Scraps

Well duh! Yes he thought Whitner would be there at 15, otherwise he would not have a problem with Levy passing on the deal. He does not guarantee as fact that Whitner would be there at 15. Thats why he said If you have an opportunity to get Whitner alone, or you have an opportunity to trade down and get Whitner at a lower salary, plus get a potentially very good player in the second round, then I think the latter is the draft-day chance you've got to take. Oh, back to the what ifs, are we? What's with Cleveland and Ngata? When he said But my information from two teams drafting in that area was that the only team extremely interested in Whitner before the middle of the round was the Ravens. And the intelligence around the league said Baltimore would certainly take nose tackle Haloti Ngata if he were there. By saying the Ravens were the only team interested in Whitner before the middle of the round, didn't he address the Rams and Lions? What do you want? A 500 page thesis? He is a sports columnist replying to an email. Get some perspective. Its absurd to expect him to address every teams needs and every possible scenario you dream up in an on line column. He didn't ignore the other teams between 8-15. He said the only team interested in Whitner before the middle of the round was the Ravens. Did he really have to say that the Rams were not interested in Whitner, the Browns were not interested in Whitner, the Eagles were not interested in Whitner ...? Are you this anal when it comes to a column you agree with? Yeah, that is what we are quibbling over. The degree of risk. I believe Whitner would have been there at 15. King believes Whitner would have been there at 15. And when King said If you have an opportunity to get Whitner alone, or you have an opportunity to trade down and get Whitner at a lower salary, plus get a potentially very good player in the second round, then I think the latter is the draft-day chance you've got to take. I think he acknowledged risk. Why else would he use the word "chance"? So now your saying I was fixated on Bunkley?

I'm surprised we didn't trade up to get him.

I read what he wrote. He used the words "feeling" and "chance" I used his exact words to rebut your attempt to shove the word "fact" into his mouth.

But he does not talk about fact. Nor does he pass his speculation off as fact. When he says things like and he is not talking about fact. He is talking about "feelings" and "chance" and his opinion.

It has to be viewed as a value judgement. If trades were not viewed as a value judgement, nobody would ever trade down. King suggests that the Bills should have traded down because they could had a high probability of getting the same player, plus a couple of more picks. That is they would have gotten value. If you want to say the King has a flaw in his logic, fine. I think it is flawed to talk about possible trades, or a rational for not engaging in a trade, without discussing value.

I responded to a question where someone moved up to 13 or 14. Hence if I am to entertain that question, one assumption is that Philadelphia traded down. Of course for all those who claim that it was a mistake for Buffalo to trade down to 15 because someone might move ahead of the 15 position, nothing says that Buffalo could not have traded back to a higher slot, still have gotten Whitner and an extra pick.

I, and many others, thought that the likelihood of Whitner being there at 15 was pretty high. When you ask this question don't you open up the door? Isn't logical to look at who was selected at 13 and 14 to see who might be there at 15? If you want to fixate on Whitner, you are absolutely correct. The Bills absolutely had to draft Whitner at 8 because if they moved down so much as one slot, he might have been taken. To me, it comes down to maximizing value, and I don't believe Marv did that.

It is not that I choose not to see your point. I acknowledge your point. Many other people, including Dawgg I believe, have acknowledged that someone could have then moved up ahead of 15 and taken Whitner. Obviously you assume risk in trading down, but if you want to maximize the value you get out of the draft, you have to assume some measure of risk. I'm not convinced the risk was terribly high and even if Whitner was gone, I think the Bills could have found something at 15, as this team has so many holes, or perhaps could have traded down again. As for whether or not it there was an effort on my part to be obnoxious, there was not. At least there wasn't before you went down the "what if" path, a game I find to be quite obnoxious.

You asked this question To which I responded that maybe Bunkley falls to 15. Not a bad assumption given that he was taken at 14. From there on you engaged in a "what if" campaign. What if the Bills didn't like Bunkley. What if the Bills drafted a lame horse and Whitner punished us for a decade. What if ... What if ... What if ... The path you were going down was pretty clear.

