KurtGodel77

The AFC East is one of the two toughest divisions in football--the other being the AFC North. A Patriots win would help establish our division as elite; so the Bills would get more respect for whatever record they put together. If the Patriots humiliate the Eagles, it would also establish that the best team in the NFC doesn't belong on the same field as the best team in the AFC. At the same time, I understand why you have a general habit of wishing division opponents the worst.

I vividly remember when the Bills were losing all those Super Bowls. People started calling the NFC Championship game "the real Super Bowl." I got very sick of hearing that very fast, and now it's time for our conference to pay them back and put them in their place.

Well, you just know the announcers are going to explain what a genius he is until you're sick of hearing it. So it's almost become a tradition rammed down our throats whether we like it or not. I usually root against the Patriots because their success seems to come at Buffalo's expense. But this Sunday I'll be rooting for them; because the outcome of the game will not affect Buffalo. Despite the hype, Belichick really is running his franchise the way all franchises should be run; and I respect that.

With an offensive line (or lack thereof) like NY has, how can the guy not take hits? I remember St. Louis had serious offensive line problems before Warner left. The difference between Kurt and Drew is that when you give Kurt time--or sometimes even when you don't--he gets the job done. Drew's offensive line was a lot better than Kurt's; yet his QB rating was ten points lower. So if Losman isn't ready, I know which QB the Bills should turn to.

That it's time to celebrate Bill Belichick. He has done a good job as a HC/GM. This is because he learned from his mistakes in Cleveland; and he's doing a better job the second time around. Mistake 1: he had the wrong personnel in Cleveland. Clearly he's spent a lot of time since then thinking about the types of players he wants; and he's found a pro personnel director who shares this philosophy. Mistake 2: he was working for the wrong owner in Cleveland. Modell announced the move to Baltimore in the middle of the season. After that announcement, the Browns lost every game except their last one at the Dawg Pound. Mistake 3: Insufficient scowling on the sidelines. In New England, Belichick appears to have taken a personal vow never to lose a game due to insufficient scowling. I mean, the Patriots could be up by 50, and based on his facial expression you'd think that his wife just left him, his daughter announced her intention to marry O.J. Simpson, his parents disowned him, his dog got shot, and every fan in the stadium spit on him.

No need to hope. The Patriots WILL win this game. Mark it down.

I agree we shouldn't overpay for Jennings. I'd also be in favor of cutting Moulds, and replacing him with one of the possession WRs that are expected to be available in free agency. Because we'll likely be going with a new starter next year, the time to change WRs is now or never. Moulds drops too many passes; and he averages less than 12 yards per catch. This combination makes him a drive-killer, no matter who the QB is. Besides all this, swapping Moulds for some other WR would free up cap space. We should also extend Clements if he'll agree to do it for a reasonable salary. We should use the cap space from Moulds to sign Jennings or some other LT, as well as a TE.

What exactly do you see as the upside to NYC? Compare Upstate New York with any typical Midwestern state. Chances are the Midwestern state has significantly lower taxes, less governmental bloat, fewer people leaving, fewer social parasites moving in, and an overall brighter future. The ONLY reason these things are not true of Upstate New York as well is that it has the misfortune of being lumped in with New York City.

If it were a cat, it wouldn't spend all its time barking.

The Raiders traded up a few slots in the first round to make sure no one else would take Janikowski. The teams they traded ahead of said, in effect, "The Raiders were pretty stupid for doing this, because there was no way we were going to take a kicker in the first round."

You definitely want to use some disinfectant to eliminate any chance of infection. I prefer a mix of iodine and alcohol; but use whatever you want.

I think we need to get rid of Moulds and sign a player like Muhsin Muhammed. The Panthers may cut Muhammed for salary cap reasons. If there's going to be a new QB anyway, you may as well start of fresh with a new possession receiver; a guy who makes catches instead of drops.

Yeah, but he's third string. Considering that even Shane Matthews is apparently good enough to be second string . . .

