Fake-Fat Sunny

In fact, I saw an pre-season interview with him in which he commented on the Bledsoe cut by specifically saying that it was not the right way for him to win the job as he had not yet proven on the field that he was a #1 quality QB. However, he is not in charge of the contracts and that he would go out on the field and play his game and try to deserve the jiob. No problems with these platitudes from my perspective. He said what he is supposed to say. As best as I can tell it will be an open competition between Holcomb and JP which is going on right now in their home conditioning rooms and which will begin in earnest at the first "voluntary" minicamp after the draft. Holcomb has the advantage right now because his experience makes him a better player than JP. JP however, has an overall advantage because of: 1. age- Holcomb is well into the backside of his career and though he is a better player than JP he is to old to be the QB of the future. The win now doctum of the Bills will help him get the startting nod if JP shows nothing, but if JP shows much of a sign at all of developing into a quality QB this year, my guess he gets the start. 2. athleticism- JP appears to be far better athlete than Holcomb with faster wheels and a stronger arm. However, JP has not shown or developed the mental ability to play the game and make calm good decisions as Holcomb often does. JP's abilities will give him a leg-up if he gets his game under control. 3. Holcomb has never been consistent Holcomb has had a few lights out games, but never in his career has he actually produced as a QB for an entiure (or even a lot of a season). The key qyestion for fans is whether they think he can produce. My sense is that yes he has the skills to do this. In addition, given that he ran for his life his entire at Tulane and he has a bit of a nasty edge to his temperament, I feel that with experience he will eventually develop the experience where tje ga,e s;pws down. However, this is still a close question as I'm not sure he can develop his skills quickly enough for us to stay invested in him given the win now dictum that is commonplace in today's game and is a major driver for the Bills due to the business (the customers need a playoff berth or they will be begin to stay home and because of RWS's age. I think the proration of his cap # keeps him here this year unless he melts down and pays all pre-season like he did in his rookie performanxce against NE. If he shows the progress he showed his rookie season in mop-up duty after his intial debacle or even if the plays as inconsistently as he played last year (he progressively lost control of his game until he was benched, however he improved a lot when an injury to Holcomb brought hin back. For example, the opening TDs to Evans in the MI game were great, but he failed (along with the rest of the team to stick a fork into the MI carcass and we paid for this with the comeback by MI. Still, the main reason he did not comeback was because Holcomb showed a little bit ofr control and good play that kept him in the starting job. Yet, Holcomb also showed his vulnerability as droppsies by Shelton and others led to a bad result against the Jets. If Holcomb produces tremendously he can hold off JP. However, if JP even shows moderate progress Holcomb likely sits. I as a Bills fan do not care which QB gets the start all I want is someone to win.

Isn't that how the choose Hall of Fame members?

Are you crying? I mean are those tears and are you crying?? There's no crying in football. I mean really. You ask "How fair is it to the team that made a play" If you hadn't noticed life actually isn't fair. I'm not sure why you expect football to be fair. Perhaps what you get out of it is that it is one place where you can pretend there is some illusion of fairness. Believe me, football ain;t fair, its merely human. You also note: put themselves in jeopardy again Look folks who live in Iraq or are in the military are in jeopardy. Folks who play football get 100s of thousands of dollars at a minimum to play a boys game. This is why we all wish we were them. There is nothing about this game beyond the occaisional crticial injury that has anything remotely to do with jeopardy. I don't know maybe you are referring to the game show rather than real life. You also mention: "simply b/c it makes the game entertaining?" Yep. Entertainment is what it is all about Charlie Brown. The NFL used to be a sport that happened to be a business. Now it is a business which happens to be a sport. Its lamentable IMHO, but that is the way it is as best as I can tell. While fortunately it is not the XFL (yet) we're only a Terrell Owens/Nicole Kidman commercial and a clothing malfunction away from being there.

I found myself amazed, then pissed, and then burst out laughing at the end of the 1st half. First, I was amazed that Seattle was so poorly prepared that with no TOs and the clock running, the team simply dicked around on the field with Hasselback changing (or giving the play gosh forbid as they should have come to the line with several play calls or at least a default call to save time) as time melted away. This confusion which does happen from time to time in regular season was at least understandable, but then I got pissed when this poor coaching preparation was outdone by Cowher for some reason calling a TO. It would have been even more hilarious if Seattle had simply gone for an kicked an FG at that point. However, I then burst out laughing at the ineptitude of these two teams when Seattle of course through an incomplete pass and then missed the kick. Thank gosh there were commercials to keep the game interesting for anyone not from Pittsburgh.

Folks simply put themselves under too much pressure to perform in this alleged game of a lifetime for many players. Generally, a soon as one team blinks they get their butt kicked and get run off the field. As I have said before the most refreshing perspective came from one of the Cowboys (either Hollywood Henderson or Duane Thomas) when he was asked before appearing in the SB whether the game would be the most important moment in his life. He replied, "If its so important then why do they play it every year."

