Search the Community

I just rocked Bills v Pats in Super Techmo bowl. "QB Bills" threw for 400 yds and Thurman ran for 150. Nate Odomes was all over Hart Lee Dykes and returned a pick for a TD.

It easy to get one wrong because their are so many factors in how or why they fail to live up to expectations, but it's hard to get them right. They guys who get them right hit when they take chances. It's not just the number one's that actually live up to the billing, but the 2nd and one guys who they manage to pluck out of the draft. For example, Polian has Thurman Thomas, Ted Donahue has Willis McGahee. Polian traded out of the #3 pick in 1987 to grab Shane Conlan at #8, and with his acquired extra pick took Nate Odoms at #36. Need I bring up the McCargo deal? Polian drafted HOFers. Same thing with Newsome. For every Kyle Boller, he's got Jonathan Ogden (future HOF) and Ray Lewis (future HOF) back-to-back in the same draft, plus Ed Reed (future HOF), Jamal Lewis, Todd Heap, etc. Point is, while the list of players that are not playing for the Bills isn't impressive, neither is the one that still are on the roster. At least guys like Polian, Newsome, Belichick, etc. have either drafted and developed their first round talent, or found legitimate stars in the later rounds. That hasn't happened in Buffalo in over a decade.

From rotoworld regarding Nates contract. 3/2/2007: Signed an eight-year, $80 million contract. In the details section it does show it's one of those escalating contracts where they make a lot more money per year on the backend but on the surface it looks like a $10 mil a year deal. Perhaps a bit strong to say they WAY over paid for him. The point I guess is more about that I feel Whitner was pretty much as good in coverage and is arguably the best CB in the league against the run and tackling.

I don't mean to be a jerk but Nate was WAY over paid by San Fran. This was actually one of the good decisions we made to not pay a guy and let him go. Winfield is a GOOD CB and flat out even better football player. The guy is ridiculous in run support and doesn't miss a tackle. Didn't he lead the Bills one year in tackles as a CB? We screwed the pooch on that guy BIG TIME! Maybe if we paid him, we wouldn't have to spend so many picks in the draft each year on CB's!!! In a few years I can see this guy making an EASY conversion to safety given his tackling and run support ability and extending his career another few years!!!

We don't miss Nate Clements. Nuff said.

Just think, Nate would be the Bills' struggling $9M/year man, if only Ralph weren't so cheap as to not pay him.

http://www.mercurynews.com/49ers/ci_13275374?nclick_check=1

there is so much wrong with this post, i don't know where to begin. are you actually aware of why Jim Kelly didn't want to play in Buffalo because he didn't want to play in the cold, and that green bay was another place that wasn't on his list? are you in any way aware of why Pat Williams didn't get re-signed by the Bills after Tom Donahoe said he wasn't interested in re-signing players over 30? did John Butler and the salary cap have anything to do with Black Sunday? were you prepared to pay what Nate Clements earned in free agency? there is so much revisionist history in this thread that you'd swear no one really knew what's gone on? and Lori, you're right. the fiddling has begun and there's absolutely no stopping the Nero player ... the Generation of Swine is upon us and all that's left is to batten down the hatches and pray that some of us are spared, because this thread is speaking in tongues i can no longer comprehend. the degenerates have taken control, and i'm going down for the last time because, alaska, the bartender has suddenly turned up the lights, and last call is upon us. toronto, here we come. jw

