Pyrite Gal

I also doubt the Bills will leave Buffalo to go to Toronto because it appears to me the NFL will make far more money (the ultimate determiner on these things) by setting up a new franchise in Toronto AND also retaining the not insubstantial 49,000+ season ticket base and the 40 years of advertising in this regional market which has made the Buffalo franchise worth well over half a billion $. Folks seem to want to argue only on the likely possibility that a Bills franchise can make more $/year in a larger market while simply discounting the fact that the Bills franchise has built a considerable asset here which would simply have to be rebuilt in a new region. Obviously this rebuilding was not impossible to do with St. Louis and MO proving willing to pay a king's ransom for the Rams and Balt being will to pay a ton for the Browns. However, that was then and this is now. Two of the big things which are different is that the NFL is far more a partnership these days (with the NFLPA taking the majority of the total take of this partnership each year) than it was not too long ago when it was more of a collection of individual capitalists. The brake that the collaborative will put on team movement and the lack of effectiveness of an individual to drive such a movement of a team will make it far more difficult for a team to move. As far as the calculus for Toronto. The seeming huge interest in seeing an NFL team in Toronto bodes quite well for the NFL being able to pull off the same trick as the lowly NHL of having two thriving franchises in Buffalo and Toronto. Why on earth would the NFL approve moving the Bills to Toronto when they can make far more money having franchises in both places. I doubt they will walk away from the $.

I think you are right on target rather than crazy. Some of Clayton's remarks are over the top stupid (his senseless repeated droning that Ralph is motivated by disappointment over the Norwood kick). However, some of the points he makes are right on target and anyone who ignores them ignores realty (for example expecting other teams to subsidize the Bills for an amount which does not maximize Bills profits by selling the naming rights. I like the fact that the stadium is not a corporate billboard but Ralph's whining about how unfair the CBA is to the Bills is reduced to whining by the Bills not maximizing profits by selling naming rights). Just because Clayton is wrong does not mean Ralph is right.

My sense of the reality of things was that there were relatively few plays which saw Fowler getting knocked back into the QB, the problem was that there were also few plays where he dominated and pancaked the opposing DT. The simple facts are that the Bills gave up relatively few sacks last year and thanks to the quick release by Edwards and the mobility and athleticism of JP the pass rush was not the critical issue for the Bills. The critical issue was that we got little positive push from the OL, particularly in short yardage situations. My sense is that as the tale gets told over and over again, the legit complaints about Fowler as not being as big a positive as we want and need is morphing into a complaint that he is a negative. My sense is that the real world problem is not that Fowler is bad, but that he simply is not good enough. I think it is the fantasy that he is a bad player which has folks entertaining the possibility that someone already cut by another team because he is not good enough to be their back-up is somehow gonna be an upgrade for us as a starter when there is zero objective evidence to indicate this is the case. IMHO Fowler ain't really bad as a center, the problem is that IMHO he ain't that good either.

Bledsoe actually as a Bill seemed to have no problem understanding reading the scheme which was out there, he had problems translating this into not only this feat of walking but also chewing gum at the same time of connecting this to the game situation. For example, on one play Bledsoe correctly read that an attempt by him to complete a pass on a particular play would be difficult and he simply heaved it out of bounds. He made the correct read of the play. Unfortunately, he ended up slapping himself on his helmet and seemingly saying DOH, as it turned out to be 4th down and by airmailing the ball the Bills turned it over on downs. Actually doing the mechanical task which would have been required by this cheating of quickly relaying information without thinking is right up his alley. In fact, if he had an alarm clock which allowed him to second guess the information he would have been worse at being a quick conduit.

Actually. Fowler's weight is listed at 310. It is a testimony to life in the era of advanced nutrition and steroids that he actually is considered to be a more mobile center than a bull rusher, but he is a pretty big boy.

Is he gay? Why shouldn't he be happy hanging out with his friends.

