Fake-Fat Sunny

I think it is quite silly of fans to bemoan Clements geeting a nameplate which says playmaker on some McMansion he owns and putting it up before the debacle with Smith. 1, One of the key problems cited on this board and that the Bills have had is a bend but don't break approach to playing D. This approach (which they have used well since the days of Cottrell) has been generally well-played by the Bills, but in terms of an approach though it is good (and sometimes very good as seen in their #2 statiscal ranking last year) this approach does not seem to put the team over the top. It is the lack of turnovers and the lack of players deemed playmakers which is a reflection of this shortcoming on greatness. 2. Clements is seen and has taken on the role of contributing to the team not simply through good play at CB (which he has provided but like all CBs he will get torched from time to time) but he is also taking on the extra responsibility for a starter of returning punts specifically because the braintrust sees him as a playmeker and someone who can break one for a TD or a long gain. We saw this weekend, how an extra 7 points in a game would be huge. 3. Clements has earned the right (compared to the other Bills) of presenting himself as a playmaker. For example, when we lost to Miami in the critical 3rd game last year after an impressive 2-0 start, it was a complete power-outage by the O that was the beginning of this precipitous slide. It was Clements who made an INT returned for a TD that even remotely gave us a chance in this game. He also ripped Manning off for a TD return earlier in his career. The Bills have been totally insufficient at getting turnovers and making plays even amidst a good overall D performance. At least in addition to or actually rather than giving Clements grief for failing to cover Smith's Hail Mary play (a turning point in Sunday's game but smaller than other mistakes which made a difference in my mind) it seems like a more rational approach for a Bills fan to focus on some of the real problems which keep us from victory. I'm a big believer in the "act like you have been there before" school of players holding down the off field demonstrations, pretend cellphone calls, Sharpie incidents and other silliness. However, if a player perceives he gets hyped by putting up a playmake nameplate and most of all he produces on the field which Clements has from time to time, I have no problem with this. Its a far bigger real deal that Reese's INT was the forst by a Bills safety in 40+ games that this tempest in a teapot about Clements.

. If not, quit living in denial/the past and MOVE FORWARD ! It will not be a complete rebuild job. 31287[/snapback] I for one choose not to live in the past, but I also choose not to live in the future as the present still has alot to offer. Buffalo will almost certainly not replicate NE's SB championship after starting 0-1 last year with a 31-0 shellacking, however, there is still vast improvement over last year's 6-10 record which can be accomplished. I don't think you or other fans should give up on the present just yet.

I tuned into TSW tonight pretty set on the concept of the Bills looking to replace Lindell, however two things gave me some pause. First, Jerry Suliivan led his column today with a rant against Lindell, Normally, when folks who are paid to keep track of this stuff have an opinion I don't accept it outright, but I do take it seriously unless the writer is so wrong so often or takes positions because he seems to be a legend in his own mind rather than based on reporting on the game I consider carefully journalistic views. Sullivan however is such a bad columnist generally that he has the opposite of the desired effect of most columnists. From his weird self-focused golfing sojourn to several simply wrong-headed articles where his primary goal seems to be create controversy where none exists, an opinion from Sullivan creates a good basis for the opposite view actually being true. Second, was a post by Simon which came to Lindell's defense. Though Simon like all of us can be wrong about some things (his belief in whathisname being starting safety material for the Bills replacing the cut cut Henry Jones was consistent, generally well-argued but really was wrong), his opinions are usually pretty good and really need to be taken seriously. Driven by Simon's endorsement and Sullivan;s condemnation I tried to take a second look at the Lindell situation and reached the following conclusion: 1. There are some good things about his game which are not readily apparent on TV which is where I watched Sunday's game on tape after a trip to see my family participate in a church service on Sunday. The height of his kicks are not visible on TV. Folks like Simon who watched him say quite forcefully that he is striking the ball better this year and getting more height on his kicks. A review of where the kicks landed and the results of the returns indicate this is true. The Bills got effective coverage of his kicks (except when Jax cheated and got a penalty) and this is a good indicator of height and good directional kicking. 2. I think Lindell actually suffered in comparison to the Jax strong legged Scobee who routinely kicked it into the endzone (unlike most NFL kickers) and probably all his kicks would have been touchbacks except McHee stupidly stutter stepped and tried to return a couple). Scobee is really a Jankowski like talent and should not define normal expectations for kickoffs. 3. Upon further consideration, the failure to go for the FG at the end of the game may well be more of an edorsement for the strength of the D and expression of faith in Moorman's skills (endorsements which unfortunately turned out to be misplaced in goth cases) rather than a lack of faith in Lindell. This cuts a lot of ways so who knows. Perhaps a true expression of overwhelming faith in your D is to go for the FG because you think so much of them you can risk giving Jax a drive-start from where the FG is missed from because you have so much faith in your D to stop them. It cuts a lot of ways so really no conclusion can be drawn here by us fans what was on MMs mind. All in all I think that views that he is goner should be moderated, however, i think the situation does merit the Bills looking about at kickers while outwardly maintaining the endorsement of Lindell that the fragile kicker's psyche seems to need. Despite deeper thinking leading to contiuing an edorsment of Lindell, the facts remain: 1. Lindell by his own admission last year simply sucked. Judgments like he is striking the ball better are enough to give him tons of room if he was coming off a record of success, but given his failures last year he is deservedly on a short leash and can really only maintain his position by producing. 2. Simon makes a point of saying that MM and April are professional football judgment and endorsements should be trusted. Yes, true. However, Lindell is a product from the last year of GW and his contract made him a fait accompl for MM and April. They may well have not kicked the FG because of faith in the D and Moorman, but there has not really been any endorsement of Lindell by MM and April yet. 3. I made a point of calling for looking for alternatives but have not yet taken the stance of some on this board or idiots like Sullivan and called for him to be cut. If you call for him to be cut then one must also name a replacement for him to be credible at all. Most don't even bother with this rationality and even those who do have yet to make a compelling case for their replacement being much better and more just change for change sake. A lot of this I really blame on TD for being so cavalier in his comments after he cut Christie that a replacement kicker is easily found in the NFL. This is not true and if it were then fine TD, replace Lindell then. The bottom-line is that I think Lindell gets another shot and probably two at trying to redeem himself.

