Pyrite Gal

Facts smhacts. We are talking about the Hall of FAME here. So lets compare their entire careers so we really need to compare Emmit's record with the AZ Cardinals versus Juice's output with the 49ers to get a true picture. I know you look at their career ypc, but whenever I argue a point on TSW I look for a particular episode in their careers and if that helps my case I claim it reflects the entire issue.

Actually I think the point folks are making is that unless you were a black kid you likely would not have been put in jail. While this may be the same as the Duke case in that in both cases the "boys" involved were pubescent idiots, the case actually is different in that the result seems to be that in the Duke case the outcome will likely be no jail time beyond any they served for being in a situation that led to the accusation. In this case the jail time he is sentenced to is outrageous. In both cases did the prosecutors treat the accused outrageously for their behavior? Yep. Do I feel sorry for the kid who got 10 years? Yep big time. Do I feel sorry for the Duke players? No not really. I'm happy they will not serve time for a rape they did not commit, but in their case getting raked over the coals and even losing their ride to college does not seem to be too outrageous for their stupid behavior even if you want to classify it as boys being boys. One good effect of this is that boys will think twice now about entertaining themselves with strippers.

If this is true I think there is little direct connection between hitting the hole and hitting a woman. Actually even if the accusation is an untrue accusation by some low-life he was dating this does not speak highly for his character which Marv says he is looking for. Obviously with his pick of Butler after his cheap shot to a fellow player on the field, transgressions can be forgiven after an abject apology. a record of other good acts, and plenty of testimonials from other that the behavior was an aberration. Amybody have any sense of Lynch's character outside of this?

Granted and I think you are correct about the yardage we should be getting from our #2 but I am actually somewhat surprised by the free-ride Fairchild seems to be getting on TSW. I assume it was because first JP was the whipping boy with his obviously stinky performances, but then he turned it around statistically and then WM with his bizarre comments like baby-Mommas (which the paternity suits show he was acting on his words though this has little to do with on the field performance) and then he chose to commentate on Bills location issues and some folks seem to give inordinate attention to his crack financial and management advice and in all this the offensive scheme escaped much scrutiny. All in all Fairchild is a rookie OC and the Os performance was definitely limited by some stinky OL performance initially and the TEs needing time to get their act together and his FB simply not performing like a good player. Yet, in the end, he is responsible in a large part for the players he chooses or does not seek to replace amd even with the tools he inherits or has, it is his job to use their skills no matter how flawed they are to the best effect he can. I simply think Fairchild has left us with a bunch of unanswered questions and unfilled ambitions for offensive production which go beyond the limitations of his players and raise questions as to whether he got the highest and best use of them. specifically: 1. JP showed he is a very talented athlete and his ability to use his feet to buy extra time and his ability to keep looking downfield and get the ball off while scrambling (a skill he has long had and showed in college as he ran for his life behind their turnstile OL and created well enogh to get a first round choice. Jauron reined in the O in the first half of the season while JP learned the game and has he worked through some issue like locking on a receiver he began to show what he could do so folks feel pretty good about him now, but job 1 for Fairchild next year is going to be help JP perform at even a higher level in his 4th year. JP is far from perfect as we saw him throw some bad INTs in the last game when he was pressing for a scorem but the jury us still out not as much on JP but on Fairchild next year. 2. Folks are obviously disappointed to the level of being pissed at WM, and it strikes me as foolish for folks to want to cut him or trade him for next to nothing in terms of a first day draft pick when the Bills are in the drivers seat with him contractually. He is no position to hold out and would only hurt his ability to get the big buck contract he want if in fact he held out this off-season when his production has gone down from his 1st to his 2nd and then from his second to his third season, The Bills simply need to stay the course and if he happens to use the motivation of being in his FA season to have a great year, good for us and simply show him the money or tag and trade him if we want. However, the big issue for those of us more concerned about the field than sleeping with WM or his fiscal advice was shown in the first play against the Ravens where WM caught a pass and ran for roughly a gain of 20+ yards. This play was called back on an illegal shift by us seemingly unrelated to the gain but the odd thing is Fairchild seemed to allow the great Ravens D to dictate our offense and we never made much use of WM as a runner much less a pass catcher. Fairchild simply needs to make more use of the RB as a receiver in his O if he is ever gonna replicate the offensive results of the high-flying Rams offense where he last learned offensive trade. WM showed some good stuff as a receiver in limited college use and he has shown the same possibilities in his limited use as a receiver for the Bills. I do not expect WM to be the next Marshall Faulk but Fairchild simply needs to show more in this regard. 3. His use (or more accurately non-use) of the receivers was the thing which most annoyed me. The JP/Evans chemistry is real and I praise the two of them for their achievements. However, PP allegedly still has some speed (according to outside observers and we actually saw some of this last pre-season), Parrish pulled off some great TDs last season (sporadically) and actually showed a couple of times he can take a hard hit and bounce back up (as seen in the Ravens game) and that his injury of his rookie year has not been repeated, in addition, not only has Reed overcome his droppsie problem of his sophomore year, but he even has showed some of his old RB chops as he bulled through the D for a TD on one late season play. However, despite some very good episodes, Fairchild's O: A. cast PP as a possession receiver and he did OK with 49 catches and some nice sideline and endzone work, but we never used his speed unless this is part of the reason why Evans ended up with one-on-ones he turned into long TDs several times. B. Parrish just seemed to disappear as a WR at times which was frustrating after seeing TDs by him such as one against the Jets where he caught a short slant pass and just outran all chasing defenders to the endzone. Given some good statistical success we had on first drives one would think the Bills and Fairchild could dictate the game a little more. C. I was impressed with Reed's work but I think the Bills should resist temptation which saw them start him as our #2 WR once (he had his chance at this and developed the droppsies and instead simply use him as a #4 (I would be happy to see this alot with a one man backfield being our standard set even on 1st downs and use Reed's RAC ability. However, these are not just simply complaints that these three WRs should play better or should be replaced, my sense is that they would produce more if what they do best were employed more and also if Faurchild did some things to draw attention elsewhere and freed these players up, in particular if we utilized the RB (be it WM or A-Train) in pass routes it would put more pressure on those covering the WRs. 4. A key to this obviously is that if the OL cannot block then there will not be time for a pass oriented game. I understand this and though I saw little sign of the Bills even attempting this in the early stages to test the blockers, they seem to have already decided as the season began on the road not to try to dictate play with a pass attack. Being on the road early, a concern about the OL which developed in camp, and the reined in offense used to break JP in may have all been factors leading to their controlled O and once they went to that path changing up was something they never implemented. Still next season is a new year and with an improved blocking since the housecleaning and reordering at the break, with the addition of an OL player or 2 through FA and the draft they really could use a more offensive offensive scheme. 5. Obe significant difference in how a Bills O might differ from the high-flying St. Louis model might be greater use of the TE. Some good work by Royal after he finally came around (except for some lousy footwork in the endzone on a TD which might have been) holds out the possibility along with the emergence of Cieslak for some more TE work. However, it is not hard to do better at TE than the Rams as historically the TEs on their roster have only logged a catch or 2 for the entire season. It could well be that the TE position is simply an extra blocker in the SL model and that is why they do not catch the ball so use of the TE in more pass oriented attack may not be possible This does raise the question of how possible it is for us to use a pass happy model like the Rams O with our blocking limitations and are there enough ball to go around. I think we can do this since we have a far more mobile QN with JP than the Rams have had and in addition, given the bad play we have had at FB I do not feel we are losing much if we simply eliminate the FB from our scheme in favor of a 3rd reciever or simply an empty backfield set.

