Pyrite Gal

The interesting thing to me about the cuts so far is that I think some of it is motivated by getting rid of a guy so he does not take up game time or practice reps from other players where they feel like the need to choose or give the kept player practice. The LB cuts were interesting not so much because I think they felt Posey or Watson were so bad, but I think it was because they judged that they were good enough to make this cut, but would probably lose out on the final cut. The braintrust really seems to want to get a good look at Wendell Hunter and also they are flipping OLBs to each side since TKO is going to the SS. I yhink they let Posey and then Watson go because they are really gonna take a hard look at tat least Hunter and maybe Ezekial before they make a decision who to keep.

I doubt it also, the point I was inarticulately making was that I think that the his play in practice and in games merely confirmed the fan and media buzz and it was this that droce the coaches thinking. One can argue which came first (and actually it was the faith the braintrust put in him that kept him on the PS which preceeded both his play or buzz this year) but it really is not impprtant which came first, i just mentioned both because the reaction is the same so its more than observation from one perspective.

Wendell Hunter. Hunter seems to be the guy who has stepped at LB so far in camp. I assume they cut former NFL starter Watson because he showed up out of weight and performed worse that they hoped. However, given that a team will keep an overweight bad performer when his back-up is worse, then with two preseason games to go the fact they have given up on Watson at this unforced point means that the Bills value giving a back-up the reps more than trying to get Watson into the best shape they can. Hunter has created some good buzz with his play in practice and his use by the Bills indicates that the braintrust takes the meida/fan buzz seriously. However, my hope had been that Watson who had had some experience at MLB would allow us to find a good back-up for Fletcher-Baker as I am not comfortable with Liam Exekial in that role, Maybe the deal is we move Crowell over to MLB if we need a back-up for Fletcher-Baker and we have been flipping players back and forth between the Will and Sam jobs pretty regularly. The cuts we have made (Posey/Watson) strike me as showing some confidence in TKO's recover, Hunter;s buzz and Ellison's rookie play, but the LB depth situation is a mystery to me in terms how we are going to use what appears to be a fairly talented group of players.

Preston will be an upgrade over CV. The kwy may be though whether Geisinger is playing well enough to release Preston from back-up C needs.

