Fake-Fat Sunny

First, thanks to Exiled and BINYC for some great research. It's us crazy football addicted folks which is one of the best aspects of TSW in my view. Second, I understand and acknowledge some of the points made here as undercutting the "rule" that drafting a QB in the 1st is not a good strategy. However, I try to incorporate points such as this into my thinking by recognizing that the NFL (and many sports generally) are interesting quite frankly because there are no "rules" that apply in all cases. Just when you think you have seen it all, something new happens that you have never seen before. Sometimes they are "new" rules interpretations or uses by a team (the tuck rule, BB refusing to line-up D guys before the play and stifling Bledsoe), sometimes they are outstanding performances (Vince Young in BCS game was phenomenal), sometimes they are stupid unbelievable errors (I still can't believe ref Phil Luckett miscalled the coin flip). There simply is not only one way to build a team or develop a player. My rants are mostly against those who foolishly claim we MUST draft a Harrington, Manning, or some other QB of the moment in order to win. These fools are simply wrong regardless of whether the QB is as good as Manning or as mediocre as Harrington. However, when one considers some of these points they simply are not reasonable points against my views as they actually apply both ways. For example, just as Manning/Palmer guarantees that a 1st round drafted QB by their original teams gets canceled out, so too does Hasselbeck/Brunell guarantee thhat a transplant QB gets cancelled out. This is a true fact but really not a relevant consideration for this comparison which goes beyond chance. Third, the key thing here is the numbers and the reality. I aggree with BINYC that winning is everything in the NFL, but this view takes you right back to reality and the numbers. Their basic argument here is that you need a great QB to win in this league and the best QB's are drafted by their teams in the 1st round. OK. If this is true then, there should be a virtually repetitive list of teams which won (or even routinely appeared in) the SB and won led by the 1st round QB they drafted. OK, who are these men who led their team's to SB victories who were drafted in the last 5 years? The sound you here is crickets chirping. Okay, perhaps that is simply because it takes a while for QBs to develop so we''ll ignore the abberations of late draft choice Brady winning or UDFA Delhomme appearing and instead ask who are these men who led the team's which drafted them in the 1st in the last 10 years to an SB win? Them darn crickets again. 15 years? Ther world is being taken over by crickets. You gotta go back to Troy Aikman's selection in 1989 to find one. It's not that I do not accept the idea you need a good QB to win in the NFL, its that I will only accept the idea that your team wins it all with a 1st round QB choice when it happens with any frequency at all. There is still a chance that lightening will strike and RoboQB will do it this year, but agaion weighed against 15 years even this event may well be a abberation. The post above which says the numbers are the numbersd is simply not effectively answered by these points. Finally, there is a tendency for folks to want to misinterpret my point as a slam on 1st round choices. It is not. It is simply a slam on making 1st round QB choices yourself. Despite the sense that one cannot find (or you have your best chance at) a winning QB in this league unless you draft a 1st rounder, reality indicates that: 1. First round or highly drafted QBs capable of winning the SB are more often found on the waiver wire or as FAs than if you draft them (Young, Dilfer, Favre, etc.). 2. QBs capable of winning or getting to the SB are found more frequently though other means such as trades, FAs, or even UDFAs than drafting QBs yourself. I'm not making this stuff up (as Dave Barry would say) these are simply the facts.