Thanks for the list and link, After the draft I see our needs unit by unit as: QB: After the past bruising QB controversies I think the media situation and the insecurity of some fans makes it useful for us to trade JP if we get a solid offer as Edwards will need a back-up QB with some previous pro success. Demographically JP is perfect for this role as he knows our O and they know him. Even better for those whose panties are all up in a wad over not wanting Edwards to face any pressure, JP is done for the most part as a reasonable candidate to start as he declared the Jax game make or break for him and he broke. However, I do not think the maturity is there for us to have JP around with a lot of wails and whining so if we get a good deal for him then I would say adios and as we then need a vet back-up only then would I consider one of these FA QBs if we did not get on in trade for JP. RB- Full house and no need for FAs here. OL- We are assured of our starting 5. The only concern is that though the Bills showed good pass protection and Lynch picked up a bunch of yards, though Fowler has the athleticism to pull nicely he is not a dominant C and th memory of Kent Hull has spoiled us to want one. There were no C candidates worth talking about in this draft (though almost certainly some surprise will emerge amd some will claim they said we should have taken him all along) and their appears to be no one in FA either. Lets hope that the Bills brain trust knows more than some observers about Fowler and also Preston's prospects. Still, Chambers was statistically OK in his game in relief of Peters but there appeared to be a drop-off in offensive line control with Peters gone, Also it is reasonable to be hopeful about Butler at G, but Whittle as back-up is questionable due to age. An FA for depth is probably a good idea, TE- Things are dubious enough with the talent here, us running an O which does not rely on the TE as a pass catcher and makes greater use of the H-Back seems more likely than some player will step up at TE. WR- The lack of any FA WRs is probably the biggest disappointment from me with the list. We are thin if Hardy disappoints or goes down to injury. DL- I like the rotation we have. LB- The talent is likely here as Michell needs to not miss a step with his change of teams. Crowell needs to at least repeat his current level of OLB if not continue to improve his game as he is not that old. Pos needs to build upon his impressive start leading the team in tackles, but he did prove to be easily faked into taking a step backwards on runs or a false step forward on pass plays. The great news is that he had the speed and instincts to quickly realize his error and he still would make a tackle (though he often looked like a poor man's London Fletcher making the initial hit well in our backfield. We have JD and Ellison as former starter who are back-ups on this team and this unit looks good, DBs- the draft of McKelvin make CB a strong suit for us know and at S, it appears Simpson is back and Wilson looked like a first year S starter out there but he easily has enough quality to be a back-up. The real deal for any of these FAs though is whether they can produce on ST.

No. I think there was another person or two that felt the same way that quickly, but I am pretty sure one of then is in Bellvue.

Specter as a member of the GOP is very dependent upon the majority party Dems to get a Senate hearing on this topic and apparently he has already been turned down. The Dems are already getting some grief for "merely" being the party of investigations rather than action because they see great political advantage and reasonable Constitutional arguments for investigating the Bush White House. Particularly after the MLB fisaco over Clemens and the House investigation, it is pretty doubtful that the Cheatriot situation will be subjected to Congressional inquiry and this is even before the Mass Senators and other Sens with Pats fans constituents weigh in against Senate hearings. Specter is now calling for an independent investigation such as the one the MLB did on use of steroids and my guess is that it will be difficult to stop this from happening.