Perhaps the rule for a refs decision should be to reverse if there is clear evidence OR when there is a preponderence of the evidence for a call though it may not be clear, the ref may reverse the call if the result allows for the decision to be decided on the field. Basically, I felt pretty clear from where Ben brought the ball out from that he was carrying it low on his body (likely to prevent a fumble or getting it stripped) rather than trying to put it over the goal line as we often see players do. Though I am pretty certain it was not a touchdown I can see that a lame but true case can be made that the evidence was not conclusive. I think its very good to get the call right, but the primary reason I watch is for entertainment. The refs make judgment calls all the time, and I have no problem with the ref choosing to reverse a call which probably should be reversed but the tape is inconclusive IF the result is that the players on both teams will get another shot at doing battle on the field of play. For me it would have been incredibly entertaining to watch the Steelers make a choice whether to go for it on 4th and inches from the goal line or improbably weenie out by kicking an FG. If it was a 4th down play where the ref has the replay call then I would require the ruling on the field to stand unless there is conclusive evidence. If it were a fumble challenge and the result will be a turnover or not I would require the ruling on the field to stand unless there is conclusive evidence. However, in a case like this where the result of calling no TD because it PROBABLY was not a TD, I think it would have been great to see both teams line up for a 4th and inches and likely the Bus would have thundered through the line. If the Seahawks instead stopped him, it would have been one of the great stands in NFL history. The refs should not decide the game, the players should.

Ralph has every right to send notes, yell on a megsphone or try to invoke mental telepathy if he so chooses and require his employees to hold their temples to try to receive his advice if he wants to. Its his money, he owns the team and if Marv or whomever decides not to receive big bucks from him for doing their job the way he wants they have every right to go work somewhere else. However, just because Ralph has the right does not make it right. Id as an owner he is interested in putting up Ws and going deep in the playoffs then the key for him is to be seen and not heard generally. There appears to be too many cooks on this team and it strikes me as a likely major problem simply from his "pledge" to be a more active owner. If he truly is involved and shows the same football acumen which: 1. Totally miscalculated the assessment of how long Jimbo had left as a player leading to him to make a handshake aggreement to reward Kelly in his "next" FA contract, only to find there was no contract as a Jax hit and concussion made it clear (or foggy) that it was time to retire. Ralph oversaw a situation where Butler waited at least a year too long to draft a replacement for JK, leading to him over-reaching to get TC and then rushing a long TC who needed more training on his happy feet (if it ever could have been trained out of him) before he was thrust into a starting role. The buck stops with Ralph for all Bills things but the handshake agreement was an overt act by him which indicates that he more has rose colored fan glasses than football acumen in decision making. 2. He also created a dumb overt act in him coming out publicly to state how impressed he was by RJ beating up an Indy team that had already mailed it in once Bennett got hurt early in the game and it was clear to them that they could not improve their playoff position given results on the scoreboard and the Bennet t injury. He certainly fed the fire if not made the decision to bench Flutie (who was also out of gas so it was unlikely he would win, but with a week off and the last second Flutie magic who knows) and went with RJ so that he would get something out of RJ who because Butler jumped the gun in resigning him RWS was paying him millions to sit. 3. Ckearkt RWS misread the whole Butler rehire situation, in a fit of spite fired and tried to collect from Wade (he lost before the NFL arbter) and it was these evnts which began the whole TD reign or error. I think there are already too many folks in charge for this to work out so I hope as a Bills fan that RWS does not insert himseld into the on field stiuff. he has every right to do so if he chooses, but if he does so it is not the right thing to do if he wants Ws. I just thank gosh we do not have former GM Sherman here as HC acting to reverse his ex-GM demons with no real power or Bates here for a drive-by visit as DC when his heart really yearns to be an HC. Hiring an inexperienced GM in Marv may not work out at all, but the chances of this working strike me as so much higher than if we had added another two cooks to the recipe, If all Ralph does is send notes I will be happy because note can be ignored.

I'm not sure I understand your post (no doubt because of my own mental failings so your explaining it to me is appreciated). On one hand you talk about all the franchises being different, but on the other hand you seem to present the NFL as being great because a unitary whole which guranteed equality is presented. Do YOU see the NFL as 32 different and separate units doing their own thing (some of whom make good choices and win and profit and some of whom make bad choices with the approrpiate penalties) or do you this as a unitary whole where everyone has an equal chance generally to win it all and no one fails in the big picture irregardless of mistakes they might make. Or alternately is something else going on here. In general, the way of American captalism is to have a system which allows folks to throw their money around as they chose and because of benefits and penalties of outcomes theoetically a better product is produced as the good choosers are rewarded and the bad choosers go away. On the other hand, one can adopt a system which is not the same as but is more akin to socialism where the rich folks are restricted in throwing $ around as th choose and poor decisionmakers know they will never be killed because the safety net assures everyone of survival. My sense is that in practice and in outcome the NFL is taking the latter route by stopping the Snyders etc from spending all the choose on players to create a team as good as they can. The revenue sharing of the big cash cow of TV money allows even idiots like the Bidwills to profit regardless of his marketing decisions. Do you see something else going on here? Do you think the adoption of socialistic tyoe controls is producing a better product than the traditional American way?

