Pyrite Gal

I think many Bills fans are coming to the conclusion that the best real world thing you can say about our QB is that EITHER Losman, or Holcomb. or Nall will prove to be andequate QB. Though ALL of them present a rational POSSIBILITY of working out NONE of them present any rational PROBABILITY that they will work out. Together these three less than probable shots may well add up to a probability that the Bills will have a QB who can do the job. If the primary thing for a poster is to be a fan and a rooter for the Buffalo Bills football team, then that probability that the team has an adequate QB on its roster is a welcome change and quite exciting. Now granted some folks have their fandom and rooting go beyond the team to a specific individual player and thats more than fine. having individual heroes and making football arguments about which player is better is a lot of what is entertaining about this. However, from my football based standpoint, its hard for me to see debates about which QB is the man or is failed as much more than a debate of dueling excuses. Whether JPs troubled career as a Bills is excused by the talent he showed at Tulane which attracted the Bills to draft him and the fact has started way less than a full season games is a close question where the outcome mostly seems determined by the biases one brings to the debate. Whether Holcombs failure to ever be a consistent starting QB in the NFL despite 20 years of trying is excused by the chance that his experience leading to better decision-making than the young Losman and the possibility that we may go with a short pass RAC oriented Rams style O is a close question where the outcome mostly seems determined by the biases one brings to the debate. Whether Nall's failure to be more than a back-up during his brief career is excused by him putting up some gaudy numbers in his brief appearance he was able to get because when you play behind Brett Favre and his NFL record of starts in a row you are simply not gonna get a lof real snaps is a close question where the outcome mostly seems determine bythe biases one brings to the debate. What it comes down to is that from what I have seen of football and these men's play, I find it pretty easy and a clear case to reject an arguments that any of these three are head and shoulders above or head and shoulders worse than the other two. It just does not seem like smart football to anoint any one of these three as the obvious winner nor to reject any of these three as the obvious loser in this battle not worthy of getting a real shot to prove what he can do on the field.

I think we should lauch a campaign right here and now for the good of the Bills to force them not to play McGee at CB where he might get a boo-boo and get hurt so that we can be more assured of him returning kicks whre as a post from Lori showed he is one of the best ever and contributes game breaking plays and great field position to our team. Alternately, we just deal with the fact that injuries happen and we will simply root for the best from this well-paid professional risking life and limb in the cover 2 and endangering his difference making contributions to the team.

My guess is that while this does mean nothing that we can see or guess, this probably is very important to how Ralph decides (tries) to pass on his assets to the next generation(s), Estate and trust issues are so incredibly complicated as peiople are involved and the issue is the mortality we all face, Folks have all sorts of deadlock certain moralistic expression on this, but no one and I mean no one has the answer to what really happens after we die. All we can really know on this plane of existence is that whether this is all there is and there ain't no more or as many believe we move on to a better place (in some faiths paradise seems to involve being at the foot of God or having a bunch of virgins at your beck and call) dead folks don;t have a word to say about what happens after they are gone. They can leave some words in the hands of their lawyers about how to distribute their assets, but even after this mechanical process people can do with them what they want. This is one Bills fan who hopes that what RWS is about tying the hands of his family so that this asset cannot be easily moved, but I kinda doubt he will screw his heirs for you and me.

It seems to me there are two separate actions being taken by WM abd judgments to be made on them by Bills fans. 1. What has his production been? A. Over 1200 yards gained last year (making him the fastest Bill ever to gain 2000 yards which I have noted several times includes faster to this point than OJ or Thurman) B. 28 receptions last year an improvement over 22 the year before but this number came with him appearing in more games. C. 5 TDs last year which was a steep drop-off from 12 the year before achieved in fewer games. D. His rushing avg/carry at 3.8 was last among the top 10 (though 5 or 6 of the guys ahead of him where at 4.3 or lower). Overall, on the face of it the numbers have some things being better than what has been achieved historically and some not comparing favorably with other top 10 rushing backs in the NFL in yards gained though as a base level of achievement he finished 10th in thenFL in yards gaine. Folks can feel about these numbers how they feel. 2, What are Bills fans reactions? Most seem disatisfied overall with the Bills W/Ls last year, but in regards to WM's production, they seem to judge it as downright stupid for folks to ignore the positives because of the "negatives" (if you want to call merely being the 10th best RC in the NFL a negative). WM's production last year was extremely good in the first half of the season when his production numbers ranked in the top 3 or so in the NFL, but they tailed off considerably and were a big rxpression of out O falling apart. However, given the crappy play of the OL and the general playcalling failings leading to TC getting canned and other facets of the O which did not rely upon WM also falling apart, it would seem the height of blame shopping to try to blame all this on him. This year will tell us more as with a new OC and a new system the O continues to lag and the fault seems to be on WM for some tangible reasons (a lot of fumbles, dropped passes, or him repetitively getting stopped short of the goaline) then a better case might be made that he is to blame. However, his improvement in raw # of receptions while this did not become a featured part of his game seems to indicate a failure in the playcalling to pass to him enough. The drop-off in TDs seems to be led by the O playcalling falling apart rather than some WM issue being the primary cause (if not what happened to his running style and ability that he dropped from 12 to 5 TDs). MW and Campbell were cut and Teague allowed to walk so their play must have something to do with this if we are blame shopping. The bottomline here is that I think on a raw achievement level finishing 10th in yardage gained rushing and getting their at a younger age that past Bills greats is not bad. What seems to be going on here was that some fans had unrealistic expectations that this #23 choice would perform like the best RB in the NFL rather than the 10th best. It seems that in answer to the question of this thread of what should we do, based on the football the answer clearly seems to be wait and see how he does this year in a new framework. If he produces more like the RB who scored 12 TDs in a partial season or laid the groundwork for some still quite impressive rushing numbers then we are golden on the field. If instead he continues on as "merely" the 1-th best RB in the NFL the braintrust needs to think seriously about augmenting his play with a credible #2 who is a threat in and of himself and who pushes WM. Oh yeah... there are also some fans who get their enjoyment from the game by following off the field soap operas as closely as they follow on the field play. My advice is that there seem to be few percentages and little value in the soap opera side of the NFL, but to each their own. Certainly if a players off field antics negatively impact their on field play this is a problem. Howevr, my advice is that whether its the NFL promoting its QB Club to pretend to be better people than they likely are or WMs assinine comments about fathering children and not taking responsibility for them, just ignore this crap and enjoy the game. WM seems to be an idiot to get pregnant by so my advice to Boondocks and other soap opera concerned individuals is do not sleep or have sex with Willis. You almost certainly will avoid getting impregnated by him.

Actually if what one primarily is driven by is the positive effect a player has the game, there is not an unreasonable argument to be made that if one feels McGee risks injury with extra duties perhaps McGee should simply return kicks and not rils injury that comes with playing CB. If we had to switch to Greer as our #2 CB or press an oldster like Vincent into service unless they got burned for 5 TDs over the last two years and short passes which equal the field position advantage McGee provided perhaps he contributed more to the Bills which would be difficult to replace on ST. Fortunately we do not need to choose one or the other. However, like Pro Bowl voters I would dub him one of the best as KR while dub him an adequate (but improving) CB.

