Fake-Fat Sunny

Yes Virginis, the NFL is guilty of racist practices in the not too distant past and by some folks in the present. It is really difficult to draw a distinction in judging the motivation of individuals whether these practices which are still statistically occuring today on the HC scene are motivated by some misguided sense of the good ol boy network (see Matt Millen's violation of the Rooney rule to hire then have to fire Mooch for a likely example of this) or by Marge Schott like owner racism. It does not matter as clearly the former players are currently a majority of A-A descent and clearly they do not have access to HC jobs in anywhere near those numbers. Should the NFL embrace some sort of quota system designed to make HCs look like America? Nope! That would be stupid. 51% of NFL coaches should not be women and it is doubtful that 17 women have the qualifications necessary to be HCs. Outside of Norm Chow, I don't think there are even enough Asain-Americans to make the HCs look like America. Folks with some blind allegiance to quotas may use this as the comparison but it would be stupid. Instead, because of the NFL's past and current practices of racist hiring and employee opportunity (seen in people of A-A descent not being allowed to be QBs at a level which met their skills until the late 80s/early 90s and seen today in the pool of potential good HC candidates consisting in substantial of former players who are in majority recently of A-A descent while even with recent efforts only 20% of HCs are of A-A descent), the NFL is pushing the Rooney Rule and forcing its teams to at least provide the opportunity of interviews. If you do not believe that the NFL has engaged in race based hiring and employee management practices in the recent past and currently, then how do YOU explain the NFL failing to employ people of A-A descent routinely as QBs until quite recently. How do YOU explain 20% of NFL coaches being of A-A descent when a majority of current players (a large part of the pool for HCs though far from the total pool) are of A-A descent. There honestly can be other exolanations for this statistical outcome. However, explanations based on mere chance seem foolish. Explanations based on past and present NFL hiring practices being based on results (getting Ws) also seem counter to the experience of success from the few HCs of A-A descent to come into the league (Art Shell hisorically, Tony Dungy and Herm Edwards making the playoffs and getting rehired unlike Shell, and Marvin Lewis and Lovie Smith virtually immediately turning around persistent losing teams). Add into that the good old boy network failing totally when Matt Millen got fined for de facto ignoring the Rooney rule and then having to can the guy he hired because he could not produce the Ws. The NFL has a clear statistical record of recent past and current racial biased hiring practices. One can argue about whether particular individuals are motivated by Matt Millen idiocy which unfortunately supported this history of racial hiring practices or whether there are some NFL owners who lie baseball owner Marge Schott actually has a bunch of Nazi paraphenalia in her sock drawer at home. From a management and reality standpoint the NFL is about fixing its clear racial discrepancies that reflect not giving people their fair shot and not about a focus on who is a racist and who is not. it seems far more intelligent to stick with what we can see and just simply acknowledge that as long as the statitiscal racial discrepancies are there the NFL has racist practices as a real part of its current existence.

Among the reasons for the particular focus on NFL coaching candidates of A-A descent are: 1. A signficant majority of the players are of A-A descent. In order to keep producing a good product the NFL is interested in creating a career path for players which will allow them to move from being a player to obtain the highest on field position on a team (HC). Having a focus on meeting some statistical standard for the population would not meet this goal. Those who are "slaves" to the statistics which underlie quotas would endorse your interest in the NFL meeting some statistical measure related to the population. However, our society explicitly rejects quota systems and are more interested in a system like the NFL's which guarantee's opportunity by demanding interviews. The focus in not on some bizarre and arbitraty principle like societal quotas, the focus is on the reality of employee management and producing a good product. 2. There is a pretty clear history of racist practices by the NFL targeted on qualified people of A-A descent. Until the late 80s, the NFL refused to have qualified people of A-A descent as QBs (except the occaisional Marlin Briscoe) due in great part to the groundbreaking work of folks like James Harris and accomplishments of Doug Williams and the press beatings received by idiots such as Jimmy the greek and Al Campanis, this travesty against the qualified did not stand. With 10 years time A-As are reoutinely QBs. The next frontier is HC positions. The NFL minority interview policy is designed to address a past history which most folks clearly agree is one of past discriminatory practices where qualified people of A-A descent were denied even a shot at an HC position. Thus, though a fellow like Norm Chow is clearly a racial minority in our society, his hiring does not meet the NFL Rooney Rule because there is not the same history of discrimination against Chow's racial background by the NFL as there was against the numerous qualified people of A-A descent.

