Pyrite Gal

I think your selection of Aikman is a good one to illustrate a couple of points about using the draft as one of the any means necessary to find a quality QB. Drafting a QB in the 1st round has simply proven be a pretty unusual way to secure an SB win (or even an SB berth) in the real world looking at NFL history. Aikman was the last QB to deliver an SB win to the team which selected him until Pitts pulled it off by selecting Robo QB who joined in with a TEAM (as seen by the difficulty in even selecting an SB MVP from this squad, RoboQBs major contribution to this win was making a rumbling, stumbling, bumbling tackle to prevent a TD after they turned the ball over) since Dallas chose Aikman in 1989. In the intervening decade and a half, we saw the field of multiple different means for finding a QB capable of being part of a team that won it all, such as FAs (Dilfer for example), UDFAs (Warner), trades (Elway, Young, Favre for losts of examples), and later round draft picks (Brady). One issue which all members of the field share in common which differentiates them from most 1st rond picks for your team is that their cap hits are quite manageable because even higher priced players who have been run out of town as failures (like Johnson for example) is that their cap hit is manageable so you can build a team to play with this QB, or alternately, once can find a QB capable of getting a win by paying him at or near the NFL minimum for his winning season (Warner, Dilfer and Brady all were acquired and paid near the minimum though they then could be renegotiated long term in a manageable way if the team chose). Even in the Aikman example you site a big key for the 'Bioys even without the cap constraint present today was the gift which MN gave them them of a bunch of rol players for Herschel Walker. The prescence of a number extraordinary players on this team like Emmit Smith and Irvin combined with these other team members to deliver the 'Boys a near dynasty. Using the draft to select a winning QB was done with Aikman but was far from the onlu key factor in building this team and likewise the Bills should look very closely whether they have a winning team for Cutler or whomever to join just as RoboQB joined the Bettis/s, Wards. Polamalus and other players who were just as (and in fact more) essential to them winning it all. Lest you want to claim that laying all this on the criterion of an SB win is too rarified a standard for measuring QB succes, simply note that until McNabb saw the SB without a ticket in the '04 season he was the 1st 1 round drafted QB to lead the team which selected him to the big game since McNair in '99. Between RoboQB last year and McNabb the year before, drafting a QB in the first round has simply been not only a non-form of producing an SB winner or an an SB attending team, but has been generally a minority shot (about 1 out of 4) in even making it to the last weekend as folks like Manning )once) and Culpepper (once at least led their team to the final weekend. I have not run all the numbers for all he final round QBs 1st round selection versus UDFAs or other mechanisms, but even anecdotally you seem more likely to see the names of YDFAs and late choices like a Hasselbeck and a Delhomme as the occurence of these 1st rounders leading their teams to the SB like a Bledsoe (its thin enough in terms of 1st round succes for the team which picked him that even he is one of their most prominent examples of "success" in the past decade and a half or so. How well a Cutler played really would probably make little difference to this team;s success because opting for him at #8 would have really hamstrung this teams rebuilding strategy. Its not that we are so good with Whitner, its just that we would have been so bad with Cutler. Even the Broncos lost with Cutler wracking up a big DNP and they almost certainly are a better team than the Bills. If we drafted Cutler, the Bills also likely would have the rookie as a DNP contributor, and even if he started rather than Holcomb (the likely Bills starter in the Cutler era actually), he would have been playing with a D which already proved to porous against the run either with lesser players that Whitner or McCargo plaing for us. Just as Indy was improved from going 3-13 to get Manning up to 3-13 with Manning, so to that if the Bills had chosen Cutler we would be quite lucky to go 5-11 again and there has been zero case presented we would do better, Let's pick a number which is not outlandish that a 2006 team with Cutler at QB would post. Some have predicted a 1-15 finish even for this squad. 3-13 would be a middle ground prediction for a Cutler led 06 squad between a 1-16 finish and merely reolicating last year's 5-11 result. When a Bledsoe QB'ed team finished 8-8 after a 3-13 season this was heralded as the second best improvement in Ws in NFL history. My sense based on NFL history is that this team with its 1st round improvement being selection of Cutler who might well spend the season learning behind Holcomb (or JP if you really love QB controversy) would need to put on a show virtually unprecedented in NFL history merely to maufacture a winning season in his second year. Maybe he could do this, history simply say this is next to imposible. Maybe the 06 squad with Cutler on it does better than 3-13. Could be but you and everyone else fail to make any case beyond your wish that this could be produced by a Cutler led team which has not used its 1st pick on our DT or SS holes, You even fail to make a case that he would do anything but sit on the bench here as he is doing in Denver. If you do want to make the case that the team is so bad that they need Cutler (again this assumes he will be good right off the bat which is a big unproven assumption) then also take into account that this Cutler led team is not only just as bad but actually worse as the draft was used on him rather than filling another hole. In total, you are looking at a team which has missed the playoffs five years in a row, AND now had a 3-13 (or so season), is going to go into 2007 either with an untested QB or one who got a bunch of Ls, and even if he pulls off one of the best performances in NFL history is still QB for a .500 team. I think the past reality indicates that if we chose Cutler and Ralph happens to kick the bucket you might be looking at theLA Bills since I think even the partisan Bills fan base would let the Bills slide away after 7 non-winning seasons in a row a Cutler era would bring even if he played well. I simply do not see any reasonable football strategy that does not look to get the QB we want through 1. Development of existing players. 2. signing of an FA like a Dilfer or a Collins (NYG SB version), 3. drafting a late round QB who allows you to build a winning team like a Brady or acquiring a UDFA cheaply like a Delhomme or Warner. As unlikely as these strategies are to work, the strategy of drafting a QB in the 1st has even less of a chance of working with this team.

