Mikie2times

In all fairness Bills fans mocked Brown for about 3 years until we let him go. He had a reputation for living off his name and committing an obscene amount of penalties. If you cried over his loss a few years back you were probably one of the only ones that did. Williams was not brought back largely because of the harsh nature of a TD lead negotiation. We lost out and it sucks, but it sucks no more then promising Nate we won't franchise him. I guess I just don't see the need to bring TD up over this. A big reason many feel we have a bright future is from TD led signings. Hindsight has shown that he actually was a damn good assembler of talent. His downfall was not finding the right coach to put it together and not upgrading the line. Sprinkle in a little Drew Bledsoe and you have enough to show why the talent never produced in the win column.

I bet you pull chicks three times as hot as this one huh? Damn I envy you.

I love Marv, Jauron, and the direction this team is going. But I agree that Marv seems pretty infallible around here. This was no doubt a horribly weak cop out to get Nate in on time last year. I just really wish Marv would have understood that in a contract year no F'n way Nate would not show up, or do his very best.

My German Shepherds smarter then you

Exactly. This is the way I look at it. If you take everybody in the world and randomly select athletes no country will have better athletes over the long term. That's not say the Theory of Evolution doesn't play into some regions, and how they relate to certain skills, but the very best athletes from all nations are developed. Americans don't excel in the team sports because the lack of training they receive for international play with each other. When it comes to individual sports, which actually is a better indication of individual athleticism we dominate.

Blue on Blue? More like Smurf Fugger

Don't most European countries have national teams dedicated to the Olympics, or at least athletes much more involved with the Olympics training then America? I also see some of our athletes receive less fundamental training then our European counterparts. For an example of both worlds look no further then the NBA. We bring our NBA players from every team, but they have no clue how work together. I've always felt the NBA champions (excluding foreign players) would field a more competitive team because they're a team. To make matters worse we have NBA players receiving less fundamental training in younger years. Most these guys develop individual skills on the streets and the best players rarely finish 4 years threw college. The best Europeans go threw intense fundamental training in a team atmosphere specifically designed for international play. These players start in the systems before they're 10, and from that time on they've trained for this moment. They might be inferior individually but this isn't a sport meant for individuals. That is unless it’s the NBA.

Okoye's mother never had a gestation period. He was born one week after conception with all the intangibles.

According to whom? No offense but you speak as if it's true. The evidence isn't exactly overwhelming when you consider Ngata looks like a franchise DT. If you try and argue a SS is more valuable then a DT of equal skill level you'll lose every time. I'm not interested in hearing the Cover 2 card either. If Whitner becomes half the player Bob Sanders is we should be thrilled. Even with that freak of nature the Colts still can't stop anybody on the ground, and it damn near cost them the Super Bowl once again.

This is a freaking message board. With the draft approaching this is relevant. Do you think it’s at all possible given the power of foresight we should have drafted Ngata? If even a part of you thinks that then it’s relevant that our GM did something almost no team does to bypass selecting him.

This was my draft strategy. http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...10&hl=ngata

My title might have seemed like a jab at Whitner. I actually like Whitner, I just don't like the decision to draft his position over others given all the variables. I believe the error was the same one TD committed when he selected a one kneed RB late first round a couple years back. Marv might hit a home run with Whitner, just as TD could have with Willis, but without truly knowing if he would or wouldn't it was a mistake to draft these guys at the slots we did. When you review the draft history you can position the pedigree of Whitner with other safeties. 4% means that in any given NFL season 1 safety will be playing that was drafted in the top ten over the last 17 years. It's true we have 4 playing right now, and the position is evolving, but these top ten selections are still very rare and of the highest pedigree. If Marv saw something that he really loved in Whitner then great, but at the least why wouldn't you trade down? At best why wouldn't you draft the number one DT prospect when it's clear your run defense is going to be a pathetic? There is a reason you see so few safeties drafted this high. The likelihood for bust is the same but the potential for impact is completely inferior to other positions that get drafted routinely in the top 10. It will be great to see this work out and see Whitner be elite, but it was a fundamental error in drafting picking him that high. A standout SS's impact would not equal that of a standout DT. If it did the proportions would become at least somewhat balanced.

That might have something to do with the scheme. Cover 2 is all about the pass, the Jerry Grey is all about the Blitz.

When did Bob Sanders get drafted?