I also liked your post as a dose of reality when looking at the CB situation, but I think folks are ignoring a couple of key things which may well be critical in how good (or not good) this team is. A. The key to understanding the Corner pick IMHO is likely not gonna be what he will contribute to this team as a CB this year (likely very little in '08 as I think he will be #5 on the CB depth chart at best). He may follow the Greer track and several years down the line becomes a consistent CB player. However, I think the key to why he was picked and likely why we picked him quite early in the 4th round will be ST. After being at the top of the NFL in various statistical ST rankings, 07 saw the Bills ST unit give up a few big returns which was unusual. Further, with the loss of ST stalwarts like Wire, Haggan and Stamer, this team will seriously be looking to reload its ST. Corner showed great intensity and competitiveness in college. He was on his track team and likely has the speed to be a gunner for us. Though not known as a run plugger (a major role for a CB in our Cover 2) he got some positive reviews in assessments I have seen of him having good tackling techniques. He clearly has great athletic ability since he rose up the charts as a CB despite his short stature. He got several plaudits for having a good football head and ability to recognize plays. His high INT totals are an indicator of good ball skills. My guess is that his major contributions to this team may well be as a gunner on the coverage units and potentially as a short return guy on the kickoff unit. B. Has Youbouty disappointed? Yep Is Youbouty a bust? Nope. The biggest problem I have with him is whether he will be injury free after he was inconsistent even being available last season. However, folks who simply want to discard him with some judgment about his ability as a player seem to want to ignore: 1. The death of his Mom leaving him as the oldest child in a family which also did not have a Dad meant that his first year was basically a lost cause. Yet, overall, it was a football positive for him as he proved to be good enough in practice he won a start against NYJ when we had injury issues that forced us to go deep on the depth chart at CB. He played a pivotal role in this game against the cagey but rag armed Chad Pennington. Did he impress overwhelmingly? No. he played in two other games and scored a few tackles but did not pick off the ball nor was he challenged much in pass coverate. Still the hope he would emerge as a starter in his second year was not a total fantasy to hope for. 2. he did not step up and take the job his second year when he had every chance to due to injury. Apparently he could not stay healthy enough to be seriously considered for the job. Nevertheless on the good side he did play the gunner role and made a couple of very nice tackles on ST. Stil, though these are real reasons they do not qualify as excuses. You either do the job or you do not and he did not do the job in 08. Still simply writing him off at this point seems way pre-mature. I would not count on Youbouty (the Bills certainly are not) but I would not also assume he will suck this year. 3. In general folks seem to focus on measuring whether a player worked out or not based on his performance as a position player. This is important and the lead measure of success for a player. However, simply because a player did not succeed at a high level as a position player does NOT mean he had a failed career or was a bust if he was a second day pick. It seems fairly obvious that Steve Tasker had a near HOF if not really an HOF career though he never made it as a consistent position player to look at the extreme case. However, one can work your way in to Mark Pike and even to Sam Aiken who was judged valuable enough to be extended by the Bills and then valuable enough to receive early off-season interest from other team. He sucked as a position player and still does but he had a very useful career for the Bills and for himself personally in terms of cash and even achievement as he was a key to the team being ranked #1 in ST for several years and now has jumped to a team which was 18-1 last year in what we hoped will be a failed attempt to get an SB ring. ST is critically important and while I expect that the first three picks were selected to make their primary contribution to the Bills with position play, all the rest are going to have the careers as Bills be judged good, bust or indifferent by their contribution to the ST performance. Starting with Corner who afterall was the SECOND CB selected by the Bills at a position where many of us felt we needed a back-up or developmental choice there at most, any judgment about Corner which does not even mention his ST role is relatively ignorable.

Albert was certainly a legit first round pick at G, but all the things I saw about him were completely aware of him having played relatively little football because he came to the game later than most. Insurance at tackle is the right way to classify him because he still needs to learn a bit before he masters pro techniques at G and even LT would be a question where in no way is he ready to start there. I saw no one talk about him as even a prospect for center and there is little indication that he would even play center this year, much less beat out Fowler. Fowler like all NFL players has plusses and minuses. While he did not dominate at all last year, he was not cause of big OL problem which I saw last year and from all I saw it would have made us much worse to plug Albert or anyone else from this draft in as our starting C.