Comments of your thoughts 1. I think that a much bigger factor than the loss of Phat Pat (really the on;y change until TKO got injured in the third game was that the D could see in the pre-season and when we did not offensively destroy a worst in the NFL Texas that TD had handed the reins to JP who MIGHT be good one day but in essence he turned the 2005 regular season into exteded training camp. The D shut down the Texas running game (yeah but tell me more) but Cadillac and Tampa ran all over them and AT was running over them before TKO got hurt. Phat Pat was only on the field for less than 2/3 of the D snaps the year before and Edwards filled in well as a reserve, but the heart went out of the D when they realized as many failings as Bledsoe had, TD had simply cut the better chance to win now and though it only made a marginal difference that is all it takes to turn a very good D into a very bad D in the NFL. It also did not help that there was a new D under LeBeau in 2003 and teams had no film on it and it changed up a bit as Gray took full control in 2004, but Gray did not alter the implementation or personnel enough to win in 2005 and we got beat up. Crowell filled in admirably for Spike but he was replacing a fellow who deserved back-to-back Pro Bowl nods. Losing our 3rd best DT after we let the 2nd walk away did not help though we already were getting shredded by the run. So i would dianose the failures of last year differently. 2. For this year add the loss of former starter Edwards to the loss of Milloy and Adams. Without idndicting these individual players I'm not sure this is not addition by subtraction. Adams is a very good player but no a good teammate. He did not seem to play with the discipline needed last year as we needed (particularly with the loss of Phat Pat) a stay at home DT against the run but he chose to play his great first step penetrating game anyway. Even with his buddt PW here the braintrust had to argue with Adams when they pulled him on passing downs in favor of the rotation and using Denney at DT where he sometimes dropped back to cover the middle pass and allowed the LBs to come in the zone blitz. The cover 2 actually probably fits Adams penetrating style better than the zone blitz. but his recalcitrance, cap savings and age made him a good cut. Milloy was a great guy to have (he improved the Bills from his first review of film when he called out his teammates for laughing at a fellow teammate who got bulldozed in the film. Milloy made it clear that he had learned during NE's SB run that this was not how championship teams got their teammate to play better). However, though he was a great duy to have he was clearly on the backside of his career. Once he got a recurriing injury to his hand that made it harder for him to play the pinching/tackling safety our zone blitz demanded he and we were done. Particularly given his cap hit and that while the cover 2 may extend the career of coverage guy Vincent while forcing Milloy to play more centerfield (both he and TV have lost a step or two but TV started with a lot more speed to lose than Milloy. this was a good cut. Edwards was a great back-up but was not up to starting his second year or last year. This was also a good cut. 3, The additions make more sense with the D scheme changes we are making. A. Whitner is a legit first rounder thst believably some boards had hgher thn Huff as in any case he was 1 of 2 safties likely to merit starting immediately. Once Detroit picked Huff we had to pick Whitner at 8 because we could not risk going with the talented but rehabbing from a major injury Allen (the thrid safety drafted) as a replacement for Milloy. Whitner's rep as a ballhawk and hitter point to good athleticism and reactions at least if not good play diaunosis skill at the college level. The braiintrust more important was impressed with his character and likely coachability which will be important as he learns the cover of the cover 2 and it is to be hoped learns pass coverage lessons listening to and watching Vincent. B. I have my doubts about McCargo starting immediately but given his rep as he clearly was judged the 3rd best DT drafted (no DTs were drated at all in the 2nd round) and apparently was climbing up several boards to likely go fast in the 2nd (if he made it there at all as apparently NYG had their eye on him at theend of the 1st round) he may surprise. At any rate he will be immediately part of the DT rotation even if he does not start. Something unusual appears about to happen as our top 4 DTs maxout at 304 lbs, so either all the assumptions folks are making about who will play in the D scheme none of us has seen yet may be wrong or we are gonna go shopping for grady Jackson in FA. C. The news on TKO;s recovery sounds good tp this point. This could merely be jype or positive reinforcement for his long road back. However, we can at least take solace in knowing 80% of TKO is like 100% of most LBs and that until we cut oast starter Posey there is depth at LB. D. Yobouty is a great BAP pick but most seem to feel he is undisciplined and needed another year in college and actually as long as we have this apparent 1st round talent having him get that training against Pros, in our scheme and learning from TV ain't bad for a player whose main utiility may be we do not need to sweat the Clements negotiations at all. Your last question is the $64,000 one and the only credible answer is we'll see. Yet. as constantly demonstrated by my buds on TSW there is no requirement that we fans be credible with our posts. My sense is that: IF we find a good way to stop the other team from running with out less than classic demographic weight of our top 4 DTs. IF TKO comes back good enough or we get a good enough fill in performance from our other LBs IF the ST plays with the same effectiveness they have the last two year, and IF we get a credible QB performance out of Losman, OR Holcomb, OR Nall and IF we get good back-ups for an adequate starting 5 on the OL. and IF Fairchild gets a good imitation out of the Bills skill players of the high flying Rams team, we may even compete for the playoffs in a league where worst to first movement is possible like never before.

I think looking at this from the Parrish side as well, I would rather have him focus solely on learning the WR slot so that he is weapon for us in three WR sets rather than be distracted by trying to replicate what McGee did as a KR guy. A key to liberatimg the running game is to present such a formidable passing threat that DBs do not spend the lionshare of their time planning and teaching how to stop WM. Shelton disappointed last year and I think WM probably runs better against the other team in a nickel or dime against our 3 WR set if PP (or Davis or even Parrish probe to be effective #2s and Fairchild replicates the high-flying Rams passing game. It would be great to see DCs forced to double Evans if steps up into being a true #1, and then decide how they are going to deal with PP's speed and Parrish's possible speed and definite shiftiness as a runner. If other teams are forced into the nickel or dime to cover this speed, then we get to see WM stiff arm 185 lb. DBs rather than 220 lb, LBs. Parrish shpuld learn the WR game authoritatively before learning the pro KR game.

I think the whole thing is mush because there is NO 06 BILLS D YET that any of us have seen. All we really know is that we thankfully are making the switch from zone blitz to Cover 2 (zone blitz as designed by LeBeau, playcalled by Gray and then updated by Gray is pretty good but you have to change up in the NFL regarding scheme or high the scheme if employed or opponents catch up with you). Flks are making assumptions or even deadlock certain predictions and projections as if there is in fact a Bills D scheme to comment on. I have a fear (a fear not an assertion nor a deadlock certainty) that this D will rely on undersized DL players and not effectively stop the run. If we do not sttop the run opponents will not kill us with huge death blows but we will keep bending four -five yards at a time and get killed. If this is an unreasonable concern, then please enlghten us all as to how we stone the run with our top DTs all wrighing 304 or less.

