Fake-Fat Sunny

I remember lots of TSW denizens complaining loudly that Sam Adams was nothing more than a fat tub of goo. While this was a legit complaint based on his history it was simply an incorrect read of the situation as: 1. Anyone who watched football an got enjoyment from analyzing the game rather for the simple entertainment of complaining and whining knew this fat tub of goo had one of the quickest first steps in the league. 2. Again if one really watched the game, one could see that the biggest limiting factor in Adams game was that the seemed to routinely take 1/2 to 2/3 of plays off. This was still a problem for the opponent as they never really knew which plays he would go on vacation so you had to assign as a guy to hit him AND a guy to watch him on each place (or even assigned to do a chip block or dt him if you werer sending the play his way). Thus unless he took a sudden downturn in play due to his age, Adam's mere prescence would likely improve our D play. 3. Most of all, even if he proved to be a fat tub of goo at DT, this was an upgrade over the mediocre play of Edwards as a second year starter the year before. Thus, rather than simply bleating and whining about hating Ngota, readers would profit from some explanation of why you or others hate his play (I assume you do not know him well enough or that you have some past Brokeback Mountain intimacy with him that you really do hate him personally). How much (if at all) of an upgrade is he now or will be likely to become over Adams (who is a likely goner as best as I can tell), over Edwards (who in addition to showing little more than being a good reserve situational pass rusher has shown little and is coming off an injury) or Anderson (who did better than I expected as a fill in for Edwards last year but this probably says how low my expectations were). I have few problems with a selection of Ngoita even if he is "another" fat tub of goo because a lot of winning this game is running and stopping the run. We need an upgrade in DT capability badly to stop the run. The best real world case seems to me to be if Ngota actually is not a good enough player to command a top 10 pick, BUT he is good enough to be an upgrade for us in our urine-poor ability to stop the run. If we can trade down and pick up some extra first day resources to get some help like a higher quality back-up RB to WM than Shaud Williams and still get a good but not great Ngota in the second 10 picks to not revolutionize but still to upgrade our ability to stop the run then this will be a very good draft for us.

The other key point in this article which addresses another TSW pseudo-controversy (debates which seem to be most prompted by unprovable or unproven Internet information like the declaration that the CB franchise # was ovr $8 million) is that Jauron says the Bills are going to definitely run a 4-3 D. This actually has implications for one of the main complaints about Gray's approach in that assumably since a feature of Jauron's endorsement of more 2 deep cover means the CBs will have some help deep, they will be able to take the risk of having the CBs doing more press coverage on WRs rather than play back off the line. The Jauron plan should mean more INTs against bad or merely adequate QBs, but on the other hand good QBs playing with good WRs will have a better shot at hitting the Bills for moderate to solid gains if the WR is good enough to beat our pressing CB doing the press and the QB is good enough to fire a rope in to the WR. This actually will put an even higher premium on having a solid pass rush which can pressure the QB as if the QB is under duress it will be harder for him to throw a bullet to a WR who beats the press.

I have a leading candidate but I think I will wait until after the SB to truly welcome in the new era )please not another error) of Bills football. As in the past I'm open to welcome all suggestions and reject most of them (sorry SDS if this offer prompts any profanity or the usual sophmoric humor attempts which say more about the poster than the reader!)

So it would have been okay (sort of) for TO to have said another black QB might have been better than McNabb. But because it was a white QB getting the praise, TO needs to be kicked off the team. Real mature, McNabb. Real mature. 592966[/snapback] I think your interpretation of what McNabb meant doesn't make sense, but what seems to make more sense is the interpretation and context offered up by Micheal Wilbon in conversation with Tony Kornheiser on ESPN's PTI show. Wilbon offers up that McNabb's comments came after several TO comments which did things like accuse McNabb of "selling out" by trying to be a pocket passer rather than running a lot. I don't remember if TO specifically accused McNabb of selling out Blacks by passing rather than running, but my recollection was that if not there in other comments by TO he did essentially accuse McNabb of not being a true Black man because he was playing QB (and winning BTW) by playing like a white guy. Rather than accuse McNabb of stupidly playing the race card, it seems pretty clear that it was that fool (do you or anyone else defend TO and his actions?(TO who played the race card first and deserves even further disdain from the assembled masses. Wilbon also provided some good context by referencing a really stupid column which I did see where some NAACP Philly exec specifically lambasted McNabb for playing like a white guy. I thin the entire effort to some how put racial issues in a football performance context is really dumb and inappropriate. How low the NAA folks have fallen if they have given up defending American values calling for equal opportunity and fair play back in the days of Broen v. Board of Education and now seems to judge that it needs to spend time on one's style of football play. Kornheiser also added some info and perspective on the issue by pointing out that TO in fact did not choose to add Favre's name to the mix as his non-team inappropriate statements were actually answering a question by Micheal Irvin which asked whether playing with Favre would be better for him than playing with his teammate. Wilbon like McNabb is from Chicago and I think he is going out of his way to defend McNabb. Kornheiser had I think the best cut on this as he referenced some comments by Hugh Douglas (Philly DT) which asserted that though McNabb was a leader with his play he is not a vocal team leader getting in guys face demanding they do more. I think both McNabb and TO (and any other fool) who tries to make this an ideological issue are in fact wrong. Just as Favre does not represent the white race (whatever that is) neither McNabb nor TO represent African-Americans. McNabb is a guy who plays great QB that led Philly to numerous successful seasons, but he shows no sign of being capable of winning the big game or being the type of vocal team leaders all winning teams need. It is not a requirement that a player be vocal to be good (in fact Jim Kelly did the most for the Bills when he shut up), but someone on the team who proves himself on the field like Darryl Talley can play the necessary vocal role for a team. TO, you can't really overemphasize what a good WR he is, but even of greater impact than his good/great play are the impacts of his big mouth. This idiot is a cancer and no matter how good he performs as a player he seems to hurt a team worse with his dumb sellf promotion. Brett Farve is one of the great players of all time who is well into the backside of his career. I simply hope he retires before he gets hurt too bad. However, I think what this amounts to is that I think folks who might judge a comment like McNabb's as making no sense to them, should consider the possibility that the reason they do not make sense to them is because they really do not understand the context and and experience they come from if they are speaking about themselves. It appears from what you posr that neither you nor TO understand this. I disagree with McNabb's comments as well, but thanks to listening to Wilbon and Kornheiser I think I do understand why he said what he said though I still disagree with him.

All signs point to it being the lower number rather than the higher number. The main reference folks used to state it is an $8 figure is based on incorrect reading of the Ask the Commish site. It flat out states that the cap figures are for what is correct for the today;s cap caculation (this season) rather than a cap calculation based on nexr season's pay and cap calculation. Folks interpreted the statement that it was accurate based on what we know today as somehow meaning that it was accurate based on what we will know tomorrow (actually March) when the salary cap for next season kicks in. The $8 million cap number for Clements is false unless the cap numbers for next year are the same as for this year.