In addition to the props you give Clements for his work in Steelers land, he also deserves props for good work he did here: 1. Last year squeezing more production out of a Bledsoe who was downright horrible the year before and also out of the devastated Kevin Killdrive offense. Being better than Killdrive is not saying much, but I was impresed with some specific facets and choices of the Bills O under Clements last year. Specifically, A. He recognized that just because no one would mistake Bledsoe for being a running threat at all for a big gain, this does not mean you NEVER use him as a runner. In fact, I think that it was Bills playcalling which showed a willingess to run Bledsoe on the QB draw for 6-7 yards that actually stopped the LBs from selling out on the all out blitz which sacked Bledsoe so many times the two years before. I think the reduction in Bledsoe sacks came in part because the outside threat McGahee presented kept the LBs at home, and the OL though still bad improved over the Vinky/Ruel performance, Clements as OC effectively used what running Bledsoe could do. B. The OC also realized that Bledsoe for all his failings could do some things well. His ability to handle tosses and his good hands save us when Teague was learning shotgun snaps, Clements used this ball handling ability as a weapon as he employed play action hand-offs to WM who turned and pitched it back to Bledsoe who used his rocket arm to hit Evans and Moulds going downfield for easy TDs after the hand-off sucked in the coverage. C. In addition, Clements did some great playcalling playing around Bledsoe's failings but toward his skills by using his ability to fake and go on plays like his fake QB sneak on a 4th and and pitch back to WM who scampered 40+ yards for a TD last year. 2. Its the NFL though and the rule is what have you done for me lately (hence Clements is gone). Its hard to say much good about his mediocre work this year. However, it is not able that though even his buddy MM jerked the playcalling duties away from toward the end of the season (it now appears apparently by force as Ralph or TD were not pleased and MM had to make a change in the O). However, this switch away from Clements to former successful OC MM doing playcalling did not make a difference. Even more interesting, whn Clements got back the playcalling for the last two games the O was very effective against a good Cincy team and had a not bad plan poorly executed with some tipped INTs in the final game. Was Clements a good OC this year? No. Is he a talentless bum who cannot run an offense in this league? No to that as well. He did a good job last year and made a showing this year that though pitiful showed that last year was not a fluke. Certainly with TD and MM gone he deserves to be gone, but not because he can't run an O successfully.

Actually, as the Bills have a significant # of position coaches (such as JMac coaching OL) part of the job requirements for a new HC is that rather than bringing in his own team for the most part he will need to commit to be able tow work with a bunch of guys we already got. If they cannot or do not want to do this, then its thanks but adios go work somewhere else. There will be a number of openings of positions of fired guys like Krumrie, but the irony here is that as there are a number of talents holding on in the hopes they will land an HC or co-ordinator slot that when those jobs don't materialize you may well have a number of talents at the Ted Cottrell level actually takimg position coach jobs like LB coach. Teams would certainly have trouble if they need to build an entire staff from scratch with a late hire, but the numbers look like the Bills should be able to fill in the gaps of getting a qualified position coach here or there. As far as the Senior Bowl, it is a job market not only for player talent but for coaching talent. Everybody will be there and the Bills led by GM Marv and a host of college player scouts will be there doing assessment and talking to folks. It certainly would be better if we had an HC in charge and an agreed upon vision with which to measure players that an HC it is to be hoped brings, but quite frankly even if we hired an HC early this week or last week he would not have had time to spread his vision to the team. While more desirable to have a returning HC in position, that ain;t gonna happen. There will be problems but nothing that cannot be compensated for or recovered from. However, if we rush into making a choice and get some new version of a GW level HC, that is a mistake we will not recover from for years. It's far better to do his well instead of simply doing it fast.

It will be too bad if all that Marv can do is follow doctrine of get someone who has done it before and try to get a former HC rather than instead go with football and gut instinct and again pick a co-ordinator. The problem with or last two HCs was not that they were "mere" co-ordinators, but unfortunately neither proved to have the skillset necessary to do the job. There certainly is recent experience that former co-ordinators Lovie Smith and Marvin Lewis proved to be skilled enough to turn their losing squads into winners in a seeming blink of the eye. Certainly the stinky jobs which Marv did in KC and wunderkind Bill Belichick did in Cleve demonstrate that a former HC may well be able to do the job if he learned the lessons of his past mess ups. However, his Marv has good insticts he can find the John Fox in the rough who can go from co-ordinator to successful HC. Millen choosing former successful HC Mooch in Detroit is a clear example that having done the HC job before (even successfully) is a long way from an HC being up to a new job.

