OGTEleven

I agree. It's a rule. It's like that in the crease thing they had a few years back. They always took back a goal when there was a guy in the crease. It wasn't always a good thing but they always called it.

Like many others, I have never met Paul but feel enriched for having known him anyway. I feel grateful to him for his work on behalf of our country and was always intrigued with his perspective and his wit. I will try to take little things I've learned from him with me. Rest in Peace Paul. Tom, Thanks for letting us know in such an eloquent way. And thanks to those who have posted in this thread so lovingly.

How can you kill somebody in cold blood because of pressure on you?

6 out of 8 ain't bad.

I am neither a Sox fan nor a Mets fan but it almost criminal that they made Gary Carter's bloop piece of crap hit look like an actual line drive.

Excellent 3000 word dissertation on why two players are better than one. Of course it completely and utterly misses the point of my posts throughout this entire thread. My entire point is that King's work is shoddy. He strongly asserts that Whitner would be there at 15. He weakly backs it up. I have no comment on player vs player. I don't know enough about any of the players to make this commentary so I won't. You feel strongly that you know enough about these players to write long posts regarding their respective value. Good for you. Maybe you'll be a GM someday. P.S. (and off topic) Five years letr TD and his wonderful philosophy got us exactly stojan.

Obviously the Bills assessed the risk % as a higher one than King did. The Bills have a large staff that does this for a living. King is one person who mostly writes for a living and does some (clearly shoddy) research to back up his work. All the what ifs are related to the risk, which is consistent. Some information had Cleveland taking Ngata. If they did, Baltimore wouldn't have, right? Not the Rams. He discounted them because they eventually traded their pick to Denver. If the Bills had traded their pick to Denver St. Louis could have taken Ngata, Whitner or traded with miami (or possibly the Bills). I feel King made the risk(s) out to be linear, but they were more complex than that. He doesn't have to detail all of his analysis, but he ought to take more factors into account. Maybe it's just more fun (or easier) to come to a conclusion and then find facts to back you up. He acknowledged the risk, but downplayed it. No. you were fixated on accusing me of comparing players for about 10 posts. I never intended to compare players.

He clearly implies Whitner would be there at 15. He clearly ignores St. Louis, Detroit and Cleveland (Ngata). If the Bills had strong evidence that St. Louis would have taken Whitner should they have ignored it because it wasn't Baltimore or Arizona? He clearly ignores that there were 6 teams "drafting in the area" (9,10,11,12,13,14) and replies on the intelligence of two teams to cover all 6's intentions. Is it possible/likely that team A had team B fooled? His work is shoddy. He also ignores the trade up possibility entirely. If you choose to accept these low standards that's fine. I choose not to do so. He did not stand up and shout "I can prove Whitner would be there at 15" but he did everything else. His implication was very clear. His facts backing it up were sparse. When you said: I thought you basically agreed with me but assumed a lower risk than I assumed. Fair enough. Now you seem to be saying that King properly acknowledged the risk which is not so. I guess I should be happy that I got you out of Bunckleyville in only 34 posts.

You left this out: He certainly infers that no other lower team would trade up or at least ignores the possibility. He deems his information as of higher value than Marv's and Jauron's. You said yourself: How do you start with "high proabability" and get to "feelings and chance" in the very next post?

1. No. It does not have to be viewed as a value judgement. I did not offer an opinion as to whether the Bills should have traded down or not. I never intended to discuss a trade at all. How many times should I write this before you understand? 2. King suggested this and did not back it up with a logical set of facts. He used facts which supported his point and ignored facts which contrasted his point. 3. I did not pass judgement on a possible trade or lack thereof. I passed judgement on King's passing off speculation as fact. If you choose to speculate on "value" fine. That has nothing to do with my post. You can claim it does all you want but you are 100% wrong.

My post was about King and his lack of logic. It was not about Scraps, Marv, Whitner or Bunckley. I was not fixated on Whitner; rather I was fixated on logic. It was about King. He stated as fact (or very close to fact) something that was opinion (his opinion). He conveniently left out information which would counter his opinion in order to make it look like fact. That is poor use of logic. He then extrapolated about football based on his illogical foundation. Why should anyone give credence to his extrapolation? My post was intended to point out his lack of logic. It could have been about gum drops or planets or automatic transmissions. It happened to be about football. If you continue to read that as a value judgement of Whitner, Bunckley, Levy, Ralph, or Danny Gare, have at it.

My first post (yet again): I mentioned exactly nothing about player vs. player, only Whitner's likliehood of being at 15. Your initial reply: Who went down the what if path?