The point that we're over-analyzing though is specificially how the 2004 results achieved by a D with LeBeau's scheme as fully implemented by DC Gray without LeBeau around vompare to the 2003 results of the D with LeBeau's scheme as partially implemented by Gray since LeBeau was around. The quality of the opponents is certainly relevant to this analysis, but it actually ciuts a lot of ways in terms of what we are looking for. Perhaps the results achieved in 2004 are mostlty due to the opponents being so bad that a good scheme destroys them regardless of the gameplan or the adjustments. Perhaps not. Simply saying the teams were weak says very little in terms of conclusions actually. My sense is that the key points are that: 1. The results achieved by the D in 2001 and 2002 were mostly driven by the fact we had pretty poor players as we went through and emerged from cap hell. Gray's role amd to some extert GW's role were critical in that not only were our players bad but when we switched to a 4-3 TN type D we actually used a D scheme which was an incredibly poor choice for the crappy personnel we had. A. Between simply having to cut players and take what we could get in 2001 it was going to be even worse switching to a scheme which demanded more DL player when we were losing 2 of our 3 starters as a cap cut (Big Ted) and as an FA (Wiley). Particularly after losing BS as a cap casualty the year before and Hansen to retirement the next year, moving to a 4-3 had huge bad implications. Gray does not escape blame for this as it was his D, but it is a big legit question how much or whether primary blame should fall on GW. B. Another issue which Gray cannot escaoe blame for though again it is unclear how much blame gets shared with GW are a series of poor assessments of players. The D picked up Robinson to play LB and Jenkins to start at SS and it became quickly apparent neither of these players had enough gas left in the tank to play NFL ball. I can see how Gray is at fault because he was loyal to his old buddies or looked at them through rose glasses. If so he learned the same bitter lesson that Ralph and Butler should have learned when they falsely assessed Jimbo has having a few years of good play left in him that led to the handshake deal between Jimbo and Ralph. Even if Gray deserves lead blame for poor assessment of former teamates, I stilll think blamed is shared and primary blame falls on GW because this adult is supposed to exert checks and balances on loyalty to fellow players shown by Gray. 2. The acquuisition and use of LeBeau by the Bills to a great extent is a kudo for Gray. Rather than being addicted to the TN style D, he quickly learned and proved capable of play calling good enough for the Bills to finish statistically 5th in the NFL in D in 2003. I think LeBeau deserves a ton of credit because clearly this was his scheme. However, if anyone looks bad here it is GW because we jettisoned his design 9even though Gray ran it) and used LeBeau;s design (ut Gray ran that as well. The indicators in the real world are that Gray clearly was not so wedded to the TN that he was incapable of doing anything else. The results heighten the potential that the D disasters of 01 and 02 though Gray was DC and thus responsible are probably more closely linked to GW's desires. I think this is where the Gray/Fewell analogy is strongest. Just as Gray;s primary job was to run GW's D design, I think Fewell's primary job will be to run Jauron's D design. 3. Still as far as assessing Gray, the question is whether the 2003 results were mostly the result of the LeBeau scheme or does Gray deserve a lot o the lionshare of the credit since he implemented it. I think this question was pretty much answered by the events of 2004. The legit concern on Gray withot LeBeau would he be able to gameplan and also make adjusments. LeBeau was around all week and had the schedule so it makes sense that he led the way gameplanning for the next opponent in 2003. Further, since LeBeau was watching the game from on high and not distracted by immediate play calling that it really was him who diagnosed the first half play and designed adjustments which either simply Gray or Gray and LeBeau got implemented. The key to over-analysis of this situation is not simply how the raw results in 2003 compared to the raw results in 04 (its important but not the key), but looking at the 2004 games however we played and determining whether there was a gameplanning issue or an adjustment issue in the individual games. The comparison of opponent skill is relevant (though actually I think that speaks in Gray's favor as statistically the team moved up from 5th to2nd, It is this uptick that might be explained by the lesser opponents but even still if the performance was about the same under Gray as it was under Gray/LeBeau kudos to Gray. The team finished second and behind LeBeau at #1, but it is hard for me to see how they could have done much better than #2. If the team's performance took a down turn (particularly against even weaker opponents then is more clearly on Gray, but they didn't and though the statistically better finish can be attributed to weaker opposition it still is kudos to Gray I think in any ratuional judgment. Still the key thing is to identify any comparative shortcoming in gameplanning or adjustment in 03 versus 04. Much to my surprise in the final outcome I do not think there was any. A look at the 2004 season reveals only the NE games where I would say Gray was outgameplanned by the opponents, They gave up over 30 once to NE and 29 twice to NE and Pitts (the teams which ended up 1 and 2 in the AFC). In the other games even if they were weak Gray's D beat them like he should beat them. I do not think you can rationally disregard his D performance by saying the teams were weak if he beat weak teams like he is supposed to beat them. The 2004 model was pretty good though the results of having opponents break 30 3 times compared to 1 for Gray in 2004 may be where the weak opponent issue kicks in. However, again it seems to indicate at worse Gray did well as LeBeay and does not produce a result that in any real way support a claim LeBeau was better/ Likewise if one looks at the individual games at the adjustment issue, the biggest "knock" on Gray is that there are few great adjustment examples because he gameplanned well and the team got and maintained leads on most opponents. However, again there is a general feeling I rememeber of the Gray led squad shutting down what worked for opponents in the 1st half. There certainly is no record of the Bills getting beaten in the secind half or in the last minutes like they did in 2001 and 2002. The way you describe the Miami/Morris game to attack Gray is amusing because it is exactly the points you make that probably show good adjustment by Gray, Morris made big gaind on a couple of plays in the first half. The problem was not him consistenly beating our players, but MI ran some plays that beat our scheme. In the second half this did not happen. Perhaps the Bills and Gray made a good adjustment and cut this off.

Th key thing is that because no one though Brady was much, NE got him in the 5th round for the vet minimum plus around 50K. BB and the Pats were in no position to pick a player with a slotted first round salary cap hit to play QB because they already had their QB allocation consumed with Bledsoe's huge deal. This is the exact same situation for the Bills. Cutler may well turn out to be great and a wonder to have as a player. That's nice but in the real world for the Bills who cares. We can only allocate a specific amount to the cap hit of the QB position. We can go over that allocation if we want, but the result is similar to one where the Bills ended up with an allocation of a large prorate bonus at the QB position to RJ and the allocation of Doug Fluties achieved incentives and the rollover of those achieved incnetivs into his base salary. Under the 1999 we simply could not afford to allocate $11 million or so to one position and thus we were forced to remegotiate a long-term deal with DF to prorate his salary. Even still we owed him the appx. $3 million in 1998 achieved incentives and also owed the roughly $4 million in prorated RJ cap hit and this QB load forced us to cut a bunch of vets who may have stayed in their lanes when the Titans pulled off the Home-rin Throw up on the Bills in the playoffs. If we chose Cutler and gave our QB the cap hit slotted for a #8 choice, and added that to the slotted cap hit JP gets as a 1st round choice and added that to the manageable but still significant cap hit of Holcomb, then the Bills will find it difficult to meet our other screaming needs on either OL, to replace Moulds, tag Clements, back-up WM or whatever. We will pay a #8 slot wither way, but it is a world of difference for us to allocate it to the DL rather than have it weigh on the QB slot. Even better, we badly need to trade down as we are more than one player away from even making the playoffs. Its a sport so it does matter at a basic level how good a player is. However, its a business also and within the growing partnership between the NFL and NFLPA there is a salary cap. The real answer for even a true statement of how good a QB Cutler or Evans may be is who cares. If you want to win it makes no contractual sense for them to be Bills.

TO was slapped so hard both financially and morally by the Iggles and public opion that I think the case is going to be that virtually anyone will be able to manage TO, or that it will remain the case that no once can manage TO. He really is down to his last chance as only a very limited number of teams with very specific needs he can fill are interested in him despite his extraoridnary singular talents. Denver has a clear need for a WR and may well be one player away from the big game, They have an intelligent real interest TO can fill. However, so did Philly as they kept falling a game short and it was the absence of a good WR that was doing this as a lesser team, the Panthers knocked them off in the championship with their WRs missing critical passes or fumbling when they caugth McNabb's heaves. Stll with this obvious situation, TO could not hold it together and was so vehement in going me-me-me he made even his agent Rosenhaus look like a voice of reason. Ironically, I think either TO will be no problem in his next go round as he will decide to fly right rather than die or alternately his demons will get a hold of him and it matters little what anyone does. I think the Bills will also have an obvious need and role for TO. I think that like TO holding it in check for the Iggles until he proved himself (he did a great job in the Iggles SB loss) but once he proved himself he then became an idiot. I think if the Bills got TO it would actually work quote well and quite easily his first season. However, once he and Evans became a potent team as they are likely to become if they are the Bills WRs, he almost certainly would become a cancer his second year. This might be a worthwhile bet if we were a player or a year away. We are not and the likelihood is that TO would become an idiot in 2007 though I supect he would be a great player to team with Evans in 2006. Joe Jurevicious or another respected possession receiver to go over the middle and team with Evans strikes me as a better chioice.