What the pay issue here is likely that if Gray goes to another NFL team, the agreement is that the Bills woul only owe him an amount that a new contract is less than the one he is currently working under with the Bills (for example if he had gotten the Texan HC job it would have paid more than the Bills DC contract and we would owe him nothing. However, if he leaves the NFL, the Bills would owe him the full contract he signed with us (I am pretty sure we extended and upped his deal earlier this year before the bottom fell out on D production). The Bruins recognizing that Gray would take down a bunch o cash that the Bills owe him may well have wanted him to take a compensatory cut forBruin duty. As Wade did, I could see him taking his check and going to little league football games if the Bills let him go.

I'm surprised (though I guess knowing the fickleness of Bills fans about players I shouldn't be surprised) that a lot of folks seem to have given up on WM already. This seems particularly odd to me given the facts that: 1. After his second season he got to 2,000 yards rushing quicker than any player (and this includes Thurman and OJ) in Bills history. 2. He was productive on the ground in the final game of the season lowering the concern that his mid-season power outtage was due to injury. 3. He did produce like crap from an early start which was very impressive and concern about this and mental commitment is legit. However, his yards per carry was fairly high during much of this cumulative downturn indicating the problem was in many ways play calling as the braintrust went away from him. In addition, its not like you can say that his OL was all that good and the QB play of Losman and the playcalling really meant that there were few alternatives for him to play off of. Figuring he is done due to some alleged character flaw ignores the fact that he has already shown some great character in his rehab and in his off-season work at the U where he bulked up even more. I;m not overly concerned that this extra bulk has cost himsome breakaway speed because given the sturdiness versus speed trade-off, i think erring toward bulk is the smart move given that we use him as a workhorse and we are weak at back-up behind him. I like Evans as well and his productivity his first two years in comparison with the production of Pro Bowl talent Moulds is not even close. Hiowever, the upside that WM offers as long as he continues to produce at a rate similar to his first two seasons makes him the one guy I would keep of this bunch.

I voted don't know because in my mind 80% of HCs are like Bill Belichick in Cleve and NE or Marv in KC and Buffalo, they can win with good players and the right situation and also lose anywhere with bad players or lose with good players in a bad situation. Jauron passes the laugh test in my book in that he is not a Rich Kotite who can lose anywhere, but the key is whether he, Sherman, or other adeqaute candidates fit the situation. I think GW is probably a qualified HC, but in retrospect it was near impossible for him to win with the passive-aggressive TD who seemed motivated mostly by making sure an HC he hired likeCowher in Pitts never ran him out of town. TD seemed willing to allow GW to fail as long as GW took the blame for failing. As far as a new HC goes virtually anyone is fine with me as long as the fit is good. If they ae legends in their own mind like Coughlin fuggaboutit, but the big problem here to me is not whether the HC will be good enough but whether RWS is too far down the pike to allow the football guys to build a winner.

Actually the rule change which allowed coaches whose teams were in the playoffs to talk to other teams was a change which came in conjunction with the "Rooney" task force which out together the minority interview policy and a number of other changes designed to train minorites and feed the pipeline of qualified minority candidates. One of the great travesties of that year was Marvin Lewis who had been the DC of the record breaking Baltimore defense being unable to even talk to teams about the five HC openings because his team was in the playoffs. As it happened, NFL teams seem to stumble all over themselves to get their HC hiring done before the SB so they would not be virtually forced to take Lewis. As it happened, the only empty HC chair when the music stopped was the Bills. We interviewed Lewis, John Fox and others but TD was |blown away" with a great interview by GW and his voluminous list of contacts and players. There were some attacks on TD for allegedly being racist, but these attacks were easily repulsed by TD;s record of fair play and hiring minorites. It was also said by some that Lewis's wife did not like Buffalo. All this being said, in retrospect it looks pretty dumb. GW sucked, Fox was great and Lewis engineered a marvelous turnaround in Cincy (if Lewis\s wife actually disliked Buffalo it is hard to see Cincy as being a more cosmopolitan metropolis, in hindsight the Bills should have sucked up to Lewis and sold themselves to him and his wife and avoided out GW/TD fate, but such is hindsight. At any rate my recollection is that at first it was proposed this rule change would only apply to minorites on playoff teams, however, this move against the good ol boys failing to give qualified candidates a fair shot even when it served team interests was already going to rock the house and rather than created diseension within teams as some minorites coaches could be talked to they made it apply to all coaches being offered a move up in status.