Bingo! I think Baker (a UDFA who did a tremendous amount simply making the team much less the starting he did as a rookie) sealed his fate when the man he seemed to be covering (he was by far the closes player to him) from the Lions (I think but I already covere the tape) scored a TD on him in the pre-season. Both Leonhard (as a PR guy) and even the useless Coy Wire showed more than Baker on ST (Baker actually even got his hands on an onside kick that Lindell tried in 04 but could not bring it in) and I think this faux pas as a position player essentially doomed him. He obviously is better to have than nothing, but singing his praises beyond that fact is simply speculative. While Lenny P's theory on this at least is more rationale than a hilarious take on this which has no foundation beyond the usual fact free opinion that PFW trotted out, it still seems fairly unlikely. While TV'd NFLPA Presidency is a simple fact which comes into play regarding decisions about cutting or keeping him, the driver of decisions in this process without some clear evidence to show otherwise is almost certainly football assessment. At the very least football skill is the justification which must be offered in the discussion between members of the braintrust. Overall, i think the football-world safety assessment at the time of the move was this: 1. Vincent- A player well into the backside of his career who whether folks want to acknowledge reality or not led the team in turnovers taken last year (he tied for the team lead in INTs and FRs) and answered the call in all 16 games last year. He suffered from a hammy pull which did not allow him to play in pre-season (a concern for a younger person) and a hug concern for an older player with only 3 available safties on our roster (two of whom are rookies and the other is Coy Wire). The hammy felt good enough that TV did not even appear on the injury report prior to NE. Further we cut Leonhard who was the next best safety as his likely contributions as a sub would be on ST where he was well behind PR choices like even pressing Clements into duty if Parrish cannot answer the call. Baker was a good story as this UDFA not only made the team but contributed on the field. However, he showed elemental coverage problems in pre=seaspn practice and games and the choice would be between a two bad coverage guys (Wire and Baker) one of whom at least has the talent to try to use him on ST. Keeping TV made good sense not only because he led the team in turnovers last year and was not injured out of being available last year, but the primary complaint about his play last year was that he did not tackle well enough. This duty is called for a lot in the zone-blitz we used last year, but actually his coverage skills which got him several Pro Bowl at CB is what is going tio be called for in the Cover 2. In addition, he is a well-respected Pro among his peers as evidenced by his election as NFLPA Pres and most fans view him as a Class Act so having him to train the three DB rookies makes a tone of sense. However, his hammy injury is uncertain at best and we are looking at probably 4 games at least with only 3 Ss on the roster. We need a roster spot and that is the priority. Whitner- Impressive start at SS where getting burned for a mid-distance reception by Watson is easily offset by the ability he showed to provide run support and by getting an INT (which led to a bizarre ref performance BTW). He is our SS (particularly after another horrid SS performance by Wire). Simpson- Nice. The number of tackles, not getting burned (yet) on any big gains or TDs, and anecdotal reactions to his play indicate we may have stumbled upon a real player on the second day of the draft. Wire- Yecch. Bowen- Probably the 3rd best safety on the team behind a health TV and an emerging Whitner, but he is out and not expected back this week and probably the next. In the face of this, the obvious move is to bring back Leonhard, but the question is how to create a roster spot. TV may be back in 2-4 games, but given him having 2-3 weeks in pre-season and feeling like he could answer the bell but who knows, it may be longer. We could create a roster spot by chopping someone like an inactive from last week but folks such as DiGrregorio and Merz might be put to use and cutting them is risky. The move to create a roster spot by putting TV on the "minor" IR list looks like a good thing to do, TV will not be able to play for the vast majority of week 6 minimum before you can either cut and pay a player or if he clears waivers even resign him as he becomes a FA who can go anywhere. While it would be a longshot to bring him back, if something happens like an injury to Whitner or Simpson, we can cross that bridge if we come to it. Obviously the minor IR contingency if TV's hammy acts up has been discussed with him (I do not think they could have acted so fast to do this unless it was previously discussed) and TV is fine with it (based on his public statements) and is even willing to still be a member of this team as he has volunteered publicly to hang around and teach the DB rookies for several weeks (though IR leaves him under no obligation to the team). At that point when see if Simpson keeps up the same performance, how Bowen recovers, and how Leohard does, we can make a decision about what to do. The other unsubstantiated theory which seems unlikely to me. but actually more likely than the PFW cut that no one on the Bills understands the IR thiing or if they do they are too afraid of Marv to bring it up, and also more likely than the Lenny P. theory that when Ralph says he likes Troy, he really means he likes him-likes him, is the idea that actually TV and the Bills have conspired together for the good of the team to have TV go on minor IR to get his hammy healed and then when six weeks role around he can clear waivers (which he almost certainly will do) and then resign with the Bills to play with Simpson, Whitner, etc. While the theory that this is what is happening is possible under the rules, there is no evidence to suggest this is the case beyibd the circumstantial evidence that clearly TV and the Bills have doped this situation out as they moved quickly and talked about the situtation calmly and positively when it came. Perhaps they moved so quickly as it will maximize TV's practic time for a comeback and allow TV to be a teammate for the intervening six weeks without the hindrances that the PUP list or some other move which provides the needed roster spot would havesaddled the Bills and TV with. I and the rest of the media simply do know what the other shoe is in this deal. However, it appears to be a situation which for 6 weeks of the Bills are making the best of a bad situation. It would take an unlikely conspiracy for the Bills to resign TV after 6 weeks, but even this unlikely scenario seens more likely than the rants of PFW or the theorizing of Lenny P.

