Pyrite Gal

If it hurts I definitely suggest reading them with your eyes closed. It works for me.

As i read "alternative explanation" I thought Easterbrook was going to explore the arcane world of options with TV stating that he was designated as on "minor injury IR" rather than the fuller model which was the norm. The options for this seem to fit what he is describing but as there is little experience with the new language in the CBA this actually may be worth reporting on. However, he dove off into this piece of idiocy as THE alternative theory which once again seems be Eastersnook going off into being a legend in his own mind. GE needs to understand that A: Marv really does not need to set up any excuses here because he is almost certainly realizes that he really should not even care a rodent's butt about how the media, Easterbrook or even many fans judge the team's performance or work this season. Ultimately the buck starts and stops with the judgments of his employer and team owner Ralph Wilson. To some extent Ralph cares what his customers think, but as seen by him taking a stance bound to create some embarassment for him as to explaining his CBA vote, cuttin TV to set-up some excuse is simply stupid. Sorry GE, I doubt Marv thinks you or folks who thinklike you are that important that he is setting up now to make excuses no one will accept for poor performance.

Who knows which dimestore psychology theory is correct reafrding TV's motivations. However, the objective events seem to point to him taking actions in preparation for age diminishing a player (which happens to 'em all) in his case. 1. He joined the Bills with the publicly stated idea that he was gonna switch to safety in a year or two as covering #1 WRs required more speed than he had. Many players simply allow themselves to slide from #1 to #2 and then to nickel as they get older, TV looked to a position switch to do this which is somewhat rare among players. 2. He had led the organizing of NFL players (such as TKO) attending an Ivy league (Wharton at U Penn I believe) to get credits toward their MBAs and learn high-level business stuff. 3. His peers elected him Pres of the NFLPA and under his and Upshaw's leadership they negotiated a deal which not only solidified thair role as partners with team owners rather than being merely workers, but arguably since the get well into a majority of the total revenues, the NFLPA is the majority partner in this arrangement. If he could not play the game with the authority which saw him lead the team last year in turnovers received and also suit it up for 16 of 16 games, it was definitely time for him to sit. I'm just happy that Simpson looks like the real deal and is pulling off the great and unplanned for trick of essentially starting immediately as a second day pick. The fact we are seeing significant time and mostly game starts already coming from: the late-signing Whitner, Simpson, Ellison, Williams and McCargo just speaks incredibly highly of Jauron as a teacher, Jauron/Fewell for designing a working D scheme simple enough for players to gain command of it quickly and Marv/Modrak for leading the charge to a great draft at this early point. Its still way to early to declare this draft a success, but the media was perfectly willing to declare that the game had at least passed Marv by or even that he showed signs of Alzheimers the day after the draft. its too early to give final judgment on the players but not too early to declare a few media idiots already owe Marv and the Bills a big apology.

Who knows though, Mare certainly has the leg for long kicks generally, but if he sidled up to the HC and said, "I felt a twinge in my kicking leg on the last kick, normally I'd play through it, but I don't want to risk the whole season without getting it looked at," I wouldhave punted it also. Even worse for us outsiders, if he had such a problem, I would never raise it with the press as those vampires would worry it an my kicker to death about it. The only thing more psychotic than this theory is folks blaming MM for this. Yeah, he told us to go jump and left us, but we are better off to be rid of him and it is weird that some folks do not seem to want to let this go and move on. Blaming MM for stuff which generally the OC would not decide makes folks sound folks who cannot get over the person who left them. I hope they get over it an move on, the Bill winning is too much fun to worry about MM.

I think Posey was an important part of productive Ds we had in 2003 and 2004, but he clearly from this observer's perspective was a dollar short and a little late in 2005. GW taking him follows the old GW habit of taking an LB who was productive for him in an earlier version of his career, but signing him later with negative results for the D. It was Eddie Robinson for us and the scales fell off everyone\s eyes thanks that shifty speed demon Pennington. I have not watched the 'Skins games enough to know if there is some horrid example of his play, but like the '05 Bills the overall result is that of an ineffective D. The specific failings of Posey began to show in 2005 with the Bills as on several plays he got there too late to sack the QB who completed a pass, though no one could site similar examples from his play in 03 and 04 In 05 wehad the specifics of him being burned for a TD early in the season against NO, him getting a nice sack on a play (I think against Miami, but him engaging in some unsportmanslike conduct which nullified the play and him usaully only getting credited with 2 or 3 tackles a game as his play suffered in 05. I think he played well for us in 03 and 04 (if he sucked as bad as some maintain it certainly did not stop the team team from ranking 5th and 2nd in the league statisitcally in D) but I think it was pretty clear to most objective watchers he was done last uear.