I think the most worrisome thing in terms of how folks are being used (really a far better measure that the "professional" assessments of us fans about how folks are bending and whether players are taking the right angle on plays) is that Greg Jerman appears to be our #3 tackle who will fill in for Peters and Gandy if they needa blow or gosh forbid get hurt. I think folks are missing the point if they merely focus on our starting 5 on OL. 1. They (Gandy, Reyes, Fowler, CV (soon to be Preston), Peters are simply much better players than last year's starters (Gandy, Bennie, Teague, CV, MW). Last year's starting five proved to be such a huge disappointment with MW not continuing on trajectory which saw him improve from the bust he was in the 04 OTAs to the his game ball winning performances during the winning streak and Bennie proving to be a total misread by JMac once he got some money in his pocket, and Teague being game but overmatched at C it may not be saying much that they are better than last year, but the starting OL is vastly improved. In fact, if one looks at the performance in the real world in 05 of these players there is good reason to hope/expect this year's starting 5 to perform well. Gandy- He surprised me and most others by being an adequate performer at LT. he is still a youngster but moving into his prime as a player and is working under an experience position coach (a big difference for the Bills as we suffered under Vinky and Ruel under TD/GW). OL players get dinged all the time and can suffer downturns, but experience and chemistry matter lots to the performance of this unit and a good player who remains lucky with injuries can be productive even late in his career. It is never impossible that an OL player will implode (ala MW/Bennie) but the likelihood appears to be Gandy should play adequately once again and there is the possiblity he may really surprise getting and even deserving a big contract. Reyes- I think it is a superficial read to judge him as a mere Panther reject, because they did pass on resigning him but not because he is a bad player, but because they had a well-regarded draft pick whose contract was beginning to escalate in payment in Mathis such that they went to him as the far better long-term bet to start. The good news for Bills watchers is that NC apparently was set to go with Mathis last year but did not because Reyes was playing well at RG and sitting him might disrupt the chemistry of a productive OL. There are questions about Reyes such as why he did not inspire much of a bidding war since he is not that old and because he played well at RG last year and we have him slotted in at LG.. Still, he should be at least adequate and as a player who can still get a long-term deal he has something personal to play for in terms of bucks as well as pride. Fowler- He is a natural center who was well-regarded in the draft rather than a shifted from LT player who picked up C because he is bright as Teague was. Yet, even though Teague shiwed he could perform eventually in terms of doing line calls, AND snapping to the QB (thank gosh for Bledsoe having good hands as his early shotgyun snaps were often an adventure), AND performing athletically as an OL player. However, i always felt that though Teague could do each of these individual tasks, that he had trouble multi-tasking when he had to do 2 or 3 of these items at the same time. None of us outside observers knows for sure what is going on on the line with an individual play, but it wouid not surprise me that in those times which he was simply bulrushed into Bledsoe's lap it was likely that he was concentrating on the mental challenge of correctly switching up the blocking scheme and an onrushing DT would put him on his butt with a strong physical move. Fowler on the other hand has done well in spot appearances with CLE which drafted him (ex. he played C as a back-up in a couple of games where Suggs got 100 yards rushing for CLE) and last year when he moved to MIN, Culpepper became a more statistically productive QB when Fowler replaced Wuthrow at C and when Culpepper went down the Vikes peeled off a nice winning streak with Johnson at QB behind Fowler. Folks may want to give Johnson the credit for their improvement, but in addition to the fact it is a team effort and good results mean Fowler deservs some props, if you want to look for correlations between line-up and performance, it is interesting that the team production improved when Fowler took the C job and the QB Culoepper was the same. Johnson derserves kudos because I think the win streak they had and the improvement of the OL performance owes a lot to Johnson getting rid of the ball a lot quicker than Culpepper who liked to run around (Bryant McKinnie IMHO was helped a lot when he did not have to hold blocks as long). However, it is interesting that the Vikes playoff hopes ended in their last couple of games when they were forced to go back to Withrow (this longtime Vike was eventually cut) because Fowler got hurt. Fowler brings some question marks to the Bills as he has never played a full 16 games and has had some nicks which cost him games during his brief career. Though I think it is a misread to merely label him a reject because MN did not resign him (they correctly went with multi-time Pro Bowler Matt Birk as their C as he was lost last year to IR) he needs to prove he can do 16 as a starting C. It is also an open question why CLE spent a 2nd rounder on Jeff Faine soon after acquiring Fowler if he is a good enough player to start (this may well have been a BAP pick as Faine was well-regarded) and it may be just because CLE is addled and stupid when it come to player selection as they let both Fowler and Faine go and also have bad luck as big FA purchase Bentley went down with a season-ending injury early this pre-season. Ironically, while we will see whatever back-up to bentely they have starting at C this next pre-season game, two recent former Browns are going to be starting at C for the Bills and Saints. At any rate, I like Fowler's athleticism as already the Bills are showing plays which utilize him as a pulling C on WM sweeps. If the Bills can pull this off such that the guard and tackel seals the inside and block DL pursuit to the outside, Fowler pulls and takes on the OLB in the second tier and with the WR eiter blocking or clearing out the CB with a crossing pattern then we will get to see the WM stiff arm on some hapless safety who come offer to stop him from going outside. I love the fact fowler is athletic enough to pull from C. CV- I think that we upgrade when we move to Preston at RG given his work last year late in relief of an injured CV (WM rung up 100 yards and also the Bills were productive againsty Cin with Preston seeing significant time in relief of CV). I like CV becauswe we needed an older hand around when we cut Ruben, but he is well into the backside of his career and what used to be nicks he played through now are injuries which cost him time. I think he likely is the first OL player to do down and I like Preston as his replacement and view this as an upgrade . Peters- Nothing but upsdie. At any rate, folks are correct to whine about last year's OL (they sucked) but miss the boat in not recognizing that this year's starters are at the least a substantial improvement in talent (assuming Gandy gets at least a little better which by age and exoerience he should and given the likely move from CV to Preston). Even better, given the performance and production of the 2005 work of Reyes and Fowler, this group may well not simply be better than bad, but may well be adequate. The big deal here I think is how long we stay lucky with injuries (in the NFL likely some OL player will go down at some awful point(s) and whether we can get development of back-ups who can fill in without missing a beat (ar at least too many beats) when a starter goes down or give them a blow when they get nicked or exhausted in a game. The news that Jerman came in for Peters when Peters went down in practice the other day is a little disconcerting. Peters came back, but also Jauron articulated they plan to activate 7 OL players on Sunday. After Preston as a back-up at G and potentially C it gets open to question and when/if Preston becomes a starter I start looking for straws to draw. I wished that Butler had shown enough that he got demanded reps as a back-up (a similar development accomplishment to Preston) but though the season is far from over, it looks likeJerman might be the best we can do. I feel OK with him in spot duty because he can let it all hang out for a few plays, but if he needs to pace himself to try to last as a starter his performance has not been nearly adequate to what we need. I think Geisinger has gotten the C reps over Preston not becaue Geisinger has won the job, but because his performance these first two games was to see if he was up to the job. I cannot tell from TV or with my fan knowledge. The key questions I have about the OL are: 1. How is Gobson doing and has he shown enough at G to make this roster (or even the unlikely possibility he has shown enough at G we can try him at T even though he failed there before we need help> 2. How is Butler developing? Can he match Preston's accomplishments? 3. Why is Jerman listed on the depth chart as a back-up LG as he seems to be our first call at tackle. 4. Anything at all on the youngsters, Pennington, Merz and even Mcfarland? None of these players can reasonably be expected to start, but they could be coached ibnto being reasonable back-ups? The OL situation is not as bad as folks are saying (my guess is for a bout 4 games) and after that we need to show some forward progress in developing back-ups. Even with the usual luck of an NFL team at least one of these back-ups is not ONLY going to need to be well-coached (JMac has the resume and has shown the ability to do that) but one of these athletes is gonna have to be special. We already have gotten hit with that bolt of lightening once with Peters and if our plan is to get hit with lightening again I do not like our chances if we have to deal with a problem.

