Casey D

I was focusing on the offense, but you are right, w/o Spikes the defense will suffer all year. Which makes it even more important for the offense to do more, not less, than what was expected of it, which was not that much...CD

Sorry about the typo on Villarrial.. what kind of name is that, Dutch?

to see if the return of Williams, Villarrial and Euhus, along with the possiblility of Parrish playing, will give this offense a significant boost. With Holcomb at QB, and the starting O-line having a chance to play together for the first time since early in game 2, the O should be much better if it is inherently any good at all. We should get a much better idea of what we really have after Sunday... CD

He's not on the injury list this week. Villareal is listed as probable.

Come on man, be honest at least. You set up a straw man with a fictitious quote, and then pat yourself on the back for demolishing the straw man. He said KH was brought in to be a possible alternative(i.e., an insurance policy) if Losman was awful. That not only is true, it was written about at the time KH was signed...CD

Bingo. Good post! At least give credit to what the Bills are thinking here, even if you disagree.

Uh Rush, where did Indy Mark use the words "open competition?" I think he wrote Holcomb was an alternative. Losman was handed the job w/o competition. He has, at least for now, lost the job. Where was it ever said he could never lose his job? Can't anyone lose a job?

But you incorrectly assume that this is somehow a permanent decision--it is not. If the Bills suck as you suggest, Losman will be back in to get the experience for next year. If the Bills are 2-6 at the break,for example, Losman is in for the rest of the year. Shoot, I bet if they lose Sunday, he's back in for the Jets.

I am not sure if I like the move or not, but it makes sense to do this now if you are going to do it at all . Despite being 1-3, the AFC East seems wide open and the Bills have no conference or division losses, so they are in it if they can start to win. If they win the next two games with Holcomb, people will be happy because the Bills will be in it. But at whatever point the Bills playoff chances are realistically done, Losman goes back in and gets the experience he needs for next year. So as I see it, KH is in until the Bills are out of the hunt. If the Bills truly have the other pieces in place to win(which looks doubtful right now to me), we may see KH for a while. If the Bills are not a contender at all-- as Jerry Sullivan says and may be right-- Losman will be back in for the rest of the year in a couple of weeks, because at that point the games will truly mean nothing from a standings perspective. It will be like Manning with the Giants last year. So either way, the rest of the season will have some interest, either because the Bills are in the AFC East race or we get to see Losman's development. So I get the strategy here...CD

This thread is what a Bush Administration cabinet meeting must be like.

You really have an interesting way of thinking. And your use of hyperbole is just super. Notwithstanding your once again condescending writing, the articles are not primarily opinion pieces, and they contain many quotes from players and the DC on what some of the problems are on defense. They are wholly consistent with what I have seen at the Houston game live, and as best I can tell from television in the other to games--although it is hard for me to tell too much from a network broadcast. You don't have to get anything from the author to determine that my views are are consistent with just about all the statements made by the professionals in the articles. Yours are not. Does not make me right, or you wrong. It does suggest that your basic position that I have no idea what I am talking about, and that your views are indisputably correct, is wrong. But I should stop upsetting you by challenging your world view, so I will go now. Take care.

No offense taken. No one is arguing that Edwards is a great tackle. The issue is whether all, or most, of the poor play on defense can be attributed to Edwards. I think fairly read, while I agree that they would not single out Edwards(but the article does even more than not single out Edwards, it indicates that Gray says he has been steadier than most), the article tells us that there have been lots of defensive breakdowns, and that Edwards is not the primary reason that the run defense has been gashed--it has required lots of mistakes from lots of people on defense. That to me not only is a fair reading, it seems a fair assessment of what I have seen so far from the defense.