I don;t think that JP's performance really makes this a choice between Whitner and Cutler (or Leinart) as picking a QB was simply not an option for this team in this draft. The Bills made a choice to invest their draft QB hopes in Losman when they picked him in the first and dedicated a cap hit in the pre-CBA renegotiation world to JP. Even though the new cap gave some additional room, the Bills having invested in Holcomb (and then Nall) as their FA hopes essentially made drafting yet another "savior" at QB a non option for the Bills. By the time draft day rolled around, the Bills had holes which needed to be filled at DT and SS in order to be even remotely competitive this year. If they had made the alternate option and taken Cutler (or Leinart since he unexpectedly dropped to #8), it essentially would have condemned the Bills to another 3-13 season in 06 (if not worse) and essentially delayed our rebuilding (even if Cutler or Leinart were stars) to the 2008 season at best- I mean do you really see this team with Cutler at QB and and operating with whatever deficits are left by not drafting Whitner at #8 being competive at all this year or moving from that non-competivie result in 06 to a very a .500 record even with Cutler playing well in 2007, if so such a result would be unprecedented as best I can tell in NFL history). Even if he played well and even if JP stinks, picking Cutler at QB would likely have been a death warrant for the next two seasons and even potentially for the Bills in Buffalo if that was our approach and result.

RIP and may a higher power ease the burden of those left behind in pain.

This both shows the wonderful ability Crowell has to play multiple LB positions which he brings to the team. I saw one post that seemed to be based on the idea that Crowell was miscast foe use as an SLB which is why they went to Haggan and then Ellison to replace TKO. It seems to me that the decision was actually one of wanting Crowell to stay in one position at least for a game if not for the season preferably. He actually seems to have learned and understand all three LB roles since he originally was the back-up MLB to F-B in his first couple of years and learned to call signals. My since is that if F-B goes down then Crowell gets the MLB call instead of DiGrigorio anyway. If Ellison keeps up the work he showed last weekend, even if TKO cannot go, we still have 4 LBs who can credibly start (Haggan is also a good talent who is a reasonable back-up and contributor on ST who needs to improve and has something to prove after being the apparent victim of a TD throw last week). I hope TKO can answer the call, but even if he cannot in this game it is bad but not a disaster. No surpirse with the injury prone Jennings. I am still surprised some folks think we should have resigned him. The complaint about the Bills braintrust failing to resign OL players misses the point if it thinks this is a pro assessment or negotiating problem, it WAS a college assessment problem in that they drafted two OL players who simply were not worth re-sigining. The problem with the old braintrust was not strategic in failing to recognize the import of the OL, it was execution in that first day choices Jennings and MW and FA acquisition Teague did not cut the mustard as players at their positions.

The NC question is interesting as I figured they would just get 'er done by now. One wonders if the braintrust has made a judgement that either: 1. They want to see Youbouty's potential before they make the deal. or 2. They already are figuring they will get a near career year out of an unsigned Nate and are willing to pay an extra premium he earns with good play this year as any new contract would be significant but managed for allocation of cap hit, or 3. They figure that there is still enough play to happen where if NC feels the slightest twinge he will make a deal at a lower rate than he wants but the tipping point has not been reached where NC would simply not sign in hopes of getting bigger bucks, or 4. something else. We'll see.

I think this is mostly a demonstration of overrated the NFL draft is as though having a top 5 pick must produce a HOF quality player when actually in real life your are doing a fairly average job if your early round draftee is solid starter after a few years. This draft group yielded a few players who had OK careers and a couple of great games like Howard in the SB, but in general even first round choices are crapshoots for a team. If the salary cap is an issue for you at all, a team is much better off trading a first round choice for a bunch of reliable vets who cap hit you can manage and with whom you have a better shot at predicting how they will do. Folks tend to treat the draft (thanks to the great hype by our buddies at ESPN and the surge in interest in fantasy leagues) as though it is the key to building a team and victory when actually it tends to be at most simply part (and at that even a lesser part) of building a solid team. Good players have to come from somewhere and good players tend to get drafted, but folks seem to mistake these facts for the idea that you have to draft stud players or you are doomer. There are Peyton Mannings, but there are a lot more Ryan Leafs when it comes to measuring ability versus accomplishment. Even worse. Ryan Leaf and Peyton Manning have taken the exact same number of teams to SB wins or to a League Championship. Manning is strongly ahead of Leaf by one in taking teams to even play in league championships Yet, folks seem to have some expectation that an early draftee is gona play regualar season ball as well as Manning and even that is not the case generally. The draft is useful but is really overhyped.