Excellent post! When you're only averaging 12 yards a catch--as Moulds does--you have to catch everything thrown your way. He doesn't. Let's say you want to move the ball down the field. Every time it's third down, you throw to a guy who is twice as likely to catch the pass as he is to drop it. The first time you face third down, you have a 67% chance of moving the chains. But how far do they move? With a guy who averages 40 yards a catch, you have a 67% chance of succeeding in moving the ball 40 yards, and a 44% chance of moving the ball 80 yards. (The 44% chance of moving the ball 80 yards assumes that you rely on this guy to bail you out of third down situations twice in a row. Each time he succeeds he gets you 40 yards.) But with the guy who averages just 10 yards a catch, you have to convert four third downs to get those 40 yards, and eight third downs to get 80 yards. Given that your WR has two catches for one drop, your odds of converting those four third downs are 20%, and your odds of converting eight third downs in a row are just 4%. In other words, the longer the distance your offense needs to go, the more the Moulds' combination of short YPC and dropped balls will hurt it. Notice the 40 YPC guy was about three times as likely to succeed in moving the ball 40 yards, but 11 times as likely to succeed in moving the ball 80 yards. This is why we scored so many points in that stretch when our defense and special teams kept giving the offense a short field. Any team is helped by a short field; but us more than most because we rely so heavily on a WR who has the combination of low YPC and a high number of drops.

I'm curious about that study. But I'd think that an organization which threw a QB into the fire his first year might be a generally impatient organization. The same impatience which caused them to start him so quickly might lead them to pull the rug out from under him too quickly as well. Peyton Manning started as a rookie; and he didn't look a whole lot better than his brother. But the organization stuck with him.

As the third WR, Reed would mostly be going against the nickle back. Besides that, he's been the third WR this year too, and you haven't seen him play half as well as he did when he was a rookie. I'm not saying you're wrong about Evans--he's probably better than Moulds already, and has the potential to become even better. But that whole Reed situation has made me more cautious.

I agree that Evans shows promise. But the problem with your logic is that Josh Reed had a good rookie year too.

I think his point was that the Pittsburgh failure was the failure of the organization, and not of just one man. He's right, but there's a catch. A player like Nate Clements drops a punt. But he makes up for it later on with an INT. So he's even, if not ahead. With Bledsoe, I don't see him making a lot of big plays; so his mistakes are harder to forgive.

This post is more focused than is usual for you. In fact, it's a good post!

I agree with what you're saying. In Europe, however, it's harder to find a job because there are so many restrictions on employers. Giving someone a job is almost like marrying them in terms of the commitment level involved. So Europeans who are out of work may not be lazy good-for-nothings. Often they are college graduates looking for that first job. I'd hate to see a woman I cared about put in a situation where she had to choose between selling herself to strangers, and going to bed hungry. After WWII, the Germans were told they were a terrible people. It seems they bought into the idea to the point where they have lost self-respect.

Speaking of good QBs, Kurt Warner has two conference championships and one Super Bowl ring. He's not a Trent Dilfer, where the team won despite the QB rather than because of him. It's safe to say that St. Louis relied more on passing than running, and more on its offense than its defense. It wasn't that long ago that the Rams came very close to beating the Patriots in the Super Bowl. Warner's had some problems since then, but he bounced back nicely with the Giants. It's time for the Bills to put him under center to see what he can do with some real offensive talent surrounding him.

I know this way of looking at things is different from most people's, but in my mind Evans and Moulds play two different positions. Evans is a speed WR; Moulds plays a position that's kind of a cross between speed WR and tight end. So it's about as useful to compare Moulds to Evans as it is to compare Moulds to Jeremy Shockey or some other pass catching tight end. Clearly our speed WR position is in good hands (no pun intended) with Evans. But I don't like the whole situation surrounding Moulds. For one thing, his cap figure is a noose around this team's neck. Also, I'd say that good hands are even more important for a possession WR than a speed WR. Think about it: let's say that every time there is a third down, the QB throws a 40 yard pass to the speed WR. The speed WR catches two passes out of every three. So his 2:1 catch:drop ratio gets you scores on two drives out of three, and a punt on one drive out of three. Compare that to the situation where you're throwing to your possession WR every time it's third down. Assuming your possession WR averages only ten yards a catch, your chance of moving the ball at least 40 yards is only (2/3)^4 = 20%. On any one third down play, your possession WR will probably make a catch to move the chains. But sooner or later he will drop the ball, the drive will stall, and you'll have to punt. Assuming that the team does nothing on first and second down, that your possession WR has two catches for each drop, and that he gets 10 yards a catch, you only have a 4% chance of driving the ball 80 yards. Moulds averaged just 12 yards a catch. That's fine if you're not dropping passes. Moulds does; and that's not something you can accept in a possession WR. As long as Moulds remains the focal point of the Bills' passing offense, expect to see more punts than scoring drives, no matter who is under center.