Tom Cousineau ring any bells, he was the Bills first overall draft pick in 79 and signed with the CFL instead, who paid him 2x as much as the Bills offered him. Black Sunday, the Bills let go of Thurman Thomas- Bruce Smith- Andre Reed because they needed to get under the cap, instead of trying to restructure their contracts and keep them in Buffalo, they were forced to move on. Thurman a Dolphin, Smith a Redskin and Reed Denver / Washington. Jim Kelly cried on his living room couch at his home in Houston when he was drafted by Buffalo, why do you suppose he did that? If not for Bill Polian fighting tooth fang and nail to pay Kelly, he would have joined the Raiders. Bruce Smith was low balled by the Bills after his first contract was set to expire, Denver offered the Bills 2 first round draft picks and a ton more money to Smith then the Bills were offering, Smith signed with Denver and would have happily moved on if Polian didn't talk Wilson into matching the offer from Denver. Only Bill Polian and the good lord really know what kind of team the Bills would have had in the late 80's and early 90's if Polian wasn't there to fight with Wilson. Oh Wait,well maybe the late 90's and 2000-2008 teams show that. Jabari Greer- Nate Clements- Pat Williams- Antoine Winfield- Jason Peters -all come to mind the last few years. It almost seems like the Bills are a farm team for the NFL for cornerbacks. The going rate for top corners is more then Wilson wants to pay,lets see if he coughs up the dough to keep Terrance McGee.

12 team league (Picked 5th). Starting lineup - QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, FLEX(RB/WR/TE), D, K....Pretty Much Standard Scoring DeAngelo Williams Roddy White Philip Rivers Marshawn Lynch DeSean Jackson Steve Breaston Ray Rice Carson Palmer Lance Moore LeSean McCoy Nate Washington Cadillac Williams Neil Akers Washington D Jermichael Finley My thoughts: I think I have a solid core, but need one of my secondary receivers to step up. Feel like I have a lot of upside to my RB's, but will limp along unil Marshawn returns. Best Pick: Ray Rice in the 7th. I think he's the man in B'more this year. Worst Pick: (TIE) Big reach for Nate Washington with my 11th pick. Probably could have had him off the WW and grabbed Fred Jackson with this pick. Also since we don't need to start a TE, picking Finley in the 15th was kind of a waste. Sleeper: Cadillac Williams. Has looked like the Caddy of old so far this pre-season.

WRONG! (read below) They were FAR from being healthy...they were a MESS! Not only were they without those WR's...the only active receiver they had on their roster for that game, with more than 12 CAREER receptions was Nate Burleson. Courtney Taylor and Seneca Wallace (backup QB), were the other starting WR's. Their sh------- running game would not help this cause at all either. Also, they were without their starting DT Rocky Bernard, who was suspended for that game. And, they were without RT Sean Locklear...starting Ray Willis (12 career games, 0 starts) against Aaron Schobel. Most importantly, Matt Hasselbeck had just returned the week leading up to that game, from a back injury that had him on the shelf from January until September. He only played in 2 series that pre-season, and was not touched once. *SOURCE: http://www.profootballcentral.com/2008/09/...hawks-vs-bills/

I miss Pat Williams & I miss Nate, don't miss Lil Antoine at all.