This all is fairly funny as I think folks are certainly correct in citing his lousy results against teams with 10 wins or more and even in their frustration with how horrible it is to watch DB feebly producing running a Kevin Killdrive O and producing better with better use in a Tom Clements O in 2004 (bit not being good enough to carry a team whose D gives up 100 yards+ to a scrub and whose ST suffers unexpected meltdowns in the game against Pitts). The true hilarity is that despite the rants of some about how horrendous DB is, my current guesstimate is the combination of: 1. Being the QB on a Pats team which made it to the SB under Parcells and coming in as a back-up for a Brady led 2001 team and throwing the winning TD in a must win game during their SB run. 2. The massive top 10 ever totals he has accumulated in several QB stat categories because he has played a long time. 3. His being thrown on the ashheap by NE to comeback with a deserved ProBowl season for the Bills in 2002 and then being thrown on the ashheap by TD and then being the QB on a Parcells led Dallas team which has been competitive. 4. Racked up a few very glitzy years in his career. Should result in him getting voted into the HOF (maybe even on his first ballot but as HOF membership is a popularity vote rather than being based solely on some selected stats it really depends a lot on when he retires and who elese is eligible as to whether or when he gets in. If the competition is Favre, Bledsoe will have to wait. If the competition is Vinny as the "other" famous QB then Bledsoe is in. Given the weak NFC competition and an AFC east in disarray, and a Dallas team with Parcells in charge, it is not an impossibility that Dallas may even make the playoffs this year. If DB rises pheonix like from the discard pile yet again to play QB for a team that Parcells, Julius Jones, Williams and even TO lead back to the playoffs, then it is almost a certainty that Bledsoe gets in on the first ballot. Football is a weird game, but in the end it is the Hall of FAME and not the Hall of specific statistical accomplishments and like it or not one will probably see Bledsoe's bust in Canton soon after he retires.

In order of likelihood, I think the reason for the KH implosion are: 1. This is really a different scheme and approach than KH has seen and he has had trouble making the correct reads and performing in an offense which emphasizes good reads. This is somewaht surprising since the offense plays to his likely strengths of demanding short passes with good RAC rather than seeing the long-bomb as more than a change-up to keep the D honest. Dump-offs are a designed weapon rather than a desperation move he has turned to often enough to do them well. However, the production facts simply are that he and the O have struggled. Given his 10 years of experience and articulation that he is comfortable being a #3, he actually should be quite fine as a #3 to have. Why folks would want to cut a clipboard carrier is somewhat beyond me and seems to be because sme folks are most entertained by seeing overpaid players experience pain and bad news. Its like watching a cat play with a dead bird. 2. Fairchild has really not unleashed the full scheme yet as the "real" Bills O will involve a whole new set of plays really designed to give the WR some quick separation. Fairchild has not shown these plays in games so as to not give Belicheck or any opponents film to prepare for these plays and also to not reveal how the Bills are going to use crossing patterns to set picks desigjed to free up speedy recievers which could be called for penalties once refs are watching for them. I doubt this wishful thinking is true as if KH is having problems because our real O is not there, then JP also should be having as many problems. Also, though Nall has been more productive than KH (this can be done without saying much), even though he showed good (though not great) results it was against the other teams scrubs. Still JP and Nall are definitely performing far relatively better than KH running the same vanilla O. 3. KH simply has hit the wall after a long Todd Collinsesque career. While his drop-off so quickly from reasonable #2 levels to #3 at best is surprising, this unlikely scenario is what I think has happened here. 4. KH has always been bad, and now even the simpletons can see how brilliant the folks who completely dismissed him are. I think that while KH has never really commanded and held the starting QB job in the NFL for the real reason that he simply is not good enough to be a consistent starter, I think this indictment is way too harsh. The fact is that he has been episodically quite good as an NFL QB. This inconsistency has made folks correctly judge he is not a starter, he was not an unreasonable choice for us by TD as a #2 and it is hoped Nall will show some good stuff as the second QB against the Browns and after JP runs a good series oer plays a good quarter in the 4th game that he will merit the #2 job. KH looks like a good #3 for us.

Nahh, just back in from a quick vacation to Canada so I had to warm up a little after a lil break even though it was time for sleep. I'm sure I will get overly verbose again soon,

I think people care, but the post does not draw any conclusions at all. I think that it is good food for thought and while it does not invalidate any negative conclusions drawn about the Bills prospects, it certainly is clearly a recitation of positive stats, but even that stands as a nice compliment to the generally tough judgments of many Bills fans and as an amusing contrast to the WE'RE DOOOOMMEEDDD atitude of many posters. Any conclusions drawn from these stats are not offered by the author but really come from the minds of the reader. You can argue with yourself (the chances are higher that you will win) but I'm not sure what conclusions you are fighting.