Try this one too from Allen Wilson of the News. And in terms of your "higher standards" I suspect these folks actually watched the games--as did I. The notion that you know more than everyone else by glancing at the game on TV is remarkably arrogant. No matter what he does or how he plays, defensive tackle Ron Edwards will be held to the standards set by the man he replaced. Pat Williams' name has popped up often since the Buffalo Bills' defense got run over by Tampa Bay and Atlanta. Edwards has yet to make anyone forget about Williams, who went to Minnesota via free agency. Edwards had a solid effort in the season-opening win over Houston, but against Tampa Bay he had trouble getting off blocks and was knocked off the ball on several running plays. He played better last Sunday versus Atlanta, but it was hardly noticed as the Bills yielded 236 rushing yards in a 24-16 loss. "You always try to get better and improve in everything you do," Edwards said. "I know I can play better. You just keep working at it and try to find a way to get better." Actually, the Bills have no complaints about Edwards' play. Defensive coordinator Jerry Gray called the fifth-year veteran one of his steadiest performers. The Bills still appear to miss Williams, who formed a dominant interior tandem with Pro Bowler Sam Adams. But the team says it's unfair to Edwards or anyone on defense to imply that Williams' absence is the sole reason they haven't stopped the run lately. "I don't think bringing one person back will make a difference the way that we're playing," defensive end Chris Kelsay said. The Bills' defensive woes have been a group effort. The unit has given up 522 yards rushing and ranks dead last in the NFL, allowing 174 yards per game. The Bills have been victimized by opponents' zone blocking schemes, which call for offensive linemen to move laterally off the snap. When defenders over-commit to where the play is designed to go, the line can push them aside and running backs are able to find huge cutback lanes opposite the play side. Many of the big runs by Tampa Bay's Carnell Williams and Atlanta's Warrick Dunn and T.J. Duckett were on cutbacks. "We're not doing our job, and it shows up when a guy runs through an open gap," Gray said. "You can take a scout team guy and do that, so you know if a No. 1 draft pick sees that he's going to get 100 and some yards." The Bills' defense hasn't played with much patience or discipline, Gray said, and players are getting caught out of position. Gray said everyone needs to stop trying to do too much and focus on their own assignments. "We've got one guy that's out of place, and it's not because he's doing it on purpose," he said. "It's just that you've got to be disciplined enough to do your job and let the defense take over." The Bills' defensive line wasn't very stout against the run against Tampa Bay or Atlanta. The ends are losing outside containment and the tackles are clogging gaps. Gray has them slanting and stunting on a lot of plays, but if the linemen slant in the wrong direction it plays into the hands of a good zone-blocking team. Defensive end Aaron Schobel spoke for a number of players when he said the defense needs to keep it simple. "I like just lining up and playing our base front," Schobel said. "I think that's when we're at our best. I think right now we're trying to do too much and it's hurting us because of some communication breakdowns. It's always one guy. It's not always the same guy, but it is one guy that's out of position and the running backs are finding it. I think we'll be fine once we go back to the simple things." Gray doesn't buy the notion that a simplified defense is a better one. "You look at us, we've been doing the same thing for the last four years and we haven't changed," he said. "We've made some adjustments, but it goes back to guys trying to do too much. It's not too much within the call, I don't think. They're trying to do somebody else's job. Do only yours and you'll see the defense start climbing back to where it's supposed to be. We'll stop the run, we'll stop the pass and get off the field on third down." Whatever the solution, the Bills have to find a way to stop the run. It won't be easy with linebacker Takeo Spikes out for the season with a torn Achilles tendon. Making it even tougher is all the top-shelf running backs they're going to face in the next several weeks, starting Sunday with New Orleans Saints two-time Pro Bowler Deuce McAllister. But Gray promises what we have seen from the Bills' defense won't be what we'll get the rest of the season. "If we were doing our jobs and getting slapped around I'd be worried," he said. "Our mistakes are self-inflicted. You've got to pick yourself up and say, "Hey, let me make only my plays,' and you'll see the defense step back up. We're confident that by the end of the year, when you look at the stats, we won't be where we are now." e-mail: awilson@buffnews.com

He doesn't need to watch the game--he has studied game film. He knows that Edwards is the problem, and anyone who says otherwise is simply ignorant, or lying(in the case of Jerry Gray according to AKC). Get with the AKC program man--nothing is wrong with this defense except Edwards, he knows. Gap control, schmap control.

This has to be wrong, people on this Board have stated that they have watched the game film and said the whole problem with the defense is Ron Edwards. What is this gap and lack of discipline nonsense. It has to be Edwards, right? Bills' defense determined to rebound Lack of discipline biggest problem say players, coaches Sal Maiorana Staff writer (September 30, 2005) — ORCHARD PARK — It's not very often that you can say your run defense is going to be better with linebacker Takeo Spikes standing on the sidelines in street clothes with a crutch under each of his arms. News flash, courtesy of Buffalo defensive coordinator Jerry Gray: Even though Spikes is out for the season thanks to a torn Achilles' tendon, Gray said Wednesday that the Bills' run defense will be better. Now here's the punch line: It's not that the Bills are better off with Angelo Crowell playing for Spikes, it's just that they simply can't get any worse at defending the run, with or without Spikes. "We're confident that by the end of the year, when you look at the stats, we won't be where we are now," Gray said. Where they are right now is dead last in stopping the run, allowing an average of 174 yards per game through three weeks, a preposterous figure given the Bills' recent history. In the last two games the Bills have allowed 191 and 236 rushing yards to Tampa Bay and Atlanta, respectively. In the previous two seasons when the Bills finished No. 2 overall in total defense, Gray's defense allowed more than 190 yards on the ground just once — last year, when New England gained 208. "To me it probably is humbling, and it gives you a chance to go up because you can't go anywhere else, so you have to go back up," said Gray. What's perplexing about this sudden inability to stop opposing running backs is that the defense — before Spikes' injury Sunday — was largely unchanged. Ten of 11 starters were back, the lone exception being Ron Edwards taking over for free agent departee Pat Williams at tackle. Williams was a fine player, but his absence isn't profound enough to create such a collapse. In fact, Gray pointed out that Edwards is actually playing pretty well. Instead, the problem has been a lack of discipline throughout the defensive unit. What Gray and a number of his troops see on film are far too many examples of players taking themselves out of position by trying to do too much. "We have to play what the defense is designed to do," middle linebacker London Fletcher said. "If you have the 'A' gap, then you take the 'A' gap. If you have the 'B' gap, take the 'B' gap. "Every guy is responsible for a gap in this defense, so it's not a situation where it's ability or effort or anything like that. It's more discipline. We still remain confident because you know guys can get it done." Gray is all for being aggressive, and he loves players who make plays from sideline to sideline. But the film does not lie, and he sees too many guys overextending themselves and working outside the confines of the scheme. "I think that we've got such good players that guys want to make all the plays, and you've got to be good enough to say, 'This is not my play,'" he said. "You've got to be disciplined enough to do your job and let the defense take over. If we were doing our jobs and getting slapped around I'd be worried. But we're not doing our job and it shows up when a guy runs through an open gap." Defensive end Aaron Schobel sees Gray's point, but he also questioned some of the calls that are being made. Last week, for instance, the Bills blitzed on almost every play trying to get to Atlanta quarterback Michael Vick, and Schobel believes there was too much confusion. "I think we're trying to do too much," Schobel said. "Too much game planning and everybody is not clear on what is going on and there's some miscommunication going on. If we simplify everything, I think we will be all right. "People are out of place, I was out of place. It's not just one person. "I think it's some people trying to do too much. It's little things that we need to correct. It's not like we're getting pushed around. It's not the talent. I think we'll be fine once we go back to the simple things."