I think folks are making a big assumption when they are stating what type of players the 06 Bills D scheme will require because there is no 06 Blls scheme that we know much about beside we are giving up the zone blitz and moving to a cover 2. This cover 2 will obviously be based on a traditional cover 2 which Jauron suceeded with in Chicago when he was NFL Coach of the Year. This traditional model has the safeties divide the field in half and play zone centerfielder which allows the CBs to play press coverage for about ten yards or so until they release the receover to the safeties and cover the flat. The DL has two major responsibiliies which are to stop the run on plays diagnosed as runs (primarily using O alignment and down/distance) and pressure the QB big time on plays diagnosed as pass. The LBs have a lot of read and playmaking responsibilities in the cover 2 as they need to back DL players shooting the gap to blow up running plays or pressure the QB, or deal with pass plays where the offense attempts to pick them apart by flooding a zone. However, the Bills will get killed if what we run is a classic cover 2. Fortunately, we have Fewell as DC who has experienced success with the Cover 2 know as the Tampa Two. In this D traditionally, the MLB actually plays a deep cover centerfielder role on pass plays and he and the safeties divide the field into 3s. The personnel of the Bills seems well suited to this model: 1. We are incredibly deep at DB now with two fomer Pro Bowlers starting at CB, two candidates for the nickel who played that role last year and an FS who led the team in INTS and FRs last year whose career may be extended because we are playing to his forte as former Pro Bowl pass cover guy rather than the hitter requirments of the zone blitz. Add to this we drafted a defnite 1st round talent at SS, a player seen by some as a 1st round talent at CB in the third and a well regatded safety in a later round and we are well armed for this style at DB. 2. Our LB situation also look solid as TKO seems to be recovering from his injury, we have an MLB credited with more tackles the last five years than any other NFL player and the third LB will either be the recently extended Crowell who filled in admirably for TKO or past starter Posey. Back-ups Stamer and Haggan were also both recently extended and are proven ST aces. 3. The big question is the DL where we seem to have our top 4 DTs on the deoth chart max out at 304 lbs and look like 3 technique DTs far more than run stuffers in the big Ted mold. The DEs are all notable for their motor and athleticism (both Schobel and Denny seem better suited for the zone blitz than the cover 2. My sense is that the predictions of many fans are simply assumptions as Jauron.Fewell will really need to do something quite different with this DL because their size and playing styles do not fit the classic models.

BTW, the history is that the Bills did in fact use the transition tag on Peerless which allowed them to retain rights to this FA and thne trade him to AT. I believe they also used a transition tag on Wright and this constitutes the two uses of the transition tag we had under the old CBA. Thus those who pointed out the language that we had the transition tag to use twice appear to be correct to me and those who claimed we used it up on Jeff Wright were wrong because we also used it on Peerless.

Actually there is nothing in 1billsfan post which I see as writing Nall off, he simply lampoons posts where some folks seem to declare Nall the next savior based on an incorrect recitation of the facts. I think that most Bills fans have not reached any conclusion which either elevates JP, Holcomb, or Nall to being a certainty or even a probability of being the next savior. Nor do I think most Bills fans have written off either JP, Holcomb or Nall as a failure either. In fact, a big part of what has made Bills life a lot more difficult and flat out killed the season several times is that folks like Butler, TD and Ralph have acted like legends in their own minds and simply handed the job or big bucks to a QB in a futile search for the next savior. This recipe or approach has resulted in: 1. The Bills waiting a year (at least too long to find a replacement for Kelly as folks like Ralph made a horrendous assessment in operating from the concept he would last longer than he did. 2. Stretched to draft TC in terms of value and then rushed him along into starting when he clearly needed to have happy feet trained out of him (if it ever could). 3. Panicked and made a dumb deal giving up a 1st day draft pick for Hobert who was so bad he needed a mid-season cut. 4. Did a smart thing by signing Flutie but then went back on their word by not giving him any chance to win the job on the field in pre-season. 5. They not only killed that season by giving a big bonus to RJ before he proved himself on the field, but setup a situation where when Flutie played as well at the hoped and AJ Smith exoected, the resulting cap hit from him making his bonuses and also rolling them into his base pay forced them to resign and extend Flutie to control his cap hit because they already had a huge QB cap hit for RJ. 6. Again, TD made a move that worked out well initially on the field by trading for Bledsoe but he made a dumb move by not simply calling bledsoe a wash fter a very good season and a horrendous season and cutting him, but he extended Bledsoe after a horrendous season. 7. Again, the Bills got killed by not awarding the QB job based on on field performance but TD correctly lost his job by activing like a legend in his own mind and making the mistake of extending Bledsoe worse by cutting him and handing the job to JP who played like well. a first year QB. The dumbest thing that the Bills can do is to declare either JP, OR Holcomb, OR Nall the starter based on an assessment of their play to date instead of letting these athletes duel it out on the field based on their present play in camp and at exhibition games. Is there a dead lock certainty, likelihood, or even a probabilty that Losman will be the Bills' QB of the future? IMHO NO! Is there a dead lock certainty, likelihood, or even a probabilty that Holcomb will be the Bills' QB of the future? IMHO NO! Is there a dead lock certainty, likelihood, or even a probabilty that Nall will be the Bills' QB of the future? IMHO NO! However, i still feel very good about things because I feel there is a likelihood that one of these players (I don't care which one it is) will play well enough to be a solid QB for the Bills. I think the Bills will be OK if they act like football adults and choose a starter for the season based on which player has the best pluses and minuses in pre-season on the field rather than choosing on based mostly on what they hope happens or did happen in the past. Its fine for us fans to have our favorites, i just hope that this popularity contest does not drive football decisions.

Actually while many fans have been hyperventilating about signing Peters long-term as quickly as possible, the Bills uncer the CBA Have total rights to him cheaply (for an NFL player) this year as an Exclusive Rights FA, but they also can quite easily retain him and extend him if they choose next season when he becomes a Restricted Rights FA. If the do not reach agreement with him on a mutually benefitial deal by the 2008, some hard megotiating ensues, but they still can choose to retain rights to Peters at a substantial cost by putting the franchise tag on him. The cost are substantial again, but they would even have the right to tag him once more (unless the tag is still occupied by Clements. In essence, the Bills will only want to keep Peters if he plays great, and if he plays lights out ball that makes him worth paying big bucks to in the market, in theory the Bills can keep Peters and allow no one else to have him if they agree to pay the market rate for him until after the 2009 season. The Bills would have been foolish to sign a long-term deal with Peters right now unless he agreed to some incredibly cheap Travis Henry like deal. The prudent thing to do certainly seems like simply tendering Peters $425 K for this year, and if he can in fact start at RT around 16 games you can then negotiate a long-term deal with him with the Bills having tons of leverage if they tender him the amount required of a RFA next year.

Sorry, Yvel, but Holcomb's Arm is right-on here. The difference with some high draft picks is that the high signing bonus makes the marginal cost of cutting them prohibitive. But you can't change the past, you can only affect what happens in the future... and so sunk costs are irrelevant. JDG 687773[/snapback] I'm simply saying that the accelerated cap hit after a cut or trade and the issues of pride (and also the issue that the budget every team sets for positions simply means that even after the draft is done and the contract is signed that these salary issues have a huge impact on football decisions. If by sunk money you mean afet a player is cut or retired his contract has no effect on football decisions involving him you and Holvomb's Arm are right. If you consider the money to be sunk already and of no relevance the day after the draft or the day after he is cut a paycheck, I think you are wrong. Contract issues do not determine everything or completely rule the day. However just as foolish and ignoring reality as it would be to claim contract rule everything it is equally ignoring reality to make the claim HA made that it is irrelevant when ctritical football descision are made like how long do you try to make it work at TY with MW,