I think that Losman is impressive for a rookie, but read my lips here: JP LOSMAN IS A ROOKIE. I can easily wait until he gets back on the active roster because the result would almost certainly be the same whether he was active or not, JPL contributes nothing to this team whether he is playing or not because this team is not going to win much with a rookie as QB and particularly this rookie as QB. Among the things which it appears Losman will need to learn before he can contribute to the Bills are: 1. The ability to read pro defenses and learn pro defensive tricks- This effort mostly takes time and practice seeing different pro defenses. The good news is that he can get this from the booth as with a set of advantages and disadvantages compared to seeing them under center. It appears to me that actually the advantages of seeing Ds with Sam Wyche sitting next to him and schooling him on what he sees actually far outweighs the disadvantages of the working look he would get seeing these Ds under center. I think JP will likely be a better QB because he gets to focus on learning the game due to his injury without the distraction of being prepared each week just in case he gets called upon. 2. Better throwing mechanics- From what i hear from those who have reviewed a lot of Losman college films is that one can see the fact that he often threw on the run behind a porous Tulane O-line. The good thing he took from this is that JP learned to throw completions when he was off balanced and learned how to take a hit. The bad thong he took from this is that he sometimes throws off-balance and doesn't take the time to set himself to throw for maximum distance with maximum accuracy. Alot of this will only be finalized by JP on the field, but he needs to understand fully what he needs to do, believe in it and visualize it. He can start this process now and get it down. 3. Understand his teammates tendencies- JP will need to develop a chemistry with Evans and the other Bills that will only come with playing with them, but for now he needs to watch his teammates and learn how they react to pressure and situations and al,ost be able to predict what they will do as they do it. he can also do this now. Quite frankly, he would do very little beyond watching, learning and thinking about it anyway as most of the field time would go to Drew and to our #2 since if Brown had not been hurt he almost certainly would have been our disaster QB and even with Brown hurt, there is an even money chance that the impressive vet performance from Matthews would have made him #3 on the depth chart. The losman injury isthe least of my concerns about the Bills because even with his great showing he (like carson Palmer, Vick, Pennington and even Tom Brady) is going to contribute to the team which drafted him in his second season at best.

