KurtGodel77

I'd be happy with Losman as our starter, and a reduced-pay Bledsoe as backup. Bledsoe knows the offense, and it's not like there are a whole lot of names on that list which stand out as being better. Except Drew Brees, but I think he'll be franchised.

Saying that we shouldn't start Losman until he's proven something on the field is like telling a kid he's not allowed in the pool until he's proven he knows how to swim.

Shaud Williams, when he's played, has played well. He played lights-out in the preseason.

I'm not "advocating" it, I'm just saying that it wouldn't be an outright disaster. Any time your starter goes down, you have to expect a lower level of play. Look what happened when Milloy went down. Better to build strength at starting positions like left guard before you get too involved in upgrading depth at RB.

bump

Let's say that McGahee got injured for 8 games next season. That leaves you with Shaud Williams and Joe Burns. Burns is a power runner, and Williams is more of a finesse guy. They'd make a good one-two punch for backups. TD shouldn't use a high draft pick on a RB--we have too many other needs--and he should only use a lower round pick on a RB if the right guy is there.

Great post!

Everyone always gives credit to Flutie for "playing well enough to win." In 1998, Flutie did in fact play well. But in 1999, Flutie's numbers (completion percentage, total yards passing, QB rating) were very similar to those of Bledsoe for 2004. In both 1999 and 2004 Buffalo had a good defense. I liked our 1999 defense better because it gave up fewer points. Our records were similar both years (9-7 with Bledsoe under center, 9-6 with Flutie). Flutie could make plays with his feet. But other than that, Flutie '99 and Bledsoe '04 are the same guy!

Yes. He had 17 carries for 93 yards and a TD.McGahee had 15 carries for 102 yards and two TDs.

Shaud Williams was our leading rusher against Cincinnati; with 14 carries for 30 yards. Keep in mind that Cincinnati was ganging up to stop the run while more or less ignoring the pass.

Shaud Williams had 10 carries for 42 yards in the Cleveland game.

There was also the Titans game, where Johnson led the team to a second-half comeback; resulting in Buffalo taking the lead with just 16 seconds remaining. I remember the pass that Johnson completed to Peerless Price; after it appeared Johnson would call timeout because of the loss of his shoe. Johnson played well in the second half of that game. Had our kickoff coverage team played equally well . . .

In 2004, Travis Henry had 94 carries for 326 yards and 3.5 yards a carry. Shaud Williams had 42 attempts for 167 yards and 4.0 yards a carry. Williams had two touchdowns, Henry had none. Based just on what we saw in 2004, I'd say Henry would be our third string back if he wasn't traded.

I agree with the sentiment, but this offense wouldn't exactly make things simpler. The offensive coordinator would have every opportunity to insert reverses, trick plays, or other complex plays into the ten play plan. It's just that you'd take away the defense's opportunity to call any plays at all!

We all know how much a Pro Bowl selection really means for offensive linemen. Ruben Brown clearly earned each and every one of his Pro Bowl berths!

I admit you're losing your flexibility by locking in those ten plays right at the start of the drive, but the defense is locked into using the same play over and over. This type of attack puts pressure on both sides, but on the defense more than the offense.

I guess I should clarify the above post by saying that you'd run the ten plays you'd memorized, one after another, with no breaks or anything in between. With the no huddle you call plays at the line of scrimmage, giving the defense the chance to do the same thing. With the zero-huddle, there would be no opportunity for the defense to call a different defensive play. If I were a defensive coordinator, I'd HATE to go up against this.

I just surfed around that Peter Pan guy's website: http://www.pixyland.org/peterpan/ Now there is a guy who sees the world differently than most people.

To execute the zero-huddle offense, you'd have the offense memorize a set of ten plays. During the game, your offense would line up and execute the first play in the set. Then, without anyone talking to anyone else, your offense would immediately line up to execute the next play. The playcalling could be a lot more complex than with a no-huddle; the defense would have even less time between plays to make adjustments. The disadvantage would be that you'd sometime run standard running plays in third and long situations, but even that could be an advantage, because it would make you a lot harder to predict. Besides that, once a drive got rolling, you wouldn't be in very many third and long situations in the first place. If executed well, this offense could demoralize, confuse, and overwhelm any defense unfortunate enough to go up against it.

I'm not a big fan of outsourcing myself. When we lost the manufacturing jobs to foreign countries, I kept hearing about how the U.S. was becoming a "service economy"--as though losing manufacturing jobs would create service jobs. Now service jobs like customer support are being shipped overseas. So too are programming jobs and other high quality jobs. If there are no jobs left for Americans, the economy will collapse.

Parcells is always in a win-now kind of mode, because he doesn't necessarily plan on working more than one year. So I think he'd be willing to trade a draft pick for a veteran QB, as Joe Gibbs did in Washington. Buffalo would incur a $4 million cap hit for trading Bledsoe before June 1, and a $6.5 million cap hit for keeping him. What we could do is trade Henry to someone for a draft pick, then package the Henry draft pick and Bledsoe together for a higher draft pick. At the end of the day, we might wind up with Dallas's second round pick, or even our own first round pick.

The problem I have with this defense is it never seems to take control against a dominating opponent. Look at the way the defense played in the two New England games, or in that nine minute Pittsburgh drive. Usually, when that defense seems to be playing well, it's partly because there is something wrong with the other team's offense.

I don't buy that whole idea of Lindell being one of the best kickers in Bills' history, because the kicks he's been asked to attempt have been higher percentage kicks inside 40 yards. Whether that's based on not trusting him, or juts on the situations the Bills happened to be in at the time, I don't know. The key is to break things down into smaller sections: field goals of 40 yards or more, field goals of 30 - 40 yards, and field goals of less than 30 yards. Compare Lindell to the other kickers in those categories, and see where that leaves him. Maybe he'd actually look good, but you don't know until you do the comparison. I'm impressed by his kicking of extra points.

Yeah, and that reason is ignorance. Statistics is just another form of communication. As with any form of communication, statistics can be used to shed light on the truth, or to distort the truth. As well to say that all words are lies, just because people have used words to lie.

I like your post more than Sullivan's article! Sullivan wrote the following: " Really, can you think of any other games where Bledsoe was the difference? The Bills won seven of their games by 10 or more points. They didn't trail in the fourth quarter of any of their nine wins." Uh, a good QB is supposed to score points. Last time I checked, a TD in the first quarter counted for just as many points as a TD scored late in the 4th quarter. So Sullivan is undermining the point he is trying to make. What he really should be saying is that the offense in general, and Drew in particular, didn't produce enough yards. We would have had a lot fewer points had it not been for the turnovers our defense created, and for the big plays on special teams. It always seemed like our offense was lacking in some way; that if an opponent could limit our big plays on defense and special teams, our offense alone wouldn't be able to pick up the slack. Against Pittsburgh, that weakness got exposed.