Pyrite Gal

I on the other hand will be quite happy if we trade down instead of taking Willis. If we trade down and get more resources so we can pick a couple of the RB's who are pegged as 2nd or 3rd round choices I think it helps this team since even if we trade down we still can pick the best OLB in this draft (Pos or Timmons depending upon how you rank them) or as DET is figuring, there is even an outside chance that Willis slips even further down the board and you can both trade down and still get him under some circumstances. Willis is not enough of an elite player (a top 10 pick) and there are other options if he taken that I think the Bills can easily risk a trade down if he drops to them at #12.

My immediate thought was to contrast your perspectives on what makes Marv a good GM with the performance of the ol' GM TD in the same areas: * He does not re-sign once excellent players if they aren't cutting it anymore. TD tended to do some good things in this area as well, though in part it was the enforced cap hell that caused him to be quite draconian in cutting ties with players who once did a good job for us but were essentially done as players (Fina for example). However, there were a few glaring examples of players he cut with little financial gain for us where we he could find no good replacement for them and they went on to do OK in their new situations. One example is Ruben who was wash cap wise for us to cut and our OL problems are legend and he went on to help his team to the SB. Another is Steve Christie who TD cut with a small cap benefit and stupidly said good kickers are a dime-a-dozen as we went through several. Also the cut of Henry Jones had us releasing a player who was clearly done, but his cutting him after resigning him was poor cap work and then we went through a too lengthy phase which saw us with worse than nothing at SS. As far as Marv, the jury remains out on whether some of his cuts cannot cut it anymore and also what we are doing to improve at MLB so we will see. * He doesn't join in bidding wars, even for the best Bills players, if they cost more than they are worth. TD also worked to avoid bidding wars though his method of doing this was sometimes to would do this by overpaying a player like Milloy who was not worth the amount he was paid in terms of production but the market did create a situation where there was a limited supply of safeties and ample demand in the form of two bidders with tons of cap room (the Bears if memory serves me correctly and the Bills using the money TD had set aside to conclude negotiations with Winfield. Its too early to tell with Marv whether he has an overall strategy which makes actions like letting NC go rather than signing him early was a better way of avoiding a bidding war. Overall, everybody wants to avoid a bidding war its how you do this determines whether a GM is good or not. * He drafts well, getting NFL ready players when needed, ones with character. TD seemed to have overarching strategic problems because he was insecure but with the gross exception of the 2002 draft I do not think his drafting was that horrendous and actually he was able to use a very crafty ability to read the market well and pull off maneuvers like tagging PP for a draft choice and listening to his docs to make a surprising pick of WM that I tend more to question whether he made good hiring decisions to train OL players well or good management decision as he extended Bledsoe and then forced JP forward as real problems. As far as Marv so far his 06 draft looks like it may be one of the best ever by the Bills but it is way too early to draw any final conclusions, * He has improved their offensive line, which will enable Losman to have a more productive year. He can become an excellent quarterback in 2007. Having played in this offense for a year, and, now, with more time to throw, Losman will progress faster than we expected. TD try to build a good OL but I think he failed miserably at this by making a bad HC hire who in turn hired his buddy Vinky and then the equally inexperienced Ruel who were completely unsuited for the OL building strategy of training late drafted talent to play OL. He tried but failed. TD did finally get his act together by hiring JMac and Marv is smart enough to give him the tools to work with but the jury is still out until we see how the FAs do this season. * He has assembled a coaching staff that teaches the players, makes them better, and treats them with respect. This coaching staff is also good at game planning and making adjustments. This was TDs big mistake as I think he was mostly motivated either conciously or unconciously to never again hire an HC who could run him out of town. So far so good with Jauron. And Marv has people around him who also have confidence that doing these things will create a winning team, and then, a great team. We'll see.

