KurtGodel77

I know people will say I'm sticking up for Drew, but I watched that play. An unblocked defender came from the line of scrimmage. Yeah, he was an outside rusher, but he didn't rush from very far outside. Drew had just barely finished dropping back when the defender arrived. The most he could have done would have been to protect the football while he took the sack. Criticize him for fumbling by all means, but the sack itself was the result of the wrong blocking scheme being called.

Good post.

I'm rooting for Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh is close by, they play football the way it should be played, and they have a good chance to end the Patriots' streak of Super Bowl appearances at one. I always root against a team making more than two consecutive Super Bowl appearances. Only one team has ever made it to the Super Bowl more than twice in a row, and I'd rather things stayed that way.

Good post!!

Well, if Sam Aiken isn't the answer, we should go with my other plan, which is to sign Brees (assuming San Diego doesn't franchise him), trade Losman for a first round pick, and use said pick to draft Moulds' replacement.

Stop being so . . . conventional! Is my plan unorthodox? Yes. Does that make it good or bad? No. Look at the end result: a young, Pro Bowl QB, an offensive line improved by two first-day picks, and a first round pick to replace Eric Moulds. An offense like that would do a lot better than our offense did this year. Our cap situation would be improved, especially in 2006. Next, ask yourself whether my suggestion is feasible. Signing Drew Brees would be feasible if the Chargers don't franchise him. Trading Losman for a first round pick should be feasible, because a player worth a first round pick last year should be worth a first round pick this year. Did Losman do anything during the year to devalue himself? No! Learn that just because things are a certain way, doesn't mean they can't be changed.

Does Eric Moulds have superior athletic ability to Sam Aiken? At this stage in his career, I'd say the answer is no. Does Moulds have superior execution? Well, with all Moulds' drops, and with Aiken running his routes pretty well, I'd say the answer is again no. So if you fed a Sam Aiken the same opportunities you fed Eric Moulds, I'd say the defense would double cover him.

I agree with some of this plan. If Brees gets franchised, Losman would probably be our next-best option. Obviously, it's better to trade players (if possible) as opposed to cutting them. You are probably being optimistic about what we could get for players like Bledsoe and Moulds in a trade, but it's worth pursuing to get what we can. I'm not sure why you want both Jennings and Orlando Pace on the roster. I consider both players to be left tackles. I'm not sure why we need another mid-round pick at tight end, considering that Tim Erhus, Mark Campbell, and Jason Peters are already playing at about the level you'd expect from a mid-level pick.

We've already amortized 4/6 of the Moulds bonus. We'd take the hit for 2/6 of that bonus under my plan; but if we keep him he will count $8.5 million. Bledsoe will use up $4 million in cap room if we cut him, and $6.5 million if we keep him. In both cases the cap impact for 2005 is positive. Trading Losman creates cap pain for 2005 because we've only amortized the first year of his bonus. But knowing we will have cap room in 2006, we can structure the Drew Brees contract accordingly. I'm not saying Brees is a guarantee, but I'll take a one-year wonder like Brees over a zero-year wonder like Losman. Maybe Losman will turn out to be a great QB someday, but with Brees his past success gives you more of a guarantee, and anyway he's past his rookie growing pains. If San Diego franchises Brees, then obviously he'd no longer be an option (unless they took a fancy to some of the players already on our roster). Getting rid of Moulds is a lot different from getting rid of Price. Without Price, we had no one who could burn defenses deep. That removed a dimension from our offense. Moulds' replacement will still be a possession receiver; and defenses are likely to respond to him in a similar way they did to Moulds (assuming the guy can play). My plan calls for two first-day picks to be used on offensive linemen. You have to use your picks on something, and you can find good interior offensive linemen in rounds 2 and 3. If the Bills don't find any linemen worthy of being drafted with such a pick, obviously they should do anything other than reach for a position of perceived need.

Disagree with me if you want, but there is no excuse for getting personal.

Moulds got more catches because he was the primary target on so many pass plays. You could take any reasonably competent WR, make him the primary focus of your pass attack, and he will get the 1000 yards that Moulds got.

True, but at least in this plan Trey Teague is a year away from being cut. Mike Williams . . . it would be nice to see him take a paycut.

Any time you ask for change, people caught up in the status quo will call your ideas absurd.

Under my plan, the offense will start off slowly anyway, as Brees adjusts to a new system, and because two of the starters would be rookies (left OG and possession WR). The only way to avoid this slow start is to keep Drew at QB; and there are obvious problems with that idea. The TEs getting off to a slow start will make the problem worse. I guess MM could rummage up a defensive lineman or someone to hold the fort until our real TEs were ready to play.

