MRM33064

Ditto .... and this is the exception. Hysterically funny.

It's essentially moot, he's not interested ... I suspect that has to do with his stated reasons (his active charity work, etc.), and also unstated ones, such as his observation of the Marino experiment a few years ago down here in South Florida. Marino - another guy with all sorts of things going on, chartiable and otherwise - accepted an important job with the Dolphins front office and then quit after about a month. Jim is a great ambassador for the team, his charties, and the region. That's what he does best now. (We can politely avoid even reaching the issue of qualifications.)

A little love for Rick "Bootin'" Tuten?

"Jauron & Fewell" ... bringing their smooth, sleep-inducing act to the Niagara Casino next week, opening for Peaches & Herb. Expect a medley of smooth jazz favorites: "Check it Down", "Keepin' it Close", and "Gimme sum Moor-man"

For this week, how about Marty Schottenheimer.

I don't know squat about this topic, but I'm wondering if the raw volume of plays run has any relevance, at least insofar as expected defensive injuries go? If the chance of a defensive player being injured would be modeled, wouldn't it be modeled as something like a function of X (player's individual "shape" - what is being debated in this thread), Y (some random propensity to be subject to an injury on any play), and Z (number of plays a player plays). In other words, it's not just "X" .... but might the fact that the Bills defense has a high amount of plays run against them (because, in part, our offense is so terrible) in and of itself cause an above-average expectation of injury? That also feeds on itself, because once a starter is injured the defense itself may not be as good, which in turn might cause more plays to be run against that defense. I don't know, obviously fitness and conditioning at the individual player level is key and the MOST relevant factor, but maybe teams that have better talent (offensive and defensive) might be less likely to have defensive injuries simply by virtue of getting defensive starters off the field more? "Better" defensive backups would also be helpful, inasmuch as the defensive quality wouldn't drop as much if a starter is injured. Just speculating a little.

Generally, I think it's unfair to characterize Ralph as "cheap." He'll pay big for the players that his front office recommends, yet he seems to dread paying for the top front office personnel - i.e. the people who are making those recommendations. The old man just doesn't like paying (what he'd likely call) overhead, nor does he particularly dig giving any authority to anyone unless he's fairly certain they won't really try to use any of it without directly involving him. Until we see anything different, I'm going to assume the 90+ year old guy isn't going to change those views - "$10 meeeelllion dollar" reports notwitstanding.

Fired for failing to put a Cover Sheet on that TPS report! "Ah Chuck ... if you could just pop in on Sunday to help clean out Perry's desk, that'd be grrrrrrrreat." I was thinking more along the lines of Kramer getting fired from the job he never had.

"Kitch 22" may also simply be "Catch 22" translated into WNY-ease. For instance, "Dat der Cowher problem is a rill Kitch 22 ... but I swears I seen 'em drivin' down da two-nineny dis mornin, right byes da big blue wadder tower der."

I like this kind of "penalty" philosophy more than the incentive approach.

Hmmm ... what if there was some kind of value (a few extra late round picks?) available to be awarded based on winning % over the last 4 games of the regular season. It's a little bit back-asswards awarding draft picks as prizes for winning games, but "meaningless" games are the worst - and using subjective standards (playing "starters", etc.) seems totally unworkable. The prospect of a getting a 5th rounder wouldn't put Peyton on the field for the whole game yesterday, but I do think some incentive might matter in different circumstances. Extremely tricky, but fun to kick around ideas.

I'll say that - barring any personal issues (health, family, etc.) - it is a virtual certainty he will coach next year, but not HC capacity. Jauron has been around forever, appears to be well-regarded, and must have a contact list a mile long. Once one breaks into the NFL coaching ranks, inertia takes over.

The coronation would commence the second his plane landed in Buffalo. Parades would ensue.

Maybe I just haven't listened to Clayton enough, but he strikes me as being a little soft on specifics and/or new information.

FWIW, I think Frank Reich will be back in some capacity as well.

Off-topic: FWIW, it certainly seems like any thread with "Schopp", "Bulldog" and/or "WGR" in it always seems to create a lot of buzz. In a slight bit of irony, those passionately posting criticism against them are probably indirectly guaranteeing their tenure.

This thread had to have been started for the sole purpose of igniting 1,000 identical replies. In similar news, I saw that the Sabres just called up Jean-Claude Perreault, Pierre Robert, and Joe Martin from Portland, and, well ...... nevermind.

It's all a negotiating ploy to make Cowher think he's going to lose the gig if he doesn't act fast ... he says, tongue-in-cheek ....

Well said. Also highly unlikely that the kid would be suspended by the league, a training camp holdout, etc.

Agreed - the punch line to every joke down here in South Florida for an entire year included some reference to Ted Ginn's family. Whenever I see the guy's name I'm reminded of the local sportstalk bit where they interposed "Cam Cameron" into MC Hammer's "Can't Touch This". Fin fans couldn't stand the guy. I don't know much of Cam Cameron, but his tenure in Miami resembled Dick Jauron's. It was like a weekly soap opera that centered around watching an otherwise decent, quiet man just fall deeper and deeper into the abyss .... complete with the "Weekend at Bernie's" empty stare.

Obviously there are specific examples that will illustrate any premise - great college players who busted in the NFL, great college players who were stars in the NFL, great NFL players who were largely invisible in college, etc. The question isn't whether we'd want Tebow - there isn't a GM in the league who wouldn't want to bring him in for a try - it's a question of acceptable price/risk in terms of draft position. As to Wuerffel in particular, there was substantial consensus that his college success under Spurrier <cue angel harp music for Gator fans> wouldn't translate, which is why he wasn't selected until a later round. Tebow will likely not last 98 picks.

From the way he was talking at his press conference, Jimbo might be holding one up.

I've watched just about every game in Tebow's college career, and I agree with this sentiment. The kid is special, he's a leader, a character guy, and a winner. Yes, he played for some outstanding teams. Yes, his teams outclassed the competition more often than not. Still, I believe he is among the greatest college football players of the modern era. Is he NFL QB? Not sure, and the Bills desparately need one, which is why I don't think the Bills could afford to use their top pick on Tebow. But after that .... different story .... if I'm prone to gamble a little (and most draft picks are a bit of a gamble anyway), he's the type of player that has a huge upside potential and I think he deserves a serious look. I do think he's the kind of player that can contribute in some aspect - tangible or intangible - quickly, if not at the QB position. I also have a sneaky suspicion that the Jim Kelly/Thurman Thomas contingent, whose presence is evidently increasing in some respect, have their eye on Tebow as well.

1. If we'd have signed Nix directly away from the Chargers, the presumption would be that the move was aggressive and in the right direction. 2. I'd like to think that we're making a serious run at Cowher ... and the indications (even including Jimbo's incessant "Cowher" references in his press conference) seem to indicate we are. I'm not sure why Cowher would choose us over other available options (assuming equal compensation that is), but we can hope.

Schopp frequently gets under people's skin (which ultimately is at least part of his job) because he's short with people who - for whatever reason - don't come off sounding very intelligent on the radio. I listen fairly regularly, and I can't remember too many cases (if any) where an intelligent-sounding caller was treated poorly or in a condescening manner. The guys that fail with Schopp are the cliche repeaters. I like that he has opinions and that a lot of his opinions are objectively defensible (such as by use of actual data), and often diametrically opposed to the boring, old (and frequently wrong) football cliches. His chip-on-the-shoulder about insufficient media access from One Bills Drive isn't really all that revealing, nor particularly unique. He's far from the only media member with that complaint.