I'll gladly explain why it's "bull". What is wrong with saying "public health care plan"? or "public health insurance company"? These are the questions from Rasmussen and WSJ/NBC I'd like for you to answer this, as I am going to specifically answer your request. Is it not a health care plan that the Liberals want? Is it not a public one? Would it not be a insurance company that the government would be setting up? " public health insurance option to compete with private health insurance plans".? What the hell is wrong with this? This is Kaisers poll question. Is it not a public health insurance option that the Liberals want? Don't they want it to compete against private health insurance plans? There is absolutely nothing misleading about this poll question. Very straight forward. Nate Silver argues that the word "public" is "vague and could conceivably be confused for something like a non-profit cooperative" Did he really just say that? The !@#$ing Liberal plan is called the "public option" He also criticizes the Rasmussen poll for saying "[A] government health insurance company to compete with private health insurance companies". Is it not a government health insurance company, and would they not be competing with private health insurance companies? Why hide the word Government, that is exactly what it is? It is a government plan. What is wrong with that question Dog? ABC/Washington Post say "Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?" again, what is wrong with this question? The one he likes the best is from Quinnipiac (which btw was taken on August 5th, and the liberals have lost a lot of support on the "public option" since then) Do you support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans? The only thing that was different about this question was "giving people the option of being covered" was added into the question. There is nothing fundamentally different about this question than the Fox, Rasmussen and ABC/Washington Post and NBC/WSJ questions. Same freaking question, with a few different words. No difference. Did you check out the date on the SRBI poll? July 29th. Dog, the loss of support for the plan started about 2-3 weeks ago. The ABC/Washington Post poll was taken August 21st. The Rasmussen Poll on August 27th SCOTT RASMUSSEN, RASMUSSEN REPORTS: Well, 43 percent favor the plan, 53 percent are opposed. That hasn't changed much during the month of August. The really bad news for the White House, the people who are feeling strongly about this bill are far more likely to be opposed -- 43 percent of Americans strongly oppose it, just 23 percent strongly support it. The NBC/WSJ poll August 18th Yet perhaps more troubling for the White House as it works to pass health care reform this year is that only 41 percent approve of his handling of health care. By comparison, 47 percent disapprove. Moreover, just 36 percent believe that Obama’s efforts to reform the health system are a good idea, and only 24 percent think they will result in better quality of health care. Bill McInturff, the GOP pollster who co-conducted the survey, says these numbers should signal a “cautionary light” for the White House. “There is a ‘go slower’ feel to this data.” In the poll, 43 percent say they favor a public option, versus 47 percent who oppose it. That's a shift from last month's NBC/Journal poll, when 46 percent said they backed it and 44 percent were opposed. and in Regards to Nate Silver, are we talking about the same Nate Silver who is from Chicago? The same Nate Silver who said this: "My state [illinois] has non-partisan registration, so I am not registered as anything. I vote for Democratic candidates the majority of the time (though by no means always). This year, I have been a supporter of Barack Obama."[21] With respect to the impartiality of his electoral projections, Silver states, "Are your results biased toward your preferred candidates? I hope not, but that is for you to decide. I have tried to disclose as much about my methodology as possible."[22] who also blogged on Daily Kos and Silver describes his ideological orientation as one of "rational progressivism": Rational progressivism? for crying out loud, just call yourself a flaming Liberal

I'll take that bet just for the hell of it. I am not sure whether the final bill that is passed will include the "public option" or the "co-op" option. Let's bet that it won't include either. All people really want is an option that will be lower than private insurance and make them compete. I don't care at all whether it is a public option or a co-op as long as it creates an option that is noticably less than private insurance. And why don't you try refuting the substance or specifics of the article instead of just saying it's bull. Nate Silver is highly regarded and knows his stuff. Please tell me what you don't agree with in what he actually said, and why.

Give it to me straight Bufforange or anyone else. I'm in a half a point per reception leaugue, with standard scoring. Qb RB RB WR WR Flex TE DEF Kicker Tom Brady David Garrard Michael Turner Pierre Thiomas Felix Jones Lesean McCoy Jerious Norwood Michael Bush Greg Jennings Eddie Royal Domenick Hixon Nate Washington Troy Williamson Antonio Gates Giants Defense Nick Folk I'm also in another draft monday night and would love a few strategy ideas. I'm drafting from the 9 spot in a 12 team PPR league. I'm honestly thinking about going WR with both of my first picks. I would love to land a combo of two guys like C. Johnson, A. Johnson, Moss, or Fitzgerald. Coming back in the third I'd be hoping for Kevin Smith, Ronnie Brown, or Addai. In the fourth I would take best player available regardless of position.

Well.... I'll summarize 1) you have a coaching staff, from top to bottom, that is totally clueless. 2) you have a coach that is spineless and devoid of any competitive spirit. 3) you have a roster full of pussies. Think of it in these terms... axe yourself this question... how does today's D personnel compare to the one of 5 years ago? Pat Williams Sam Adams Lawyer Milloy Troy Vincent Nate Clements TKO London And... another illustration... except for Rhodes (who is the Bills best RB), none of them are very instictive, hit the hole quickly, nor can they make defenders miss. Travis Henry was the last good back the Bills had. Ain't no back on the Bills that's gonna gain 1400 yds + a season. Evans is the best player on the team but a lot of fans on this board say he isn't a #1 wr. Well, OK... trade him to the Chargers, Colts, Cowboys, Steelers or Pats and we'll see what you think then.

