Pyrite Gal

I like this notion also. I have long offered the idea that GW could make the Bills a better team by having focused right from the start of his career trying to train and develop him into being the next Steve Tasker (but even I was not quite sure how one would do this given that Wire had showed none of the ballhawk skills which helped make Tasker a worthy HOF candidate- I had hoped the Bills braintrust could find a useful ST role from him which would be different than Tasker's but useful nonetheless). The idea of making him as critical to the ST team as Mark Pike was seems to be a doable role for him and seems to be one he has already played to some extent given that April judges him to grade out well in ST performance and the role he has held as captain of the ST unit. Given that we signed him to a multi-year deal for which official amounts are not yet available (hey Clumpy any word on this figure) but rumour says it is a cap friendly amount, the idea that we got a Mark Pike type player is worth some cost and if he can play back-up LB this is a bonus.

I think this assessment means very little in terms of judging this move today as it seems based in the typical fantasy league draft assessments of several years ago. Certainly the long ago distant past can indicate what might happen in the recent past, but it makes more sense to look at what happened just last season when making moves that impact next season. IMHO, GW and TD made big mistakes misusing Wire as our starting SS way back when. He may have been the player to draft when they took him as the best player available (I don't know and am more than happy to get educated by those who choose to spend their time evaluating turn of the century drafts in deep detail). However, he was so poorly utilized and developed by the TD/GW regime as they strove to make up for totally misreading how much Jenkins (our alleged starting SS at the time had left) they used a miscast Wire as our starting SS and this team paid the price in his poor play. That being said, I could see why a judgment may have been made that the was the best player available when he was chosen because he actually does seem to have a number of physical skills as outlined by Bobby April in the article about his extension and it all come in a package which got a Stanford education so it seems reasonable to conclude he is a bright guy (all of which has been demonstrated in his actions in support of local charities and his getting named ST captain a couple of years) so I think he is not horrible and untalented even though I think his results certainly have not been good as he has been miscast and poorly trained. This resigning makes a lot of sense to me though because finally we saw a little better production out of us as Wire as a back-up LB last year rather than as a back-up SS (not to mention starting SS) which he does not do well enough to be more than frustrating. I like April beingable to site their subjective measurement of him producing well on ST. They have forgotten more than most of us know about ST work and April has produced enough on the field that this fan is more than willing to buy what he is selling on this. I must admit its a little hard for me because Wire has been so frustrating as an SS and then when he was thrown into ST play (getting a roughing the kicker call when he took an impossible angle to block a kick and got a penalty which kept Cincy in a game we fortunately won in OT was the low point I remember) but given April's case and actually much more productive play by him as a back-up LB last year, I think this signing deserves the benefit of the doubt from fans and may well be a good one. What happens on the field will tell.

Leaving a legacy by being on an SD winning team (or even several for that matter)? Puhleeze. I am reminded of the ramblings of a Cowboy who was either Dyuane Thomas or Hollywood Henderson who when asked if this was the most important moment in his life just prior to an SB replied, no! If it's so important why do they play it every year? Certainly, there is a legacy (with a really small L rather than a large one) if you want to attribute that word to the mere factoid of sports accomplishments. However, even in this small world or note being on an SB winner (and for the most part being on a couple of SB winners is little more than a bullet point among a list of achievements. I mean tell me about the legacy of a player like Antowain Smith who played on at least one (I'm not sure if he got cut before the second which says something that even this football junkie who is aware of him as a former Bill cannot recall his presence or not on an SB winner) and I think it provides some real sense of what this means. It certainly means a lot to an individual and one cannot diminish that and it is certainly better to win than lose (generally speaking but I know in my life some of the greatest things came from some of the bad moments and in some cases define them). However, the true measure of a person and even a player when one totals up the trivia of sports accomplishments is often found in how a person responds to unfortunate occurences. Sure Trip and Edge almost certainly correctly feel bad on missing out, but if this feeling is not accompanied by (and certainly not canceled out by) happiness for their former teammates reaching and winning the game (this year) then there was likely something wrong with their experience of being a Colt and possibly them. Legacy? Maybe from getting elected to the HOF but this game and its outcome is almost certainly a subscript for any of the players and the bigger it is in their resume, the smaller their resume must be overall.