I'm not saying the reffing was good, it was horrible. However, not only does BINYC's questioned remained essentially unanswered )fixed by whom), but I think that there is the perhaps larger question of: to what purpose? 1. If they were fixing the game was coming up with this crap the best they could do? If it was fixed (certainly fixed but even if it was "merely" influenced) they would have to be working to come up with a far better game than this circle jerk. I think most folks except for Pittsburgh fans simply found this to be one of the worst exhibitions of football seen in quite awhile. 2. If the outcome were "simply" what they were after then why is Pitts winning such a great story to make it happen? The Bus triumphing before retiring, the young QB, or the longest serving HC winning are all neat stories, but if the outcome had turned out the other way, one could also make stories out of Hasselbeck pulling a Trent Dilfer plus, the league's #1 rusher carrying his team, the rich guy Paul Allen finally triumphing or whatever. I think the Pitts stories are probaly better stories but not so much so that a Seattle outcome would have been devoid of stories that a Pitts outcome is the one anyone would create outside of a Steelers fan. 3.What individual stories were being created and why did this fall apart? The Bus? A nice story but his lack of MVP #s gives this one little historical life. RoboQB pulling a Brady? Not with his stellar QB rating in the game. Hines Ward? Who? Maybe if his name was Heinz Ward. 4. Follow the money is usually a good dictum, but who made out like a bandit from this "fix". Most of the money was on the outconme produced so I do not see the betting advantage produced by fixing this outcome. In fact, the betting world profits by creating a middle where betting is equally divided by the point spread. If a bettor was fixing this, then you create good odds and bet the longshot. Paul Allen, Seahawks owner has enough moola to buy an outcome but they lost. I simply have seen no outcome which produces big bucks. 5. If you were going to fix it would you be this ham handed? If I bought a fix, I'd have the refs taken out back and shot for bloeing such demonstrable calls to implement the fix. 6. Was it just this game or was the season fixed? There were certainly far better stories from Peyton and Dungy overcoming long waits and personal tragedy, to if you are one of the folks who believe affirmative action and African-Americans run everything to have Marvin Lewis lead the Bungles to victory that might make better stories. Why Pittsburgh and why done so stupidly? I simply do not see any discernable rationale in terms of story or $ for a fix. If it is fixed or even influenced why isn't the outcome entertaining?

I do not think that it is likely that Moon was elected because he is Black. I think the main motivation for the current players of A-A descent who make up a clear majority of current NFL players and the NFLPA folks who represent them have a SHOW ME THE MONEY attitude first and foremost. The HoF is nice but this popularity contest (as it is elected by a committee and there are no objective standards) does little for most players and does not put bread on the table or cars in the garage. Coaching jobs and the Rooney Rule are different as these are real jobs and represent a career track to make some serious money for being involved in a boys game even if you were not a great player (as most NFL players are not). It means nothing financially for their lawyers (like Johnnie Cochran who produced and publicized the study that in part led to the Rooney Rule) of for the agents of the players. If folks allow themselves to be bought off by something like Moon getting the HoF nod then they have been bought off cheaply indeed. I am convinced by the Bob Matthews column (Roch D&C) that lays out a solid case for why Moon should be in when compared to other players. Yet, even if Moon were put in for the most part because of his A-A descent I think that is actually a good reason for him to get in with reasonalble (but certainly not overwhelming) consideration of the reality of race on his career: 1. The most impressive thing for me regarding Moon is that he is the FIRST UDFA QB to get in. Now that is impressive to me and a real notable point. Given the times (folks like Jimmy the Greek or MLB exec Al Campanis openly saying the falsehood that A-As lacked the "fundamentals" to be good HCs/Managers) my sense is that part of the reason Moon was not even drafted despite some great college accomplishments at QB was his race. Part of his career was the reality of this issue and it is hard for me to see ignoring reality when considering or judging his career. 2. Until Doug Williams broke a barrier with his SB MVP play, outside of the occaisional Marlin Briscoe the NFL flatly refused to allow QBs of A-A descent to get a fair opportunity to show what they could do. Moon deserves a lot of respect from all for putting up his gaudy career numbers and hanging around so long in the face of an NFL that simply discriminated against folks of his race. Just as the vanguard of the small % of HCs of A-A descent like Tony Dungy, Herm Edwards and groundbreaker Aet Shell deserve an extra dose of respect for leading teams to the playoffs despite the NFL putting more value into the good ol boy network feelings that led to the hiring of HC incompetents like Marty Morningwheg or Rich Kotite (and unlike someone who led his team to several playoffs like Art Shell he was actually rehired after his dismal failure). Likewise relatively new coaches Lovie Smith or Marvin Lewis get an extra dose of respect for winning despite being rediculously passed over (particularly Lewis and Dungy). The reality of discrimination of folks of Moon's descent during his time is reprehensible and cannot be ignored. It would be really nice if folks only judged a man by his play or his character. However, the statistical variance in NFL hiring of qualified A-A candidates strongly suggests that discrimination which was open and pretty clear in the past may well still go on. The stats say this is a possibility (there may be many reasons for this variance- some folks foolishly want to claim for example that the growing equality between the % of A-A HCs and A-A in society means this problem is solved and there is no statisitcal variance. However, this view foolishly misses the point because the true statistical comparison is not to societal % but to the % of qualified A-A applicants. This number is not firm or static, but given that a majority of current and recent players are of A-A descent and former players are a significant part of the qualified applicant pool the relevant comparative number is almost certainly higher than the population %. The goal here is to reditect an NFL and NFLPA agreed to history of discrimination by the NFL against potentially qualified A-A applicants. The goal here is NOT to create an HC cadre which looks like America (if you think that the goal is to have the population of qualified HC applicants equal the % ofA-As in America then one should also have the goal of seeing a hair over 50% of the HCs be women). The goal is to create a working employee management tool where workers (players) see that they have a fair shot at getting post play jobs, While troubling that the Rooney Rule did not result in the progress shown in its initial year's I agree with those who say give it another year at least given the good progress intially shown in giving folks a fair opportunity at getting interviews. I think Moon is close enough in this inexact process of HoF election that I am glad he is in. Yet certainly as some measure of the racial progress the NFL owners and players have decided they need to take it really is a nice but trivial matter.