To me a successful season of NFL play is defined by making the conference championship. It's no where near winning the SB, or even making an appearabce in the final game though a team may lose. However, I think any team that makes it ot the conference championship should be counted at having a successful season (though again ultimate success is when you win it all, though I think it is a bit rediculous to call team which has win a playoff game unsuccessful. At any rate, in this over-QB focused league I have made a point of noting countless times that the true irony of the alleged need to draft a QB in the first, I simply say look at the record. Namely that the last time a team drafted a QB in the 1st round who led that team to an SB victory wwould have been Dallas choosing Aikman in 1989. When the search is rationally expanded to look at those who spent the cap resources to draft a QB in the 1st (they often are drafted too high and they also generally get a premium on their slot). Add to this that I AM NOT saying all first rounders are bad (on the contrary actually) I'm simply sayinf fan expectations are usually so high that when they go through the usual QB growing pains, impatient fans and media often run these players out of town or they have the stupidity of youth and 1st round drafted QBs who actually have been trained by others such as Young, Dilfer or Favre (not a 1st rounder but a second round choice but an example of how good QBs can be acquired in trade so drafting for them is far from a good strategy). At any rate, these are the results of the final 4 QB derby: Seahawks- Hasselback (originally drafted by Packers) Carolina- Delhomme (UDFA signing by NC) Steelers-RoboQB- (!st round pick by Pitts) Denver- Plummer- (orignially picked by AZ) The results were fairly typical of 1st Round drafted QBs for teams as one led the team which chose him to the conference championships (last year was actually a banner year for this method as 2 teams had these high priced guys leading them to the conference championships with McNabb being the first 1st round drafed QB to lead the team which chose him to an SB lose since McNair came close leading TN in 99. However, once again these results show that looking elsewhere for a winning QB to get you to the next to the last game is a better strategy for getting results than drafting one in the first. The real life results become a flat out certainty since Dallas' winning runs as clearly the way to get a QB capable of leading your team to the promised land has proved to be looking late in the draft for a Tom Brady, for two time loser rejects like Brad Johnson or Trent Dilfer or for a Wal-mart box boy who turns out to be Kurt Warner. As rediculous as these QB search strategies were, the only one clearly more rediculous is drafting a QB in the 1st. These are simply the facts. I though this would be the year finally reversing over a decade of results with Polian finally compensating for the drag on the salary cap Peyton Manning brings to the Colts along with his stellar playt. However, even the off-cap investment of one of the best D HCs in the league and good cap work to build the ST necessary to win it all was simply defeated by the dumb luck of reality. Perhaps RoboQB can stay lucky and good and break the streak, but if he does he will be little more than the exception that proves the rule. It does not bode well for the Bills spending heavily on JP, then rushing him to start before he was ready and then fans and media now prematurely wanting to run him out of town. However, I am once again surprised and impressed by how much of a stone cold lock this factoid is turning out to be.

Same deal. 1. What makes you believe that TO will suddenly act logically. Him coming makes sense theoretically, but he has been stupid rather than fiollow good theory before so what's different. An argument about what makes sense just does not fly no matter how much sense it makes. 2. What makes you believe that RW and Marv will decide that TO will now embrace the logical, particularly when if/when he does not they have goneagainst the "character" dictum. Add onto these two factors that now with MM gone, there is no there there for TO to fit into. HC first then we can begin to think about TO but not TO first and then choose an HC.

After RWS is probably feeling he had major contractual run ins with 2 of his last 3 HC's (when one's relationship with GW is your big success you definitiely have problems) it would seem doubtful that he will want to go market rate in terms of amount of scratch or even length of contract on the next guy. It is not the usual employer's market so we will have to see.

The Bills are really in a queer position as RWS and the hiring of Marv as GM has effectively poisoned the waters for most HCs who are in a position of power with several potential jobs to vie for. There are generally so few HC jobs it generally is a employers market with teams picking and choosing, but given the win now approach that has made for so many opens and set a tone where there likely will be a number of openings each year it is an employees market for the few guys who are serious HC material. The Bills in firing a well connected good ol football guy and hiring an inexperience "golden boy" has clearly made this job among the least desirable of the openings. What's a team to do in the search for a guy capable of HCing a winner in this league? Interestingly, the history of discrimination against African-Americans becoming HCs in this league may work to the Bills advantage if they are smart, Very talented men like Tony Dungy and Marvin Lewis were forced by the system and the good ol boy network to wait far longer than they deserved to finally get a shot at HC and their teams have prospered under their guidance. A-As such as Lovie Smith came into the job and have had immediate success. Herm Edwards led the Jets to the playoffs quickly under his guidance though the team has fallen on hard times recently, but this has not seemed to diminish Edwards stock as KC was wlling to part with a draft choice to get him. The question remains as to whether there is still pent up unused HC talent out there which has not been given a shot due to past discrimaination and since many of these men are probably still salivating for an HC berth the Bills can have them. Art Shell is an interesting example as he ginned up a very good winning record as an HC in Oakland and led this marginal team at best (they have sucked under numerous HCs since Shell outside of Gruden) but yet he has never gotten a second bite at the apple despite the NFL having a history of rehiring idiots like Rych Kotite. Many folks B word about Shell as a players coach (this is true the only problem with this critique is that he just won baby. To merely site dismay at him without noting his record reduces these observations to whines). The hiring of the new HC will be interesting. My guess is that it is Haslett, a well qualified minority or someone the cat dragged in. We'll see.