I did not interpret your remarks in a way that would make your analogy make no sense. I interpreted it to mean that just as the Nazis were so focused on symbolism to support their views of what they called the Fatherland, so too you are not one of those American patriots who get so caught up in preserving and worshiping the symbols of our country that they are quite willing to destroy the American right to use these symbols even stupidly in their ranting protests. One of the side effects of folks pursuing the good ol American task of making money by attracting listeners and viewers to their shows and network by consistently ranting against evil forces undermining the American way is that they constantly depict opposing forces as advocating dumb things which are simplistic interpretations of opposing views. I certainly would feel folks from Lou Dobbs at CNN to Bill O'Reilly at Fox would really demonstrate they had half a brain if they would do something beside choose to interpret opposing views in the most nonsensical way they can and then they easily beat back the straw men arguments they have set up and then try to claim that this proves everything they believe is correct.

It would downright silly for Ralph to make an argument or for anyone to interpret what he says as meaning the Bills (or him personally) are strapped for cash because they are poor. Ralph's co-term owners and his partners in this endeavor the NFLPA all have fairly complete access to the Bills finances and books as part of the CBA and so that everyone can trust what everyone else says. What Ralph is making is that he was a new deal which involves the teams with larger more profitable markets making direct payments derived from the enormous haul all NFL partners are making because the product is dependent upon all of the partners getting a more equal share of the profits derived by an NFL team as this profit is derived from the shared competition between all teams What Ralph appears to be arguing is that if any team ends up at a competitive disadvantage (for example the greater cash flow of the Dan Snyder owned Redskins allows them to make more lucrative offers to FAs than a team such as the Bills) then Ralph argues that the whole league and product will suffer if some teams are relegated to perpetual have not status by differential cash flow. In addition, it is likely unsaid outside of private conversations between team owners, but if this financial differential persists, it will only result in the NFLPA gaining an even greater share of the gross take as teams blow off the restrictions of the cap by offering deals which rob Peter to pay Paul as the Skins end up depending upon the cap to keep expanding allowing them to push the eventual reckoning into the future. The question is really THE key question in any capitalist based economy and society which is how much is too much. The irony here is that what turned the tables on the team owners after they kicked the NFLPA led by Ed Garvey's butt in the mid 80s with his at the time outrageous proposal that the players receive 52% of revenues, was that by threatening to dissolve itself and thus force the owners into a true free market where they had to negotiate with each player, the owners instead bought the idea embodied in the CBA which made the initially made the NFLPA partners with the owners and now arguably with the agreement under the new CBA that players receive roughly 60% of gross revenues they are the majority partners in the new endeavor. Ralph is endorsing an approach that is even further based in the concept of socialism where profit is not determined by the actions of the individual team, but by the collaborative producing a better product through sharing assets.

He wanted to be but he is too busy out there looking for the killers/

I think the key this is not how much credit you give Bledsoe or not (the facts of events are simply the facts) but how much credit you give the NFL HOF Committee about the judgments they make. From what I know about the HOF committee based on the scribblings of folks like Felser who served on it and also judging from the results of their decisions, many observers seem to be far too mechanistic in their judgments as though its all about stats (its a Hall of Fame, not Hall of Stats) they might likely be quite influenced by am extended drought of QB recipients and the Bledsoe story of glossy cumulative stats and him rising from being tossed aside to be a better QB than team's previous models despite his teams often falling short with him in the end. Being part of one SB winner and deserving the ring he got (which I think folks view as the case despite you wanting to give Kordell an NE SB ring for some reason).