You are correct in your assertion that I should not have engaged in your ridiculous what if campaign. I don't know enough about Bunckley, Whitner or anyone else to do that. I will no longer try to make any point in this regard. You stated: You correctly point out what King said. What he said is plainly and simply wrong. If you choose to not see that, in an effort to be obnoxious, that is your choice. When I said: I did not imply anything about what the Bills could would or should do with the pick in the event Whitner was gone. I simply stated it was possible he would be gone.

My original post: Where in that post do I make a value judgement vis a vis Whitner's worth against other players? I simply criticize King's lack of logic.

Was King's assertion logical or not?

And it seems as though no matter how someone answers your post, you'll say we could have taken "magical player x". My original point was simply a criticism of King's (lack of) logic. It had nothing to do with players whatsoever. It had nothing to do with the Bills selections whatsoever. You completely and utterly missed the point and started talking about players. I should have chosen not to engage that portion of your post since it was on an entirely different topic.

To make his assertion he would have had to look at all 32. Undoubtedly some could have been dismissed easily. My point is that there were a million scenarios. The Bills chose the lowest risk scenario. King improperly paints the Denver trade as an ultra low risk scenario. That's really my whole point. As for the players (a separate topic) , maybe the Bills braintrust (right or wrong) didn't think of Bunckley as the right "solution". You and Dawg paint rosy scenarios of "solving extra problems". These are certainly possible outcomes. Here's another: The fish and up with Whinter and we take the broken hip guy. Our extra pick craps out and Whitner punishes us for 12 years. How's that one sound?

My post simply questioned King's assertion that Whitner would be there. It made no value judgement on Whitner whatsoever. It was in plain english. With that said, you and King seem to be playing a zero sum game with your analysis. Let's say the fish hopped us into 14 and picked Whitner. Let's say for whatever reason we really disliked Bunckley. What do you do then? Take a safety with a bad hip like miami? Take a tackle like Justice that subsequently slipped another 20 or so picks? The point is that the Bills targeted the players they liked at their need positions and then went and got them. Time will prove them right or wrong. Your ad nauseum theory that taking "good player a" and "good player b" will inevitably be proven right in your eyes because there are bound to be two good players that were picked between 15 and 32. Then you can play "see I told you so" assuming the Bills should have taken those two particular players.

Who's to say that a team that could not afford to trade up to #7 or higher, but wanted Whitner, might not have been anxious to trade up to #13 or 14? If he is to put 95% odds on Whitner being there at 15, he would have had to know the desires of 32 teams, not just 6 or 7.

8MM

3, 4, 5, or 6 more games like that? Better keep the ER open late in Buffalo and Ott. I don't think I can take that.

Except for Fusaichi Pegasus

Sometimes in the Derby the longshots are actually high quality horses that have just been pointed correctly. Unbridled and Alysheba come to mind. They weren't super long but they fit the Derby real well. Sometimes the prep winners have no business going a mile and a quarter and end up 4-1. See Mr. Frisky. That's why i like AP Warrior a bit. His style was a bad fit in the SA Derby but will likely be a good fit tomorrow. I will buy the notion that closers need some racing luck. That is always true in the Derby (Sea Hero is a good example).

Here's what I have: In my top tier I'm going to play (in order of preference) AP Warrior, Brother Derek, Deputy Glitters My second tier (also in order) is: Steppenwolfer, Bob and John, Point Determined, Sweetnorthernsaint, Private Vow, Storm Treasure, Cause to Believe The Derby is all about value which is why I have Deputy Glitters in my top tier. He will certainly be about 50-1 and he is underrated. He could run dead last but is a value for 50-1 if he runs his race. I'll use all of the horses in my top tier. From my second tier I will only bet the horses (in exotics) that I think present a value after seeing the odds. I put them in sequence of which I think will show the best value. I'll only use a few of them in actual bets. The year Monarchos won I hit the exacta by using Invisible Ink second. He was an outsider with potential and he ran his best race. He was 50-1. The exacta paid big ($1200). You can't cover all the angles, so you might as well cover a few high paying ones. Good luck all.

I purposely do not study too much before the Racing Form for the Derby comes out. This way I don't fall in love with a horse and chase him. With that said, I always at least see some things before I read the form. My pre-form analysis is: I agree with whoever said sometimes a horse gets loose in a race packed with speed but I'm going to take my chances with that. I think Brother Derek has a ton of quality I'm not yet sold on Bob and John or Barbaro but that could change I like what I've read about AP Warrior If you're looking for a real bomber don't give up on Deputy Glitters.