You are right that this is no big deal in terms of whether Hardy makes it or not. The draft system is designed in the CBA so that teams put a significant amount of $ into a draft pick, but really only so much that it keeps the salary for the best players at that position continually being amped up to satisfy the NFLPA as part of this agreement. However, the draft is set at only 7 rounds and the contracts are logged against the cap with proration so that the salary structure and competitive chances for a team are not killed by one player disappointing. The problem for the Bills though is that while it is not fatal to our cap situation at all, we unfortunately have been so at 6s and 7s with out O scheme that we have set this up so we have a ton riding on whether an unproven rookie can be our @2 WR. The strong likelihood based on past statistical accomplishments of all rookie WRs is that anybody we draft was going to be doing well if he even put up #s similar to what PP did as #2 last year. The draft is simply a crapshoot. Sometimes well regarded players turn out exactly like you want them to. Sometimes well regarded players are busts. Most of the time they disappoint in some ways and satisfy in other ways. The Bills have played with fire by getting seemingly only one player with the qualifications to be our second WR and now we are to some degree depending on him to work out even if he is that crapshoot of a well regarded rookie.

Its more like a kid who kills his parents and they give him a break because he's an orphan.

In general I think this shows a good case where an industry cannot be expected to "police" itself on issues involving societal moral principles. The clarion call of the almighty dollar means any NFL finding which falls short of totally lambasting the Pats will be looked at with suspicion. Its too bad because there is so much $ involved and the NFL has routinely seemed to be moved around by the $, that merely through the appearance of impropriety the Pats have mortgaged even the little trust that the NFL had. The irony here is that unless the harshest judgment possible comes out against the Pats, the NFL has already lost any sense of principle which it had (and this was not much).

Worrying about "overpaying" for a player is overrated as an issue when it comes to team building. I agree that Mitchell may be overpaid based on his output as a player (though actually his 08 cap hit is well below the average of the top 10 LB salaries- he certainly is not a top 10 LB but his salary is nothing like the best LBs in the NFL) but to some extent this does not matter as it is far more important whether he is overpaid relative to his fellow Bills or in someway sucks up money so we cannot pay someone else. As far as defenders, Michell's salary is far outstripped by Pro Bowler Schobel and his 08 cap hit is even less than Chris Kelsay. Further, the Bills have tons of unused cap room. The one thing Mitchell has that other Bills do not is an SB ring. I think folks will worry about other Bills being overpaid way before this a worry for anyone. In the big picture, I think the ol; Milloy contract says a lot about how one should most reasonably look at a contract. Was he overpaid based on his production as a player? Yep. However, did the market mandate this contract? Yep. When he surprisingly hit the market the Bears also had cap room and an SS need, his overpayment based on his production was exactly what was needed to sign him in the market at the time. Was this is a good signing by the Bills? Yep as the alternative was starting Coy Wire at SS. Is overpaying Mitchell a good deal for the Bills? We'll see but probably yes. 1. Its a very young team that likely will benefit having an SC winner on the roster. 2. The starter would have been Ellison who has surprised but no one mistakes him for a weapon at Will, further, we do have some thinness at LB so bringing in a player who makes JD and Ellison back-ups looks like a good move. Overpaid? Maybe but who cares at this point.

Yes, but my sense is that the difference this makes is one of whether a franchise makes money hand over fist, over feet or simply makes money hand over fist. It will not make such a large difference in terms of competitiveness as the basis for this is that all teams operate under the same salary cap. It is significant whether the profits are huge or exhorbitantly huge, but changes the marginal decision to one not of survival but to one of how much is too much. Since Ralph put up mere chump change as his original investment, the decision is somewhat easier for him to make. As he is an old man without immediate financial needs (or desires), the decision is even easier. As his heirs have no desire to run the team the decision is even easier than that. For these and other reasons, the best answer to me would seem to be for him to use the vestige of individual control left to him to set up his will to force the NFL into the opportunity to send Buffalo's ownership future along a Green Bay Packers type model. It can be constructed in such a manner as to protect his heirs financially (if they wanted to run the team it would be harder but still doable actually). If Ralph wanted to make it so and NYS and Buffalo wanted to make it so (using the antitrust exemption as their leverage on the NFL, the NFL would likely have to buy it also as it actually fits their strategy of moving into new foreign markets as maintaining an original AFL team in a small market would make the story (which is what is ultimately being sold) a more evocative one to tell. The reality here is that yes WNY is a far smaller market than NYC or Toronto. However, one should not allow this fact to get us to define our small market as anything but the reality that it is huge in terms of the amount of return for investment it will produce. This is easily true for the small initial Ralph investment and even true for the investment required to buy the team from Ralph. Baghdad is a small market. NYC is a huge market. WNY is in between the two but has a bit more in common with NYC than it does with Baghdad.