One of the things which might help Bledsoe's case the most is folks taking the history and simply ignoring or discounting real world events. The past 7 years include little factoids like: 1. In 2001 he was held on the bench after a hit collapsed his lungs and Tom Brady took the QB role for NE and led them to an SB with the team gathering around this youngster in one of the best shows of individuals subordinating themselves to the team's goals and getting an SB win out of it. Bledsoe gets and quite frankly deserves credit for embodying this approach as he came off the bench in a must win game and played the majority of a must-win game for the Pats as QB and amidst some fairly pedestrian overall stats in this relief role he did throw the TD for the margin of victory. Bledsoe did a very un-modern NFL player like things and simply STFU and did not complain when Belicheck decided to bench him and go back to Brady for the SB win. This is a real world event that occurred within the 7 years you cite. Do you really suggest that playing an essential role in an SB run makes one a liability instead of an asset? 2. NE correctly went with the young productive QB and cut Bledsoe in favor of a better player (sort of what you maintain). However, it is only sorta because you make the false conclusion that simply because he is jettisoned because his original team has a better QB that he is not an upgrade at QB for his new team. While NE clearly made the right move sticking with the younger and better Brady, Bledsoe's new team, the Bills, also seriously upgraded at QB over the 2001 season QBs and also the other viable options in 2002 by getting Bledsoe. The Bills had the end of the failed RJ era and good back-up AVP as their inadequate starters at QB in 2001. The team clearly needed to upgrade at QB in 2002 and the FA options available that year were Chris Chandler and Rodney Peete. Bledsoe was actually a proven upgrade for the Bills as he QB'ed this team to an 8-8 record from the dismal 3-13 the year before. It is certainly true that NE knew exactly how to beat him and did so twice, but the record with Bledsoe at the helm was simply the second largest improvement in Ws by an NFL team in its history. Add to this that the O was extraordinarily productive after a 2001 which was so bad the OC got canned with time left on his contract, and Bledsoe was such an important part of this production that he got the deserved honor of making the Pro Bowl and the idea of categorizing this as a year of failure simply does not fit the real world events If one wants to look at the entire game and issues of FAME rather than mere stats, the Welcome Drew shindig which saw 10,000 plus fans turn out to the Ralph in mid winter to welcome him and sell a bunch of season tickets for a squad which was 3-13 the year before, these are the reasons why he may do well in the popularity contest which is the basis for entry into the HOFAME. Do you really want to claim that Bledsoe was a liability to a team which finished 3-13. 3. His go round in Dallas was ultimately a failure (though the rule is with life is that nobody gets out of here alive so simply judging it by the end product where few get out of the game on a winning note such as Elway and many first ballot HOF players like Kelly spend their final moments on a football field getting carted off with a concussion) but again the facts tell a fuller different story than one of pure liability. Bledsoe was thrown on the ashheap by TD, and though he did not produce a result in Dallas which was the march to achievement which he produced with the Bills after being discarded correctly by NE he did play QB over an initially greatly improved performance by Dallas with him as QB. In the 2005 season, Bledsoe was simply an upgrade over the 2004 play of Testaverde, Drew Henson or even the young Tony Romo and a general upgrade over the 'Boys QB situation which saw them depend on but then have to suddenly cut Quincy Carter in 1003. I agree that Bledsoe is certainly worse than the archetype of a great QB in a fantasy football world. However, it is actually that grounding reality which you represent as access to the tapes, which the HOF committee is likely to be grounded in. I merely argue that if the reality is one for the HOF committee that happens after a lengthy drought of QB honorees with folks like Vinny being the best they can do, if Bledsoe were to come to the table sporting his glossy stats built up by years of accumulation, a highlight reel of tapes featuring him using his rocket arm to hit long passes to folks like Terry Glenn and Eric Moulds as he played an essential role in the Pats winning an SB, and him being an upgrade over AVP in Buffalo and a Quincy Carter in Dallas, I think he will win the popularity contest and get elected to the HOF. If Micheal Irvin can overcome his transgressions and make it then lots of folks can.

In addition to his doing something many Bills fans wished they could do themselves (confront Kevin Killdrive) there were a variety of extenuating circumstances which while not justifying him unprofessionally going over the table at someone, do mitigate the appropriate punishment for this act: 1. 1. Decrying him for lack of leadership ignores the fact the was the sole OL starter who had played his position as a pro much at all in 2002 Teague was new at C, Jennings was new at LT, MW was a rookie at RT, and a revolving door of players ending up with Sullivan (I think) at RG were led by Ruben as Vinky was essentially an inexperienced OL coach at the job. Brown was simply an outstanding leader here. 2. His action may have not be directly motivated by standing up for his teammates, but as productive yardage gaining Henry also has public disputes with Killdrive his actions at coincided or came as an act of being a good teammate. 3. His wife was in the midst of a difficult pregnancy and he probably reacted rashly in the face of a lot of pressure. 4. Ultimately off field stuff does not count generally in who stays or who goes, but Ruben was a public fixture as a Bills with his extensive charitable work for causes such as organ tranplantation, his motorcycle rally fundraisers. his role on the Channel 2 sports show, his radio gig on WGR, etc. It really is no surprise that even after he went to play for Chicago his family retained residence here in Buffalo for at least a while. I can see how the Bills needed to take Brown to the woodshed after he physically challenged one of his employers. However, though guilty of a transgression it seems that the community certainly and the team potentially (the actually ended up cashiering Killdrive and GW for their gross incompetence after that season) the team might have been better off if they worked out a solution where Brown publicly did a mea culpa for his actions and paid penance for them by acting for the community and Bills customers. Yet, such real world complexities are beyond an NFL team and likely TD so Ruben paid the price by leaving the Bills. Ironically, he profited from these events as he proved to be a good enough player to achieve an SB with the Bears. I am glad for Brown though sorry for the Bills are ur still continuing OL difficulties.

