Casey D

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

During the introduction of yesterday's GB/Minn game, Fox in Washington, DC was covering the moment of silence for Reggie White. In the middle of the moment of silence, Fox cut to a commercial for Levitra or something. Was that done everywhere? Was this Fox's commentary on a moment of silence for White, or what happened?

No, his point was that the defense did not play that well either, and contributed to the team's defeat. This is in contrast to those who feel the D played great, and Bledsoe was to blame for everything...CD

But the defense has not been on the field an undue amount when the Steelers got the ball with 11:15 left in the fourth quarter. From then on, the Steelers time of possession v. Buffalo was about 10 minutes to 1, or a nine minute differential. Since the game differential was about 10 minutes total, it means that at the 11:15 mark, Pittsburgh had possessed the ball for about 25 minutes on offense, while the Bills had 24 minutes. Hardly an argument that the Bills defense collapsed at the 11:15 mark due to fatigue, or am I missing something...CD

I understand how you feel, but you are not running the team and it will not happen that way...CD

While everyone can rant and rave about dumping Bledsoe, it seems pretty clear cut how the QB situation will work out. First, Bledsoe is a classy vet and the Bills are a classy organization. Accordingly, they will not do what a weak organization like Cincinnati did and simply tell Bledsoe to grab some pine while Losman loses winnable games early in 2005. That would be throwing away games and the whole team would be upset because the organization is not doing its best to win now. Remember, guys like Spikes, Milloy, Vincent, Williams(assuming he's back), Fletcher, Adams are at their peak, and perhaps starting downhill shortly. These guys can't be thinking about 2006 or 2007, especially when they just finished up 9-3. Second, notwithstanding fan and media criticism, the team loves Bledsoe. He is their guy. You just yank the job from him, and you will not like what you will see. So, what happens. Either fate will step in or it will follow the Henry/McGahee approach. Coming into 2005, there will be very high expectations for this team. Bledsoe will start. One of three things will happen. One is the team plays well right out of the box, goes 12-4 or something, goes to the playoffs and Losman gets another year to be tutored and get spot duty. Second, Bledsoe could get some injury, like Maddox, and Losman gets the chance to start. If he plays as good or better than Bledsoe, he keeps playing even when Bledsoe gets well. Third, the team stumbles out of the box, and the coaches feel the team needs a spark and starts Losman, say in game 4 or 5. Again, if he sparks the team as McGahee did, he keeps playing. Under either scenario 2 or 3, the vets will not have any animosity towards Losman for getting a job handed to him. And if he plays well, they will love him. The foregoing scenarios are the options(no we are not going to get Kurt Warner or some other washed up vet like Mark Brunell, who everyone wanted a year ago), as it is the way a classy organization like the Bills will do things, and it is the samrt way to go. So you can scream about Bledsoe if it is therapeutic for you, but I am confident this is what will happen...CD

Bingo. If any one of the three units played lights out, we would have won. The real issue is, how far below their best did each unit play. We already knew this team is unlikely to win by Bledsoe and the offense putting the team on its shoulders and winning, it is not that good. What is special about this team is its defense and ST. The offense played slightly below its norm, which is pretty low. The ST was way below its norm, and the defense pretty far below its norm, especially when it could not stop a one dimensional offense from racking up 160 yards of rushing offense. In absolute terms, the defense played the best game, followed by the offense and special teams. But in relative terms-- based on what we've come to need and expect from each unit-- the offense and defense were equally bad, and the special teams horrendous. But I guess some people refuse to accept that.