I think the answer to this question in almost all cases is No. These are simply more than full time jobs in and of themselves, In theory one guy MIGHT be able to handle both jobs if he has both the GM and HC title but he has a lietenant who is really the GM. The looie becomes the go-to guy on all negotiations and business decisions impacting the team, but this person spends the 16+ hours a day of HC work and then with his "spare" time oversees all the looie's decicions. Even then he almost certainly does a bad job as multiple talented guys have failed trying to do both jobs, For those who see the ongoing rumous of MM quitting and Marv getting the HC job he really wants recognize that it is already doubtful that an 80 yeard old can or will even want to take on the HC job. The idea that the end product is going to be him taking on both the GM and HC jobs is just insane.

I think those are certainly two options that would work but the implications of those two options are the things which make them very unlikely to happen because they would not accomplish the main goals for making a move for one party or the other. As you observe under option 1 (renegtiating for all intents and purposes) when the Bills cut him all his bonus accelerates to this year's cap and we take the same cap hit as letting him go. In theory under this formulation we can keep him as a prospect for negotiating some reasonable pay out for us, but we do run the risk of one of the other teams coming in with either better incentives or a flat out bonus for this 26 year old tackle. Who knows, but we take a definite hit and we are not in control of the next step. Under item 2 we retain control and do not take as big a cap hit but this "restructuring" ends up meaning that MW really is willing to give up making big bucks from his next contract (by extrending at NFL minimum salaries for some huge number of out years so that all of his bonus gets prorated). In essence, it would extend the term of his initial contract from 6 years to 9 or more for no more money beyond the NFL vet minimum. It simply does not seem to make a lot of sense, particularly when at 26 MW will almost certainly have some market value to some team somewhere.

Not so fast. TD actually has tended to be not as forthcoming as many fans wanted about the internal debates. However, when GW was not rehired and MM hired TD actually commented in resonse to a press question about Clements that the Bills had just gotten the OC he had always advocated the Bills hire. This was not disputed publicly by GW or Killdrive (though as both were canned they were not asked and would have needed to go out of their way to call TD on this contention) but also I have not even seen this disputed off the record or behind he scenes in comments to a writer. I had also assumed when Sheppard was canned and Killdrive hired that this was a TD inspired move because Killdrive had once worked for him. However, it now appears in light of the various comments that the actual heavy-lifting done by TD here was to get Sheppard canned while he had a year left on his contract. Given having forced (or at least overseen as GM) GW canning his guy as OC, Killdrive was actually GW's choice over TD's choice Clements. These events which have occured since are consistent with this explanation. 1. Both GW and Killdrive were canned after the 2003 season while oher GW holdovers like Jerry Gray were retained. Clearly GW and Killdrive (and GW buddy Vinky and Ruel) ended up all sharing some blame for the debacle. 2, Killdrive clearly lost control of the O in 2003 and really GW as the HC needed to do what Fassel did that same season when Sean Payton lost control of the Giants D and take playcalling away from him. GW did not do this and theoretically it could be claimed that it was because TD was protecting Killdrive. However, given that TD had already brought in a former OC who worked for him as RB coach (I forget the name but press reports when he was hired described him as being like Asst. Coach LeBeau as being a guy TD had hired dues to GW's failure to produce) the signs again point to Killdrive being a GW idea. 3. Finally, there are press reports that Clements is being scapegoated (perhaps unfairly) as a cause of our offensive woes. TD gone and Clements gone but MM staying seems to indicate that the first two are linked together which makes sense of the thought that rather than Killdrive being a TD idea that Clements was TD's idea who only became OC after GW was gone. It was the case that there was clearly some disconnect between MM and Clements as MM took the playcalling away from Clements in mid-season. I think the objective facts tend to indicate that a read on this that Killdrive was enforced upon GW is likely an incorrect read. it is all tea leaves so who knows for sure. but the objective evidence links GW/Killdrive and TD/Clements.