Do you really think that Crowell right here and right now this season would be inferior to Willis at MLB this season? If so, where do I find the Kool-Aid which leads to that conclusion. I assume that is what you were referring to in my post because it says that Buster would be a reasonable pick to sit on the bench behind Crowell at MLB and the player one should most realistically compare him to in judging whether he is inferior or superior to them is our current MLB back-up John DiGregorio. One might argue that we should compare our back-up as a starter possibility since that is there job. However, if one takes this approach, you quickly run into similar issues if you chose Willis and start him at MLB because the likely back-up scenario is that if Willis is hurt (or like about half of first round choices is not capable of starting right away) then Crowell is your MLB anyway and then you go to your back-up at SLB which is Haggan. It gets ugly quick when one is forced to a back-up. I like the pick of Willis IF he can make the start at the less complex (than MLB) position of SLB, because then he can learn the game at this position and be our back-up MLB if Crowell gets hurt and he can contribute right here and right now as SLB and also learn to be a vet in a less crucial position. If you judge Willis to be a superior player to Crowell at SLB right now, then you are asserting that he essentially is a good enough player that he easily is a top -10 choice. He is not, and I know of nobody (and I mean nobody) beyond his family (and probably you) that assert that.

The thing that folks seem to de-emphasize (too much IMHO) is that quite frankly all the draftees deserve the sobriquet workout warrior because they have not produced anything whatsoever on the NFL field yet. It certainly is reasonable to offer up their on field production in college as a rational relevant determinant of where they get drafted, but it ends there beyond being more than an indicator of what they will do in the NFL. Folks seem to routinely offer up these mere indicators as seemingly stone cold lock predictors of NFL performance when they are not even that. That folks seem to propose relying on these mere indicators as not only firm determinants that any fool should be able to see of how the total career of a player will play out, but even giving firm guidance on the course and speed of development which a players career will take seems nothing short of outlandish to me. What folks are proposing here is that we take a player who at best (and this is being extremely charitable to Willis) a marginal top 10 prospect (read that again PROSPECT) and assert that he will be an IMMEDIATE STARTER for us at an incredibly complex position. I do not see how anyone can make this assertion (which already is well beyond a multi-rail bankshot and not recognize that even if all this is achieved that it simply is going to be quite painful as we root for this player at a number of times during the season. I will hope and even pray hard that it is not, but prayer and dumb luck are gonna be are best friends which rely upon if we start Willis at MLB.

I think Willis a great pick by us IF we start him at SLB (which word had it he can also play), However, the MLB position in the Hybrid Cover 2 we play is simply just a route for leaving a rookie very exposed. Specifically, in the style we play which is more like the Tamps 2 D, the MLB is called upon to both divide the field into 3rds for deep cover with safeties and to cover deep, but particularly with the emphasis we are putting on the LB to be more aggressive, really hold and play the LOS on running plays filling in for we expect to penetrate. A premium is going to placed in the D the way we run it for the MLB to make vet level reads and diagnose correctly whether the D will run or pass. Willis sounds like a good guy and a bright guy, but I simply argue that rookies are not vets for a while and that opposing OCs will simply salivate at the chance to get a rookie at MLB whom they will attempt to fool into taking a step back to pass cover on a play they are running up the middle or even worse to get him to take a step in on passing plays where they send a speedy WR on a post pattern looking for six. I think Willis is a good player who will not be totally fooled often. I think that his fellow teammates like Crowell (who likely will be doing play calling from the SLB slot even though it is a bit off center on the field) will need to help this rookie out recognizing Pro deception he has not seen at all from the field level and this will help also. I think his teammates on the DL, (particularly the DTs) will need to step up to the plate and do an arm stop on an RB shooting the gap and slow or stop this rusher before he gets to the second level and would likely blow right by Willis speedily coming in while the RB speedily runs out. However, I think there also will be a noticeable number of plays where a rookie MLB, even a good one gets undressed and we would have to hope and pray that this does not happen at bad times or that like Brad Johnson when they undressed McGee last year on a fly pattern where he failed to read that his teammate Whitner was out of position to cover the fly pattern and that there was no receiver coming underneath anyway he failed to go deep with the WR, but fortunately Brad Johnson overthrew Koren Robinson by a hair and we won the game. I think if we are lucky, having the rookie Willis at MLB will only cost us one game we should have won last year and likely it will cost us two games and that this will make the difference between a 7-9 team or a 9-7 team. I think that the likely apropos analogy for what the Willis MLB learning experience will be like is that went through by JP at QB. A player who is central to his units performance who is incredibly physically gifted and a really nice guy. However, if you put him into a situation where he is over his head and you ask too much of him, then opponents who are good will simply take advantage of him. If this player presses too much in part because he is a very competitive type who wants to do well it can very ugly. I will root hard foe Willis and if we draft him and start him at MLB I will root hard for me to be completely wrong in my fears. However, I think we can do a far better job of performance on the field if we trade down this first and get some extra 2nds and/or 3rds out of it and use these resources to get the best OLB we can get later in the first (Poz or Timmons) and start them as they are rated to do at the less complex and demanding but still demanding alot SLB position. Reinforced with extra resources we then have the potential to pick up not 1 but 2 RBs on the first day from the Irons, Pittman, Booker, Jackson, etc. retinue and allow these players to compete to have one of them really prove to be the feature back we want or to join up with A-Train to have the best possible RBBC approach. If we are really lucky, we get the extra picks necessary that allow us to take a Butch Davis to learn the MLB spot sitting on the bench behind Crowell. If we have 5 first day picks to devote to the task of reinforcing the LBs and RBs getting the players that we want, this team can foster competition so that the rookies who prove not to be up to immediate starts or big first year contributions (which is almost certainly going to be the case as all drafts are simply a crapshoot) we have the best chance of performing well in 07.