Thanks for sharing your detailed perspective on things. I have a couple questions which you might be able to shed some light on since you are watching the tape carefully. 1. Simon noted in an earlier post that K. Thomas got used and abused on a couple of thrid downs and he also discounted a couple of KT tackles on 3rd downs as being check downs where Culpepper dumped it off and he happened to get there first. Discounting the tackles seems fairly meaningless to me as the real key is that there was no first down and the team gets beaucoup credit for the coverage that forced the check down and the tackle. The key thing for me on KT's faux pas is also that the Miami was held to a TD late and I only care about the failure of an individual player on a play only to the extent that there is a better alternative on the roster (or available around the league. I even worry about this very little as long as the team results are good. What were your observations on KT and how do you think he compares to Greer? 2. Its too early to tell after but two games but I think that Jauron may well be showing and establishing tendencies for the Bills O in these games and then later he will unleash different looks and play calls at critical times against opponents. There are certain items which seemed to be practiced in camo which I have bot seen used a lot like: A. TEs as a checkdown receiver. B. More use of the RBs as checkdown receivers. C. More use of the end around. What tricls do you think are stoll in the baag for this O and do you think the reason for not using them is simply game situation, being on the road, setting up tendencies or whatever? 3. In the first game Haggan looked like he got used and abused on the Troy Brown TD. Ellison saw signfificant time the the rest of the game. Do you think this was a move due to a Haggan failure or just simply part of the rotation? Any thoughts or I dunnos are appreciated and again thanks fo the comments.

I'm not sure exactly which TD Simon is describing as he sites PPass as the recipient and Faulk and Troy Brown got the two NE TDs. The thought that he meant Faulk is logical since Pass and Faulk are both backfield players. However, I know for sure that Haggan was the closest Bill to Brown for the first TD pass andI had thought that by the late in the 3rd quarter when Faulk got his TD that Haggan had long gone to the bench as the Bills switched to an LB line-up of F-B, Crowell, and Ellison when TKO went out and Haggan likely got the blame for a miscue on the Brown TD. Perhaps if he can clarify which TD (first half or second half he is talking aout we can be clear about it. As far as Thomas goes, the move to him is not surprising to me as Greer has shown a lot more in pre-season games than as a regular season player and I think Fewell knows him from coaching him last year. Since Simon has demonstrated he is a seasoned football watcher, his comments interest me enough to look again at the game tape and see if i can see what he saw. Even assuming that he was out of position, my guess is that the coaches will not indict him heavily for these faux pas, as the D only gave up 1 TD late to the poor play of Culpepper. Its good that Simon limks these positioning errors he detects to specific plays (and key ones at that as stopping 3rd downs is what your nickel back is there for) since in the past he offered the same indictments of Posey, but in 2003 and 2004 he could never link these errors to giving up big gains or TDs. The addition of specific poor plays is quote helpful. I think in the end, the coaches are human and if they judge all things being equal between players, they will dance with the guy they know. Greer has never been so productive in regular season play that merely finding fault with Thomas's play does not meand that he is gonna be benched unless there is also some demonstration of good play by Greer. This is particularly true when there is no evidence of TDs or big plays being associated with the alleged breakdowns. it will be interesting to look at the TDs and try to examine the DB play and find out whether Thomas is demonstrably worse than Greer and Fewell is making a mistake or whether Simon's judgments in this case are another DB assessment like that of his like of Raion Hills game which was never borne out with consistent game results until an injury finely took him out of football.