I have seen no signs that the folks making decisions about McGahee share your opinion that he is a low character guy (there seems to be a disconnect between you saying you LOVE him and then citing his claim to be the best RB in the NFL, his call for more carries and his employment of Rosenahaus). The outside objective signs I have seen from the Bills is that they invested in WM's character when they drafted him. The doc's said his injuries were of a type that he "could" make a comeback if he worked. The Bills made a bet on his character that he "would" do the work and make a comeback. Like his taking off (if that is what he did given that our OL was poor and injury issues are uncertain) or not in the second half of this season, the objective reality is that he did comeback from his injury to the tune of gaining 2000 yards rushing quicker than any Bill RB in history, be it Thurman or OJ. Do you really believe that these objective facts are going to be thrown aside because of something WM said? I do not think so. In addition, let's look at the "problems" you site. 1. He said he is the best RB in the NFL. This is a problem? The problem was not that he said this, the problem was that he did not gain 800 yards after he said it. I want my RBs to feel like they are the best in the league no ifs, ands, or buts about it. However, if they say it. , i want them to produce on the field. I do not think it shows any lack of character to make this brag (which actually was not even an unreasonable brag given his first 8 game production) I think it shows unreasonable production not to gain yards after making this brag. However, he has shown the character in coming back from his injury and in his UM workouts in the off-season where his production can improve. 2. He demanded more carries. This is a problem? I want my players to have a just give me the damn ball attitude. 3. He has Drew R as an agent? So what. Rosenidiot gets his money in the free market because he produces the contracts for players. I think he represents idiots like TO and clearly plays fast and loose in episodes like him flip-flopping with TO and the fake phonecall during the draft for WM. However, as far as the particulars of WM, he pledged to make him a first round draft pick and that got done. He put on a show during the draft of WM being fit after his injury and the Bills docs confirmed the clean tears could be repaired and he worked out like an animal to become the fastest Bill RB to 2000 yards in our history. Perhaps you have slept with WM and know him better than any of us posters and can make real judgments about his character. However, i see few objective signs that the Bills braintrust or most people share your concerns. In addition to that, I see NO (zero, nada, zilch) objective signs that any dislike for his brags he did not back up on the field somehow outweigh the reality that he did a bunch of work to comeback from a hideous knee injury.

My sense is that by rule under the CBA that this is the only way that MW could renegotiate his deal to reduce his cap hit as players are simply restricted by the CBA from aggreeing to a reduction in salary below some small %. I think he has to go because there is no way to reduce his salary to a cap hit for the Bills which matches his output on the field without extending his contract for far llonger than the Bills would be interested in having him.

Yeah, but flat out- Why do you believe that TO will be logical when he has shown no signs of logic in his exit from Philly? Even if one can make an objective case based on objective measures beyond it being the reasonable theory for his behavior, why should Marv and the Bills believe in him? Failing a case based in some objective measures in addition to the theory that it would be the intelligent thing for TD to do it is virtually impossible to see this happening.

While you cannot absolve TD for blame for what to me was the biggest (and unfortunately one of his first decisions) blunders of his 5 year reign of error, I think that one sghould not let this dumb decision cause folks to conveniently forget some fairly brilliant moves he made (the PP trade, having the stones to pick WM, good cap management). My sense is that he was running scared and really committed to himself (either conciously or unconsiously) that he would never get fired by an HC he hired as was done when Cowher ran him out of Pitts). He passed over Fox who has been brilliant whom he could have had and failed to beg Lewis into being interested. Both would have been far better choices than GW based on the recprds these three men achieved as HCs.

I think Young can throw and play effective QB (with a ton of training and time as all QBs- even Peyton Manning who elevated the Colts from 3-13 to 3-13 after playing his rookie season) in the NFL. However, even with this belief the key thing for me as a Bills fan is that there is NO WAY he should do this for the Bills (or should Matt Leinart either). The costs of trading up to pick 1-3 from #8 to get one of these guys is huge and would be an immediate setback for 2006 (and probably 2007). Add to that the 2 years it will take for him to become a winner if he is on the Eli Manning track (probably longer as we would not have the Edge/Harrison "types" at other key positions besides RB/WR we need after we trade resources to move up) and getting young or Leinart would condemn this team to several years of losing.

I aggree totally with jdunc that embracing this type of move would be the totally logical thing for TO to do. However, the a question which Jdunc fails to address is WHEN HAS T.O. DONE THE LOGICAL THING FOR HIMSELF (much less the team) since he jumped ship and forced his move to Philly. The arguments he lays out about why this move makes football sense are totally legit. The question is whether one as a person has faith in TO that he now will fly right. Even then it raises another question which must be answered before any deal happens as to whether Marv and the "new" Billls are willing to invest in a belief in the "new" TO and invest in him despite the fact his past acts run totally counter to Marv's initial words that his Bills are going to be all about character. I believe in Jdunc's football analysis, but I have no faith that TO will act logically and no belief at all that the Bills and Marv will believe in a "new" TO.