My understanding of that TOTAL revenue under the new CBA means TOTAL and that the income derived from selling suites and premium seats is no longer a dodge that team owners can use to escape their inclusion under the salary cap. The old CBA gave players a right to a sliding scale which maxed out above 70% of the "designated" gross which did not include the suites and premium seats. The players agreed to a lower % in the new cap (60.5%) because the dodge of putting in more suites and premium seats was taken away and the new total revenue actually gives the player a smaller % of a much higher number.

You are right that the key here is maximizing return on investment. I simply think folks are being short-sighted about this if they view the answer to the maximizing return on investment as only being a choice between Toronto or Buffalo. In fact, the maximum return on investment for the NFL which ultimately controls who will be accepted as a partner/owner or not in the NFL is to gain return on investment from BOTH Toronto and Buffalo. In order for someone to not see this view which I think is truth, they end up investing in ideas such as the statement above which claimed the Buffalo season ticket base of 48,000+ was a "liability." This is flat out wrong. Yes the season ticket base in WNY is almost certainly less than the POTENTIAL season ticket base from the GTA (the Greater Toronto Area for you folks who do not listen to Canadian radio as this Buffaloanian does). However, rather than looking at this as some sort of liability because it is smaller than the POTENTIAL GTA base, the WNY season ticket base was built through almost 40 years of work, has built a franchise worth 100s of millions of dollars, from a chump change initial investment by Ralph, and would just be silly to discard when one can almost certainly maximize return on investment by having franchises in BOTH Buffalo and Toronto. It simply seems silly for me for folks to simply ignore the possibility of fulfilling the NFL's clear goal of expanding the franchise to non-American countries by setting up a franchise in Toronto while maintaining the 100s of millions of dollars which is lodged in Buffalo. Do folks really think there is more of a return on investment from having only Toronto or only Buffalo when there easily is a case to be made for having franchises in Buffalo and Toronto as the even a nickel and dime effort like the NHL has been able to pull off this off with the two areas supporting both the Maple Leafs and the Sabres. While the arena is obviously much larger for football than hockey, there also are a ton more dates to be filled for hockey than for football. I think the return on investment question clearly points one in the direction of having franchises in both towns. Perhaps the distinction here is that many have an outmoded view of the NFL as being a bunch of plucky individual owners, when since the CBA was forced on the NFL by the players in the early 90s, this ain't your grandmother's league anymore. Ralph getting voted down 30-2 in the last go around with the was likely the last hurrah of the individual owner as the controlling element in this partnership. The return on investment question is one that will be determined by the NFL as a whole which has the ultimate decision on who to accept as an owner or not.