Just a note to say I really appreciated the link you provided Sunday morning to an article which lays out an examination of the both OLs from last year's SB being built through the draft. I did take a little time to look at the two other conference final teams and that their OL also had generally the same result. I did not expect that result upon analysis and was impresed with it. i did not have time to say thanks Sunday as I was off to join the whole fam damily for some Bills watching and sharing my nephews 12th birthday. However, though I think the stats were very good, I'm still not sure the point has much relevance to Bills decision-making regardingthe 2006 draft or what this says about TD. 1. Despite this draft generally being regarded as a deep one. It really suked in terms of OL talent. D'Brick looked like the best of them and no one is mistaking the best OL player in this draft for Tony Boselli or Orlando Pace. he simply is not a good enough talent to merit trading up to a point where he could be taken. The fact no other tackle penetrated the 1st round speaks to their quality. When one takes into account the hole we had at SS and the hole we created at DT with our cut of Adams, the other OL players taken in he first Mangold and that G who missed the 1st game last I saw) did not offer enough talent that they made a strategy of go for Whitner and rech for McCargo (thank gosh Williams is filling this role a 1st usually fills immediately) and look to FA to build your OL, rather than take pedestruan talent with your 1st round picks and use FA for holes at SS and DT. For the Bills, even if you buy the idea of drafting the best OL talent you can get, the OL talent available in this draft was not worth bottom-feeding to get other players to meer immediate needs. 2. The lack of OL talent in this draft does not let TD off the hook for failing to use his draft to get OL talent. However, one should not though that the reality here is not a concept problem on TD's part, but an execution one. He actually followed the BINYC line by looking to his firsts drat for OL talent. he drafted Jennings on the first day in 2001 and then MW with the #4 in 2002. While he did not draft OL players in the first round every year as some might wish he did, I do not think you can call TD an OL slacker in commitng draft resources as the OL was one of only two positions where he selected a player every years that he led the draft. Sure, many were later selections (as were many of the members of the the last two SBs teams you cited), but he also spent second day but significant draft resources on Preston and the pick of Sullivan was not a add-on in where he was picked or how he was used. The problem was that he even with Modrak's assessment help and with the non teaching skills of Vinky they pursued the BINYC strstegy but did a bad job of it. I do not think anyone argues that MW should be kept and the ongoing litany of JJ injuries simply gives more proof that Gangy was a far better choice than JJ at LT in real life regardless of what one's theory is. 3. The NC leaving fear you express is a legit one as Marv does have a history of drafting CBs. Yet, do you regret not paying what the market gave to Smith, Buriss or even Winfield for their play with their new teams? One might offer that they could have been had for less if we signed them early, but even among these three probably the best performance case for this idea is Winfield and IIRC the Bills seemed pretty set to do a deal with Winfield a year prior to his hitting FA, bu the sudden availability of Lawyer Milloy on the market and our even more legit fear that we would be going with Coy Wire as our SS made it a necessary thing to let AW play the market. Once he was in the market the Bills would have actually met the Jets price he accepted, but who knows exactly what that was for because he walked out on the non-binding verbal agreement to sign an immense singular deal with theVikes I do not think we could have matched even if we wanted to. I think the great hope to alleviate this fear is that actually Marv already has a ton of CBs under contract even by his CB loving standards. Kiwaukee Thomas has now surpassed Jabari Greer on the depth charts at nickel and many Bills watchers were legitimately impressed with Greer (well at least in pre-season but he has not been able to translate that performance to regular season yet. On top of these three (NcGee whom many of us see as the best CB on the roster now), Thomas and Greer, we also have the untried Youbouty (due o the death of his Mom). If we lose NC I hink we can use yet another CB, but given the4 we have if NC goes I think a second day pick or an FA will be fine.

Actually McCargo not being an immediate starter is bad for McCargo (though in terms of assessment of him as a player one simply has to wait as a player like Moulds had two not so good years and has had aproductive NFL career or if you want to miss the general point I am making that the worm can turn for any player look at a DL guy like Denney who essentially was too bad to activate his first year, but got extended this off-season and produced 3 sacks in Suday's game). However, assessing the individual and assessing marv are two different things. Any mention of grading down Marv for McCargo not producing immediately should also be accompanied with a nod and praise for Marv drafting Williams who is contributing like the conventioal wisdome expected McCargo to. The Marv led draft did in fact produce at the DT position about as well as Whitner has produced at S, so I think you should give him credit for a memorable draft class by your own standards. Its not equal in that he did give up resources to trade up into the 1st but this seems like a marginal difference which does not change the overall job in filling gaps which was done.

If by what "King said is valid" you mesn that what he said is "theoretically possible" then I agree. However, i simply do not think that one can give him much more credit than that if by valid you mean something stronger than that Even King's reporting that he detected no interest in Whitner from the teams which did not get him adds little true validity to the theoretical possibility the Bills could have traded down and got him: 1. If one thing is different in a draft a whole bunch of things will be different. Not only is it clear that Miami had an interest in a safety because they took one, as Whitner dropped down the board toward a new Bills traded down draft spot, other teams come into play besides the Fins that might trade up past the Bills. His reporting merely introduces more variables into the equation if from he concludes the Bills should trade down and thus his theory remains a possible but not really valid theory. 2. The draft is all about lying and fooling your competitors about your interests and approaches. We have all heard Butler and others spin after the draft saying exactly who they got was who they wanted. it seems far-fetched that he would get anyone in picks 9-15 to say the guy they really wanted was Whitner but darn the Bills got him. Saying he talked to folks before the draft does not give him greater validity as teams seem to have even more reason to lie so I do not think that adds to his validity either. 3. King should report if he is a reporter. Who (if anyone) offered the Bills a 2nd or a deal that Marv though was worth risking losing Whitner to take. If such a deal had happened but the unexpecte occured and someone leaped ahead of the Bills and took Whitner , how does King think the Bills should have gone about rebuilding? Draft the injured Allen instead? Draft Bullocks in a later round. King only does a superficial examination of the implications of doing without Whitner but decides to have a problem anyway. I agree that King is only human and no one should expect perfection (King is in no danger of being perfect). However, in addition to being human he also is a superficial and poor reporter as well.