Unfortunately, when one compares the main contention of this post to reality the two are different. The average starter does not make the Pro Bowl so I think off the top McGee and Clements have exceeded your claim that none of the starters are above average. Perhaps you want to split the hair and point out that McGee got there for his KR work and not for being a starter at CB and claim Clements made it last year due to his PR work. This technical consideration would reduce your claim to being one about these players merely at one position and not about them as football players for the Bills team. Perhaps, you want to not "count" Clements making the Pro Bowl last year by claiming the first four years were fake Clements and last year was the real Clements and will descibe his play forever. Yeah right. McGahee is another indictment on your part which simply does not match the facts. It's hard to see how you figure that an RB who reaches 2000 yards gained running is an average or below average RB since he did this faster than Thurman, OJ or any other Bill. This claim would not seem to come from McGahee finishing well above average in yardage gained rushing by an RB this year. Folks should certainly be disappointed that he seemed to give up in the second half of the season after he put up blistering numbers in the first half, but the OL issues rather than just assessment of him as an individual or injury issues (if any) rather than a broad-based assessmwnt of his talent or future actions would seem warranted. I agree that Crowell has not proven to be above average as a starter yet. However, who cares as this youngster is not a starter (yet). He clearly has proven that he is better than exactly what he was drafted to be which is a 3rd round LB who can be a leader on a good ST unit and a very credible back-up if worse comes to worse. It did as Spikes got hurt, but I think Crowell clearly merited the long-yerm deal he got and the big question is that will Spikes come back and then will Crowell be a competent (and it is to be hoped better than the average player but if Spikes and Fletcher play like they did he does not have to be great to make this one of the best LB corps in the NFL) replacement for Posey, Schobel finished well in the top 10 for sack numbers and the thing most impressive about this accomplishment was that in the LeBeau zone-blitz he was actually in short zone pass coverage a lot and still finished in double digit for sack numbers. I think his play at DE is quite easily above average. Not only will Schobel surpass the career span of the average NFL player by the end of this contract he will easily exceed the average career span with the same team, Perhaps the most defensible case you have among the players you identify as not being better than average as a starter is Evans. However, who cares as he enters his third year. His production in his first two years so exceeds that of consistent Pro Bowler and team leaders Eric Moulds it isn't even close. You conclusions simply make no sense.

He was not nearly as good in 05 as in 04, but McGee is still learning and his primary contribution to the team is as a KR guy so sure he may be a bum but there is certainly a credible case that even this bum is the best CB on this team. I hope and assume that McGee will surpass him as our #1 CB, but particularly since McGee is now locked up with a contract paying Clements 5 mill. is an easy and necessary thing to do since a good D really needs 2 shut down CBs in this pass happy league. Sure you may feel bad about Clements, but is your answer if you let this "bum" go to depend on Jabari Greer guarding the other team's #2 (who for many opponents is there equivalent of Lee Evans). Tag him and he likely signs long term to get a $12 million bonus (upfront to him but prorated over the length of the contract in terms of our cap hit) instead of the $5 million tag payment.

The problem is that the "recent" record of picking a QB in the 1st who leads your team to an SB win dates back to a choice Dallas made in 1989 to pick Aikman. I'm not making this stuff up these are just the facts. I think there is a creidble case to be made that part of this unblemished record of 1st round QB draft picks is chance in that McNair came with a couple of yards of playing for an SB winner, but even this anamoly if one chooses to give him credit for a win that was not merely seems to be an exception that proves the rule that dratting a QB in the 1st will not win you an SB (or rarely even get you there since McNabb is the only 1st round selected QB to even put his chance in a position to lose the SB since McNair in the 99 season). Part of this is that it makes sense to take the "field" of all other methods versus the one method of drafting and developing a QB in the first. Yet, even in this case, if you compare methods one-on-one you still have SBs since Dallas chose Aikman in the 1st one multiple times with other methods of acqusition (draft your QB of the future late in the draft where his cap hit is low. pick up another team's reject 1st rounder, sign a UDFA QB, and even Elway forcing Indy to trade him) while the record SB wins of QBs selected in the 1st since Aikman is simply one of zero (0, zilch, nada, less than 1) wins, I'd love to see Manning make it this year thanks to Polian doing a fanartastic job of cap management and team building and their off-cap investment in Dungy. Unfortunately if he breaks the 1st round QB curse he will merely become the (finally) the exception that proves the rule.