I disagree. It is a slap in the face of every American for a major American business not to judge a person based on the content of his character rather than of trivia like skin color. The initial and unfortubnately ongoing transgression here was by the NFL ownership for being unwilling to even interview much less hire an African-American as an HC. Flat out, the NFL ownership refused to take steps which could have helped their teams best achieve the goal of getting Ws because they refused to interview much less hire the most qualified candidates for HC position, As best as i can tell, this was done by the variety of folks who make-up NFL ownership likely for a variety of reasons. At best the reasons for these un-American acts was that the good ol' boys network was only comfortable hiring guys who looked like them. At worse, some were probably in the Marge Schott role of being a flat out racist with Nazi paraphenalia at fome in her desk. I don't know what was the motivation of a particular individual and I do not care as I think the NFL as an American entity needed to and needs to take actions to eradicate the effects of these views, To date, the minority intrview requirement seems to be making small reasonable differences which are resulting in both the greater interviewing of A-A candidates and even better is producing better play on the field. Who can say for sure what role the minority interview policy had in hiring of Lovie Smith or Marvin Lewis finally getting hired as an HC. Howeer, it looks to me as though the NFL's greater focus on American-ideal hiring outcomes played a role in both these hires. Should these two men (or any others) be embarassed by this policy? No, not IMHO. it is the NFL and racists across the country who should be embarassed that this action is necessary to get the NFL to follow the American ideal of every body getting a chance based on their skills and deficits. Ultimately, any embarassment that Lewis/Smith have will either be overwhelmed by the confirmation or denial of their skills which their team's records show. As both these teams out up double digit win #s after several years of medicrity, if anyone is embarassed it should be the NFL and also racists in America who clearly were denying qualified individuals an opportunity to show what they can do when they get a chance.

This is interesting as from what I have seen (and the Combine will make a big difference) Ngata's stock seems to be falling. Scouts Inc has him listed as the #19 talent on their assessment. We'll see what the Combine shows before I know enough to make a bad guess as to who the Bills should and will take. however, these numbers do not upset me in that if they are true I think it creates a good world for the Bills in which they do get Ngata because our run stopping needs help, but we actually trade down (getting extra picks late in the first or in the second round) but still get him (or a top-rated DT). This outcome would not be bad at all IMHO.

There has been a lot of false guesses and idiocy on TSW about the nature of the NFL HC Minority InterView policy. For those interested in facts, the original anouncement of the program can be found at this site: > http://www.nfl.com/news/story/6046016 < In general, the NFL has established this policy because of its past history of discrimination against qualified candidates. This policy was created because: 1. Our society has advanced to the point where it is viewed as unacceptable that qualified candidates for a job will not even get an interview for it due to factors which have little bearing (none really beyond some of the good ol' boys being uncomfortable with a minority in charge or being their partner seeking the goal of lots of Ws for their team) on their qualifications. 2. Despite a significant majority of the workers in the NFL being of African-American descent, there were (and actually still are) relaively few HCs of A-A heritage. It is not only counter to the goals of US society to have individuals not receive a fair shot, it simply is poor presentation and management of the pro football product to have such a huge disparity between the racial demographics of the players and of the HCs. While being an NFL player does not gurantee that a person will be a qualified HC, it certainly is a strong factor in determining one's viability as a potential HC and the disparity in the numbers simply needs to be addressed. 3. The NFL approach is far more than some blind adherence to statistics. The irony here is that those who seriously (or jokingly to some extent) seem to demand that a "real" program would create an HC pool which looks like America (51% Women HCs, some number of Asian HCs, etc) are actually endorsing the same type of thinking that supports quotas as a means of diversity. The NFL prgoram in fact rejects a quota based approach and instead seeks to guarantee opportunity by requiring diverse interviwing and by emphasing minority coaching internships and other actions which fill the pipeline with quality interview applicants who also happen to be people of color. 4. The program is not designed to fulfuill some bizarres statistical quota of diversity, but is instead designed to address a clear history of discrimaination where the large number of A-A players were not given any consideration for HC slots regardless of their qualifications. Specifically, there will be women interviewed under a diversity program IF there was a clear history of discrimination against women for getting these jobs in the past. There was not a statistical result which clearly indicated that qualified women applicants were not getting HC jobs or interviews. However, there is a clear statistical showing that there were many seemingly qualified A-A candidates who were not even interviewed. To date, while a disparity still exists, there are a number of clear examples (such as Marvin Lewis and Lovie Smith) where the hiring of men of A-A descent has accelerated slightly but significantly. The good news for this effort is that both Lewis's hiring coincided with a reversal of years of Bengals failure to make the playoffs and Smith's hiring coincided with a great Bear's resurgence. Overall, all signs that I see point to the minority interview requirements working quite well and I for one am pleased to see the NFL accomplish the goal of increasing diversity and do so without resorting to a bizarre and unfair quota system and to do this an improve the quality of the product as seen in Cincinnati and Chicago.

No. There is no history of discrimination against Ivy Leaguers by the NFL.