Thanks for the thoughtful and full response (though even as one who generally pours stuff out to think things through I agree with Dean that though my lack of proofreading makes my stuff a tough read, your lack of formatting and white space probably is even tougher its yoo bad since your content is an interesting read). Your description sounds a bit more like the Tampa 2 rather than the traditional Cover 2 as my understanding of the difference is that the Tampa 2 improved on results by introducing the MLB into the deeper pass coverage. In the classic Cover 2, the two are the safeties who divide the centerfielder role of the deep zones into two halves. The introduction of the MLB into the mix divides the field into thirds rather than halves and takes a lot of pressure off the safeties who now have much field to cover. I think Jauron's employment of this D style will actually prove to be a challenge for commentary on TSW as proper use of this D style (though we will need to see what variants on the classic cover 2 or the Tampa 2 we employ) actually will challenge a few pieces of conventional wisdom on this board and challenge some false conclusions posters have drawn, For example: 1. Some folks claim that Vincent is about to be or should be cut when actually he is likely far more valuable to the Bills now with the Cover 2. This conclusion will likely only turn out to be true if TV suddenly hits the wall because he is older or falls in the shower and a muscle pull from this heals slowly. Actually the shift from zone blitz to the cover 2 may even add to the length of his career. TV played FS in the zone blits and admirably tied for the team leads in INTs and FRs. However, the zone blitz did not play to his strengths which were as a CN cover guy which got him deserved Pro Bowl berths. With the switch to the cover 2, the new D plays to TV stengths as he now will be primarily called upon to be a centerfielder ball hawk which are the talents that earned him acclaim in his youth and led to him leading the team in combined turnovers. Even better for TV, he will be called upon as a safety to provide some run support amd one of the things which comes with his age is that he has seen a lot of football and correct diagnosis will be his forte. A third item which makes him even more important to the Bills is that he is a bright guy (he organized a bunch of NFL players including TKO to attend business management courses at an Ivy league school. He was voted Pres of the NFLPA by his peers. With us drafting folks like Whitner, Yobouty, and Simpson teaching DBs will be critical for the Bills and TV will be an on field teacher to these youngsters. I'm certain he has lost a step or two from his youth, but given that he was speedy enough to cover the other team's #1 WR at Pro Bowl levels as a youth and that the demands for speed on him are lower at safety than CB he has a step or two he can lose and still be adequate. TV has far less cap savings from cutting him than Milloy or most players and I think the conventional wisdom he is done is probably completely wrong. In fact it will not surprise me if barring the nicks of age related injury he leads the Bills in INTs this year. 2. A couple of folks have posted on TSW that Fletcher cannot pass cover. Again this observation does not strike me as correct and I think our use of the Cover 2 as you describe it will show why. The rap on Fletcher is that he is a bit undersized, and though true he easily makes up for this with monility and football intelligence. Think about what does Fletcher do or have that has allowed him to be credited with more tackles over the last 5 years than any other player in the NFL. Folks looking to retire him and replace him need to recognize and acknowledge that he led the Bills in tackles credited to him on the Bills (yet again) by a longshot. I find it amusing that some posters have grown to whine about Fletcher tackling folks 5 yards downfield, since these tackles have not come with Fletcher hitting folks at the LOS and being dragged for a massive gain, him hitting guys well behind the LOS says more about our DTs getting blocked out of the way or not staying home so an RN runs straight through to Fletcher. Even though NFL credited tackles are an inexact science at best, he consistently gets credited and this is not a bad thing. He is the captain of the D for a reason and it is Fletcher who routinely when their is a controversy seems to immediatelt grasp the situation and is there making arguments after the play. Just as I expect one of the strongest parts of our Cover 2 to be TV making vet judgments, I expect Fletcher to do the same in his pivotal MLB role in the cover 2. 3. Some posters have stated before the draft that Ngota was a one gap DT who did not fit our D scheme or that Trips and Mccargo both play the same style so only one of them will be on the field at a time. My onloy response is what is the Bills 06 D scheme and how will it be implemented. All we know is that we are giving up the zone blitz for the cover 2, but thats about it. We won't really know the nature of the Bills D scheme until we see it so all thse stone cold locl pronouncements may be right but are probably wrong until we see how the scheme will be implemented. My sense is that given that our top 4 DTs max out at 304 lbs with Anderson (a good motor but not a run stuffer the last two years in my recollection) that in fact all four may be best utilized as 3 technique form and rather than a rigid addiction to a particular DT role Jauron is going to put his best 2 DTs on the field. I hope that McCargo will merit us trading up for his his first round choice that both he and Trips will prove to be our two best DTs and will often be on the field toggether at crunch time. The whole thing will be fascinating.

This is so completely wrong in terms of understanding the last 12 years+ or so of football, that my first thought was that you could not be claiming what you seemed to be claiming. However, the words above are the words above and they are completely counter to how decisions have been made under the salary cap. 1, Where a player is drafted is slotted and determines his initial contract. The Bills hung onto MW not only because they had sunk a bunch of $ into him.but because if the cut him the acceleration of the bonus paid to him would kill the team. Where a player is drafted has a big impact on decisions on whether to keep him or not/ 2. The HC may ignore where a player was drafted and his costs if he is commited to making straight football descisions. However, it is the owner who owns the team and its his money. Just as Ralph hated having an $8 million bonus sit on the bench and anointed RJ the starter after he rolled over an Indy team that had given up when they realized the game outcome would not improve their playoff position the decision about the future was driven by $ rather than football. 3. Pro football used to be a sport which happened to be a business but today it is a businss that happens to also be a sport. Please do not fool yourself into thinking that draft position due to slotting and sunk costs do not make any difference in future decisions. Often they are the key thing.

This sounds like a good theory to me. However, theory is certainly what one has before reality sets in and if the theory is a bad one or is beaten reality can turn out to be a bad thing. The thing which interests me regarding the little we know about how the Bills 06 D will operate is that I agree with the cliche often quoted by Marv that this game starts with running and being able to stop the run. If you fail in either area your team is proably in for a world of hurt. The Cover 2 is a good version of an essential switch we need to make as tape had allowed the NFL to catch up with the zone blitz as we employed it. I expect we will have some initial success with the Cover 2 switch if only because there will be no film on it and our tendencies will not be clear for a while. However, my main fear as we go back to a D whose bend but don't break tendencies will likely drive TSW folks crazy is that it is unclear to me how well we will do at stopping the run.. Folks are making a variety of assumptions about how the 06 Bills will like up and play based on Jauron's tendencies with the Bears and knowledge of the classic Cover 2 gleaned from websites like football 101. All of us fans (including me love throwing out phrases likw 3 technique and Tampa 2 to pretend we know more than we do (if we really did then likely someone would pay us for our knowledge or we would make a living winning bets and thus would not share knowledge with potential marks on TSW). Actually, if our cover 2 is alot like what Jauron has used traditionally which opponents long ago caught up with leading to Jauron gettin canned then we will be lost. I expect the way the Bills line up on D and employ our cover 2 in 06 will be quite different from classic models or what Jauron did in Chicago. We have the opportunity to merge Jauron's knowledge of the cover 2 with Fewell's knowlefge of the Tampa 2 with a dash of Marv knowledge on top of it to come up with a D which will need to be very different from the classic models sited if we are successful.' If this works the 06 Bills D like the Tampa 2 or the 46 will deserve and get its own name. As best as I can tell at this too early date, what will mark the Buffalo D an its implementation will be that just like Denver developed a way to run effectively with seemingly underweight OL players, Jauron seems to want to run the cover 2 effectively with a full set of underweight 3 technique DTs and with DEs who excelled in a zone blitz where they were athletic and underweight enough to do pass coverage, I can see theoretically how this will be devastating against the pass as our quick penetrating DTs and our white guys with motors at DE blow up plays, pressure and sack the QB. However, what I do not see is how these undersize guys (the heaviest of our top 4 DTs is Anderson at 304 and both Denny and Schoble excelled at the zone blitz because they could pass cover not only short but even in the medium zone) are gonna stop the run. I'm sire with diligence and great attitude they can do it, but against a good OL with player capable of neutralizing the penetration of a Triplett or McCargo, our DCs are gonna have to cover for a long long time. We will see.

