gus2378

I really like the draft as a whole, and I know these late picks are unlikely to pan out no matter who it is, but they basically just drafted the same "zone corner/free safety tweener" twice in a row. There wasn't a single LB out there who actually played LB in college who was worth a flyer? Or an actual OT?

NFL.com scouts profile says: Good zone defender. Reads the quarterback's eyes and is quick to close. (Fits the defense, I guess) Tough player. ... Aggressive in run support. ... Evades blockers well, but isn't afraid to take them on if it means getting to the ballcarrier. ... Reliable open-field tackler. ... Breaks down in space well and delivers a solid blow. (all good stuff) BUT Seems content making the secure stop rather than going for the interception. (So he should fit right in, since this is the one trait just about every Bills corner has shared for about 10 years) I know you have to draft guys that fit your system but .... It's 50-50 at best that this will still be the system a year from now. If they do not get better, the rebuilding will be all that much harder with all these zone corners/small safeties/small LBs/DEs that can't play the run ... just sayin' ...

Geez, good thing Rhodes didn't take 25 or it would have been the lead story on Sportscenter and a 20 minute debate on Around the Horn about that selfish bastard Rhodes taking the number of a player already on the team. Or do you think that was just a T.O. thing?

Except Peters showed up in shape and had a legitimate pro bowl season, in fact all-pro seaso, the year before and they did not offer him a new deal. Kelsay had never done that ... I am not saying Peters is not to blame, he definitely escalated this thing to the point of a trade ... it didn't have tocome to this. But the Bills are also to blame for not being pro-active and paying him like a Pro Bowl LT instead of a middle-of-the-road right tackle after 2007. They tried to milk a cheap year out of the guy and got burned.

OK ... if a team can negotiate with only one player at a time ... and also if a player who wants more money really and truly ignored the phone calls of the only people who can give him more money ... then I agree with you. But I think you are oversimplifying things a bit. There is no reason the Bills could not have worked with Peters while also working with Evans. The deals were not mutually exclusive. And again, I am not condoning the way Peters handled it, but it happens in the NFL, guys hold out. You have to play ball with them sometimes ... you pick your spots. And IMO, the All-Pro left tackle is a spot I would have picked.

I would have gone to him before he even had a chance to hold out and tried to do right by the guy. He was an All-Pro left tackle beinig paid like a middle-of-the-raod right tackle. But they didn't, and he had to ask for more ... so at that point I would have paid him the $8 or 9 million he would have taken last spring when he sat out of minicamp. The guy makes all-pro, you make him your highest paid O-lineman and one of the top paid left tackles in the league and you move on, even if you did just re-do his deal a year ago. The circumstances changed. He won that round. Lesser players have held out and won against better teams. And if he doesn't live up to it or gets old and is overpaid, you cut him. That's the way the league works. I said in my first post, I don't have a big problem with the trade NOW, they did the best they could with a horrible situation. I was just saying they deserve some blame for creating that horrible situation. Everyone is railing on Peters and calling him stupid and fat and lazy and cracking wise about how he'd be working in a convenience store in Arkansas if not for the Bills, as if that is relevant and as if the Bills were somehow the innocent victims. They had a couple chances to make him happy before he became a fat, lazy, locker room cancer and they didn't do it. Once he became those things, yeah, they did the best they could.

Yeah that sounds like a blueprint for winning championships. We can't let players hold this team hostage because they want more money? What do you think he just did?!?! His holdout and subsequent sucking is a big reason this team underachieved again last season, and all they proved was if you hold out and complain they will trade you somewhere so you can get paid. Not to mention, you better hope that little plan of developing Bell or a draft pick at RT doesn't work TOO well ... the guy might end up a Pro Bowl left tackle and then he'll ask to be paid like one and then ... oh, wait, this sounds familiar ... So explain to me again how they are better off now? Seems to me they wasted those years developing Peters and now they are right back where they were in 2005 or so, hoping they can find a diamond in the rough. Think they will get lucky again? think they will pay the guy if they do?