From what I saw, the good thing which Jax did with their D was that they also mixed up their coverages and how they played them. Good Ds do this and holding the Bills O to 10 points provides a pretty strong indication that their D played a good game. Examples of where the Jax D creeped up were on plays like our fumbled backward pass where Boldin read the play and jumped on Moulds reception not only behind the line but behind Bledsoe. Also several of ou intial incompletions saw good coverage only a few yards downfield which is not the sign of a backtracking or deep cover. Jax did mix it up and sometimes Bledsoe read it well and actually caught them hanging back or in a blown coverage like Moulds TD. However, the overall summary of whether Jax was in two-deep all the time or crept up from time to time in a productive way was that we were only able to get 10 points off of them. I think they could be exploited and we saw this because between the 20s we got some good gains, but they also proved to be big hitters and managed to get a big turnover off of Moulds in the redzone and Lindell failed on a 42 yarder. All in all I think it goes too far to describe them as always sitting back. Ultimately, the Bills failed to be aggressive enough to put more points on the board. In the future they will need to improve further in their run attack so they not only get tough yards as they did, but produce a higher yards per carry from the run so that teams are forced to creep up even more so we can exploit them with the long pass.

Being down on an individual and his performance is really different than being down on the team. I think one of the failings of US culture is that people can not seem to hold contradictory ideas in their head at the same time and in fact cannot even seem to attribute assessment of a part as somehow also being an assessment of the whole. The whole and a part of the whole are different things. One can find fault with Lindell's performance and advocate looking elsewhere without being down on the Bills as a team. In fact, support for the Bills and wanting to improve the team does mandate in my mind making a pretty focused assessment of Lindell's work and upon looking at it being pretty harsh and advocating the Bills look elsewhere for a solution. Likewise, people also seem to judge finding fault with even part of a players' game as somehow being an indictment of the players' entire game or advocating his removal. To me in an intelligent world this does not have to be the case. Bledsoe for example is a player I definitely judge to be on the backside of his career and he has some horrendous limitations in his game (limitations which were fully revealed last year when he played with a marginal OL with sorry coaching running an offense conceived by Killdrive which did not play to our strengths. Despite all these Bledsoe negatives, there are real world examples when Parcells coached a team led by Bledsoe to an SB berth and in the 2002 SB when Bledsoe played a crucial and essential role in a must-win game that a team can in fact win and do well with a properly coached Bledsoe at QB. A football based intelligent assessment of the game strikes me as recognizing that despite the fact that Bledsoe is old and sucks in a number of ways that the Bills can in fact be quite successful and win with im at QB if we run our offense in a way that does not rely on him winning the game for us or that falls in love with his powerful arm, but instead emphasizes the things he can do well as he does have a powerful weapon on his right side that defenses must respect which creates other opportunities for us. in addition, thouh I doubt that Bledsoe is the brightest bulb in the pack, real smarts and football smarts are two different things. From all I see Jim Kelly was dumb as dirt as a person but he had one of the greatest football minds I have ever seen. Bledsoe has shown time and again that he is a gamer and takes direction and acts on it well for a smart coach. If you disagree fine, but how do you explain Bledsoe QBing the Pats to an SB berth and successfully filling in the majority of a game won by the Pats with the margin of victory from game-winning Blledsoe TD pass. Its possible to be down on an individual Bill without being down on the Bills and it is possible to be down on aspects of an indivduals game without being down on the individual player.

Actualy he seems to have replaced Bledsoe as the whipping boy and this seems wholely appropriate to me for those looking for someway to improve the Bills right here, right now. Perhaps the dumbest TD comment of all time was him saying something along the lines of good enough kickers being a dime a dozen in the NFL when he and the Bills brainstrust cut Christie. It is truly ironic that on the same day a substandard performance from Lindell was pivotal in us losing a game we should have won that couldn't have been any closer. it was none other than Christie hitting a 53 yarder for his new employers NYG. Since we cut Christie (even if he was not worth the dollars in his old contract he is certainly worth the relative peanuts he commands since he was cut) we have gone with and not found what we were looking for from Ariens, from Graham, from Hollis and now from Lindell. Since we are now converting to a grind it out hold 'em close and then best 'em offense by design, the lack of a quality kicker is making TDs view of this situation stupider and stupider. I would admit that this dumbness is only surpassed by posters who are still caught up in some desire to want to blame Bledsoe as deserving the main blame for Sunday's loss. However, TD approach to the placekicking game simplay sucks.

Steve Christie? Who? That name sounds somewhat familar. Oh yeah, he was the guy TD cut back in 2001 when he said good kickers are a dime a dozen in this league.