I agree that the middle of the draft was solid as can be, and I'm happy Marv's leading this team. The reason I looked into this was the recent talk of round 1 being a success, and the passing of Ngata. I feel we past on Ngata because he wasn't the idle fit for this defense. Any other reason just wouldn't make sense from an attitude, need, or talent point of view. I really wanted him, and after watching him this year he reminds me of Sam Adams, but actually gave a crap. How is a quick mountain of a man not exactly what we so desperately needed? It's true we needed a safety and as I showed we went against every draft trend to get one. Even those trends established by the dozen or so teams that played the cover 2 the last 17 years (0 top ten picks). Was Whitner viewed as such an elite prospect out of college, or has he done anything this year to place him in such status? This is a category that only 4% of all NFL safeties entered the league in. The ones that have done so have had success, but since 96% of the rest of the safeties entered the league under other conditions the majority of elite pro bowl safeties have come from this group. To top it off not once in the last 17 years have any two safeties gone top ten the same year. So we really couldn't have traded down? I don't know ultimately how this decision will play out. A lot of that depends on how Whitner pans out, and how McCargo pan out. I just think the mistakes in philosophy at this point are clear. That if these mistakes continue we eventually won't have 3 or 4 solid day two picks to make up for it. Marv needs to play game, or he and the Bills will get played.

His parents did the Nigerian Nasty 19 years ago.

It bothers me that so many people talk about how great our draft was, and use Whitner in the argument. You can argue for a lot of players making this a good draft, but Whitner is not one of them (at least for now). Since 1990 170 players have been selected in the top ten picks of the NFL draft. Of the 170 players 7 played either safety position in college. That’s 4.1% of all the top ten picks in the last 17 years. The list includes Mark Carrier, Troy Vincent, Roy Williams, Eric Turner, Sean Taylor, and this years additions in Michael Huff and Whitner. The first four guys on the list have played in a combined 13 pro bowls, and not a single one of them had less then two pro bowl appearances. Taylor looks like he should certainly add to that list if he keeps his head on straight. The point is not that Daunte Whitner can’t become one of these guys. It’s that drafting a safety this early is VERY rare, and in the cases teams did it they found pro bowl caliber players for at least a few seasons. It seems like the barometer for Whitner is if he’s a good player he was a good pick. If I drafted a good kicker in round 1 would it be a good pick if that kicker wasn’t great? Whitner is not a good pick until he shows he can play at a pro bowl level. I’ll give him time to do that, but just by making this decision Marv got himself in an uphill battle.

Just under the part that talks about Steinbach it mentions the Bills also having interest in Dielman. Given his style I would probably rather have Dielman. Steinbach seems to be the fan favorite and would be just fine, but Dielman is the better run blocker of the two. Since Peters shapes up to be better in the passing game I want a LG whose better in the run game.

I don't have a ton of game viewing experience on Myers but his Bio's make him look like a possible fit for us. He's been a starter everywhere he played and Denver's run defense improved dramatically when he came on (Denver also brought other DL help that year). He's not a long term solution at DT, but might be a solid pick up that buys McCargo, Williams and any 2007 draft pick developmental time. He also seems to be the type of affordable signing we've come to expect from the Bills. Thoughts? http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.php?id=4...;contentID=4194 4. Michael Myers, DL, Alabama 4th Round (100 overall) 6-2½, 285, 5.11 Bio: Came to Alabama from Hinds Community College (Miss.) in 1996 and started from Game Two on. Was a two-time junior-college All-American and an All-Southeastern Conference performer at Alabama in '96, when he also garnered first-team All-America honors from The Sporting News. Ended the '96 season with 62 tackles and a team-high 13 tackles for loss and eight sacks. Had five tackles and half a sack in the '97 opener vs. Houston and then was kicked off the football team because of his involvement with an agent. Myers allegedly accepted hotel expenses from one agent and money from another and then allegedly did not come clean when initially asked about the charges. Was invited to the Senior Bowl after the Alabama coaching staff gave Senior Bowl officials their blessings for the move. Positives: Good athlete. Runs well. Exceptionally quick. Fine quickness off the mark. Can get into gaps quickly. Penetrates. Can be very disruptive to an offense. Will generally beat one blocker with his initial move. Can make the big play. Was helped by the Alabama coaches, who recommended that the Senior Bowl allow him to play in their game after the '97 season to give him another game under his belt. Negatives: Played in only one game in '97 and played just a little over a year of major-college ball. Undersized. Short for end and small for tackle. Plays better inside than out on the edge but is light for a tackle. Can't anchor that well. Will struggle at times if he does not beat the blocker with his initial move. Has a tendency to play too upright at times. Had inconsistent production in '96 and really struggled against some big linemen at times. Also seemed to wear down when the opposition kept putting big bodies on him. May not be that smart and instinctive on the field and has shown some poor judgment off the field. Did not work out that well at the scouting combine. Summary: The type of player who can be effective in the right type of defense if used correctly but would be a big mistake for teams that would ask him to play head up on the tackle and to guard two gaps. Needs to be used a lot like the Vikings use John Randle and the Buccaneers use Warren Sapp to realize his potential.