Actually I agree with you that Swann was a better receiver than Reed (like HOF voting its a lot more than the simple stats, but I also thinl that Emitt Smith was a lot better than OJ and this is even more than my personal distaste for someone who butchers his wife and a stranger speaking. OJ was an amazing rusher and one of the best there ever was, but being an RN and ultimately a football player is about a lot more than the mere yardage put down lugging the rock. In many ways I look at this question from the standpoint of if I was a DC who do I hate to and even fear facing and I would be much happier to face OJ rather thab E. Smith and easily choseEmmit and his teammates rather than Juice and his Electric Vo, teammates everyday and twice on Sundays. I think Emmit was a better RB than OJ and a better dancer as well.

I am not sure about this. If by this you mean that putting him into the HOF violates the criteria that the NFL has set for membership in the Hall. I doubt this as it means that the committee of football junkies like a Larry Felser who used to be on the committee decided to or unknowingly violated this criteria by putting on Swann I simply doubt this. The reality is that it is a HO Fame and not Hall of Statistical Greatness, Its a popularity contest, but in this entertainment game popularity counts big. If they judged Swannie to deserve entry for some reason such as his embodying the Steelers wins even if his stats did not add up to the results he achieved in crunch time, those are the rules and one probably should complain (to little real world end really) that the criteria should be or emphasize other things rather than being a HO Fame. To some extent the criteria as I know them which specifically says non football behavior like murdering your wife are not to be taken into account, thus an idiot like OJ Simpson is still in the HOF despite him really only deserving to be in the netherworld burning forever.

Having not watched Leile I am not sure what you mean here. He certainly has missed fewer games than PP (he only missed 1 game in his 6 seasons) but actually Peerless has played in the entire 16 games in 7 of his 8 seasons. He only played in 7 games in his lost year with Dallas after he failed utterly in his attempt to become the Falcons #1 (he and we learned through his awful play there that while he can be extremely productive as the #2 to a stud WR, he simply did not perform with Vick as QB in front of his hometown crowd after TD took Arthur Blank at AT for a 1st round choice after Blank essentially guranteed AT fans he would get PP as an FA and TD said thank you very much and tagged PP). However, durability and the ability to be able to show up and start games is one of the advantages PP brought with him when he came back to Buffalo and he was able to do that at least for us in 06 when he once again played all 16 and started 15 except one where the Bills decided to go with Reed as the starter. Certainly from watching the games I saw no sense of PP being a weenie as it seemed like a waste of speed which outside observers like the B-News Wilson still says he has as Fairchild used him as a possession receiver and ran him on short routes as seen with his very small ypc. Certainly on specific plays like against MN where he showed he retained some RAC ability when he caught a pass on his knees but was able to get to his feet and score a TD pr one of his too few TDs when he caught a pass with 9 seconds left against Houston and got his feet down for the winning TD, he has shown some ability but it was never used consistently which is on him in part since he did not play so well he demanded the ball, but some of this was on Fairchild and how he was used. Still he seemed more than willing to catch short yardage passes in traffic as indicated by his ypc but racking up 49 catches as our #2. If he had developed a reputation for the droppsies as Reed did in his second season then perhaps one could reasonably fault him for a lack of concentration shown by some fearful WRs but there is no statistical indication of this nor can I remember specific plays where this was the case, though it would be great if you could site those specific plays even with the game it occured in (though citing the clock time would help folks remember it or find it on tapes we have). Observers who have shown good football knowledge in previous cases have accused him of rounding off routes, but I am not sure how one does this without knowing what route was called and how it is expected to be run in a particular situation by the Bills. PP did get a reputation among some for being a weenie when he gave up several fumbles one year, but I think even this accusation is a superficial reading of the stats as in the games they actually seem to happen when PP foolishly (IMHO) actually showed some ballsiness struggling for an extra yard or two and with a tackler hanging on to his ankle a second defender tagged this stationary target and he coughed up the ball, I actually wished he was more of a weenie and had simply gone down with the first hit. However, some overread weakness on his part into this stat. Perhaps that where your observation is based because I saw little in the games or in the stats this year to support this accusation. PP had a disappointing year in my opinion compared to his last effort as our #2 (being worse than 94 catches is not hard actually) but even though it is quite normal to get slower as one gets older, PP demonstrated with a couple of big yardage catches he made in pre-season that he is faster than many DBs and I was hoping for more this regular season, but in addition to faulting PP for not producing results which were at least what we hoped for, if there is blame to be cast, I would question how Fairchild used him because he seemed to do what he was asked to do for the most part.

