yungmack

Last year one of my brothers and myself were arguing over WHICH USC linebacker the Bills would take (notice there was no IF in our thinking). He was a fan of Cushing, I favored Matthews. We both went WTF when Maybin's name was called.

Hey, you must be an Easterbrook fan. So you must know he's a Buffalo guy (and that he spells his name "Gregg" with, as he says "the tasty double G."

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. My point is that MOST Bills fans thought Edwards was beyond salvation. However, Chan Gailey, who was reputed to be a magician with, to be kind, less than stellar QBs, apparently thought otherwise. I don't know how he arrived at that assessment but I presume he watched all the film on Edwards, talked to everyone he could who's worked with him, talked with his coaching staff, etc. If he did all that, then paid attention to Edwards in OTAs and training camp, and still made him the starter, and if Gailey is the great QB guru he's supposed to be, how else can I take yanking Edwards after two games other than that Gailey really, really screwed up? So now, after months and months of studying his QBs and building an offense IN THEORY around Edwards' supposed strengths, two weeks into what everyone knows was bound to be a tough season, he's replacing him with a QB who, in Gailey's assessment, wasn't good enough to dislodge Edwards in all those months of practice? Sounds like full panic mode to me. I don't get the line of reasoning some of you use, that Gailey has to make the change, that Edwards is a wuss, that coaches make changes all the time, etc. Duh! Of course that's all true. But the Edwards of this season is the Edwards of last season. The time to replace him was last February or March. But either from arrogance or a surfeit of wishful thinking, Gailey stuck with him. By his own action (benching Edwards), Gailey has admitted he screwed up. So let me ask all you critics, does screwing up on the most important position by a guy whose chief recommendation for the job is a reputation for having reasonable success with a collection of meatballs give you even a slight twinge of doubt about him?

I've been a strong supporter of Chan Gailey since he was hired. He had a history of identifying the range and limits of his QBs abilities and working with him. So I was more than willing to believe that he saw something in Trent Edwards that I surely never did, and that he'd build an offense around him that would minimize his weaknesses while playing to his strengths. Hope springs eternal. Yet two weeks into the season he benches his personally chosen starter. He did this on the heels of, for example, Brett Favre throwing three picks and the "great" Eli Manning and his "powerhouse" Giants getting beaten as badly as the Bills did on Sunday (worse, without that garbage TD at the end), with the team the Bills had a solid chance of beating last week (the Dolphins) besting media darling Minnesota. I'm surely not saying benching Edwards is the wrong move only that it smells of panic. And then replacing Edwards with Fitzie? If, in Gailey's assessment, he wasn't good enough to dislodge Edwards (!!!) prior to yesterday, why in god's name does he think he's suddenly become the answer? And it comes on the heels of benching Spiller after ONE game. I don't know about you guys, but this change causes me to question everything I thought about Gailey. And by extension, Buddy Nix's thinking.

I think you nailed it right there. 3 games gets the Bills to the break so this is a "natural" audition for Fitz. If the Bills continue to lose with and look terrible doing it, then I think Brohm gets the call for the rest of the season.

Lots of people around here wanted Colt McCoy too. I believe he's available. So's Levi Brown, Dan LeFevour and about a decade's worth of other teams failed drafts.

Just your list of QBs shows how sucky most of them in the NFL are. And for the kiddies around here who are all about "cut Trent and get a real QB," there is no such thing as a QB tree where you can pluck two or three great ones anytime you choose.

1) Build time machine; 2) Go back to last year and draft Clay Matthews

You forgot to tell him and all those other whippersnappers to stay off your lawn. Wow! "Nancy boy." Very retro of you.

Who says they won't come to Buffalo?

We know! We Know! We Know! We Know! We Know! We Know!

I haven't read through the entire thread so maybe someone has raised the name of Frank Sedita.

And The Wire is based on the newspaper reporting of the same guy whose writing inspired Homicide: Life on the Street that was produced by Buffalo guy Tom Catalano. Which reminds me of another well-written show produced and written by a Buffalo guy (David Milch): Deadwood.

If you credit Nixley with football intelligence,as I do, then you have to think they've already graded out their current linemen and believe they have the best players on the roster starting in the right slots. That's no doubt why Green is starting over Meredith, and why neither Levitre nor Wood are likely to be moved this year, if ever. Urbik is an intriquing pickup. I think it's more about depth at the guard positions than anything else but you have to wonder, even if he's not ideal for the position, if he might not be an upgrade over Green and Meredith at RT. Ten months ago, who would have thought we'd be more worried about RT than LT? Crazy game.

Seems like a crazy idea but can you imagine if the Bills announced their starting lineup during the week and there was no QB? Now that would be....hmmm...interesting.

You want to know what a real man watches? A real man watches Bills games and doesn't break down crying. He is permitted to lovingly fondle a pistol. But no sobbing. I tend to watch science, history and documentary programs more than dramas. But among the tv shows I think are well-written, off the top of my head I'd include Breaking Bad, Fringe, Dexter, and Damages. LIFE was a show NBC canceled when it moved Leno to 10 PM that had excellent writing. And I think the writing on Seinfeld was genius level.

