Pyrite Gal

Mt guess is that what Sullivan says Ralph said is actually worth very little because: 1. The theory presented is that Ralph must have given this sentiment to Sullivan as Sully is on the record clearly saying Ralph said this and thus if Sully was simply lying it probably would have big personal (and potentially public) ramifications for his having Ralph as a source. I agree with this logic and guess Ralph did relay this message to Sully. However, just because Ralph said this does not mean that it is at all the way the Bills will operate in contract talks with NC. In fact, if I am having Overdorf and Littman negotiate with NC, i really like having the message out there that the "old man" does not like paying NC a competitive contract at all. Even better, rather than having Ralph go on the record saying this, I have now gotten a Buffalo News reporter to say the "old man" said this. Ralph is a proven good businessman and this statement actually enhances Overdorf's negotiating position as they can say they think NC deserves big bucks but they are getting as much as they can from Ralph and if NC would come to them a little they can make this work. I do not doubt Ralph said this, but it simply does not mean the Bills will be unwilling to make a credible offer to NC. 2. I agree that no CB (and in fact no NFL player) is worth the big bucks they receive for playing a boys game, That salaries are insane is not intelligently open to debate. The question is relative value and as far as this goes, Ralph has a legally binding duty under the CBA to distribute a significantly bigger slice of the total revenues to the players. The question in today's NFL is whether such a big contract to NC would allow you to still build a winner given the constraints this contract places on your cap room to acquire other players. My sense is that Ralph is right that NC does not deserve the contract based on what his play does for the real world, but i do not see any player deserving the money and instead it appears that under the escalation of the salary cap, particularly with mamy key high paid positions like QB, LT and even WR locked up longterm, the Bills are in a position to still make a handsome profit even with the big contract to BC. The Bills may decide not pay him the money as they have some other budget for the salary cap hike that must come by agreement in mind. But there would seem to be no mathematical way to claim that they cannot or even will not do this if they want to.

The key to this very hypothetical move is what type of team does this theoretically give the Bills in 2007 (and of course figuring in the long term possibilities). This is why the thoughts offered here would be one I would reject because the post really says nothing about there this leaves the Bills in terms of even a semi-rational hypothetical future. Having another 1st round pick simply means little unless an idea is presented as to how you are going to translate that pick into being a better team. The unanswered (and really even unasked) questions are what does the author see as the primary Bills needs to build a winner in 2007 and beyond and who as specifically as the author can get does the suggester suggests we can get with the first round choice? Also, you have now traded away your starting RG and how does the suggester suggest that this gap is filled. My sense is that the argument the suggester is making is that a very good starting RB can be found with a later and even second day draft pick. Who specifically are we talking about and if the idea is simply you eject WM and go with Anthony Thomas as your starter and Shaud Williams as your back-up I think almost all would say thanks but no thanks. Simply saying that this is easy and we draft the current equivalent of Terrell Davis in the 7th is to put it nicely a theory more easily said than done and without even some suggestion (much less detail) of how and who this is the suggestion is laughable. What I suspect is that the thought and info which would make this even an interesting proposal is that the author sees some specific need to make the Bills competive for a playoff shot (for example, some argue we need a run stuffing DT while other argues we need a threat at WR which makes Evans even more effective as the way to go). Getting another first rounder means little to me because even in these two cases if one buys them, the target is probably better found among FAs than in the draft crapshoot. If the author feels that our first round choice McGahee is definitely not worth a big contract then it seems to make little sense to argue that the answer to this is to instead give a big contract (which is a first rounder will get by practice) to another 1st rounder who quite frankly is unlikely to even produce the likely 3 straight 1,000 yard rushing years that WM will have on his resume.