While there are no locks for the HOF as it is not determined by objective stats but by a committee vote (thus it is a popularity contest to some extent) AND it is a hall of FAME not exclusively how good an on field player you were, AND it is the PRO FOOTBALL HoF and not simply the NFL HoF, there are no locks. However, I think Bledsoe makes it in with little problems. He led a team to the SB under Parcells and many QBs have not done this and a few HoF members, AND he player QB in the majority of a must-win game for NE the year Brady led them to an SB win, AND, he has accumulated and will continue to accumulate some gaudy career stats (they are simply career stats but they are gaudy career stats), he was correctly cut by BB despite the two SBs, but resurrected his career with a Pro Bowl performance for the Bills his first year0, ABD despite the fact he stunk his second year but was foolishly extended by TD who then cut him he QB;ed Dallas to a winning season this year, Because this is a vote the big wildcard is who the competition will be. Particularly if he avoids retiring in the same year as Brett Favre, Bledsoe will be the best QB quite easily the first year he is up and I will be quite surprised to not see him in the HoF at some point and likely on his first ballot.

I disagree as I once made the claim to a friend that the NFL games are foxed. She replied, she did not think so because she asked if they were fixed (or even influenced) then why weren't they more interesting? I really had no argument for this because even a chimp or a jackass would produce a far more interesting and entertaining conduit for commercials than this game. Seriously, if the NFL was truly so slick and Machiavellian that they could pull of the secrecy needed to fix the game or even influence it they should be able to do better than produce such ham handed idiocy as some of the refs calls in this game. What script do you suggest they were following? There were certainly players who did not perform in this game that could have seriously used some strategic help like Bettis or RoboQB if the refs were truly trying to produce a specific team or player outcome. The best argument that this game was not fixed is that it would have been far better if it was.

Congrats to Big Ben for QB'ing this team to an SB championsjip. No matter what anyone judges about his play, that cannot be taken away from him (along with the millions obucks he will earn). The thing for folks to remember though it can BOTH be true that he earned his SB title and that he is really not that far above average among QB starters. He (like JP) will get better with experience, but as pretty clearly shown when RonoQB went our for three games with an injury and Pittsburgh went 2-1 against not very good teams starting their back-up QB and then their #3 disaster QB when Batch got injured that they can easily beat bad teams even without Big Ben. Likewise in the next three with RoboQB back they went 1-2 and showed that even with Big Ben they can be beaten by teams which are better at the time (the Colts before the Dugy tragedy and the rust of locking up the division so early and the Bungles who had not learned how to win in the end0 and also that they can beat very good team with Big Ben though really the lead tools in that game was great running, a nice screen pass and run by Parker and a short throw by Big Brn punctuated by a nice run after the catch by Hines (at least that was the description of the game on the Stillers website. RoboQB is one of the best of young QBs, but winning in the NFL is such a team game that one can be just a little above average for QBs and be all the QB you need to win it all. Big Ben's performance bodes well for JP as at least if he should have the TEAM essential to even getting to the SB, at least RoboQB has broken the jinx that has made it 17 years since a team drafted a QB in the 1st who brought the team an SB win. Here's hopin we will not have to wait another 17 years for a 1st round QB choice to be the one that delivers a team an SB win.