It is ironic that last year we saw virtual screams for the Bills to run the ball more (screams which were certainly justified by the Kevin Killdrive offensive approach) and now we see even after one game cries for the (the cacaphony is certainly less than last year but the tone perhaps amped up by our heart-breaking loss this weekend is a bit too strident for reason) Bills to throw it deep. The answer to this quandary is obviously that a balance must be struck. The Bills must and should rely on the run as our primary form of attack. However, in order for the run to work well and efficiently in today's NFL, the team must establish a deep threat and the capability to throw deep in order to keep the opposing D from simply stacking 8 in the box to stop the run. Even better, if the run is successful, opportunities to go deep with the quick strike are actually improved and the team can put up a quick 6 if the opposing D is too oriented to stopping the run. As far as this past weekend and the season, I think things are obviously not solved with what potentially is an emerging problem (and it was a problem with grievous results this weekend) but overall i would say so far so good in terms of striking a proper balance with the play call. i say this based on the following occurences: 1. The run/pass ratio was fairly even in this game and unpredictability is a key to success for any O. 2. The TEAM was fairly successful in hitting the pass this weekend. We saw shortcomings in the play selection as it did not produce enough deep strikes to be successful but given the patpatpatshufflesack (as Foxboro Mike labeled it) the most important change for the Bills was to get DB to change and be successful with the quick release and we saw a good chunk of that with a fairly immediate payoff of far fewer sacks. 3. There was one medium range TD to Moulds on a missed coverage by a fairly good D which bodes well. The Raiders will put up more points but the Raiders D should be even more confusable. 4. The TEAM showed the ability to run for tough yardage and run some more as THs overall yardage was OK and WM came off the bench and also earned some tough yardage and moved the pile a bit ( a very good thing to see from this player recovering from injury. Nevertheless, there were some clear shortcomings which must be improved if the TEAM is not going to make every game a grindfest where we lose on the final play: 1. Tough yards are good, but lots of yards are better- Though both TH and WM showed positives in running the ball, the Bills must produce better yards per carry. I suspect that the elusiveness of TH and WM against lesser Ds and poorer tacklers can do some of this, but the real long-term answer must be that the OL really opens some holes. They were better than expected but not reat or even good on run production yet (it is ironic that they were actually more productive in pass pro rather than the run attack when their performance was the reverse last year). 2. The vertical pass is a great way to gain big yards but a 5 yard pass that gets 30 yards of RAC counts just the same as a 35 yard vertical pass. There are real reasons why our OL should not be forced to hold blocks for 6 seconds to get off the bomb because of the problems we had last year. I'd love to see more play calls that produce RAC opportunities. 3. Tape lasts a long time- One of the tough things for us fans is our impatience. though we want production now and there is some logic to focusing only on the game in front of you if you want to win, a team's tendencies for the season are being written as we speak. Clements might see a play that might work well against Jax, but will almost certainly work really well against the Raiders (or maybe even the Pats) and it is reasonable for him to not tip our hand that a particular play is in our tool chest or to set-up a play woking well next week or against a more important opponent by showing a scheme now and getting the opponent to defend it in a particular way. This is a dangerous game as opponents schemes and reactions can also change (maybe they kno what we're thinking and fool us in to thinking we know what they are thinking or something like that). Clements simply needs to play the game well of setting up our O for the future but not compromising immediate opportunties to do so. If he held back something that he thought might work on Jax because it might work better in game 16 this was a bad choice as life will obviously change the further in the future you plan and we lost because we did not put up enough points on Jax. Overall, though the format for future improvement of the O is there, current O failure to put up points is a more pressing problem however.