Cliff notes begin: TD really got canned not because of one immediate event but because of five total years without making the playoffs. MM could not be canned because RWS owed him about $3 million, but while he clearly bears no blame for the GW faux pas, he quit rather than be in the position of firing his friends (Clements already maybe Wyche to come) cleaning up the mess TD made the last 5 years. It simply ignores too much reality and history to try to blame JP for what clearly involved much bigger problems and issues than one player. Cliff notes end. I think it is too simplistic to try to lay blame on one person for the firing/quitting (TD/MM) or to try to explain all of this as a force on oneside which had one vision and a force on the other side which had a conflicting vision. Fox News may have a view of the world that there are but two forces good vs, evil on any impoertant issue, but the real world is more complicated than that with the various forces involved really having a tangled web of alliances and problems with each other that in the end just could not stay on the same page with the pressure of the Bills lousy record. As best as I can tell the forces were: RWS- The primary force as the owner who really entrusted TD to run the team for 5 years, but in the end, this alliance went south because TD did not produce a winning record and his plan for doing so really had a potential but not likely chance for success (simply a winning record and maybe a playoff berth for us) next year. He fired TD because the future is now for this old man. TD- The primary implementer who made three fatal errors (amongst the great/good/bad moves) dyrubg his reign of error. These mistakes were: 1. Choosing GW over Fox and Lewis (though if he wanted Lewis it appears he really would have had to suck up to him and his wife to convince them to come here and TD was not going to give the keys to the kingdom to an HC after Cowher ran him out of Pitts). 2. Extending Bledsoe after he was a wash his first two seasons with a great year in 2002 and a horrendous year in 2003. TD should have counted his blessings and made the split then, but he did not and really bound his future to Bledsoe's play by giving him a bonus to extend him. 3. The thrid error was reversing field and cutting Bledsoe. This was a mistake not because Bledsoe was capable of leading the Bills to the playoffs (he certainly was not capable of leading the Bills there over Pitts in 04 or the 'Boys in '05 though he had a good enough season to further cement his eventually making the HOF by putting up a winning record), Once TD made the dumb decision to extend Bledsoe he should have stuck with it. As it was he created the worst of two worlds with Bledsoe being a part of killing us in 04 and Jp being a significant part of killing us in 05. At any rate, RWS finally had to make him account for his failure to make the playoffs and TD had not been able to lead his chosen group to playoff success. MM- His situation in many ways is the least tenable of three lead guys as he is the least in control of the situation of the three. TD's firing meant that some head hads to roll in addition to his. However, MM's was owed 3 years so his head was not gonna roll. He in essence had to make a choice between staying here and collecting his million a year until RWS decided to pay him when he was gone, OR because staying here now meant he would be less in control and part of his job was gonna be to fire the one's he brought here (TD was no longer around to protect his gang) it simply ceated a bad world for MM. I can see that he decided to quit as staying meant he would have to do his job and his job already meant firing scapegoat Clements and might one day soon mean firing Wyche and others he cared about because they did not agree with Marv. This is not to say one side is right or one side is wrong (that simply is not how reality is convenient enough to make it that easy) but that the dynamic of the Bills organization changed from disagreements between MM/Clement, JMac/Clements. etc from being a stimulating challenges to find the best answer from this honest disagreements to folks running the risk or lifelihood of getting canned if they disagreed with The Golden Boys. I think that MM ended up being forced to do a variety of things like taking the O playcalling away from Clements which were simply uncomfortable things for him to do regardless of whether this move was dictated by Ralph, TD, or MM hinself. Ukimately, this is a long winded (photoned) way of answering your question. I do not think JP is (or judges) at fault for the TD/MM firing/quitting because there were simply much bigger issues which drove these events. JP's failure was certainly a part of TD's demise and ultimately MM's demise at a Bill. However, the die began to be cast for these exits right from the start whn TD screwed up picking GW over Fox and Lewis. I do not think one can rationally blame JP for these errors which were not the immediate reason's TD got fired but clearly were a big part of his equation of failure that got him canned.

My mistake, by toilet humour I meant jokes about feces. However if one oseas a litter bpx pr a pit one would not consider this toilet humour,

I have not done the statistical analysis, but my sense is that your take on this is superficial to the extent that the real world measure in terms of building a team is an assessment of the cao hit of the intial contracts of these players. Brady was a brilliant pick-up not merely due to his great play, but that his initial contract was for the NFL minimum plus 50K. You might well lose the bet with someone with you taking a 1st and him taking a 4th or later, because your pick has to work or he ends up being a QB version for you of Mike Williams and your team is likely dead for years if he fails. Your opponent meanwhile will have the chance to not simply make one pick but at least two if not three QBs looking for the right one (and dealing with injury if your QB is a stud and gets Carson Palmer'ed. In the real world where picking a quality QB is essentially a crap shoot with the vast majprity of 1st round picks failing to play for the team that drafted them (if you are assessing my oresentation your 12 of 18 number should not just be of first rounders starting but first rounders starting with the team which drafted them). It's hard for me to see why folks seem to want to completely reject my point or somehow view it as having been shown to be wrong. All I am saying is that rather than looking for your QB of the future in a 1st round pick, the real world if the measure is SB wins or even berths in the SB is to buy your 1st rounder after he has been run out of town elsewhere rather than losing with him now.