Again, this post seems contradictory. It's rememberin the 2005 season that explain most clearly why you keep Vincent. 1. On the field definite Bill D problems were: A. A lack of turnovers (one stat that really does describe how a game went). B. Folks catching up with how we used the zone blitz. By keeping TV you keep you major producer of turnovers received last year (tied for team lead in INTs and also FRs). In addition, we needed to at least alter our zone-blitz if we kept Gray (10 of 11 players were the same so it points to how you implemented the scheme and other issues as the problem), but we did not but it makes perfect sense that the new HC goes away from the zone-blitz and to the Cover 2. The major complaint folks had about TV was his tacking and the major strength of the other safety Milloy was his tackling (though he also is getting long in the tooth). Remembering 2005 seems to add up directly to cutting Milloy and keeping TV as your D style goes away from the area of complaint and toward his demonstrated strength (again tied for the team lead in INTs). The smple fact that there was a much larger cap benefit to chopping Milloy rather than chopping TV brings one to the conclusion the Bills braintrust reached. 2. The "other issues" which actually probably played a role in the Bills D meltfown (they dropped on D from 2nd in the league statistically to 27th or so) was the dissension which ravaged the team. A. TV is known as a quality guy and is demonstrably respected by his peers who votd him Pres of the NFLPA. Working with this would seem to be a reasonable part of a strategy for building cohesion among the team and cutting him clearly runs the risk of creating more dissension. B. Clearly better secondary play is useful for creating more INTs and turnovers and we are moving to a scheme which emphasizes the things the Cover 2 does. This is why the draft made a lot of sense in terms of getting an SS who can start immediately, a CB that gives us flexibility regarding FA Clements, and a second day choice FS we like a lot. This is great but raises the emphasis on training the rooks which again creates a real role for TV as a peer teacher (the DB position coach is going to have more than enough to do in any case giving the individual attention which is useful for all three players. Flat out it is crystal clear to me that when you remember the failures of this team in '05 that it means you keep TV and use him for all he is worth to help you build a team. Unfortunately what he will be worth will not include being healthy enough to repeat his 16 game appearance performance of last year, but there is still a lot he can add in terms of working with the rooks. It seems to me that those who simply make a knee-jerk reaction and want to cut TV are the ones who not only are forgetting the past, but not demonstrating having a clear vision for the future and how we are going to get there.

Everytime one cocludes tbat PFT cannot sink any lower in making claims that are far beyond what they or any "insider" who does not have an agenda that they would clearly lie to youor at least selectively tell the truth, her comes PFT with yet another crazy theory that does not even fit the knowable facts. Clearly the two sides had researched the issue of how best to deal with TV not being able to perform exhaustively as they responded quickly with placing him on minor injury IR. Clearly they have something planned, and the most reasonable guess is that they moved quickly to make sure the six weeks comes as quickly as possible. Though there is no outside info or inside sources to suggest that there is an agreement between TV and the Bills to give him six weeks of non-trauma to his hammy and then hope that he has healed enough to reactivate him once he clears waivers. If this is the case the Bills clearly are risking that TV will no one will pick up TV om waivers (good luck to someone if they do because they will assume the rest of TV's salary without a medical exam and hope he can play or spemd countless hours negotiating an FA deal with him. TV could in theory screw the Bills and signs with the Fins or whomever for peanuts but he will also be screwing his Bills teamates and earn the label upon retirnng of being a mercenary me guy after years of building a rep as a class act, The PFT theory about this is simply stupid.

My sense is that folks who are worried about this should just wait.TV does not seem to be upset by this and I do not think the Bills are either. TV and TKO will talk (or have talked in which case this may in fact be a real issue) and I think that TV probably can let TKO know some things that the Bills and he have been keeping between themselves since it involved figuring what to do that served both their interests if his hammy was so bad he needed an uncertain amount of time without trauma before he played again if ever. Assuming that TV and the Bills have some plan with this move that serves both their interests, TKO may well be assuaged as far as his reactions.

My sense is that TKO comments were produced to some extent out of his own frustration at suffering an injury once again (getting hurt and IR'ed last year was touigh but getting a great play on the first play and then getting hurt must have really messed with his head/heart), This is not excuse (not that he needs one unless mouthing off is a persistent problem for a player) but I think it is an understandable reason which should make forgiveness easier even for those who feel he was out of line. They also probably came out because one of the big problems last year was a dispute among the braintrust about whether they were playing for the future or for last year. I think for the Bills the key to TKOs comments is not what he said but how it is dealt with. An example is the case when Belicheck's brinkmanship with Milloy or a few hundred K led to Milloy calling BB's "bluff". The Pats players loudly and openly called out their HC for being an idiot. However, whether one judges it a braintrust transgression that BB mishandled the Milloy negotiation or instead you feel it was a player transgression that the workers publicly called out the field boss, the key was not the transgression but how they dealt with it. Inspired by the question of how the team was gonna deal with the unexpected loss of Milloy, the shelacking they received from the Bills in the 1st game that year , and the beginning of a series of serious injuries, this team decided to deal with it as a TEAM and that made a huge difference. I do not mind at all if TKO;s comments called the commitment of the braintrut into question or if alternatelty his teammates are pissed at TKO for talking publicly. If team leadership uses this as a question to come together or to at least have people state where they stand, the team can actually become a TEAM. Likely though this will simply be passed over because the comments are not really a big deal.