My sense also is that with $30 mill in cap room you attempt to sign both of them, . As far as NC goes the Bills could have offered him a deal that would have large costs but would have been cheaper than the end of the season to sign him. The choice has likely already been made to pay the big bucks for him or let him go. Really who knows what the ultimate decision is, letting him go would be consistent with the profit-making manner Ralph has usually required of his GM, yet he has occaisionally made unconventional investments for him when he smelled a winner. Clements does not have the talent to merit the big bucks he would command, however, he is an essential enough part of this team, and the effort needed to train his replacement would essentially make next year another learning year for the Bills D so I would not be surprised if given Ralph's age he makes the big fiscal leap to sign NC. I think the Bills likely resign Fletcher as he clearly been one of the most consistently productive Bills for the past half decade. The complaints that he is a liability in run coverage actually do not carry a lot of reality unless one considers anyone not playing at a Chris Spielman level a liability. Particularly the complaints that his tackles come 5 yards down the field seem to be fairly superficial. To the extent this is a problem I think it primarily would seem to be one which indicates that our defensive linemen are easily beaten so that the first shot on them is in the second layer where the LBs play. Perhaps one wants to still find some primary fault in Fletcher's game by claiming that he fails to fill the gaps the LB is supposed to cover and he should be closer to the LOS. This interpretation is a misread of how the Bills D plays as in potential pass plays in the Tampa 2, the MLB's primary duty is actually deep pass coverage as he and the safeties divide the field into thirds. Even on running downs, our DL's first look by definition is not blitzing as the lower weight DL in the Tampa 2 is skilled at doing but they should be holding a wall at the LOS allowing Fletcher or an LB playing gap duty to attack the LOS and hit the RB at the line or in the backfield. If folks want to claim that they think LF should go because he does not have the ability to bsck-up a weak DL and hits RBs 5 yards down the field this makes more sense, but the first response to this is not to try to find a replacement for Fletch that can do this, but instead to get better DL players or change our scheme to solve the DL problem. Fletcher is not perfect, his lack of prototype height for a LB is occaisionally noticeable. However, he clearly has shown an ability to have and use a nose for the ball as shown by his team leading tackle numbers year after year. In addition, he demonstrates he is a smart player who has shown the ability to get both LB (and even team) leading numbers of sacks and also INTs most years he has been here. Further, his INTs, fumble recoveries, TDs and even seeing a lot of use as the short kick return guy shows he has good ball handling skills. The theory that he is past 30 is a reasonable one, the only problem with it as that there does not seem to be a big slide in LB-Fs tackle, sack and INT #s which indicate that the inevitable downturn has hit him. The bottom line is that anyone who advocates cutting him leaves this idea incomplete unless they also say what the plan is to replace him. Jphn DiGregorio? Shift the injury recoveing Crowell back to MLB? Crickets chirping seems to typically be folks answer.

One of the ironies here is that when he is inspired enough to play team ball rather than me ball, recent former Bill Sam Adams has just the type of rare body size and mobility you are talking about. He has one of the quickest first steps in the league which allowed him to be a fearsome pass rusher and his step was so fast and had the potential to embarass the opposing OL player that it allowed him to take half (or more) of plays off per game. There was no telling when he might decide to play and OL players were backing up every play and OCs assigned an extra blocker to him in case this was one of the plays he blew past the player assigned to him. He actually was inspired enough during big parts of his first couple of years with the Bills that he only took a third of the game off and his output got him a Pro Bowl nod. Alas and a lack when his budy Phat Sam decided to leave the team after TD made the mistake of being a little bit too tough in deal-making with him, Sam seemed to be come more uncooperative and seemed more interested in getting sacks than using his big body to clog the middle. I can see that Jauron and Fewell seemed to decide they could not manage this malcontent because he certainly had that rare frame and ability you are talking about. Is a shame he never used that natural ability to be the run stuffer he was on inspired occaisions.

You are correct and for exactly these reasons I think Marv will ignore the bleatings of some folks that it is time to cut TKO.

Unless you and the Bills docs know something about the nature of TKOs injury and are virtually certain about his prospects for recovery it would seem to b suicidal football to cut him early in the off-season or before how one sees how the draft shapes up interms of available talent at the Combine and even who one gets from the draft. There would seem to be little reason for us in terms of footbsll to get our panties all up in a wad and feel some need to cut him quickly. TKO worked out like a fiend and did well enough that he surprisingly to many made it back out onto the field for the first snap this season and with a brain that has played a lot of football made the right read (in fact a demonstrably better read of the play than noneother than Tom Brady) and got a sack for this good work. However, based on the simple facts of what happened, he may have pushed too hard and ended with the setback of a badly pulled muscle. Will TKO with a full off-season to rest rather than focus on rehabe recover to be the Pro Bowler he once was? No, I doubt he will. However, it not only is possible that despite his current shortcomings as an LB who not only was recovering from an injury, but also was playing a new LN position, hile it is not likely at all he will ever be the player he was, it is quite conceivable that he could after an off-seasom become 80% of his old Pro Bowl self and if he does I think he worth keeping as I think that 80% of TKO is easily equal to 100% of the young Ellison or the uncertainty of a rehabbing IR'ed Crowell. Maybe in fantasy league one can mix and match and exchange players as though their performances makes them virtually equal, however, I think making a final judgement regarding how well TKO will perform in 07 is premature and declaring any of our back-up KBs equivalent to TKO is simply unsupported by the fact that all the Bills D and LBs in particular gave up way too many rushing yards to a Travis Henry who was clearly inspire and an LT whom no one has really contained this year. In fact. tjpigh TKO and the entire LB corps had trouble dealing with Vince Young (surprise) and an inspired Henry, a nice pass breakup by him on one 3rd down play this weekend, and his 6 tackles in the game where the D shutout the fish and 4 tackles in game where the D forced the Jets to turn the ball over on downs twice was actually pretty good and a real improvement over his previous 0 tackle games. It would seem to be the height of panic to cut TKO now or probably at all this off-season. The real football question is whom would we replace him with and this team would be weaker with am LN corps which used our current back-ups to replace him and certainly Fletcher. As far as cap hit, the Bills are essentially hit next year with his cost whether we have him or not as his remaining bonus amd the contract cost of replacing him. Since the cap is way up my sense is we keep him unless the docs indicate he is done/