You really think he didn't ask for more money, he just decided to not show up and the Bills had to guess what was wrong? Maybe he had the flu? What, because his agent called and asked instead of Peters himself it makes a difference? Whatever the case, I am not saying the guy handled it well or that he is not a baby. But none of that is a good enough reason to have it come to this. he handled it HORRIBLY and is a HUGE baby. But because he was an immature jerk the Bills sabotaged the 2008 season and then had to give him away for draft picks ... and the immature jerk still got exactly what he wanted. That's the point, the player ALWAYS gets what he wants if he is good enough. The teams that win recognize when they need to pay the piper, roll their eyes and play ball. Not saying I like it, but that is reality. The Bills are better off now having traded Peters than they were a week ago for sure, but the are WAY worse off now than they were a year ago when they could have had a happy All-Pro LT in camp and in shape ... but hey, at least Kelsay was happy last season. Really? It ended pretty well for Peters, didn't it? Now he is on a team that goes to the playoffs regularly and has his money. In the real world, the Bills would have a grace period and people work while they ask for more money. In the NFL, the players hold most of the cards. That's just how it is. I am not saying the Bills had to be happy about it, but once it became obvious Peters was going to be stubborn about things, they should have worked it out and made sure he was in camp on time in July. I fail to see the downside of that scenario.

Again, not defending what he did last season. Point is, it should never have been an issue. They should have taken care of it as soon as it was obvious he was outplaying his contract. He should not have had to beg for a fair deal and he certainly should not have been the guy they chose to make an example of so that Russ Brandon could show he would not be pushed around. Some would say Bill Polian and John Butler got pushed around by Bruce Smith, but funny how that jerk always showed up on Sunday. Polian made an example of guys like John Hagy, not his all-pros. You want to rengotiate? Go outperform your contract. Peters did that way more than Schobel or Kelsay or even Evans, and they tried to take advantage of him. Not saying Peters was right to hold out, but he's also not the only guy ever to hold out of minicamp or the start of training camp. They don't all end up traded for draft picks. The Bills blew it a year ago, no matter how much of a jerk he is or how fat and out of shape he was last season.

Yeah IF he wasn't an NFL player he's just be a regular guy ... problem is, he IS an NFL player, so he lives by different rules than everyone else. Those rules say you get every penny you can, when you can, because in 20 years you could be dead or crippled from the beating your body took in your 20s. I know it is not popular to defend the guy making $3 million who held out, and I am not defending him FOR holding out. But the Bills have to take some of the blame. If they had gone to him when he was named All-Pro and said "Hey, you are our best O-lineman and we want to pay you that way" they could have worked something out. As long as he got more than crappy Dockery, he would have been happy. He was never asking to be THE highest paid guy until after he made the Pro Bowl (undeservedly) again. I am fine with them trading him, and his attitude and selfishness probably did affect the team last season. But the Bills made their own bed and backed themselves into a corner. They should have paid the guy what he deserved immediately after the 2007 season and none of this would ever have happened. All that "It would set a bad precedent" stuff is B.S. If someone else comes to you wanting to re-do their deal with 3 years left, you say "When you make All-Pro like Peters did, we'll talk." Instead they reward Kelsay for being a good guy and showing up fpr minicamp and being supremely average during the season. They wanted a hometown discount just because they got lucky with Peters, but the NFL does not work that way. It's not the real world. We as fans can go ahead and be pissed at Peters for holding out when he is under contract for $3 million. But if you are the Bills, you pay the guy. The fans still B word about what a jerk Bruce Smith was and he has been off the team for 10 years and retired for five ... but funny they haven't been to the playoffs since he left. It's the price of doing business in the NFL. Or, more accurately, it's the price of WINNING in the NFL.

The problem with this deal is not what they got. The problem is they botched the whole situation 14 months ago after Peters went to his first Pro Bowl and they refused to re-do his deal. Yes, in a perfect world, players would play out the contracts they sign and the Bills would reap the benefits of having a Pro Bowl LT at a discount price. But in the REAL WORLD of the NFL, if you really want to compete for championships, it doesn't work that way. If they had played ball with him at the end of 2007, they would now have him at less than what Carolina payed Gross. Did they think they price of a top LT would actually go DOWN if they waited? Yeah, I know, they take care of the guys who show up to OTAs and minicamps and such like Schobel and Kelsay and Evans and Stroud ... great. So in essence, to prove a point, they gave Kelsay $32 million for SHOWING UP IN APRIL while they pissed off their best player ... leading to him sitting out training camp and playing like crap all season. Which hurt whom? The team. Peters is getting his money, it didn't hurt him. They screwed the pooch 14 months ago, probably just because Russ Brandon was new on the job and didn't want to be pereceived as weak and a pushover. Great. Given the situation, what they did today was the right move. It had to be done and they probably got fair return. But it should never have some to this.