I decided to look at the stats rather than simply go on opinion, as my feelings after watching the 2005 defensive debacle is that I wanted to cut the whole D. I breathed deeply, counted to 10 and then let my football head prevail. Looking at the stats: 1. Surprisingly to me both started 16 games this year which I would not have expected when the season started given that both these "old men" are on the backsides of their careers. 2. Vincent struck me as a ballhawk but it is notable that he tied McGee for the team lead INTs with 4 and he also recovered 2 fumbles. 3. Milloy was credited with over 100 tackles and finished 3rd on the team behind Fletcher and Crowell and Vincent was down on the list with between 60 and 70. I think these totals speak to house they were used with Milloy providing run support but only regstering 1 sack. TV played more of a centerfielder role for the Bills who traditionally have used the safeties a bit more interchangeably than the norm. All in all, i think that Vincent actually showed more production statistically than Milloy. In addition, given that there is a smaller cap hit for Vincent and in a pinch he can be used at either safety and CB, I'd actually keep TV over Milloy if it came down to a choice. The big thing I am holding equal here is how much the HC and position coaches judge they have left which someone who sees them up close and in the trainer's room knows a lot better than us outsiders. If I judge the chances of them gatting injured to be about equal in terms of contribution and a lower cap hit, i clearly keep TV.

Look, Indy and Manning are threatening to win the SB this year, but the key here is that if he does this small task then he will be the first QB drafted in the 1st round to lead the team that drafted him to an SB victory since Dallas drafted Aikman in 1989. One of the keys to the 'Boys doing this with the good side of Aikman;s stellar play and the downside of the tremendous resource draw he put on the 'Boys was that MN cleverly gave the 'Boys the depth they needed to win it all by trading away huge resources to the 'Boys in exchange for Herschel Walker. The penalty which a top flight QB drafted in the first round places on a team has only gotten more important with the salary cap being in place and putting teams on a more level playing field. Indy MAY (I do mean MAY) beat these odds as: 1. Polian has done such a great job assessing players and negotiaing contracts so they have some depth. 2. Unlike his near-peer at the time Ryan Leaf, Manning has developed into one the best QBs ever. 3. Vanderjagt has been drop dead accurate and teamed with the Polian depth to make ST special. 3. Indy made a great off-cap pick-up of investing in Tony Dungy,, one of the best D minded HCs in the league to supplement their underinvestment in the D because the O needed Harrison and the Edge to allow Manning to be as effective as he is. Despite all, this we are looking at a team that has never even made the SB and have little more than a reasonable chance of winning it all this year. Advocates of trading up for young expect somehow to replicate these events for am SB run by us and actually do this not with the advantage of MN trading us a bunch of resources, but instead build a winning team after trading away a bunch of resources to get Young. No. Graft a QB for show, but get a great OL for dough. Trading up for Young is simply bad strategy even if he produces as a player. It ain't about his throwing mechanics it is all about the salary cap mechanics.

A trade of even half the players cited here for Manning would gurantee we would appear in as naby SBs as Indy has during Manning's career. Indy may (finally) make it to the big show this year and if they do (a big IF) it can be attributed as much to Indy having the Edge and Harrison to work with Manning's extraordinary talents to make the O work. Polian doing a great assessment and contract negotiation job to put together an ST unit to work with that idiot Vanderjagt who has been money in the bank on kicks for a few years. The team getting the best D HC in the league in Dungy to combine with a great draft choice in Freeney to finally get an adequate D performance from this crew. I attribute a lot of the Bill's problems under TD to their history which began under Butler trying to make up for his and Ralph's miscalculation of how much Jimbo had left of over-focusing on QB to the detriment of the team. From over-reaching in the draft and rushing TC along, to making a huge cap investment at QB by giving a big bonus to RJ, to miscalculating by extending (and thne cutting when they realized how foolish the extension was) Bledsoe and rushing JP along, the Bills bad results and fate over the last decade has been much about an over-focus on QB.