The NFL has been striving toward a world in which the "any given Sunday" cliche holds true and any team can beat any other team anytime seemingly regardless of their past record. They have not only suceeded in the sense that several allegedly knowlegable pundits had a Miami team as a possible Super Bowl winner as the season began based on them putting together a pretty nice string of victories (thus though the pundits were fools they were not baseless fools and on the field performance was the basis for these predictions) but also even first half of the season performance is not always an accurate predictor of second half performance. It seems legit for all of us fans to predict who may be a tough opponent next year, but certainly one need only look at the losses wracked up by the "flawless" Indy team produced after a perfect start and look at the improvement of TN's results after this one looked like a sure win at mid season and one need only look at the Bills record this year to see that while one can predict whether a schedule will be hard or soft next year. it would simply be foolish to not caveat these predictions with a recognition that they may well be all wrong.

I'm not sure what you mean regarding indecisive since they had already decided before the game that they would not kick for an FG if the wind remained as it did unless the ball was marked 3 yards further in. I think he would have been indecisive if he had advocated that the team reverse its earlier decision and instead do something else. They decided and he and the team did not waffle and reverse that decision

The other thing to take into consideration if one takes a more in-depth reaction to things is that while I would only call him a very good rather than a great kicker the last two years (the game situations the team has placed itself in as a losing team simply limits him to very good performance rather than a Vinateri like great performance), I think that despite folks calling loudly for him to be cut in 2004 he actually was a good kicker that year who improved his game to be very good the last two years. A couple of the things I like the most about the Lindell kicking game is that his kickoffs go where they are supposed to go at the proper height and direction and this has been a key to superlative kickpff coverage under April. The winds at the Ralph a few times a season have the effect that they had last weekend of impacting the game outcome with the FG game. These high profile efforts are often the sole issue many fans use for judging a kicker. However, game in and game out the final total is somewhat or significantly influenced by how the PK does his kickoff work and Lindell has almost always excelled at this job. The other thing i like about his work is that not only does he do what he is supposed to on kickoffs, but he is even an offensive weapon on onside kicks. I give him lead credit for the win against Miami 2 years ago where the team sprinted out to a lead, but was giving it up to Miami's Sammy Morris led effort. A D stop to begin the second half when we would be kicking off seemed critical to determining this game and given Morris has rushed for over 80 yards in the first half it looked tough. Lindell and April not only pulled off a surprise onside kick to get the ball, but Lindell kicked it with the appropriate pace and distance that he made the recovery himself with the ball traveling the requisite 10 yards for his own recovery before any Bill made contact with a Fish even to block (which would have nullified the kick if they had done so). This year, the Bills got robbed when Lindell pulled off a masterful mid range chip shot over the wedge but before the deep return guys that a Bill recieved, but the refs "found" a half-hearted wave from a downfield Jet with zero chance of even touching the kick much less recieve it to be a fair catch call. Though I would not call Lindell great because his stunningly low amount of even having a chance at a game-winning kick is too small and his miss of a true chip shot against Pitts a few years ago deny him that cred. However, he clearly has rebounded from this horrendous miss to be the very good kicker that we need and I am pleased that the Bills locked him up for what would seem like relative chump change in the big money world of the salary cap.

My sense is that if I were a player and had any sense that the coaching staff was willing to lose any late season game (particularly if we have even a mathematical chance at the playoffs) simply to save a nickel on the next contract, I'd know that I am not in this for the team but for myself. We are talking such huge amounts of money overall in the NFL that the amount they would save by setting Lindell up to stick it to him is simply chump change. I'm glad they did not make this foolish effort as the game would simply be far less entertaining to me if they offered the perception thay were operating on this level.