Namath was the dominant passer of his time ... the numbers will never measure up to today, but in the 60s and early 70s, he was dominant compared to his peers. Add in the big moment you are talking about and he gets in, but that was a HUGE moment ... that was the AFL beating the NFL ... In most people's eyes, that was the Buffalo Bison's beating the Yankees in the World Series. Yeah, Warner got to the SB with teams that were usually bad, but they were on a level playing field with everyone else ... and that Rams team was LOADED, not like he carried them there himself. Warner is a great story, but as a PLAYER he was not that much different than a lot of QBs in his era. there are a lot of QBs with a couple 4,000 yard seasons who are not getting in the HOF because the rest of their careers were not good enough. I'm sure Favre did have a stretch of 17 INTs in 11 games ... but I promise you he never had a stretch of 8-23 over 5 years as a starter ... he had one losing season his whole career. I am not saying his 5 good years are not HOF material. They absolutely are. But the other five seasons, frankly, SUCK. They are not average. They SUCK. How can you ignore 5 seasons out of a 10-season career?

I can't get past a 6-year stretch where a starting QB went 13-29 as a starter ... But if I give you that last year was great, let's split his career in half ... I'll give you 5 great years, but you can't just ignore 8-23 as a starter for five years in the middle of his career ... yeah he couldn't stay healthy ... isn't that a pretty improtant trait for a franchise QB? Even in one of his great years (2000) he started only 11 games and threw 18 INTs ... Point is, if you put him in despite those numbers, Terrell Davis needs to go in too, immediately. His first four seasons were almost unprecedented, he won Super Bowls on a team that could never get over the hump without him, and he was an MVP. And he never had bad years, he was just unlucky and got hurt. You don't have to ignore anything. Warner is a great story and a great player, but based on the standards set up till now, I just don't see how he can get in. When he was good he was very good, but when he was bad he was really bad too, and it's about even. The more I look at it, the more I think I am not just playing devil's advocate. I just don't think he deserves it. I would obviously be out-voted, and that's cool ...

First of all, I guess we will agree to disagree that 17 INTs in 11 starts is a "great QB season" regardless of the team's record. Second, if wins and losses are not the gauge of a HOF quarterback's performance, he truly has NO chance. The only thing that has him in the discussion if the 3 Super Bowl appearences. Without the Super Bowls, he is not even Drew Bledsoe .. Bledsoe has 69 more touchdowns, 16,000 more yards, teh same number of 4,000 yard seasons and five more 3,500 yard seasons. Other than the one season when he got hurt and Brady took over, he had a 12-year stretch where he missed THREE games. Warner played 16 games 3 whole times in his career. Can't have it both ways ... if you want to count the wins that got him to the Super Bowls (and you SHOULD, I am not making a case for Bledsoe), , you can't ignore the losses just because he put up good numbers in them.

Why do we have to include last season as "dominant" when he was 5-6 as a starter? You can't pick and choose what you want to count. All of those games count, not just the ones where he got hot at the end. But whatever, the point is, we have one guy (TD) who played 4 seasons, went to 2 Super bowls, was a league MVP, a Super Bowl MVP and was historically good ... then he got hurt and that was it. And he can't get in. Now we have a guy who also has all that in his four best seasons but has 6 VERY mediocre seasons also. If I told you those were JP Losman's numbers you might believe me. But yet he somehow gets CREDIT for playing poorly just because he was not hurt? Or at best we are asked to ignore those six years? It's half his career. Makes no sense to me.

OK, let me play devil's advocate here ... not saying he absolutely does not deserve it, but he's still borderline, IMO ... Basically, his whole candidacy would be based on FOUR seasons - 1999-2001 with STL and this season ... Granted, four GREAt seasons, but still just four ... in the 6 seasons in between he went 13-29 as a starter and threw 27 TDs and 30 INTs ... I gotta believe no HOF QB has EVER had a stretch like that. Longevity DOES come into play. Look at Terrell Davis ... four amazing seasons, league MVP, and driving force behind two Super Bowl wins ... it's pretty much accepted he has no chance because he was not dominant for long enough. What's the difference? If anything, Davis was slowed only by injury. Warner actually played BADLY for a long stretch. Not saying he is not a great player, and if you want to argue both of he and Davis should be in I would listen ... but that 6-year stretch is hard for me to ignore. Bad teams? Hell yes. But Archie Manning played on bad teams. Hell, Joe Ferguson played on bad teams and put up numbers like that. Does anyone think a Super Bowl and an MVP would have put Fergy in the HOF? I don't. If he gets in, I would not be outraged, but I'd say TD needs to go in immediately also.

They got it from the luxury tax Yankees pay every year to help prop up the small-market teams ... so the yankees helped pay for stadium improvements in K.C. and then asked New York taxpayers for hundreds of millions to build a new Yankee Stadium ... ironic, isn't it?

It was definitely the last game of the year, the one tasker got kicked out of to end his career. If I remember right, it wasn't that he was fielding a punt ... he caught a pass on a FAKE punt and thought he was home free because the moron forgot about the punt returner ... he looked back to see if anyone was chasing him and got drilled.