The sad thing to me is that folks simply seem to want to make changes for changes sake and not with an eye toward improving the TEAM's performance or much of a sense of football reality. Clements made a bad play on Smith on the bomb and seemed to admit in interviews that he should have batted the ball down to win the game, but instead and instinctively he went for the INT. The older more experienced player undressed him and took the ball. However, eliminating him and replacing him with whats available on the waiver wire would not improve this team. Moving McGee or Thomas up to #2 CB may prove one dat to be necessary (particularly with the extra danger of injuries Clements PR duties expose him to) but it will not improve the team. In fact, even if a CB who batted the ball down could be found, it will help in the unlikely occurence that another game comes down to a 4 and 14 pass to that CBs side, but it will do nothing to address the numerous other specific failings (Villarial's holding call, Moulds' red zone fumble and Lindell's missed kick leading to MM having no confidence in him with the wind) and those would still be here. Clements need to improve by making decisions like a vet rather than a rookie and he got an objecy lesson that had better stick yesterday, but railing about and against one of the few difference-makers on this team (he has been chosen to return punts for a reason) is simply not the case someone most interested in improving the team would make. Likewise with Bledsoe. The O really fell short of adequate yesterday, but my sense if that if Bledsoe tried harder to be a difference maker given that his best days are behind him I think we would be less productive. While it is certainly legit and true to say well, we need a QB with more talent than Bledsoe, fine is that player on the waiver wire? Is that player Shane Matthews. I don't even think that player would be the rookie Losman if he were able to play, but he can't so the rant that it is mosstly Bledsoe's fault (which one silly post claimed) has little to do with improving the TEAM's offensive productivity. Bledsoe was not sufficient yesterday, but he was much improved over last year's model when he was simply horrendous trying to run the Kevin Kolldrive offense. Bledsoe needs to show more of the same in getting rid of the ball quickly, making good decisions to take small losses in bad situations where an outcome is not readily apparent rather than doing something stupid trying to make a big play, and overall be calm in the game. I loved the improved Bledsoe. That praise being offered, there remain improvements he must make: 1. He still needs to make better quality reads- even I as an outsider could see Boldin was ready to jump the pass that turned into Moulds funble of a backward pass. Bledsoe should have read the situation and not made the pass. 2. I like that he played within himself, but he can push Clements a tad moe to open things up a bit- this is a dangerous path as to over-reliance on Bledsoe's arm by Killdrive is part of what got us into trouble last year. However, the total lack of downfield passes (I think the longest pick-up invovled some RAC after a relatively short pass to Campbell) is too much the other way and a little judicious prodding by Bledsoe for a few timely downfield passes would not br bad. 3. He needs to demand and get performance- leadership means inspiring good performance without shutting people down. Henry is ripe for this type of effectove leadership as he made some mental errors like going the wrong way on one run and I am told on one screen pass. However, the poster is right in this thread, enough about Clements and enough about Bledsoe (for now) improvements of these two must happen but this improvement is a low priority for fixing what is wrong with our O.

Good thoughts and comments in general. When I go back and look at the game, i will watch the Henry blitz pick-ups because like many people in this thread it is hard for me to buy this argument on a day where Bledsoe was sacked but once and that sack was a good one for him to take in my view rather forcing the ball in there on a play where the lone receiver was covered and we were in kicking range. I agree that Henry ran the wrong way a couple of times, but this is balanced with im giving a workhorse performance and picking up some tough yards so I'm not sure if he is a big target for fault here.

There is a real dynamic here between two different approaches to the same issue. Was the Jax D good or was the Bills O not good enough? Both are actually true based on the results. I think it does little good to argue which is right but to try to focus on this in terms of getting better. What can we improve in order to make our O better? My answers are: Kicking- This was the #1 demonstrable and potentially fixable shortcoming in our point production yesterday. We failed to get 6 points yesterday (Lindell's 42 yard miss, our inability to go for a 50 yarder with the wind) which should be makeabl;e points with adequate place-kicking. The dumbest thing which TD has said in his career with the Bills was that good placekickers were a dime a dozen. This has continuously proven not be trues with the cut of Christie (who apparently hit a long one yesterday), with the failed experiment with Ariens, with the borted move to Graham, the briefly working but failed effort with Hollis and now with Lindell. Either meke it work with Lindell so the coaches have confidence in him or move on to waiver wire. The return game is also part of the offensive production and McGee showed marginal judgment at best against the lon kicks of Scobee. He deserves a chance toimprove here, but if not then Shaud Williams or Reed deserv a shot. As far as PR, having a starting corner do this is still a risk. OL- A nice job by McNally and the crew given how bad the OL was last year, how many changes have been made, the MW issues and the lack of playing time for this crew. The penalty on Villarial was unacceptable and the failure of this unit to dominate was unacceptable. Yet, they did hold their own and move the ball against a very tough D (particularly against the run) so these unacceptable results are both worse than they should be for a winning team, but better than they were last year when the QB was sacked 49 times. I think time and more working together and finally having anadult as a position coach will improve this unit. RBs- Henry and WM show great promise so I would also give them time with this OL. Shelton at FB needs to show me something. If the running game becomes dominant fine, but if not I am uncertain whether he is enough of a pass catcher to be a weapon and problems with our running game may because Shelton is not a good enough blocker in the Sam-Gash tradition if the running game does not develop. WRs- Moulds needs time with the Jugs machine. I'm not worried as he has little history as a fumbler, but his drops and Campbells fumble were concerns. This unit was marginally productive, but the biggest factor seemed to be playcalling as we lacked a downfield game. it goes on the watch list because perhaps this problem is solved with a different opponent and game plan. QB- I saved him for last because I think Bledsoe's play is a problem but it by far is not the main problem with lack of production from this O and folks focus on him because they have bought into the hype that focuses on the QB. The position is important because he handles the ball on each play, but so does the center and just as this position deserves intense focus because of its importance, it isn't necessarily the key to improved production for the O. As far as it goes, Bledsoe (somewhat surprisingly to me) has remade his game at this late stage in his career and is getting rid of it far faster than he did in the kenin Killdrive offense. We see this in the drop in sacks to one and even that one was a good sack for him to take given that the wheels had fallen off of the playcall as the sole option provided on that red zone play, a pass to Shelton had not materialized. If Bledsoe keeps playing with this style, the Bills may well be fine if other facets of the O get their act together. The most likely cause of failure is actually if Bledsoe is called upon or tries to do things he is incapable of doing late in his career. This problem is exactly what those who demand a focus on Bledsoe are calling for as neither he is likely to produce if he is asked to do more, nor will Shane Matthews, norcan Losman for 6-10 games nor will he be able to when this rookie comes back, nor can any of the scrubs on the waiver wire. If you want to see improvement in the Bills play at QB this will not come from replacing him with any of the credible options nor from asking him to do more.