The whole officiating result of this game is pretty pathetic actually but there is little that can be done about it. Even if the NFL were to take the maximum harsh action of saying whhoops as they did regarding several game turning calls in the Oakland game in 2004 it makes little difference. One should expect fans on the losing side to simply shout we got jobbed by the refs whether they did or not. However in this case: 1. There was a clear disparity in the amount of fouls called upon the Bills and the lack of fouls called upon the Pats. 2. Certainly part of this disparity can be rationally explained in that a team startung a bunch of rookies made a lot more mistakes than a vet team with 3 recent SB wins. 3. But, the silliness and obvious mistakes of some of the call such as the whistle after the Whitner INT raises serious questions about the quality of officiating in this game that even a Pats fan should acknowledge raises a legitimate question as to whether it was ref mistakes versus team quality that strongly influenced the outcome of this game. A reasonable person might concude that the ref errors were of no impact ultimately but they should also acknowledge this is a legit item for debate, 4. The flawless on field performance (the 1 penalty on the Pats was a substitution error and not a player failure) as they we called for 1 (ONE- count 'em) penalty seems pretty unlikely in s game where big guys are moving so fast and furiously it is often said that a penalty could be called on every play). Once you acknowledge that the issue is debatable due to the disparity of the calls made and the blatancy of some of the errors, then this issue is in play. 5. The most clear case of game altering calls is actually found in the non-calls by the officials. On punts sometimes a player is blocked into the kicker and the roughing call is a judgment. However, when this happens at least a couple of times and multiple players hit the kicker this becomes really questionable. In the end, nothing was so blatant as the refs blowing the coin flip in one Turkey Day game (and there was nothing the league could do about that and in addition they chose to give the ref who blew it Phil Luckett kudos for his other calls that season). However, this effect should be noted. The rebuilding Bills should take some solace in knowing that they are obviously flawed but on this Sunday referee intervention was necessary to assure the Pats a narrow win. Pats fans should also note that they are 1-0 with a win in the division and the facts are that is where this team should be in meeting minimal goals. However, they should not feel extremely confident based on this result as though they have been fortunate to get application of the tuck rule and also a fortunate injury to Bledsoe in 2001, they have probably already used up a lot o their lucky breaks this season merely to get past the rebuilding Bills. If the refs give us a blatant break when the Pats come here, I will not feel guilty about it at all.

I remember my olds as a youth watching Bobby Douglas run for 950+ yards as a QB where running was his first option. Exciting football yes, but winning football no. Even a far more talented player who presents a run threat like Micheal Vick takes his life (and the team's future) into his hands every rime he scrambles. JP has learned the lesson bitterly in practice when a mere shove from Troy Vincent put him on the bench for a while that while you do plan to run if you get in trouble, if you plan to run consistently as an option it is only a matter of time before your next team meeting is in a hospital room. TC greatly increasing DB's effectiveness with the use of the run threat is a clear indicator that it is a bad thing to fear the QB run completely, but it also seems to be a bad idea to make this a planned part of the offense.

Actually in addition to the other items pointed out in this thread you should add to his accomplishments: 1. The simple fact i routinely mention but people seem to tend to ignore that he tied for the lead in both INTs and FRs on this turnover starved team last year. 2. One post hoped he would go to TX with is buddy Moulds, but the most interesting thing to me about this situation was that while the NFLPA did file a grievance on behalf of that idiot TO when Philly suspended him, they somehow found a way not to try to protecty Moulds when got suspended despite the NFLPA Pres being right there. Who knows for sure outside the locker room what went down, but the support for Moulds from his teammates was deafening in its silence and I suspect that Moulds ran rather than walked from this team is because he found no support for his stupid whining from his teammates including his alleged buddy TV. Locker room lawyer? Well the lawyer seemed to be on the right side of this case. 3. There is objective evidence that he was a positive team leader as it was written up that he organized classes at an Ivy League school in business and to get credits toward an MBA which was attended by several Bills including TKO. While some folks seem bitter about TV for no objective reason they have expressed, I think you actually see support being expressed for him as a player because he has been a consistent voice for repsonsible action by players for the game that has brought them wealth and for themselves. As a Bills fan i had hoped we would get at least 6-8 games out of him before he broke down as he is well into the backside of his career, but alas that did not happen. Fortunately Kp Simpson looked good last weekend and though like any rookie he will almost certainly make some mistakes lets hope they do not come at critical times and that he learns from them.

No as far as being torched regularly based on the objective evidence out there. His first year here was 2004 and the Bills finished statistically with the second best D in the league. The pron with the Bills that year occured when they had a horrible start, but TV was actually already showing signs of being on the backside of his career and was out. During the win streak the Bills generally were the ones doing the torching. The D problem in the final game agaist Pitts was stopping the run as Paker ran all over us to join with ST failures of Lindell missing a chip shot and NC kaying a PR on the turf along with Bledsoe failing to move the D effectively. Last year, TV tied for the lead the team in INTs and FRs, and the complaint about him in a year where our whole D was ineffective was not about his pass coverage but his tackling as he is not the guy with the past talents to cast him orimarily as a run stopper as the zone blitz sometines calls on safeties to do rather the the Cover 2 which at least tried to use him more correctly though in the end he broke down. If you have any specifics of him being burned regularly beyond the general party line I;d love to see them.

