MDH

It's not that simple either. You don't simply draft the best player regardless of position either. It's a combination of player/position. Most teams have several "needs" and successful teams draft the best player on the board from one of those positions or trade down if there isn't value on the board for that team at that pick.

But Willis was leading the league in rushing after week 3! That's what I was told when I questioned if Willis was an elite back way back in September.

The Titans running game controled the game, wore the Bills D down and ultimately won the game for the Titans in the 4th quarter. Sure, Young had a good game, I'm not arguing otherwise, but he was not the"difference maker" in the game (despite his fantastic 37 yard TD run at the end of the 1st half). You can argue all you want but I believe what I actually saw on the field during my two viewings of the game and not just the 3 TDs that the stat sheet says that Young had a part of. This whole discussion is really a moot point as pointing to Young's best performance of the season (which the Bills game was) doesn't mean he deserves to be in the Pro Bowl.

The game was won in the 4th quarter. I'd say you're right, it's not even close who the MVP of that game was. It was Henry and the OL.

Belichick and Pioli are able to do this because the Patriots are a consistent winner. That's how you attract FAs and keep your own players at a reasonable price. A consistent losing franchise (like the Bills) can not hope to do it this way. It just isn't going to happen. It's a pipe dream. And I'm not talking about breaking the bank on players, I'm talking about paying market value for players. Clements is a top 5 CB. Market value for a top 5 CB hitting FA is to make him one of the top 2 paid CBs in the league, it's as simple as that. If the Bills aren't willing to pay out a big contract to Clements as he hits his prime I have a hard time believing they're willing to pay out big money to any player. My guess is that the Bills don't think that a CB is a huge need in the cover 2 but I'm looking at it in more basic terms than that: You keep your good players. Who knows how long the Bilsl will be running the cover 2. This is where the cap comes in. If the Bills were pressed up against the cap I'd say yeah, you go ahead and let Clements walk. However, they're not. They can keep Clements and STILL be 15-20 million under the cap next year. It's not going to breed some greed by average players as you suggest. It actually says just the opposite Imo, that the Bills are willing to take care of their own. Players like to see that from franchises, particularly ones that don't win. And spending the cash on Clements isn't going to prevent the Bills from making a play at other players that they think would help them. The only things not signing Clements does are make the Bills worse and save Ralph Wilson money.

I'd agree with this point if the Bils were anywhere near the cap. However, they're not. They can overspend on several of players and it is not going to adversly effect their future ability to sign other players. They have so much room its ridiculous.

People have this idea that the players feel the same way about their team that the fans do. Playing football is their job. How many of you out there would turn down a significant pay raise from another company because of some sense of loyalty to your current employer? Throwing a penny in the wishing well and hopinng beyond hope that the Bills can find playes who will agree to sign lowball contracts isn't a great strategy for building a team. Pay your good players market value, end of story.

Players are only going to take below market value from their team if their team is winning. Until a team gets to that point they're going to have to slightly overspend for their good players. Otherwise the team will just keep turning their wheels getting nowhere. How do you expect the Bills to become a consistent winner without going after difference makers in FA while at the same time not signing their top tier players to second contracts (even if they do have to overspend for them)? I just don't think it's possible.

He'll learn the ropes in his first 3 or so years and then become a monster in year 4-5 and which point the Bills wouldn't want to spend the money to re-sign him and he'd hit FA at the age of 24.

The Bills had a 9 point lead going into the 4th quarter...

I'm mainly talking about Clements and Winfield. Perhaps not "great" players but not the kind of players you want to keep letting go and having to draft their replacements. Doing that is the equivalent of running on a treadmill. I don't even want to hear the cap arguement because the Bills haven't been near the cap in years. The day they're close to the cap is the day I'll worry about "overspending" on a player.