That's just not true. The Bills had no pressure on O'Donnell at all during the game (despite the presence of supposed Defensive Player of the Year Bryce Paup ... he owed that award to Bruce) but had pulled within 26-21 early in the 4th quarter and had all the momentum ... Pittsburgh had a big 3rd-and-long from inside their own 10 or 15 yard line ... and again, no pressure, O'Donnell throws up a prayer on the sideline and Thigpen makes a crazy catch and gets his feet in ... they scored on that drive and it was pretty much over at that point ... but a punt there and you never know. Granted, they definitely could still have lost with Bruce ... even if they get the ball back there Kelly was playing with a cracked sternum that happened earlier in the game ... but to say he would not have made a difference is crazy ... the guy was still the best defensive player in the game at that point and won defensive player of the year the following season. ANY pressure on O'Donnell could have made a difference ... they were right in it in the 4th quarter without him. Say what you want about Bruce as a person, he comes off as a selfish jerk and I am in no position to doubt that. But he was a GREAT player and I believe they find a way to win that game if he plays.

The O-line is half the problem ... the other half is the pass rush, or lack there of ... Look at the Greer pick ... no time, bad throw, TD the other way. I am convinced more than ever that you need 3 things to win in the NFL, and the rest is window dressing. 1. A quarterback you can trust. 2. The ability to run the ball. 3. A pass rush. Despite the turnovers the last 2 weeks, I still think the Bills have #1. The other two have not been there all season save for the pass rush in the opener. Edwards bailed them out with some great 4th quarters, but if they can't find a way to move it on the ground some and get more heat, 5-1 is going to turn into a disappointing 9-7 really fast. Actually, that will be like dying a slow death.

I'm may get killed for this, so let me preface it with this: I love Darryl Talley, the Bills would not have accomplished nearly what they did without him, and his value in the locker room on the sidelines probably cannot be measured. BUT ... In my opinion, Talley was called underrated so much that he actually became a little overrated for his actual play on the field, and Biscuit ended up being VERY underrated by the end of his career because people put too much stock in sack totals. And I don't mean that in an Aaron Schobel kind of way. And along the same lines, Bennett was a far more complete linebacker than Derrick Thomas, who God rest his soul will go to the Hall of Fame for being a one-trick pony. Bennett was worth every penny and draft pick they ever paid for him. He spent a lot of time covering tight ends at the expense of his sack totals, and he made the Pro Bowl as an inside linebacker one year because that's where the Bills needed him due to injury. Talley was great and Thomas was an amazing pass rusher, but give me the choice and I will take Biscuit every time. If he had gone to Kansas City and rushed the passer every play he'd be the one going to the Hall of Fame, although he obviously ended up with a lot more team success. Man, were we spoiled back then ...

Yeah well ... I'm less worried about Edwards vs. the blitz than I am about the o-line vs. the blitz the way it has been playing ... they have to at least slow it down most of the time or "getting it out quick" is eventually going to turn into "left the game when he was hit just after releasing the ball."

I appreciate all those things too ... I bought a Losman jersey when be bought that house and started working to clean up the city. But I'd feel better if he was preparing to play as much as he can, because odds are he is going to be forced into action, be it for a series or a game or a month. If he isn't ready to play, they could be a united locker room with a stand-up guy at backup quarterback whom everyone likes ... and they could be watching some other team in the playoffs. That's all I'm saying ...

Hey, don't lump me in with that group ... I've always supported the guy, but his circumstances have changed ... doesn't mean he shouldn't prepare as if he is going to play. Not saying it's easy, but it's part of the deal.

Actually, Edwards DOES say it's just him and Hamdan - "We’ll meet as a quarterback group until 4:30, but he and I will stay until 6:30 or 7 watching film, going over the game plan, going over our third down calls, going over our quick passing game. And when we’re sitting there trying to decipher subtle differences between coverages we’ll quiz each other and studying those looks during the week is really helping me in the games.” the only "quarterback group" I can think of would be Edwards, Losman and Hamdan. "he and I" is Edwards and Hamdan. So it does say Losman is not there. I have always liked JP, but it does bother me that he is one play from getting on the field and he is not preparing for it. It's not Hobert-esque, necessarily, but those are the things ALL the quarterbacks should be doing, not just Edwards and Hamdan. And this idea that if he gets in he will have a chip on his shoulder ... that's not going to help him if the defense throws some look at him he's not expecting. It's a tough spot for J.P., I know it is, but we can't pretend it might not hurt the team just because we like the guy.