AOL had a year end poll up asking this question. The choices are listed below with only two NFL players making the list (Edgerrin and RoboQB), but interestingly they placed the entire Colts team on this list. IMHO, comparing teams to individual athletes is so apples and oranges that I do not think it is worth doing (though I understand their choice as Indy gets a special place in history for their flawless starts and complete flameouts, though the untimely suicide of Dungy's son and the fact this season is not over yet gets them a bye in this vote to me). I also would make a distinction for injury and also signing a big contract adds big time to the rating one must obtain. Thus RoboQB gets a pass from me as his poor performance strikes me as greatly related to injury (though the fact the motorcycle injury was a piece of voluntary stupidity on his part). While Edgerrin is the most overrated football entry on this list, he also gets a personal bye from me as being as horrendous as some of the others on this list as he actually should get over 1000 yards this year and I do not expect much more from someone on a team as functionally bereft as AZ. I think other folks on this list from otheer sports get my vote, particularly Bode Miller as he was so hyped in last year's Olympics and actually was quite upfront in hyping himself with a web site and some fairly opportunistic money making, that when he completely fell flat and then tried to publicly play it off, he ended up striking me as the height of being a legend in his own mind. In 2006, who was the most overrated athlete? Dale Earnhardt Jr. Indianapolis Colts Edgerrin James Randy Johnson Stephon Marbury Phil Mickelson Bode Miller Danica Patrick Andy Roddick Ben Roethlisberger U.S. men's national soccer team Michelle Wie

My apologies as I seemed to be slow enough to have drawn the wrong conclusions from my reading of what you were saying and your more in depth descriptions in later posts, i took them as responses to the specific points raised rather than the different but related point I was making to these posts. In some ways, I think I was confused as you seem to have a basic premise that $ are a prime motivator for these athletes (I agree) but where I guess I do not go is IF you are making a judgment that the next marginal $ an NFL player can earn has the same motivational weight for him as his initial contract. Stated in another form, certainly almost all NFL athletes have as a significant motivation to there choosing to play this boys game as a career is that upon graduating from college they stand to make more $ than they ever got before and either give them a great start or even set them up for life (amongst the small % of college player who are drafted on the first day). However, upon achieving this lofty get of their first contract. are they still motivated by the $ in exactly the same way or the same way along a scale at a higher level. I think not. First, though $ are the prime motivator view, they certainly are not the only motivator for almost all athletes. As pointed out in several posts, pride, a love of competition, ego, and other factors though not nearly equal to getting a life setting contract cannot be totally disregarded as motivators. In fact, the key is that these things are not contradictory and a player needs to choose between whether he is motivated by pride or motivated by $, in fact the best way to get a big contract is to always be motivated by playing hard or to at least give the impression that you are. To merely look at getting the most dollars for the least effort and all other motivators can be ignored would seem to me to be pretty incorrect assessments of most people (particularly those who survive to be on an NFL team, those who actually have the attitude that they are too banged up to play at the end of the season actually usually get cut and never make it on NFL teams). Second, as the new CBA was negotiated and kicks in, basically any NFL player starts at the NFL minimum of having a salary approaching a third of a million dollars. Given the average playing time of an NFL player, even an average player stands to make a million bucks well before they are 30 and with the celebrity that goes with this achievement, a college education or a diploma, and the initial cash start, they no longer have the motivator or getting their first big deal, but instead a motivator of enjoying the fruits of that deal. For almost all people this involves finding a partner, and having kids etc. so there is a new motivation to take care of all of these folks and this new motivation requires making even more bucks (the ubiquitous you are taking food from my kids mouths quote). I think though that this motivation really forces and sharpens a players desire to sacrifice his body and go for it at the end of the season. The athlete begins to realize that in order to get the best in terms of his next contract, he simply needs to let it all hang out and produce to get the next contract. Even more personally, if there are kids involved (in particular once you get past the juvenile "baby momma" stage of a WM) one begins to want to set an example for your kids and actually live the life of hard work and sacrifice you preach to your kids. Even when folks are simply fooling themselves and do not believe these words, one of the neat things about kids is that these primal units have initially unconditional love for their parents, but develop the best bullshot detectors in the world. In the end, I think exactly for the motivations you state of financial benefit when added to the other motivators of ego, pride, access to sex, etc. that if one truly has the attitude of wanting to not make the playoffs, quite frankly you will not even make or stay very long on the team. This person's name is probably Ryan Leaf.

I'm glad I read the entire idea before completely dismissing it. Now having read it, i can comfortably completely dismiss it. I do not disagree at all that after the end of a season a player may well be whipped beaten and tired. However, the idea that these feelings of personal exhaustion would hatch or even justify a solution to this personal problem of penalizing all the players' teamates and all of the teams fans seems a little selfish to say the least. I think that most folks who are so hurt that they do not want to play would simply take the course of faking a headached or some other difficult to diagnose injury to not go through the pain of competiton rather than hope their teammates and the teams fans have to endure the frustration of missing the playoffs simply so an individual player might involve the pains that come from playing. While I think it is human nature on the part of many people at the end of a grueling season to judge they do not want to play any more, the idea that their solution to get this point would be to screw everyone else involved with the team seems odd.