My reactions to this are: 1. Shoot, i hate it when any Bill starter goes on IR and I am surprised that some who call themselves Bills fans seem pleased about this. My sense was that as an older player TV would could hit the wall suddenly anyway. If he did suddenly play in a manner that he could no longer tie for the team lead in INTs AND FRs then I would certainly hope that his sub played well enough for us to bench him and use him as a reserve. It seemed illogical to me that some advocated the football equivalent of cutting yourself (he did not play well enough last year to call it suicide) by cutting our leading turnover receiver last year with little cap value to be gained from such a cut. When you add into this item that the scheme was moving toward his are of greatest strength and away from the area people whine about most as we went to Cover 2 from Zone-blitz, AND we had just acquired a bunch of young DB who would benefit from on field vet advice to supplement the lead position coaching advice, AND his position of being voted by his peers as Pres of the NFLPA made cutting him as punishment of the NFLPA a stupid and risky football strategy keeping him was the obvious smart football move and I hoped we would at least get 8 weeks of play out of him before he hit the wall. I am bummed we did not get more rime before the injury bug hit. 2. I am quite pleased however, with what Ko Simpson showed us on Sunday and would rather he had taken the job from TV through skill by mid-season rather than being handed the job in week 2 due to injury. However, after seeing him perform a bit Sunday I have my fingers crossed that though he will make mistakes like any rookie, if we luck out these lessons will not come at game criticl times, 3. The Bills did make a talent mistake at safety IMHO, but the mistake was keeping Wire over Baker rather than anything involving TV. Sure it would have been better to have not locked up a roster spot on a player who was injured onto IR in the first game, but this is such hindsight as to not really be a justification. This argument also ignores the fact mentioned above that one should be asking Coy Wire questions before you start asking TV questions anyway. 4, Real life is about making lemonade out of lemons since we have no choice about many of the lemons of injury. It does vary from player to player how much they habg around when they are hurt, It depends on the needs and comfort level of the hurt player (who often are at least around because of access to the docs and rehab equipment), the team (if the player is in their future plans they usually want him around) and the needs of his replacement (sometimes folks are uncomfortable with a "dead man walking" around the team). My sense is that TV will hang around a bit and that is good: A. Position coaching is the lead and the key here, but those who say it is all about the coaches and not about former star players have not been paying attention to the NFL. The game often looks different on the field to how it looks on the sideline, in the pres box or on TV, TV has the ability to supplenent the coaching in an important way if he chooses to. B, I think he is done as a player and I doubt he will want the demotion of being a coach. However, as NFLPA Pres. this year the job requires a player who is under contract. TV will be active talking to his teammates and actually probably will be around the league more now that he has free time so I do not see him walking away from the game just yet. In addition. one of the things many players seem to miss most in retirement is the camaraderies of their fellow athletes and being part of a team which at its best is like a family. TV has enough money and fiscal interests to walk away if he wants, but he will get the benefits of camaraderie if he continues to contribute to the team. it seems natural that he will act as an extra instructor for the young DBs. C. Folks need to also understand that though your position coach is there to help you get better, he is also there to decide whether you play or not. For example, Coy Wire should not be on this team anyway. Does anyone seriously think he goes to the coaches and asks them for help figuring out everything that his wrong with his game and drawing attention to his bad plays? Nope. One of the reasons why uts great to have a vet who knows the game there for a player to talk to and get pointers from is because folks like Simpson, Whitner and Youbouty are not even sure when they get here what you should ask about or not. Having an exprienced vet you to be your confessor and helper is great to make you a better player. So, I am bummed that TV craooed iut so soon, I am pleased that Simpson showed good ability off the bat. I hiope Bowen gets well soon and I am glad we got Leonhard back. i wish we had Naker rather than Wire but uch is life.

It is simply splitting the baby as far as the call, but I thought he made it BUT there was not enough conclusive evidence to reverse the call. Its a question of where the ball was when his knee hit the ground. Though I thought he landed such that the ball was beyond where TV said was a first down, it essentially is judgment call as to where the plane of the ball was at that point. Given that the Bills still had a ten point lead at the time with a ton of time left on the clock it seems reasonable for the Bills to choose to conseve the TO they would have lost if the challenge went badly. Ultimately, the D needs to hold them once or the O needs to put up at least 3 on the board. Neither event happened with the game in our hands. We lost and lets hoped we learned the bitter lesson which is do well always.