Generally it has been a good assumption that when sales get down to the only single tickers point that a sellout is worth the bucks to the local network affiliate or the Bills themselves to donate (and have us taxpayers pay since this is a dedecutible charitable gift by them) the remaining tickets to insure a lift of the blackout. In general, as the team owners have begun to understand that the major profit and cash comes from TV rather than ticket sales, they place a higher value on getting the 3+ hour commercial for their product than hard enforcement of the blackout. This trhinking has progressed from the team and the league giving extension after when a lift of the blackout is close but the deadline is reached to even pre-season games which never sellout historically are now used through efforts like the Bill Kids day promotion to not only get the commerical called the broadcast aired, but you begin building the behavior of going to the Ralph amongst young future customers. Even though they will get bought one way or the other the Bills will not announce a sellout until all the tickets are sold (TV is more important, but they make bucks from attendees as wellI. Since you are weighing your options, call TBD to be sure, but you can be pretty sure the game will be televised

You were not bad at all, as I do not see myself as being correct (at least I hope I do not have the horrible burden of being "right" about something). we all are making educated guesses and if we are lucky we recieve more education about stuff which interests us. Some seem to enjoy TSW because it confirms for them some sense that they are right about football, I actually enjoy it because it constantly educates me about this game I love. It is interesting to me that some folks seem to put such importance on proving they are right, when I find that stuff I already know bores me as I have already been there and done that. The fun part of life for me is not stuff I get right and that I know it is finding thins I do not know and learn to do better.

While there are significant differences in how the LDT and RDT play for the Bills, its basically an illusory distinction at the level fans (like me) tend to operate on. This is because that in order for an NFL team to be successful, they simply cannot invest in patterms of play and use which we fans can see accurately or they will simply be used and abused by opposing OCs and opposing blockers. The D has a particular base scheme which seems to generally call for our RDT (Triplett backed up by McCargo on the depth chart) to be used more as a penetrator and the LDT (Williams backed up by Anderson) to be more of a stay at home run stopper. While this is actually the opposite of what the poster above seems to be saying. Both views are actually fairly inconsequential to how Ferrell actually uses them so there is a big caution to take either of our views for what they are worth (which is not a whole bunch on any particular play). Ferrell actually runs our D in the base scheme alot but must vary it because if the other team or opposing blocker can predict exactly what you are going to do on a particular play you will get killed. Thus, there is some degree to which your RDT and LDT must be able to switch roles on particular plays so as to not become easy to predict. This variation is not onlt true between the DTs, but as there is a lot of variation and stunting which occurs with the ends. sometimes on a particular down and distance where you are not concerned if they run up the middle, you might have a DE (usually Denny who actually lined up at DT often last year) manning the middle while one of the DTs shifts to the outside. Many teams will not play this game much as a huge DT like Big Ted simply does not have the athleticism to stunt and go outside a lot. However, the Bills have specifically chosen lighter weight than average DTs in the Cover 2 with the idea that there is gonna be a whole bunch of stunting going on. In addition to the variations of roles between the DTs, AND the stunting and shifting which essentially calls for the DEs to go inside, there is also a lot of variation caused by the finally true commitment of the Bills to a rotation of DL players. Thus, simply because Triplett and Williams starts does not mean that McCargo and Anderson are relegated to garbage time. In fact, if things work like we want these back-ups will be in for a number of critical plays as our priority is to have fresh people rather than specific people in. In addition to these three variations in play that makes looking at any of these players as having a specific role all the time, also the opposing players make a difference. If a particular player proves to be susceptible to the rush moves of a particular player then forget about what the depth chart says as to who plays where and who is the starter, An example of this was Denney on Sunday, Was he a back-up? Yes. However, his success at getting sacks and having the athleticism to run down a Culpepper meant that he played a lot more than the #1 Kelsay. He also ended up all over the field he sacked Culpepper on the left side of the line once teaming with Triplett, yet his next sack was a nice trip up of a scrambling Culpepper on the right side of the OL. There simply is to much variation in the approach players take if they are going to be successful in this league. In the big picture also, the one commitment that the DL Coach, DC and HC are likely to have is to get the 4 best DL players on the field as much as possible. Particularly with youngsters who are getting trained, a player proves to be good but not necessarily the best player in a particular scheme, look for the scheme to be altered because in this cap constrained world you may not be able to switch players as eaily as you can alter the scheme to put the players in the best position for them to make plays. In other words, reality is a much better descriptor of the roles than some theory about what folks are supposed to do. The other corollary is that 2 games is way to early to even try to nail down what reality is in terms of DT use.

I dunno Simon maybe I was wrong. Many of the fact-free opinions offered in the attacks on "Meathead" are not simply facile, but in fact they actually are embarrassing to see them coming from fellow Bills fans.

