Casey D

This team was supposed to win based on great defense and special teams, and an adequate offense that did not turn the ball over much, and let a pea green QB get his feet wet. The offense is not great, but has turned the ball over only twice in three games and scored on the first three drives yesterday, and got 16 points. This team is supposed to win 10-6, 13-7, 16-9, etc. This defense is supposed to be great--16 points needs to be enough to win 95% of the time. What did the defense do? It gave up touchdowns on the FIRST TWO possessions. It allowed a ridiculous 60 yard run to permit a FG right before half-time when the other team had given up trying to score. When the Bills closed to 17-16 early in the second-half, special teams covered the ensuing kickoff at the Atlanta 3. A hold and the Bills are in scoring position for the lead likely off the PUNT Return. What happens, a 60 yard drive. The defense, except for the one pick, did absolutely nothing to help the O. Nothing. There may be a very small gap between what we could reasonably expect and what we are getting on offense. But there is a chasm between what we expected on defense and what we are getting. If the defense is just decent yesterday, WE WIN. People who think we are going to win by becoming an offensive juggernaut with Holcomb or otherwise are fools. This team rises and falls on defense and special teams. The prospects look dim right now, given the defense's play and now the huge loss of Spikes. But bailing on JP is crazy, and shows how little patience people have, and how little they understand the game in general and the Bills in particular. Good God... CD

The foreging response was to Die Hard Fan, not myself. Plainly I am technologically challenged...CD

I did not say I predicted it-- I said I was not surprised. There is a difference between the two. Let me illustrate. For example, President Bush said he had no idea that the levees in New Orleans could be breached from Katrina. I never would have predicted he would say something so plainly wrong given that he is the President and should be informed. On the other hand, it hardly surprised me that he had no idea what he was talking about given his past performances? See the difference between prediction and lack of surprise?

Perhaps, but I think your expectations are unrealistic. This team is flawed, as are all teams. They had a letdown yesterday.. it happens. What matters now is what they learned from this, and how they respond. I did not expect them to be 16-0.

After last's weeks dominating win, this game was a logical progression in this team's learning curve. Losman was being thrown accolades, and the defense was talking about being as good as the 1985 Bears. Well the Bucs through a cold water bath on all that talk, and the Bills were humiliated. But it was an away game in bad conditions(heat) against a non-conference opponent. If you are going to lose, this is the kind to lose, as opposed to home games against Division rivals. So yesterday was no surprise to me at all. What I am interested in is how this team re-groups--that will give us a much better idea if this team is a pretender or a contender. If they look like yesterday again, then worry. But if they fight back and play OK, and WIN, then maybe we have something. How you respond to adversity is the only true test of character. The Bills need to be 4-2 after the first 6 games if they are really a playoff caliber team, given the early schedule. So let's see what these guys learned yesterday and, more importantly, what they are made of . My view is that I would not want to be the Falcons this week, but we'll see...CD

I like having 3 of the first four games against NFC games. It gives Losman a good chance to get some experience agianst some pretty average teams, and if we lose a game we shouldn't, helps with tiebreakers down the line as it is an out of conference loss. As he should improve as he goes along, this may be a big help to the Bills at season's end... CD

To me, this story is just more Donahoe leaking things to a friend in the media to strengthen his bargaining hand with Arizona. "No, we don't really like Shelton that much, so you'd better make sure we get that draft pick swap we want." I don't think TD would tell his ESPN buddy that the Bills' staff thinks they can turn Shelton into the next Orlando Pace at this juncture, do you? CD

