SuperKillerRobots

I actually really liked the Nix hire. Especially after I read about him a little and heard him talk. Why wouldn't you be excited about Spiller? He should be a play-making machine.

OK, first of all, how is anything you wrote in this post ironic? It's not ironic that we passed on a QB and signed a UDFA RB. That's two seperate and pretty much unrelated things. I don't even know who you're referring to as the best draft pick, but that statement exhibits no irony either. Next, who cares where they dig up the bottom 20 guys on the training camp roster? i.e. the guys who wont even make the PS. If, as you contend (and are probably right), the Bills do not get more than 4 to 6 wins, why would you want a one year vet starting instead of a young guy who can learn, get better potentially, and most importantly still be on the team in 3 years? I think you hit it that QB is the msot important part of winning in the NFL, but if there wasn't a good one there, why take one? Just for the sake of it? I'm pretty sure as far as team size goes, that was basically the point of the draft for them. They got a lot bigger. We have the tweeners playing the "tweener" positions now in the 3-4 and got a lot bigger up front on the DL. Maybe it's not yet enough, but it was a hell of a start. You are one of those people that keeps saying the Bills are cheap. You mentioned 6 guys specifically that we lost. Of those players, I would say we only really missed Big Pat. To a lesser extent you could say that AW and Nasty Nate were tough losses, but we had Nasty Nate when AW left and Nasty Nate left for stupid money that he never played up to. Sam was a great player for us until the injury that basically made him ineffective for the rest of his career. Jabari was a good player that we developed, but nothing special - George Wilson is better. JL is exactly what you said you didn't want earlier in your post - a small guy. He never did anything for us and he was a UDFA when we got him, so no harm in losing him. Not tomention all of the money that they've spent on FAs and even re-signing their own players like Lee. Finally, I think what you are missing is that in order to sign/keep good football players you have to have them at one point. So the problem might not be so much that we are losing players because we can't keep them, but more like we don't have any players worth keeping, so why spend money re-signing a guy. I don't think that the Bills have had particularly good talent on the team, which is why they haven't been good. I think that's a result of poor drafting for the most part, but also to an extent poor coaching. The reason people are more optimistic is that we have a semi-proven talent guy, a new head coach, and soemthing of a direction that isn't based off the previous regime's schemes, players, ideas of how to play football, but their own.

Two points: 1. I think success this year is not the same as winning - they can be somewhat successful and not make the playoffs, as long as they look like they have everything together as a coaching staff and some of the players make progress. Also, I fully expect them to be competitive in almost every game this year - I'd be surprised if we lost mroe than two games by at least 20 points each. 2. I think that most of the improvement is going to come in run defense.

This makes a lot more sense when I look at it as a quote in the reply window. Anyways, as of today, here is my prediction: QB(3): Edwards, Brohm, Brown RB(3): Spiller, Jackson, Lynch TE (4): Nelson, Schouman, Matthews, Klop WR (5): Evans, Hardy, Johnson, Parish, Easley OT (4): Bell, Meredith, Wang, Green OG (4): Levitre, Wood, Calloway, Chambers C (1): Hangartner DE (4): Edwards, Stroud, Carrington, Johnson NT (2): Williams, Troup OLB (5): Schobel, Maybin, Kelsey, Batten, Ellis ILB (5): Poz, Davis, Mitchell, Moats, Eillison DB (10): McGee, Florence, McKelvin, Corner, Youboty, Whitner, Byrd, Wilson, Scott, Harris/Lankster (one of) P: Moorman K: Lindell LS: Sanborn - I think they keep 4 TEs and no FB because they'll run out of double-TE sets mostly - I can't for the life of me see Naaman make it, but do think he winds up on the PS - I could see Youboty traded before the season starts - if Brohm doesn't look at least serviceable early, he'll get cut for Fitz (no way Brown goes to PS) - if Schobel retires, they'll keep 2 LBs not mentioned above (11 total) and 3 TEs

No, but it helps to put things in perspective. That being said, I'm not sure what these statistics really mean or how this ranking translates into winning/being good (probably not very well if we are on top of these defensive rankings). I couldn't really tell if they factor in times that these players were beat by the opposing teams, since all the article mentions are the plays made by these players, not those that were missed. There needs to be a way to examine the "impact" differential (meaning the good plays made versus the bad plays/missed plays) of a player with all plays weighted by importance and even eventual outcomes in the game considered. This is the only way to properly judge a player's worth. This analysis seems to just say that of the positive plays MLBs made, Poz made a higher percentage of them per opportunity, which is essentially meaningless because no one cares and it has no obvious bearing on the win/loss column.

What exactly has Ellis demonstrated? He hasn't been on the field as much as Maybin and he's got a year on him!

Or they will move him quickly now that the draft is over so they can get soemthing for him, instead of him walking for nothing next year.