I think the key question surrounding debate around this move is the one: What kind of 3-4 will we run? I think the answer starts for us with, The Bills will not run the 3-4 asth Bills use to run it, because we simply do not have players with the talents to make it a good scheme for them. This is not surprising because if the Bills "new" 3-4 requires a DE of the same capabilities of Bruce Smith to make it work, it ain't happ. We visualize the 3-4 as needing: 1. A tough reliable stay at home RDE who allows the LDE to freelance but has the skills to take advantage of an increased number of 1-on-1s he gets. (aka P. Hansen) 2. A mobile NT who is undersized but stuffs the run by getting to the POA (aka J. Wright) 3. The best LDE ever who sometimes always needs a double-team (just ask Boomer who got creamed when the singled Bruce), made the OL shift his way and sometimes commanded a triple team. Not only was he the best at pass rush, but also he was a talent against the run. 4. A deep LB corps. A "new" Bills 3-4 will not be able to replicate these talents, so if we are going to make it work we are going to have to have another base application of the system. This is not impossible at all. 1. Bruce did not play all the time due to nicks and suspensions and the Bills found a way to make the 3-4 work without these talents though the quality was greatly diminished by losing a great player. 2. We are used to one kind of 3-4, but just as there are many ways to run a 4-3, there are many different styles of playing a 3-4 which can be effective. Other teams in the league run the 3-4 effectively and they do not have Bruce either. 3. We are taliking about the 3-4 as a base set. but not the only set. I think one of the times we were most effective with the 3-4 base is when Phat Pat emerged suddenly out of UDFA status and we had a 4-3 with Big Ted and Phat Pat we used a lot and well. I think what is missing from our discussion of the 3-4 is that no one is skilled DC and has described how you make the 3-4 work well with our personnel. This guessing game is made even more complicated as we do not know what the Bills plan to do with well-paid, and accomplished but old and complaining Sam Adams. Overall, these are the tools I see us having to work with: Schobel- Traditionally an RDE, but not only can line up anywhere, but has demonstrated the athleticism to do some fairly deep pass coverage in the zone blitz. Historically has been a little weak at the POA, but has a constanty motor to go with his atleticism and is hitting the peak of his career and is a force to be reckoned with. His usual double digit sack totals are even more impressive given that he actually pulled this off with him doing a lot of downfield pass coveraqe. He deserved the extension he signed with his play. His broad skills and flexibility make him a player you can build around with a switch to the 3-4, but it would seem that if one asked him to be Phil Hansen it would take away something he does well (pass coverage in the zone blitz and emphasize something he does not do as well (strength at the POA) as his primary role. Anyone who advocates the 3-4 has a lor of splainin to do (as Rickey Ricardo would say) as to how we get the highest and best use out of Schobel in this scheme. Adams- Generally considered a goner as a Bill by many as he has seemed to be one of the more dissatisfied folks by how we ran the D. He is a talent making the Pro Bowl year before last. He still has one of the fastest first steps in the league and can absolutely blow up an opponents play if he guesses right. With his first step he has been an effective pass rusher. He also is a big boy who commands a lot of attention and if he happens to stay at home on a play he is a big clog. However, his game is about making good guesses and consistently staying home is not what he does well. His unique combination of being a huge body but a nimble athlete is odd. It offers great options, but if the O guesses right we are going to get killed unless someone is watching his back. Probably the biggest effect of losin Phat Pat was not his play or level of output (he was getting older and it showed, but that his presence and big body allowed Adams to free lance a lot because PW would be there when he guessed wrong to clean-up the trash. Again, those who want to switch to a 3-4 and propose that Adams is the new Big Ted who makes this work are ignoring the fact that Sam has never played in the style of a Big Ted (though he has the size to do it) nor has he played with the stay-at-home or POA orientation of a Jeff Wright (though he has the athleticism to do this). My particular sense is that you cannot count on him sacrificing parts of his game or playing with the disicpiline and consistency necessary to make this work. Inconsistency and elusiveness are what his game has been about. Add to that he is getting older and one day his skills may simply disappear (or a sudden injury occurs) and the Bills simply should not count upon Adams as the mainstay of making the move to 3-4. Edwards- He showed some neat skills with is critical back-up work in 2004 where he demonstrated such productivity as a designated pass rusher in 3rd and long situations, his play forced Sam Adams to the bench much to SA's dismay (his talents were simply made for this situation). However, any hopes that we had that finally Edwards play meant he was ready to step up into a starting role were dashed when he was taken advantage of by opposing rushers when hestarted fulltime and then he suffered a season ending injury. Edwards has always been a disappointment as he was the only player drafted in the 5th round or better in the 2001 draft who not only did not press for starting on this cap hell team but he was not even good enough to be active. He became a starter by default and was disappointing. Again, it is unclear how he would be best used in a 3-4 and is someone you would rely on at your own risk. Denny- I see him as the positive bookend for Edwards. it was the same story as Edwards as he was so over-matched initially that he could not even be made active most of his rookie year. He apparently did not bend his knees properly and with his Ted Hebdricks like Big Stork body, even very young pros could get undermeath him, tie him up and easily defeat him. Particularly since we had picked up the older than most Denny (the BYU grad took two years off to do a mission overseas)with the idea that he would contribute immediately this was disappointing. Particularly because TD had done a trick that must have been delicious for him up trading up for a draft pick just ahead of his old nemsis Pitts who were on the phone with Denny letting him know they would pick him and TD stole him, the long knives which were after TD used Denny's immediate problems have evidence for their case that TD was an idiot. However, IMHO where Edwards generally remained a disappointment, Denny has actually developed into quite a player who fills a valuable and unique role on the D. Denny mastered his leverage problems that kept him on the bench. He then showed not only good athleticism for a DL player, but actually extraordinmary athleticism for someone with his gangly body and huge wingspan. Denny turned out to be made for the zone blitz as not only do his big arms really help him in pass coverage, but his athleticism allows him to get back in pass coverage quickly. The INT he made in pre-season 2004 in what really was deep medium zone coverage was extraordinary. Even better, Denny showed talent as a run stuffer and the Bills could even line him up as a DT in some Ds. Yet, despite all this, his flexibility allows him to be adequate in multiple roles, he is not great in any of them. he is difficult to account for in a zone blitz scheme where it is unclear to the O where he will be. However, if he is put into a basic role we need him to perform consistenly in a 3-4, the O will know this too and probably pick on his weaknesses. Again there needs to be some explainin as to how a 3-4 is going to work with him. Kelsay- Yet, another player who has shown he can occaisionally be great and usually is at least adequate. However, without the bonus of unpredictability of the zone blitz there is a question as to whether an O that can key on him and his talents and failings will not be able to exploit him consistenly. He still is relatively young and next year is the point in his career where he may prove to be something special if his occaisional great play turns into consistent great play, However, rather than raw skill and great moves his occaisional great plays may be mostly due to him having a constnat motor. I can easily envision him being in the Phil Hansen role in a 3-4, but who is in the Bruce Smith and Jeff Wright roles and how do we deal with Denny and A Schobel also being best suited using the old Bills 3-4 as a model for the Hansen role only one of them can play. Anderson- I thought he actually played better than I expected last year. However, this mostly says how low my expectations were for him last year. I expected Edwards to beat him out for the replacing Phat Pat role and Edwards did. However, given Edwards was not that good at the role it does not say a lot for Anderson. Once Edwards and TKO got hurt and it came in conjunction with the wheels coming off the Bills run D even with these two players. Anderson was forced to play a starters role. He was not the formidable player we wanted, but aactually I think he showed he can be a credible back-up DT. He just is not starter caliber yet be it a 3-4 or a 4-3. he is young yet so who knows he might blossom or at least show additional signs this year. However, again he is no one one would count on. Bannan, Jefferson, Sape, Powell, Word, Whomever- No need to write anyone off at this point but all of these players need to show us that they even deserve a back-up roke. Sape has shown the most but even he must show that the injury that landed him on IR was a nick he recovered from before anyone relies upon him. I think this a pool which is deep with adequate players but does not have anyone approaching the Jevon Kearse or Bruce Smith like talents that can never be left one on one. Most of these players I double at my choice when I pick the POA to go throgh them and when I send my double team that way I expect to roll right over them, be it a 4-3, 3-4 or whatever.

I think that the difference in TD's hiring to not get fired is best seen in two ways. The most important was not who he hired but how he managed this hire. I have used the words passive.affressive to describe how TD seemed to protect himself from and beat GW. He seemed quite happy to allow GW to make the Bills bed as lon as it was GW who took the blame, Hinsight being 20/20 GW made some obvious errors in his first year or two and TD just let him make them or evem when they disagreed ojn new hires he would let GW have his way. It said a lot to me when it was revealed when GW got canned that apparently TD had advocated that Sheppard be replaced with Clements and it was GW who pushed Kevin Killdrive. Killdrive proved to be so resistant to change from his way once opponents got film of the Bills O and BB provided a roadmap for exploiting Bledsioe's weaknesses, I am simply flumocled why TD did not insist on his choice or why he did not force GW to rein in and change Killdrive when the O was obviously ineffective (at one oiubt I think they went 8 straight quarters with no offensive YDs. TD seemed to bring in his friends to be resources (our RB coach in 03 was a former OC friend of TDs, but this resource went unused when GW should have taken the O away from Killdrive like NY did with Payton that year and we did with Clements this year. It was particularly strange his management style when GW did wander into GM terrirtory. I found it simply embarassing when GW annonced publicly that Larry Centers would be a Bill as long as he wanted. Within 7-10 days of this pronouncement Centers was cut and Gash was signed/ GW either lied or was simply out of the loop on a major personel decision. I think it is obvious that what was going on here was a bit more complicated that TD still likes new guys, The second issue which raises questions about interpreting the GW/Cowher hires as simply being the same TD commitment to first timers is to look at the first timers TD passed on. The Bills opening was the final HC job open. Among those interviewed by TD were GW, John Fox and Marvin Lewis. Again in hindsight TDs choice of GW over these two was simply a huge mistake (given the on the field record of the Panthers under Fox, the Bungles under Lewis and the Bills under GW. I don;t know about Fox but it seems quite likely that TD was not comfortable with Lewis and my sense is that this was probably because Lewis could easily pull a Cowher on TD if push came to shove. From letting GW do flat out dumb things like hire his inexperienced buddy Vinky as OL coach and replace him with the equally inexperieced Ruel who proved so bad he got canned to his final year when every coach was signed for 2 years except for GW, it follows that TD was clearly setting things up so he had the power and GW did not.