Thanks for the detailed response Simon. From what I see I am less worried about whether a WR can get by a guy to catch some moonball for a TD (so thus it is fine with me if one ignores or discounts catches like the PP TD in pre-season) than I am about the WR producing big yardage or a TD catching a short pass amd ruinning after the catch. The key to me is the coverage and the amount of cushion which the DB is forced to give the WR because the speed of the WR may burn him for a big gain if he does press coverage. If you are looking for real world examples, simply remember the general case that even with Moulds here, PP usually challenged or lead in TD catches for the 2 or 3 years they merged in productivity for the Bills. PP got these TD catches not because he always beat the WR downfield and got a ball from the rocket srm of Df or AVP (though RJ and Bledsoe could throw the ball deep). Nor did he get them because he was such a great athlete that he would do the Moulds job of beating back a closely covering DB with one hand while he hauled the ball in with the other. The PP speed difference which IMHO produced those TDs and a growing and then in his final year as a Bills quite good ypc was that he had the ability to get quick separation. either receive a short ball in stride or make the first tackler miss and then it was off to the races. My sense is that it is that tyoe if game which Fairchild plans to run with PP in 06. It did not happen on Sunday unfortunately for us, but the team leading 3 catches mad by PP were a very good sign in my book. He actually showed an ability to get open in tight places in the middle of the field. This ability provides a quandary for the covering DB as the stop and go becomes a real threat now if you have to press him to stop the possession reception, and run the risk he may jet off on a pump fake from the QB when you pinch in to block the possession reception. My sense is that PP TDs are likely to come from such plays where he either beats the DB on a relatively short pass with a stop and go and then cannot be caught due to his speed or the DB respons with lose coverage because he fears the speed difference and PP makes the first man miss. My personal concern about PP was whether part of his horrendous AT performance was due to some physical problem like the rumors I heard of his eyes going bad. His receiving work on Sunday while not producing TDs was a clear sign of him seeing and catching the ball as well as any other Bill WR at least. Some folks have tried to maintain that PP was a weenie when he was here. I do not know where this came from beyond the usual conventional wisdom ragging on anyone who leaves the Bills. They harp for example on the one season he actually had a few fumbles which came at bad times as we were trying to mount a comeback. Yet, my memory of these fumbles was that they actually occured when PP dodged but did not totally get away from the first tackler and actually it was a second hit that he was set up for which dislodged the ball. I wound up actually wishing he was more of a weenie and would go down on the first hit. I was very hopeful about the WR performance Sunday. though i was surprised that as you note, Reed was judged the second best WR on the team, this is good news from my perspective. I like others felt that Reed was poised to take the #2 spot in 2003 and had earned it with an impressive rookie campaign. However, the bad case of the droppsies he suffered in 2003 was all on him (the QB would get the ball to him and often in stride, but he simply dropped it). I do not think there was any scheme or route fix to deal with this, he simply just had to get better or we needed to look elsewhere. The rant against him continued in 2004 fropm fans, but I thought this was somewhat unjustified as he was injured that season (Ithink he finally ended up on IR. Folks whining continued last year, but again in my judgment he looked like he had solved the droppsie problem. The fan problem was that our O sucked so bad due to JP needing to learn and the team context being so toxic, reed needed to make catches like he made Sunday and have some good games to really rebuild his rep. I think he has the potential, but potential simply means you have not done anything yet and he needs to produce. It is clear to me that Fairchild is not doing what I thought he could do given the talents of Evans/Reed/Price/Parrish (you are right he is still learning and needs to find and make his nicher/ and even Davis (where was he Sunday and how will he be used). i do not care whether I guess right I just want us to be good. Niether Price nor Reed (nor the young Evans) are perfect, but all seem to me to have skills which can be combined and used in a good combination to produce a good O. I think it makes sense you are not a Price hater (I do not think any Bill fan should hate any Bill- you might argue that Wire or Shelton should be cut, but why hate them or wish them poorly because these means wishing the team poorly) the question which I have is that given his and the otherWR's skillsets, how can they be used in a productive O? My original general cut was: Evans- Great speed and developing athleticism which forces others to dt him or roll coverage his way. He can and should get his share by getting open, having JP look for him with their developing chemistry and once JP throws it in his vicinity he should go get the ball. Price- Its all about RAC and in particular since he showed some ability to work in the slot or as a possession WRon Sunday, the RAC opportunities are even higher. Parrish- A youngster definitely and the Bills are working with him to develop an ability to work over the middle as he defines himself. If he succeeds in this with is scatback shiftiness and speed we would have a potent 3 WR set which essentailly forces opposing Ds into zones. Reed- Tyke Tolbert and the braintrust publicly sing his praises as one of the smartest football players they have worked with and this makes him perfect if other teams are forced into zones as he would have the football smarts to find the seams in the zone and then the RAC ability from his collegiate work as an RB. ERven better if the coaches now judge him to be of good enough quality that he is our #2. In order to deserve this acolade he may have more speed than conventionally thought or his route running ability and now abiliy to hang onto the ball replace that speed issue. Davis- Has the potential to fill in for most of the roles above. I don't not care so much how it works as I just want it to work. it is actually a simple thing for folks to simply whine that it does not work because so and so sucks. Fine and whatever. What is really interesting in how they would make it work with what we got. I think you are on the right track with increased effectiveness and usage of the RB and TE in the passing game occuring if the O is working. However, I think that this production will be a by-product of the WR scheme working rather than as a cause of WR effectiveness,

One must also remember that the big change in offensive approach happened not because the HC.OC stopped attacking but changed when Jauron and the gang did try to go for the jugular on 4th and 1 rather than play it safe and go for the FG and we simply got beat. The "philosophy" changed after that but the big change was the Pats confidence was soaring and the Bills from players to HC were reeling, I agreed with the decision to go for it even though in retrospect it did not produce the result we wanted, but I would not add insult to the injury of them losing by accusing them of playing it too safe as well.

I don't follow the reasons you lay out to get your conclusion. This is odd to me as I actually agree with your conclusion. I agree with you that Fairchild needs to get the TEs and RB more involved in the passing attack and if that is accomplished this O can fly. However, I think the way you get to this outcome is actually because we have a number of deep threats. Not only do I think that Evans is a legitimate deep threat who has exhibited some athleticism this pre-season that adds a needed dimension to his obvious speed which csn allow him to mimic the threat Moulds posed at his peak. In the passes he caught and in highlights from practice he showed goos concentration on a bouncing ball and the ability to drag it in even with one hand. However, I think we saw with his pre-season TD and from media reports from folks like Allen Wilson that Price retains his speed. He poses a deep threat even with a loss of some of his best speed because the key issue is what is his speed relative to the #2 or lower CB that would be covering him (Walter Payton used to tell an old story when he gave speeches of going on a photo safari to Africa with Matt Suhey and one morning they worke up and found an elephant working its way through their gear toward the tent. Peyon began putting on his tennis shoes and Suhey warned him they should stay put because a human being actually cannot outrun an elephant over the savannah. Payton replied, I don't have to outrun the lelephant, I just need to outrun you) PP is likely to be faster than the competition he faces if Evans in fact is drawing double teams or the coverage is rolling toward him. The dt Moulds drew was a big part of price being effective and he is a deep threat against most Ds. Add to that the smurf like Parrish and in 3 WR sets against these three there should be lots of deep threats. I saw some very good signs for WR productivity Sunday. Both Reed and Price led the way with 3 receptions for the team. They struck me all as good receptions and I was surprised that Fairchild did not do more to go to them also. Particularly interesting to me was that it was PP who played the role of the possession receiver averaging under 10 yds a pop for his receptions, Reed made some nice catches (his catch on the busted play when Fowler hiked it pas t JP showed some great communication and improvisation by JP and Reed. Yet, on the face of it I had figured Reed for a productive role as a 4 WR who when the D was forced into a zone by the speed threats of the 3 recievers, Reed could savage the zone by finding the seams. Fairchild obviously sees something different and is using the WRs in a different way since he has Reed as his #2 WR. I aggree that we should see more work by the RB if our O is working because if JP is making the right reads, he can judge when there will deep cover or the WR match-ups or routes will not result in the quick separation we need and then checkdown to dump the ball off to WM who if he makes the first guy miss should be able to go a long way. I expected that one way that Fairchild would differentiate his O from the St. Louis style he was trained in was by far greater use of the TE (which is not hard to do given the TE often being a non-factor in the St. L approach. I aggree that there will be more RB/TE use but really expected the short pass to a WR getting quick separation and then getting good RAB to set off the checkdown to the TE/RB rather than the other way around. At ny rate, Fairchild clearly has some other definition in mind. Perhaps he was using this game which almost certainly was gonna be a loss for us anyway to test out how his receivers performed and also to begin showing some tendencies which should allow this O to exploit opposing Ds in other situations. The answer i think is simply we'll see.