Getting patronizing does not make you right. Maybe you should type in all caps so I hear you better--that's persuasive too. There are lots of reasons why the defense has not played well so far, and if in your expert opinion you want to lay it all on Ron Edwards, by all means do so. Tell me though, when did you get the game films from yesterday to study, to come up with your analysis that you say is obvious on film? Did you have time to break it all down today. Man you are good. I expect Edwards will be released tomorrow on your say so, given how obvious the problem is on film.

You have a myopic way of thinking. Of course, the defensive backfield has less to do with rushing defense than the defensive line. Conversely, the defensive backfield has much to do with pass defense. My analogy was that when the Patriots lost just about their entire secondary, and had to play that way down the stretch last year--and in the playoffs against one of the most dynamic passing teams in history, the Colts--the team's pass defense held up just fine. And that was with the loss of several players, not just one. Which leads to my point, that football is a team sport, and so is football defense. When over 90% of your defense returns(as is the case with the Bills), you would not expect a 50% or greater drop off in play simply because of the loss of one player-- and only a good player, not a pro-bowler. Yet you claim the drop off in the defense's play as attributable solely to the loss of PW to be a certain truth, and my reference to the Patriots was simply to show that losing one player--or multiple players--should not that significantly affect a good defense. And don't suggest the DBs that New England was using were great players--guys like Earthwind Moreland who started is not even in the league anymore(I don't think). Surely the drop-off from Ty Law to Moreland at least equaled any drop-off from Williams to Edwards(no matter how much you think he sucks), yet New England held up just fine in pass defense. I find it implausible that the Bill's dramaticdefensive drop-off is primarily due to PW leaving--that's my view. But you think what you like. You are just wrong, in my opinion.

To be sure, it would be. And fyi, "surmized" is spelled "surmised." But let's caulk that up to an honest mistake.

New England was starting practice squad players in the secondary last year; they even use a receiver--Troy Brown--on defense. If there depth is that deep, that is incredible. In any event, I understand your certaintly that the downfall of the D is the loss of PW. I simply don't agree.

Thanks for clearing that up. My bad.

Certainly no one would conclude your posts are cheerful or tolerant based on your broad body of work on this board. You have a style that is judgmental and often mean spirited. I guess I just assumed it was caused by anger, but I don't really care about the reason one way or the other--it's none of my business. I just thought it funny and somewhat ironic that you of all people would tell someone else to lighten up. But let's move on, I don't want to start a tirade or anything.

Your response only indicates that you are certain that everything is attributable to the PW departure. You may be right, but given say, the myriad of injuries that teams have with little or no fall off in performance--e.g. the New England secondary last year--it seems more likely to me that the loss of one player should not have that dramatic of an effect. So the situation hardly seems obvious to me; indeed your view seems to be overly simplistic and wrong, and in my opinion, equally curious. But to each his own.

No, your consistent pattern of scathing and acerbic comments on most every topic is a pretty clear sign of anger. Unless, of course, you are really Don Rickles or something and it is all an act.

That's funny. As angry as you seem to be about almost everything, telling someone else to lighten up. That's a good one.

Why do you find that curious? What he is plainly stating is that the fall off in the defense, in his mind, cannot be explained simply by the loss of Williams. Your fallacious thinking is that because the only thing different is Williams, the cause for the fall off must be Williams. But you are assuming your answer when you say the only difference is Williams. Other factors might be involved, like poorer performance from returning players due to age, simple regression, or injury. Or perhaps the defensive schemes used before effectively are no longer as effective because of adjustments opposing offenses have made. Those are just a couple of possibilities. Bottom line, it seems unlikely the defense has played so poorly solely, or even primarily, because of the departure of PW. Other things--hopefully correctable things--probably are the main reasons, when you have 10 starters returning(now 9 with the loss of Spikes)... CD