He was pretty bad working with the talent he had in 2005, but also I think that it would simply be the truth to recognize that he did accomplish a lot with virtually the same players in the 2004 season and a lor of this was both in big ways his own work and not really expected. Specifically: 1. The results of his D were not very good when he got the DC job with GW in the 2001 season. The talent was goshawful as the Bills were forced by the cap to strip players and reload, but his first season saw the D actually do what little the team did that year, but Gray simply could not get them to play more than 3/4 of a game well and they ended 3-13. His second season saw the team get better behind improved production of a Bledsoe led offense, but the decision to slot Jenkins who was washed up into the SS slot and Robinson who was washed up at OLB made this D bad. LeBeau came on board and installed his zone-blitz scheme in 04 and with Bledsoe crashing and burning this bad team flip-flopped in unit production. However, Gray actually kept the DC title and role as he seemed to quickly master the LeBeau scheme and there was good D playcalling that year. 2. The '04 season showed us alot as the team came within a hair of the playoffs utilizing the streak which called upon all 3 teams to take turns and combine in producing the streak (it was ironic that our ultimate loss was to a LeBeau D-led Pitt teams which beat us in three phases of the game to cost us even a shot at the playoffs). However, against weaker competition than the year before (admittedly) the D performance improved statistically and subjectively under Gray from a 5th in the league performance to 2nd in the league (behind LeBeau's Pitts team which had better talent. Gray deserves credit for his own work in addition to LeBeau getting credit for his scheme as: A. The playcalling Gray did the year before showed he mastered the scheme though their remained a question of how much LeBeau as AHC had to do with the success. B. In '04 LeBeau was off to another town and he had no role in: 1). preparing a successful D strategy for each game and 2). making adjustments at half time (for example Sammy Morris shredded the Bills D in the first half for about 80 yards, but adjustments and a game situation behind a nice surprise onside kick to start and nice Bledsoe led O work behind WM held him below 100 yards rushing for the game). Gray demonstrated through this and other work which LeBeau had nothing to do with such as the nice job he did retraining and reconfiguring the D during bye week that he could master and then run an improved D at a high level of production. 3. Granted you are correct that Gray sucked in output in 05 and the Bills did the right thing in moving on to a different DC under Jauron in 06 (Gray was given a look for staying though I suspect much of this was done in order to give him some props as he had a lot of respect among team leaders as we rebuilt a team where members of the Bills had lost respect and allegiance to each other amidst the Moulds/TD/MM/Ralph meltdowns) and also in response to the NFL's years of discrimination and failure to give African-Americans an opportunity and fair shot at HC jobs, However, overall I think that a fair assessment recognizes that like most other human beings Gray has some failings but also that he does a number of things fairly well as a DC.

The question is whether he would choose to have Brad Johnson's (or Trent Dilfer's) career who after a long career has become a slightly above average QB who won the big one with a good team where he was a role player or Jim Kelly who is an HOF quality QB and one of several acknowledged leaders on a team which lost four.

Its hard to say as this is so theoretical and hypothetical but this is my incorrect guess to go with everyon else's: 1. Just as was the case with the situation which led to MM\s throwing in the towel and running out on this team, a lot depends on who MM ha above and below him. TD was damaged goods as I think his ultimate motivation was not to get run out of town by an HC he hired as he was in Pitt. Thus his relationship with MM proved to be almost as toxic as it was when MM hired GW (an HC he should not have hired when he had a shot at both Fox and Lewis. My lead assumption in this case was that it would not have worked if TD had stayed and that assuming YD was gone, MM would have been on pins and needles as a guy Marv inherited and Ralph only kept because it galls him to pay a guy to sit at home (see Wade P.) However, Marv has demonstrated in his earlier go round with the Bills and now as GM that even with his failings, he really is a good delegator and orchestrator of a team. Thus, I am fairly sure that though it was a bad situation, Marv would have gotten all he could have gotten out of MM and really in making this situation the best it could be would have made it more like the 04 season where MM was coaching well than the 05 season where he coached poorly. 2. The other factor is the variable of who MMs assts would have been. If the poor performance of the O which led to Clements getting canned was essentially his fault them it is a question of who MM attracts to be the new OC. If on the other hand the poor performance was the result of TD stupidly extending Bledsoe and then adding insult to this injury by cutting him and TC was mostly a scapegoat for carrying out TD's bizarre actions then perhaps there is a way in which some very good OC work by TC in 04 could be replicated. Who knows. Add to this if the pretend theory is that MM stays, then perhaps Gray also stays and the question is whether you get the 04 Gray performance in which I think he demonstrated that the D could produce separate from its creator LeBeau being there (Gray had called the plays on his own the year before and in 04 LeBeau had no role whatsoever in constructing the D strategy for each game and making the halftiome adjustments and though LeBeau still gets nod because the basic scheme was his, Gray deserves full praise for an improved D performance over the year before with LeBeau around) or whether you get the 05 Gray whose D simply did not do the job. My sense is that Gray probably stays and there is a reasonable chance that the Bills D improves this year under him and that though TC does not stay that Mm is an offensive guy who under Marv's guidance could well have done a far better job with this year's Bills crew without the TD idiocy ovelaying the situation/ Overal, if MM was here then my guess is the result is about the same as in essence I think that this year's creation is a tribute to Marv in many ways and though I think he was able to do it more easily and with less psychosis with Jauron rather than MM, I think he likely would have gotten similar results under MM.