I really am sorry for you that the player you love will not be a Bill, but I also am happy for the Bills that they almost certainly will not make the same mistake Butler made when he allowed his over adoration and fear of being wrong on QB to saddle this team with huge cap hits to both RJ and DF at QB. Yhe guaranteed slotted contracts of JP and Young with Holcomb thrown in as a kicker would simply ravage this team for years.

Actually both Gray and Fewell face pretty much the same sitution. They are DCs who are going to insert the defensive guru HCs system. I hope the big difference is not really a judgment on Gray or Fewell, but instead that HC Jauron does not insist on his system even though it is inappropriate to the Bill's players as badly as GW did/ Running a system which was great depending on players like Jevon Kearse and Blaine Bishop when you had Chidi Ahanatou and Raion Hill intheir roles was just dumb. Even worse the switch to the 4-3 from he 3-4 came in a space of a few years when we were losing Big Ted, Wiley, Hansen, and even Bruce. Both are obviously to blame for 2001 and 2002, but I think that you have to recognize the reality that: 1. When LeBeau came and installed a new system in 2003, Gray did the playcalling and really mastered the system incredibly quickly indicating he was not wed to the TN system. 2. The Bills produced tremendous statistical results in 2004 without LeBeau around. Claims that the 04 production was really due to the previous presence of LeBeau and said little for Gray does not actually scan with the fact that 2 of the supposed failings of Gray which would be shown when LeBeau left were actually strong points for the Bills that year particularly during the streak. These were gameplanning and adjustments. The idea that anything good in 04 was leftover LeBeau would make sense if the D was still good but its statistical ranking slipped from a 5 with LeBeau to let's say #10 without him. However, it improved from #5 to #2. The teams record improved from 6-10 to 9-7. A big part of the streak and the move to a winning record were gameplans being developed that allowed the Bills to take a lead and some nice adjustments which actually stopped what opponets did well )ex. Morris gained 80 yds on the Bills in the first half, but adjustments held him under 100 for the game. Gray sucked this year, but if Fewell does as well as Gray did mastering a new system quickly and making successful play calls as he did in 03 and 04 I will be and we should be pretty happy,

Better that he go somewhere else anf kill us occaisionally than come here with hisQB inflated cap hit that combines with the chunk of cap hit already allocated to JP and the lesser but still substantial cap hit allocated to Holcomg. Having so much money tied into one position would throw off out ability to build a winning team for a long time. I like Vince Young's play alot. I love the Bills and them getting Ws even more.

I'm curious as there seems to be a number of folks on TSW who seem to pretty desperately want a new top quality QB on this team. It seems so illogical from a football perspective that I have not even taken this as a serious thought and I attributed the occaional post wondering if we could get Vince Young as simply the rambling of folks who have bought the NFL star marketing that has continually led to folks overspending on QBs. I can see why the teams may do this because getting the glitzy star is s fine way to sell tickets which is the business they are in. However, you would think fans as tuned into football as many folks are on TSW would instead see this game as being won by having the ability to stop the run and run. Its great to have a marquee QB if you can develop your 6th round pick into Tom Brady, but that rarely happens and this is not the first priority of most folks looking to win it all. So do folks seriously want to spend the ranch and the dog (or more if you have to trade up to get Young or Cutler? Or alternately do they think we want to spend gazillions getting one oc the QB who will attract big $ if he is available. My sense is that though JP sucked last year it is still too early to give up on him or gosh forbid weaken us further by taking the accelerated cap hit of cutting him. Holcomb will almost certainly not be our answer at starting QB, but his cheap contract makes him a valuable back0up whi can play a critical role in an SB run as a back-up. The best strategy to me seems to be to demand that JP win this job on the field and if he does not you try to get as much as you can out of Holcomb, This seems like a far better strategy than the Bills taking the double hit of adding another large QB cap hit and taking an accelerated hit if you cut JP. I'm all for competition so if we can get another QB with a Holcomb/JP chance of developing into a starter that would be great. I doubt we find that lightening in a bottle as Doug Flutie for $200K is once in a blue moon as well. By all means look for another potential started, but the new QB better be the lightening in a bottle who wins the SB like Hurt Warner or Trent Dilfer because much additional expense at QB simply kills this team

Thanks Simon for the thoughtful work. I think your Don't Panic mantra is the first thing that should apply to this whole thing! As far as the details of your thoughts: 1) Agree fully wrt Moulds. The Bills have retained Tyke Tolbert who I understand he was dueling with that caused his suspension. Unless Moulds has totally prostrated himself before the team to Tyke and apologized profusely I think this is a sign he is gone anyway. The key though is like the tandem of Moulds/Price the Bills really need two stud WEs in order to make both these players better. Evans is the speed freak (though he has shown good hands also) so we do need to got to the FA wire to find a respected vet who can be a possesion receiver who will either draw coverage away from Evans or feast on single coverage when Evans draws attention from him. 2) I also am not too keen on your OL strategy because of MW. Can he even be worthwhile to keep at his enormous 06 salary and under the limitations of the CBA is it even possible to knock his salary down to the level he deserves from his play and prospects. I think it is sad as I think it is quite possible he will go elsewhere and do well, I just think it is contractually impossible for us to keep him. 3) I think Nate will be forced to make a long-term deal which is cap friendly to us or if not he will get tagged and the CB cap number appears to drop precipitiously with the way the Vikes paid Winfield (a huge first year salary that now leaves the cap rather than a huge bonus which is prorated). NC had the bad luck to perform well last year and to suck this year. The Bills can take advantage of this to sign him long-term to cap friendly deal or for one year where he will have every impetus to produce for us, I think he goes long-term for more money than he has ever seen but still much less than he would have gotten after the 04 performance. 4) Jurevicius fits the description of a good compliment to Evans but my guiess is many WRs do so it depends on the market. 5) I agree that getting a good safety would be a very smart move. Our guys ARE old, Regarding the big picture, I am now convinced that despite TD making some exraordinarily good individual moves in his time here, his overall ability to produce was simply destroyed by his reaction to getting run out of town by Cowher. I think he hired GW because he felt GW would not cross him like Cowher (I doubt he felt this way about Lewis and probably Fox though either obbiously now both would have been better hires) and he made sure that even if GW crossed him that he could beat him, Unfortunately, after the GW mistake, TD not only didn't get over this, but he actually got worse. His pick-up of Bledsoe was initially an excellent move, but he needed to quit while he was even (after a great 2002 followed by a horrendous 2003) and not extended Bledsoe. After the oddity of extending him he then added insult to injury with the bad football move of cutting him (actually extending him was the bad football move but once you made that dumb move cutting him actually made the bad move worse as even JP has said publicly that he got the starting QB job the wrong way. Given that TD was getting worse, despite his leading us to some good episodic actions I think logically he needed to go and fortunately for us since Ralph cannot wait he was gone. I think MM actually did some good work here last year with the winning streak and Clements made some great O playcalling choices working with Bledsoe's strenths and weaknesses. However, the reality with MM's quitting and Clements getting the blame they also were both gone. My sense is from a standpoint of non-reality is that I would not have gone down the Marv path as GM (but given neither of us is GM in real life and that the owner cannot be fired except by the Supreme Being and that will happen in its own time) we are not talking about reality here anyway). However, since I think The Golden Boys are givens the decisions they have made strike me as among the best ways to make this work. 1. The owner must be prevented from meddling and making poor football decisions like: a. Making the handshake deal with Jimbo and assuming he would last far longer than he did. b. Feeling so bad about paying RJ millions to sit he forced/allowed him to play (RWS already messed up with overseeing Butler panic and make dumb decision afer dumb decision in their search for the new Jimbo) c. he made a seeming good move getting an experienced and competent guy in TD as GM+ after Butler screwed him. However, TD simply proved to be too bruised after getting fired in Pitts by a guy he hired and from the bad hiring of GW to other passive/aggressive acts, the ultimate buck stops with the owner. Since one is not going to fire the owner or IMPOSE your will and vision on him as Jerry Sullivan wants, the soft approach of having a bright guy like Marv to handle him seems like the best bet for a football guy to manage the impulsive owner. Marv strikes me as lacking seriously in GM experience as he has never directly negotiated contracts or managed the salary cap in the post Marv as HC world. Nor do I think Marv has run a successful business anywhere near this size. However, Marv is better positioned than most to rein in the guy who writes the checks. 2. The Bills do seem to be in a position to supplement Marv's failings. Giving Modrak even more authority should give Marv a supplement for his GM inexpeience. Hiring Sherman as HC and expecting him to do this strikes me as a bad strategy that almost certainly would not have worked. Modrak came here because of his friendship with TD so he well may not work out either. However, Modrak seems like a guy who was a friend of TD but always has had his own agenda, if it works for him for it to work with Marv, this may be a great experience supplemnt Marv desperately needs/ 3.Hiring Jauron was a much better hire than hiring Sherman. I'd rather have folks that are at least competent who are not as good as Sherman than have a more competent HC who really thinks he should be a GM somewhere who ends up clashing with his bosses if he takes the Sullivan approach od imposing his football wil and vision on his bosses. Jauron is way far from perfect or like most HCs not even good in some situations. However, his episodes os success at lower level jobs and 2001 as NFL HC of the Year shows he can be very competent in the right situtaion. With the proper supplements for his failings I think he is a good hire. His main failing is on the O side and Fairchild has a good record of success such that I think this Jauron failing can be overriden. 4. The DC hire looks like the best one to make as well. Fewell is far from the best DC candidate out there, but better DCs like Bates look to me like he would have been a disaster in a drive-by visit for him as DC here. He seems to want to recreate the feeling he had as interim HC at MI, and that goal is not very well reached with him running a Jauron D here. He is another very competent guy who i think would have been a disaster working in the world created by The Golden Boys. That's my 1-1/2 cents in respose to your great post. 1. A competent man who adds value to the TEAM because he will fit in well with the existing staff. 2. A competent man who can call the defensive plays well. 3. A competent man who adds value to the TEAM because he will fit in well with the existing staff. 4. A compotent man who is a good teacher who helps the players perform. 5. A competent man who adds value to the TEAM because he will fit in well with the existing staff. 6. A compotent man who can diagnose first half play (and also diagnose things on the fly), choose changes in the Bills D to block the opponent, and implement these changes over the half (or on the fly) so that we make good adjustments. 7. A compotent man who adds value to the TEAM because he will fit in well with the existing staff.