I have to generally agree with Simon on this one (I do not find the posts embarassing as nothing anyone does on the internet is embarassing to me) but the analysis is pretty facile looking to site Mularkey as the cause of the Miami problems. I tink an objective football look at their amusingly inept game indicates that while MM deserves his share of the blame as the buck clearly passes through his hands before it stops at Nick Saban's desk. He is not the cause of the Fins probs in a major way. If one wants to indict him, it is legit to do so because he has not participated in getting the right players, and he has not shown good OC ability in dealing with these limitations. However, to try to claim that the Fins big problem is MM and if they started with replacing him, they would be well on their way to solving their problems is incorrect IMHO. Like any other human being, MM brings strenghts and weaknesses to the job. Folks indictments that he is an offensive stiff seem quite counter to both the results he has produced as an OC with Pitts which got him the Bills HC job, a continually proven ability to oversee the building of an O which allows a seemingly washed up QB to revive his career, and actually a strong commitment to sticking with whst he thinks will work even in the face of poor intial results. Real world demonstrations of MM strengths IMHO are: 1. A good record with overseeing productive Pitts offenses with him as OC. 2. A proven record of reviving the careers of Kordell, Maddox and Bledsoe under his guidance. 3. With the Bills after a 1-4 start in 2004 he stuck with his approach and as things turned around it produced the winning streak and eventually a winning record (still though inadequate but much better as they failed to make the playoffs) of 9-7. I'm not making this stuff up, these are simply facts. I would think anyone who wants to savage MM, in order not to be simply laughed at as just another internet whiner would need to produce some real objectives facts as to why this reality is not important and should be ignored. Again all that being said, MM does have some clear weaknesses IMHO: 1. I have a general sense of him being a good OC in Pitts, but this is more what the buzz was and is not based on the teams actual record of Ws or a statistical showing by the O if the record was bad for other reasons. He sure looked good superficially but it would take a more detailed analysis of the O results to his having problems here. Clearly under his guidance though he was a difficult opppent in terms of Pitts offense when we faced them, I do not have any sense of them being a team which repetitively went deep in the playoffs. 2. He proved good results with older QBs, but he sucked overseeing the development of JP and has shown no accomplishment in overseeing this facet of the game. This actually is a good reason why he may fit in Miami as the task here is not to develop a JP or RoboQB type, but to try to revive the careers of either Culpepper or Harrington. 3. He did motivate the Bills to better performance in 04 and I think he deserves credit for sticking to his approach. However, I think this motivation came through fear after the cut of Bobby Shaw (a nice guy who was not a cancer, but we needed a roster spot so even though he was vested for the season and saved us no money, he got cut wich I think made every player realize they better contribute or they might be gone. Fear does work, but only for a short time and rarely when you need the players to suck together to meet problems. The next year, TD forced the JP training situation on the team and ratber than pulling together as a TEAM (which NE did in 04 after BB bollickes the Milloy contract negotiations and after some sudden serious injuries), the Bills simply dissolved as TKO got hurt. MM was the HC and the on field buck stopped with him so he simply needed to make it work. On Sunday, I think the Miami problems were: A. Culpepper simply sucked- Plays like him dropping the ball on his first sack which set the tone for the day and the INT pass to Crowell with no Fins in sight were all on Culpepper. maybe you want to blame MM for getting him, but it is a reasonable thing to do given his success reviving the career of a scrambling QB like Kordell and also different types like Maddix and Bledsie. I think MM may need to force a move and try to revive Harrington's career rather than Culpepper's. However, i think it is still too early to panic and make this move. B. The OL simply sucked- As Simon pointed out they need to do a simply adequate job to escape blame. Folks are right that the OC works with what he has and its MM fault for taking these idipts (particularly Anderson) and relying on them. yet with Clements working under him they got a good a good offensive performance out of a medicore (at bes) Bills OL with Bledsoe QBing them, The way they used Bledsoe's limited running ability to occaisionally call QB draws which reduced the blitz as LBs had to mind the center of the field and utilized the WM stiff arm by going wide was well schemed use of the field that dealt with the OL and !QB limitations. C. Chambers is brilliant but undisciplined- If you are going to throw a pass in just the right spot to fit between the DBs and the WR needs to go horizontal to make the catch, you cannot do better than having Chambers as your WR as we saw on their TD yesterday. However, if this TD is nothing more than a last whimper because your QB has already inexplicably lost the ball and also thrown an INT and your OL has given up 7 sacks. It makes no difference to have a brilliant but undisciplined go to guy at WR. I think they need more disciiplined route running to be effective. I for one am glad MM is gone as I think we needed to move on. Hopwever, I think good analysis takes you to this point and the finger pointing at MM is at best facile.