Sammy Morris debunked the Nate Odoms curse. Sammy has been awesome since leaving the Bills. But all -in -all, most former Bills have been terrible /injured.

Here's my team: QB: Peyton Manning, David Garrard RB: Michael Turner, Reggie Bush, Jamal Lewis, Fred Jackson, Chester Taylor WR: Calvin Johnson, Santana Moss, Lance Moore, Nate Burleson TE: Jason Witten, Visanthe Shiancoe K: Mason Crosby, Nate Kaeding IDPs: Terrence McGee, Lawrence Timmons, Chris Hope, James Laurinaitis, Tramon Williams It's a 12 team league. Here's the lineup: QB RB WR TE WR/TE WR/RB WR/RB K IDP IDP IDP Not too shabby for a default team. Even though I run this league, I missed the online draft and had to rely on my default settings.

http://www.nfl.com/preseason/story?id=0900...mp;confirm=true It has struck again.... Bills FA need to know their history before they go their separate ways with this franchise... it doesn't pay.... (see also: Sam Cowart) Name the last former Bills player to leave for bigtime FA money that made it elsewhere?? I can only think of one: Pat Williams BTW - If you try to lob me Jim Leonard, Justin Bannan I will get ill...

I agree in sports like Baseball and Basketball coaching is ancillary to the talent you have (Even the best coaches in either sport can't take crap teams that much past their talent level) BUT in football the difference between the Lions and Steelers/any other great team isn't that big. The league is mostly made up of 8-8 teams who count on injury, in game luck, and unexpected production to make the playoffs or lead them to a terrible season. Now in football most teams are 8-8 talent level but if you hand off that 8-8 team to a DJ who is going to mismanage the clock, put in bad game plans, and not make long term adjustments through out the season than you are pretty much costing your self a game or two a year and you make going 7-9 and missing the playoffs a certainty. Also Head coaches have a huge hand in the draft process. So if we go with a DJ who is going to keep drafting DB's instead of front seven players than once again you aren't doing yourself any favors. I mean imagine that 2006 Bills team with Nagta and Mangold anchoring both lines (Nate, Fletcher, and Takeo were all still on that D along with Mcgee and Schobel) and JP was having his good year. You don't think with those players and better coaching we should have gone 10-6 and made the playoffs? I just think that a better coach with a much better support staff could have developed JP/Trent or used Bledsoe to get to the playoffs once or twice. Sure QB is important but if you have good coaching it makes it easier to get a better QB. There is a reason Gibbs as other posters have mentioned won 3 SB's with 3 QB's why Parcells took Simms (A above average QB) to two super bowls and took Bledsoe to another and had Tony Romo (Who developed because Parcells brought in guys like Bledsoe and Testaverde to mentor him and Parcells had him on the bench for over 3 seasons) develop into a pretty good QB. In addition to Gibbs and Parcells There are a lot of coaches who are HOF caliber that develop multiple QB's over their careers. Holmgren developed Favre and Hasselbeck. Cower took Rothelisberger and Niel O'Donnal to Super Bowls and had good runs with Kordell Stewart. Gruden revived both Rich Gannon and Brad Jhonsons careers. Bill Walsh had Young and Montanna. So to say great QBs make coaching just isn't true. Like I said the coach is so important because any edge you can get in the NFL is huge and not having that edge in God knows how long is breeding a culture of loosing No one is saying that bad lines and bad QB play don't also lead to that but it starts with coaching. If we had drafted differently and developed players better maybe we get better line play and that would lead to better QB play.