The cost may well be that it is unfair to the Bills to take away any opportunities for our very likely starting QB to refine his game and gain chemistry with the other starters against the best an opponent can offer in exchange for trying to be nice to Nall who simply missed totally Game 1 and some good quality time in Game 2 due to injury. Nall is not getting a "fair" chance not because the Bills would not give him one, but because the reality of injury took his early chances away. JP is not gonna suddenly become a stud QB because he gets some reps against the lowly Cleveland starters, but there are real gains that MIGHT possibly be obtained from us dealing with the reality of Nall being hurt, Holcomb sucking and JP showing both good signs (the TD to Evans in Game 2, a good reception percentage to finish his work in Game 1) and the bad signs he has shown (3 straight misses to start Game 1, the turnovers in Game 2). I think there are somethings which MIGHT be possible for JP to achieve in a Game 3 start which would be sacrificed if this time was used to tryout Nall against another team's starters. These are: 1. JP is our very likely starter at QB given his up and down performance so far, KH's horrendous performances and Nall's good work against opposing scrubs last night but injury which cost him valuable time in the limited pre-season. Historically, Game 3 is used by most teams as a dress rehearsal for the season opener and JP's inconsistency has shown enough good signs and enough bad signs that he actually has a reasonable chance at home against a likely awful Cleveland team to produce results which emphasize the good and de-emphasize the bad. He is not gonna become a stud over the next week, but the Bills should try to help him and should not sacrifice the opportunity for him to quickly get back on the horse after some bad turnover mistakes against the Bengals and attempt to achieve positive results against Cleveland. It would benefit the Bills alot in the building toward our season opener against NE to show some confidence in the good things that JP does and not to build a habit that he and the team need to operate on the pins and needles of last year and any mistake he makes may well mean he goes to the bench. In essence a decision to sit JP as starter and to give Nall a "tryout" against Cleveland's starters would be following the TD model of last year that the upcoming year is about 2007 rather than about 2006. It is not fair to the team and to the town to devote our efforts primarily to taking chances for the distant future in the hope Nall would work out when the commitment is to the more immediate future. Nall's injury costing him a game totally and relegating him to playing against (and beating. the Bengals scrubs is what has cost him a shot at starting this year not some unfair plot. Investing the limited time we have now in trying to sort things out with Nall would be unfair to the team and JP (UNLESS NALL SHOWS SOMETHING REALLY SPECIAL THIS WEEK IN PRACTICE AND JP SUCKS IN PRACTICE. 2. JP is not gonna become a stud QB merely because he gets to practice against CLE starters, but in addition to the importance of us not following the herky-jerky TD QB path there are some things he can potentially improve significantly by getting the most PT he can this pre-season. A. He will need to learn to yes thrown passes like the TD to Evans, but no dump it off on plays like the INTs. It is very doubtful he will relearn habits gained running for his life behind the Tulane line in one week, but every week helps and anything which adds marginal value to our likely starter at this point is huge. B. As Tasker pointed out Friday there are a couple of negatives JP has shown which generally have been easier problems to solve. While changing habits may well take a season to refine his game (and it is refine rather than remake totally as his problem was not that he was always bad but that he was inconsistent), there are problems like him seeming to get excited when he has an open receiver and throwing the ball into the dirt because me may be gripping it to tight are probably doable improvements. JP simply needs to get more comfortable playing and starting and simply getting more PT seems like a reasonable move to accomplish this. In fact, showing a lack of confidence in him and benching him would probably hurt and cost us. I think Nall did lose a fair chanceat competing and developing into the starter, but he lost this due to injury and not due to some conspiracy. In fact, what would be unfair unless we see some huge negatives in JP his week in practice, accompanied by huge positives from Nall, I think it would be unfair to the players and fans to simply use 2006 as a tryout rather than to take risks to win with JP who is inconsistent but did not lost time to injury.

I agree that it is a good thing that JP took the blame even assumimg Reed ran the weong route. I think this is the right perspective take not because it frees Reed on fany blame, but because the QB is the natural leader of the offense because he is the one calling (yes in Jimbos case but with the headset and the modern offense the QB is transdering the call) the plays and touches the ball on virtually every offensive play. Even if Reed was at fault, the buck stops with the QB and he simply is the blame for virtually any miscue which happens. I think the key question is what is the QB going to do about this. Responses can include a bunch of things from the QB improving his play to getting in the face of the WR's (usually privately is the right way) face. I think Jauron probably said it was JP's fault even if Reed blew his route because ultimately JP is the one who needs to get Reed to run his routes the right way or to sit down if he cannot. The important thing for getting Ws is not who we fans blame, but for the QB and all the WRs to work to make it work. Right now, I think there is clear positive chemistry between JP and Evans as seen in the bomb for a TD this weekend and the three scores for TDs ;ast year against Miami. JP and Price show little signs clicking in games but the practice scuttlebut about their plays connecting has been good. This appears to be a case where JP can fix their miscues himself as he has shortarmed a number of passes headed his way. Ironically, Reed and Losman seemed to have a bit of chemistry last year as Reed seemed to be his go to guy on 3rd downs last year more than Evans or Moulds. U;tomately the key to this is not going to br a simple matter of which reciever is a better player (right now I would put Reed 4th among our recievers with Aiken threatening him a bit with his play in the first game and in pracice) but will ultimately be determined by how well the QB and receivers work together. JP and Jauron are sening the right message and taking the right approach if they recognize that JP is taking the responsiblity for it working and he will be a better QB when he truly operates from a standpoint the buck stops with him.

Actually, I owe you thanks! I was in fact able to express in fewer that 8000 words that when you said "Tim Anderson doesn't deserve a roster spot" that I was making a false assumption that you were suggesting that the Bills should not give him a roster spot. Fortunately, it took fewer than 800 words from me for you to in fact say that when you said he did not deserve a roster spot that in fact you were not suggesting he be debied a roster spot. Now that you have let us all know that only a dumbass would believe what you say, it is quite helpful.

By having the position that Tim Anderson does not deserve a roster spot, are you suggesting that the guy behind him John Jefferson does? If so, what have you seen that makes you such a believer in Jefferson that you want to give up on a guy the Bills drafted and no one complained he was a reach while he is still owed bucks under his slotted contract which would be accelerated as a cap hit if we cut him. Alternately, are you arguing that we keep fewer DTs on the roster than we kept last year and that we will be fine keeping three or four if you elevate Sape on the depth chart from third string. Or alternately are you simply just pissed that Anderson ain't a solid starter yet after two seasons (most folks feel that judgments on any and particular first day picks need three years at least before one throws them under the bus) and simply ranting without a serious thought to the implications of such a move.