It certainly is a questionable case whether Reed belongs in the HOF, buy despite the ongoing argumentation style of the news media as seen on networks like CNN and Fox News, folks are settling into a realization that hard cases make bad laws. There is little reason beside folks loving to cause or see a hissy fit to argue flat out that Reed does not belong in because other deserving WRs (some with better cumulative stats than Reed) have been left out or that he clutched his throat rather than the ball (like too many of the Bills difference makers in the big game). I think the NFL actually showed some wisdom in making this a popularity contest for the committee rather than a static application of stats or a media or fan based popularity contest. The solution of letting a committee of "experts" decide has produced a few clinkers and a few oversights, but in general the decisions arrived at have been at least tolerable and since they really do not stand up completely to either a statistic based argument of who deserves in or a strongly held relatively fact-free opinions the HOF Committee still has produced generably tolerable results. In my view I am quite comfortable with Reed being a finalist to get in given him meeting the basic requirement of being famous for his football play (it is the HOF afterall and not the Hall of Great Play or the Hall of Clutch Production). Mere fame does not strike me as good enough, but: 1. His career #s which far exceeded his low draft status (remember its the HOFame and expectations count in thus version of reality). 2. As an amazing tribute to the Bills making a likely to never be repeated 4 straight (even though the 3 wins in 4 years by the Pats is arguably a more noterworthy achievement, I doubt 4 straight even as a loser will be repeated). 3. Being on the receiving and RAC end of many of HOF member Kelly's TD throws I think Reed gets in eventually and deserves it. It strikes me as fair and balanced if he does NOT get in on his first ballot for the reasons cited for him not getting in at all, but no particular big game performances, his hissy fit with his helmet or even his sad ending strike me as rationals for disqualification entirely for not getting this reward which by design is a case where reasonable people (or unreasonable people can disagree.

While WM certainly wants an extension, the key to this situation is that between his yardage gained going down each of the last two years and also the leverage the Bills have under the CBA, WM is in no position to hold out or force an extension. The good news for those worried about WMs amount of motivation he has every financial incentive to have a productive year this season. If he does, the Bills still hold the ability to tag him and like folks like Alexander or Jones the Bills could even tag him again. Add to this the record being that Rosenhaus clients rarely if ever hold out, the Bills are under little pressure to move him this year (and who would give up much for him if he is as bad as some folks say, there is a simple contradiction in the view that WM must go because he is not good or he is problematic to fans AND another team would trade a lot for this unaccomplished jerk) amd quite frankly even to part with him next year IF he has a good season this coming season.

That's not what I take from the stated opinion of his post or the thread. I think there is a awful tendency in our society (fed by the newsmedia like CNN and Fox) seeming to be more interested in providing "news" as a vehicle for selling commercials than in providing a more accurate description of controversial stories which are actually debatable because there in fact are reasonable contradictory opinions about them. This case seems to me to be an example that since one size does not fit all in terms of the same treatment being given to everyone regardless of income, race, gender, etc. that you end up with foolish decisions being made as folks try to stuff every single case into one supposedly fair set of rules. The founding fathers (and mothers behind the scenes if one reads up on the relationship between John and Abigail Adams) were smart enough to see this and built a Constitution and system which allowed for checks and balances and made sure the rights of the individual were given a fighting chance against the views and interests of the state or the majority. This whole case seems to be one where clearly the boy (and though clearly and legally beyond the age of consent he was a boy in behavior) committed an illegal act under the clear letter of the law and was stupid enough to be on videotape doing it. His reasons for rolling the dice with a jury neither justify his actions nor the assinine results which serve few folks and little of society's interests of him going to the slammer for 10 years. Because the result of his going away for ten years does not serve the interests of reasonable punishment for the crime (most folks think 10 years was excessive for the "crime"), it does not serve the interests of stopping him from doing it again (he likely will make sure his BJs are from adults in the future), seems quite unlikely to deter other irrational folks from acting irrationally, and clearly is a bad deal for all in terms of an egalitarian view since his prison bed should go to someone commiting what folks are sure is a real violent crime against another and the taxpayer paid cost is excessive, etc. the episode is simply sad, stupid and difficult to justify unless one ignores reality and attempts to argue one size does fit all. Thus appears to me to be a case where the DA did not use his prosecutorial discretion and not attempt to make this case when he lost the rape part of the case. It also is a case where the judges use of their powers of equity in cases over the years pissed off enough folks to allow for legislative passage of a ham-handed answer to this question which removed reasonable discretion by all judges. IMHO for shame on this adult-boy for his videotaped act, but an even larger for shame on the DA for not exercising his prosecutorial discretion and playing a role in this verdict which serves no interests, and to the legislature for going too far in denying the judiciary the ability to not do stupid things.

A few games is one thing, a season or two is another. Simply ask those several fans who were willing to throw JP away after his second season or more importantly ask Ralph who was quite apologetic after our meltdown last season which included TD getting (and deserving) to be canned in part after the young player he an entrusted a key starting position to (replacing a vet whom most judged to be beyond his time) to a young player who needed some PT before he could be effective. This analogy is not perfect as the QB position strikes me as more difficult to learn than the MLB position. However, the other difference is that JP entering his second year also had alot more pro experience than the rookie Willis would. Another difference is that the QB position is asked to initiate plays whereas the MLB is responding. However, this real world difference points directly to why pro experience is a very good thing for our MLB to have. This is especially true in the version of the D we run because the MLB is required to make critical judgments on third down to diagnose whether the play is going to be a post pattern into their zone (better fall back particularly if it is a speedy WR or if it is draw play up the gut (better pinch in particularly if our DTs are gonna be the run play turnstiles they were this past season particularly against better (who didn't Tomlinson tattoo this year) or inspired (Travis clearly was not taking prisoners) runners. I actually am glad you are at least willing to concede that this will take a few games as this also now seems to acknowledge some foundation for my thinking since I typed more slowly while explaining my misguided thinking. I also agree with folks thoughts about wanting to upgrade at MLB as we got run on successfully too much. However, perhaps the Willis thought is more inspired by the likely need to replace an FA F-B than you concluding he simply is not good enough of a run stuffer to be wanted at MLB. Since actually I think a deeper analysis of our run D problems would take into account: 1. Complaints about him making tackles to deep downfield would seem primarily to me to be an idictment against our DL as they need to get through the first wave before he gets to the LB level. I think this complaint on F-Bs play (assuming one buys this as the issue) seems to be more of a reason to get a run stuffing DT. 2. Perhaps this complaint is about F-B simply not filling the gap between DTs or being "light in the pants" as some would say. Again however, this argument does seem to ignore the fact that actually the Bills D the way we run it actually has the MLB playing a lot of pass coverage (particularly on 3rd down but also on second and long). The statisitical indicator of this (and it is an indicator as stats rarely are conclusive) is that F-B led all MLBs in INTs this year, my sense is this because the Bills' coaches player a style which used F-B in pass coverage rather than attacking the LOS. A stat that particularly indicates this is that not only did he lead LBs in INTs but actually led the Bills in INTs beating out NC and McGee. IMHO opinion this is because in our Cover 2 the CBs are required to do press coverage in the shorter zones (10 yds and in) and they release receivers to the safeties and MLB going deep hence more INTs for the MLB and also likely more tackles down the field. Another statisitical indicator is the relative # of solo tackles to assisted tackles for F-B. If in fact the key issue is of him being too light to bring down runners by himself, then I think we would see more missed tackles by him or more assists as he needed the help of other Bills to bring a runner down while he hung on for dear life. Yet, by a 2:1 ratio not only did he have solo tackles but he also comfortably lead the team in tackles credited to him (if he missed more tackles then his fellow Bills should get them or if he was too weak tackles would tend to be assisted rather than being by predominantly solo). It may be silly or wrong or whatever, but since I have yet to see this analysis controverted by any analyses of objective measures and with nothing more than short fact-free opinions it sounds more credible to me.