Exactly. It was for exactly this reason that one should not rely totally on stats, that I also looked into the reports from an outlet that should be pretty pro-RoboQB (the Steelers site) to see how they presented the actual game occurences. I also made it clear that I had not seen the actual games and invited anyone who had seen the games and thus need not rely on stats or someone else's position to explain why the stats do not tell the story, In this case, both the stats and the non-objective (but should be kind to Big Ben) article observation describe the same thing, There was not a large variation in play or perfornance regardless of whether Pitts employed their 1st, 2nd or 3rd string QB. To the extent there was a variation in performance, it seems better explained by the quality of the opponent rather than a difference in QB performance. However, I did not see the games and if anyone who did has an explanation counter to these stats and descriptions I am all eyes. The major relevant point I did not explore is that when one considers RoboQB's and JP's performance over their entire careers or over all of 2005 I think a stronger case can be made that the Bills would be better off with Robo than JP. However, mu point addresses specifically the criteria set in the post I was answering "if you look at the difference in Pitts performance in games with and without Big Ben they did much much better with him than without him, This is a different point than one about whether the Bills should have traded up for Robo rather than traded away future considerations for JP. If you really want to intelligently consider this point then one needs to bring into consideration of: 1. How would Big Ben have done with this OL and team versus how he did with Pitts? 2. How would RoboQB dones with a year on the bench behind Bledsoe rather than winning games last year with Pitts and getting the hard but valuable lessons from sucking big time in last year's AFC title game. 3. A zillion other factors which make this a total what if question. It seems rediculous to me that you seem to demand that folks only consider the reality of seeing the games (either in person or on TV) rather than making a stat based case when this whole thing is all about what if non reality in the first place. At any rate, my points do not rely on any one thing alone (ie stats) but also specifically site a 2nd party description of the actual game which should be quite charitable in how they treat Big Ben. I am as clear as I can be about that perspective having limitations which I hope folks will respond to with specifics that confirm or deny these stats and descriptions. Instead I think your reply goes even further off into la-la land by not providing any specific insights or references. I'm the first to admit I am a stat hound and rely perhaps too much on them (actually the second as my wife would quickly point out my love for football generally and its stats are a sickness which she puts up with because she like some other undefined thing about me). However, my heavy use of stats has made me quite aware of their limitations and the facts that relying on stats alone) or what you see on TV alone, or what you see at the game alone, or in fact anything alone will likely lead you to incorrect conclusions.

The over-addiction of fans to wanting a marquee QB and the disastrous decisions made by the Bills braintrust as they try to get another Jim Kelly: 1. Ralph and Butler whistled in the dark and waited at least a year too long in getting and developing a replacement. 2. Butler gave away a 3rd round pick for nothing when it becme clear TC was not Jimbo. 3. Butler screwed up our cap management big time and ignited a QB controversy that still haunts this team by signing RJ to a big bonus which made their promises to Flutie a lie and resulted in an outcome which was some of th poorest cap management I have seen. 4. TD made what I consider (IMHO) a good move in getting Bledsoe instead of Jeff Blake or Chris Chandler, but made a horrendous move in extending him when he should have just called his good 02/horrendous 03 a wash for the Bills. Even the pain of cutting him at this point was lessened in the real world by his work replacing the 1st round choice spent on him by tagging and trading PP. However, the QB addiction led TD to try to make this work. 5. TD instead made the dumb extension worse by cutting him with the resulting cap hit and then promoting JP to starter in a method JP even says was not the right way for him to get the job. TD seemed to value using 2005 for JP training more than he valued it for getting Ws (even though it was clear when he extended him that Bledsoe was not Jim Kelly caliber). It really has been the continual fruitless and foolish search for the next Jimbo which has kiiled this team's production.