Drafting a QB in the first round (and even on the first day) would be such a disaster for this team it would not even be funny. Trading up and giving away resources sorely needed on a team which is not one one player away from simply making the playoffs would actually merit tears from anyone who cares about the Bills in my view. Draftin Leinart, Young or Cutler would simply be a disaster for this team IMHO.

Overall, I think the Bills have shown a clear direction with their choices of Coaches to work for and with "The Golden Boys" Ralph and Marv and I for one like it. I know we would all prefer a choice of other where some extremely competent football talent has the proven ability to get along with folks. However the Bill Parcells of the work are few and far between and unavailable anyway (IMHO, what makes Parcells special is that he has the ability to both impose his exremely good football will and vision, but apparently he is a really funy guy who can leave folks laughing and smiling as he imposes his will on them. This talent is rare). Given how rare this perfect alternative is, I think the Bills have had a series of clear choices with clear alternatives. Sherman is an extremely competent HC who demonstrated the ability to produce in the real world leading the Pack to several playoff appearances and even going relatively deep into the playoffs (there does remain a question though how much this was Sherman and how much this was Favre). Even better, Sherman was a former GM and with the inexperienced Marv as our GM getting him some help and the benefit of experience is essential. However, I was really pleased when we passed on Sherman as HC, because particularly after the massive dissension we suffered through in 2005 as TD was well into his next 3 tear plan which seemed to dedicate this season to training JP rather than winning now, TDs boy MM actually also put a premium on winning now and Ralph keeps hearing the Grim Reaper outside his door and proved unable to not win now if the way we lost produced such a bad record, it all blew up. I think the highest priority for the Bills is for the most part to have the braintrust and this team on the same page. It is also essential and absolutely necessary that the new HC and his minions be at least competent coaches. However, I would easily pass on this team getting the best coach out there if that fellow is not on the same page as the Bills givens of Ralph and now also Marv. Sherman showed every sign of pissed and a bit hurt when the Pack jerked the GM duties away from him. I find it diificult to see how he could have come here as HC and not tried to do what writers like Jerry Sullivan said they wanted which was an extremely competent football man to come in as HC and IMPOSE (Sullivan's word not mine) his vision and will on an inexperienced GM and a meddling owner). Yeah right. If Sullivan had his way and Sherman was hired, it would have been great for columnists as the Bills likely would have created great stories for Sully to write about as he goes let's you and him fight. However, I just do not see how Sherman who was pissed when the Packers took the GM power away from him and almost certainly in my mind would have needed/wanted to prove himself would not have created the same TD based dissension if he was brought in here with Sully's plan that he would rein in the owner who pays his checks and overide the inexperienced GM that is his boss. This ia a prescription for great stories for Sully but hard to see and I have heard no convincing arguments why this would not likely be a disaster for the Bills. Likewise with the decision not to offer Bates a paltry 200K or so to induce him to come here. Bates seemed to enjoy his time being in charge as interim HC after Wanny nore than wore out his welcome in Miami. I only see disaster if he had come in for what likely would have been a drive-by visit for him to Buffalo where rather than give him a stage to lay the groundwork for getting hired as an HC, by definition our DCs job is going to be running Jauron's designed defense. Unless Bates were willing to subordinate his considerable skills for the TEAM, then I think he would have been a disaster. So, in the real world that I see there are unfortunately no individuals available who are BOTH extremely competent football men and can IMPOSE their will and vision and still leave folks smiling. Given the real options available I would take a competent HC or DC who can get along well with what we are given as a braintrust (if you know how to fire Ralph let me know) than have even the best guy available based on his resume if he cannot be a TEAM with the Golden Boys who are here like or not. One can resonably argue over whether you think Jauron, or Fewell are competent or not. They do not strike me as the best, but given that Jauron did get NFL Coach of the Year in 2001 and has been productive for a long time at many levels of football, I think he is competent even if he is not the best. Likewise with Farrell, I think Bates has proven DC production which Farell does not, but as I said in another post, the real criteria for the DC are: 1. A competent man who adds value to the TEAM because he will fit in well with the existing staff. 2. A competent man who can call the defensive plays well. 3. A competent man who adds value to the TEAM because he will fit in well with the existing staff. 4. A compotent man who is a good teacher who helps the players perform. 5. A competent man who adds value to the TEAM because he will fit in well with the existing staff. 6. A compotent man who can diagnose first half play (and also diagnose things on the fly), choose changes in the Bills D to block the opponent, and implement these changes over the half (or on the fly) so that we make good adjustments. 7. A compotent man who adds value to the TEAM because he will fit in well with the existing staff. and from what I hear of Farell and with his resume as a secondary coach, his long time with the Jags and being part of the Lovie Smith crew before moving up to DC here he can do these tasks running the Jauron D. I vote for this group being a TEAM rather investing in someone who will lead us to success if he exceeds his title and IMPOSES his will. Hiring Sherman or Bates might have been good football moves but they almost certainly would have bad Bills moves as best as I can see.