This is a team which has been in desperate need of difference-makers for awhile. Clements has successfully been ONE of those people from time to time, but in my view the lack of having enough difference-makers so he immaturely tries to play that role all the time, and the lack of a convergence between difference-makers and leadership has made for his showboating. One difference between the Bills of the early 90s and this crew is that the old-guard had multiple difference-makers and multiple leaders. Individual players had the capability to step up from time to time as first it was Thurman, then Bruce, then Kelly, then Talley, etcetera etcetera stepping up and sharing the load. We simply do not have that. We would not be so worried about Clements show-boating if Reese, Wire or Spikes had bloacked that final pass. We would not be so worried about Clements if Henry or WM had bulldozed the ball in to give us a lead. We would not be so worried about Clements if Villaril had not been caught for holding. Clements got beat )and beat bad) by a better play by Smith yesterday. However, he also got an INT which set up Moulds TD. He is going to be a mixed bag just as past Bills CBs were (Nate Odomes for example). Focusing on him as the problem is fine because he is far from perfect, but failing to focus first on the real problem that there simply are not enough players on the Bills being difference makers is the real issue and the path to getting better.

QBs are important in this game, but certainly not all important. Nledsoe deserves his share ofthe blame for the loss, but following your own title for this thread, I think it is pretty farfetched and bad analysis to saddle him with the most blame for the loss. There were any number of critical plays by individual players which hurt the Bills and were the difference in the final score and I would not label Bledsoe as one of those individuals. If you are going to expand consideration beyond the individual fauz pas's of players like Lindell, the feel free to also expand consideration to the play calling if you want to be accurate in your analysis and bring Clements and MM into consideration. Consideration of their failings certainly doesn't let Bledsoe off the hook, he needed to perform better and our O was anemic at best, but if accuracy is what you're after you gotta look beyond Bledsoe for diagnosing out ills.

No prob admiting we played badly as I agree we played badly. There are several specific plays where if a performer had performed even adequately we would have won (specifically, Lindell should have hit a 42 yard FG at home on turf even into the wind, Vilarial should not have drawn a holding call on 3rd and 2, Clements should have come up with ball one-on-one against Smith or at least knocked it down, Moulds should have cradled the ball away from inside tackles on his fumble, among others). However, amidst the miffage that we sucked, good news should not be overlooked (I'm too miffed to get into the good news right now, but there were several aspects of the game where I think there was real improvement over last year's model. I ask the wind question because: 1. Tasker and Criquo werw certainly making noises that the wind was significant and I 'm curious if anyone can quote wind speed conditions as the game began or has some credible anecdotes about the swirling Ralph conditions which wind speed pccaisionally doesn't reflect. 2. I am more than willing to diregard announcer blather, but Moorman in particular got off a longish punt before I tuned in and produced a shorter one against the wind to still give him a pretty good average. Something appeared to be up windwise based on these stats. I do not know whether this would have any effect on the Lindell miss and if it did it makes MM punt call late in the game even more questionable as Lindell had the wind at his back for this one.