Given your strong pronouncement that the Steelers were a much much better team with RoboQB, I decided to take your advice and look at the results when he was out. The results were: RoboQB was out 3 games. In those games the Steelers got 2 Ws and 1 L When he came back the Steelers got 2 Ls and 1 W. OK, on the face of it the results were clearly not "much much better" with RoboQB than without him. In fact they were clearly worse. However, though in the end Ws and Ls are the true measure of a team, there are some details which merit a deeper look. In the 3 games without Big Ben we saw: 1. @ GB W 20-10 - The article Pitts website describes the Curtain winning comfortably on the road with back-up QB Batch going 9/16 and this over 50% not racking up a lot of yards and his performance being workmanlike at best. The teams big problem was a failure to move the ball on 3rd down. Cowher gave the typical good cop/bad cop assessment of Batch praising him for the back-up playing QB on the road to a W (though certainly against a bad team IMHO). It's hard to seem much real difference in Robo v. Batch's prescence here unless there is some style point you want to make from watching the game (which I did not) that you can make a reasonable case that Robo's prescence makes the team much much better. 2. Browns W 34-21- We have good news and bad news for Batch- he had a very good game going 13 for 19 for 150 yards in the first half. He also had the worse news as he got injured and 3rd stringer Maddox came in to finish off the lowly Browns for what the Steelers web article called a convincing victory. Certainly against bad teams it made no difference who the QB was and probably the case that the team would have been much much better with Big Ben would at least be funny to read, 3. @ Ravens L 13-16- Maddox sucked and the team lost a close one in OT on the road. If there is a case where playing a 3rd string QB probably made the difference this is the one (however, it is unknowable whether Pitts might have pulled this one out with only an upgrade to their back-up QB. A judgement about whether they are much much better with Big Ben might be demonstrated by different results or different performance when he comes back. 4. @ Colts L 7 - 26- Big Ben comes back and in the first game that directly answers your challenge to look at the Curtain with and without him, the results argue completely against your point. Granted he was just back and playing on the road against what was then the best team in the NFL, but Big Ben's Charlie Batch like passing #s in this game are not those of a QB who makes the team much much better. In fact, the main difference here is that Batch got Ws against bad team and RoboQB was outclassed in this one. 5. Bengals L 31-38- again give credit where credit is due as the completion # and yardage passing from Big Ben were great. Yet, even the Steelers own website article faults him for making bad decision which led to 3 INTs one of which put the game away. The performance at best can be called not bad, but 3 INTs leading to the all important L is simply not the much much better (not even just much better and actually not even better) than Pitts produced and played with back-up QBs. Granted the quality of the competition is different, but you set the standards with your claim and the results do not even make it up a lower standard of saying that the Steelers did better with him than without him. 6. Bears W 21-10- Finally Big Ben upon his return plays QB in a W and it is against a good team. However, again if you go in more depth with even the Steelers article, it sings the praises of a RETURN to their old winning style which is to follow Bettis by handing him the ball. For our purposes, even the hometown article is notable as after it goo-goos all over Bettis, it finally gives some credit to the passing game, but it hails Parkers work with a screen pass he ran in and Ward being praised by them for running after the catch and does not even mention RoboQB by name. So a look at the game results shows the opposite of your assertion. Further, a look at the Steelers own report on the game highlights other Steelers as the key to their good play rather than Big Ben. Upon considering your arguments but not taking them at face value they argue for the opposite position than the one you and Jerry Sullivan take.

Yeah, but this "new breed" is called being an American and living by the good ol American principle of having as free a market as possible and getting a good product through competition with everyone trying to get the best for himself.

While I think this would be bad for Buffalo football fans I think there may well be a lot of positive advantages for WNY if out political leaders were aggressive in exploiting the opportunities provided (pretty doubtful knowing our leaders). WNY would stand to gain a lot econmincally by fostering more of a relationship and more visits to WNY by the larger population of Southern Ontario.

Another example which is not exactly trhe same but closely fits examples being sought is that Dusty Ziegler was announced to have reached an agreement in prinicple to return to the Bills as an FA, but he got the same fiscal offer from NYG AND more important to him the guarantee that he would be a center and he reneged on this agreement in principle and signed a contract with NYG. Its not the same as Holland has a contract and by law the Bills could have forced him in court to honor this agreement if we thought him punching the clock for us was more important than his having a job near his getting old Mom and Dad. However, I think the more important thing here is the reality of the situation. Dusty proved to me that he was a far better player than I gave him credit for being as a youngster and the Bills gave him credit for being when we repeatedly benched him, his successor proved to be worse than he was, and then he would shift to another position due to an injury on our squad and fill in admirably there. However he did demonstrate to me that he demonstrated a lack of principle in walking out on his aggreement with us in principle. Perhaps he had true reasons in the shoddy assessment and treatment he received from the Bills, but these reasons provided no justification for what he did even though it turned out well for him since he got to an SB the bext year with NYG. Yhe Holland move does reasonably strike me as a win-win since obviously this is good for Holland and actually should be good for the Bills as we build a rep as a place who treats employees like human being rather than as an employer who keep an employee here who really has good reasons for being elsewhere. I think it strengthens us to really go after someone in court the next time this happens if we choose or need to do this.

