Dibs

I attach hindsight etc to the arguments because that is exactly what they are. It matter not that you did or didn't have the same views prior to the draft.....because prior to the draft it was simply an opinion, a guess at what one thinks about how players will pan out. It is only with hindsight that those opinions can be proven correct or not. The logic of the Bills doing as you suggested does not change with hindsight.....and this is where I feel you are not following what I am saying. I am discussing why the Bills made the draft day decisions that they did.....with the knowledge pre-draft, not with post draft hindsight. Not only did the Bills decision(re: Whitner, not McCargo) pan out to be a good one, but was also sound in its logic. For you to keep saying "I predicted a better way.....and It would have turned out better." is quite meaningless. What do you want, a medal? You basically guessed a different route which honestly I couldn't see any GM following.....and it(with the benefit of hindsight) has shown to end up pretty good. This does not mean it would have been the wiser decision at the time. Keep in mind that if 100 fans were to chose 100 different draft day scenarios randomly.....most likely several of them would end up with 'magic' draft days. This points out that not only should each fan that 'guesses' and gets it right on a draft should not feel anything more than that they had a lucky guess.....but that their prediction might have been quite irrational for the team to do at the time. I thought I covered the 'media consensus' thing quite clearly in my previous posts. Who cares if someone has Mangold rated a bit higher....or a bit lower? He ended up being drafted at #29. Winston Justice was rated by some as high as #10.....and by most inside the top 16. He dropped to the 2nd round. Does this mean he would have been a wise pick at #15? Obviously not. Again with the hindsight. Now don't take offense at that.....it is simple truth. If he had panned out to be a solid starter then it would have been a wise move. To act all holier than thou.....or more to the point, more knowledgeable at assessing talent than the FO is a bit egotistical. Many considered him a 'real' center....or at least someone with 'real' potential to be one. As example, Langston Walker seems to be earning his dollars for us. Many said that he was totally useless before we signed him. Had he not panned out, would that then justify the nay-sayers to bleat "The Bills should not have pretended to themselves that this player was anything more than a stopgap...."? For anyone to think that they have some sort of definitive ability on analysing the talent of players is ludicrous. Nobody at center????? Fowler was added. Fowler was added. Fowler was added. Fowler was added. Fowler was added. Fowler was added. Fowler was added. Fowler was added. Again, as I explained earlier.....most teams tend not to draft OC high in the draft nor do they place an overly high level of importance on the position(rightly or wrongly). They place more importance on it than FB......I can't think of any other position apart from ST that is generally given a lower priority. Nobody at QB????? JPL anyone? A 1st round draft pick who had only 8 starts & was effectively entering his 2nd season.....and still showed promise. BIG bloody decision to decide(when every position needed upgrading.....as you put it) to draft high at QB. OK.....now I'm pissed. How was DW a reach? Show me how! It wasn't honing in on just 2 positions.....it was identifying the 2 weakest positions which were also of high importance to the schemes. We were OK with LBs(Fletcher, Spikes & Crowell), we were OK with CBs(Clements & McGee), we were OK with DE(Schobel, Denney & Kelsay), we were OK with WR(Evans, Price, Reed, Parrish), we were OK with RB(McGahee), we were committed at QB(JPL).....there was an obvious 'wait and see' approach to the OL(producing Peters as a probowl LT)......on top of that there were no realistic OL prospects for high in the 1st round. These are the reasons why Safety & DT were targeted......because we didn't have anybody at the positions & there were players available of appropriate talent level in the 1st round.

I don't feel that I have the proper knowledge to vote. Being from OS I obviously can't get to meet everyone in the US.

I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt & have a discussion with you here...... My list was in response to UncleBuff's statement that.... ".....backs of his caliber can be found in the 3rd, 4th and 5th round almost any year....." This implies that if you want/need a RB you simply have to draft one in those rounds & you'll do just fine. The reality is that a majority of 1st round RBs don't pan out for the drafting club to be decent RBs(good enough to start) let alone good ones. To assume you can just grab one from the later rounds and have him be decent.....when you want/need a RB is erroneous. .....and trading down for multiple picks? There is only so many roster spots one can use for RB......unless one thinks they can determine the 'good' one in early training camp(when it couldn't be determined pre-draft) one has to wait till the player gets on the field to show what he 'actually' has. You may well feel that Lynch is nothing special......but getting a replacement of similar caliber is tougher than many think.

NO.....that's why I typed "I'd say a much higher percent of 2nd-5th round RBs are busts" This means that 1st round RBs have a high bust rate......therefore 2nd-5th round RBs would have a MASSIVE bust rate.