It's not that I am against drafting and getting a player of Willis' caliber, its just that I think there is little chance that he could replace Fletcher at starting MLB without us having to simply suffer through the things Fletcher can do that Willis almost certainly will not be able to do. Perhaps the foundation for this thinking can be found in answering several questions: 1. Do you think that Willis will be able to diagnose plays as well as a rookie as F-B can with a decade of watching NFL plays on tape and from the center of the field? 2. Do you think that Willis will bring to his play reading the same level of skills which made F-B the captain of the D and which allowed him to quickly diagnose game situations and advocate the Bills positions to the refs as he consistently seemed to and has been said by players to do often? 3, Do you think that a rookie Willis will be able to master a fairly complex Fewell/Jauron D well enough to be able to call signals and make adjustments just prior to the snap, or if not how do you see the Bills compensating for Willis not being able to perform this F-B duty by either switching to either safeties of one of the OLBs doing this even though they are not in the best position for communicating with the far side of the field? The foundation for my thinking is that the answer to these questions are: 1. Willis and quite frankly no boy who has only played the college game will be able to read and diagnose plays like a 10 year vet. Further, because the MLB in our system is required to both tackle runners and also to play the middle deep zone, if a mistake is made in this area as all rookies do it has the potential to be very bad for us. 2, Its simply gonna take awhile for any rookie to learn to read plays like a vet and this is crucial to this role and further though I believe from what I have seen and heard of him that Willis is a better tackler than F-B and at least a fair cover guy, I do not (and hope you can share with us) the foundation for concluding or even the indications of him having pro level zone coverage abilities. 3. No, I do not expect a rookie to master a D of the complexity of the Fewell/Jauron system that it has the capability of virtually stoning a talented Jets offense. If one sets up a situation where your starting MLB is either Willis or DeGregorio, I do not see a rookie having the ability to call the plays or make the changes at the LOS, and please share with us the info you have that I do not which shows or indicates Whitner or Simpson is up to this in their second year. My guess is either you have Crowell or TKO do this (though I suspect it is Crowell and not TKO as he has other fish to fry rehabbing still) and if one has Crowell do this, then why not have him man the MLB slot and either get an OLB who most pundits have as highly ranked as Willis or instead go to a proven FA LB who can team with TKO and Crowell to give us what may be the best LB unit in football. This is the basis of my thinking and does not seem totally out to lunch to me, but perhaps you can clarify why this thinking is without foundation. I like Willis play and think he would hold down the MLB spot for us for years, I simply believe rookies usually have some learning curve and I am not sure that either Marv or Ralph wanna take a year to endure that. Perhaps they have told you otherwise.

I think this is also an issue, but one he should be able to get over in exchange for multi-millions he will get. The question IMHO is more one of can he rather than will he. Is he that much more comfortable at 287 that if he got up to a little bit over 300 is he going to feel logy enough and also lose a little bit of that edge that it triggers other issues in his game so he gets pushed around and exploited? Who knows, outside of his own mind and the NFL professionals who over time have developed a sense of how much weight gain a particular frame can handle and still perform exceptionally well (gosh I miss Rusty Jones, our old strenght and nutrition guy who helped Bruce Smith get down into the 280s and still maintain extraordinary strength). As far as Willis, picking him makes little football sense to me, as my sense is that this D wouldtake a step backward in production with a rookie manning the key and diverse performing MLB role in our Cover 2. I'm not saying that rookies cannot play MLB at a starting level right out of the box, but it seems to me that in our Tampa 2 version of the Cover 2, the MLB is asked to perform like a DT in plugging holes against the run, but also like a safety in deep pass coverage as our MLB divides the field in thirds with the two safeties in passing situations. Willis is a very talented player as evidenced by his receiving the Butkus award as colleges best LB. However, this is also thought to be a fairly weak crop of MLBs and the highest I have seen any pundits place Willis is in the 15-20 range of potential draftees (maybe we can trade down and still get him) with some ranking actually listing OLBs Poluszny and Timmons as better prospects. Its not that Willis will not be a better hitter and even faster (though I have not seen anything tangible to indicate this is true) than Fletch. Its simply that I do not think a rookie will be able to diagnose plays and not get fooled badly a couple of times (with an enemy TD the likely outcome if he takes a step in expecting a draw play on third and long and instead a speedy WR runs a post pattern through his zone) as he learns to read NFL play development like Fletch who watched a decade worth of NFL plays which I would guess played a key role in his leading the NFL in intercepts by an LB. I think the best analogy to what life with Willis starting for us at MLB will be like is for the most part like the path JP took when he assumed the QB position. He was an outstanding athlete, but as things got more complex and opponents got tape on him to figure out how to exploit him, it got really ugly for a while and the faint of heart fans were ready to throw him under the bus. It will not be the same as QB is actually much more difficult to absorb than MLB, but given that it is the MLB or either safety who tend to call D signals in the NFL if only because they are back far enough to see the whole field and near or in the middle so everyone can hear them yell a switch, given not only will Willis but the second year Whitner and Simpson not be there yet as signal callers. The Bills would likely have to do something like have an off back like TKO or Crowell (likely Crowell as he has done this before as back-up MLB, and TKO will need to worry about his ongoing rehab rather than worry about everyone else) call the signals. My sense is that given that there is no guarantee how long Marv and most of all Ralph will be on this planet, I doubt they will want to go through the painful learning experience even a talented Willis is likely to have if thrust into the Tampa 2 MLB role. What makes more sense to me at replacing Fletch is: 1. Play Crowell as your starter and try to sign FA MLB Briggs. 2. Play Crowell as your starter and draft Poluszny or Timmons. 3. The best thing would be if what is happening is actually that Ralph and F-B are pulling a game on the rest of the league and have already agreed to an extension that fits our budget and actually are conspiring to make all think we are going to be MLB focused in the draft. In this bizarre fantasy (wishing does not make it real and even I do not believe this) F-B even hires Drew R. to make the discord look real and he gets his agent cut for merely doing due diligence and helping sell the ruse.