You do not trade Willis because: 1, The Bills are in the drivers seat with him contractually and are under no pressure besides that of some fans who generally are focused more on WM's stupid attitudes toward the responsibilities of being a father (almost all men can be fathers and unfortunately too few are also capable of being parents) or care about his view on financial issues. In other words, the Bills braintrust can choose to focus only on his performance on the field (merely adequate for a starting RB over his career) and impact he has on team chemistry (seemingly little which is not positive as we want leaders but there are no signs from his teamates of him being negative either) or they can panic and move him. 2, They are in the drivers seat contractually because he actually has a cap hit today which is quite reasonable for his merely adequate output and because coming off a less than 1000 yard season he has zero leverage and would likely hurt himself financially to hold out. If he were to put up great #s in 2007 the Bills have the right to tag and keep him if we want or tag and trade him if they choose to let him go. 3. Folks who want to trade him still have not dealt with the internal contradiction that if he actually sucks so bad or has so little value as a player then why would anyone give anything of value for him in a trade, or alternately if he would produce so much in trade value then we must be losing or simply giving away something of value. One cannot have it both ways. Either he really sucks and we get nothing, or he can produce something and we are giving up something. 4. Trading him is such a speculative move and simply a crapshoot ( particularly if the return is a draft pick since these players regardless of what Mel Kiper says by definition have done nothing at the pro level). Any call to trade needs to at least acknowledge that Marv has decided to roll the dice on alot of the Bills O production nest year by trading away the teams 1 RB with the plan that A-Train will produce as our #1 or that the draftee (if a 1st round pick he is a likely starter, but after that it drops to probable starter, possible. or gosh hope he can start. Generally, the Bills are too risk averse to bank on A-Train despite a few good episodes of back-up wok actually being a #1 RB pr banking on the hopes of a draftee. At any rate thesmart football move would seem to be to draft an RB on thesecond day that you hope will one day develop into a new #1 and in any case use him as competition to spur WM. Even better, for those worried about WM's motivation, in this pre-FA year he will have a lof of fiscal reasons to produce. In general stay the course.

Yep, but one has to agree that the NFL is quite often plain silly in what it does. If in fact, there is an extended drought of QBs elected to the HOF, my guess is that the same marketing inclination which produced efforts like the QB Club and the intense marketing of the QB position which has caused many fans to give the position both undeserved credit and undeserved blame for the fate of a particular team will result in him getting far greater consideration than he likely deserves if he is not competing directly with Favre on the ballot. For example, I was pleased as all get out when Jimbo go in his first ballot, but was quite surprised to see him get this honor. He and his wife got more than their fair share of real tragedy with the great battle they waged with and for Hunter Kelly so i was pleased to see him get this small nugget of honor compared to the real world tragedy. If in fact there is an extended QB HOF drought (and those who watch the retirement shuffle more closely than I do can certainly tell us who is up and when) my guess is that he not only gets in but the Committee does the silly thing and puts him in on the first ballot.

I have not taken a look at the roster of available QBs for HOF induction, (as really HOF membership is an issue of entertainment trivia rather than football play) but off hand my sense would be that with the induction of Jimbo and Elway that we are in what will be a lengthy period given the 5 years after retirement for hOF eligibility rule on no QBs making the HOF. Thus, if Bledsoe were to retire this year after he was correctly sat by Parcells for the better playing and prospect Romo, Bledsoe were to retire he will enter the HOF popularity contest voting before the Committee a year earlier than Favre and thus get a shot at entry without a competition among voters with Favre he would almost certainly lose. My guess is that if Favre stays and Bledsoe retires he likely get into the HOF on his first ballot, due to the glossy stats he has accumulated, and due to a drought in QB selections over the previous years. In general, the primary driver of arguments against Bledsoe would be the ignominious end of his career he has had with his Dallas failure, but even this is likely to be outweighed in the committee vote by Favre also have his team produce like crap during the end of his career and 5 years of time simply causing the memory of this pratfall to recede compared to the memory of the historic Fame achieved by Bledsoe as he threw deep year after year and one of his teams getting an SB win with him playing the majority of a must-win game in relief of an injured Brady and even throwing the winning TD. If Bledsoe retires and Favre does not, my guess is that one implication of this will be in 5 years that Bledsoe gets into the HOF on the first ballot. Particularly if he undergoes some trauma such as the heart-wrenching fight that Jim Kelly and his family waged raising bucks and conciousness about Hunter's Hope which I think took off a lot the harder edges of Kelly's career for HOF voters, then Bledsoe likely is in like Flynn if he does not have to compete against Favre for the voters hearts and minds.

