BuffaloBob

The average offensive point production with Flutie starting that season was about 13. That would not have gotten done against the Titans.

You flatter yourself! TD did not make his decision based on the howling masses, much as you and others might like to believe otherwise. He made it based on the fact that Gregg proved he had no clue when it came to hiring offensive assistants and managinig them during the season.

The PUP list is for those players that are injured BEFORE training camp starts. They may have been on site rehabbing, but as long as they did not practice during training camp, they are eligible. I could not tell based on the article you linked whether this was the case for those two guys, but unless /dev/null is right and BB doesn't have to follow the rules, this must have been the case. McGahee was placed on the PUP last year because he was injured before training camp started and rehabbed and did not practice with the team during training camp.

Denny will definitely get his reps. He played really well in the preseason (I didn't get to see the last preaseason game). Had a pick and caused Wire's pick off of Manning with in his face pressure. As for Big Mike, he's going to be just fine. He is supposedly already down to 360 and working on losing more. McNally says he is pleased with Mike's progress.

This is EXACTLY what I would have posted had you not. I am sure this decision came down to the last minute. It would have been nice to get a hold of Travis first, and yes, I think he would have deserved to be contacted first before finding it out through the media (even if he has been a somewhat unremarkable player so far). He has worked his ass off for the team regardless of how little success he has had. But there probably wasn't time for that. And I also agree with the post earlier that said he was no doubt caught by a reporter who got an earful of his gut right after he heard the news. I'm sure the Bills will explain the situation to him, and Travis can decide if he wants a settlement so he can try to pusrue other teams. Or he can keep working out and try to get back with the Bills in week 10. I'm not sure his prospects for other teams is that great at this point in the season and given his lack of on field experience.

[sarcasm]Oh KH, you're such a TD apologist! LOL![/sarcasm]

That doesn't matter. Any player on anyone's practiice squad can be plucked for a permanent roster position for any other team as far as I know.

Guess he has run his course.

It makes me wonder if they intend to possibly fill this position with someone cut, or if they bring back McKenzie at the vet min (if he was not there already). Or will they slide someone over from the left side.

They are UDFA's. not late round draft choices. However, I agreee, that his effectiveness in finding these guys should be considered. One might add Dorenbos, Neufeld, Tucker, Greer and Stamer to that list as well. Moorman was a UDFA for Seattle I believe, so in a sense he recovered him from the heap also.

I think Bannan has done ok for himself. He has certainly held his own in the DT rotation and has worked hard. He may not fight off Tim Anderson for long, but so far he has.

Another interesting point: No back-up to Schobel at RDE? Does this mean that we might be waiting for a possible waiver pick-up, or does it mean that we will have to move someone over from the left side if Schobel is ever hurt??? Hmmmmmmmmmm!

That agrees with my math, we still have 23 draft choices aboard. This is what happens as a team rebuilds and gets better talent. Eventually, later round players get cut.

They make your GM write "I will always get my cuts in on time" on the outside walls of your stadium 1000 times before sun-up, or they cut your balls off!

Actually, it's called a $200 Million payroll. But even that doesn't look like it's going to get it done this year! When the Yankees added AROD at the beginning of the season and their fans were gloating all over Sox fans because of it, I posted a warning: With all of the hype, with all of the playas, with their illustrious owner and with all of the money spent on payroll, comes a tremendous amount of pressure to win. I believed then and I believe it is now coming to fruition that this team would buckle under that pressure. While I admire the faith of some of the Yankee fans on this board (NJ Sue for example), I laughed my ass of when I hear the "fans" at Yankee stadium booing there own. Yeah, THAT shows a lot of faith. A team playing .700 baseball getting booed by its own fans and why? Because the Sox have been on a tear that the Yankees are simply not in control of right now and like it or not, it is worrying the hell out of Yankee fans. Who knows how this will play out? I am a Sox fan since 1968 and I've certainly seen my share of the disappointment. Can the Sox continue to beat the crap out of everyone? Not at the rate they have been over the last 17 games (16-1). Hell, they're down 5-1 bottom of the 4th as I post. Still a lot of ball to be played, and nothing's been won yet. And the Yankees as a team are not going to lay down. But I wonder how they are going to react to the weight that is hanging ponderously from them right now.

LA is absolutely correct John. I am a lawyer, although my practice is patents almost exclusively at this point. However, I have done a lot of work in the contracts area (typically in the context of technology development) and I can tell you that unless there are specific penalty clauses for failure to meet milestone completion dates spelled out in the contract, you are going to be hardpressed to get damages for delay. Because I haven't read your contract (obviously), it is difficult to assess your options. But unless delay causes you direct damages that are contemplated expressly in the contract, it is tough to get relief on that basis. I don't blame you for being po'd, but it would cost you a lot more money trying to win what amounts to consequential damages (the pool was delayed so I was inconvenienced in some way), damages which are probably severely limited or disclaimed in the contract anyway. Look for the all caps provision that says WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR INCIDENTAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES yada yada. If it makes you feel better, tell him after everything is said and done that you notified the BBB that he makes promises regarding time frame that he can't keep (although frankly, with seasonal businesses like this, they all tell you they can get it done in a time frame that they can't because they need to pull in as many jobs as they can) and that you will not recommend him to anyone who inquires. Then tell him you have consulted with an attorney and if he doesn't honor your warranty, your lawyer will sue him for willful breach of contract.