In my opinion, the NFL (owners and players) had better think very carefully before blowing up a season. I believe the league has about peaked financially, peaked in ticket sales, and peaked in fan interest. Demographic forecasts are not favorable, the days of unquestioning municipal financial subsidies are largely in the past, and expansion as a method to fatten ownership bank accounts is probably over with (and the rest of the world has largely yawned with boredom at American football). In the 1930s, the three big sports in the US were baseball, boxing and...horse racing. Pro football was an afterthought. Then came the Baby Boom generation. It was huge in pure numbers and, more importantly, seemed to be looking for something other than their old man's manias. You can track the growth of the popularity of the NFL (through expanding markets, increasing television coverage and ratings, zooming revenues, etc.) with the growth of the Boomers and their earning power. Now that generation is beginning to age out and interest in the NFL the next two generations aren't large enough to make up the difference. I don't know what your experience is right now, but I've noticed that an an awful lot of high school and college age kids no longer seem to be rabid fans of the NFL. The people I see in sports bars and at games seem to be late 30s and up. Baseball, boxing and even horse racing are still around, and big money is still made with them. But you'd have to be delusional to argue that they are still the top three fan favorite sports. So the NFL will continue to be popular and to make money. Still I really believe its days as The Biggest Baddest Dude On The Block are coming to an end. And a strike/lockout will only accelerate it.

The only thing you left out of your fine analysis is that the problems the owners have with the CBA are PRECISELY the problems Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown had with it in the first place. You remember how the other owners laughed and laughed at ol' senile Ralphie? They ain't laughin' now.

My wife likes it so I watch it. And I was in the advertising business in the mid to late 60s and know a bit about the culture. It's a caricature and not a particularly good one. And, like it or not, it's essentially a chick show ("Look how piggish those Neanderthal men are, and how wonderful those feisty women are"): Men Bad, Women Good. I watch some other chick shows with my wife and even like some of them quite a bit (Nurse Jackie, Damages), so that's not my objection. I find it gets the "tone" of the times wrong, as well as what it was really like in advertising at that time. I think it's poorly written and that most of the actors are dreadful, community theater talents. As to Jersey Shore, Survivor, Bachelor and all the rest of that garbage, well, the morons have to be entertained too. Why resent it?

What a revelation this thread is. I didn't know there were so many fans of a chick show/soap opera on this board.

Would Palladino even be interested in the Bills? If RW were to die this year, and if his family put the team up for sale, it would probably cost close to a billion to buy them. And the NFL insists on teams being owned by individuals (yes, I know there can be fractional owners, but they don't have power over the team. Would you invest in that kind of situation?). Don't know if Palladino has that kind of money, or, if he does, would he want to put it into one basket. BTW, as to your naive political thinking, the governor is not a dictator and therefore cannot impose his reforms on the legislature. The Dems will for sure check him at every turn and so will the GOP whose poobahs tend to be downstaters who won't want an "outsider" to succeed and threaten their control. And as to mayor of Buffalo, what party did Jimmy Griffin belong to? One other thing: Palladino is a bigtime anti-government guy, yet his entire fortune is based on getting government contracts (and taxpayer money). Sounds like a typical Republicker hypocrite.

Very good analysis. I agree with much of it. And like you, I don't know what sort of team we really have here. I can this, that in the past decade, I'd be pretty much depressed at the stupidity of the coaching, the calls, the adjustments. For whatever reason, I didn't feel all that bad this time. It seemed to me that Gailey was doing the right sorts of things that woulda, shoulda, coulda worked with a break here or there. So the "football intelligence" is there for a change (I also agree that the safety was the smart thing to do). My guess is that the talent is adequate for a mediocre team, and that Gailey has the intelligence and experience to tweak things. As to TE, who, in actual meaningful games as to his improved off-season play, can't seem to overcome certain tendencies, well, if Gailey can't get him straightened out in the next two or three games, then I think he goes to the bench.

I was most definitely disappointed with the Bills game Sunday. Any true Bills fans would have been. But please step back from the Niagara Gorge, some of you. Your tunnel vision is blinding you to what's going on elsewhere. I watched four games in addition to the Bills, and watched the highlight shows (BTW, Directv was free on Sunday) and as dismal as the Bills and TE were, they were hardly alone. First off, and most obvious, was Miami. This is a team the "experts" figured to make a run for at least the AFCE championship? If so, then the Bills must be pretty darn good (which they're not). And how 'bout them Super Bowl-contending Jets? The rap today is that it was all about Sanchez. Not to these weary old eyes. Both the Phins and the Jets were just as overrated as so many on this board said they were. Did the Vikes (9 points) look like world-beaters? Broncos (17)? Falcons (9)? Raiders (13)? Niners (6)? Rams (13)? Cowboys (7)? Skins (13)? Ravens (10)? Browns (14)? Steelers (15)? Lions (14)? Bears (19)? Panthers (18)? Even the Colts looked overmatched. And how about all those QBs who are supposedly so much better than TE. Let's start with Sunday's game and Chad Henne. Then Sanchez. Jay Cutler. Cassel. Anderson. Josh Freeman. Kevin Kolb. Dixon. Matt Moore. Romo. Smith. Ryan. Orton. I am not making excuses for His Awfulness, just pointing out that he's far, far from alone in today's NFL. Look, the Bills are hardly a great team, and Trent Edwards is not on a trajectory to make the HOF. But at the same time, they and he are not the worst in the league either. They're in the middle of the pack, a so-so team...just as we all thought they were. I saw a lot of things that need fixing. And if I saw them, you can bet Gailey saw them and much more, and I believe he will correct the ones that are fixable over the coming weeks. It's hardly time to despair, especially when you get a little perspective on the other teams out there. Most are mediocre (QBs included) and the Bills fit right in there. Chill, my little penguins.

If what you say is true, then the real blame belongs to RW. Levy didn't just show up one day unannounced and move into an office; Wilson hired him.

Enough already with the "he quit on the running game" criticism. You do not have a running game when the line can't open holes and when there are 8 men in the box daring you to throw (and you don't or can't). You can't run the ball effectively if you can't throw the ball effectively. And you can't throw the ball effectively if defenders are arriving with the snap. Gailey didn't "give up" on the running game; he tried to open up the running game by getting the passing game going. If Lee Evans is correct, deep throws were being called and Edwards wasn't throwing them. Once Miami saw that, they just hauled off on the RBs.