I totally agree with this ranking. Wade was generally a good coach and results being all important he did lead this team to the playoffs. However, the way he capitulated publicly when the Bills were still mathematically in it and then to have Mora lead an Indy team with the exact same record to the playoffs forever knocks Wade down in the ratings, This grade for Greggo may be too charitable but the team did finish 500 once during his reign of error and its hard to give someone an F unless every team produced like his 3-13 cap addled squad. Maybe a D-. I think that MM gets more grief than he deserves on TSW because he is the most recent coaching whipping boy. He clearly was better than GW IMHO and he was able to produce a winning record his first year. The bottom fell out in his second year but C- sounds about right though if you caught me on a bad hair day I could be talked into a D +. However. his first season should not be ignored when rather than panicking with the 0-4 start he stuck to doing it his way and like it or not it worked. Jauron got off to a good start and we will see.

I think it makes the most sense for us in terms of producing a better team in 07 to trade down in the first if we can and get more picks in the second an third rounds to increase competition in our areas of need. In general, the draft is roughly 50/50 in the first round for producing players who can start at some point in their first year. Last year was generally considered a pretty strong class, but an examination of the depth charts of the teams I did a few week ago showed that of the 32 first round choices, 18 were first on their teams depth charts at their position and 14 were back-ups even after a year of play. There was a pretty heavy bias toward the top ten picks being starters and at 12 we are out of that window already with the talent in this class being seen as about average. Particularly looking at the Bills needs, we are going to need multiple players at the key positions of RB and LB since as many as three players not on the roster now can easily make it to the final roster at RB as I think many are displeased with production as the 3rd down back by Shaud Williams and folks are hopeful about Jackson making the final roster but hope is about what this NFLE star can hope for as this is a tough transition even for stars in Europe. At LB two of the players who started last season are gone and we will need two replacements there. Willis looks easily like the best LB out there, but few if any pundits have him as a top 10 talent though his stock is obviously up since he proved to be a workout warrior with great Combine stats. Yet he clearly struggled in pass coverage at the Senior Bowl and given the ability to be able to make reads like a vet being central to good performance as the Cover 2 MLB, it is pretty likely that his rookie year would involve some painful learning experiences as he becomes a vet. Willis is likely to be solid at MLB for years, but the NFL now more than ever is about production now and he simply is not that good that he will make folks forget about the best quality LBs ala a Lawrence Taylor. If we trade down, we likely can still get the best of the OLBs on the board like Poz and have the ability to get a couple of the several RBs who are judged as worthy of a second or third round choice. I think it almost certainly produces a better team if we trade down.