I really like what we have seen so far with the offense. It is not clicking yet, but given some of the hints the answer to this question may well be that if Fairchild keeps working it, and the players get more comfortable with it, it will begin to click. So far my over-arching sense in each game was: 1. NE- We did show some clear signs of the players not being able to execute well enough yet (and old overused GW cliche but it is overused because it often is true actually) as our offense is not dictating the game yet.. However, with the help of the D giving us a 7 point leg up on the first series and the NE offense looking horrible even with Tom Brady at the controls, we really had this game in our hands, but the O failed to pick up a "mere" 1 yard when if they had it would have made it very difficult on the Pats. The run game was semi-productive at best as the two scored lead on the rosd simply demanded that we get conservative. The run attack had a few good plays but not enough consistency to take the game. I think this was an inconsistent blocking problem (the OL should have at least held its own on the 4th down play and good ones actually control the OL and give the RB one yard simply from falling down. our OL produced good holes on some of the very positive runs but did not do this all the time), some ineffective play calling by Fairchild (I like some of the change-ups he made going to the draw when NE was penetrating, but he does not seem to have a rhtym yet that commands the game), and though WM also failed to make plays when the call is bad or the blocking breaks down, I think though he was not elite in his production folks focus too much on his deficits to explain what we need to improve the run game. Chemistry can be developed this year and the blocking can improve. Fairchild can call better plays and the run game can improve. WM is not gonna become a different player this year and whailing about him will make no difference in improving the team this year so i think the focus should be in other areas. I'd prefer folks play GM in the off-season because during the season it is all about what you can improve and change right now one week at a time. The passing game was also adequate though not extraordinary. The best sign was that JP showed an impressive command of the O he did not show last year. He knew he was expected to make plays to make the TC offense work and folks even began to say he had happy feet as he was simply trying too hard to meet the expectations created by the starting job being given to him without earning it on the field. He seemed to to do a good job of reading coverage approaches and identifying the open man, though in the crunch they failed to complete the pass for a variety of reasons. Again i think overblown attention is being given to a couple of bad sacks which were problems in and of themselves but not indicators to me of systemic problems which point to a clear consistent problem. Having a real problem on one play does not make a pattern, Even having the same problem on two plays MAY be mere coincidence. A showing of a similar problem three times however is a clear trend. Folks seem to jumkp to conclusions that a problem which shows once is a trend, It MAY not be. At any rate, the biggest deal in the NE game I can see was actually execution by the players. After they screwed up the 4th and 1, it was a huge letdown for us and gave great confidence to them. They still needed to score twice to tie even after we missed the 1st and gave them the ball deep in their territory. They took their increased confdence and scored twice and failed to be productive as we were on our heels and even gave up the winning points on a safety. Overall, the 10 point performance by the offense was not even adequate, but given they were competing on the road against the seasoned Pats, while moral victories are worthless, there were some good signs from the O, particularly in comparison to last year. 2. MI- The O was pretty impressive this game as amazingly they went two straight games with zero turnovers. This is key as the D is performing well enough with a bunch of rookie starters, that it is more important for the O to not make mistakes in order to get us a W than for it to win the game. In fact it is wehn they try top make a play on O on the road that bad things happen. You cannot reasonably faul them for going for it on 4th and 1 against nE as a mere yard would likely hace earned them a win on the road. Yet, it is just this type of failure that can cause this young team to get killed and I'm glad Jauron was aggressive and went for it, but I think it would be hard to reasonably blame him if the had simply taken 3, but still the seasoned Pats had come back and beat us. However, if we are gonna lose I would rather die trying like we did so I have no problems with the choice. The aggressiveness carried over to this game and the Bills won this one comfortably. As will be the case ith this team, it took a combination of consistent but not extraordinary offenisve work, AND great D works with the sacks and INT, AND good ST work with the punt block to make this work for a W. The O did it's part with a boring but wonderful game called by Fairchild which was actually pretty horrible in terms of first half passing production, However, the running attack was adequate though also unsuccessful in producing many points in the first half. However, not making big mistakes was the key for the O as our D pressured them and the MI O was bad. The running game was adequate with seemingly better timing on the play calling from Fairchild and also generally better blocking by the OL. I think losing Villy for Preston is unfortunate due to our lack of depth but is an upgrade. The passing game hun around and hung around unti lthe aerial attempt got a pass interference and set up a nice scoring pass. We also got a glimpse of how our O is supposed to work with Parrish initially getting TD through RAC, but the Bills getting called for a personal foul on the pick block by Reed. Still overall I was impressed and the key thing is we got the W.