Willis McGahee was our top offensive weapon, not Eric Moulds. Our passing game was substandard, and Moulds was part of that problem. He's scheduled to count $8.5 million against the 2005 salary cap. In other words, his cap space is taking the place of Drew Brees. Of the two, I know which player I'd rather have. Moulds was signed to an extension prior to the 2001 season. You can only amortize a bonus by up to six years, and he's had four seasons since that extension was signed. If we cut him, we'd get hit with two seasons of bonus for 2005 (instead of the one season + base salary we will be hit with if we keep him) but we'd be free and clear of him by 2006. If you're right about San Diego tagging Brees, this plan wouldn't work.

Well, last year several teams wanted to use a first round pick to draft Losman. I'd think those same teams would be willing to trade away a first round pick in this year's draft to get that same player. It's not like Losman has done anything to embarass himself in the past year. He hasn't done anything to distinguish himself either, so his value is about the same as it was in last year's draft.

1. Sign Drew Brees. He's young, but he's a proven veteran. 2. To make salary cap room for Brees, I'd cut Bledsoe and Eric Moulds. 3. To replace Eric Moulds, I'd trade Losman (who we wouldn't need now that we'd have Brees) for a first round pick. With that pick I'd draft a possession WR. 4. Trade Travis Henry for whatever I can get, and go into the season with McGahee, Shaud Williams, and Joe Burns as my RBs. 5. Use my second and third round picks on a C and OG. 6. Use the Travis Henry pick on another WR. 7. Sign a low-cost veteran QB to be the backup/mentor, or just keep Bledsoe around at a significantly reduced salary. 8. Go with Campbell/Ehrus/Peters at TE; those guys show potential. 9. Use the remaining draft picks (4 - 7) on the defense. 10. Re-sign Jennings. By the time I was finished, I'd have Drew Brees at QB, Evans, Aiken, and a first round pick at WR, McGahee and Williams at RB, Erhus, Campbell, and Peters at TE, a 3rd round pick at left OG, a 2nd round pick waiting in the wings to replace Teague at C, and the salary cap under control. We'd be strong at QB, RB, WR, OL; and we'd be respectable at TE and FB.

That's not what he was saying. He was just saying that a good arm is more important in bad weather than in good weather. That doesn't mean your QB can be an idiot--he still has to win the game with his head, not his arm or his legs. But no matter how smart a QB is, there is some minimum level of physical talent (including arm strength) he has to have to succeed. That minimum is higher for bad weather teams like Buffalo.

There is no point to keeping Travis. We have a starting running back in Willis. We have a very good backup in Shaud Williams. These last few weeks, has anyone been saying to themselves, "Oh, gee, our backup running back situation will get light years better once Travis comes back to replace Shaud Williams?" I haven't. I don't think it's worth giving up a 2nd, or 3rd, or even a 4th, round pick to have just one year--one year!--of Travis at backup instead of Shaud Williams. Let's get a draft pick instead, one we can use on a guy who will be around the team for a few years to come.

Good point.

If San Diego is stupid enough to let Brees become a free agent, we should go after him. Your QB is your franchise. Why take a chance on an unknown and unproven player like Losman when you can get a young but proven player like Drew Brees? The salary cap room for Brees could be had by cutting fat elsewhere.

The thing about Warner is this: he looks lousy when the offensive line doesn't come to play. But if you give him time in the pocket, that guy will just eat a defense alive. It's scary. Our offense seems to be decent to slightly good in pass protection, so Warner could have some success. Warner is also a good character guy, and a good mentor for a young QB.

Overall I like this philosophy. The heady, weak-armed QB will work if you've got a guy who can hit his WRs in perfect stride, the way Joe Montana did. Your WRs need to be able to run the quick slant well, the way Jerry Rice did.

Well, Bobby Shaw produced similar numbers under more adverse circumstances, so we could always bring him back. But on a more serious note, Aiken could play just as well as Shaw. Or we could trade Moulds and draft a young posession receiver.

Teams double covered Bobby Shaw a lot in 2003 because there was nothing else for that last defender to do. (No need to defend the run when facing KG, the other WRs were an injured Moulds and an ineffective Josh Reed). Bobby Shaw still piled up 730 yards despite that double coverage. So I'm not that impressed with Moulds piling up 1000 yards this year, considering all the things that are better about the offense this year in comparison with last.