Maybe it says that the Giants traded away the fourth overall pick in 2004, plus their first round pick in 2005, and probably some other picks I'm forgetting, just to get that one player. After Coughlin decided the Giants lacked the overall team talent to get into/get very far in the playoffs, he decided to accelerate the process of turning the rookie into a veteran.

The anti-Drew crowd has raised valid points about how Bledsoe was more often part of the problem than part of the solution. On the other hand, it's not clear that J.P. will be ready next year. He's missed too much practice time. There is only so much you can do watching film: you need to be out on the field actually throwing the ball to your receivers. The player who gives this team the best chance to win is Kurt Warner. With him under center the Giants went 5-3; on pace for a better record than the Bills finished with. However, the Giants--with the same roster--went 1-7 to finish the year with Manning taking the snaps. Warner put together a QB rating ten points higher than Drew's; despite the fact that he had basically no time to get used to a new offense and a new team before he was benched, despite the fact that he didn't have an offensive line, and despite the fact the Giants don't exactly have the same weapons that Indy does. Warner had every excuse to fail, but he succeeded.

"[before Pearl Harbor] the President . . . signed the Atlantic Charter, a joint declaration of British and American war aims. Its terms not only left no doubt that Roosevelt was Hitler's implacable enemy but, ironically, disillusioned the Fuhrer's enemies inside Germany, for no difference was made between a Nazi and an anti-Nazi. Those in the Resistance regarded the charter as Roosevelt's unofficial declaration of war against all Germans. They particularly resented Point 8, which stipulated that Germans must be disarmed after the war; a demand which, Hassell wrote in his journal, 'destroys every reasonable chance for peace.'" -John Toland, Adolf Hitler 691 - 692 The following quote is in reference to events that took place some time after Pearl Harbor: "In hopes of convincing Roosevelt that not all Germans were Nazis, Lochner was prepared to give him the radio code of two separate groups opposed to Hitler so that Roosevelt could inform them directly what political administration in Germany would be acceptable to the Allies. After failing to reach the President through his appointments secretary, Lochner wrote a personal note revealing the existence of these codes and emphasizing that they could be handed over to Roosevelt alone. There was no reply but several days later Lochner was informed that his insistence was viewed by official sources as 'most embarrassing.' Would he please desist? What Lochner did not know was that the President's refusal to see him was official American policy in line with unconditional surrender, designed not only to withhold encouragement to German resisters but to avoid any important contact." John Toland, Adolf Hitler 736 - 737 The official American policy of unconditional surrender did not benefit America whatsoever. On the contrary, had the German generals succeeded in overthrowing Hitler, peace with Germany would have ended a painful European war several years early, while reducing the danger the Soviet Union posed in the postwar period. In addition, getting rid of Hitler in 1942 or 1943 would have prevented further human rights violations by Hitler, and would have prevented the Soviet genocide against the German people. Allied extermination bombings directed against the people of Germany could also have been avoided. Roosevelt's decision to discourage the German resistance--and therefore strengthen Hitler's hold on power--demonstrates that Hitler's human rights record was not a major factor in Roosevelt's decision to wage war. This attitude comes as no surprise to anyone familiar with FDR's reaction to the various Soviet genocides. Unfortunately, saving the lives of brave and idealistic American soldiers was not a priority for FDR either. Had the German generals overthrown Hitler, the European war would clearly no longer have been necessary, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of brave young men could have been avoided. Had FDR offered an honorable peace to a de-Nazified Germany, more generals would almost certainly have joined in the plot to overthrow Hitler.