Probably more an indication of what they think about Brohm and his current state. The coaches won't even go ove rthe playbook during this camp, so I would think this is his first try-out to see if he can beat out Levi for a spot on the team.

The best part about this idea would be that with real estate so cheap in Buffalo, we'd have a major league baseball and basketball team here as well. Seriously though, I completely agree with this sentiment - teams should have to build their own stadiums without taxpayer assistance. And Minn is not getting a new stadium for the same reason that the Bills won't move to Toronto anytime soon: the economy. No one will finance a real estate purchase of that amount in this economy and no one will finance stadium construction in this economy. Add to that the fact that nearly every state government is failing or at least pinching pennies and you have a poor situation for big money deals.

We're they really that bad last year? I think they finished around the middle of the pack in terms of yards. I think the running game and passing defense are the least of our problems. I think more experience, better coaching, and better play calling are going to make us look better than last year on offense as a whole. It's hard to say what the offense could and couldn't do last year because we had one guy designing the offense, coaching the QBs, and calling plays who had never done any of those things before in the NFL (and only for a year at the college level).

Why the hell is anyone on here asking the writer about the look of the site? Send an email to editor or webmaster. Thanks for your thoughts Tim!

I smoke occassionally when I drink and do sometimes have one during the Bills games at the stadium. I do hate seeing cigarette butts on the ground anywhere and think people should throw away their trash. I even love the fact that you cannot smoke in bars anymore. What I don't agree with is this sentiment that smokers are poisoning the air around us and making it unbearable for everyone else. This is complete BS. How many cigarettes do you think it takes to poison the air as much as your SUV does on the way to work? I think it's stupid that people make such a big deal out of second hand smoke at a place where the majority of those going to the event have sat in the middle of a sea on cars - many still running - for a few hours before the game. If it's really a health issue, then why stop at smoking. Maybe the Ralph should be the first stadium in the country that doesn't have parking lots at all - everyone has to take a bus there to make the air cleaner for everyone. They could break up the parking lots and put grass in so everyone could get tailgate ont he grass and make sure no one breathes in any toxins.

Well done.

I agree that both of these players have untapped (or preceived) potential. I think the sentiment that you are alluding to is kind of similar to how fans feel about Edwards and Whitner. The bottom line is that people see what they want to in a player - where one person might say Brohm is the worst because he couldn't beat out a 7th rounder for a roster spot, another might say he was never given a fair chance to play or something. The same could be said about Meredith. With Edwards and Whitner one person might say they both had their chances and can't cut it, another might say that the previous coaching staff was useless and those two players might still get better with better football organization in place. No one really looks at these players objectively - the fans can't because all they have is basically subjective information on the players.

I think the best way to match up against their defense is with two players already on the roster being productive: Spiller and Nelson. They seem to have all the main offensive targets locked down, but can they cover the TE (off the line or out of the slot) and can they stop the dumps (and hopefully the long runs that follow) to the RB? I think it might be telling that the Pats revamped their TE position this offseason (even though it was badly needed). The only hope I see matching up our defense to their offense is if Sanchez plays like he did last year during the regular season. If he gets significantly better than last year, we'll have a tough time stopping that team.

I think you made this more complicated than it has to be. There is only one real switch in the actualy players on the field (three if you count the two headed monsters of Andre Davis/Kawika Mitchell and Williams/Troup). The starting front 7 was (at the beginning of the year): DE: Schobel DT: Stroud DT: Williams DE: Kelsey OLB: Mitchell MLB: Poz OLB: Ellison And it will be: DE: Stroud NT: Williams/Troupe DE: Edwards OLB: Maybin ILB: Davis/Mitchell ILB: Poz OLB: Schobel So really the only change to the front 7 from the beginning of last year is that we swapped out Ellison for Edwards. I think the better way to look at this move is that there are really 3 positions in play in the front 7 now: 1. OLB, 2. ILB, 3. DL. The previous DEs are now OLBs, the previous DTs are now DLs, and the previous LBs are now ILBs. Basically we just got bigger. I do agree with your point however about most of them playing new positions in the 3-4 with new responsibilities. But I don't think this is going to be the Miami Dolphins 3-4 right out of the gate. They are still going to show 4-2 looks in nickel obvious passing downs because they have the players to do that effectively. So I don't think there is going to be that much of a learning curve with these guys. They'll ask them to do what they can. The biggest concerns seem to be the OLBs (our former undersized DEs) covering the flats. I personally don't think it's going to be that bad with Maybin and Schobel. Maybin is definitely athletic enough to cover the flat and schobel did it a lot when GW and Dick Lebeau were here (always hated when on third and long, they'd rush 5 five guys and drop our best pass rusher - Schobel - into coverage in the short underneath area). I think they'll do well on defense this year and I fully expect them to be in the top 20 defenses.

