Casey D

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

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