Not to mention that he had to make a very significant adjustment last year in going from a 3-4 outside backer to a 4-3. He was almost exclusively a pass rusher with the Texans and his responsibility changed a lot in the Bils scheme. Why do people so ignore this aspect of picking up a new guy and plugging him? Our defense is going to be better than last year if for no other reason than the vets added last year (i.e. Adams, Spikes and Posey) will be much more comfortable. I realize it is fashionable to make comments demanding instant top notch performance, but the reality is that it does take players time to adjust to a new scheme, new responsiblities and new teammates. In defense of Gildon, while I am sure his advancing age (I wish I was his age LOL!) has something to do with his lack of productivity with us, the other thing is he (and his coaches) has to find a niche for himself in a 4-3 scheme. I'm not sure he (or they) have that sorted out yet, nor am I sure they will.

You know, when I read this this morning I thought, "Surely he isn't referring to himself. Naw, he means Phil Collins!"

Guess I should have read the entire thread before posting! Actually, this raises another question. How many of the guys on here who are passing on the looks of these women are in the same position? Maybe its's because I'm older than a lot of these guys, but I happen to think SJP and Helen Hunt and Juliette Lewis are beautiful women. Horse faces and ButterFaces? I don't get it.

I love Lyle Lovett's music, and far be it for me to pass on the attractiveness of men, but I suspect ole Lyle is one of the last guys who has a right to be ragging on ugly women.

If you are referring to the article which discusses Lee Evans as the replacement to a sorely missed Peerles Price, so what? There are few on this board who disagree he was missed, if not sorely missed. That doesn't mean that this guy who wrote the article or anyone else thinks we should have paid him $6 Million per. Sorry! You can miss having a player, but that does not imply that you should pay him whatever he wants no matter how overvalued that might make him or no matter what you might have to give up in the rpesent or future because of it.

Yes, it worked great for Peerless in that offense: Moulds caught 100 passes with double coverage and Peerless caught nearly as many with single coverage. I never said the Bills couldn't have re-signed him. Sure, they could have mortgaged the future and converted salary to bonus money, creating dead cap money problems for the future to pay Price what he wanted. But TD will not do that for anyone, and especially not for a guy who is not worth the money he is asking for. We will never get back to the Butler way of doing things. And by the way, Drew was forced to re-structure THIS year, and with the leverage based on the lousy year last year. As I said before, if you want to keep the books properly balanced, then we would have had to do without players we used to improve the defense. If we wanted to mortgage the future, we could have restructured salaries to pay bonus money instead of salary to some players. But, the bottom line, once again, is that Peerlless was not worth the contract he got from Atlanta, especially if you had to either forego players or mortgage the future to pay him that. Had he agreed to Steve Smith type money, the Bills may have found a way to squeeze him in. But the Bill were not going to pay him greater than Eric Moulds money. No way.

Dude, do you have a problem with your caps lock key? Is it stuck or something? Sure we could have made some moves, but not as many, because the issue isn't just the year in which a contract is signed, it also impacts the future. There is no way we could have signed Spikes, that is for sure. It is also unlikely that we would have gotten Malloy. And as others have ppointed out, with cap space allocated to Price at that rate, good luck re-signing Schobel, Jennings, Williiams. The bottom line, and most importantly, much as you love your boy, he just ain't worth $6 million per year! Like I said before, had he agreed to Steve Smith money ($4.5 Million per year), I think we would have found a way to keep him. It isn't JUST about is there enough space to give him what he wants? It is also an issue of is he really worth what he wants. Just because your boy has nearly as many catches as Moulds the year before doesn't make him as good as Moulds. Moulds was doubled all year, while Peerless got singled most of the year. Sorry, but even if we had the space, he wasn't worth that much and there is no way I would rather have PP still here at money he is not worth rather than Takeo Spikes and perhaps Milloy as well.

Well, it is clear now from this discussion that PP was your boy. That's fine. You would have rather we kept him and stayed the same on defense. That's fine, too. But here's the problem. First, you can't be competitive for long without a solid defense. The moves made last year made the defense more than solid. The second thing, as 34-78-83 pointed out, our losing PP was NOT the only reason the offense suffered last year, much as you might like to think. In fact, the second half of the year before, the offense began to sputter , even with PP still here. The Bills had to make improvements in other areas, and they did. Those improvements were made as a tradeoff to re-signing PP. But much as you might like to think that the drop in wins was solely the failure of this tradeoff, you are way too high on your favorite player, much like a lot of fans were around here when it came to a diminutive QB of a few years back. In th long-run, the Bills will be much better off as a result of those tradeoffs, my man.

Well my man, whom should we have not signed then? Whom should we have blown off so that we could have been 8-8 again this past season with Peerless? It is irrelevant whether the Rams were competitive with their defense last season, because obviously if they are forced to start 4 rookies this year, they were not in the same state last year. Apparently, things are catching up. Sure, you can always borrow from Peter to pay Paul if a guy is so worth keeping, but it always bites you in the ass a few years down the road. Just look at what happened when Butler did it. And of course my Muhammed point makes sense because Steve Smith did not sign a PP contract. Duh! Anyway, it is clear that you are speaking from ignorance. You blow off facts and reality with crap like, "Oh that stuff is meaningless to me" which is obvious from your lack of understanding of it. So there really is no point in going further here. You're right Jay, the cap is a bunch of smoke and mirrors. It is all designed to cover for the fact that a GM doesn't want to pay a guy what he's worth. Sure, we could have re-signed PP for what he got from Atlanta, and still had enough money to sign anyone else we wanted. And there really is no cap ramifications from deferring salary as bonuses. That whole purge that occurred when TD took over was completely unnecessary and was only because TD wanted his own guys. Have I missed anything? I think your bizzarro world should be quite intact now. Have fun!