OK. But what did you see that you think it would have been worthwhile not filling a major hole on our D to get this QB who if he became a productive starter next year would be developing much faster than we've seen a human being be able to develop. He might achieve a RoboQB level of development as a rookie, but given that the 06 and likely 07 Bills are not only far worse than the team RoboQB joined, but would even be worse than we are because of the hole left by devoting the 1st rpund chocie to Cutler rather than the D. If we are gonna discuss the hypotethetical of we should have picked Cutler, then this discussion deserves some at least nod to the hypotherical implications of such a choice. Picking Cutler seems to make little sense if your goal is to have your team get Ws, even if you are willing to put off being competitive this year (and probably next). I simply doubt this this timeline is remotely possible given Ralph's age and the extended playoff drought experienced by the Bills as a business. We are already in bad shape because it appears we may not even be competitive this year with our draft devoted to the D and the hope existing resources at QB will prove adequate. It seems more likely that even if Cutler did prove to be a special player even beyind Manning who need the Edggering.Harrison acquistion to develop into a competive team that the 06 definite losing season and likey 07 definite losing season, that if we picked Cutler the chances of this team being abandoned by many fans annd out of WNY would be on the table.

But I think that the facts around a choice of Cutler would jave been (rather than simply just the unsupported speculation that he is special): 1. By choosing Cutler, the Bills would have allocated yet another 1st round choice to a QB rather than spending it on our hole at starting SS, If we had chosen Cutler at #8, as Bullocks (a good potential player but not projected as an immediate starter and merely having hope and speculation that he will be a 1st year starter) would have been the likely SS pick. Maybe you trade up, but we did this to fill our DT gap. What remains unexplored as a clear implication of taking Cutler would have beem its effect on the other needs we tried to fulfill. The big consideration is that if we simply went after Cutler to fill our QB hole, it essentially would have demanded a very different approach to building a team. Unless the poster has some certainty that making another QB choice would have meant anything other than virtually guranteeing 06 as being another yeat of experiment, rebuilding and losing and that the Golden Buys would be comfortable having no shot whatsoever at their age and given our 6 years of non-playoffs, the thought of picking Cutler makes no sense. The bottomline: For those who think we should have taken Cutler what is your rebuilding strategy and timeline because without one the pick simply ,akes no sense. 2. I assume that it is based on an assessment that he is gonna be so good he turns this team around quickly. Is their any experience of any 1st round QB chosen ever turning a team around on a relevant (or even short) timeline? Immediate 1 year- No 2 years- One can argue that Michael Vick did this for AT, but why is Cutler gonna have the impact of Michael Vick on this team and even if you want to claim he will (all I am asking for is specifically why folks think he is special and then why no other teams saw it so they made him a top 5 pick. So, I think the answer is NO here as well. Particularly with the team writing off 06 as Vick essentially did his rookie, year 2 year timeline even begins to get too long to be realistic for the Bills. Perhaps someone holding the draft Vick contention wants to cite Ben RoboQB and his rookie impact on the Steelers as the example they are following. Yet, if they are going to make this claim they also need to answer then why they feel the Bills are introducing Cutler into the same situation as RoboQB joined in Pitts which was having the #1 statistically ranked D in the NFL (in case you have not noticed the Bills were not a good D last year) and the Bills have th equivalent of the Hionses Ward/Jerome Bettis/Alan Faneca led O in having Cutler join Evans/WM/Chris Villarial on our team. Again why is picking Cutler work for the Bils at all in building a quality team this year when Ralph/Mrv need to at least project some possibility of winning or in the short team after that. How you are even going to turn our D into something a Culter can win with in his second year when he MAY start (paticularly since by drafting Cutler we have spent the first rounder on him rather than the D) simply does not scan. 3. Maybe you want to rebuild by not leaving the holes at SS or DT by not making cuts since we have cap room. If so then it needs to be explained why Sam Adams and Lawyer Milloy on the backsides of their career make this team work with Cutler. 4. The thought you take Cutler is simply unsupported beyond people having some semse Cutler is special. Is this merely due to some tremor in the force or are their tangible reasons? Do these tangible reasons end up overallocating cap and spirtual resources to the QB position simply unheard of since the Bills allocated a ton of cap room to both RJ and Flutie. Picking Cutler is an opinion anyone is entitle to, but it just flat out makes no sense if your goal is to win anytime before 2008 or 2009. Even then it is simply an unsupported speculative leap.

