Cash

Great post overall. As to these comments about Jauron, it's hard to say how much of his press conference BS was just him falling on the sword for his players & coordinators (I still find it hard to believe that Jauron decided to call the Corey McIntyre 0 yard pass that resulted in Losman's fumble against the Jets). But it really seemed like Jauron felt like his team was doing everything right, but all of their failures were purely bad luck. McKelvin was trying to make a play, and got unlucky. We didn't think Nick Folk could hit a long field goal, so we purposely let the Cowboys get a quick out with no time outs. It's just bad luck that he made the field goal. We thought Lindell would hit a 47-yarder to win the Browns Monday Night game, and it was just bad luck that he missed (I actually tend to agree with him on this one -- I was fine with playing it safe b/c I thought Lindell would hit anything inside of 50 that night). We got shoved around by the Browns/Giants/Patriots in terrible weather -- just our rotten luck that we've built a tiny, finesse-based defense that can only succeed on a perfect track, and then the weather turns sour! As for Marv, it's mystifying how he could be this loyal in the face of facts. I guess it's about the same as his loyalty to Walt Corey, though. How many losing seasons would it take to convince him that the ship wasn't being righted? 10? 15? I mean, even ignoring the W-L record, it's not like the team was improving from year to year. Jauron's best year in terms of offensive and defensive ranks (by points scored) was his first -- JP's only competent year as a starter. Both units got much worse in 2007, rebounded a bit in 2008 (mostly thanks to the super-easy schedule), and degraded again in 2009. That is not progress. That is not improvement. I'd say that that's treading water, but that implies that you're still able to breath. Jauron's coaching tenure was more like expending a lot of energy to keep your head just a foot or two beneath the surface.

My favorite day of the NFL year is now split over two nights, one of which is a work night. Ugh. So much for my tradition of attending the draft. I'm not taking two days off of work so I can watch the Bills blow the draft again. And I think the NFL should have serious concerns about the Friday night day 2. Sure, it's only rounds 2 and 3, but in my experience, it's only the die-hards that care about anything but the first round. Thursday night will be as easy to fill as Saturday was, only now it'll be almost exclusively native New Yorkers, which probably suits the NFL just fine. But last year's day 2 was pretty empty even for the third round, and that was on a Sunday afternoon, not a Friday night when people have better things to do. We'll see how it goes, but I adamantly hate the whole thing.

I think the NFL would prefer you just stayed home and watched it on TV.

Maybe double-check on that one: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/buf/ 2003: 2nd in yards allowed, 5th in points allowed 2004: 2nd in yards allowed, 8th in points allowed That's a little better than respectable. And I'd say it was respectable, but not really good, in 2 of Jauron's years: 2006: 18th in yards allowed, 10th in points allowed 2008: 14th in yards allowed, 14th in points allowed Switching from 4-3 to 3-4 or vice versa is only a good idea when your cupboard is bare defensively, or if most of your good players can play in any scheme. When Greggggo switched from to the 4-3, it took 2 years to build the D back up.

I'm thinking Curtis Modkins for OC. For DC and ST, I don't have any specific names, but I'm guessing that both will fit at least 2 of the following criteria: 1.) Over 55. 2.) Never held this job at the NFL level. 3.) Worked with Gailey in the past.

Buh? First, how can you possibly think that? Second, see if you can get anyone who's not a Bills fan to back you up on that.

I've been looking for websites that are taking bets on the NFL draft, because I'm confident that Clausen winds up going #1 overall. Even if he doesn't, I'd be shocked (and elated) if he dropped to #9.

He also wouldn't shut up about Robert Ayers, saying ad nauseum that he would be the best defender in the draft. Just because Mayock is the best (and I don't think it's a blowout over Kiper, although it is a blowout over McShay) doesn't mean that Mayock is always right.

If you're going to introduce your new coaching hire by saying he's the Xth coach in Bills' history, you think you might look up the actual number before the press conference, instead of asking someone off-camera what the number is during the press conference.

+1. Our D-line made a big turnaround in effectiveness against the pass, without any impact from new personnel. The key difference was the hiring of Sanders.