Nope. That would be contrary to both their seeming plan for JP development (do what is necessary to win and nothing more) and also for the basic O which Fairchild has seemed to develop. I think in its fullblown form the Eastcoast version of the St. L type O will be a lot more pass-happy. A weak Jets D may afford opportunities to see a more realized form of O. However, even if it uses the pass more, the downfield strike and big time vertical game is likely to still be a change-up which MUST be used to keep the D respecting you. However, even the big yardage and productive plays are likely to still come from short-passes. I think a good example was seen Sunday in what a more pass-happy Bills O would look like on a TD plat to Parrish which was called back by the refs (on a bang-bang call where their judgment was eaily questioned but who cares as we won comfortably). JP hit Parrish on a quick opener and he went into the endzone basically untouched. It would likely have been a long yardage TD except they did not need to go that far to score, as the fleet footed Parrish once given a bit of room is not likely to be caught and can use the same return skills which make him our PR guy on any tackler he faces one on one. This play was made because Reed ran a cross under Parrish and picked off his defender. Unfotunately he got called for pass interference. The play could have een implemented better if the timing was a bit better and eed made no contact until after the pass was caught, or alternately, Reed did not really have to lay a hit on the DB, simply get in his way so that Parrish got a little separation and JP could hit him. Even though if such a pass play worked in a game, Parrish might get credit on a longer field for a big yardage TD, it would be a mistake to simply assume big yardage pass plays mean a vertical game rather than good RAC. The key will be not so much the competition we face, but how do they deploy their DBs as we will happily take what they give us. If in fact they do line up their DBs in one-on-one coverage, JP will need to make the reads and we would see more of a vertical game with JP looping a big pass up that the isolated receiver then simply must run under. In order for this to happen, the opposing team would actually have to have a lot of confidence in their defender that he is a good player. This happened Sunday where the Fins had confidence in FA acquisition and 1st round pick who had started at CB in NYG Will Allen that he could cover Evans one-on-one. This proved not to be the case so JP went up top and a PI in the redzone was the result. If in fact the Jets pass defense is bad, then rather than seeing Coleman and Barnett singled up on our WRs leading to a lot of vertical passing, you will see them use something like the Cover 2 which employs the safeties as centerfielders or zone coverage rather than man-to-man. If so, Fairchild and JP would foolish to throw into the teeth of that coverage and the passing game is more likely to be successful with quick slants and crosses providing separation and picks, or with a smart receiver like Reed finding the seams in the zone. Expect them to pass more against a weaker D or against a team which puts a ton of guys in the box because they have to in order to stop WM. Just do not necessarily expect there to me more downfield passing in this pass-happy game.

This summer. The Baker name was that of his grandfather. His Mom's name was Fletcher so that is the one he always has used. He recently got married and his wife asked him what name to put on the wedding certificate as he has mused for a couple of years of changing his name to honor his Grandad and the wedding issue called the question. He wishes to be known and referered to as Fletcher-Baker now and though it is a bit long to be used on jerseys and things and he gained celebrity as merely Fletcher the request seems generally to be honored by folks such as on the Bills official roster. After all, the absolute number of letters and 4 syllables is not atypically found amidst many Buffalo names.

It definitely is great how Ko Simpson has stepped up immediately, I certainly was not brilliant enough to realize that even though it took KR Pro Bowler McGe and probably our #1 CB) now several years to play DB well, Simpson has emerged as a difference-maker (his sacks, tackle numbers, and called back by penalty turnover so far). Perhaps it is because the island of CB is that much more difficult than CB, but I think the differences are that Jauron really is a defensive guru who has designed his version of the Cover 2 well and it is well understood and implemented by Tampa 2 expert Fewell, that they can really determine and translate the roles of defenders well so that the rookies can pick it up easily and well. In addition, I that Simpson showed in some of the highlights of his college work a good ability to make reads as I have seen tape of him jumping a couple of routes for INTs in college. There may be some challenges for this and other younsters ahead as OCs get some film on how the D is designed and implemented and formulate strategies designed to exploit it. In addition, as Pro receivers get some tape om Simpson and begin to discover his individual talents and vulnerabilities we will see if he still gets the jump on the pro he is getting right now. Given the strong buzz Simpson was getting based on his college work and work in camp, had said that I really had hoped we would get at least half a season out of Vincent before age caused him to hit the wall (assuming that even though he led the team in turnovers received and played 16 of 16 last year that eventually being an old man would catch up with him). The good news is that not only has Simpson stepped up quicker than most if not all had expected, TV is still going to hang around to provide individual attentionthat Calvado will have a hard time providing as he will need to split himself between starters Whitner and Simpson and still train Youbouty in case we do not cut a deal with Clments. I think a key for Simpson will be to have someone not only do the teaching of how pros review and use game tapes of their likely opponents to prepare, but also to review the tapes of Simpson's work to identify issues for him to work on and also anticipate how opposing OCs and opponents will try to exploit him. I am certainly happy to admit that my concerns about Simpson starting immediately have proven to be ill-founded because Simpson has shown himself to be a contributor right off the bat. I do forgive myself this faux pas though because it certainly was not as dumb as those who argued that TV should be cut as there was no real cap advantage, , clarity as to how his team leading turnover totals would be replaced, and clearly he, the rookies and the Bills see the value he brings as a psuedo-coach to the players. There were those who were happy to take the risk of going with every rookie because they cared more about developing for the future than the attitude of Ralph, Marv and folks who want to win now that this year may not go well but we have to give ourselves the best chance we could to win. I'm happy to admit I seem to be wrong about my concern about a second day pick not being able to contribute immediately as a starter, i hope that others who did not argue mainly that Simpson was gonna be be good but that TV should be cut were also wrong in this prediction and actually wrong in their thinking on this issue.