Nah! He is still a legend in his own mind. We do agree with him on this though, but even a broken clock can be right twice a day.

It's great to see such detailed analysis as some of us fans love this stuff even though most folks actually have their priorities in order and are not addicted to football. Who cares! Bring on some more stuff. I think Wilson did a good job taking apart the film. The one thing I would add to his analysis which might not have been apparent if he was looking at real film was that Brady's hike call cadence was varied and well used to get the Bills with quick snaps (the announcers even cited this as a key to the Dillion 4th down gain). He also used a bob of his shoulders which was judgment call illegal to get the Bills to jump offsides. However, great analysis to see in what most fans have begun calling the Buffalo Snooze.

Remember that the relationship between the quality of the teams and the line is not the primary driver here. The goal of the betting line is to set a figure which will attract half the bettors to select one team and half the bettors to select the other team. If this occurs then the money lost by the bookies is covered by the money won by the bookies and they simply get rich off the "interest" charged for placing the bet. The line is designed to not make it a gamble for the bookie at all. Early in the season before the reality of the new season is more settled and the actual quality of the teams becomes more influential in attracting or discouraging betting choices, it takes a line heavily influenced by the conventional eisdom set by the performance of last year's team and hype from articles amd sports shows like Mike and the Mad Dog which predicted a Miami SB appearance skews the line to advantage the Fins oponents in order to get the action to play out rqually. Particularly early in the season you get outrageous betting lines like the one that gave the Bills 8 points against NE for an easy betting win.

Your questions seem to have been answered but aadditional observations: 1. The report from the announcers was that WM was getting his ankle retaped which allowed AT to get the reps where he did a great job. No one knows for sure how badly he was hurt, how much it slowed him down or how that influenced the play calls and design such that he went outside less, but it seems pretty clear that they would not done the extra intervention of retaping unless there was a serious need to do this. We may know more when this week's injury reports are made. If the injury slowed him he should at least be noted as probable. 2b. The announcer made an interesting observation to me that he noted Shelton had out his head down and that the onrushing defender seeing him commit his body to motion in that direction simply ran around him. Keeping your head up when you block would seem to be a relatively straighforward technique fix, though it is troubling that basic technique fixes in blitz pick-up should be necessary for Shelto. I am really sorry injury did not allow Ricard to stick as I think Shelton's play was bad enough last year and not improved enough in pre-season I thought he woulda/shoulda bveen cut. 3. I think folks over emphasize that the WR should go past the first down point to recieve the pass. If you ar bright enough to figure this out so is the defender who is now waiting at the first down point to break up the pass. WRs run the route short because they have two tasks they must accomplish. They definitely must get pass the first down point with the ball, but they have to catch the ball first to do this. I have no problem with a reciever/QB cutting the route off early to increase the chances of the catch being made IF, the receiver is good enough to them turn and get the yardage. I have big problems with the reciever turning a yard or so pass the stickss if this means that he is not gonna catch the ball because he is dueling with a defender for the ball or even worse the defender jumps the route and takes it to the house. Certainly there are cases where the route is short enough that everything happens bang-bang and the catch and tackle are goingto hapen simultaneously and the reciever needs to get to the line, but if he is gonna need to run anyway, then it is probably better to get him the ball quickly and allow him to turn rather than trying to time everything out. 4. Part of the D plan is to force the opponents to shut down a player because of hi success. I have little problem with Schhobel getting shut down IF this happens because the opponent has shifted the blocking his way or double teamed him which allows another member of the Bills DL to take advantage of on-on-one blocking. I think that the blocking did shift his way (it may nit necessarily be a d-t as it could be assignment of responsibility to an OL guy to do a secondary chip block on a player or the RB blitz can be shifted over a step to defend against a successful rusher. Kelsay did seem to log many of his tackles and I believe during the second half which may be an indicator of a shift of attention to Schobel.

Among the few things which the announcing team seemed to get right Sunday was the growing trend in the NFL to run offense which feature two RBs rather than having one RB who is the always go-to guy and you see his back-up only if you look hard during ST play. You see this type of approach where a team like NO has no problem having both a Reggie Bush and a Deuce McCalister on the qquad when in the past the team and players might judge that there are not enough carries available for two RBs. However, the economics of the NFL change so that even a #2 RB is making enough $ in the brief career of an RB to live royalty the job can be shared. In addition, LBs and other tacklers are so big and fast, taking the pounding of being the sole runner is actually a ticket to a shorter career. The good news for Bills fans about AT's productive work on Sunday is not that it means WM is gone for those who seem to dislike him, but that actually we may well have two RNs who can split the load depending upon who is hot at the time.