This implies a degree of rationality in thinking that tends to be undercut by folks wanting control and being quite willing to do something against their interests simply so they feel in control of life. In fact, our legal system is built to demand that folks consistently maintain authority and control even if it does not meet their interests at that point where if someone does not consistenly protect their copyright they are more subject to legal argument that the copyright is void.

Exactly, this type of thinking is why I felt a game-by-game analysis of the possibilities actually thouroughlt undercut any doubt had (which were individually rational fears that JP might develop, OR the rookies would need time to adjust , OR McGahee and Evans would regress, OR myriad other rational individual fears). However, the fear or prediction that ALL of these bad things would happen was incredibly unlikely. When your overlaid these bad possibilities over a game-by-game analysis which also revealed the weakness of a large number of our opponents like GB and Houston, the predictions of some that this team would go winless was pretty irrational. I think you took the most accurate approach in your estimate that it would likely be the case that we would have a fluke loss (the Lions game was somewhat a surprise for me, but it was the Jets game at home which was the big surprise for me as D'Brick and Mangold really produced quicker than the norm) but these flukes are balanced off by us winning 3 games on the road (if we somehow beat the Ravens I will be very impressed by us finishing .500 on the road) and thus your prediction of a .500 finish for us is bearing out. A game by game analysis simply shows how irrational some folks can be with their predictions.

These are the points that make a prediction of a winless season, or a one win season wholely irrational, and predictions of a two or three win season slightly less but still pretty irrational: 1. In 2005, 04, 03 no team had zero or even 1 win. To make a prediction of an unprecedented meltdown based on recent NFL history strikes me as possible (like a meteor falling on your car at the drive-in on your first date, it could happen but to worry about it or predict it will happen is irrational. 2. The two teams which had a mere two wins in this period has fairly specific reasons beyond the fact they were simply rebuilding badly to describe why they won a mere two games (still finishing above the winless and one win predictions of some for the 06 Bills) in that Houston is an expansion team that is still building rather than re-building and SF had a nasty ownershio battle and federal efforts at a criminal conviction for the team owner. In 03 in fact no team won fewer than 4 games. 3. In order for the Bills to have a meltdown of such proportions calls upon a belief of a frankly incredible series of player meltdowns that not only do the youngsters need to adjust (not irrational in and of itself), AND Losman shows no improvement and Holcomb does not step in for him again or if he does he is worse than mediocre, AND there actually is a regression by the fastest RB to gain 2000 yards rushing and the far better than Moulds first two years of Ecans, AND Jauron turns out to show none of the achievements he has shown in the past, ANF none of the several returning Bills (McGee, Clements) who have made the Pro Bowl show much this year. Actually, you only need most of these things to happen to go winless or only win a couple rather than all of them, but even though any individual piece can rationally be expected to go badly it is simply irrational to conclude all or even most of these variables will go badly. 4. A game-by-game analysis before the season began actually is not the key to rationally predicting we are DOOMED, but actually the lame records and prospects of our specific opponents should have been the key for anyone realizing that even a bad team should go 5-11 against this crew. In order to believe we would go winless or get one win or even do worse than last year, the predictor is endorsing the concept that teams like: A. We were gonna get beaten in the majority of 5 games against opponents who actually had worse records last year than our paltry 5 wins (2 against NYJ, TN, GB and Houston). B. Further, this predictor for whatever reason has faith in us losing virtually all of the 6 additional games against teams which did not make the playoffs last year (2 against MI, DET, MIN, SD, BAL). Again, it is not irrational to comclude that we might lose to any of these individual teams, However, it strikes me as wholly irrational to conclude we would lose to ALL or even most of these teams. As it happened, Detroit did steal one from us and SD handled us, however, if one is going to predict that we would go winless or only win 1-3, then we almost certainly have to lose all or virtually all of these games to do this. To conclude that all these things which MIGHT go badly WOULD in fact go badly is simply an irrational judgement/ A prediction that this team would end up repeating the 3-13 season we had when we were forced by the cap to demolish the team would have actually required some plane crash or other We Are Marshall like occurence (the Saints for example had only 3 wins last year when their home stadium and town was wiped out by a hurricane. Predicting that the Bills would have as bad a 2006 as 2005 would have been a pessimistic prediction but at least a rational one. Predicting that this team would actually regress in the record produced under a GM and HC who left the team and only have 4 wins was unlikely given the lame records of most of our opponents but at least would have been rationally defensible. However, to predict we would only squeeze out 3 victories was an insdicator that the predictor was looking at this as pessimistically as possible and their football knowledge was quite questionable. To have predicted only 2 wins raised the serious question of whether the predictor had taken leave of his senses. To predict only 1 or no wins simply removes all doubt that the predictor had lost it if they ever had it. I know what you think. I am merely asking why. There seems to me to be no football based intelligent reason for concluding this team would go winless, or have one win as everything would need to break wrong for this team which like a meteor might happen, but even if the irrational happened, a game by game analysis simply shows that over half of our games were against an opponent that could likely lose on any give particular Sunday, The adjustment every thing breaks wrong theory seems irrational to me even if the individual pieces COULD happen and when you add into that the mediocre state of our opponents, a no or low win prediction seems to me to be PROBABLY by hiw this predictor chooses or is forced to view things rather than by rational football assessment.