I also see some hard questions for our OL, but your indictment overstates the case so badly its hard to defend what comes off as WGR like hysteria that we simply are DDOOOMMEEDD because our OL is in such bad shape. I think there are real questions about: 1. whether Whittle's injury is just the first in the series that getting older players come down with which makes him a questionable back-up. 2. How will Chambers be if called upon for an extended stint. 3. Given that Preston proved not to be the answer at G (as proven by him being beaten out by Butler at a new position for him which many folks feel confident in him but he clearly is still learning) how do we feel about him as back-up C. These certainly are issues to be concerned about, but it appears doubtful that anyone should be getting their panties all up in a wad over these issues which simply do not rise to the level of worries (yet). I think it would be more than reasonable to be worried rather than simply concerned about these issues if they involved someone we saw as a starter. Yet, though back-ups are an important thing in this league where injury is only a play away, perhaps the most indicative signs for us outsiders about how comfortable we should be with the back-ups is the level of intensity the braintrust shows in trying to pick up different answers for the back-up concerns. It could easily be the case (and it appears to be judging from the candidates who were available and the team needs, that there simply was no specific player available in this draft at OL who was either: 1. A good enough player to be a better choice than a potential elite player McKelvin who slipped down to the #11 spot (is there some specific OL player whom you think was worthy of a #11 or is a better prospect than McKelvin. 2. Is OL (a RG at best but more likely a back-up) a greater need than a WR for our second choice (as the player picked would be a starter at WR but a likely back-up or depth player at the #2 pick I think WR was the right way to go). 3. The Bills seemed to have made a BPA pick for Ellis in the 3rd. This BPA will likely actually see some significant playing time for us as we run a DL rotation while a BPA OL player would likely have warmed the bench and not contributed much to the Bills in 08 if we were lucky, 4. The big endorsement of the Bills coaches actually was shown when there was not any huge FA investments for OL depth though we had the cash to do this. Is there a credible case to be made that there was some specific player we should have gone after to increase our OL depth. In the absence of a suggestion of real alternatives then such a broad based indictment comes off as merely a whine.

An added item about Fowler is that his light weight is not only the potential cause of his being more easily bullrushed, but also is the flipside that he is considered to be mobile and has shown talent as a pulling center who has the speed necessary to get outside and do effective blocking on sweep plays. The apparent operating theory would be to have the QB pitch the ball to Lynch heading to the outside on the Peters/Dockery side of the OL. Peters would seal the end of the line by pushing forward with his block and Fowler would have the athleticism to actually get in front of Lynch by pulling and lead him through the CB and S on that side. It sounds like a lot of athleticism to expect the C to be able to make such a large move quickly enough, but the theory us that Fowler is fast enough and smart enough to do this type of maneuver.

I was certain;y disappointed to see the Bills go for a CB with their first pick and end up with 3 CBs overall, However, though I was disappointed with the overall position selections, this does note add for me at all in judging this a failed or even disappointing draft. The quality of the draft IMHO has little to do with my thoughts about what positions we need to fill and is far more determined by the quality of the individual players chosen. I agree with the conventional wisdom that it is very difficult to draw a real or rational conclusion about the quality of an individual player until we see probably at least 3 years of play. I know we Mericans want our candy now and are happy to draw "final" conclusions on too little evidence. However, my feelings about position value has most to do with the scheme I think we should run which has nothing to do with the reality of the scheme my Bills really do decide to run. I was disappointed with the McKelvin pick as I judge (probably incorrectly as I do not know how the Bills will employ the Cover 2 scheme we use) that we should have been able to run an adequate version of the Cover 2 with mcGee, Greer, Youbouty, James, and a second day CB pick or another FA. I then wanted us to trade down the #11 if we could to get two WR picks as I think we are too dependent on our #2 pick WR (whomever it is as the draft is really a crapshoot) working out. Despite my disappointment with the McKelvin choice, I am intelligent enough about life to know I am not in charge and to know that the Bills braintrust has forgotten more than I can remember about football. Does this disqualify me from stating my own harebrained opinions on TSW? No. One of the rules is that us fans do not have to be rationale. I feel that folks have a right to state even the all too typical fact-free opinion on TSW, landsakes I feel free to go forward with my own too long rants. I feel that mcKelvin was almost certainly an elite player on the Bills board (which i define as a player with enough talent to merit a top 10 pick) and when he dropped to 11 the Bills choice was clear. While i am a "need" proponent when it comes to the 1st round. Its hard for me to begrudge the Bills for going for the BPa, particularly when they have the BPA as an elite player who fell to them at #11. This pick then forced the Bills to make a need choice with the #2 and I like the mutant they got. Which I like. Round 3 they went BPA again though again I was disappointed as I was hoping for another WR in case Hardy get hurt or does not pan out. However, its hard for me to dis strengthening the line even if it is the D. The key question regarding this pick or any pick regarding your feelings of disappointment is which specific OL player do you think we should have picked. If you have a specific complaint your rant is worthwhile potentially. If you do not have a specific player or pick they should have made, your rant is more than kosher on TSW (not that my opinion matters) but without a specific counter pick suggestion your rant is just a rant.