Unless you are referring to the Bills being not the most popular team in the US because we have not won anything in a while and we do not have the geographic fan base to popular even when we are bad, I'm not sure what you mean. At any rate the fan base of a particular city means little as they are talking about selling their product in European markets so market size here is not a big issue/ The Bills having a small market here might make us a better choice to give up a home game as the possibility is that if one picks the game correctly you are giving up less than a sellout crowd if the right Bills home game is the one sent on the road.

This has little to do with need and everything to do with I want.. I want.. I want. In this case the global economy and football as an opportunity to make money which also happen to be a sport (in the old days there was at least the illusion that it happened to be the other way around and football was a sport which happened to also be a way of making money) is primarily about the NFL making every nickel it can as fast as they can. What the sport needs or what fans need is secondary to their desire to make a buck and the game has suffered for it since it really is no longer a game.

My recollection was that why these players left was due mainly due two different reasons only one of which even remotely had to with TDs negotiating style. First Ruben was cut by the Bills even though there was no cap advantage to cutting him (the savings in salary saved was about equal to costs of accelerating the bonus paid to the cap) as best as I could tell because he had the temerity to publicly challenge the OC, Kevin Killdrive for mishandling the play calling. Ruben came to his teammates defense when Travis Henry called Killdrive on being too pass happy and not running enough with a game left in the season. Ruben was actually benched and possibly even suspended for the last game that season and as Killdrive got canned, Ruben was proved right. However, TD seemed to care more about Rubem being insubordinate rather than him being right and despite some of the blame for Ruben's public taking on of Gilbride being laid on Ruben's wife going through a difficult health issue and him publicly saying he was willing to take a pay cut to stay he got canned Any my way or the highway seemed to have little to do with this as Ruben seemed willing to eat crow and do it his way but he got the highway anyway. The Phat Pat case may have involved a little bit more of a negotiations issue as what seemed to happen was that TD was playing it tough with PWs agent and apparently told Phat Pat that negotiations were over and he took the Vikes offer/ TD then publicly accused Phat Pat's agent of not representing PW well as he was being tough but that clearly negotiations were not done and when push came to shove he would have gone higher to get Pat Pat.

The NFL has been quite cooperative with the Bills the last few years giving them 1pm starts for all home games as night time or even late afternoon starts really make our regional marketing strategy more difficult to pull off. Given this accomodation and also that Ralph likely had a bigger more important fight to fight with the NFL over small market subsidies my sense is he was quite willing to "consider" playing overseas though actually having this happen may have been another deal if push came to shove. In addition, if all of this plays out well and the NFL decides in the same manner to better penetrate the Canadian market, there is nothing that would be better for the Bills than to have a homedate for a west coast team take place in Toronto with the Bills as their opponent. If this were to occur and part of this deal is the Bills being cooperative about at least talking about Europe, playing an away game in Toronto would essentially give us 9 home games that season and if the further benefit of avoiding a trip to some place like AZ, KC, or Seattle is part of the deal it would be great for us.