But do you thhink it was rational to look at the Bill's schedule even if one concluded they would be a bad team which because this person incorrectly agreed with the ESPN pundits about the Bills draft, did not believe that Jauron had anything to offer (despite his once being named NFL Coach of the Year, judged Losman to be a failure as a QB though making this judgment not only would have been premature given the conventional wisdom that one needs to wait three year before drawing conclusions about players), judged a number of young Bills like McGahee and Evans who had actually produced quite well as young players based on their numbers as failed players (and one needs to make such widespread conclusions which all turned out to be false in order to believe the Bills would have fewer wins than any NFL team achieved last year) and as many other bad things that once chooses to believe in AND then after drawing these or other conclusions that add up to the Bills being a bad team then somehow also judge teams like the Packers and Fins who were goshawful last year as somehow improved enough that the Bills would go winless or at most win one game against them AND that we would not be able to "steal" one against Houston (one of the teams which had recently only won two games in a season) or from the Vikes, Lions, Jets a couple of times, etc. I allowed the last sentence to run on as an indicator of how many bad things would have to happen AND how much one would have to believe in our schedule full of medicure and bad teams to somehow conclude that the Bills would totally blow away past precedent and go winless, have one win or even only two wins. I simply see no rational way that one could conclude that the Bills would only get 1, 2,3 or even a mere, 4 wins whether one did a game by game analysis or took it as a whole. I do not remember drawing any conclusions about what dementia these folks suffered from beyond saying that a lame attitude was PROBABLY a better explanation than any rational football analysis. Perhaps this is harsh, but I totally stand by this judgement which does not draw any conclusions about self-hatred (though again your own explanation and not mine of this sounds credible to me). Hinddsight clearly shows how fortunately silly this prediction was and even with foresight a prediction of zerp. one, two and yeas even three wins was actually forseeably silly even in foresight. Do you disagree?

I also think that it would be absurd to claim to "know" a person based on their meaningless prediction, etc. I simply said that this prediction likely says more about the predictor than it does about the team and a good or even reasonable football assessment. Do you disagree about which thing it probably says more about. One does not have to watch very much NFL ball to see that in 2005 (and many years before that) no team has gone winless and in fact no team only won 1 game. This made any prediction of a one win or winless Bills season silly as far as rational prediction. Bad team simply sometimes beat good teams in the NFL and such a prediction might (and its a big MIGHT) be rational in exaggerating to make a point. However, I remember several folks not only making this prediction but even repeating it a few times such that it came across as a rant to even a fan with moderate interest. Even sillier about such a prediction is that it seems to assume reasonable things about the caliber of various Bills opponents. The prediction of a winless or one win season was really an endorsement of some combination of GB, Houston, Miami a couple of times and other opponents beating the Bills. If any semblance of rational football thinking was not the rational behind these predictions, then what do you think was? I do not claim to know these people (thank gosh), nor do I claim to know their irrationale. Unlike you I do not draw the conclusion from my statement that these folks are self-hating losers (though perhaps you are right about this theory). I simply claim that it more likely says something about their thinking as it says little rationally about the Bills or the NFL.