My sense of the game was that there was that the wind had something to do with Lindell missing from 42 (though it shouldn't have because I expect my kicker on synthetic turf at home to make it within 45). Even ifthis were the case that makes the decision to punt all the more wimpy since he had the wind at his back for that one. Hindsight is 20/20 but the hindsight pretty clearly says he should have gone for the FG.

belinda again

If your're talking about TKO goostepping after separating Williams from his helmet I don't really have a big problem with that. A lof of the production in this game is from emotion and as long as a players demonstration is heartfelt (though quite frankly goosestepping is not a clever way to celebrate given its awful history) and warranted by the play (it was a tremendous welcome to the big league's rookie hit) I have no problem with it. There is a real difference between set-ups like the stupid Sharpie incident and the cellphone routine last year and a demonstration inspired by the play. I tend to be a traditionalist in terms of sports and have a lot of sympathy for the act like you've been there before approach, but understand this is the modern world and no how close these teams are in talent given the salary cap and the rules. I have no problem with heartfelt demonstrations of emotion. Perhaps there is some other TKO display you are talking about but if this is the one that drew your negative feelings, i think they are not well placed.

Oct. 24 at Baltimore, November 14 at NE, November 28 at Seattle are all games I had as probable road losses. We now must win one of these because this probable hime win is now an L. Add to that Sept. 19 and October 10 at NYJ are jnow pretty much must-wins for us if we want to make the playoffs. This L is very tought. Surviavable but very tought.

I assume the wind in the stadium was a definite factor as the punt totals showed and the Moorman game showed extremes between what was talked about as an 60 yard punt with the wind and lesser efforts I saw against the wind. I am willing to believe that the wind played a significant role in the Lindell miss from 42 yards (though quite frakly I expect my kicker to make them with 45 at home) but if the wind was so bad, then why the heck was Lindell not allowed to go go for it at the end of the game with the wind blowing in the correct direction for this kick and for the kickoff assuming he made it?

I disagree. It is the same result as once again our team ends up on the wrong end of the most important statm W/L. However, one of the most frustrating things about this team is that they find different ways to lose depending on the situation. A loss is a loss and that by far is the most important thing, but it is simply short-sighted to see the loss by this team as occuiring because of the same problems as last year. There certainly are recurring issues such as: 1. Lindell missed a critical kick toward the end of the 1st half which should have been makable even into the Ralph winds at that end of the stadium. Its not like the wind is going to stop blowing and the Bills kicker needs to be money inside the 35 at home. 2, The OL was far more impressive today than the group which lost 31-0 to end the season in NE and far better than one would expect given the problems they had this off-season. However an RG hold on 3rd and 2 when the game could have been iced should not happen. 3. It's tough to blame Clements for Smith beating the ball out of him, but that's why he is paid the big bucks and he is supposed to be a playmaker for this team. However, beyond recurrences of unimpressive place-kicking an an OL problem, there was also a lot of good in this game which I choose not to talk about right now in my current funk. On the face of it as well, there was some good news in this game like the low statistica; sack total, some nice turnovers for us, and some great 3rd down production on good playcalling that were totally non-existent last year and should not be overlooked.

In my mind, a good run game (even a smashmouth rung game) uses the pass to set up the run. The Bills should not rely on the pass and go all Kevin Killdrive in the face of a stacked line. However, simply going for 2.5 yards and a cloud of astroturf 9 times in a row only gets you 3 punts. Success needs to be the main driver. My sense is that you do commit to the run early and often, but it is probably more successful to judiciously sprinkle in the types of run which can exploit any overpurusit which might come from a multi-man front and to throw in some pass plays which provide opportunities for RAC. Thus, I'm really interested in how much room they give Moulds in this stacked front. If they put 8 in the box and have the corner back off of Moulds because he knows he doesn't have any help deep. I do like the quick flare pass to Moulds which sets up a 2nd and 5 where we can run Henry twice and 2.5 yards a carry gets us a new set of downs. 2 of our first 3 plays have been smnashmouth runs and the third play needs the blockers to sell it as a run play in order for Moulds not to get cheated upon and tackled early. If on the other hand, their are 8 in the box and the CB is up close covering Moulds, I have enough confidence in him that I am interested in a medium range timing pattern to him where his job is to use one move to beat the CB, plow past him and potentially go for 6 or force a penalty if the refs are in fact calling pass interference tighter. I run this pass as a play action fake so again my blockers line up and sell the smashmouth game. I don't see the smashmouth approach as throwing the potential for a pass out of the window completely.