I can mostly join you in the minority of folks that seem to feel Fletcher has done a pretty good job at MLB. He certainly has his limitations in mostly that under hos team leadership his teams have generally produced bad records. This does not strike me as his fault in that as TD has seemed IMHO to be primarily driven by a desire to never have an HC he hired run him out of town as Cowher did, so he hired an GC in GW whom he felt he could trust and if not that he could beat. His apparent paranoia resulted in him doing an excellent job at some phases of his work, but ultimately he did not produce a winner and paid the price for doing this. Nevertheless in regard to Fletcher, I think he has been very good, but the great some how find a way to have their teams refuse to lose and the Bills with Fletch as a standard bearer just have not gotten the job done. Even though I realize his overall limitations, i think it is inaccurate that many have allowed the team's failures to get them to judge him too harshly IMHO and in addition, to his producing some great individual accomplishments I am sure he was credited with more tackles than any other NFL player in the 5 tears prior to this last season and likely pushed that accomplishment to 6 this past year though I have not seen any summary yet, he did exactly what he was told to do in our Tampa 2 and led the NFL in INTs by an LB and the team in INTs, he is an extraordinary talent in that not only has he shown the speed to work sideline to sideline, but he is able to play the deep middle zone in our cover 2, he is a proven ballhawk and excellent ballhandler as he at one point handled short KR duty flawlessly for the Bills). Nevertheless again. since he is on the downhill side of 30, has been the leader of an unsuccessful team, i see nothing wrong at all about letting him walk AS LONG as there is a credible replacement for him next year. This is the problem as there is no one on the depth chart capable of replacing him without a serious drop-off in productivity and though I assume Willis is a good player (though I now have some doubt about him as even being an adequate learner in the MLB spot for us since apparently he did not do a very good job with pass coverage at the senior bowl) but my sense is that we face a pretty big drop-off in D production if he starts at MLB next year and that drop-off will be unacceptable to anyone who wants to win next year as I suspect Ralph and Marv will. The bottomline is that there must be something the Bills (and possibly Fletch) have planned and I would not be shocked if part of the reason they agreed not to tag NC is that they knew they might tag Fletch rather than pay him a long term deal and in the Cover 2, Youbouty actually brings a set of skills (very competitive player with a big body and good demonstrated hand fighting skills which will be deadly in the first 5 yards and his downside assessment that he does not play as well with his back to the QB when he is in deep pursuit is not something required of him in our Tampa 2) which may have the braintrust happy to not franchise him. All-in-all if we can improve the effectiveness of our DTs against the run I have no problem bringing Fletcher back for a couple of years.

Many thanks for your contributions and work regarding the simulation. Still, the basic idea of trying to reflect (some would say reduce) the draft to a mechanistic process which can be reflected in a formula (even a formula which is being improved in its application by getting more nuanced need judgments for websights such as TSW) simply must have the prominently admitted limitation that the draft simply is not dictated nor defined by mechanistic approaches only. If one wanted to state this in an airy-fairy kind of way one would speak to the human element being a key to making the draft interesting because it is unpredictable or one can state in a difficult to argue against well factual way by simply pointing out deals completely alter the draft outcomes (thus a need that may be simulated in today's order totally changes in the blink of an eye to be met far earlier or far later than the model predicts. How do you deal with this limitation and to what extent are disclaimers about this reality said numerous times so as to make the drafttek approach truly accurate? I guess what I find troubling about the drafttek tool is that there is a point of disagreement among even us psychotic Bills watchers about the nature of our needs and how best to account for it. In general, we all agree that improving our ability to stop the run is a lead need for this team. However, there are large differences in: 1. Judgments on how to improve our run D (I argue for example that this task is best accomplished through improving the DL and that an MLB upgrade is important but secondary to this need. If one gets the same performance out of our DL as 2006 the MLB will make tackles downfield the same way Fletcher does even if he is replaced by a better tackler. 2. Scheme issues are all important as I argue also that even if one assumes a better tackler at MLB, the results will likely be the same as with F-B as the coaches will emphasize that the MLB do the same thing Fletcher did for us which is emphasize the role of the MLB in pass coverage in the Tampa 2. This emphasis is strongly indicated by Fletch leading both NFL LBs and the team in INTs. 3.This means a totally different approach in satisfying even agreed upon needs. Given the role of the MLB in this D emphasizing pass coverage, it makes complete sense to me that you dismiss completely the idea of finding a n MLB starter in the draft and instead use your significant FA resources to find a proven commodity that you know exactly what he can do in the deep zone coverage emphasized in our D by Jauron/Fewell. In essence, I think the simulation represents great work, but the chosen emphasis on getting an immediate MLB starter from the draft simply seems wholly misguided to me. When one adds on top of that while the theory of building a team for the future and thus a BPA approach is by far to me in a perfect world the way to build a winner. One thing which is clear given the Bills 0 for this millenium playoff record and given thst the Golden Boys undoubtedly must have a the future is now approach that is against what I think is the right way to build a team in a perfect world, the imperfections of reality point this team toward only looking at LB in this weak LB draft as development prospects if at all. What do you think it says for your use of draftek if in fact the Bills go completely away from drafting an LB first or in fact they may not even draft one at all depending upon how this draft plays out. My suggestion would be that you might run different versions of the simulations making different assumptions about what the Bills are prioritizing. While this approach would be cumbersome as it gives multiple options for an equation which is chock full of dependent variables and one loses the feeling of accuracy with these many acknowledged variables, quite frankly any suggestion of accuracy regarding the draft is an illusion anyway. A run on a certain position simply makes a particular draft a particular draft. For example while it is true safties are not normally drafted in the top 10 and in fact they often are not even taken in the first round as comparable safeties can often be found later in the draft. Last year, the reality was that Oakland (which has a history of doing wacky things like the unheard of taking of a kicker in the first- I think this worked so so or taking apunter in the first- I think the choice of Ray Guy worked brilliantly). Once Oak took Huff, the Bills had little choice about what to do with their pick as they set up a situation where they had to replace the cut Milloy with a draftee and once Huff was off the table given that the very next picker was likely to take an SS on the first day, they had little choice but to take Whitner even if he was no better than a pick in the 20s. This is borne out in that the Fins seeing this run and judging Allen to be a far better choice than the next SS (likely Bullocks) they took Allen at #15 which would have been a high pick even for Whitner. Even still today their are folks who lament us taking Whitner with our #8 and support this argument by pointing out that incredibly few safeties are taken in the top 10 historically. Yeah, but quite frankly who cares as that was history and they had a choice to make based on reality. We needed an SS from this draft and one of the two targeted were gone and passing on this or trading down would simply have been bad football. In the end, draftek would be a better used too IMHO if it somehow reflected different realities. It may be cumbersome but not to do this means that as soon as their is a significant departure from the expected reality that effects your teams needs then the drafttek simulation is useless. This would have been the case as soon as pick #7 last year from the Bills perspective.

