MRW

Please, if you're going to ignore the guy, ignore him. I don't know why you thought this was a worthwhile post to make.

Can't say I care about Eric King one way or the other, but dude, get over yourself.

Yeah, I'm looking forward to the thread you'll start after every game criticizing him regardless of how he plays and decrying how everyone's sizing him for a bust in Canton despite the complete lack of any posts close to that. You're a brave contrarian.

Good post. This is phase 1 of the plan for utilizing Hardy. Now, he still has to hold up his end of the bargain when Evans/Royal and co. get neutralized, but if he can show good route running and hands then it will make it difficult on opposing defenses.

Your method of assigning value is not less arbitrary than the draft value chart, and in fact if you want to examine "draft equity" the value chart at least comes closer to capturing how teams actually value picks. So while the values assigned to the picks don't follow any easily described pattern, they would provide a useful way to standardize the draft resources being put into picks.

I haven't heard much about James. It really wouldn't surprise me that much to see him cut - he doesn't have a track record with this coaching staff, unlike veterans McGee and Greer, and no draft resources were invested in him, unlike McKelvin and Corner... It seems to me he was brought in as a guy who is trying to rehabilitate his career, and if he doesn't impress the Bills can let him go without too much of a negative impact. If Youboty plays well in some more preseason games but not well enough to secure a starting spot I would expect the team to entertain trade offers for him. IMO he'd have to play well enough to unseat Greer to make the team opt to keep him vs. trading him. I fully expect that McGee, Greer, McKelvin, and Corner will be on the opening day roster. Then, if they want a fifth, whoever performs better out of Youboty/James.

The kind that happens to a star receiver in the NFL.

Well, I guess the question is, are you actually trying to convince anyone of anything, or do you just want to have a lot of numbers to throw at people to bludgeon them into submission? Because if it's the latter, then carry on as you're going. But if you're trying to build a case, you're the one making the claims and it's not anyone else's responsibility to come up with their own study. It's sufficient to show that you haven't proven anything. And who's saying they have a "superior approach"? All I've seen people saying is that your method is flawed.

I would take it a step further and say you need either an exceptional skill player (QB, but also a truly standout RB or even WR could put you over the edge into playoff territory - but I'm talking Jerry Rice/Barry Sanders level) or good line play. Out of those options improving your line play is the safer bet. Unfortunately I think the Bills are still paying the penalty for their penny-wise, pound-foolish DT decisions from 2001 onward. It's not as easy to find viable replacements for players like Ted Washington and Pat Williams as Tom Donahoe thought. Having said that, while I agree with AKC's general argument, I do think if you want to bring in numbers to back up your intuitive analysis, you need to do it right. Otherwise you're really not advancing your cause.

Let's not forget that Vinny Testaverde started several games last year. QBing around the league is in dire straits.

If the Bills can't beat a Dolphins team QBed by a player with the limitations of Pennington, they weren't going to sniff the playoffs anyway. So yeah, good pickup for Miami, but I don't see any particular reason to be worried about their roster moves.

I think he meant "sweepenated".

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing you or the other people claiming this have actually watched Jets games recently. Pennington is fine if the game is in hand - if he doesn't need to stray outside his comfort zone of 8 - 15 yard passes. But if the team falls behind and he needs to get them downfield in a hurry, he can't do it. When he first came into the league, while his arm wasn't strong, he could make the throws he needed to, but everything I've seen from him the last few years says his arm is shot. Lori's example of the INT he floated to McGee is a great one. I was really not worried going into the final drive of the Jets in that game because I knew he would serve up an opportunity like that.

But if Bill backs you up on that, won't he just be parroting your opinion?

OK Bill, but if that's the case why do you have such a problem with the Bills taking DBs? After all, they have Peters (hopefully) anchoring LT, Walker doing decent at RT, Dockery is solid at G, and you are very very impressed with Edwards at QB. So what really makes the Colts' situation different? And don't try to tell me their DBs have had no impact, does the name Bob Sanders ring a bell?

Sorry, but while your analysis may convince you I don't find it incredibly persuasive. There is far too much left out and I think your desired results are influencing what you decide to look at. It's simply not enough to look at the top teams and say they did X, therefore X led to their success. The bottom-feeders are relevant too, because if they do the same things as the top teams it pretty much shoots down the whole theory. For the record, I've been hoping the Bills would invest more resources in the OL and DL for a while now. But I think there are a lot of problems with how you're choosing to argue this if you want to set up a statistical analysis.

So how does that compare to NON-Super Bowl teams, or even non-playoff teams? Simply showing that the Super Bowl teams have spent their draft picks differently in a couple of areas than the Bills doesn't really prove anything. I would think it would be more relevant to look at percentages spent on different positions in that timeframe for each team in the league and compare that with the team's record. If it plays out as you expect then the teams that invest more resources in OL/DL should have better records. But as it is, I think your comparison is incomplete.

I'm not seeing the connection here... even if the Bills were to move, the team would still need players under contract. So unless you think the team is just going to close up shop after 2012, this really means nothing.

I've never heard of him! Let's get him!

But isn't that directly relevant to the argument you're making here? It's not an argument for Trent's arm strength if he completes a 45 yard pass of which 40 yards were YAC. Let's not move the goalposts.

So... you don't like Evans because JP Losman locked in on him? That's, well, interesting. What on earth does this have to do with Evans wearing the same number as Andre Reed?

I think it says a lot about Talley that he would defend Norwood. I don't think Norwood merits a spot on the WoF but good for Talley.

I don't believe that is legal, and I was livid at the time. Still though, it was very smart on Buckley's part since he got away with it.

I'd pull the trigger on that deal in a heartbeat.

But if the players we've picked up aren't actually any good, why would you want this administration to compound their errors by throwing high picks at the position too? It seems to me that the Bills historically have had a knack for finding good players to draft in the secondary, and... not so good with the OL. To reverse your argument, simply picking a player in the first round doesn't mean he's going to be good (see: Williams, Mike). In my opinion the free agent OL they've brought in recently have been good pickups, and if the front office is better at evaluating veteran OL than college OL they should stick to their strengths.