On third thought it is obviously the whole darn bird!!!

It obviously the vast left wing conspiracy!

Its obviously the vast right-wing conspiracy!

I actually would trade down if Peterson and Willis are gone and probably trade down if I can even if Willis is still there. I think we produce a better record next year if we can flip-flop our firsts with a team lower down and in exchange get extra picks in the 2nd and third (how much depends on how far down you go). My sense is that we likely will need to acquire 2 or 3 RBs who are not on the current roster and getting a couple of RBs amongst the Pittman, Booker, Bush, etc. crew to compete to either be the star lead back or do an RBBC seems like the most competitive route for us. I think that a rookie starting at MLB in our Hybrid Cover 2 which will require vet level reads by the LB to choose whether he is going to pass cover like a safety or tackle like a DT means even the most competent rookie will struggle his first year as our MLB (and I do not think even the biggest Willis boosters want to claim that he does not have a lot to learn in pass coverage as a rookie even though I suspect he can hold down the MLB job for years). Instead, I like the current depth chart which shows Crowell at MLB. Crowell is no where near a Pro Bowl level player at MLB in my assessment, but he clearly has been the best Bill LB back-up at multiple positions the last few years (he came in for F-B when he went out in one game last year and backed up TKO at WLB quite well when he went down last year and then went over to SLB doing quite well when TKO went out last year. His game results have included INTs (including a pivotal one to win the first game against the Fish) and a pretty good tackle number total finishing 4th on the Bills last year despite a truncated season. Crowell also got a number of sacks to his credit the last two years competitive with any other Bills LB indicating a willingness to be aggressive. He ain't perfect at MLB by a longshot, but IMHO almost certainly would produce much more than the rookie Willis starting at MLB.

Someone has to cover the WRs and this generally is the CB so people should not diminish the need for an adequate player at CB even in a cover 2. However, what one needs to be an adequate CB in a Cover 2 is very much like the scouting reports on Youbouty prior to his draft (good hand fighter and very competitive player with good speed but tends to look into the backfield a lot and plays better facing the QB) and also seems to fit what a Thomas (a vet who Jauron loves) brings to the game. My sense is that if we pick Hall we one way or the other waste a 1st day draft pick (either Hall starts and Youbouty sits yet again or Youbouty starts and Hall sits. If Thomas actually proves he can be a starter then the two duel for the nickel slot. It will be a nice competition to watch because we all will be averting our eyes from the train wrecks left at LB and RB where we could really use some 1st round selected help.

It is a possibility (though I think it is a remote one) we draft a TE on day 1. I would put it at about the chance we actually go with an offense which tends to use 3 WRs rather than 2 WRs and a TE. Possible but a remote possibility. I think Cieslak fits in well in this structure of limited TE usage.

I agree we can do what we want, but what we do has implications. If we spend some bucks on Jenkins, the likely implication means we have less cap room to sing someone like a Turner. While there is a balance in the draft between taking the best player available or filling needs, when going after FAs we have more of a choice and it is a very difficult thing to choose Jenkins even if we judge him to be one of the better players available at his position (an issue in dispute because of his injury history judging from the posts in this thread). Jenkins would be nice to have to give us depth, but unless you want to suggest we go to a 5-2 set-up this team is likely to spend its time and resources dealing with the fact that we lost 2 starting LBs from the team which started last season (and on the O side that given dissatisfaction with Shaud W. and Jackson being a longshot even if he is good so we may acquire as many as 3 RBs not on the roster today) picking up Jenkins and keeping 5 DTs is a luxury when we have some pretty stark essentials this team must deal with in order to be competitive.

Given the fact that looking at the depth charts of all the teams a few weeks ago of the 32 1st round picks there were 18 of these players listed as starters at their positions while 14 were in back-up slots, from a statistical standpoint Hall might start immediately next year, but then again he might not be the starter even next year if drafted in the first round. Perhaps you know something about Hall the rest of us do not know or can read the future, but in general the fact that even what was generally considered a strong draft almost 50% of the 1st round picks were not anywhere near being immediate starters, I think it is quite the prediction to say with any certainty that Hall would start. Again, this gets balanced against the fact that the team quite likely will be looking for definite starters at LB and RB (again unless you want to say with stone cold certainty that we find two starters at LB from Ellison and the second round choice and/or we get Turner or the second riund choice at RB starts (or some other combination), it just seems that a lot of things have to happen just the right way to make Hall a useful choice.