Correct and also it is important that the level of compensation given to a team for their net loss is determined in some sort of black box process by the league which has led some GMs to say that they ignore the whole process until something happens they can work with as its fairly impossible to figure out (guess) what they are gonna do.

Then do you buy taking a utilitarian perspective, that not only is the kids life ruined, but Georgia taxpayers get to pay for housing and guarding him for ten years and likely the costs yet to be determined if having zero skills he returns to a life of crime or does not but ends up in the welfare machine. All of this is of far less import than the moral injustice of this stupidity. In addition, rather than teaching him a lesson so he does no more crimes, the jail term and ruined life probably create a far greater likelihood of reciidivism. then add to that the stupidity of the cost of incarceration and I think it is a travesty any way you look at.

I think folks like him as a person fine, they just hate the results of his play as he was burned so many times when GW/Gray messed up in their assessment of how much Jenkins had left and were forced to throw this athlete who had never played safety before to the wolves as our starting safety. The thing I really regreted about it was that I had hoped they would train him and he would focus on learning and doing well at the ST game, instead he tried but failed miserably at pass coverage as a safety (they thankfully got Milloy just before his second season began, but even when the Bills were shutting out NE (in part thanks to Milloy hot off the field intelligence, Wire got overmatched on one of the final plays and got a roughing penalty in the endzone- fortunately a goalline stand preserved the shutout. It was demonstrated how much time Wire likely wasted learning safety when against CIN he was on ST and the gamer and athlete that he was he blew through the CIN OL to block a kick but as Steve Tasker (who knows a thing or two about ST work) he took an impossible to block the kicker angle and got called for roughing the punter and CIN not only kept the ball but scored to put the game in OT (again fortunately Wire's teammates bailed him out and scored to win the game). The way he was developed was simply a waste of a very good athlete,

I think it takes three years to make a real assessment AND I think all four are "legit starters". I do not think these two things are the same thing at all. I think Mike Williams was a legit starter for the Bills during his time here but I completely agreed that his career here also legitimately defined him as a bust. My legit starter the distinction I am making is that a player did not take the starting role simply due to expediency and he sits as soon as the true legit starter gets well or we sign someone else. Keith Ellison started a bunch of games for us and actually acquitted himself quite well doing this. However, I think he comes into the 07 season as a second stringer depending upon how things play out with F-B leaving sd though the depth chart has Crowell as second string SLB behind TKO he gets the nod over Ellison unless they move him to starting MLB. Meawhile I judge Whitner, Simpson, and Pennington to clearly be the owners of the starting jobs and actually Williams also though I think he will face a definite challenge for being one of our two best DTs from McCargo and possibly and off-season pick-up. No ask from me that anyone adore each pick. In fact, I am happy to throw each and everyone (as well as Marv's dessicated body) under the bus if after a reasonable time period they are playing badly (a reasonable time period can vary IMHO to incredibly short for an FA like a Reyes to three years (or more) for a high draft pick the team invests in contractually (JP gets another half season or so to more perfect his craft before I give up on him given the promise he has shown and our contractual obligation). The main thing I do repetitively post about (or insist on if you want to use that phrase) is that folks make accurate and honest assessments. While the first/second day distinction has some legitimacy, it also can be taken too far in terms of importance and simply is not all important and makes all other factors meaningless. For example, when one considers our DT needs and the draft last year, when a player is drafted is obviously critical to slotting and how much we invest in a player. However, because the Bills saw fit to draft two DTs, the distinction between when they were picked is not the main driver one needs to look at when assessing how we did in this draft at DT. I am very happy that the Bills braintrust was not so addicted to the draft that they decided to go with McCargo over Williams regardless of who played better. The important thing to this Bills fan was that we fill the hole at starting DT and I could not care less where a player was picked, I simply want them to start the best talent. Its too bad that we traded up to get a buy who sat on the bench behind a better player, but as draft choices are so speculative, the fact we traded one away for a player who sat on the bench is far less important IMHO than starting the better player. The fact we got the better player in the 5th round so trading up to the first was unnecessary is interesting and of note but pales in significance to actually getting a better player and starting him. The fact we COULD have done better is hindsight of little significance because we drafted a better player later in the same day. What strikes me as not really looking at all of reality is that few teams actually find 4 players likely to start in their second seasons in the draft. and while it is certainly true that 2 of 3 players drafted on the first day came no where near being legit starters, to focus on this without also at least acknowledging that this draft produced not simply 3-4 likely starters next year, but actually 7 players who started at least one game in 06 on a team which improved its record against higher achieving competition. This acknowledgement simply makes an assessment more accurate and i was pleased to see this acknowledgment of this in one of the posts in this thread. I would add: 4) After 1 full year, day 1 and day 2 of this draft as a whole look pretty good. Do you disagree? The draft class made a huge contribution to an 06 team which finished with a better record than the 05 team and did this while playing against competition which included 5 of the top 6 seeds in the 06 AFC plus the #1 seed in the NFC, The draft class yielded 7 players from the 7 rounds who were judged good enough to start at least one game for this team and at least three and probably 4 Bills from this draft class will start for them next year, I'm no making this stuff up we are talking W/L and PT which are far more real measures of performance than the latest draft guru ranking, charts of draft round comparability or fan expectations of whether a player should start based on when he was drafted. Reality says that when assessing the draft, one might decide to assess the draft. Breaking things down by which day etc may be indicative of some true things, but not integrating the breakdown back into the whole or ignoring reality is not likely to be accurate. The whole truth is that in hindsight they could have done better, but the reality is they did pretty well getting significsnt PT from a draft class on a team which improved its record while facing competition which did very well against the league. It is the failure to acknowledge this at the same time one finds fault in their first day picks that simply is not an accurate portrayal of their draft work. It is the failure to portray reality which undercuts analysis of their first day failings and simply reduces these true arguments to sound like mere bleating rather than solid analysis. The day 2 work I am "gushing" over does not make day 1 productive at all, however, day 2 was productive enough it makes the definite mistakes made on day 1 less important. For example, the Bills spent a draft pick they did not have to spend to move up in order to get a DT capable of starting. They failed to do this when McCargo did not impress. However, their day 2 pick of Williams resulted in them getting a DT who proved capable of being their starter on a team which achieved a better record than the year before against good (probably better than but I have not compared them so I will not make a sure claim not based on facts) competition. The second day work simply greatly reduced the real world effects of the first day errors. This is reality and a real assessment would acknowledge this. Could they have done better? Sure in theory they could have. However, in reality, do you really suggest that any set of humans are going to achieve what they really achieved 7 drafted players meriting starts and also achieve the better job of drafting 2 more players on the first day who end up starting. Ye[, in theory a team can get 8 players who start out of the 9 chosen (Youbouty did start in the big win over NYJ) and it could be the case that the team scores 5 starters (if McCargo starts then Williams probably does not) if they make three starter picks happen on day 1 instead of getting 1. However, if they had accomplished what you suggest is it only then a good job by them in this draft. Actually, they almost did what you suggest (7 players actually got starts at some point in 06 rather than the 8 players who would have gotten starts under your suggestion of a better performance and the team has one more starter going into next season under your scenario. What you suggest as a result seems fairly farfetched in terms of the real world (this is what makes it woulda/coulda/shoulda IMHO) and actually the Bills led by Marv came pretty close to accomplishing what you suggest thanks to their second day work.