I am neither pro-Bledsoe nor pro-Losman, I just don't want to take a step backward in 2005 and miss the playoffs. And I don't believe the Bills braintrust thinks releasing Bledsoe will reduce our playoff chances much, if at all, for 2005, or they would not make this move. On this score, doing an economic analysis of the situation, it appears that the market agrees with our braintrust that we will not take much of a hit in going with Losman. The proof on this is that no team seems to be willing to give the Bills anything in a trade for Bledsoe. I know the Bills respect Bledsoe, but they would not give him away if there was a stronger market for his services. How they are handling the Henry situation proves that. Bledsoe's cap number for the next two years is relatively small for a decent starting QB. If Bledsoe were perceived as a decent starting QB, someone would offer a draft pick for him--the Bills would let him shop his services and then make a trade. This is not being done for only one reasonable reason--no one will part with even a middle round pick for him. It is evident, therefore, that the market shows that Bledsoe is, at best, a marginal starting QB. That being the consensus judgment of an entire league of GMs and coaches, as a mere interested observer, going with Losman seems to be the move that most every team in the league would make. So let's get it done and move into the Losman era....CD

ICE ICE, baby...

How about he just play in A game when it is not mop-up time. Hope is nice, but that's all it is right now as far as Losman winning BIG games.

The answer to your question is clear, as what QBs have won a SB except Brady in the last few years: 2003: Brad Johnson 2001: Trent Dilfer 2000: Kurt Warner None of them were remotely star QBs when they won(you might argue on Warner, who was spectacular for a very short time, but he came out of nowhere and soon returned). In fact, Warner and Dilfer were backups when the season started. And none of them are starters today. Which suggests that other than Brady, the fixation on the QB position to win the SB is misguided. Others like Rypien, Doug Williams, Jeff Hofstedler, all were backups or journeyman. Favre did win one, Elway two, but only late in his career as his talent was fading. Outside of Aikman and Montana, you'd have to say the teams won the SB because they were the best team, not the team with the best QB. Indianapolis proves this truism every year.

I finally understand why no one outside this board thinks what TD said last week is a big deal(thus no newspaper articles)--it's not. Unless the Bills "do something different"--which seems unlikely givne their investment in Losman and Bledsoe-- the issue is whether Bledsoe is guaranteed the job, or whether he has to earn it in camp. Big deal. I mean I always assumed if and when Losman is performing better than Bledsoe, he would get the job. This all now seems like a big nothing to me...CD

He says we could use a guard, and a tackle if Jennings leaves. He also indicated an upgrade at TE and Defensive End might be a good idea. No analysis...CD

I've had the same question. If what TD said yesterday was as substantial as listeners have posted--i.e there is a good chance DB will be cut or something like that--isn't that news for a team that finished 9-3 with him as the starter? But not a peep from the News or the D&C. Are they asleep? It seems to me given all the drivel that is written, this is a pretty big oversight if reports are accurate...CD

I agree, it is up to the factfinder, i.e, the jury, to determine if the guy appeared visibly intoxicated. The issue is not whether he was intoxicated--this is not strict liability--it is whether he "appeared" intoxicated. If someone holds his liquor well and shows no sign of intoxication, then the vendor would not be responsilbe even if the guy had a .2 blood level. I have not heard the evidence, so I am not in a position to judge. But juries are just people finding facts--it they got it really wrong, the decision can be reversed. I cannot assume that the jury was wrong to say the guy looked intoxicated, when he had a .26 blood alcohol level.

The law in New Jersey is quite clear, you can be responsible in tort for serving someone who is "visibly intoxicated." If, as a matter of fact, an Aramark employee served this guy while he was visibly drunk, then they are liable, as a corporation can only act through it's representives. If you think it's a bad law, change it. If you think a corporation should not be responsible for it's employees conduct if it violates some internal rule, that would be fine too. But, if it is true, as alleged, that Aramark was happy to serve drunk people, that it winked when it's employees served visibly intoxicated people, then it bears responsibility. This is not purely passive conduct on the part of the company, as is often the case with a gun manufacturer(here, to me, the beer company would be analogous to the gun manufacturer). Now there is no basis to hold the NFL or the Giants responsible under the law of New Jersey, that is why the case was dismissed as to them. But this is not a situation where the court made up some new standard, it simply followed the statute that duly elected officials in New Jersey passed as law. And it hardly seems unreasonable to me.