I'm not dure what facts I have that you think are wrong since I agree with your statments as to the likely events and order with which they occured as you state them in this post. Since I agree with your statement of the facts and I don't think you disagree with yourself, I think the mistake here is that I was not clear enough in stating what I meant. I'll try it again slowly for you. 1. I agree that Jauron and Levy offered the job first to Bates and I was happy as heck he did not take it. My GUESS is that the reasons he did not take it, even though it was the last DC job available at the time was probably because: A. Jauron made it clear that the DC job offered to Bates was for an implementor of the Jauron scheme and not for a creator of the new Bills D. B. Jauron and Levy also made it clear that an implementor of the Jauron scheme was only worth X dollars and that is what the job paid. Bates wanted X + Y dollars and probably wanted to keep his name on the tip of GNs tongues when the next round of HC hires came around. Thankfully, Bates did not come here under the situation where he would get less money than he wanted and have less control, because given human nature and the meltdown of personalities who were supposedly on the same side I doubt this was going to happen. Jauron then went to plan B (or plan C for all we know) and Fewell was hired. This is what I believe and these facts are consistent with the events and order in your post. Maybe there are other facts you believe but did not describe and I look forward to reading them. 2. I never said Wire would thrive in the cover 2, I said that he MIGHT (read my post again and you will find this word which is key) do better in the cover 2 than he did in the GW defense where he was put in Blaine Bishop's role or better than he did with the zone blitz which requried him to make decision quickly and at the point of attack. I think he was smiling when he read we were abandoning two defenses where his play sucked. However, I think he could perform significantly better than he did in tow awful runs playing a position he never played at any level of organized ball before he became a Bill and still deserve to get cut. I never even said keep Wire and in fact have no problem saying right here that given the vet minimum for a player with his years we can probably do better in FA or even in the draft and he should be cut. Like you I have long advocated that Wire should have been used primarily as an ST player. Given his vet salary and at this late date since we should have emphasized an ST role for him from the beginning he likely should be cut. Do we disagree? When did I use the word THRIVE in my post or even say we should keep him? He has been so bad at position play he could improve a lot and still merit a cut. 3. I'm glad you agree with me about Vincent aging and also as I have said since his pick-up Milloy was a great get though the market demanded we overpay for a man at his position and given where he is his career to get him. We were over a barrel given Cota and Battle reached agreement and then retired on us. As the Bears has a lot of cap room and also had a safety need the market forced to over pay to get him and thank gosh we did. However, though we do agree on the facts, I think we draw different conclusions: A. Though Vincent is well into the backside of his career, I think he is more likely to help this team in the Cover 2 than Milloy. Playing the safety role will put a premium on intelligence and diagnosis and though Milloy has a lotof experience, I like Vincent better mentally and think he can prosper in the Cover 2. One of the great things about Milloy is his character, but that does not help someone pass cover. Converted CB Vincent is simply a better cover guy than Milloy who already is showing his years in being able to cover TEs. Speed os also somewhat of a premium for a safety in a Cover 2 as though you have alot more time than if your were doing presss coverage, you do have half the field and have to cover alot of ground. A getting older Vincent is still a faster guy tha getting older Milloy. If you want some objective measures to back this up take a look at who tied for the lead in INTs for the Bills.

Many thanks also. A great read for those interested in the technical part of the game.

I start this as a new thread because rather than focusing in particular on the fate of Lawyer Milloy, I am interested in what generally think of the pronouncement posted on Bills Daily that Jauron plans to go with a lot more Cover 2 rather than employ the zone blitz LeBeau designed scheme that Gray relied upon effectively in 03 and 04 and which was a disaster in terms of 05 results. My sense of this change is: 1. Change is always hard and I expect us to experience some problems as the skillset needs from the players (particularly DL players Schobel and Denney) will change radically as we will not count on DLs to do pass coverage nearly as much now that we are leaving the zone blitz. 2. The Jauron pronouncement of the basic D we are going to use makes it pretty clear why Perry Fewell was hired rather than Bates. Jauron wanted a guy to call plays and teach players his D rather than have someone who is using Buffalo as a drive-by stop on his road to get a permanent HC gig by making a name for himself running his D his way. Buffalo already has too many cooks in the kitchen between an owner who promises to have more hands on involvement this year, a novice GM, Modrak in the wings and Jauron responsible for the on field production. It is going to be a difficult task simply to make all these chefs into a real TEAM, that adding a former GM Sherman bruised by being stipped of his GM duties in GB to be the HC or a DC most interested in getting an HC job elsewhere would have almost certainly been a recipe for disaster. Fewell's job here is going to be about implementing rather than creating. 3. This change is going to mean a lot of extra work and responsibilities for the LBs. The zone blitz was designed to give them a free shot at the sack as blockers would be set up or move to counter DL players only to find someone like a Schobel dropping back into the short zone while TKO or Fletcher came in unchecked. Greater use of the DL in their traditional run stopping role means the LBs will need to fight their way through when they rush. Further, with the safeties now playing more centerfield instead of pinching up on the LOS, the LBs will now have primary run stopping duty that Milloy used to have under Gray. 4. There are going to be big changes in DL duty as the prime need for these players is going to be the traditional run-stopping an QB pressure rather than exotica like middle zone and even man to man pass coverage as a DE might do under the zone blitz package. Denny with his wingspan and Schobel with his athleticism really are more zone blitz guys than traditional DL players. I think Schobel can make this switch but I wonder about how this will work for Denny. The new mode might be very good for Adams, but given the disputes last year and a little cap rise from him at his age he may be gone. However. Krumrie is gone so maybe he stays. 5. I think the big winners in this move will be the secondary. Folks like Vincent and Milloy were among the best in their day but are simply aging. Using them in Cover 2 primarily will put more reliance on their experiences brain power than on their diminishing speed and muscle power. Wire has not excelled at all in brain power, but actually, he struggled so much in pass coverage that he may benefit most of all from a new style which allows him to sit back and make judgments rather than demand he make judgments fast by giving him responsibilites at the point of attack. Its going to be a chore but I can see how this can work with the talent that we have and the options for getting some more help in the draft and with FA.