Of course no NFL player's value is equal to what he is paid to simply play a sport. This is obvious and if its what you mean fine. However, market worth is determined by what people are willing to pay you. If this is what you mean then how much do you think Schobel is worth contractually and whoch players are worth more? Jevon kearee is obviously worth more and has the contract to show for it. However, there are other players like Grant Wistrom who have far bigger contracts and I don't know many folks who credbily claim his play is worth that much more that Schobel's, You may a bold statement, let's get specific.

I think that these numbers and clumpy's observations about bonuses actually explain why the press reports of the total amount have been such a moving target. The final amount paid to Schobel should end up looking like the #23 million talked about (and may well end up being even more than that because as Clumpy says we do not have those details since they are not part of his cap hit). It interests me that these figures are from the NFLPA site because what that means to me is that the bonus numbers (whatever they are) have been judged by the NFL/NFLPA powers that be as not to be no-brainer incentives that Schobel is going to get one way or another. They have been judged as possibly achievable but not certain to be achieved and that is fine by me as a fan. They may well be incentives which aree tied to him getting a certain number of sacks, or tackles or simply starts. We'll have to deal with the cap hit after thay happen, but quite frankly if he gets these incentives because he has provided us the value in starting games for us or racking up certain statistical measures, that is fine by me!

Actually the distinction (and certainly any distinction is going to be somewhat pedantic) was based on when the last time a team made a QB draft choice in the first round which delivered them an SB win. Thus the selection of Elway would be a choice made in the early 80s (and actually would be a choice which failed to deliver the goods for Indy draft selection, though Denver deserves kudos for making a good trad decision. Overall, I think Elway is another example of how because team's often are forced into draft decisions which do not serve their interests (Indy that year and San Diego this year) a team which puts itself in a good position can rape the team that is trying to get out of their over-investment in the draft (Denver that year and NYG this year). It would be interesting to be a fly inside of TDs head to see what he really thinks of the draft (or more accurately its 1st round). it appears to this outside observer that TD has actually made a general decision that 1st round draft choices (Particularly early ones) are rarely worth the investment in a player. He has certainly treated his 1st round choices as tools which he can use to speculate with and get real services which contribute to the team and less as a tool for getting a valuable player. His actions have been: 2001- Traded down picking up additional lower round resources (which proved invaluable to a rebuilding team which needed bodies) and played the market correctly so that he still got the first CVB selected. 2002- More conventional dealings so that he used the early pick to get Mike Williams, but he traded his 1st rounder in 2002 to get immediate help at QB in upograding from RJ to Bledsoe. 2003- Parlayed PP leaving as an FA where the Bill by rule would get nothing for him by tagging him and trading for a 1st round pick. Yet, rather than draft and pay the slotted rate for #23, he speculated by getting WM whom because he was hurt he got him to sign for a divided bonus and was able to get this player projected as top-5 talent before his injury for #23 money. Even better, he again read the market extremely well as he was able to get the player many assumed he would take with #23 with his second round pick to help fill DL needs. 2004- Again he made more conventional use of his pick getting Evans, but he traded his 2005 first rounder to move up to get Losman. The Losman deal (even despite the injury) looks like a good one as the QB pool for 2005 looks fairly bleak and Losman ranking vis-a-vis the top 3 QBs taken increased prior to his injury. In fact, there is a reasonable case to be made that Losman really needed to spend 2004 as the Bill's disaster QB and learn the game at Sam Wyche's knee. There is a good case to be made that their is no replacement for the experience gained against NFL players working at gamespeed and Losman will not get that. However, Losman will get the advantage of spending the majority of 2005 studying and concentrating on the game without the caterwhauling of the press creating a QB controversy as soon as Bledsoe has a bad game. Kyle Boller said last year that the amazing thing he got from his injury was to find that there were things one could learn about being a productive NFL QB when you were forced to sit and watch that you could not learn when you were focusing on being prepared to play. I hope this is true. The Bills need to be aggressive about making Losman Wyche's pupil. If they do this and Losman recovers fully from the injury and learns an actual lesson about being careful at all times because you never know what some idiot will do and also that being full of yourself is useful against opponents but not in building leadership in the team, then i think we will benefit from Losman's enforced sitting. The boy looks good and practice at NFL speeds is great but that is not what he needs most in my mind to contribute to the Bills.