I think we can do far better than having a journeyman vet as our MLB starter and far better than having Willis as our MLB starter. Given the general public word that the Bills judge Crowell to be back to normal even right now and assuming he stays on track with his rehab, moving him to MLB strikes me as a superior option to drafting Willis as MLB starter. We would still have an LB slot to fill and would need the depth anyway. but having this OLB hole can be filled by acquiring one of several FAs beginning with going after Briggs. In addition, by looking to fill the opening at OLB, it makes it quite tenable to look to the draft and players such as Timmons and Poluszny are seemingly even higher ranked among draft picks by the pundits than Willis from what I see. In addition, though the likelihood is that F-B is gone, I am virtually certain that even despite his failings in stuffing the run, he would be a better performer than Willis at MLB and i would take this option over starting Willis. Sticking with F-B at MLB does raise the concerns that our run defense would still be inadequate with him. However, judging our run D problems to be based in his play is a misread from what I see. He may well initiate tackles to far downfield but I think this problem begins with our DT failings as they should be stopping runners prior to them getting to the second level where LBs are positioned. Even to the extent that one wants to emphasize that Fletch should be hitting and filling the gaps harder. I think that Jauron/Fewell clearly emphasized him being a cover guy (see his league leading LB INT numbers and along with complaints about F-B being too light, one also needs to acknowledge the role of our scheme in playing him back off the line. We might well be switching from F-B tackling guys late to Willis tackling guys late.

Though I think that the correct theory is to build for the future, I think I agree with your perspectives which emphasize the importance of the immediate because I think while theory and principle are certainly great things, it is simply the real world which dictates action. In the real world, the Bills business has not been in the playoffs since the 99 season. In the real world, Ralph and Marv will not die tomorrow (probably) but the clock is ticking. Build a team for the future is THE intelligent way to build a team. However, history, age, and the simple fact that our culture constantly demands your business produce now (and I mean NOW) conspire with other things that the theory may be great but simply has little relevance to what we will and must do.