The interesting about the Bills is that given the general weight parameters for Ds laid out in this article with 3 technique guts weighing in at 290-300, nose tackles wighing in at 350 and no specific weight listed for two gap guys but a main requirement being "larger stronger defensive tackles who can control an offensive lineman. " the Bills top 4 DTs of Triplett, McCargo, Anderson, and Williams all look closer to being 3 technique guys in terms of weight with Anderson the heaviest at 304. These weight "estimations" are of course based on the classic 3 tech guys and other DL players and a team can make it work diverging from these classic estimations with good players in the right scheme. However, it is specifically because Anderson has struck me as an athlete showing reasonable development as a player, but he never has struck me with his play as some freakishly strong run stuffer. Its part of the reason that I think many posters to TSW are just makking assumptions that may have little basis in reality about what or D scheme is really going to be as to make this effective Jauron and Fewell are really going to need to come up with some new scheme or application that confuses the heck out of opposing OCs, On the face of it it appears we are going to line up 2 DTs who both are going to be 3- technique DLs by the classic definition. At some early point once McCargo learns and plays like it appears we expect him to given that we thought he was worth trading valuable resources to draft him in the 1st, if our goal is to put our best players on the field, it is going to be Triplett/McCargo as the DTs. If folks say this cannot be done as we would have two 3 techs playing together thien this necessarily argues that the other likely starter is going to be Anderson, and I neither see him as having the size to be the classic run stuffer in the nose tackle mode or the freakishly strong DT we expect to play the two gap mode.

Fundamental to JP being inadequate as a QB last year was the same reason most likely the same reason why Holcomb was inadequate as a QB for us last year Holcomb was clearly better than JP as a QB last year but being better than JP does not mean a player was good. I know Holcomb was better than JP but do you really feel his production at QB was adequate last year?). The shared reason which was a big part in the inadequacy of both athletes was that our O scheme and play as a team simply sucked. What you are arguing here (if any of the QB partisans arguments are based in the real world) is whether they feel better about the excuses for JP that he will improve to be adequate or the excuses for Holcomb that he will improve to be adequate. My sense is this is a close question: JP excuses: He does have the talent that merited a 1st round choice being spent on him. Having yet played 16 games as starter, there is some learning yet to be done by him which can be apparent in better play once the game slows down a bit for him which comes from real game practice. He has shown enough progress from his horrid start when thrown into the NE game a couple of seasons ago and with flashes of brilliance like early in the Miami game where he and Evans cinnected for 3 TDs, that merely looking over the center's shoulders in pre-season should show enough that he will not make too many fatal errors to have him start the season and by the end of the season be a threat. For this to be a reality will take a lot of works and breaks but it can happen. Holcomb excuses: He was far better than JP last year and his episodes of brilliance as a back-up such as in CLE will allow him to be adequately productive or better when he gets a chance. The Golden Boys are committed to winning this year and even to making a credible playoff run. Holcomb's experience will allow him to use a quicker release, realize when you need to dump it down and live to fight another play and not make mistakes so that if ST continues its performance and Jauron really is a D genius we can win (at least do much better) now. It could happen. The battle between JP nd Holcomb is one of whose excuses do you believe more.

And I'm not sure why there is much logical reason for this gnashing of teeth since the draft has been notoriously bad in terms of real world events for us in terms of building an OL. Sure there are examples of great OL players getting drafted as good players have to come from somewhere. However, to have as a central strategy a team getting Boselli or Pace as a draft pick is not the only or even the best strategy as for the crapshoot of the draft giving you a Mike Williams or Bryant McKinnie for every Johnathan Ogden. In fact in terms of real-worl occurence the best thing we could have done at OL in the 2002 draft if you insist on going a hindight way is if we traded down and picked Levi Jones. As far as the Bills for 2006, I agree that we are thin on OL, but it strikes me again looking at real world occurences that JMac did actually coach an NYG OL led by former Bills Glenn Parker and Dusty Ziegler to an SB berth. While the rants of the Coach against the man he called Porky Parker were designed far more to get good radio ratings rather than be good football thinking (the proof in the pudding is that his candidate to replace Parker was the illustrious and soon deserving to be cut after he got the LT job Corey Louchiey) Parker was not a stud and has a talent level which looks a lot like Gandy. I loved Dusty as well, but FA acquisition Fowler shows more upside at C than Ziegler showed when NYG snatched him from us because they put him in competition at C on their depth chart rather than have him compete at numerous positions as we had planned. A starting OL of Gandy.Reyes,Fowler,Villarial, and Peters strikes me as questionable to really go all 16 but simply is at least comparable in talent to an OL JMac led to success in real life. The problem I see with the Bills OL is that its depth and back-ups are really questionable. When we are starting guys like Villarial (a solid starter with a nice touch of nastiness who has begun to lose starts to nicks the last two years indicating he is about done as a player) AND we need Fowler, AND Reyes, AND Peters to be soild (which they well may be) when none have started 16 for the Bills before is a bit too much to rely on without quality back-ups beyond the Geisinger, Matt Mprgan level. This team needs some reliable OL back-ups but yet we do have a couple of ways of pulling this off 1. Internal development- JMac is on record saying he is no miracle worker, but even though he has a record of getting good performance out of starters who have the questions our starting 5 have, he would be a miracle worker if he led development of our current slate of back-ups into reliable fillers of that role if he were to bring this off. Right now we have: A. Matt Morgan as second on the depth chart at LT and he was on a PS in 04 and played all of one game at T last year and seems pretty questionable. Butler is listed as 3rd on the depth chart and some posters are hyperventilating thar he will start. Read my lips... he is a rookie who will spend his first year by definition learning how not to be a rookiw. Folks seem to like him because his kneecapping of a fellow athlete after the play was over is some sign of the nastiness an OL needs in this league. However, he was correctly suspended for this hit and though the Bills as a corporation may have some splainin to do since they have told their customers that character will rule, its a asked, answer and punished question for him that he need not dwell on personally even if the corporation correctly can be questioned. However, HE WAS A SECOND DAY CHOICE who may have slipped a round because of his transgression, but I think he was a second day choice because word is he has some footwork issues to focus on and he has little chance of being a starter quality player this year and MAY develop later in the season into a quality back-up. B. LG is the only OL position where there is a bit of a logjam as Benny Anderson is first on the depth chart, but almost all Bills fans were incredibly pissed and disappointed with his lack of focus and poor play after starting for the Ravens and being paid big bucks as an FA by us. Reyes strikes me as a far more likely starter at LG as he started for a successful Panthers unit. He was pushed off the team there because a youngster behind him had more long-tem upside for them to give him a large FA contract, but he should be good enough to start for us (he was an RG with NC but has played LG as a pro). Interestingly the Bills moved Preston from #2 C on the depth chart to #3 LG. He showed enough talent in his rookie year developing later rather than out of the box as a reserve starter as second day rookie picks can do (he actually saw action in the first game and was able to start after the middle of October as Villarial began to show his age. I actually like him better as a back-up RG for Villarial again who might even pressure him for the starting role or backing up Fowler if this FA disappoints at C. Despite folks hatred for Anderson, because of the money we have already paid him and we will be charged for whether he is cut or not, it actually might be the best move to keep him as a back-up to Reyes and shift Preston over to compete against and back-up Villarial. C. I was impressed with Fowler when he came out of college and was disappointed we did not draft him. He played C last year as a back-up starting for a well-regarded injured player and word is he did well. Like Reyes he earned starter money on the market and he was let go not because he was bad but because his team was committed to another player at C. We are paying him starter money and he will get every shot to start for us at C. However, i have big ? about Geisinger backing him up. This is the main reason I see Preston as my choice #2, but when Villarial sits and if Fowler needs to at the same time we will be in big trouble. LG- Villarial as I have said and comparison of his past history as a starter when he routinely started 16 and today where what used to be nicks he could play through cost him effectiveness in several games show we need a back-up here badly.I simply do not see Thomas, Merz or McFarland being adequate back-ups and much prefer Preston here and hope that Fowler performs. RT- Peters seems to deserve the lauds he gets as a great athlete and when the MW reign of error finally ended with his ill-fated transfer to guard status, Peters proved he could play RT. There still remains a question to how he will do being an OL starter for a full season for the first time. His back-up Gibson was clearly more than talented enough to back-him up (or even start at RT in his early days. However, that was then and this is now and he is a wild card as a back-up and we will simply have to see. At any rate, my personal depth chart guess is: LT- Gandy (only adequate but still adequate) LG- Reyes (I liked this signing) C- Fowler (I liked this signing as well and we seem to target guys the market said were starters but his old team had someone else at the slot long term. RG- Villarial (a good player but will he even last until October this time) RT- Peters (he still needs to demostrate he is 26/26 but he has shown enough he will do this if the injury goad cooperate. Back-up LT (we need to pick-up a cheaper available FA like a Riley. He is no starter but should be able to back-up here. Eventually Butler may be able to do this, but October at the earliest and more likely for the last few games will he even be a credible back-up from what I hear and see). Back-up LG- It will be great if Anderson actually plays well enough to be a back-up but he needs to show us. Preston can handle this most likely but if so then folwer cannot disappoint. Back-up C- I doubt Geisinger cuts it. I either hope we do not need one because I think Preston is the guy and he will be needed to back-up either guard slot and likely start for Villarial by October due to the quality of his play or nicks to Villarial. I think Cory Ratmer as a back-up C from FA may be our best shot. Back-up RG- This is where i would slot Prestion Back-up RT- Gibson is a wildcard and Riley looks like the guy we can afford who should be able to back-up. Overall I keep 9 OL players and in my fantasy world they are Gandy, Reyes, Fowler, Villarial, Peters with Preston, AND Gibson, OR, Anderson, AND Riley OR Rayner, AND Butler OR Geisinger.