You might end up being correct, but it looks pretty doubtful as the Bills braintrust has shown by their decision to extend Reed and give him a bonus seemed to have made the judgment that he can catch the ball well enough to allow him to be productive. I certainly do not have any particular allegiance to Reed as a player as he has not proven to be productive in a way since his rookie year which generates affection from me as a fan. However, I can see enough as an outsider that I do feel that there is a workd of difference between Reeds work in 2003 when his case of the droppsies were so bad even us outsiders could see it. His 2004 when he seemed to cure his dropssie problem, but injuries still made him unprodductive, and 2005 when he actually had a not bad year working within a horrible offense. The objective realities which are simply true are that his 32 catches last year, his being able to start all 16, his getting a career high 5+ yard reception in one game last season and him getting a reception in 11 or 12 straight games at one point last season while not great or maybe not even very good, was a faily solid performance which while I was surprised he got the extension, it was not shocking at all based on the facts. The Bills braintrust such as Tolbert and Bovvy April apparently are mkaing a judgment that Reed is worht investing in. I think I was fooled into not seeing that this would be the reality, because I like most fans was still living in the past where I was so disappointed by his crappy 2003. However, when one goes back and looks at the reality of facts of his production as a WR and adds into that what appears to be a positive judgment based on facts not apparent to the TV or stadium fan viewer, that Reed was an ST contributor on the return team, the decision by the braintrust to invest in him may well be a good one. We'll see what happens because there is nothing this fan has seen that would make me a Reed believer. However, it seems pretty clear from looking at the facts we can see in the stats, and the decisions made by the braintrust about paying him Ralph's money that an assessment of him based in the idea he has the dedroppsies and cannot catch the ball is basod on a 2003 view of the Bills many of us fans had or have.

Thanks for the research and your findings are interesting. I'm curious whether in addition to finding out that the drafted QBs were not very good if you also had any sense of whether other sources produced any good QBs. Certainly, there are a number of anecdotal cases of good QB work coming from QBs not drafted by the teams they had success with (UDFA Kurt Warner, once highly drafted but really a CFL product Flutie) but I am curious if the research shows any indication of UDFA succeess (Delhomme is a another example but probably outside the time period researched) or any clear trends along the line of players rejected as losers or not liely to suceed by the teams which drafted then but later turned into SB winners or HOF players like Favre, Young, Dilfer, Johnson etc. I think your findings are another form of showing what I have regularly insiste that drafting a QB in the first is not a technique for winning it all or even etting to the SB as there was a drought of accomplishment of the SB win for the team which chose them from Dallas selection of Aikman in 89 to Pitts selction of RoboQB last season. RoboQB may well be the exception that proves the rule a team should not draft a QB inthe 1st if you are looking for an SB win. What is interesting to me is that the drain of lack of achievement by 1st round QB draftees for the team which chose them includes not even a look at the rarified pool of SB winners but is pretty thin when you look at the larger pool of SB appearing QBs. The importance of this being a TEAM game is shown prominently in that even though Manning is a great player and probably will be judged one of the best QBs ever, he has yet to be even in an SB without a ticket to the game.

I have seen this post for months on the pinned threads and noted but did not read it. Such as in life, one gets used to things being a certain way and then because none of us in charge of life, things change and people and memories slip down the board of life and away. RIP Paul.

Not so fast I think. Tyke Tolbert went out of his way to remark that Reed is one of the smartest players he has ever coached. This seemed to signal to me that the use he planned to put Reed toward is as the #4 WR and in empty backfield sets where a smart player will play against zones which opposing DCs will be forced to use because of the speed threat presented by Evans, PP, and Parrish. Reed simply sucked when he got a shot at being our #2 in 2003. However, he proved as a rookie that he can be a productive #3 and as opponents were forced to zone up or double Moulds and PP in 2002, it was the ability Reed showed to work effectively against zones and LBs which is what our #4 will need to do. Aiken has shown a lot and maybe he can outstrip Reed for the #4 slot, but even that remains to be seen as Reed is a workput warrior who always impresses more in camp than his regular season production. Given Reeds theoretical RAC ability as a former RB in an O which is designed to produce RAC opportunities, it will be an uphill battle for Aiken to take the #4 position. It would also be a mistake to say Reed brings nothing to ST because the stats and my recollection indicates he does. Aiken is a far more valuable ST player IMHO, because he really contributes a ton to the coverage team as a tackler and gunner. However, Reed is regularly utilized on the ST as a blocker and short kick guy on the return team (he was fourth on the team in KO returns last year behind Johnathan Smith who I think is a likely goner though I like his game. he did return work in all 16 games. Reed is also a part of the hands team which is used in virtually all games to either recover onside kicks or to stop the opponent from doing this. I think between Reed playing a contibuting role for Bobby April and the offensive scheme coming toward his talents, I think he is going to be a very tough man for Aiken to best out for the #4 WR job. I do not see much chance at all of Reed getting cut.

I sm not sure about this conclusion as the #2 role requires: 1. A demonstrated ability to do blitz pick-up work which usally comes with being a vet for a while. If the young Gates has not shown he has mastered this part of the game, it does not matter if he outgains A-Train as a rusher, being able to protect JP is a essential part of the job, if the #2 needs to play for WM or we go with 2 RB sets. 2. Pass catching will be an even more important part of the RB game as we move to a Rams style offense and though Gates has shown impressive ability as a rusher he needs to demonstrate ability as a receiver in this O or even Shaud Williams may beat him out. Many folks do get wowed by an impressive rushing performance but just as when the Bills cut an RB who was easily there lead rusher in pre-season and no other team in the league even bothered to sign him, there is simply a lot more to being chosen as the #2 RB than nice rishing or scoring an outstanding TD )which Gates did last week). The thing most in Gates favor is not simply that he did some good rushing, but that A-Train has not shown results yet as a pass catcher or blitz pick-up. However, the ga,e situations have not called for him to do this yet, so it seems pre-mature to write him off just as it is pre-mature to write Gates on yet. He needs to show a lot more before this is for sure.