I actually must have missed my MLB views being refuted many times so my apologies and bear with me if you can and refute them again. Tatupu is a good example of an MLB who started immediately as a rookie and was a key part of the defense of a team with a winning record. My question though is what type of D scheme does Seattle employ (I have not seen this left coast team at all so greater knowledge is appreciated), but my point has never been that one does not play rookies in important positions immediately (Whitner is a real world example close to home) my point has been that in our Tampa 2 type scheme where the MLB is called upon to play a run plugging and a deep zone role at the same time, this is where the learning curve exists for us an a case would need to be made that Willis is just the man with just the background to play this diverse role for us as a starter. If Seattle does not employ a Tampa 2 style where Tatupu is called upon to play this same diverse role (which F-B rode to be the leading LB INT guy in the NFL then this is an example of how a rookie can start immediately (which I have always said is obviously possible though not guranteed in any particular case) but is actually not an example that we should expect or reasonably hope a rookie or Willis can do this role. In fact, even in the case of the role being a more simple straightforward LB role, the past occurence is that it is a 50/50 proposition that a 1st round choice will be adequate to the job. In fact, if one looks at last years real world accomplishments of the SS players where we were looking for an immediate difference maker, the factoids which hold this Marv led decision in good stead is that of the three SS players taken in the first round, Whitner had a demonstrably better performance than 3rd choice Allen who we may well have ended up with if we had traded down and either DET chose Whitner at #9 (not an impossible or even unlikely option as they chose SS Bullocks in Rd. 2 or the Fins seeing us trading down might have jumped ahead of us if they also were psyched about Whitner. In fact, Whitner produced better than any of the 1st day choices (Manning and Pollard in addition to the folks listed above) and this simply goes to show how risky it would be to rely on any rookie to fill a critical role for us as draft choices can turn out to be Peyton Manning or they can turn out to Ryan Leaf. I do not know whether Tatapu is a good indication that Willis could fill the complex MLB role for us as a rookie because it is unclear whether their MLB use is as diverse as ours and even if they do run a Tampa 2, then a case would need to be made that Willis has the zone coverage skills to do the job. Judging from the difficulties he apparently had with even one-on-one coverage in the senior bowl it sound pretty questionable that he would be a good fit for our scheme. I also added the point that his dropping in the pundits eyes is a good thing for those who want him and also for the Bills production not because I advocate starting an even lower drafted player at MLB, it is actually because if he were a 2nd round drafted player, there would be significantly less pressure or call on him to start. This is the reason I think it works best for us if we must have Willis if for F-B to be resigned because then we have no need to throw him in right away at MLB. I think this is unlikely but a better option for the team than what appears to be a bad option for us of drafting him to start at MLB.

He is actually up in the top 10 now in Kipers ratings so he well may not even be around at #12 (Kiper is not a drop dead certain rating of player skills, but if anyone with a higher pick thinks like he does he may be gone). He apparently really impressed folks at the Senior Bowl. On the other hand, Willis who is a favorite of many on TSW is not even mentioned in Kipers top 25 or getting a high ranking in some other pundit boards. To my mind that actually makes it more possible (though he likely still is a poor fit for our scheme as this rookie likely will command a start at MLB if we get him with any first day choice) that Willis might be a good choice for the Bills if we do not have to devote a 1st to get him. I'd love to have him as a player but not as an MLB starter as it will simply be painful as he goes through the learning curve necessary for him. In fact if Fletcher were to resign picking him makes a lot more sense to me football wise, though likely we could someone else who can start immediately with an early second round pick.

Such a small % of the broader public actually listen to AM radio it actually does not take many people to be listeners in order to be #1 even if you do not dice listenership up into sub-groups. Its like Bill O'Reilly being the #1 rated cable show that demonstrates this, this sounds like he talks to a lot of folks, but really its not as it only takes a couple of million viewers to be #1. Amidst a society of 300 million, the vast huge vast large majority of whom are not watching any cable show as they have something better to do with their time, its a minuscule subset of society and potential viewers. While it is more than those watching Anderson Cooper or Scarborough Country, CNN and Fox are still making money as folks who sell soap are willing to pay a bunch to get in front of a couple of million eyeballs.

This is particularly true given the importance of the MLB in the Tampa 2 and this player having the versatility to both tackle like a DT and pass cover like a safety. Even if he can pass cover in man to man well, this does not mean he necessarily has the skills to perform zone coverage at a sufficient level to be our starting MLB in a Cover 2. If in fact he even has trouble doing man to man coverage well, an already bad choice for us to start at MLB just got ranked worse.

I must admit. it strikes me as a pit of personal hubris that the football field is called Ralph Wilson Stadium (with the County naming it that and not Ralph himself wink wink nudge nudge). However, I was sitting there in Pilot Field and thinking it could be worse.