While one can theorize reasonably that Vincent might be cut if he somehow showed a large drop-off from last year AND we saw huge improvement by some young FS you fail to identify, the perhaps it is reasonable to consider. But for a player who: 1. Tied for the team lead in INTs with McGee at 5 last year 2. Tie for the team lead in fumble recoveries with a paltry 2 last year (which still led team) 3. Has certainly lost a step since his CB days, but in thos CB days he was quick enough to cover speed WRs one-on-one and did this well enough to merit a Pro Bowl nod so now with his shift to FS he seems to have had a step to lose and he still can get the job done. 4. Was actually used somewhat inappropriately last year in the zone blitz which demanded solid run support from the safeties while a switch to theCover 2 (or even easier for him the Tampa 2) instead emphasizes pass coverage by the safties and actually puts a premium on safety experience to diagnose oppoing plays and players. He is old but this means that TV has seen a lot of plays. 5. We drafted key young talented DBs in this draft who have great skill but by definition are not vets. Vincent is a player who relates to his fellow teammates but in fact the entire league in a way that he was voted Pres of the NFLPA by his peers and he played a leadership role in a clearly fractious, pampered, (and sometime individually idiotic) group but their discipline held together such that they won a huge majority share of the total revenues. 6. Vincents leadership has led to him and other prominent NFL players actually attending Wharton business school and getting credit toward their MBA, in sharp contrast to the Travis Henry non-method of fiscal management.. 7. He is first on the official team depth chart at FS and the only rumbling I have heard of his being cut are some unsubstantiated fact-free opinions on TSW. 8. Cutting him provides a relatively small fiscal benefit to the Bills in terms of cap savings. In fact, he was certainly both he and Milloy were weighed for cutting and the Bills made a choice already to cut Milloy (with multi-million cap savings) and keep Vincent. Sure, he might get cut as folks such as TV who are well beyond the athletic prime in age can hit the wall suddenly. However, the claim that there is zero upside to keeping him simply does not line up with the facts.

Apparently the Bills disagree with you as they list Kelsay ahead of Denney on the depth chart and they actually just resigned Denney to a new contract. I'm curious why you think that is the case. Some might answer that the reason is the Bills braintrust is stupid. However, even if that is true if this is the only response to the question then the main reason the poster would be right is if it takes one to know one. A look at this in a bit more detail reveals the troubling stat that while Kelsay did log 4.5 sacks his second season in 9 starts, he moved up to start all 16 games last year but his sack total dropped to 2.5. There are several reasons I can think of that might have played a role: 1. Though Kelsay generally started last year it was actually Denney who saw more playing time. While Kelsay did show some athleticism his sophmore year (I remember him tipping a ball and having the ball prescence and physical ability to actually field how own tip for an INT and with the play than got him noted as yet another white Bills DE with a motor, it is Denney who was a more formidable pass defense guy who played more like a Ted Hendricks LB than a DE. Kelsay on the other hand was simply motor. 2. The way that gray employed the zone blitz meant more stay at home duty than pass rushing for Kelsay. I'm not sure. 3. In terms of his play Kelsay rush problems may be that he never developed a credible alternate move and OL blockers caught on to his one move and neutralized his rush.. Something else. I'm curious if anyone watched Kelsay and noticed anything.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. King might be correctly reporting its one person' view there is a 95% chance Whitner lasts til the Bills move down to 15 that is merely one person's view and good reporting mandate he at least explore and should flar out say there is a 95% chance this indivual was wrong, Many mocls had Det at 9 taking Huff and clearly Whitner is at least a consideration for him there. Actually i did not think it was a tough deal to pass on at all since there was no way the Bills would be able to build the team they want (as seen in their sche,e choice of the Cover-2 and the acqusition of certain types of FAs -Triplett for eample and draft choice trading up for a Mccargo type after passing on Ngota/Bunkley. Getting Denvers choices would also make it tough to meet the timeline they espoused (Ralph ain't gettin any younger and we have missed the playoffs too many years in a row). There were at least two other teams on the board before 15 with an interest in SS who went elsewhere in real life but Whitner was gone, Eveb tougher, the Fins took a safety at 15 and given that the Rams ick above 15 was said to be tradeable who to say that the Fins might not have made the right offer and moved ahead of us. The risk comes not from your guesstimate of whether there is a 95% chance he will be there but from there being a 100% chance you do not control people reading above you and killing you The whole though process seems incorrect to me in that given what it appears the Bills plan was (fill the SS and DT slots with one of the two SS with a good chance of doing this immediately and 1 of the 3 DTs with a good chance of doing this quickly and their timeline for accomplishing their goals (get more Ws and even a spitting chance at the playoffs this year cause Ralph ain't gonna last forever) there is no way they could have accomplished these goals with the 15th pick, an extra 2nd and a 4th. In order to do much better and get Ws right now they needed to fill the hole left with the cut of Milloy with either Huff or apparently their preference Whitner. The 3rd safety chosen or 4th or 5th (Allen, Bullocks, Manning) were simply not good prospects to start immediately for the Bills Once #7 took Hiff and possibly #9 might take Whitner or #16 pick could be traded up you take Whitner. Likewise, once you take the remaining safety, and 2 of the three DTs who may contribute quickly are picked then you trade up and get the last DT )no DTS were even drafted in the second round after the Bills took McCargo. Kings thinking is poorly reported.