It used to be the Outdoor Living Network but they changed the name when they realized that folks who live outdoors a lot generally do not watch as much TV and there was less money to be made using sports as a vehicle to sale commercials. There first thought was to change the name to the Indoor Living Network as this really describes the eyeball market they are selling. However. they decided that a pretend combat sounding name made for better marketing and Versus it became.

In the midst of an incredibly lengthy thread below about the Whitner/McCargo picks, the thinking while I write too much method led me to think about this Marv led draft in a different way than I had before and led me to feel even better about this product! In general, I am of the mind that it takes 3 years of real play before one can really assess the quality of a player. There are too many Eric Moulds type examples of a player who becomes a legitimate Pro Bowl selection who production was just awful in their first couple of years. There are players like JP who at various points in his 2+ seasons of play one can legitimately judge as a #1 prospect (in fact TD did this and threw Bledsoe under the bus), judge as being worthy of a cut (his 05 was horrid) and his results in his first full season last year were actually pretty good compared to other QBs. However, with the caveat that it is way too early to draw conclusions, it is reasonable at any point to assess the previous years play and to take these facts as an INDICATOR of potential directions. In this light, I think the best criteria for assessment is what this draft class contributed to the team in 06 and whether this contribution helped the 06 team improve over the 05 team and in fact a judgment about whether this team improved over the previous year's model. I think it is consistent with the real facts to say: 1. The 06 Bills were a better team than the 05 Bills. This was not impossible to do since the 05 Bills finished 5-11 and ended up racked in dissension in TD's last year with leading player Moulds throwing an on field hissy fit. Yet, this is important since even if the rookies contributed to the 06 team but the 06 team performed just as badly it devalues the draft product. Yet, I think it is hard for anyone to argue that the 06 team was not better as it improved the record to 7-9, was mathematically in the playoff hunt til the next to last weekend ( I wish we were in the NFC), and reasonably provides some hope at least for the future where they entered this season at best as an unknowable commodity. 2. The 06 draft class produced an impressive amount of contributions to the 06 team as seen in the number of games started and critical role played by the players chosen. The facts simply are: A. 7 of the 10 choices got a game start for this improved team. While Youbouty and Merz (who got his start against NE) merely got one start, Whitner and Simpson were the only rookies to both start at safety in almost all games and injury allowing we may have our safety starters for a number of years. B. The off-season will tell but we go into next season with 4 players (Whitner, Simpson, Pennington, Williams) from the 06 class as the legit starters at their positions next year. C. In addition, there is the possibility that 2 players from this class may force their way into the nickel role (Youbouty may actually get a shot at #2 CB if NC leaves) or if Williams drops to reserve it may well be because McCargo recovered from the injury which took him to IR to be the run stopper that our DTs were not. The simple case is that the 06 class got a lot of PT on a significantly improved team. This is simply the mark and measure of a very good draft class. While the complaints of some that 2 of the 3 first day picks simply did not produce the same contribution of starts to the team, this complaint is really reduced to mere whining (and even bleating) if in the same breath these draft gurus do not at least acknowledge the fact the 06 team got a significant starter contribution from second day choices. One cannot reasonably claim to make a realistic assessment of this team which points to the lack of production of first day choices without also acknowledging the reality of the production of the second day choices on an improving team. The real world results are particularly impressive if one takes into account the reality that our improved record was produced with us facing 5 of the top 5 seeds in the AFC playoffs and the NFC top seed Chicago Bears to boot. Fully half of our games were against playoff teams and the 06 class contributed significantly in starts and PT to a team which produced a significantly better record. One can always get better and there is no law whatsoever that us fans have to be rational. However, I simply do not think one can look at the actual facts of record achieved versus competition that achieved a lot and the extraordinary number of starts contributed by the '06 draft class to the '06 team and not conclude that this Marv led team did very well in the '06 draft. Again, I am not saying they could not have done better but to merely focus upon what they woulda/coulda/shoulda done better and to not also at least acknowledge the real world output leaves a post that does that as easily ignored for not dealing with the full reality.