What happens if I start crapping gold nuggets? In both cases, I'll worry about it when it happens. As for LeFevour, I'm probably as high on him as anyone, and I'd be happy if we drafted him in the 2nd, but can we drop the "strong arm" talk? In the NFL, guys with strong arms are guys like Big Ben, Peyton (NOT Eli), Favre, McNabb, Losman (they're not all good, remember), etc. LeFevour can probably make all the throws, but that doesn't give him a strong arm by NFL standards. All that does is get him in the door. Watching him play, I haven't seen the ball come out of his arm with the kind of zip that would merit the "strong arm" label. If you think a cannon-armed QB is a must for the swirling winds of Buffalo, then your best bet is either to trade for one of Philly's non-white QBs (Vick's lost some of his fastball, but that just means he went from one of the strongest ever to normal human strength), or tank the entire 2010 season and go for Jake Locker or Ryan Mallett in the 2011 draft.

Uh, did you miss last year's Super Bowl? The Steelers' line was terrible last year, and equally bad this year. The main difference was Polamalu's injuries.

Unfortunately, the first two are the two most important and hardest to find positions in football.

What's wrong with 2 FGs? You have to put together a decent drive, then either get a stop and put together another decent drive, or get a turnover deep in your opponent's territory. And if your opponent, already down 3, elects to kick a FG, then they deserve what they get. That's Dick Jauron-style coaching right there. I like the first to 4 or 5 idea because that way, a TD or any other 2 scores wins you the game. Just a FG won't do it, but 2 FGs or a FG and a safety will do it. I feel like giving up a safety in OT should be an automatic loss. The fact that it currently is an automatic loss is one of the best (and also least-frequent) aspects of the current system. But I'd be willing to sacrifice it (since it never happens) for a system where both teams play like they do in the 1st quarter - i.e., only settling for a field goal if they were truly stopped by the D.

Zero special teams in the college OT system. That's one of the reasons I hate it. The other is the spoon-feeding of the ball at the 25. What is this, Pop Warner? You get the ball wherever you earned the ball, not arbitrarily at the 25. If the team that starts with the ball goes for it on 4th down, it literally makes no difference whether the play is a sack, incompletion, or interception. That's BS.

Maybe if you're Dick Jauron or Perry Fewell. Or if your offense or special teams gave the ball to the other team deep in your own territory. I don't think most NFL defenders or defensive coaches would consider a 7-play, 45-yard FG drive to be a victory for the defense. Personally, I'm fine with the current OT rule, but I'll admit that the one downside is the opening drive for a FG. I like the sudden death, but winning on the first drive with just a FG is lame. I'd support a rule change that instead of first score wins, first to 4 or 5 wins. That way, if you want to put the game away, you have to go all-out for the TD, instead of just running up the gut once you hit the 30 and kicking on 3rd down. But I hate the college OT; it's not football. It would be like deciding a soccer game with alternating corner kicks (which might actually be an upgrade over penalty kicks, but that's another story). Anything that moves the NFL OT closer to the college OT is a terrible idea. And as a side note, this was about the worst possible OT game to use as a springboard for a change in the OT rule. How could it possibly have been more exciting? And how would the "each team gets possession" rule work here? Green Bay kicks off to Arizona after the score? Wouldn't Green Bay just go onsides at that point? Or would that not be allowed? Or, since Arizona scored, would they have to kick off to Green Bay again, because Green Bay has some inherent right to a chance to match the score? What if Green Bay then scored a TD and got the 2-point conversion? Does Arizona get another possession, since their offense never touched the ball, or are they S.O.L.? And while we're at it, what about when one team has the ball (or scores) as time expires in both halves? They got one extra possession for the whole game. Should we then give the other team one clockless possession to even things up?

Brady Quinn is debatable, but I'm pretty confident that he gets dumped this offseason. He's certainly sucked so far. As for Young, he got benched last year, went through the whole depression thing, and despite horrible play from Kerry Collins during an 0-6 start, it took a direct meddle from the owner to get him playing again. If Bud Adams doesn't force Jeff Fisher to put Young in the lineup, Young almost certainly gets cut this year.

Because he sucks, duh. Nice catch on the typo. I just corrected it.