I understand the point, but one would think that as QBs were in fact drafted in the first round between 1989 and 1999 and 2001 (5-7 years ago) who would have filled the pipeline of QBs. Perhaps this 10-12 year period is where your statistical burp occurs. However, 1. Even given a 5-7 year time period for QB development (many are actually a lot shorter than this before productiveity actually so is true for many but seems a bit long) we're looking at a burp which may well be into 3 generations of QBs. The statistical burp is well on its way to a hearty belch. 2. Logical reasons actually point to the factors which feed this seemingly random event are getting more intense. A. 5-7 years is simply too long for QB development with the same team in this win now league. B. Given the standard 1st round contract length, a 5-7 year development period probably means you need to sign a second big contract before the QB develops into a producer. Your timeline happens in terms of eventual productvity but the Jake Plummer creer which fits your description is a bit more rare than the Todd Collins track and results. 3. The fact you can throw in a lot of exceptions to the draft a QB in the 1st (throw in Dilfer and Johnson with your mention of Warner, Brady, amd Delhomme and one begins to see non 1st round keepers are actually the normal occurence while no first round keeper has won the SB. Also, you mention Plummer as righting the ship of state, he actually is another high fraft pick QB who was chosen by AZ and trained by them and Denver know gets the benefit because rather than drafting him they saw they could buy him when he hit FA.

My understanding is that teams are required to interview 1 minority candidate, that the league will take seriously accusations from credible sources (meaning the NFLPA or the few former A-A HCs, but not necessarily complaints by Rev. Jester Jackson), and that a reasonable "minority" interview is not determined by some quota-esque or yahoo fixation on numbers (really short people make up a minority of the population or 80 year olds make up a minority of the population) but by a minority group really having been discriminated against by the MFL in the past. Under this interpretation, a Norman Chow diversifies the HC pool because he is an Asian-American, but he Asians genereally were not even part of the pool of qualified applicants (nor were women, nor were left handed smoke shifters) but A-A's were as over a majority of the former players are of A-A descent and have been for a while and the good old boy network gave them no fair opportunity to be HCs (or even QBs) until recently. I think the minority interview reqyirement is definitely improving both the diversity and the quality (thanks to the playoff making leadership of Lewis, Smith, Dungy, Edwards and even Art Shelll way back) of the HC hiring pool.

The Bills waited until they were the last to hire an HC among the record (at the time) 5 teams looking to fill an HC opening and they hired loser Gregg Williams. However, it strikes me as a superficial reading of events to judge that due to GW proving to be a not-ready-for-primetime HC we should change course and hire somebody right away this time. One should remember that we also passed on options John Fox and Marvin Lewis when TD was wowed by GW. The problem with he GW HC hire was not that we were not fast enough, but we were doomed because TD was lousy at picking the right HC. Waiting is not a problem IF we choose the right guy. Generally my sense is that really 80% of so of HC candidates are like Belichick and Levy. They win with good teams (NE or the BIlls in these towo cases) and lose (even badly) with bad teams (Cleveland and KC in these two cases). About 20 % of HCs seem to have the abilityt to win anywhere they go or lose anywhere they go. However, the majority by far of this 20% are Rich Kotites who can lose anywhere and there are really only a few Bill Parcells who win wherever they go. RWS seems to like to wait because by being last he gets to take advantage of an employers market and hold down the amount he has to pay. This came back to bite us in the GW case because TD seemed to be primarily motivated by wanting to hire an HC who couldn't fire him like Cowher did. GW might actually have been a very good administrative asst. to TD with his voluminous lists and contacts if TD had simply come out of the closet and just ruyn the damn team from the start. His history here actually included some very good GM player moves like getting Sam Adams for cheap, attracting some good FAs to this small town like TKO and Fletcher, a mixed bag with the draft with good moves like Clements, McGee and McGahee and busts like MW. However, his passive aggressive style of letting GW make his own bed even if he made it badly really killed us. So I for one am less interested in "The Golden Boys" doing iut right rather than having them do it fast. Believe me, I shed few tears over us having missed out on the opportunity to sign Sean Peyton and do not even feel bad about us getting a past losing talent like Jauron as long as like Marv and BB Jauron has learned some good lessons from his past failures.