Good post. This is a horrible story. I've heard others like it, and it's infuriating. Basically this kid now doesn't get his degree, will register as a sex offender, and have to list this on employment applications. Good luck getting an interview to even explain what actually happened. I hope he has the strength to finish school, otherwise I see it as a life ruined. Here is a stipulation I would like to see. Minimum age somebody can have consensual sex acts, while keeping in mind that this area is best left to parenting not prison. From that standard you could set up age specific boundaries protecting the youngest people. The desire for sex at that age grows by leaps and bounds each year and so does the maturity of what is and isn't appropriate. When the age discrepancies clearly show a deviant behavior then the law should get involved. Otherwise it's just not worth it, because the timing is so detrimental. A long jail sentence between 16-23 will literally kill your chance of being a productive citizen.

While I was arguing against players deserving it, the real answer is probably they both deserve it. Some of the early greats like Red Grange, or Bronco Nagurski really had to be sold on Pro Football. Mergers had to made between the NFL, AAFC, and AFL. Lot's of things could have started trouble for this sport, and I like to think the quality of the men behind it has something to do with its popularity now. At the same time the great players over the years have certainly peeked Pro Footballs interest. Hell it could even be argued without Jim Thorpe or Red Grange Pro Football would have folded. So I guess they both deserve it, and both are entitled to fight over it like the rest of us.

If my points were scattered so be it, but you still haven't shown why they deserve more money in the context of how this league came to be. Every point you've made ignores why players are even in this position in the first place. The Buffalo Bills and just about every other team in football have an original owner behind them. The players wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for these men. Most of these owners risked a substantial amount on an unpopular sport while the players shared none of the burden. The players only became irreplaceable because the original owners did such a damn fine job making the NFL as popular as it is today. The reward of creating the most popular sport in this country is empowered players, who now have enough popularity to holed teams and the league hostage. Maybe that was the guaranteed end result of creating such a popular sport, but no way can you sit here and argue the players deserve it.

They fight for what they get as any of us would do, but they don't deserve this anymore then you or I deserve a raise. Sure players undergo physical risks, and they have extremely demanding professions. If it was a normal business model they would be entitled to benefits to cover these issues, not completely disproportionate incomes compared to the CEO’s and higher ups in the company/team. Without the dozens of original NFL and AFL owners who took huge risks this league would be nothing. A company can't survive without the people who make the product/are the product, but at the same time the CEO/owner is the one who's developed the idea, or believed in what nobody else did. In real world he would be the one making the disproportionate salary, and if employees had a beef they would be let go without a thought. If the company did incredibly well like the NFL has they'll probably get a raise, but in the real world most that money is going back into the pockets of the men who took the risks to begin with. Players get what they get because the media, and fans. If some local newspaper strikes people don't care. If a professional sports league strikes it's talked about all day, and if it's the NFL it's 24/7. If people didn't attach themselves to players so much they would just be another employee who could be replaced. Just another person working for a company, making the same disproportionate salary most people make compared to the higher ups.

I can list dozens of guys who survived in this league late, or slipped threw the cracks because they're system QB's. Obviously what Peyton can do is very rare. As you pointed out in your first post when you have a guy as good as Peyton the entire offense is built around his talent. That's a big part of the reason why we never see these super QB's win the big game. Too much is on one guy, and with an entire offensive predicated one guy a bad playoff game is all it takes. The system QB does usually receive the benefit of more balance, but the style offensive play flat out makes a difference. Turnovers are the single most important aspect in the NFL. Threw out history in the playoffs you'll find system QB's not committing turnovers, while non systems QB's do. You'll find examples of great gunslingers not winning the Super Bowl for a decade. All of these guys aren't getting the benefit of a dominating defense, or outstanding run game. Manning might be more unique then Brady, but I'll take a great system QB over a great non system QB any day of the week. One gives you rings, and the other gives you fantasy points.

The sentence goes "We'll nip, we'll tuck, we'll go, we'll crunch, we'll Jew, we'll do it all.' And he nickeled and dimed 'em. The stereo type is Jewish people are usually frugal. I'm sure that's what his comment referred to. Poor attempt at trying to be witty for old Shadinglebury.