No one wants your fancy words and logic SDS. It complicates things too much for people - they can't break it down into easily digestible pieces of thought that fit nicely in their short attention spans. Much easier to take any critical thought out of the process. It's like they're talking about football machines, not people.

I think Fitzy has a better shot to start week one than Brohm and I think he'll get cut in the preseason. Brohm could definitely see the field this year and could even start some games, but I don't see him winning the job in camp. For all of the crap Edwards takes - for both his real shortcomings and his precieved shortcomings - at least he was never cut. Brohm might be a better player down the road or even right now, but if that is the case, that only lends credibility to the idea that there is something really wrong with him preventing him taking hold of a starting job or even a roster spot (in GB). It sounds like your saying that the guy who twice fell apart when he got his chance is going to lose his job to the guy who thrice fell apart before he even got his chance (two camps in GB and a PT with Buffalo). He's going to have to do something to make the team before he is the starter. I personally don't give a crap who starts as long as they are the best player in camp and preseason and continue it through the real games.

Saw that too and was wondering the same thing. My thought was that this probably stems from Gailey's much heard montra: "You don't needs stars to win in the NFL." Not to say Lee is or isn't a star. It's more about how I think Gailey looks at filling positions on the team. If he is true to saying that he doesn't need star players, then instead you need effective players. You need guys to fill roles and then make sure the roles come together to get some semblance of an attack together. Having tall, physical WRs on the outside means that those guys are bigger targets to throw to and should have a wider range to catch passes than a smalelr guy. Also the jump ball factor. Having those guys gives the QB an option on every pass because with competent play-calling and decent technique on the part of the outside WRs, they should always be open for an under 10 yard route, because of the hopeful height advantage over most corners. It makes sense in that it seemingly creates mismatches - the smaller CBs have to defend bigger WRs, while the larger LBs/safeties have to cover our smaller guys in the slot. I don't think this means the end of Lee however for two reasons: First of all I think Gailey/Nix/etc are taking a very practical approach to the roster. They are going to play the best players and taylor the schemes to fit what the players can do. Because of this, I think he'll still be the starter. I'm also pretty sure that we've seen the end of no pre-snap motion and Lee lining up exclusively on the outside. I could see them playing a lot of 2 WR sets, with both WRs on one side (Lee in the slot) and possibly a TE (Nelson) or RB (Spiller) on the other side of the formation on the outside.

I disagree. It can be a preformance enhancer, despite what everyone says. What about competitive eating contests?

It's another instance of "this guy's arm, this guy's brain, this guy's brith place and now we have a starting QB" type of things.

Not true. The article was correct in stating that no other industry in this country and probably half of the third world would even consider asking this type of question. And don't say that football is different because of the money. That's BS. Some players make a large amount of money, but there are a lot of professions that pay a lot of money aside from the NFL. I would also argue that the pressure in the NFL does not compare at all to the pressure faced by a CEO, investment banker, or laywer. It's archaic and comeone like Gerhart should sue the team that asked him that question on the basis that it would help to provide equal treatment of prospective players in the future. This is the act of a guy who doesn't have enough brains to come up with a more clever way to figure out the mental toughness of a player.

Congrats on the new show. As other psoters have said, I think you should get the best guests on the show you can. Leading up to the season, you could bring on guests knowledgeable about the other teams in the division and anyone else who could give you a more general view of the Bills and what they need to do to compete this year. Duing the season then maybe focus on people who write/talk/etc in the market of the team we are going to play that week. The ebst would be to focus on the Bills and what they are doing. As faras this goes, the tone that I find most agreeable on talk radio is one of causious optimism - center right. You need to point out the flaws and call them out at times, but you need to avoid falling into the pit of just bashing everything the team does and getting down on the whole situation we have here - or using that as an excuse. Point out the flaws, say what you think needs to be done to fix them, and try to understand what the Bills are doing on their end and relay that to the listeners. People want to know why the Bills are doing what they are doing (or get more information on it at least) and then make their own judgements on those actions - not have you tell them that everything is hopeless and the people working for the Bills are idiots.

I agree with you that the offensive line is important, but is it quality players who have futures you want, or do you just want warm bodies there? From your analysis, I can tell you know as much as I do about college football and the players (which is zip aside from what the talking heads say), so how can you make a claim that any player at those positions who were available when we picked were going to be: 1. worth the pick; or 2. become a starter in the NFL. Also, I think you could make a better agruement that everything in football starts with the QB and nowhere else. If that's the case, again, do you want warm bodies there or someone with a real chance to play. If you can't get a guy with talent who you think will be a good player, then should you force the issue (as it seems we've been doing for a while - Whitner, M Williams, JP Losman, Lynch, Maybin, Flowers) or should you just take the player you feel is going to be the best NFL players over the course of their careers?

It's just another example of the goddamn bourgeoisie getting us down.