My snse is that the criteria for selection of a new DC were: 1. A competent man who adds value to the TEAM because he will fit in well with the existing staff. 2. A competent man who can call the defensive plays well. 3. A competent man who adds value to the TEAM because he will fit in well with the existing staff. 4. A compotent man who is a good teacher who helps the players perform. 5. A competent man who adds value to the TEAM because he will fit in well with the existing staff. 6. A compotent man who can diagnose first half play (and also diagnose things on the fly), choose changes in the Bills D to block the opponent, and implement these changes over the half (or on the fly) so that we make good adjustments. 7. A compotent man who adds value to the TEAM because he will fit in well with the existing staff. Get the point? Bates clearly is a competent man and a defensive guru who meets this consistent criterion that influences all aspects we are looking for. However, after the roller coaster dissension that destroyed this team last season as TD attempted to IMPOSE (as Jerry Sullivan is fond of looking for because he wants a fight that is a good story) the main criterion after wanted a competent DC is that he needs to be on the same page and fit in with the existing staff. I think the $ issue was actually a good test for bates to see whether his priority was gonna be the TEAM or himself. I have no problem with a fellow looking out for #1 (particularly if a big part of #1 is his family or a sick kid- I have no trouble with a Jim Kelly making every dime he can to use for Hunter or to buy meaningless baubles for his wife if that makes her happy and better able to take care of Hunter. I feel the same way about Doug Flutie and his autistic kid). If Bates came it pretty clearly to me would have been a drive-by visit and what he seemed to want was a regular HC gig after gettting a taste as a very good interim HC for Miami. Particularly since Jaurin is a defensive guru and will have a big say in running and installing his system rather than running a Bates system as the Bills primary D, I think it is a legit question whether the job is what Bates wants because its the only DC job available or whether he wants the job because he is committed to the Bills. I for one am quite happy we did not get bates because I think it would have been a struggle at best for him to be on the same page as the rest of the coaching staff and players. Right now I'd rather have folks be on the same page and wrong together rather than have disension where one fellow is right and others are wrong and they fight out. This last method can work in certain circumstances. Ditka and Buddy Ryan fought like cats and dogs but the '85 Bears were good enough that the team worked and won. Marv Levy and whatever the old wunderkind who concerived the K-Gun fought like cats and dogs but Bill Polian was a strong leader and Jimbo and the Boys were good enough to make it work. I have my doubts about whether Ralph can really be a good leader deciding stuff (I hope like heck that he is mostly seen but not heard, he appears to be a nice rich guy but has made some lousy football judgments and also been a bad judge of character trusting the wrong guys). I know dissension would be a great story for Sullivan, but particularly at this juncture I think we most need folks to be on the same page and willing to sacrifice for each other and the team.

I don't think Jerry Gray is a very good coach but I would use the label good to describe his work. With this small difference in wording I am using this standard: 9-10 excellent coach 7-8 very good coach 5-6 good coach 3-4 sub par coach 1-2 bad coach 0- are you kidding On this scale I am quite comfortable calling him a good coach. Folks have ranted (and some over-ranted) about the quality of his work. I'm sure a poll on TSW would rank him as a 1 or 2. However, I think though he is not good enough in my book to be called much more than a good DC, I think he has shown some real world achievements which merit him my positive (though not stellar) reviews. 1. Good background as a former accomplished player who I think has a producer in the secondary saw the whole field and learn to read keys about all offenmsive players. One good thing I will say for Jauron I often think former DBs make the best coaches as these players habitually have to read the entire O (rather than POA reads of DL players and focus on the individual in front of them). LBs also have this duty of doing both run and pass coverage, but the DBs are a particular breed that often are on an island and that can breed something in these players that in the good ones translates into coaching. Gray did breed some good loyalty among players and I think he is a leader respected by his men. 2. He mastered the DB position coach position to become a DC, his performance at this job (detailed below) indicates to me he also developed and showed talent as a DC. 3. Though he had litte production as a Bill with the GW D as they tried to run it here with not good enough personnel (Chidi Ahanatou for Jevon Kearse and Raion Hill for Blaine Bishop? Please). This crew in his first two seasons actually hung fairly well with many opponents for 3 quarters and then got swamped, the problems with Gray the first two years struck me more as a bad assessment rap on him as the team never ran a D which gave poor players their best shot. However, i was impressed by his playcalling which is one of the toughest jobs for a DC. 4. It impressed me a lot how quickly he learned and adapted to the LaBeau run-blitz. I had assumed he was kept merely as a sop and their was a strong case to fire GW if voth his O and D co-ordinators lost their jobs. However, one can not reasonably deny that he did some quality play calling with a unique D which was not designed by him in 2003. Thise who want to give LeBeau all the credit for this performance foolishly ignore the fact that the playcalling is a function within which you cannot hide. It was LaBeau's D design but Gray called the plays well and folks should acknowledge if they want to be rational about this, his work here was good and since LeBeau left when he was denied the playcalling job he wanted his work here was rea and it was not simply LeBeau. 5. His work in 2004 was even more impressive and showed that the 2003 performance not only was not a fluke, but in fact it was not LeBeau's doing primarily and he was gone, If the 2003 performance was primarily LeBeau's doing, then even if the 2004 Gray led unit still finished in the top 10 but slid from the top 5 maybe this was the remnants of LeBeau and showed Gray's failings. However, the 2005 D wracked up better stats under Gray. Even better in assessing Gray, the likely failing for him completely losing LeBeau would be seen in a lessened ability to make good halftime adjustmemts a role LeBeau could perform when here. Gray also has sole responsiblity now for training the players and making up a gameplan for gameday/ In 2004 where this D showed an ability to gameplan well as it jumped out ahead of several opponents and in cases where the opponents had a good game plan, the Bills often made halftime adjustments (particularly during the streak) which simply shut down what had worked for the opponents in the first half. LeBeau was not here so it is simply silly to give him credit for the nice adjustment and gameplanning chops which Gray demonstrated in 2004. Overall, I think he is a good coach and the record demonstrates this, ut as someone pointed out the NFL is generally a what have you done for me now league and the horrible D performance last year must be pinned on Gray and he cannot escape it. However, anyone who blames him for sucking last year should also give him credit for 2003 and 94 or perhaps it indicates that they have some other agenda than rational asessment going on here.

Great Move!

I think folks are fooling themselves also if the simply assume that we are going to draft a player (even a 1st rounder who is going to fit right in no problem so that we can switch to a 3-4. Good athletes are good athletes so a player who merits a 1st round choice should be able to pick up the intricacies of a 3-4 and excel at it, but remember that this great rookie is already learning to play a better collection of athletes who play consistently at a faster speed and know tricks he has never seen before and still excel. He is playing against opposing coaches who have studied and taken apart his game and his strengths and weaknesses who now are gameplanning not simply to neurtalize his strengths but exploit his weaknesses and still excel. We're going to expect/demand that this 1st rounder excel even when he is facing things he never faced before and now we are gonna ask him to do probably playing a D scheme he never has plated before. Yeah right. We are going to demand this of the rookie Ngota or Hawk with them having a back-up who never has played a 3-4 either. Even if Ted comes here (which I would love) I think us switching to the 3-4 on a dime is unlikely as I do not think we have the personnel for this move. If TC comes here with the expectation of us making the switch to the 3-4 look for the 2006 season to be a training camp for the D and for us not to meet the Marv Levy Golden Boy dictum of win now as moving to the 3-4 without the personnel to run it well likely is a win later move.