Its an interesting conversation to have. In 2006 the team was a mismosh of left overs from the TD era and the early stages of the Marv 2 era. The D was a pretty good bunch I would say about average (Takeo, London, and Schobel in top form as well as Nate, Whitner and Mcgee in the secondary but no DT quality play). The O had Mcgahee, Evans, and Losman but not a good o-line or secondary targets so it was a subpar but not terrible bunch. For the 06 season I would say 7-9 was about right (Maybe we should have been 8-8 but about was the key word). For the 07 season we had a team that wasn't good and I would say 7-9 was an over achieving season. In that year we cleaned house on the TD era and installed Marv/Russ players. The problem was too many players left (Nate, Takeo, London, and Mcgahee all left) and not enough were brought in to replace them (Lynch, Dockery, and Poz). On top of that we were ravaged by injury In 07 we lost Losman (Who at the time was coming off of a promising season) we also lost Poz and a bunch of defensive players. Now to DJ's credit we played hard and considering the circumstances we did well going 7-9 (With that Dallas game being the one that got away ) Now so far DJ isn't doing too bad. 06 about right at expectations and in 07 above expectations. But 08 is where you loose me. The team added Stroud, Poz off of injury, McKelvin, and Michell. You had Edwards entrenched as a starter and a 5-1 start. The team on paper was a 8-8/9-7 team but those expectations changed with the 5-1 start. DJ blew the Cleveland game and the Jets game right there we go 9-7 which even with the 5-1 start isn't terrible (Not good either but understandable due to the harder schedule) Last year 7-9 was a terrible outing for Jauron and he should have been fired. To me retaining DJ is retaining a culture of losing. The best argument of keeping DJ was well there wasn't anyone out there with a big name to replace them (Rex Ryan and Steve Spagnolo and a bunch of other coordinators). While next year there are going to be more names available but you loose me with the fact that Ralph is likely to not spend big money on a coach. if he fires Jauron we are likely going to go with a no name coordinator as the new coach.

McGee is way underrated at CB. I'll take T McGee over Nate Clement's overrated ass anyday.

Sorry if this has been posted before, oh fellow Wallers, but I had never heard of it before. I was flipping through one of my fantasy football magazine and they rank the starting CBs in terms of how many times they were targeted, how many TDs they gave up and their percentage of being burned with one-on-one coverage in 2008. Here are the worst starting CBs according to Sports Illustrated (in terms of percentage of being burned, starting with the worst) 1. Ronde Barber (Bucs): 94 times targeted, gave up 8 TDs (8.5% burned) 2. Rashean Mathis (Jags): 64 times targeted, gave up 5 TDs (7.8% burned) 3. Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie (Cards): 92 times targeted, gave up 7 TDs (7.6% burned) 4. Nate Clements (49ers): 100 times targeted, gave up 7 TDs (7.0% burned) 5. Anthony Henry (Lions): 89 times targeted, gave up 6 TDs (6.7% burned) Here are the best starting CBs (starting with the best) 1. Cortland Finnegan (Titans): 91 times targeted, gave up 0 TDs (0% burned) 2. Brandon Flowers (Chiefs): 86 times targeted, gave up 0 TDs (0% burned) 3. Sheldon Brown (Eagles): 68 times targeted, gave up 0 TDs (0% burned) 4. Nnamdi Asomugha (Raiders): 35 times targeted, gave up 0 TDs (0% burned) 5. Terrence McGee (Bills): 108 times targeted, gave up 1 TD (0.9% burned) Pretty interesting stuff, just call him McLockdown. What amazed me was that McGee was targeted A LOT last season and really held up his own. Considering that McKelvin has another year under his belt and has looked like a phenom in preseason so far (not to mention the insane amount of depth we have in the secondary), I really think teams are going to have fits throwing against us this year. If Schobel and Maybin can show up and give us solid pressures (not even sacks, just good consistent pressure around the edge that forces QBs to rush throws) we should have ourselves a handful of INTs this season.

His Dad was a lineman for Penn State 1976-79 and Jonathan's brother (Nate Stupar) is a currently a LB for Penn State.

You're wide receivers are bleaker than Wooderson's SAT score. I'd much rather have Brandon Jacobs and Steve Slaton running wild, and Peyton Manning throwing to Roy E. Williams, Desean Jackson and Santana Moss. Not to mention have Olsen, Boss AND Sheffler, followed by Nate Kaeding and Dallas's D... That's just me, though. -Rick