I simply think it would be a bad football move to trade WM. I can see why some folks would want to do this if they require the football players they root for to be someone they would enjoy dinner with or they would be proud to have as a son-in-law if their daughter became one of the players' baby mommas. However, it would be difficult for me to care less about WM's crack financial management views about where the Bill's business is situated and I have come to the conclusion that I will not sleep with him so I also think his attitude toward women is horrendous but I do not really care as long as he does not violate the law. Trading him strikes me as a bad football move because: 1. There is a difference between the fact (IMHO) that stud RBs can be found (even on the second day) of the draft and actually acquiring an RB who can produce rushing yards at the level of even 25th in the league (hint only 24 people in the world did better and almost all of them if not all of them are under contract). My guess is that A-Train would be quite unlikely to do this and that depending on a draft choice to do this would be so speculative or involve passing on a more crucial need to get a player with the 1st pick who MIGHT well perform at WM's disappointing level that trading him for a draft choice is a bad football move. 2. The Bills are in the drivers seat for 07 vis a vis WM. For those who fear Rosenhaus and a potential holdout, WM's leverage is so low coming off a disappointing season that a holdout is a horrible fiscal move for him that would heighten attention to his flagging production numbers if he were on the market and have him labeled as a malcontent and an ingrate also if he held out. The fear of a holdout also ignores the fact that the history of Rosenhaus clients is that they do not tend to holdout. In addition, if WM should happen to have a productive year (which for those who complain about his lack of motivation he has FA year motivation this year) the Bills still hold the CBA given right to tag him twice if they choose. I can see how those who for some reason want to devote a lot of importance to WM's personality and ramblings that they might definitely want to trade him, it would however, be a dumb football move. My sense is try to find an RB one deems to have the character and talent to one day be a #1 on the 2nd day of the draft and make use of him as a 3rd down receiving threat replacing Shaud W. and keep A-Train and this works for me.

Doug Flutie is probably a correct answer here both for those fans who took the question as a joke and would plug in the name of the Bill they thought was most over-rated and also those who think the Lil' guy was a great player to watch and root for.

But in actually assessing the 06 draft class, I think that the most rational answers to complaints about the quality of the Day one choices really vary between 1. ya gotta wait to do a rational assessment or 2. who cares. The answers strike me as the most rational responses as: 1. One really needs to see 3 years of play before one draws rational conclusions. Even in our own limited Bills world, not only do folks drafted in the "old" days like Eric Moulds deserve to be thrown under the bus for their 1st year (actually first two years) results and somehow turn it around to become legit Pro Bowlers, but as was pointed out above TD already has shown us the stupidity of putting too many marbles in the hands of a player based on his 1st year but also folks who wanted to throw him away based on his 2nd year production may have drawn conclusions too soon. 2. The key to assessing the quality of any draft is assessing the quality of the draft. It is simply not assessing part of the draft even one which at least has the chronological unity of looking at one day. Overall, I think the quality of a draft is shown in assessing the contributions to the team of the players chosen. The 06 draft assessment though prematures shows not only the 7 rounds revealing all the players chosen making the team (an easily jimmiable outcome which does even necessarily indicate not to mention prove quality) but in fact about half the players chosen started roughly half the team's games in a year the team produced an improved record (this result seems far above what is normally achieved from draft classes and is good based on reality though inadequate because we failed to make the playoffs). I understand the concern expressed about the production of the 1st day choices, but this concern if elevated to be important simply comes off as whining when in the same breath one does not acknowledge or point to the Bills starters on an improved team who were chosen on the second day. In fact to focus sharply on the first day and have many concerns about their production without also acknowledging the second day result simply comes off as being about the same as someone complaining that the team did a horrible job on one choice while simply ignoring the rest of the draft. 3. In addition, any assessment that is based on the entirely speculative notion that the team traded too much value to move up is so woulda/coulda/shoulda as the fact it takes two partners to make a trade and who knows what the market specifically required at that moment in time really does defy logical analysis of any depth. The bottomline clearly strikes me as being: 1. So far very good as the Bills go into this offseason with at least 3 (if not four) likely starters on next year's team coming from a 7 round draft (Whitner, Simpson, Pennington and probably Williams). 2. Rather than simply drafting bad players who could produce just as well or about the same as the bad players we had on a 5-11 team, these starters were part of a team which improved to 7-9 and has a more than reasonable shot at making the playoffs next year with this base. 3. Could the Bills have drafted players who were more productive in 06 on the first day? Sure (though it would be unprecedented as best as I can remember if they had gotten productive performances from the 1st day choices AND the reality of production from the second day choices had both occurred. The noting of the 1st day choices having mixed production at best is certainly worth noting but is quickly reduced to mere bleating by the production of the second day choices on an improved team. Are folks really saying that in order for the '06 draft not to be found wanting, that we should have gotten the 3 first day choices to start in about a majority of the games to join with 4 2nd day choices who pulled this off. It would as best as I can remember simply be unprecedented for a 7 round draft to produce 6 players who went into their first off-season as likely starters the next season. This essentially is what an expectation that the Bills should have done better on the first day means. The 06 draft actually stands a reasonable (though not likely IMHO) of producing exactly this result if Youbouty does in step up to replace NC (I hope he does not have to and is "merely" asked to become our nickel which I think he can do well and McCargo steps up to be the penetrating DT who can stand up against the run our Cover 2 needs (doubtful but possible). While it is more optimistic than I want to be to claim we are sitting pretty, it is simply an unrealistically bleak assessment in my view to claim that this draft leaves us in an ugly situation because it is impossible that the 06 draft might well produce 6 starters on a playoff achieving team in 07. This being the actual turn of events is not only quite possible but in fact a real possibility next season or am I wrong in labeling this as possible.

