BigAL

Well, it's better than just showing up without a specific game plan designed to beat your opponent ala the last 5 years.

One of he things I liked about what he said is that from week to week you have to figure out how to beat the team you are facing. He says Belicheck does a great job of adjusting week by week to his opponents. He says he wants to do the same in Buffalo. If he does do this, it will be a step up from GW and MM. Both of them seemed to want to run the same schemes regardless of who we were playing instead of attacking the other teams weaknesses.

How do you change mindset? You change it by forcing a policy like the minority inverview rule, and having minority internship programs. That gets candidates interviewed, and eventually hired. Once you accomplish that, you can really change the owners mindset by the results on the field of the teams coached by minority candidates. Now it's about winning instead of skin color. What owner wouldn't want Lovie Smith or Marvin Lewis now?

Don't we have this stupid debate every year around this time. The only situation where it was obvious that an interview was a token one has been the Detroit/Mooch situation. Several years ago, assistant coaches like Herm Edwards, Ray Rhodes, and Tony Dungy weren't even getting a sniff at a head coaching job. The minority coaching programs as well as the minority interview rule certainly has helped expose more minority coaches to the owners. The owners (save for Al Davis) were obviously not comfortable for what ever reason with having a minority head coach. Even though Art Shell broke some ground, it was a long time between hires. I think Ray Rhodes was next. With Lovie Smith, Herm Edwards, Tony Dungy, and Marvin Lewis as head coaches, maybe the owner discomfort has been forever alleviated, and the minority interview rule isn't needed. I suspect that's probably not the case given how long it took to get where we are today. I recall Ted Cottrel being very pleased with the policy because it gave him the opportunity to prepare and interview for a head coaching job. It also gave him exposure that he otherwise would not have gotten. It always seems to be the people in the majority who deny that discrimination exits in the first place, then say well maybe it did it exist, but that's not the case now. Then they assume the playing field is suddenly level overnight.

So is Evans good enough to be our #1? Is he as good as Smith? If not, who is your replacement for Moulds?

The clock was already stopped it was an incomplete pass. I thought the same thing though.

What are you in love with TD or something?

Great post. I couldn't agree more.

Not being sarcastic at all. Here's a former Bill, who wants to be the Bills head coach, has coaching experience, and has a winning record (not including 2005). I say he's the best fit out there for us.

Thanks for making me change my mind on Haslett. I say he's the right guy now. Not including 2005, he's got one losing season out of 5. This is against the NFC South of Atlanta, Tampa Bay and Carolina. That's a been a tough division for a few years now. I would welcome Haslett. Thanks.

Your original post said "Well to be fair, the Bills were one quarter away from sweeping the Dolphins this year, with a team with worse talent, if not for Moulds". Now you are saying Moulds was A reason not THE reason. I can live with that.

They do when the coach looks like an idiot for his stupid play calls that lead to a humiliating loss. How'd you like that first down pass by Roscoe?

I'm saying we didn't lose the game because of Moulds. We had our opportunities after he was benched, and we blew them. Moulds was also rightly complaining about the play calling that was designed to squander a lead rather than put the Dolphins away.

Only Moulds, Mularkey, and the receivers coach really know what the "meltdown" was about. I give more credence to Moulds saying he was upset about the lack of trying to put the dolphins away with a power running game than I do with him being upset about Evans getting the ball.

Didn't we have 2 redzone turnovers without Moulds in the game? Perhaps that is why we didn't score, not the lack of Moulds?

How about we didn't score again because Mularkey went into coast/trick play/game's already won mode. Besides, according to most around here Moulds isn't any good anymore, and the offense is just fine without him.

How on earth do you blame the Miami loss on Moulds?

Holcomb sucks

Exactly. He'd be a fool not to.

Although Mcgahee hasn't looked as good as last year, out of the last 7 games you quote, in 3 of those games, he had 8, 9 and 10 carries. No running back is going to produce with so few attempts. You also have to question the line and the play calling. How many times have we seen Willis rush up the middle for no gain because there was no push and no hole. You can't blame it all on him.

That was TD's response to the question I sent him for "Ask Tom Donahoe". I didn't think he'd answer it to be honest though. Glad he said what he said. Hope it's true.

Told my wife last night that he won't last 2 years in the NFL. He's gonna take a really bad hit, and it will be game over. It's just a matter of time. I hope he's not too badly injured when it happens.

Just stupid if you watched the game.

That's why he has 9 catches for 110 yards. What a loser he is.

No it's the curse of Doug Flutie. When we screwed him over and started Johnson against Tenessee, we ruined the cosmic karma, that had Flutie triumphantly returning to the NFL, taking the Bills to the Super Bowl, and winning it. We have been paying the price for that sin ever since. Karma. You do good things and good things happen.