1. My post on this and most other topics is not about the vanity of alleged credibility. Credibitlity comes not from the virtual world but actually in the real world where since my lovely wife assurees me I have none I really am beyond hope anyway. As nice as the virtual world is and many kudos are deserved by you for the great work you have done leading the way in creating TSW, the opinions here are really worth the photons they are printed onn. 2. Rather than some fruitless search for credibility, my posts really are thinking this stuff through. Any reactions from folks to my admitted tripe are greatly appreciated because I do learn a lot reading this stuff, but simply by massinging it through my fevered mind while I pour out this unproofread stuff teaches and shows me a lot. 3. The thing which prompted this latest tirade was not that things were proved with some dead lock certainty, but as I think of making the conference finals as my arbitrary designation of a successful season, this weekends results are meaningful in the big picture. 4. The detailed argument over this QB nethod actually has little relevane as an arguing point. However, I think its true relevance to a Bills fan (al that really matters here in TSW land IMHO) is not in this arcane argument point but in its relevance to the state of the Bills: Namely: 1. Our horrible results since the SB era has been an over-focus by the Bills braintrust in the QB position to the detriment of a focus on building and producing with the full team. This has played a role in: A. A bad decision not try to find the replacement for Kelly at least a year if not two before his retirement. Unfortunately when it comes to ream-building all players are commodities and the over-ocus and worship of the QB did not allow us to take a more realistic view and actions. B. Rushing TC along which happens but one could feel the panic begin to set-in. C. Spending precious resources on a poor read of Billy Joe Idiot (the panic was in bloom). D. The RJ/DF debacle was the height of poor management and contracting. E.The foolish extension of Bledsoe. F. Rushing JP's development along and I fear sending a signal to the D and the vets that last season was really training and practice for TD in 06 so they mailed it in last year. 2. Occaisionally a situation will arise where some argue vehemently that the right move to make in the draft is go for a Harrington (who as one would expect given the history of non SB wins by 1st rounders has not only failed to be the player we wanted but been a virtual Mike Williams in quality. The results these two have shown indicate why trading down is the best strategy to pursue most years. 3. The Bills do you a 1st rounder on someone like a JP. I hope to all get out that in 06 he becomes the first 1st round QB choice since Aikman (unless RoboQB pulls it off this year) to lead rge team that chose him to an SB win. I doubt it based on past results but a guy can dream can't he. These too me are the important points leading freom this debate, rather than the vurtual trivia of whose wrong and whose wronger. The trivia though is a vauable conduit for considering these points and thats one of the reasons I have tried to express my thanks for the work and insights of folks like BINYC and Exiled on this issue. For other's it is merely a vehicle for toilet humor. That's fine, it says more about the responder and their mindset than it does about the value (if any) of the original post.

So that is where you found your Lotto based investment strategies. That explains it.

While some folks are so focused on mere numbers they would even by a stupid quota system that allowed folks to hire unqualified folks to meet an arbitrary number, the minority interview scheme is actually to remedey the history racial discrimination in the NFL. Qualified Americans were not given a chance to do a good job merely because they were of African-American heritage. Good ol boys like Rich Kotite got a couple of shots at being an HC even though he was not qualified to be successful. Merely geeting a California "whitey" does not address the past un-American (at least our ideals) activities of the NFL. Neither would any quota system. The current interview system does seem to coincide with an uptick (still not matching the pool of potentially qualified applicants which would be strongly influenced by the majority of players being A-A) in diversity of the HCs. Even better, this uptick has coincided with the hiring of a number of A-A HC's like Lovie Smith, Marvin Lewis, the re-hiring of Tony Dungy and Herm Edwards who teams have made the playoffs and proven capable of winning in the NFL.