Given the need for both starters and depth at LB and RB (as many as three acquisitions we do not have right now can easily be RBs who make this team and we lost the two players who started at LB last year) it would seem hard to imagine us picking a CB who could also easily be in on the bench all season. Youbouty was judged to be a 1st round physical talent who needed a year of training before he could be a potential 1st round pick and thus dropped to the third round where we picked him. If the same pundits who made this assessment are correct that Hall is a potential starter if chosen we are pretty much going to a coin flip as to whether a year if working under the Bills' coaches is equal to getting the four years which makes Hall a likely starter. Given our resigning of Kiwaukee Thomas who said he wanted to start this year and whom Jauron obviously likes, it seems unlikely we would create a logjam at CB where we definitely need a starter when we need a starter and also backups at RB and LB.

Even if Willis is still there (unless the braintrust really likes him at OLB) I trade down flip-flopping for a lower 1st chice and getting extra picks in the 2nd or 3rd. There are a bunch of RBs who are all thought of as worth a 2 or 3 pick (Irons, Jackson, Bush, Pittman, Booker, whoever) and I think we will end up acquiring 3 RBs who are not on the roster today (Turner and 2 draftees?). In addition, having lost 2 LBs who started last year it would not be a bad idea to look at an OLB likely to go in the 20s like Poz and then use a later pick on a Davis. I think this team has a more productive 07 with this competitive formulation rather than essentially writing off 07 as a learning year for Willis at MLB.

There can be some significant need changes based on decisions which cannot be seen by us outsiders regarding what we attempt to do with the offensive scheme. Clearly the Bills ran a restricted offense from the future planned version if only just because they simplified it and took few chances as they assessed and trained JP (there was clear utility in this approach as they at least stayed close with eventual SB champs Colts though they clearly were outgunned by Manning and if this game was a shootout we would have not even stayed close). However. they did some other oddly ineffective things like never ever really getting their act together at FB though clearly Shelton was struggling. It is not inconceivable that the plan all along has been to switch to a system which goes with a single RB and 3 WRs as the base O and the sudden "opportunity" of virtually completely redoing our RB approach with WM gone means our needs at RB would be very different. Cieslak (and oerhaps even Neufeld) may fit in as a mostly TEs who are capable of being an FB in goalline or short yardage situations but in essence it eliminates the need for an FB in this draft. This move would also correspond with finally unleashing the speed of having an Evans/PP/Parrish WR set rather than the odd use of a 2 WR system with PP miscast in a possession WR role. I also agree with idea that we are going to do some serious shopping for another safety and would not be surprised to see this as a higher priority for the Bills than searching for a Meacham or some other possession receiver and probably is viewed as a larger priority than finding another CB. At CB, the Bills decided before last season that NC was not worth it to the Bills to resign at what the market would give him even after his very bad 2005 and in fact he was not worth what the likely average salary of the top 5 CBs so that it was no loss to promise him not to franchise him again. I see a second day CB if we see a good one, but judge this to only be a high priority for those who were dazzled by Clements and think we must find a comparable talent to replace him. the fact is that a comparable talent is simply wasted in a Cover 2 and we cannot afford the cap hit needed to sign such a talent.