It's funny, but over on the Colts board, there actually is discussion about whether the Colts could get a first round pick for Manning because he is a choker. Most think no because of his cap figure. It really is true that fans everywhere tend to focus just on the QB when things go wrong--even when he is the league MVP-- and little else. Simplicity must give people comfort, I guess that's why Bush is president too.

It really helps that Indy had a totally inept approach on offense. NE's defense is vulnerable to outside and deep passes, Tennessee showed that last year in the playoffs. In fact, Tennessee would have won last year except McNair was very inaccurate in his throws. NE's problem has been greatly increased with all their secondary injuries. So what did Indy do? They threw nothing deep and very little outside. They threw short passes over the middle, playing into NE's greatest strength, it's LBs. What a brain freeze by Indy, they did not even give it a decent shot with that game plan.

Excellent post. People here think JP will surely be better than Manning next year and that will carry us to victory. It is a team game, and although Indy is flashy, at the end of the day they are not that good a TEAM...CD

I was simply drawing the same conclusions, based on similar empirical evidence as between Bledsoe and Manning, that many people make vis Bledsoe. Even though the Bills finished 9-3 under Bledsoe, the need to can Bledsoe now is supported with arguments such as (1) he didn't win the big game against Pittsburgh, which proves he can't win big games, (2) he can't beat New England, (3) he can't lead the Bills to a Super Bowl win. All these arguments apply with equal force--perhaps greater-- to Manning, yet as RuntheDamnBall observed, the idea of cutting Manning is absurd. Yet he has shown he can't even be competitive against New England. 3 points? So the excuse is to get him a defense? Nice thought, but he, along with James and his receivers, get paid way too much for Indy to have a good defense--there is only so much money to go around. My post was simply to show the irony of some of the arguments made here--which are often sophistry upon examination. Whether we should start Bledsoe or Losman is up to the coaching staff in my opinion, I just want them to play the guy that gives us the best chance of winning in 2005.

Thank you...

My post was tongue in cheek as JoeSixPack understood . But when a team spends all its money on one side of the ball--the offense accounts for almost 80% of the Colts payroll--you are supposed to win by outscoring the other team, not asking your defense to shut out NE. The Colts scored 3 points. I think blaming their defense is silly.

The Colts defense played pretty well. 0-6 against NE shows he can't win a big game. Cut Manning, add some beef to the defense, and the Colts might do something... CD

It's obvious that the Colts will never win a Super Bowl with Manning. Given the amount of money he is paid, it's time for the Colts to move him and start Jim Sorgi. If they need an interim QB, I think Kurt Warner would work for them. But Manning is through...CD

Please, let's give this a rest. If Bledsoe is only good enough to get you beat, then why, as he learned the offense, did the Bills go 9-3 the last 3/4ths of the season. You are basically saying because the team won only 6 in a row, as opposed to 7 in a row, the team can't win with Bledsoe. Personally, my only interest is in seeing the Bills make the playoffs next year, and hopefully win in them. That would be another step forward in 2005. If Bledsoe will get us there but not Losman--in the coaching staff's expert opinion--then I'm for Bledsoe. If there will be no step backward--or, even better, a step forward--with Losman, I'm for Losman. What I do not agree with is exchanging an 11-5 season with Bledsoe at the helm--if he is the better QB in 2005--for a 9-7 season with Losman as the QB in order to season him. In the NFL, the future is now, and those who want to lose more games in 2005 because Bledsoe will only take you so far, well I disagree. I want the best QB to play in 2005. And, it is altogether possible that at some time during the 2005 season, the better QB might go from Bledsoe to Losman, I just don't know. Let this coaching staff coach and make this decision. I think they earned our trust with what they accomplished in 2005. I trust their judgment on this a whole lot more than a bunch of fans who have far less insight and understanding of the game. And those who say they want Losman even if it means more losses say that now because they don't think he will lose more games, but if it happens they will be the first to B word .. CD