Arm- I think you are confusing folks by hopping back and forth in the topic you state you are addressing and also by saying contradctory things even in the same thread. This thread has some examples. 1. At one point in this thread you state that it is an indictment of JP and his work (IMHO this is fine as different folks have different legitimate opinions as to whether its to early to pull the plug on him or not orwhether it was a good idea to pick him in the first place). Since you entitled this thread as being an assessment of TD and folks assume that JP is really the target of your assessment since TD is simply old news, folks are simply confused by what you are saying here. If you see some evidence that Holcomb is flat out better than JP then make the case (which I do not think you can at this point because both have such clear failings, but the JP advantage from the Bills standpoint is that he has some potential (even if small) to be the Bills QB of the future because he is young and has many fired guys who worked on his development in his two years. I think there is a fair case to make that Holcomb produced better than JP, but given his age and his past history of being an adequate back-up but never productive as a starter there appears to be little chance that he is the Bills QB of the future. 2. Your separation of Holcomb out of TD's track record on QB's may be convenient for this argument but has little to do with reality. You seem to want to claim JP is a horrible choice by laying out a case that TD has a record of always making horrible QB choices. Claiming that both Holcomb is the man at QB, but somehow we should ignore the fact TD deserves as much credit/blame for this QB choice as any QB choice he made makes no sense. I think you have a case which matches the facts if you simply assess TD as having a mixed bag in leading us in QB choices for the Bills. 1. QB choices in 2001- For the most part TD was playing the hand Butlet dealt him as he was living in a world of horrendous QB choices by Butler/Ralph going back to their misassessment of how long Jimbo would last and what they should do to replace him. TD seemed to have a clear (and I think correct) assessment of this situation before he was hired (he was asked on his ESPN show about the question of DF/RJ and responded that given DF's record of leading the team to W's and RJ injury prone record why is there even a question as the answer is obvious which QB could deliver more for the Bills). However, once he became GM, TD again had the right view as his job was much larger than the question of who is the better QB right here right now, but it was also obvious that DF though better was not our QB of the future, nor was he likely to be a good mentor for our QB of the future as he wanted to play and the Bills had lied to him about getting a fair shot at starting when we signed him. It seemed clear that RJ was not our QB of the future because he was too injury prone and Butler has goofed up by giving him a big bonus and then overlaying DFs achieved incentives into them. However, as TD walked into a situation where we has already paid RJ/DF whether we cut them or not, the obvious answer to the question of who do you keep was the opposite of the answer to who is the better QB right here and right now. In addition, to making a good decision (the only one to be made really as 2991 was all about cao hell) regarding QB he made a good decision regarding the back-up. TD went with AVP and though he was no more than a back-up quality player folks falsely seemed to conclude that good play by AVP when the other team has backed off having knocked out your starter would also translate into good AVP play as a starter. it did not. AVP was a good back-up and nothing more but he was paid like a back-up and nothing more so this was a good choice by TD. 2002- This was probably TDs only year of making very good QB choices. Getting Bledsoe worked out as well in 2002 as really could be hoped for. Having made the good but forced choice of cutting RJ after his injury riddled 2001, he was left with AVP as a proven inadequate starter and a waiver wire which boasted backside of his career Rodney Peete and good but injury prone Chris Chandler as possible starters for us. Instead, TD suceeded in pulling off an unheard of in division trade to get Bledsoe. We paid substantially for him as it cost us a 2003 #1 (actually far below BBs orginal asking price of 2 #1s for this player who played QB in the majority of a must-win game in NE's 2001 road to the SB). The deal had clear downsides for us as BB in fact did translate his knowledge of Bledsoe's limitations into two losses in the division that year. However, TD's choices at QB worked out bigtime for the Bills in 2002 as Bledsoe's arrival was a big part in a rejuvenated Bills fan base after a horrid 3-13 season. Bledsoe's play in 2002 was a key part in the team improving from 3-13 to 8-8 and this is reflected in him meriting his 2002 Pro Bowl reserve nod (if you disagree then simply name the QB(s) whom you think deserved the Pro Bowl reserve nod for the 2002 season more than he did (the sound you hear is crickets chirping). Even though BB killed him it did not matter for us as we were not going to the playoffs in 2002 in any way, shape, or form. With a Kevin Killdrive O that no one had film on initially we had good results and a lot of this was about some extraordinary TD work. Add into this kudos he deserves for making the right call in using our cap room and roster space for development help at other positions than QB by correctly reading that the recently lung collapsed Bledsoe was a big boy who could survive a tone of pounding from an offense which gave up way too many sacks and that AVP was a good back-up if needed we went with only 2 QBs that season. Add into this further, that TD led the charge in turning nothing into something by replacing the 1st given up for Bledsoe into AT's 1st for FA PP and I think TD has to be recognized for pulling off one of the best years of QB judgment I have ever seen in 2002! 2003- This year unfirtunately was the football version of why the first President Bush was smart enough not to toss Saddam in 1991 which easily could have been done after the 1st Gulf War. One can make an unorthodox brilliant move as TD did acquiring Bledsoe in 2002, but if you break it you have bought it and there needed to be some correct and potentially radical moves in 2003 to continue the march forward the 2002 success of the Bills and our intial mission accomplished in throwing out the idiot Saddam. Just as trying to establish civil society in Iraq has proved to be a harder task than we envisioned and something which cannot be done on the cheap (our country is paying for it with the lives of our great troops) so too the Bills really needed to do some radical stuff to make 2003 work as well as 2002. Here we see how many other team decisions really determine the QB and O production. A. Bledsoe had a horrendous year in 2003 following up an outstanding year in 2002. B.Among the lead factors in the horrendous QB play in 2003 was: 1. Kevin Killdrive refusing to vary our offense even though everyone now had tons of film and BB provided a roadmap on how to exploit Bledsoe's weaknesses. 2. Ther hiring of GW (instead of Fox or begging after Lewis) became obvious as he was not able to force Killdrive to vary the O 3. The team melted down as Ruben openly challenged Killdrive but in the end both had to die as Bills since Ruben was right but the Bills could not hang with an employee who pointed this out publicly (RB correctly defended his teammates whom Killdrive tried to blame but the die was cast). At any rate, as good as 2002 was, 2003 saw some other very bad TD decisions about hiring GW and then going passive/aggressive allowing GW to screw up as long as he and not TD took the blame was bad for us as fans. 2004- TD screwed up bigtime IMHO by extending Bledsoe's deal. Bledsoe is not an ureasonable back-up at all and like Holcomb you can even win with him as a starter under the right circumstances and with other teammates really leading the team with their play on the field. However, a player of Bledsoe/Holco,b quality is a good investment at low Holcomb salary, but is not worth it at all at the salary Bledsoe got in 2004. It is somewhat ironic as actually the work MM/Clements did with Bledsoe in 2004 was quite impressive. Taking advantage of the things he did well (great hands, a strong arm and a lot of experiebce) and minimizing the things he did poorly with good O design an choices (he is not mobile at all, but the answer is you then need to run him on draws and make good use of the WM stiff arm going around the corner to stop the LBs and DEs from selling out to blitz the statue like Bledsoe around and through a poress Bills pass pro. they also ran some great fakes with handoffs and pitch backs and throws by Bledsoe and even a fake QB sneak) was really a great piece of O work. However, even with some great O work, the Bills still fell a game short of the playoffs as like Holcomb, Bledsoe is not enough of a player to deliver you to the playoffs without some significant help. Once tbe D failed to stop Parker in Pitts and the ST did not have its usual productive game for the Bills as Clements laid the ball on the carpet and Lindell missed a chip shot, Bledsoe was simply like Holcomb on the backside of his career and could not deliver in crunch time. 2005- In contrast to his great QB choices in 2002, 2005 saw TD really make some bad QB choices: 1. We paid in 2005 for the stupid extension of Bledsoe's contract in 2004. He can be adequate with a good team around him (as shown by the Boys getting a winning record but again falling a game short of the playoffs in 2005 with Bledsoe at the helm). However, once we signed him we should have kept him as we ended up with the penalty of his accelerated cap hit from cutting him. We are only marginally good enough to compete with him. without him and with the cap hit was a killer for us. 2. He gave the QB starter job to JP and even JP said that this was not the right way for him to win the job. In essence, TD committed to the future as he used 2005 as training camp to develop JP. Again this move shows that this is a TEAM game and TD seemed to hope that our D ranked #2 statistically the past two years would deliver the '85 Bears like performance they promised (not unreasonably actually since 10 of 11 starters were back). However, IMHO I think that the players really took this unconciously as the Bills not maximizing their chances for the playoffs in 2005. This made a small, marginal, but enough of a difference in this league where almost all the athletes are very good players. You gotta want it worse than the opponents and when TD consigned 05 to be a likely development year for JP we were done as the D simply and suddenly sucked. That being said, I think TD does deserve kudos and a positive nod for signing Holcomb for chump change. Perhaps, if we had come into pre-season and demanded of JP that he win the job on the field which even JP says is the right way to do this he could have stepped up and really take the job from Holcomb. I would have needed to get lucky though and once he was handed the job essentially by the front office and over the apparent objections of MM who wanted to win now, and then over the apparent fact based objections of Moulds because JP demonstrably did not use his WRs we were done. So overall, TD is a clear mixed bag in QB choices: 2001- Made as good a choice as he could make though we only had bad choices 2002- He made outstanding and innovative choices. 2003- The infrastructure he created failed completely to manage the team well which destroyed QB output as Bledsoe was not good enough to deal with bad HC work. 2004- Extneding Bledsoe was not a playoff strategy though it did prove to be a winning stategy with some good O work. Close but close only counts with hand grenades. 2005- As horrendous as 2002 was good as the front office did not give the players their best (even though the best chance was not very good) to win. This recipe got TD fired (he deserved it as 5 years with no playoffs is simply unacceptable. There may be no accountability for screwing up the Presidency but at least there should be for triva like the NFL)! The point you seem to be making though (and trying furiously but unsuccessfully IMHO to substantiate this by making a false and unsupportable claim that TD totally sucks in QB choices) is that we need to go with Holcomb rather than JP. Maybe but maybe not as the KH/JP deal strikes me as somewhat similar to the RJ/DF deal TD found when he got here. It is very clear that KH is more productive than JP (just as TD saw no question that DF was more productive than RJ). However, though KH is a far better mentor than DF (particularly after we lied to DF about getting a fair chance to be the starter when he signed) he still is on well into the bacside of his career, has no record beyond some great episodes of productive QB work and is not our QB of the future. Just as there is no question that KH is more productive than JP, there is not question contractually and in terms of where they are in their career that JP MIGHT become our QB of the future and Holcomb is too old and too unaccomplished in terms of consistent long-term results from his career to have any more than a reasonable chance to be a very good back-up QB for us. Rather trying to indict JP by his play (his age and contract dictate that though he not be given the starter's job like he was this year that he be given every reasonable shot we can to win this job on the field) I think there is a better case to be made based on reality. The fact simply is that if JP does develop and lead the Bills to an SB win next season (our ultimate goal) unless RoboQB leads Pitts to a win on Sunday he will be the first QB selected by a team to lead his team to an SB victory since Aikman was picked by Dallas in 1989. At the time when JP was selected it meant adopting a strategy for winning the SB whicb simply had not worked out for a team's draft choice in almost twenty years. Even if RoboQB leads Pitts to the promised land there is a reasonable argument that this is the chance occurence which is the exception that proves the rule. Success has been far more likely to occur in maing other QB choices from the field of QB development opportunities rather than making a pick for your QB of the future in the first round. 1. Teams have a history of greater success wining it all since Dallas picked Aikman of finding a 1st round or first day selected QB though other means than drafting him and endirig his failures while he learns the game. Successful choices of highly touted QBs traded to SB winners include Dilfer, supplemental pick Steve Young, and second round pick Favre. If you must have a 1st round or high pick at QB they are run out of town not infrquently when they fail learning and these players can be found. There is some thought that Dante Culpepper will be such a player this year. I for one wouldnot do this because I think QBs capable of winning the SB can be had for even the NFL vet minimum, but if you MUST have a first round pick this strategy has worked better than drafting a player in the 1st to play QB for you. The question is whether RoboQB will be the exceotionthat supports this "rule". 2. Teams have a hsitory of greater success actually picking good UDFAs who if they fail will have a minimal cap hit rather than giving the QB a 1st round slot contract where if he fails he kills your team for a couple of years at least. The classic was the Rams finding Warner at Wal-mart but the productive work of Jake Delhomme means this is possible. When one considers the factual occurence that a great QB like Peyton Manning after a dismal rookie year of learning has still only led the Colts to not significantly more playoff games that the Chargers have gotten to since they made the horrible choice of Ryan Leaf says something. Manning was such a far better choice than Leaf in terms of on field play one would naturally assume that it won't even be funny how much more Indy has achieved than SD. Yet, the real world occuences are because this is a TEAM game with the QB playing an important but far from the only important and often not even the most important role for a team, Manning really has only led the Colts to one really successful season IMHO) the year they made the conference final. This is better than SD who only recovered from the hiccup of Leaf to make it to the playoffs last year. However, given the hoopla and the cap hit of Manning, his career playoff record which is somewhere around 3-6 is better but not extraordinarily so than SD which is roughly 0-1 in the Leaf reign or error (in essence what is their playoff record while Manning ia around). 3, Draft late and develop 'em- Tom nrady is lightening in a bottle and inflates the winning % of QBs with this pedigree, but the facts are the facts. 4. Other folks rejects- Folks like Brad Johnson (a two-time loser before winning it all with TB) or folks like Hasselback this year are certainly far more real alternatives that expecting our pick of JP to work. The bottom-line though it too part: 1. Merely showing JP will not work out does not mean Holcomb will. 2. The chances of winning the SB are 1 out of 32 anyway, and given the small chance of either Holcomb working out or JP developing this why it is fairly meaningless at this early date in JPs career to declare it over (it may be but Holcomb is not a high probability improvement of our chances). Just as we cannot go back into the past and reverse TDs dumb decision to use the draft to get our QB of the future instead of more proven difficult techniques, we cannot avoid the reality of the contractual hit if we were to cut JP. JP needs to win this job on the field like he has said, and I'm not sure anyone rationally argues otherwise. However, if you are arguing to give this job to Holcomb this is not rational either.