As far as our AFC East opponents, the good news for the Bills is that none of these teams (even NE) are unbeatable. One need only consider that Miami was only able to beat the Bills in Miami late last season because the Bills melted down and gave the game away to them in the last quarter after Miami melted down in the 1st quarter and the Bills simply failed to stick a fork in them in the 2nd and 3rd quarters as both teams looked like high school units. The Bills will likely lose to Miami on the road next year, but even this road game should be considered winnable and we should be favored to beat them at home next year. Likewise NE in 05 was really two different teams this year and when we get them at home at this too early point the game is not lock for us (and actually we probably should not even be favored at home against NE at this point, but the game is easily winnable. No one really knows at this point which teams will turn out to be good or bad next year. However, I think it is pretty reasonable to judge next year's schedule of whether it broke the right way for you in terms of whether you got the beatable good opponents at hom and the difficult to beat in any case opponents on the road. We likely will not and should not be favored against Indy even playing them at home and with one hand tied behind their back. I think a good thing about the schedule is that we are not wasting a home game for us on Indy who we likely will lose to anywhere. In addition, to none of our opponents at home are so good that they should be considered difficult to beat, some of our opponents on the road where we have a natural disadvantage are so bad that we may be able to beat them on the road or might even be favored if Detroit and Houston remain worse than even our bad team.. I think the schedule presented (which I assume must include some pre-season activity as there are too many games listed for a 16 game season) breaks well for us as all the home games are winnable and most of the road games are winnable (though may are unlikely) at this too early point as well.

My guess is also that he gets picked up by another team and that there is a 2 out of 3 chance he does well for the new team. ! chance sees him cave in and not produce because he in fact does lack drive and having signed a #4 slot contract, even with only reasonable financial management he is set for life. If he truly has no personal drive and without a strong fiscal prod he merely signs a make-great contract with a new team and does not even make good. The 2nd chance is the reverse of the first scenario that he signs a make-great contract with a new team and in a new environment with better teaching than he received from Vinky and Ruel and better support from his colleagues who demand/teach him things rather than expecting him to teach Pacillo, he actually performs up to his capabilities. The third chance is that Bills' fans have been too harsh on him and because they really do not know the guy, he actually has more heart than folks give him credit for (and this is a real possibility as: 1. He did show the level of heart necessary to commit to being a great athlere in college. The level of commitment he showed to earn a 4th slot should not be discouted as easily as folks do and his major character outages stemmed from the death of the Grandmother who raised him as a Mom and while his meltdown is not condonable (he had pledges to his teammates and the region and the big contract to be an adult about this tragedy) it is understandable. 2. He did show some good character and commitment when he rebounded from his pre-season meltdown last year to improve as a player and earna gameball last year. In addition, he did work out last off-season and came into this camp in the best shape of his career according to many observers. I think the Bills almost certainly must cut MW this off-season because he simply has not performed at a level even near his huge #4 contract and it calls for him to make too much $ for his level of play i we keep him. I think he and the Bills have so bollixed his development (he bears a lot of the personal responsibility but also Vinky, Ruel and GW let him down as well). Yet, America is a land of second chances and my guess is that he almost certainly will sign a big contract as a reasonable prospect with a new team and I see roughly a 2 out of 3 chance that he will perform well for his new team and be seen ultimately as a success story unless he really does lack heart or gets unlucky with injuries.

I also am not sure what point bills fan is trying to support because in addition to his obvious miss of the signing of pro player Fletcher, he also does not mention Sam Adans who though there was a strong contingent labeling him a fat tub of goo (these fools ignored the fact that even if this turned out to be true a tub of goo was an upgrade for us at DT over Edwards at that point). He was honored with a deserved Pro Bowl nod last year so this is definitely a not obvious to all win by the pro scouting department. When one adds in the not insubstantial # of FAs who have been good pick-ups like Spikes whom he labels as obvious and then decides to deny the pro scouting department any credit for doing the correct thing (obvious or not), tge folks he forgets like Fletcher and Adams who worked out, a few guys like Lawrence Smith who were not starter quality but paid at reserve levels and thank gosh we had them after Pacillo and Sullivan imploded, and also do the other job of the pro personnel people which is to judge whether their are replacements available and if not encorages the front office to lock up a Schobel. McGee and Crowell, the pro scouting department does not look like one of our many big problems on this team. It would be nice if a look at the facts supported the opinion laid out.