The unbridled optimism about A8iken is great to see. Misguided yes and a prediction that is quite unlikely to come true that he will be a starting WR, but it is fun to see. i wish i had seen this thread earlier as I just posted a topic that a Bills Daily headline which offered that Aiken's play is putting PP and the other WRs on the hotseat (or hotsear as my fumbling fingers typed in the subject line). I am quite impressed with Aiken;s play in our lone game and in practice. I also think that Bill from NYC may be right that Aiken's play this year is responsible for a W. However, I think this W will come from extraordinary ST play which he does so well and not from his work as a wideout. Aiken is a possession receiver who can threaten Josh Reed in a competition for the #4 WR spot, but what Evans, PP, and Parrish bring to 3 WR sets is scary speed which will cause a lot of trouble for individual DBs and scheme choices for DCs. If the QB can do a good read and figure out which player will be singled up and run this receiver on a fly pattern, then the QB will only need to loft the ball up so that it reaches an agreed upon yardage at a particular point in time and the WR will have a huge advantage on the DB who not being able to back-pedal and stay with the speedy reciever will need to read the WRs eyes or simply try to catch up with him as he runs under the ball. I simply do not see Aiken having the speed to force a DB to give him much separation or to force every DB to have to turn his back completely on the throw to stay in Aiken's grill. My sense is that if Aiken continues his performance at this level, it really pushes Nance to the PS as Aiken is only an inch shorter than he is and he can play the possession role. He also can actually hope to surpass Josh Reed as our #4 WR. I just do not see him having the stuff to become our #2 or even to force his way into the 3 WR sets.

Boy this note seemed to be wishful thinking. One can see how they came up with this one since Aiken's pass catching performance has been surprisingly good with a team leading 4 catches and a very nice 18 yard average with his high being only 23 yds (someimes these averages can be inflated by one large gain but Aiken's catches have all been solid). In addition, Price racked up a grand total of zero yards on zero catches. However, the headline which describes this as a make or break game for many players and folks have a lot to lose seems like a level of media hyper ventilation that is not the habit of Bills Daily. Its the second game folks. In many ways it is sort of the equivalent of the 3rd day of a golf tournament which is referred to as "moving day" when often the pretenders and the contenders are separated. However, the pretenders are the roster stuffers who were likely to get cut anyway. However, as with this golf analogy (which is instructive but not fully applicable) the decisions really are made in the next round and this likely will not be a make or break game as most decisions are already made regarding roster and starting spots. In a perfect world, JP will nail down the starting QB spot and the third game appearance by him will be devoted to fine-tuning the performance of his offense (though it would not surprise me that if JP showed early success in the third game, the braintrust simply sits him quickly to retain his confidence and avoid any riak of injury in the silly season rather than have him log some PT to refine his game even though this is what he needs. This second game is important, but it simply is doubtful to be make or break for many of the contenders as it would take a super performance to nail down the starting job for any position like QB or DL, or back-up RB where there is some real competition for the spot afoot. This hyperventilation might be explained by many factors such as: 1. Wishful thinking that Sam Aiken is a receiving threat who is competing for the #2 job. In a word. NO. In theory he might be competing for the #4 job as a possession reciever, but even to get this job he not only would need a solid performance but Reed who I think is the favorite for the #4 WR job woul have to get the droppsies again. 2. Some folks still seem to hold onto some insane hatred of PP because he left us as an FA. He did suck in AT and is not a #1 WR. However, signs seem to indicate he retains his speed and has played the role in practice of an NFL vet with some rep (a deserved rep produced by simpy outstanding production as our #2 in 2002 which led AT to overpay him massively when he failed to make the grade as a #1 in his hometown of AT playing with the run-first Michael Vick, As long as PP is physically healthy enough to maintain his speed and given his past real world production the whines of many folks claiming he cannot catch the ball are pretty meaningless. What the Bills need for PP is to present the chance that on any given play he might embarass the opposing DB with a fly pattern and because of this potential, the DBs and DCs have to give his speed some room on just about every play. I think he showed more tougness and character when he was here than many folks who seem to dislike him want to give him credit for. It does not matter what you or I think about this issue. as long as he retains the speed and has the rep of his past real-workd accomplishments for us, his presence makes our new O a lot more formidable. 3. What i really hope is the reason for this overly important headline is that the writers are just as antsy as many of us fans are to see some real games. The Bills may well not have good answers yet for the few roster and starter battles. However, even if the young JP is not a good answer yer, it is clear he is the answer to the quetion of who starts for us. The BillsDaily headline made me laugh.