As part of the quest to create yet another meaningless number and stat in pro football, I decided to conjure up a Bills Starting QB Index (or the BSQI to make it sound far more impressive than it is which is not saying much). My BSQI is a statement of of what I think is the % chance that a particular player is likely to be the starter on opening day. Among the factors that I used to produce these numbers were: 1. What does the team say publicly on the depth chart 2. How future oriented do I think we are and what is the upside of a player 3. The contract he has and the amount of scratch Ralph is paying him 4. Injury reports 5. A players performance historically 6. A huge dose of how a player performed in the last game (it is a what did you do for me lately league) 7. A combination of chicken entrails and mystic crystals placed in a paper bag and whirled over my head and then cast on the ground to reveal an answer (aka what does my gut tell me) 8. Other factors I haven't remembered to write down At any rate, using this tested statistical method, I produced the above numbers which I think represent the current chances each QB will eventually emerge as the starter. In general, I think that the fact Holcomb is first on the depth chart recognizes the reality that on the field last year he was far more effective than Losman. However, I think that Holcomb's age and the fact he has never grasped and held the starting QB job anywhere makes it pretty doubtful he is the Bills QB of the future. By playing him the Bills do little to prepare a player who will likely lead them to the playoffs in 2007 as KH would have to be resigned in what would be his 11th season and for any player in double digits a contract has got to be a speculative thing. Marv and Ralph as Golden Boys want to win NOW as who knows when the grim reaper will knock on their door so if Holcomb givs them that much more of a chance to win than Losman, I do not doubt they will go with Holcomb. However, all things being equal (which they never are in real life) I think they want the heavy investment in the young QB to pay off and Losman will get every chance to do the job. I think Holcomb is fist on the depth chart as a recognition of reality but also as a challenge to JP to see how he responds. Nall was acquired as he is another outside possibility that he has learned a lot watching Favre and practicing and though quite doubtful he will step up and grab the starting position by the throat. Nall has the advantage of being a younger past NFL back-up than Holcomb with some possible potential (though not even the achievments as a spot starter of Holcomb) but lacks the college rep and upside of Losman. he strikes me as being here as much because of a lack of belief in JP due to his play and Holcomb due to his age than because of any real world production he has had. Ochs and Woodbury strike me much as camp fooder and scout team types. Ochs is competing to show enough to merit being on the PS and if Woodbury makes the team it will be as an ST player who happens to also play QB rather than as a QB whp also happens to play ST. So my current BSQI (the emphasis is on the first two letters) gies an equal 4 out of 10 shot to Losman and Holcomb (though if you pushed me even though JP is #2 on the depth chart even greater fake numeric specificity would give Losman a lead at 40.1% and Holcomb at best 39.9%) shows a pretty even battle. Nall will get a good look-see but needs to produce quickly when the pre-season starts a it is already an uphill battle for him to be more than the disaster QB. Yet all things are in play under the new regime. However, it is voluntary minicamp and one should really not read too much into the results produced this weekend where the boys were practicing inside against their own team. While this weekend should not be discouted totally as you only get one chance to make a first impression and this was the first time on the field under Jauron, results are fairly meaningless this weekend. So, overall answering this challenge involves way too much thought and specificity than this deserves at this point. However, given that there have been repetitive posts on TSW with folks fact-free opinion on the QB situation, I thought i would post this as an opportunity for folks to furnish instead their fake-fact opinions on the QB battle.

I think in reality it depends on IF Holcomb performs better than the other two overall then how much better does he perform. My sense is that this a fair fight which will be won by performance on the field where it should be rather than TD or someone designating a starter based upon whom he feels in his opinion is better. We've repeatedly been killed by Butler designating JP the starter and went back on his word to give Flutie a fair shot. By Ralph using his owners perogative to give the job to JP prior to our last playoff loss based on the Bills rolling over a Colts team which had given up. By TD foolishly extending Bledsoe when his preious season on the field was horrid, and then cut Bledsoe and designating JP the next godsend only to have him fold up last year. (I will not even go into the additional stupidity of the huge bonus given to JP or the reasonably made but poorly executed assessment of Hobert). The designation of any QB as the regular season starter (be it JP, Nolcomb or Nall without real competition in practice and likely through the first two pre-season games ia bad move. However, even though I think thankfully this will be decided on the field, folks need to recognize the reality that JP is at least first among equals. If it is close between JP and Holcomb even if Holcomb is a bit better, then JP correctly gets the nod because he is the younger player with more upside and due to the reality of contracts. Holcomb will need to demonstrate the chances of the Bills winning are substantially higher or else JP gets the start. In real life i think this means that Holcomb will need to show more than just simply not making mistakes he will need to either rack up some long TDs or high competion % AND JP will need to screw up enough to indicate there is little immediate upside. Nall must make no mistakes and also move the team effectively to get in the mix/ Iy ain't fair but it is life.

