Now, considering that San Diego found him expendablde, an opinion which most of the league shared at the time, would it be fair to say that he wasn't always considered elite? And if he's now supposedly elite, to what can we attribute that? Well, considering that he was elevated by the media and fandom into elite status under the tutelage of Sean Payton, and that he's having an off year in the absence of Payton, could not the case be made that the real difference in Brees' career has been coaching rather than some innate "elite-ness"? So if Brees was once considered to be a resident of that vast "average" level of QBs, and even thought to be in the bottom 5 or 6, and yet now is considered elite, does this suggest that other supposedly "average" QBs have greatness in them if only they have the good fortune to hook up with a coach who can bring that latent ability out of them? I don't know whether or not Fitz is one of those guys but I don't think he'll ever even have that opportunity so long as Chan is this head coach. While it's true that Gailey rescued his career and has been doggedly loyal to him, I have a growing conviction that Chan's play calling is the major cause for offensive failure, and a significant factor in Fitz's erratic performances. His penchant for head-scratching decisions is too widely discussed around here to need me to list some of them. In order for me to come to a more definitive judgment about Fitzpatrick, I'd like to see him operate as his own play caller for the rest of the season. Because he hasn't been allowed to do that up to now, I have no factual basis to believe we'd see an improved offensive. But I have a feeling that he's smart enough to not have CJ on the bench on the goal line, or to call a play that puts Brad Smith in at QB at critical points. Or to go with an empty backfield on the opponents two yard line. Bottom line for me is that those of you who think Fitz is a bottom-dwelling bum simply do not realize just how average the vast majority of QBs are in this league. And in that average category I would include several QBs who are considered elite.

The Bills 2012 season was over at halftime of the Jets game. The first half showed that everything we were using to evaluate the team -- Mario Williams, Dave Wannstedt, Fitz's improvements under David Lee, etc. -- were illusions. I turned the game off at the half and have barely watched any part of any game since. Oh, and for those of you hoping the Bills get a high pick they can use to grab a "franchise QB," I for one do not see one coming out of college this year. Maybe in next year or the year after, but not this year.

That's precisely the genius of the American system, that there is a "public arena" and a private one, also known as Separation of Church and State. You do not have to personally support abortion in order to support the right of others who may not share your religious convictions to have that right. And in no way is that out of harmony with true Catholic teaching. Joe Biden's position is historically correct in regards to Church teaching. Unfortunately, the late Pope John Paul II appointed vast numbers of reactionary bishops who now set the ahistorical agenda of the Church. Not surprisingly, most if not all of them are registered Republicans. It's good to remember that Jesus never said a word for or against abortion, homosexuality or any number of other things that hypnotize so-called contemporary Catholics. He did, however, have an awful lot to say about putting riches over God, about mistreating the poor, about using politics and position for personal gain at the expense of others, and about taking care of the sick, homeless and outcast. When so-called "practicing Catholics" begin putting the priorities Jesus actually had over the made-up ones they've picked up from the Protestant Evangelicals and other odd sects, then maybe they'll regain the respect of others. BTW, it's clear as day in the New Testament that Jesus never married, never seems to have had a romantic relationship with a woman, and spent all his time with at least a dozen other men, "camping out," and otherwise wandering footloose and fancy free. Not saying it was a "gay thing," just pointing out the facts.

Blacks were overwhelmingly Republicans...until FDR. There were still large numbers of black Republicans into the 1960s. Heck, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. It was LBJ's support of Civil RIghts and the white South's reaction to it (the massive shift from the Democratic to the Republican party and the attendant anti-black agenda that went with it) that finally caused a black stampede into the Democratic Party. BTW, it was the Republican party that was the stauncher supporter of Civil Rights while since the time of the Civil War, the Democratic Party was the one that was home to supporters of Jim Crow. It just goes to show you that a party can change. And the Republicans are going to have to do something similar or go the way of the Whigs. As the old adage has it, "Demographics are destiny." And with a base that is hugely white, male and aging rapidly, its days are clearly numbered unless it changes radically.

This thread was actually a pretty good read this morning with lots of fairly well-thought out comments, even in disagreement. Some got a little nasty but, what the heck, this TBD! Here are a few of my reactions: 1) As someone who makes a living investing, the drop in the stock market is most likely a mixed bag of reasons, most prominent of which is the situation in the EuroZone, especially the banks. And Obama's reelection probably plays into that as he might grow a pair of balls and actually go after the criminal elements on Wall Street, especially as the Money Bags abandoned him in favor of Romney in the election. And the amount of oil and natural gas being produced in the US is depressing prices in the world market. There are other things going on too but Obama's reelection is just one factor and not the most important; 2) You don't have to be American born to run for any office other than the presidency. However, in the wake of Schwarzenegger's election in California, there was a strong effort by Republicans to amend the Constitution to permit him to run for president; 3) African Americans voted in overwhelming numbers for Obama. They also voted in overwhelming numbers for every WHITE Democratic presidential nominee over the last 50 years. Is that racist? Doesn't seem like it to me. Did many of them vote for Obama because he's black? Without a doubt. Though I was too young to vote for JFK, I remember that election very well. And Kennedy got an overwhelming percentage of the Catholic vote including a huge number of Catholic Republicans. Did they vote for him because he was a Catholic? Without a doubt. Is that "racist? I don't know; 4) Chester A Arthur was elected president even though he was most likely born in Canada. And yes, it was an issue at the time; 5) George Romney ran for the presidential nomination even though he was born in Mexico and was thus not qualified. I don't remember anyone raising that as an issue. However, I don't think there is any record of him officially becoming an American citizen after moving here from Mexico. And even though his son Willard was born in Detroit and thus a citizen by birth, he might therefore be the son of an illegal alien, which puts him in an awkward position when he opposes a "path to citizenship" for other illegal aliens who also have American-born children. And when they're deported, they have to take those American kids with them. Maybe Willard can "self-deport."