Please note that while it is to early to predict trends with any degree of certaincy that not only should you take into account that this Bills' team is probably not as bad as you thought they may be with two good performances on the road, but also with 11 teams being 0-2 after 2 weeks (noth Pitts and Jax who play on Monday night already have a victory) we actually have 5 games on our schedule against these opponents. Particularly since we play the seemingly hapless GB team, horrible TN, and already once beaten Miami team here at home, not only are all these games winnable, but we stand a reasonable chance of even being favored against really bad teams in Houston and Detroit on the road. Add in the fact that though it remains true that on any given Sunday anybody can beat anybody, one has to feel good about facing the once beateb Jets at home, and not even bad about facing ME at home. Indy on the road is the only game I still see as a definite loss, and one can reasonably feel worse about Chicago after they thrashed horrid opponents in their first two (we see how Rex Grossman does with an over/under of 5 games before his season ending injury he usually suffers) and Baltimore (we will see how the whole season goes and whether this is a critical or rest game for either team). However, after a mere two game (we will know a bit more after the Bills face their first should win game this season Sunday), it seems pretty clear this team is not dooommed and it is possible they may even do quite well with merely adequate play with this schedule and stealing one of the two division games on the road so far. We'll see.

The point above about it being a different thing for what players should do (on game at a time though being human and particular with rookies playing a key role for us they often do not) and what fans should do. However, though the projections are even irrationale for a fan, it is Sunday night andreveling in the what ifs is a fine thing for even us psychotic fans on a game night. There is plenty of time for rationality during the week.

Waiting a couple of years is certainly legit to assess whether an individual pro is adequate, good, or a bust. However, there is no need to wait to assess the quality of blow-hard predictions. Particularly when they are over the top and as unmeasured as the so-called experts who are paid to generate controversy rather than display good football judgment. It can take three years to accurately assess a football judgment, but not to measure some fool who declares Marv senile, clueless, or already has made an assessment a day after the draft that a team deserves an F, an A or whatever. Its open season on the pundits and those big boys have declared it sp. I appreciate you holding back for an intelligent or rational football judgment. However, you feel no need to hold back in assessing the pundits, or simply just sharing their comments without a judgment because I'm sure these fools words and the results so far will speak for themselves.

The youngsters were simply impressive today. I think it is legit that one needs to wait 3 tears to legitimately say a player has the stuff or not. However, one need not wait that time period to be quite sure that the so-called experts on the draft completely missed the mark with their comments. While it is still too early after only two games to declare various folks incorrect. The stridency and forcefulness of their comments creates tremendous room to legitimately declare as senseless anyone who gave Marv and the boys an F for their juddments and declared this Golden Boy senile in terms of his judgments. Of the 9 players chosen all made the team and seemed to legitimately do so. If a draft produced 4 starters, I think everyone would consider that draft successful, and already to the tune of a closely played game on the road against the Pats and a win on the road against the Felons, we got 4 starters capable of winning an NFL game out of this draft. Folks who saw Whitner as a reach MIGHT be right if in fact some woulds/coulda/shoulda trade was pulled off to still get Whitner a few spots down, but there appears at this point to be no legit complaint that the 1st round pick should be a starter because Whitner is that with an INT against Brady and critical break-up of a two-point conversion to show for his play. The najor complaint one can make is that they reached for mcCargo to get a DT starter (we'll see if this is true about this individual as the next few years play out) but in terms of the team any indictment about the 1st round DT needs to come with kudos for the 5 th round DT who in fact is starting. TD got one starter on the second day in his time here and alreadt Marv has 3. Even more amazing, between McCargo, Youbouty and Butler it is not an outrageous notion that the Bills may well see significant contributions from as many as 7 of these drafted players this year. It may be a useful thing for TSW to post an "Eat Crow" list which features some of the most prominent specific indictments of Marv-leed drafting and the Bills draft class. It is too early to declare for sure who is really an NFL pro from this group as a whole, but not to early at all to remind folks about the specific idicy of those who cannot do so they comment.

Boy a win on the road with a QB with little command of the offense who makes questionable calls. I'll take it. Well, we do face NYJ at home mext week so I guess we;re DDDOOOMMMED.

I think there is probably some reluctancy to do it as unlike the Oak game where the NFL apologized, its a marquee team that is marketed that benefited from the mistakes. The Whitner call also had no specific game effect because of the arguably reasonable but pitty-pat call on the Bills. The mistake of the inadvertant whistle was due to a change in operating method by the nFL and such mistakes happen in the first game after a change so the NFL will deal with it in a corrective rather than punitive method. Finally, given the gross disparity in the calls against the Bills and against NE, to open up this question opens up the debate on how much that disparity was because of youth/experience and how much was poor work (my guess is the answer is both). It would be nice if the gross error was acknowledged, but my guess is if this happens it will be done quietly.