I thought he addressed the players and the logic here In this case, my feeling is you have to know the draft and you have to know the teams around you. If you have a strong feeling a team below you is going to take the player you love, then obviously you can't make that trade. If Levy and coach Dick Jauron had solid evidence Whitner might go to Arizona at No. 10 or Baltimore at No. 12, then obviously the Bills had to sit where they were and just take the guy. But my information from two teams drafting in that area was that the only team extremely interested in Whitner before the middle of the round was the Ravens. And the intelligence around the league said Baltimore would certainly take nose tackle Haloti Ngata if he were there.

Like I said, you will paint the picture until Whitner was the only player in the draft worth taking after the 7th pick. Thanks for not letting me down.

It seems that no matter how anyone answers your question, you will come back with a "but what if we disliked <fill in the blank here>" type of question until the obvious answer is the Whitner was the only player in the draft worth taking after the 7th pick.

Timeline? What timeline? If the Bills sought immediate improvement, that comes through free agency. Didn't get much help there. Trading down in this years draft from 8 to 15 or not trading down isn't going to change the fact that this team is seriously weak on both lines and is looking at a 3-13 season. Future years might have looked better if they'd picked up more young talent in this draft however.

Well you can pretty much discount anyone who is set at SS moving up, so I don't think you have to worry about all 32 teams. But maybe what you say happens, and then maybe Bunkley falls to us at 15 and the DT problem is solved. This team has so many holes or question marks that it almost doesn't matter what postion they would have picked at 15. Something would have been addressed and they would have had more picks to address other problem areas. I think Whitner was a bit of a reach where he was picked.

Because it goes without saying the Bills were interested in Whitner since they drafted him. All he was saying was that had the Bills traded down to 15, the only team they had to be concerned with was Baltimore.

He really deserves to be a Darwin Award winner.

Maybe, but I didn't care as much how ridiculous her character was, or the rest of the show for that matter, since she is so hot. That's one of the reasons why this season is so bad. The storyline is absurd and there hasn't been enough Elisha bouncing around on the screen to take my mind off the storyline.

I didn't care for the first few episodes of Lost. The show is an acquired taste that sucks you in with character development. 24 got me hooked from the very first show. As soon as you finished 1 hour, you want to see the next. That said, the show has gone down hill is successive seasons and has pretty well jumped the shark. Neither show is remotely plausible and require you to suspend disbelief.

You would think that Karen Hayes and Bill Buchanon would want to hear the recording before talking to the AG. Wouldn't that be the very first thing they'd want to do when Jack got back to CTU?

Because then it would be called 23.

I'm a bit surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet but the original Brian's Song is depressing.

I've said perhaps I missed something. Why don't you answer your own question hypocrite?

No Ken. I am absolutely confident that this thread was originally about Iran. It is titled "More from Iran. Any thoughts? " I don't think it was particuarly stupid at all. I stated that I did not find the portions of Resolution 181 which forced the Palestinians out. Since then I've asked the following question perhaps a dozen times now "What part or resolution 181 did that?" Now you could answer the question. You could say you never read the resolution, and expose yourself as a lazy slug. Or you could read the resolution and answer the question. Or you could be a hypocrite, avoid the question and jump up and down and insult people. So far you've chosen the latter. Is it any wonder you weren't elected President?

Well this thread was originally about Iran. It migrated to a related topic of Israel since Israel affects many policies in the ME. I responded to a question about UN resolution 181. This thread definintely was not originally about me. Apparently you did since I've asked the same question at least 4 times now and you haven't answered. For your review oh hypocritical one Actually I understood it just fine. That why I used it when I asked "What part or resolution 181 did that?" I even went on to explain that perhaps I missed something in the resolution. Hence the question "What part or resolution 181 did that?" Something you failed to comprehend. Now tell me "What part or resolution 181 did that?" This is getting beyond embarassing for you. Here's a couple of more you dodged What does that question have to do with my understanding of Chicot's answer? Are you implying that I believe that "Jews are bad"?

Actually I understood it just fine. That why I used it when I asked "What part or resolution 181 did that?" I even went on to explain that perhaps I missed something in the resolution. Hence the question "What part or resolution 181 did that?" Something you failed to comprehend. Now tell me "What part or resolution 181 did that?" What does that question have to do with my understanding of Chicot's answer? Are you implying that I believe that "Jews are bad"? Riiiiiight. So you deflect things to make it about me. Oh the hyprocrisy.