This isn't a "biggie" criticism but you do realize that this part of your remarks is contradictory? If there's any characteristic of Dems that drives the GOPoH partisan nuts is the party's emphasis on "fairness over freedom." And that the Dems championing of gay rights is completely in accord with this emphasis on "fairness?"

I've followed Barkley since high school and while I think he's a darned good QB, your assessment is on the money. BTW, is there a college QB whom you think is worth a top five pick?

Fitz is markedly worse than last year. Is it possible that David Lee, by messing with his mechanics, is responsible for this state of affairs?

I love your confidence. I was at the very first Bills practice at the Knox estate in East Aurora so I've been a fan for a long time. And for long stretches, it's been painful. But I have "all the time in the world" for things to turn around (well, not really, but you know what I mean). Guys with a very narrow window of opportunity to make their money and make their mark don't have that luxury.

Unless something amazing happens and the Bills magically turn this season around, 2012 will end like all the other seasons since the Millenium, in disappointment and disarray. Actually, it might be even worse this next off season because expectations were so high for this team. So here's something else to worry about: The Bills have a number of talented players nearing the end of their contracts. I expect most of them will get serious offers from other teams. Now ask yourself, if you were one of those players and you had the chance to go to another team, would you do it? What about the Bills situation would make you want to stay with this mess?

On the money....The whole key to this season was to accept the Bills O as it existed last season, with a couple of tweaks (Cordy Glenn, TJ Graham), an adequate QB whose worst moments come when the team is behind, ok receivers, and health players at all positions, and another season of continuity. With that in place, the focus was on the D. The key reason being that by shutting down (or slowing down) opponents, the O would not be playing from behind nearly as often, and would have one, two or more "extra" possessions per game which would increase the Bills lead and put the opponent into the position of playing from behind. It was a sensible plan: have a decent and reliable offense supported by a dominating defense. However, Wannstedt has been disappointing (Oh, Wade, come home, all is forgiven!), and the overall defense hasn't performed anywhere near "dominance." And that might be Wannstedts fault as well. Unless a much better defense begins showing up at once, this season is likely over right now.

Well done analysis.

I believe you are correct about Ponder and Dalton and had the draft worked out just a bit differently, one of them would have been with the Bills right now. My personal preference was for Ponder but either one would have been fine.

Sounds fun. Just one question though: are the Blue Angles as good as the Blue Angels?

Best comment of the week!

I like this idea a lot, so long as you keep the traditional teams from the AFC and NFC. I think the interleague play in baseball has somewhat diminished the specialness of the World Series. There used to be a real rivalry with the two leagues, especially among fans, and I'd like to see that re-introduced to the NFL.

Naw, he doesn't play left tackle.

He is a good man, a great Bill and a fine punter. I hate to see him go, and I wish him and his family nothing but the best.

My nephew sent this nice reminder of better times:

The Bills had a nightmare first half against the Jets (thank you, Dave and Fitz), then a good second half. They then had three good quarters against the Chiefts before having a sucky fourth quarter. Against the Browns, the first and fourth quarters were good and the second and third were poor. To my weary eyes, that looks like an erratic, inconsistent team, not some powerhouse. If they continue that pattern against the Pats, they probably lose. If, however, they play their first complete "good" game, they probably win.

I seem to remember that the son of one of the officials, maybe the referee, was playing for a team that would benefit from a Bills loss. I think it was David Boston. When Wade Phillips had the Bills go to the lockerroom instead of defending the extra point after the bogus touchdown, he won me over for life. If Pete Carroll had an ounce of class in his body, he would have pulled his team off the field when Wade did. At the very least he should have settled for the one-point kick.

Pretty much all of the serious criticisms of Fitz are correct. However, the problem I have with many of his critics is the idea that somehow he's the only QB in the league who -- as the non-serious critics like to say -- "sucks." Have you actually watched the other QBs, especially this year? Every criticism of Fitz can be laid right on every other QB, including the supposed "elites." Brady, Brees, both Mannings, Rodgers, Stafford, Schaub, Rivers, Cutler, Flacco, Ryan, Smith, Newton, Vick, Roethlisberger, Bradford, Cassel, on and on, they've all made dismal throws, heedless interceptions, thrown off the wrong foot, thrown wounded ducks, missed wide open receivers, and about anything else imaginable. Is Fitz the best QB in history? No (or he wouldn't be in Buffalo in the first place). But once you've diagnosed his weaknesses, please at least notice that he is far from the only QB in the league with them.