I certainly do not think it is irrational to get the best players you can at every position (well duhh) and to try most of all to get the best player you can at a position virtually guranteed to hold the ball on every offensive snap and to have to make decisions and make physical plays on every offensive snap (well duhh). This is essentially the point folks are making and I aggree completely that this is true. However, what I do think borders on the irrational (if anything we pyschotics about this game are rational in any way about it) is: 1. To assume that the truth of this point means that simply because good QB play is essential that play at other positions is not. So many things are essential to a winning team and nothing (zero, nada, zilch) is sufficient in an of itself that good to great QB play MUST be considered as to how it fits into the whole before it is judged in and of itself to truly judge its worth to the TEAM. 2. Not to take strongly into account the level playing field that the salary cap enforces on the NFL which has simply heightened the importance of the % a player's cap hit has on the team to the extent it impacts the team's strategy for building a winner. To me, the oddity of no team drafting a QB who has led them to an SB win since 1989 is almost certainly an aberration caused by chance to be the case regarding 17 years of choices. The thing which makes this factoid important though his the fan adoration which unfortunately drives many personnel guys to foolishly try to meet their goal of winning the SB by drafting a marquee QB in the 1st. This method almost worked last year for Philly and also most worked for the Titans in 1999, but the simple fact is that this choice has not worked for a team since Dallas made their 1989 decision work and it took MN giving them the store for Herschel to help make it work. Is this issue relevant for the Bills? You bet. The jury is still out on whether our selection of JP in the 1st was a good strategic move for accomplishing the Bills ultimate goal. However. this choice hive: 1. the constraining cap hit it put on our team when the accelerated bonus of a cut Bledsoe in 05 is factored in, 2. the clear discord that this learning QB's failure to use his WR's properly caused on the team. 3. and my sense (guess) that part of our D ineffectiveness this year may actually stem from the players sensing that TD and the crew were using 05 as a training year for JP rather than going for it in 05. When the D lost that edge it made a huge difference in their performance. If asked to summarize the Bills problems since the last SB and you required me to make it short (which is near impossible for me as most reader know). It would be: Over-focus on the QB position. 1. The downfall began when the Bills braintrust put foolish faith in Kelly lasting forever and not making cheaper investments early to find an adequate repolacement for him. This delay is clearly seen in RWS handshake deal to reward Kelly in his next FA contract as though we woulg have years to work with and we had to cut him instead. 2. We over-reached using a 2nd on TC and then rushed him along when the boy needed time and training if he were ever going to be adequate. 3. We then panicked and traded a 3rd for nothing for Hobert. 4. The void of the 1997 season created further panic and AJ Smith's intelligent assessment of DF being adequately skilled to play in the NFL was great, but the panic caused us to give an unwarranted bonus to RJ. Even worse, much to DF's surprise (again the panic by us) we rolled his achieved bonuses into his salary and when DF played as AJ Smith assessed after RJ proved to be injury prone, we faced an $11 million cap hit at the QB position for 1998 which forced us to extend and prorate DF and ignited a QB controversy which still plagues us. 5. IMHO the TN Homerun Throw-up is directly attributable to even with the long-term prorated DF deal we were forced to cut vets who may well have stayed in their lanes on the horrendous play because of our cap being skewed toward the QB position. Add onto this the bad football karma of the owner forcing the braintrust to play the guy he was paying millions to at QB and the Bills product was simply bad. 6. Add the Bledsoe/JP mess to this and it is this over-focus on QB that cost TD his job and made the mess we are in. That is what is irrational. This is different that the draft a QB in the 1st issue but they are both symptoms of the same disease which has plagued the NFL since the late 80s.

I guess the Lotto is a good financial investment using math the way you suggest. Also, Russian Roulette is a game in your favor since you survive in 5 out of six outcomes. Perhaps a better way to put this is rather than the numbers are the numbers would be to point out the RESULTS are simply the RESULTS. Do you feel that any team's choice to draft a QB on the first since 1990 has been a choice that resulted in getting a QB who led the team to an SB win? Perhaps the best argument that there is any yes answer to this is that when the Pats drafted Bledsoe they got a player who get get his lung collapsed so a 6th roundwe coukd do his part in leading the TEAM.

You would think some idiots believe exactly this they way they over-focus spending team resources in search of the nnext QB phenom when so much of winning this game is about stopping the run and running rather just simply passing effectively. Unfortunately, it has been one of the perpetual failings of the Bills to first believe falsely that Kelly would last forever (leading to the mistake of failing to get a replacement to train for him a year before they drafted Collins, RWS making a handshake seal to reward JK and then cutting him, and then panicing and over-reaching for TC and then rushing him along). When TC was not Kelly immediately they then over-reached for Billy Joe Idiot. The Bills then overpaid to sign RJ and reneged on their deal with Flutie to give him a fair chance on the field. The failure of RJ and the deal which rolled DF's achieved bonuses into his base salary forced us into signing DF to a long-term deal. The deal for Bledsoe proved to be a wash (IMHO after a great 02 and a horrendoius 03) but rather than simply walking away TD stupidly extended him. They then traded up to get JP (maybe not a bad move actually given the horrible QB talent in the 05 draft) but again the QB fixartion led to them rushing him along which seemed to be the beginning of the dissension that ripped this team apart. We will be going in the right direction if we realize this is a good game because its a TEAM game!