THanks for the detailed analysis of the issue, Its one of the great things about TSW. However, if you are going to respond to my points the leadt you could do is quote or paraphrase them correctly rather than taking the Fox News argument approach of: 1. Misinterpreting moderates arguments attributing some extreme argument and then dismissing the moderate argument. 2. Rather than attempting to fill in any missing parts of an argument with a moderate or logical piece, instead inserting into them some outrageous assumption and attributing that to the original argument. Fpr example you claim that I cite the fact that WM is the fastest Bills back to rush for 2K as the "end of all arguments" when on the contrary, I specifically say in the post you cite: " I'm not saying this proves without a doubt he is worth big bucks, but to simply ignore this seems just dumb)." Rather than making some claim all you need to know about WM is this, I actually chide the orginal post for simply ignoring this point and thus presenting an incomplete view of reality while also specifically acknowledging some clear shortcomings in WMs performance with his downturn in production after mid-season. Perhaps it is just a failure on my part to be clear, but your paraphrasing of my views is flat out incorrect. Next I do think looking at YPC issue is a good thing to do, but you seem to ignore the fact I reference YPC for the specific point in the post of looking at whether WM's downturn after mid-season was all his fault. Ironically, we saw an uptick in WMs YPC during these games versus his YPC over the season. This is the paradoxical events which I state lead not to first questioning the OL performance but questioning the play calling of the now fired Clements and now quit MM. Do you feel that MM and Clements did good offensive play calling dueing our post midseason swoon? If not, do you think playcalling had anything to do with our running game being ineffective? There must be some effect. I think the key fact here to analyze is how WM went from being the #3 RB in yardage gained around mid-season to finish up at #10. My sense is that the questions of changes in play calling, team performance, possible injjury or other issues are far more relevant than a general assessment of his play. Finally it is the contract issue that is the big thing the original post is about. Its lead premise is that because WM hit a bunch of incentives by going over 1000 yards and being our workhorse back )the large number of carries you site) we are talking about money we are already going to pay him and take a cap hit for regardless. My argument is that due to this point what we are talking about here is not some duel between WM and the Bills about how good he is, but actually like the NFL and NFLPA there is a partnership here where a win/win can be found for both parties. Nu lengthening WMs contract we can actually lower his cap hit next year well below the levels we would have if we simply allocate the large amount of # already paid to him and what we owe him under his cureent contract into a single cap year. I think we may well extend WMs contract and pay him a large bonus for doing so because it is the best way to manage our cap (as long as he did not suffer some injury we are not talking about which limits the likelihood that will at least perform as a top 10 rusher in yardage gained every year).

Unless they have some grand plan where not only do these two QBs turn out to be Ben RoboQB or Dan Marino and are productive in their rookie season AND the 06 Bills turn out to be as productive as the 04 Steelers in running and stopping the run, picking either of these two QBs (gosh forbid trading away valuable resources to move up) picking either player or any QB in the first does not seem to compute. Do you really believe either of these players (or any other QB in this draft) is going to win now as Marv says the plan is with this team (psrticularly when they forgo getting help to stop the run with the #1 pick? Do you think Marv is lying about the win now dictum (either to fool the opposition or because he simply is full of it). Do you really see either of these players or this team pulling off something a player of the quality of Peyton Manning came no where near to pulling off his rookie year? The idea of drafting either Young or Cutler seems bizarre to me if you plan to win in 06 or even in 07.

Cliff notes begin: Any arguments which simply choose to ignore the real world production of his making his incentives because they do not like how they perceive his attitude can reasonably be disregarded for only looking at half the facts. Also, any argument that puts this in a false context of a Bills vs. WM battle ignores the fact that an outcome where the Bills give him a big bonus (prompted by and covering the big bucks he will get for making his incentives) can actually be good both for WM and the Bills managing their cap to be a winner. Cliff nottes end. I think the key to this is that McGahee almost certainly hit his incentives as he is the fastest Bills RB to 2000 yards gained rushing (better early production rushing than either Thurman or OJ which if folks want to disregard this fact would seem to render any other arguments they make pretty questionable. I'm not saying this proves without a doubt he is worth big bucks, but to simply ignore this seems just dumb). His achievement of incentives would mean two things assuming that his contract is now huge: 1. He has performed in terms of gaining yards. Thus, while foks complaints about his attitude MAY be true (or MAY NOT because folks only really know what the see on the news which MAY be accurate bu MAY NOT be as well) the facts of what he has produced mean a lot more to me than folks perceptions. His power outage when his yards/game really dipped around mid season is troubling, but given that his yards per carry generally stayed above 4, that this production drop certainly was heavily influenced by poor OL play and lousy play calling along with any WM production problems, and it remains unclear whether any production problems he had were caused by injury rather than attitude, it would seem to be a huge leap to write him off. His yards per game did tick up as the Bills O became more effective at the end of the season against Cincy, so simply writing him off would seem shortsighted at best and flat out dumb at worst. 2. In terms of contract, it would be a misunderstanding to see this as a contest between the Bills and WM where it hurts the Bills interest to give him a big bonus. We would owe him for incentives anyway. It may well help the Bills interest to give him a big bonus which would allow us to prorate the money we will pay him anyway over the length of the contract. Giving him a big bonus may well be a win/win situation where WM gets even bigger bucks up front in exchange for him hitting his incentives and the Bills get to manage their cap payments in a way that helps us win.