The thing I like most about the Hardy pick is that when he teams up with Evans, an opponent is pretty much forced to put their fastest DB on Evans (or more likely double him because he is so extremely fast and has a proven ability to make the difficult long ball catch that necessitates putting a good coverage guy on him). However, Hardy is so extremely tall with a record of production in college, if a teams best cover DB is also their fastest guy, it means that Hardy will be able to utilize his extreme height against an opponents second best cover guy and likely a shorter player. Most teams are going to have to make a difficult choice about where they are going to present a weakness which the Bills might exploit. Add into this, that if we go 3WRs, that Parrish now presents a threat which also is freaky fast and explosive as a runner. I think most teams are gonna find it very difficult to match up well against the Bills in 3 WR sets. They are going to have to make difficult choices in any case about the implications of needing to match up against a very fast Evans and a very fast Parrish. If the outcome of allocations designed to combat this threat now leaves them with a remnant choice of putting a shorter player to jump ball with Hardy it will be rough for the opponent and present a potential exploitable weakness for the Bills. If the player tall enough to match up well with Hardy also happens to force the opponent to put a not their fastest or better cover guy on Evans or Parrish this could be fun. Likely, compared to the lost a step and can be single covered Price, opponents will be forced into zones rather than the tighter man-to-man coverage. Even better, I suspect we will see more one RB sets or even empty backfields from the Bills this year as if they can get Reed into the mix he already has demonstrated in his rookie year that he has the talent to savage zone coverage with precise route running. This could be a lot of fun.

The theory that good CBs and good WRs are always (or even usually) easy to find simply ignore the reality that even if finding them is easier than finding good OL players, finding good players at any position is never so easy that a team should always list toward using FA always to fill one position and a team should always use the draft to fill out some other position. The variations are extreme enough that in a particular year a team might reasonably choose to fill their CB/WR needs through the draft and their OL needs through FA.

Its true thankfully that many rookies who won starting jobs in 2006 have been replaced by better players (Stroud for Williams and McCargo finally breaks through, Mitchell for Ellison, but I think Simpson beats out Wilson). However, this does no eradicate the fact that it would be simplistic to just say the Bills started rookies because they were so weak. The simple fact is that those rookies not only won starting jobs, but in fact they were good enough players to not only beat out dreck, but they were good enough players in comparison to the rest of the NFL that they played a substantial role in the team improving from 5-11 to 7-9. Were these rookies great? No. However, no one says that. Were these rookies good second day choices who made the team better? Yes. That is the key point the thread is making. To simply ignore reality and claim that the second day picks ONLY started because the 05 team was so bad ignores a part of reality. No one says that the second day picks were great players, merely that the team picked good players on the second day. I think the more factual claim to be made in the assessment would be that the Bills under TD in his first drafts as a Bill (with Modrak in place for at least part of them) actually had a real lack of success on the second day only finding mcGee as a winner early on. I think the factual events speak more to TD being not as good as Marv in leading the charge to second day choices and also it showing what a crapshoot the draft really is. Some people win and some people lose, but the fact seems to be that the same person may be a winner or a loser depending more on the luck of how it plays out rather than some consistent difference in skills which almost always is apparent.

The fact you state it certainly a good theory which seems to bear itself out often if fact, however, this is simply a theory which often but does not always apply. The way to actually check on whether what you said is a theory that applies in a particular case is simply a deeper examination which also looks to the results achieved. In 2006. the Bills did find several starters in the second day of the draft. However, it is also a fact that this team which started a 4th rounder at FS, a 5th rounder at DT and a 6th rounder at RT also improved its W/L from 5-11 without these rookies to 9-7 with these second day rookies (and first day rookie Whitner). The theory that the Bills simply started bad players does not take into that these "bad" players played a pivotal role in helping the team improve its record.