I think the situation involving the cut of Ruben and an evaluation of his play here are being morphed a bit to fit Bills fans pre-existing concepts of they like and do not like. Brown had some real problems with his play: 1. He definitely was in the backside of his career in his last years here and he became more subject to injuries which prevented him from starting all 16 games and nicks which reduced his effectiveness when he played. 2. His record of 7 or 8 straight Pro Bowl nods was confusing to say the least as he would get this honor every year whether he played well (he did have a couple good years where even with his propensity to pick up some dumb offside calls he was probably the best G in the league. but overall he was not great year in and year out and seemed to get the honor on rep as much as anything else. 3. The big problem with his play was a lack of discipline which killed a few drives or eradicated big gains with some ill-timed (as if there is ever a good time) penalties. However, presenting this as a summary of Brown's work for the Bills is simply incorrect as there were actually some great work from him than overall in my balance outweighed the bad items I subscribe to above. Specifically, 1. All of us fans have our own fact-free opinions about whether he is a good run blocker or not. but the objective measurable fact beyond our mere opinions is that the running attack was quite effective for many years with Ruben blocking for Thurman and with Ruben as the leader of the OL blocking for Henry. Folks can certainly have their opinion that Ruben was a lousy run blocker if they want, but if they hold this opinkin they really should explain why several Bills backs (TT in his final years was still a feared runner, A Smith in his best years as a Bill and Henry in his initial years all cracked 1000 yds) racked up a bunch of running yards with Ruben as a mainstay. 2, In 2002 at the end of Bills career, the Bills O was effective with Ruben as a mainstay not only in terms of running yds by TH, but Moulds getting 100 catches and PP hitting 94. There were a ton of sacks of the far less than mobile Bledsoe, but between the WR's output and lots of catches by Henry, Reed and Centers, Brown played his role in an O that carried that year's D. 3. Perhaps RB's best work in 2003 was that he was the only Bill on the OL (with Jennings, Teague, Sullivan and MW who had started at his position in pro ball before. This crew had a lot of real issues (Jennings being injury prone, Teague being unable to multi-task in his first year at C and sometimes getting bullrushed, MW was a rookie and Sullivan was well Sullivan). Clearly Ruben was the best player, only vet at his position, and the leader of an O which led the Bills from 3-13 the year before to 8-8. It made sense for the Bills to part with Ruben when they did, but not because he was not one of the better OL players on the team, but because contractually it was the same cost on the cap to keep him and pay him his entitled salary or let him go and take the accelerated bonus cap hit. The reason why this wash ended up with him being cut was because RB publicly and vocally challenged the poor offesive management of the team by Kevin Killdrive. He was flat out correct (as shown by Killdrive getting the door with a year left on his contract) but having opposed his boss and defended his teammates who were being blamed by the coaches for poor play, he signed his death warrant. This was regretable but umderstandable in terms of on field play. However, it was also a loss to the community as Ruben was not only a popular media figure (he did the Off-Guard bits for Channel 2 each Sunday and sometimes would give some useful player insights) but also played a great role as a fundraiser and volunteer for local groups such as the UNY Organ Transplant Services and his annual motorcycle rally which raised bucks for charity. It was time for RB to go as a Bill because he was on the backside of his career and because he killed his boss. However, posters should simply not be believed if they want to claim he was at worst a mixed bag who had real shortcomings, but on balance the good parts of his game and the leadership as the only vet on a young unit which did produced on the field were good/ This is simply the reality refelected in the O racking up yards throughout his career and really improving in drastically improving Ws (from 3-8 in 2002) with him as the acknowledged leader of the OL in 2002.

The problem personnel wise is not only the need for depth at LB (a maybe for us though folks will whine a lot as this probably means keeping Posey) but the primary issue is the absence of a reliable run stuffer like Big Ted and a good back-up who can come in when you run the 4-3 package as the young Phat Pat did for Big Ted. We are already short at DT and Sam Adams may be gone after this year. Even if Sam stays (he deserved the Pro Bowl honor he got just last year) his style is not to be the stay at home run stuffer you need in a 3-4 but instead to use his incredibly quick first step to penetrate the backfield. LB is a an "issue" if we switch to a 4-3, but DT is a "problem" due to the personnel we have.