I hope Marv is not slavishly opposed to trading down (and I have seen no comprehensive investigations of drafts he played a significant role in that demonstrates such an aversion and besides there is only one draft of his behavior when he is in charge and one data point does not make a trend). Different drafts should mean different strategies as both the talent pool of players available and teams needs are quite different. If Marv or anyone has a slavish opposition for trading down (or trading up for that matter) that is not subject to radical change when the talent pool is different and team needs either suggest getting quantity or quality a GM would be a fool (and likely not a GM for long if his reactions are dictated by a doctrine which does not apply to a particular case. There are several factors looking at our needs and the draft talent pool THIS YEAR that would speak in favor of trading down, 1. This draft lacks a lot of high level talent overall and specifically in our areas of need. Particularly given that the general talk on TSW seems to have settled on addressing our LB or RB needs with the #1 pick, it seems quite doubtful that the 1 RB who seems to merit a #12 pick will drop to us (could be if injury worries regarding Peterson scare folks away so this pick who could go in the top 5 drops to #12 and if he does it raises significant injury questions as to whether this player would be the immediate contributor if the incredibly unlikely happens and he drops to #12. In addition, outside of Willis the general sense is that there is no LB who is valued above the 20s. If either of these two players goes in the first 12 a trade down seems fairly merited. 2. We have multiple needs Clearly no one pick is going to satisfy our needs for an RB (or 2 or 3 actually) or replace the two starters in last years first game at LB who are no longer Bills, Internal development and trades which allow us to sign an FA may also help heal these gaps, but there is a clear need for multiple first day picks to fill our needs, particularly if we end up pursuing an RB by committee strategy as we appear likely to do as there are no players in FA or the draft who are guaranteed first year starters at RB. 3. Though there are few players who seem to merit a top 10 pick there are multiple players who are judged good but not great at RB and at OLB so picking up an additional second or third or two will allow for competition where someone steps up even though none of these players are even near stone cold locks in the crapshoot known as the draft. If there is some player that the Bills have looked in the eye and want this man in particular then the thing to do is to get him regardless of what the pundits say. However, all of the available players demonstrate either some flaws (Willis struggled in pass coverage at the Senior Bowl and the requirements of the MLB in our Cover 2 are probably beyond almost all rookies, he is the best of the LBs clearly but if we pick him he better start at SLB or be prepared for a long learning year) or questions exist for any one player in the crapshoot known as the draft and after having a bad taste left by depending on one man WM as a savior at RB we got disappointed by both his performance and his attitude (Lynch looks good but we seem serious about looking at Turner and even very good RB picks (Larry Johnson for example and Eric Moulds for another can simply take a couple of years before the Pro Bowls roll in),

It would be great to have a strong prospect at CB (and at WR, and at TE, and at K for that matter as well) but I do not see that as a big priority for this team in this draft. I see this as true because overall the Cover 2 is a scheme which does not demand or make good use of strong CB prospects. Just as "playmaker" Dre Bly got out of dodge as fast as he could as an FA and was on record bemoaning the Cover 2 style he was required to play. Also the Bills were more than willing to promise not to franchise NC a second time because they knew no CB was worth even the new average of the top 5 CB salaries in the Cover 2, almost any prospect who is a stud CB is not a good investment in the Cover 2. The 2nd reason is that we do have a strong prospect (prospect like potential means you have not done anything yet) at CB in Youbouty who was talked about in last years crew as a potential 1st round choice. If anything the rather than a prospect the Bills could use a reasonable cost starter to increase competition for the slot because one cannot be sure Youbouty will actually produce but though a strong prospect would be nice to have it comes no where near the need for a 2 replacements for lost LBs and as many as 2 strong prospects at RB with our #1 gone and us arguably being a prospect short at RB given the current vogue of having 2 top-flight RB talents (A-Train is good as a #2 but no one would argue that he is near as good as even the second level talent in the McCalister/Bush duo or the Dillon/Mulroney duo and some folks for some reason expect him to be our #1).