Inspired by a similar breakdown over on the Buffalo Range boards, I decided to look at all the QBs drafted in the last 20 years by round. I wanted to see what the success rates looked like. We all know that even first-round QBs have a high chance of busting, and that late-round guys sometimes pan out, but what are the actual percentages? So I went to drafthistory.com and got a list of all QBs drafted since 1990, and broke them down in 4 categories: Likely HOF: Likely to make the Hall of Fame. Manning, Brady, Favre, etc. Pro Bowl: The easiest one to rate, because it's 100% objective. If he's made at least 1 Pro Bowl, yes, if not, no. Starter: By this I mean not just that he's started games, but that he was his team's unquestioned starter for at least a year, and not just by default. So I didn't count guys like Fitzpatrick or Gradkowski, nor did I count guys like Sanchez or JaMarcus Russell, who've only started due to draft status. If a high pick started for a couple of years, played terribly, and then was cut or benched, that didn't count. This one is pretty subjective, but I tried to be consistent throughout. My main guideline was that a guy's team had to go into at least one offseason both knowing that the guy was their starter and not looking to acquire a QB (except as a backup). Bust: Didn't pan out as a starter. The term "bust" may seem a bit harsh for a lot of these guys, especially the late-round guys, but here's my thought process: We're looking for a starting QB - a franchise guy. No matter what round we draft a QB in, if he doesn't develop into a starter, it doesn't do us much good. Ryan Fitzpatrick has done well for himself as a 7th-round pick, but another Fitzpatrick won't help. I actually double-counted some guys under both "Starter" and "Bust" because they were their team's unquestioned starter for a bit, but then flamed out. Trent Edwards is a good example here. Alex Smith and Vince Young were both benched for a whole season, but now appear to be their teams' respective starters, so they got double-counted as well. Again, a lot of this was pretty subjective, and I may have misjudged a few, but most of them are pretty clear-cut. Anyone who i felt wasn't determined yet, I left blank - like this year's first-round QBs. I think I left Matt Schaub's Pro Bowl column blank, because while he hasn't made one yet, he's likely to make one at some point. I also took a quick look at the current starters for each team. One thing that I thought was pretty interesting is that almost all of the non-first-round QBs who panned out did so for a team that didn't draft them. Right now, the list is only Brady, Garrard, Tony Romo (not drafted, but has only played for Dallas), and Bulger, assuming Bulger doesn't get cut this offseason. Maybe you can count Chad Henne as well, although that's still pretty up in the air. Anyway, feel free to check out the analysis (linked below). The Cliff's Notes version is that 1st-round QBs bust a little over 60% of the time, 2nd-round QBs bust about 75% of the time, and for every other round, they bust about 90% of the time. https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0As...NqV1E&hl=en

I'll be quite surprised if Tebow goes after the first round. These super-exposed high profile college players who don't really have an NFL position almost always go higher than projected.

Hmm, Shipley reminds people of both Wes Welker (small, quick slot receiver, usually runs short routes over the middle) and Easy Ed McAffrey (big, tall split end type, red zone target, usually caught balls along the sidelines). I'm guessing Shipley is a white guy?

Nice strawman. Of course drafting a first-round QB isn't a sure thing. They bust like 60% of the time. It's just that getting a franchise QB is so important, you have to take a risk in order to get one. What do you want to do, wait for the next Drew Brees to hit free agency? That will probably never happen again. Take a flyer on a mid-round guy? Those bust like 95% of the time. Just because you take a QB in the first round (or even in the top 10) doesn't mean he'll pan out. And you shouldn't reach for a guy that doesn't carry a first-round grade just because you need a QB. But if you don't have a QB (which we don't), and there's a QB available with a first-round grade, it doesn't matter who else is available or what your other needs are, you must take the QB. Then you focus on building around him while he develops. Hopefully by the time he's ready to lead you to glory, you've built a solid O-line and given him good weapons to work with. Having said all that, I should point out that there's really only 2 QBs with first-round grades (although LeFevour has a slim chance of being a dark horse), and I doubt either one will be available at #9. I would not advocate just reaching for Tebow or Tony Pike or someone like that.

Optimistic but still rational; I'll take it. I find the the Pollyanna posts (Brian Brohm is the future!) to be much more depressing that the super-negative ones. If delusion is the only hope we have, why even bother?

Awesome!

And with 3 QBs back there, the D won't know where to send the pass rush.