I think the trade for Bledsoe was a good one and instead it was the decision to extend his contract which was the big mistake TD made. Depending on how high a value one places on the draft (I think it is an important part of a winning strategy as good players are what you want and good players tend to be drafted, the draft is so competitive with 31 other teams having choices that in essence it is a crapshoot whether you will get the players you want and whether they will pay off) on the field Bledsoe had one very good year and one horrenedous year and was a wash at best in assessing performance. However, when one factors into this that the alternatives for the Bills at QB were likely available FAs like Chris Chandler and Rodney Peete or sticking with what we had in using AVP as a starter, getting Bledsoe and his very good 2002 was a huge benefit for us. Another piece of off-field reality which cannot be ignored if one is interested in reality is that after a 3-13 season, Bledsoe's appearance here really reinvigorated interest in ths franchise as the 10K+ which showed up for the welcome Drew bash and bought a bunch of season tickets indiciated. Add to this that the cost of getting Blesoe was merely a future 1st so that we got him for 2002 at no 2002 cost to the team and that having a missing 1st in 2003 almost certainly was an impetus in TD purusuing a risky stetegy of tagging Peerless and then holding out for a 1st from AT rather than a 2nd and then that 1st became WM, the whole situation of this trade was a very good deal for the bills until TD engaged in the separate foolishness of extending bledsoe. Certainly it is theoretically possible that TD would have had the cojones to tag PP anyway and stick it to Arthur Blank for a 1st anyway and that without trading for Bledsoe we would have had 2 1sts in 2003, but this is not what happened and seems risky that I doubt it would have happened. I think it makes more sense to look at the reality and judge the Bledsoe happenings as an obvious failure, but an analysis of this reality shows the failure to be rooted in the supid 2004 decision to extend Bledsoe and then the decision to hand the starting QB job to a not-ready-for-primetime JP rather than the decision to trade for him. In terms of that piece, the decision to trade for him was at worst a wash on the field and when off field items are added the trade was a great move until TD did not quit while he was ahead and say thanks but goodbye to Bledsoe after 2003.

Even thiough I liked this drsft (TD was smart enough to pull off a trade down) his draft actually shows why the number of starters slected and whether it was a good draft are not the same thing. The number of starting and contributing players is determined not simply by the quality of the draft but by the quality of the team doing the drafting. Since the Bills has just had to do a major house cleaning due to cap implications, there were simply more oppoerunities for players to start and play. Even if the Bills had drafted lower quality players they probably would have had to start anyway. This example is best seen in that 5 round (I think) cboice Brandon Spoon ended up being our starting MLB that year due to the team starter quality being altered by the injury to Cowart. Though Schobel, Clements and to some extent Henry were productive pros who started for us, Spoon was soon out of the NFL even though he started for us. One needs to be careful in assuming that their is a direct analogy beteen even being a starter and being very good.

The slotted salaries are a big deal to the vets, but they are a positive big deal rather than a negtive big deal. The slots sets an ever increasing (as income from the networks increases) baseline for salaries. Sure it means that an idiot like Ryan Leaf makes more $ in one fell swoop than many folks make in a lifetime and then he does nothing for it, but also Peyton Manning gets the same compensation and is not compensated at the level his play deserves. More important, when Peyton hits FA, not only is the base salary which he must be paid boatloads more than to keep him a Colt based on the high wage received by him and Leaf, but also the new wage must be substantially higher than the slotted amounts given to his borther, RoboQB or Phillip Rivers or he is walking elsewhere. The NFLPA (and the NFL) have developed the slotting system as a mechanism for distribution of the increasingly huge amount of money paid by the networks to the league. The relatively small total % of income set aside for the rookie pool virtually immediately flows through in setting an even higher market rate for signing FAs and increases in the vet minimum so it is not a bad thing or a zero sum game for the players at all. It also provides a financial reward for the players to work hard in college to get trained for working in the NFL. If the rookie pool were significantly reduced, you would see players looking to get out of college as soon as they could (and like MLB, NHL, and NBA really demand to be signed at 16 or like golf, tennis ,etc even demand to allow the free market to give them big bucks at 13 or 14. Instead, the rookie pool allows for a system where unlike the other major sports leagues where major league teams have to pay for their minor league system in team ownership or negotiated deals betwwen minor and major league teams, all the NFL team development and essentially a minor league is paid for by other parties. In fact, since a good chunk of these minor leagues are paid for with your and my tax dollars going to state universities for traveling teams, big $ coaches, training tables, etc. it really is the height of corporate welfare in terms of support for the NFL. The team owners are not simply rich people demanding more and more income from the free market for their product, but they also are rich people demanding and getting payment of tax revenue to develop their product and profits. Even though I think this is unfair, I acutally support this as my team and my chose entertainment interest, the NFL, develops this product I love with this filthy lucre. In fact, as best as i can tell, what Ralph is doing with his seeming Alzheimer's like moments is setting up to hit the corporate welfare pool big time beginning with this falls elections. If Ralph plays the game right, hhe can get NYS to subsidize setting up a stadium authority (much the same as the downstate NYJ/NYG proposals for Manhattan which were rehected). This authority will not only allow for the direct payments of cash to build a new stadium (likely in downtown Buffalo, but given their regional development strategy this is not a sure thing) and the Bills will get essentially full use and ownership of this facility without paying for or taking on the liability for its development), but also government can get a far better deal than the private sector in terms of issuing tax free bonds at an excellent interest rate as essentially tax payments will fund this effort. Rather than small market teams being forced out by the rookie pool and slotted contracts, they are part of a system which guarantees teams that costs will only occur at a specific level which will be based on the uncontrollable unknown of levels of income. The speculation and levels of rookie contracts within a defined pool is really not an issue at all. It really is not an issue in the big picture that some folks like Mike Williams or Harrington hit the lottery with their contracts (or first time FAs like Rob Johnson get contracts they do not deserve with their output) because this cost raises the boat for other NFLPA contracts and keeps college players happy that they are more than willing (beyond the occaisional Maurice Clarett) to play the game in the currenty system where the NFL recieves a huge subsidy and grear advertising for developing their product.