A direct answer to your question is that I agree with folks that OL is the big question mark for this team. Many posters struck me at really grasping at straws out of desperation about how horrible past OL situation because I think most fans really overvalue the draft as a tool (probably due to the emphasis placed on the draft by great ESPN marketing and fantasy leagues being incredibly popular with fans. Likely position contributors to the team this year are generally found on the first day of the draft and actually usually only in the first two rounds. TD once said that only about 50% of even first round choices are disappointments and though TD deserved cimpletely to be canned by the Bills, I have not seen any fact-based effort to prove him wrong in this claim. The draft is pretty much a crap shoot and given that on the face of it only 7 or 8 players (with compensation picks) are generally provided to a team out of their 53 man roster though it is a team building tool it is far from being the most important team building tool a team has. It is merely one method for building a winning team, important but not all important. Given that the Bills had pretty clearly dictated that the first couple of choices were going to go for a SS (or we start Bowen or Wire) and a DT (we may well have to line up Anderson next to Triplett but a rotation is going to be the thing) posters seemed to be unreasonable IMHO at looking to the draft for more than depth down the line. The other problem is that the prime method of player acquisition (it actually has been on this team) is gonna be through FA. However, the best FAs who provide a reasonable chance at being consistent starters are already signed elsewhere. However, with this forboding situation is some potential good news that MAY (only may) work out for us. They are: 1. I like the likely starting five FA players for at least 8 games or so. We likely will go with Gandy (FA acquired last year), Reyes (FA acquired this year), Fowler (FA acquired this year), Villarial (FA acquired 2 seasons ago) and Peters (UDFA acquired a couple of seasons ago. This is a troubling crew to count on. However, though JMac himself says he is no miracle worker (and unfortunately we seem to need a miracle here) I think the quality of this crew is probably equal to the NYG group led by former Bills Glenn Parker at LT and Dusty Ziegler at C which JMac molded into a unit which helped NYG make the SB. Overall my sense of the OL is: Gandy at LT: He proved to be surprisingly adequate last year. I have little faith that he will ever be the stud we want at LT and I am attracted by folks who say he would be a better Guard, but given his performane in the real world last year, I think it is reasonable to think he can be adequate (though not the outstanding guy we want) at LT taking responsibility for the QBs blindside. JPs maneuverability or Holcomb's quick release when necessary will likely be a crucial part of his game working for us. Reyes at LG- Anderson was a huge disappointment for us last year, but Reyes was a starter last year for a Carolina team with a productive offense wioth him at RG. He was available as an FA because NC is high on a player they drafted, but it is good news that apparently they would have worked him into the line-up last year but the team O was successful and Reyes played well enough to keep him on the bench. There is some thought that Anderson actually played well the last 5 games last year. I must admit I was depressed enough by last years play I watched the games but not close enough to say this is true or not (I cannot bring myself to go back and look at the tapes). However, if the bonus we paid him forces is to keep him i am fine to see him compete againt Reyes and only play if he is good. If he deserves a cut then i suggest he not let the door hit him on the way out, but this outcome should be determined on the field and not through our rants. Fowler at C: He is a player I hoped we would draft way back when and we did not. He finally did get a starting job late last year due to an injury to a starter and the word is he did pretty well. Like Reyes he apparently was not resigned due to the team he was with looking elsewhere rather than his play being problematic. However, doing well in a few games is a different beast than starting and though i am hopeful about this he has a chunk to prove. We gave him starter money and he will start for us. Lets hope it works. Villarial at RG- He is a solid player but he is an old player well into the backside of his career. The last two seasons have seen him knocked out of starts by injuries which might have simply been nicks he played through earlier in his career. He is the main reason I am pretty sure our starting 5 will not start 16 even though I like his play and nastiness until he does get killed. Peters at RT- Okay, okay I believe JMac when he sings the praises of Peters as the best athlete he has ever seen at RT (and this is a lot of history of great productuin as he not only OL position coached the NYG team to an SB berth, but also did this a couple of times with the Bengals and oversaw development of an OL there which not only protected Anderson but produced thousand yard rushers. One of the great pieces of reporting during the GW reign or error on O was Larry Felser pointing out the 10+ exp, of a large number of OL coaches of recent SB teams during the GW era and contrasting that with the total lack of OL position coach experience of GW buddy Vinklarek and then eveb GW being forced to reolace his buddy but giving the job to the equally inexoerieced Ruel. This mistake is one of the central mistakes of the GW era IMH0). At any rate, while JMac should not be confused with a miracle worker he brings a ton to this team. He was incredibly high on Peters at tackle which I opposed because Peters primary talent is incredible speed in a big body and incredibly soft hands that I saw as solving our TE problems. Yet due to the mismanagement of the OL under Vinky/Ruel under Sheppard?Kevin Killdrive under GW (hired by TD IMHO over the much more productive Fox and Lewis because he knew he could stop GW from running him out of town like Cowher did in Pitts) I think JMac is slowly bringing his experience to bear to reverse out OL issues. Last year was a disappointment as the non JMac pick MW era ended and the Teague experiment ended. JMac is not perfect as the Anderson hiring was a screw-up, but his predictions regarding and even bigger longshot Peters have proved true. Though Peters still has to prove he can play a full season, i feel very good about him at RT (He should prove to be quite useful as a tackle eligible once we beigin to get in the redzone with some frequency. However, I think the fact is that these 5 OL starters have at least the talent level of the 5 NYG guys that JMac coached to an SB berth. He probably will NOT get the same result from this crew, but it is not impossible and I disagree with all the total handwringing going on on TSW about the OL. Unless D'Brick fell to the Bills and given the plummeting evaluation of Justice there was simply no OL player available to us on the first day worth passing over need picks at SS and DT picks (I think Winston may have merited a 2nd but not more than filling the blank space at DT. I agree that success in this game does generally stem from stopping the run and running. However, given our relative weaknesses at both these tasks and what the draft had to offer in terms of team building (not simply picking good players in the draft which though difficult to do in this crapshoot is still different than team building) the way the Bills did their picks strikes me as intelligent while not guaranteeing success gives us the best chance we can have to do this. Looking at the FA talent remaining, I do not think there are qualiy starters left for us to build an OL. However, as said, I think we do have some chance of turning the starting 5 into a productive OL this year. I do not see it lasting even if the starter do well beyond half a season as injuries do occur and in particular I do not expect Villarial to last, However, the key IMHO is that though there is not the quality out there to expect to find a starter in FA land, we do have rougly $10 mill in cap room and I think we can buy some back-up help where I think this team is short. I doubt Anderson is good enough to start (he lacks focus and diligence and I doubt he will get a personality transplant making him a capable starter (though Sam Adams did so maybe this will happen). However, he may well be satisfactory as a back-up and his cap figure may force us to keep him as Ralph hates paying folks for nothing. I am impressed with Preston's rookie play last year and though it was interesting he was moved on tbe depth chart to back-up LG I like him better at back-up C to Fowler. After that it gets pretty thin, I have no confidence in Morgan as back-up LT, Geisinger as back-up C, Thomas as back-up RG, or Gibson or Jerman as back-up RTs. Any of these players can step up but I do not expect them to, In addition, folks may be pumped about Butler and Pennington but I think it will be a lonshot for any second day drafted rookie to contribute his fist year. Butler provides the slightest of hopes if he actually has first day talent but fell due to a cheapshot he took on a fellow player that got him suspended in college. He has been punished for this transgression and owes no explanation unless he screws up again (though I think both he and the Bills would be helped by the team activiely selling the story that this is clearly an episode for him inconsistent with his other actins- Butler owes no explanation in my view unless he screws up again, but the Bills raised the stakes for them as a corporation by telling their customers they were only foinf after high character guys, the outrageous videotape of Butlet attempting to knee cap a fellow athlete after the play was done is squared for him personallt but the Bills corporation owes its customers some explanation and there is a great explanation available to them), At any rate, from what I hear of what he needs to work on (his footwork apparently needs improvement) that I think it is unreasonable for anyone to consider him a contributor to this team probably at any point until his second season. Yet a look at FA actually reveals that the Bills with some cap room are in good shape to find some back-up OL help. If one checks the Scouts Inc. wrbsite at > http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=64&p=9&c=12&y...=83&rc=16&pid=3 < there is a pretty good showing and ranking of the currently available FA talent. I can see us going for back-ups when the market allows and after we look to see if any of our rookes or players on the roster will step up/ Our big need is at tackle and actually Scouts Inc has: #2 rated FA tackle Jeff Backus still available #3 rated Brad Hopkins still available #12 rated Orlando Brown still out there #13 rated Victor Riely still out there. There seems to be enough guys who easily could back-up (and perhaps even beat out Gandy or Peters in a couple of cases) as long as we can get them cheaply There is less of a need at G as I think Villarial will likely go down at some point and Preston can back-up at LG but may get more call at C. There are dewer FA guards available/ There #13 on their list Matt Stinchomb avilable if you go over to their G page but it then drops to their # 19 or so Nutten and we better hope that VABills is right and the nmuch hated by some Anderson steps it up a notch so we do not have to go slumming for a back-up G. C also liiks a little thin in FA land, but Scuyts #5 Jeff Mitchell is available Their #9 Cory Raymer is still available so back-u[ level help may be found there (after that you begin talking about FA Billy Conaty and we have already been tbere so I hope we have no interest. At any rate I am no so certain as other posters that our starters have no hope and I think there are both the player talent and we have the cap room to acquire viable back-up level talent at T if no one steps up and we have to do it.