I think you are right to point this out because against the initial premise of this thread, the news may actually be (and its bad news for those who hate having Milloy) that the cover 2 may be a new lease on life for him as a Bill. If you think it through, almost all agree that Milloy sucked last year (some point to the broken hand in the TB game while others point to a broken body from years of play, no matter as both views were dissatisfied with Milloy being expected to operate at the LOS and POA primarily). One answer if he sucks and cannot be counted upon to play effectively at the line of scrimmage is to instead have him take responsibility for playing back. This is called the Cover 2. The question I think Jauron and Levy are facing is whether Milloy's experience will actually allow him to be more effective playing centerfield for the Bills at safety than to have a younger player who is almost certainly faster and likely a better tackler (certainly better than Milloy with a recovering hand injury which makes it hard for him to wrap up). If the safeties are primarily used in the Cover 2 to allow the CBs to do press coverage instead of laying back off the line as NC and McGee did playing on an island in our run blitz D, then SS play will emphasize having the experience to diagnose the play in front of you to figure out: 1. Does the CB in press coverage have his guy well marked so I can turn my attention to stealing the ball when a QB tries to thread the needle into this tight coverage, or if my CB looks beat I need to back him up from my cover 2 role. 2. It looks like a run play so though I do not have primary tackling responsibility that I had when I played at the LOS for Gray, I do have to play a strong secondary tackler role for the LBs and DL who have orimary run stopping duty. The cap balance will tell the tale, but Jauron's employment of more Cover 2 may be just the new lease on life that allows Milloy and likely Vincent to retire as Bills.

I do not see why anyone would have any desire to draft Cutler or any other QB. This would kill the Bills for not simply a year if we were lucky, but more likely for several years. If folks are looking for an example from the recent past of how this would impact the team then look no further than the RJ/DF scenario. When the Bills signed RJ with a big bonus they essentially gave him the starting job sooner or later (sooner in this case as he was a vet) or they were committing to having Ralph pay millions for a guy to sit on the bench. By signing Cutler to the big bucks of the #8 draft slot, in essence we are committing to have him develop as quickly as he can for a cap manageable contract initially but commiting to starting him later or to have Ralph pay him big bucks to sit on the bench. By drafting him an making this commitment, we are declaring either the end of the JP effort and we cut him and Ralph pays him millions to play elsewhere, OR we try to make it work with him and the result is definitely going to be that Ralph pays one of these two players millions to sit and watch. When DF hit his incentives, it simply put the Bills into a position where for the 1999 season under the contracts we had agreed to with RJ and DF we had over $10 million allocated from our salary cap to the starting QB position (I do not remember the exact #s but 5+ in salary and prorated bonus to RJ, and 6+ in achieved 1998 incentives allocated to the 99 cap + these achieved incentives being rolled over into his salary. We were forced to sign DF to a long-term deal which prorated as much of his salary as possible into bonus. Even with this more manageable situation, we were still forced to cut higher priced vets who might have stayed in their lanes avoiding the Home-Run Throw-up against TN, but instead we had to use rookies on ST who TN burned when they ran straight to the ball instead of staying in their lanes. By drafting Cutler (Young, Keinart or any QB) we would lock two 1st round QB salaries into our cap, and one of them would be guaranteed to be useless on the field. Drafting a QB with our 1st round pick is simply not an option if we want to win the game.

For Bills purposes it matters little whether Cutler plays like Boller or Roesthsbergeresque, because the real world situation in terms of the #8 contract slot is that if the player he resembles most in play is RJ (moments of brilliance but an overall history of not delivering consistently for the Bills) picking him will kill us for several years. However, even Cutler proves to be as productive as Doug Flutie for the Bills (like him or not he QB'ed the team to some Ws, met all of his incentives with his play, and led this team to a playoff berth- though he got dumped from starting in the playoffs after the Bills clinched a berth early enough with him to give him a "rest" which RJ promptly used to impress Ralph with his performance against an IN team that mailed it in) the contract he earned killed the team. The Bills simply have too much $ and salary cap allocated to the QB position with the 1st round contract we must pay JP (whether you cut him or not) and the smaller but still significant contract we are paying Holcomb. If we picked Cutler, Vince Young, or any other QB with out first pick, the cap imbalance would make it that much harder for us to perform the already difficult tasks of: 1. Improving our ability to stop the run likely with a DT pick. 2. Getting some OL talent to help us run the ball. 3. Getting some quality back-up for WM to help us run the ball. 4. Getting some pass rush help as particularly with Jauron choosing a 4-3 and using more Cover 2 pressuring the QB will be a key to success. 5. Dealing with the FA uncertainties and age issues in the secondary. All 5 of these issues strike me as far more important gets we can use the draft for which would help this team win than getting a QB who regardless of how well he played would simply limit this team's ability to make gets which would help us win.