Generally yes this should be viewed as a successful season as overall, while predictions they would only win 1 to 3 games were simply silly and say more about the predictor and their lame attitude toward life than about the team, predictions they would merely repeat their 5 win season of last year were not outrageous. Almost anyway you cut it, a 7 win season is an impressive improvement over last year and in particular given the many rookies starting on this team/ Losing the final two games would be an important thing, but its important not in terms of overall assessment of this team, but in terms of momentum going into the off-season in a league where the question of what have you done for us lately rules all. Even with losses in the last two games only one against TN at home would rationally be viewed as an upset (even if Balt has little to play for in their final game) and this sad turn of events could simply be treated as a motivator by team leaders and the coaches. If they lose the last two, then the key as always is the future and if this team were to turn in a gut check and use these two losses as a motivator to improve then most of us will be happy as clams that they used the two losses as a motivator since their chances of making the playoffs even with winning out is not a done deal at all.

I think Freeney's shot has been devastated by his team being pretty bad on D as a whole and being on a DL which can be run against. The Bills ain't perfect, but it clearly is improving at the right time with performances like they put up the last few games since the NE loss (the run D got shredded by SD, but then who hasn't gotten shredded by LT this year). If one wants to try to explain the Indy disappointing results by looking at his colleagues rather than Freeney, then it becomes legit to also consider Schobel's D teammates which include rookies at both saftey slots and at one of the DT spots (though there is a rotation). It really depends upon the D scheme I chose to run and who the players teammates are in terms of whether I choose Freeney or Schobel. Its not an accurate one on one comparison, but reality in football is that the game is not one on one it depends upon your team. In the end, the key thing about this Pro Bowl choice is entertainment rather than than some false assessment of who is a better player (as the the real answer to this question is simply it depends). I actually would more likely choose to build around Schobel rather than Freeney because what the stats reveal is how much help Freeney needs to excel at the pass rush game he is so good at. Meanwhile it seems to be the case that what Schobel brings to the table is a successful experience with the LeBeau/Gray zone blits and his loss of weight while increasing his strength that came with the switch to that scheme, Schobel brings unique ability and flexibility to pass cover in the short zone from his zone-blitz experience while now that he is given a simpler task in the Fewell/Jauron scheme to mostly blitz and to contain. The most impressive thing about his progression over time is that he has built up his strength to no longer be a target at the point of attack as the younger Schobel was. Further, given that he plays a leadership role on this very young squad with a bunch of rookies, in many of those it depends cases I choose Schobel over Freeney. Freeney is a good and often very good player. He simply is not that good though in almost every case (as shown by his stats this year) that like a Bruce Smith (or even a Jason Taylor who has the flexiblity to play LB as well as DE) that I would choose Freeney everday over Schobel.

You are right on point for putting this consideration into the proper context! This is because ultimately the most important statistical comparison of the achievements of these 4 QBs this year if one is interested at all in the real world is this simple statistical comparison: Rivers- 12/2 Losman- 7/7 Manning- 7/7 RoboQB- 7/7 All the statistical analysis is certainly useful, but really only for parsing the difference between which of the three definite failing grade QBs (do any disagree that these three QBs have failed this season. If you don't think they had disappointing seasons in which they failed perform at the rate they should perform then you likely disagree with all three of these athletes- in fact if any of these three were not disappointed with their performance this year they probably will not amount to much in this league) have something positive build on or in a tailspin they must reverse. One can insist that looking at this as by far the primary measurement of QB performance does not take into account the particular play of this indiviual as separate from the rest of his teammates. Yeah sure, but so what. Last I checked here in reality a player takes the field with 10 other teammates and in fact his performance is in a large way determined by how his teammates do when he is not even on the field as the D makes good situations for him to take advantage of and covers for his mistakes (last I checked no athlete is perfect) and the ST performance is the quickest way to change momentum or to simply turn the field. These point are obvious. However, the statistical comparison of secondary (in fact tertiary or even lesser) QB stats by which an athlete ultimately judges his success or failure strikes me as fairly senseless without even at least an acknowledgement of whats really important in this game. By far Rivers had the best season and is the best performer of these 4 QBs. It is the simple stat that his team is vying for homefield advantage throughout the playoffs with a 12-2 mark while the other are likely to miss the playoffs that shows this. The fact that the individual stats also generally reflect this is certainly related to the ultimate stat of W/L, but it is closer to coincidence than the reality of the ultimate stat.

One quote that is used and paraphrased alot these days (given the repetive use of failing strategies and techniques in Iraq) is that constant repitition of similar failed activities is a sign of insanity. Given an admitted failure at explaining something relying on stats, then a tendency to simply try to explain it again and again seems like a tendency worthy of analysis.