Travis Henry and the Titan OL were the best players on the field that day. Actaully, that's the formula that the Titans used to win most of their games down the stretch. Unfortunately grinding out 4-5 yards out at a time doesn't make the ESPN highlight reel so Young gets all the credit.

You know, when a team signs players through free agency they don't give up draft picks. So you get to sign FAs AND use the draft to build your team. Any team that goes only one route isn't using all the tools available to them. This team isn't going to be able to compete year in and year out without using FA to cherry pick a few difference makers. Hell, this team doesn't even want to spend the money to keep their own difference makers. If the Bills are going to build through the draft they had better start signing their own players once their initial contracts are up. Bottom line is that the Bills just aren't going to be able to compete on a consistent basis if they don't spend up to the cap. You can't be a consistant winner by using the draft and then not signing your own great players to second contracts. Sure they might have a year here or there where they exceed expectations and slip into the playoffs but they'll be a mediocre team at best overall if they're consistently 13+ million under the cap.

If it's the article I'm thinking of it also went on to say that he rarely has players hold out and he doens't think it's in their best interests. It's amazing how many fans believe he's the king of hold outs went the opposite it actually true.

The Bears D has been far from "great" lately. If they were playing like they did in the first half of the season I'd agree with you. However, they're not.

NS, his "failure" in Buffalo is that he only went 29-19 and took the Bills to the playoffs in 2 out of his 3 seasons as Head Coach. I wish we could experience that kind of "failure" again.

You conveniently skipped his main point about the Bills not re-signing their own players and needing to replace them via the draft once again. The Bills wouldn't NEED to keep drafting DBs early if they simply re-signed their own players to second contracts. The Bills would still be in the same situation if they kept drafting OL early only to have to keep drafting more to replace the ones they let go. They'd probably be in worse shape since it generally takes much longer for OL to develop.

Bledsoe struggled mightily (and so did the Pats) before he got injured and Brady stepped in. You can go on "not being sold" on Brady and he'll go on being successful every single year no matter who the surrounding players on offense are. It annoys me to no end that Brady is as good as he is (since he's in the Bills division) but I'm not going to put the blinders on like many Bills fans.

I'm guessing you're one of those people who thought that the Pats weren't going to be that good before this year started. You know, all those guys who were yelling that they were vulnerable this year? Yet, there they were playing in the AFC title game last night. The D is good, they hvae one of the best QBs in the league and their OL is very solid. Sure they're not perfect top to bottom but if you have those three things you'll be one of the better teams in the league year in and year out.

When the game ended I was happy that the Pats had lost but my immediate thought after that was, "My God, like I don't see enough of Manning's face as it is. This could get ugly."

The Bears D hasn't been able to stop the pass in the last 7-8 games. They've given up something like 280 yards per game over that time span. The Bears D isn't going to stop the Colts O from passing the ball.

Oh how perceptions change. It was only a few short years ago that a few posters went into a frenzy over Hollywood's avatar.

I think that Dungy would have gone for it on 4th down if it was a yard or less for the 1st down, which is why he ran the ball on 3rd down. A TD there wins the game. A FG there puts the game into OT. The way the game had been going in the 4th quarter whoever got the ball first in OT likely would have won the game. I'd take my chances on a 4th and 1 play before I took the 50/50 shot that OT likely would have been.

I don't like the fact that he shows up to play 2-3 times a year, thinks he's a scat-back in a big back's body, he doesn't put his head down and plow into defenders when there are no yards to be had, he’s below average catching the ball and his blitz pickups leave a lot to be desired. The bottom line is that if he were a good back people would put up with his “I’m a star” attitude and all the other stuff. Because he's mediocre (at best) it all gets magnified because it’s easy to criticize. There is an unwritten rule in sports: If you’re not a very good player STFU and keep your nose clean. It would be nice if the star players did the same but who am I kidding.

I'm not sure this constitutes a TD lovefest as signing them 2 years before their contracts were up would have been TD's job. Of course, I'm not sure Mort realized this before saying it.