One question I would have about the logic that Smith needs to make a move before the market gets worse is that I think it is legitimate to view it the other way around. If one agrees with the premise laid out in the original post that this draft is fairly weak. it would seem as the draft draws closer teams like the Bills who need a starting RB should be getting even more desperate, Basically is one waits until the draft and you are #12 and you want a player with reasonable potential to start, their seems to be pretty widespread agreement that there are only two RBs even worth a 1st round choice, AP and Lynch. The Bills may hope AP drops to them but one would be foolish to make this assumption. The left with Lynch as your only choice for a player likely enough to start he merits a 1st, but as Marv well knows a team can make a pick in the top 10 (hypothetically let's call this player...say.. huh Whitner how bout that for a made up name), If Marv wants a starting RB that badly then in the end, if what this costs is a 1st then probably so be it. As it turns out I do not think the Bills are so all fired committed to getting a definite starter as I think the Bills may really be ready to go with the RBBC approach. I think overall Ralph likely feels pretty burned by the Willis M. experience. He is just coming off being burned by choosing a prima donna RB and even worse having to rely on him as the definite go-to guy at starting RB. Even though the past acts of one individual do not determine at all the acts of a future player, it would not surprise me if the Bills pretty much react this year regarding RB as fool me once shame on McGahee, but if we put ourselves in the position of being dependent upon 1 RB again then shame on me. I think the braintrust also realizes that the draft is in essence a crapshoot. Lynch looks good but so did Ryan Leaf, Mike Williams and Harrington. Even worse, Lynch could end up being as great a pick as a player like Larry Johnson, but if so this path is one of a consensus Pro Bowler whose first two years simply sucked in terms of production. People must be making a judgment that AJ Smith is a weenie who will blink big time because I think as the draft approaches the market dynamics are such that it should drive up Turner's trade value. Besides all of that as the Bills loss two starters at LB who were a Pro Bowler and near Pro Bowler, I think the 1st choice is likely an LB and this also heightens the desire for the Bills to do what is necessary to get Turner.

Oops must have wiped out the comments from LB through DL. Sorry about that an no time to replace them as we are out the door. Cya as Simon says

Many thanks for your thoughtful work and perspectives. My comments on your comments are: I don't think many people are arguing we will go DT or DE in the first anymore with any credibility. The four DTs and likely the 4 DEs on this team are set. Safety: this is a big concern as right now Leonhard is on the depth chart backing up both positions behind two rookies. If we like a safety even onthe 1st day we may take one. QB: We obviously draft a disaster QB and who will be we will see. Thanks for your work.

My sense is that of these many things you list it was probably Ralph's desire to turn the page on the TD era that prompted most of these moves. I hope it is not some desire to try to create a team with a particular "ethic" because if it is then I think they and we are likely in for disappointment. As more of a free market has come to the league (which being a "freer" market than the old NFL version where a handful of owners restrained trade and competition does not take a great leap forward as now we still have a restrained market rather than a free market it is just that the NFLPA has muscled its way in to be a "partner" with the owners) I think that it really is quite unlikely that anyone is going to create a common ethic within a team. I think you can chance upon it to exist for a year with the bond of a team looking to win a championship, but once this is accomplished it really is too easy for the TEAM to become merely a team or even a bunch of individuals because all the players are so individually wealthy. I think in rare cases one can actually have that TEAM sense survive for multiple years. I think the NE Pats have proven that it can happen. However, it seems to me that a key to sense of being a team might easily have not happened at all without the dumb "luck" of Jets LB Lewis collapsing Bledsoe's lung and really a team being created with Bellicheck fostering it among a heavily FA team around the once in an eon play and incredible youth of Tom Brady. The really funny thing is that I think a key to this TEAM spirit surviving more than one year was actually the same genius BB totally screwing up his efforts to play hardball with Lawyer Milloy. The Pats players united again as a TEAM, but this time as players as they publicly chided BB for his lameness. The finishing touch was a horrendous streak of injuries and the team having to really ask itself whether they were gonna step up and they became a TEAM doing that. Perhaps if Jauron and Marv are smart enough to look for similar opportunities to exploit and facilitate this can happen, but if they and Ralph instead have some vision they think they can enforce on a bunch or young millionaires then they may turn into the control freak that TD was when he screwed up the team.

Do you feel that his vision varied between his first season and a half of output which saw him reach 2000 yards rushing faster than any Bill ever and his last season and a half which were disappointing to say the least. Did you also note some explanation for why his vision was so great against the Jets and the worse you have seen against many other opponents. WM's inconsistent performance on the field is certainly one of the issues which defies easy explanation, but basing it on his vision as an explanation does not seem to correspond with his performances.