Definitely proof positive that it is still way to early to draw any final conclusions about the quality of the '06 draft. From where I sit, the draft is such a speculative enterprise (definitely a potentially very valuable speculative exercise but make no mistake it is a speculative exercise) I do not feel great about day 1 picks but I feel good about where we sit: 1. Whitner- proved himself to be an immediate credible starter at safety and given accomplishments like his getting credited with over 100 tackles and getting a rookie of the month honor, I feel fairly sure that injuries allowing we have a safety for years who MAY develop into a pro bowl worthy talent. In terms of second-guessing comparison, I like him better than other safeties we could have gotten with a first day pick such as Bullocks, Manning, Pollard or even Huff who was picked before him, Whitner appears to have had a stronger season/ All in all I like BPA as a general rule but we had a specific need which had to be addressed in this draft for a strong safety and the pick of Huff simply forced us to use our pick on Whitner and the woulda/coulda/shoulda discussion about whether he was worth a #8 is a great theoretical discussion which has nothing to do with the 2006 draft the way it actually occurred. 2. McCargo- Again looking at the reality of the situation, the Bills clearly spent more than they had to in order to get a DT capable of starting on a team which improved its record and did much better than the 2005 team. However, I think this is actually shown not by sorting through the charts which ascribe comparative draft values to selections in various rounds or expectations of whether a 1st round choice should start, but ironically in that this Marv led team did acquire a DT capable of starting on a team which improved significantly in a 5th round choice. As far as any assessment of this Marv led team's drafting, they deserve faulting in trading up to pick McCargo but the same breath is it wants to be realistic should also contain praise for them being able to find a starter in the 5th. As far as how I feel about the choices for 2007 this comes back to an assessment of the individual. Here the key is the old axiom which I think is true that it really take three seasons of play before one really can declare a particular choice a success or failure. For now I think it is true that Mccargo disappointed and a better choice could have been made for 2006, but the good news is the Bills did that in the 5th round. As far as this year, while it seems clear the Bills need to get more talent into our DL rotation, while it goes too far to say the Bills are sitting pretty, i would not call this an ugly situation at all as the additional DT actually replaces a player reasonably declared a failure in Anderson and as some observers did feel McCargo began to show some positives just prior to his injury and he still has the talent which got him drafted he remains not am unreasonable prospect for us to step up and fill the DT role. A history of injury is troubling, but still too early to declare this an absolute problem, its simply too early to give up on this choice yet even though disappointment in him personally is real, this problem is easily secondary to me in that the team drafted an answer last year. 3. Youbouty- Finding too much fault with this situation strikes me quite frankly as a little small (both personally and in terms of football assessment). Personally, I would be a little worried about a person who has the oldest kid in a family which is being raised along by a mother who died who blew off his familial responsibilities in this situation and instead hung out with his teammates and did preseason and played this boy's game. I think that him actually doing the "correct" thing for being a good football player this year would have been such a low class act when really he needed to concentrate on supporting his family rather than his teammates that I have no problem with him missing this "valuable" football time. In terms of his football, I think this actually may be a case where the Bills are sitting pretty. The consensus on Youbouty at the draft seemed to be he had the physical abilities of a 1st round choice, but mentally he was not there yet. I'm not sure exactly what the "mental" issue was as it MIGHT be that he needed more study, OR it might be he lacked maturity, OR whatever. As best as I can see, Youbouty got a crash course this past year in responsibility and maturity when his Mom died and he got responsibility for his siblings. Further, he actually got ample down time with no on field duties or responsibilities where all he was asked to do was study the books and watch the game. The really good news for us is that while having this opportunity is great it is no guarantee he would take it. The good news is that he was actually trusted to start 1 game for the Bills when we were looking for extra coverage help against Pennington (a successful outing for the team) and clearly he showed the coaches something in practice which made them feel he could be trusted. I am quite hopeful based on his limited performance this season that he at least will take the nickel spot next year and there is even a chance that he may be able to take the #2 CB role behind McGee if NC goes, When one adds the extraordinary number of starters chosen on the 2nd day to this situation where I am comfortable we will find at least two (if not all three) first day choices being significant contributors next year. while it smals too much of rose color glasses to say we are sitting pretty, it strikes me as conversely as being unreasonably pessimistic to say the situation is ugly looking at the 1st day choices. For the 2006 draft overall given that 4 players were comfortable starters by talent at the end of the season (Whitner, Simpson, Williams, Pennington) I think we are sitting pretty to get 4 starters so quickly from 7 rounds of drafting.

The whole thing actually matters little for the Bills since it seems quite likely that due to our long-term play-off drought and because Marv and Ralph likely want to at least have a good chance of winning now while they are still on this planet, they should have no interest in drafting Willis as a replacement for F-B. Folks seem to want to take this view to some bizarre extreme to claim I am saying never draft a rookie (I am not), but a look at the role of the MLB in the Cover 2 as the Bills employ it means that our D almost certainly would take a step back in production next year if it depended upon a physically talented but inexperienced player like Willis to try to fill Fletch's shoes. There is some possibility (but only a possibility and my guess is that this team will be too risk averse to lay its hopes on a mere possibility) that Willis has the physical talents to play diverse role of a run plugger AND deep cover guy on speedy WRs going into the middle which the MLB plays in our Tampa 2esque version of the Cover 2. Our MLB is required to plug runs like a DT and also to play the deep zone like a safety. F-B has piled up a record of producing solo tackles to the extent he is perennial tackle leader of the Bills and also showed great ballhawk ability in that he led NFL LBs in INTs last year showing he can play this diverse role (though not to the satisfaction of many TSW posters who whined about him being light in the pants, Howver, though Willis certainly appears to me to be a much bigger and better tackler than Fletch, there is little doubt that a rookie who has seen zero NFL plays will be able to make the reads and diagnose plays like a player with a decade seeing NFL plays develop. Even if (and its a big IF as the draft is always a crapshoot and even top notch teams blow it from time to time with selections and good players can simply be hurt so a plan B is essential always) Willis also proves to have the speed and the ball handling ability that F-B has clearly demonstrated in his career, we simply will have to go through the likely agony of him learning to become an NFL vet next year if we threw him into the starting MLB role. Drafting Willis to learn the game by playing OLB might make sense (I have little idea whether he is good enough to make this switch) but getting a more highly rated than Willis (on some boards such Kiper) OLB like Timmons or Poluszny makes more sense. The things which makes the most sense of all in terms of replacing F-B (if he goes which appears likely but is not certain at all) is that we get an FA OLB like Briggs and switch Crowell to his natural MLB spot or we get an FA MLB to replace Fletch.