Ignoring how good/average ML is......one cannot simply 'find' a player of his caliber in later rounds. One cannot simply 'find' a player of his caliber in the 1st round. It is a complete misconception that you can just grab any RB & off you go. Most 1st round RBs bust out......at a guess(I'm not doing the research) I'd say a much higher percent of 2nd-5th round RBs are busts. 12 years of 1st round RBs......1995-2006 Red = bust for drafting team Bold = probowl for drafting team (1)Ki-Jana Carter (2)Ronnie Brown (2)Reggie Bush (4)Edgerrin James (4)Cedric Benson (5)Curtis Enis (5)Ricky Williams (5)Jamal Lewis (5)LaDainian Tomlinson (5)Cadillac Williams (6)Lawrence Phillips (7)Thomas Jones (8)Tim Biakabutuka (9)Fred Taylor (11)Ron Dayne (12)Warrick Dunn (14)Eddie George (16)William Green (17)Tyrone Wheatley (18)Napoleon Kaufman (18)Robert Edwards (18)T.J. Duckett (19)James Stewart (19)Shaun Alexander (21)Rashaan Salaam (21)Laurence Maroney (23)Antowain Smith (23)Deuce McAllister (23)Willis McGahee (24)Steven Jackson (26)Chris Perry (27)Michael Bennett (27)Larry Johnson (27)DeAngelo Williams (29)John Avery (30)Kevin Jones (30)Joseph Addai (31)Trung Canidate

Mock drafts can provide an estimate.......I agree. But to say that since they can provide an estimate(generally speaking), that they apply to all draft selections is illogical. Every year there are players taken well above and well below their media projections. The estimation of these players perceived worth in the NFL by NFL teams is misjudged by the media(for one reason or another). Sometimes it shows that the NFL teams picking the player(or letting them slide) are wrong.....but at other times it shows that the consensus media projections were wrong. Only in the passing of time can we tell who got it right/wrong......in the case of DW......I have shown you several times now in comparison to other similar picks(range 6-10) that he(so far in his career) has shown himself to be a worthy #8 selection. The media got it wrong.....the Bills got it right. If you want to keep calling DW a reach to me......please show me how I've analyzed things incorrectly and show me that he has underperformed compared to his draft position peers(spots 6-10).

This is hindsight revisionist history......the reality was that Mangold was not going to be a good logical draft choice for the Bills at the time of the draft.....therefore it is futile to say(once he has shown himself to be a very good player) that the Bills should have traded down & drafted him at #15(which he clearly was not considered to be worth by all of the NFL teams that had the option to draft him). I also explained how the OC position was obviously not considered a position of 'dire need' on draft day. We had nobody at DT.....we had nobody at Safety......we had a FA acquisition at OC who had started 9 games the previous season for a good offensive team(Vikings) and looked like he might be the answer(he is certainly smart enough). On top of all that.....after only 2.5 seasons it is very premature to say who the better player is out of DW & NM.

Lynch is on pace to get 1029 yards rushing & 336 receiving.......he isn't having a great statistical year so far this season.

Depends on how one looks at it..... Mort said....."and unwilling to acknoledge that even their success now is connected to the foundation Donohoe built" The Foundation Donohoe built. As I see it, we can ignore backups as they cannot be considered part of a teams foundation. We can also ignore UFAs(Peters, Greer, Moorman) as these players not only(typically) take a long time to develop but again are not brought into the team expecting them to be part of the foundation. We can also ignore the STers......unless a guy is HOF level game changing then again cannot be considered to be part of the foundation of a strong team. That leaves us with.... Angelo Crowell - average starter Terrance McGee - decent starter Chris Kelsay - average starter Aaron Schobel - Starter - (Pro-bowl twice) Josh Reed - Starter Lee Evans - Starter Roscoe Parrish - average starter In 5 drafts and 5 off-seasons.......in relation to a foundation......we were left with a probwol DE & #1 WR(plus a probowl CB). No DTs......no OL.....no RB.....no QB As foundations to a strong team go that is pretty weak. In the three following drafts/off-seasons it looks like.....fingers crossed.....we have QB.....DT.....OL....RB.....MLB......SS.....CB(?)..... IMO TD failed at building a solid foundation of players.

How about this then...... F ck you and your insulting, unfounded & incorrect accusations F cktard!

I guess this all comes back to the assessment of talent of not only the two RBs in question but also the OL. You may well be right in that FJ will be the better starter......but when considering all of the factors, I really have to go with 'trust the coaches(and media analysts) on this one'.

You should really try thinking before you post. Having not 'wept to the mod'......how do you think I perceive this post & you after your accusation?

I haven't got the time to do the research but are you aware that it is extremely common for a backup RB to have a better(sometimes much better) YPC than the incumbent starting RB? Some factors as to why...... Gameplanning of the D was for the starting RB.....not the backup. "Oh, it's only the backup.....let's focus on stopping the passing game more"

It was very unlikely that Bowen was the answer......very unlikely indeed. Rightly or wrongly though, the Bills FO had high hopes that Fowler could become a legit OC. Having just brought him in via FA.....and with soooooooo many other areas of very high need to fill in the draft.....it seems a bit of a reach to suggest that Mangold could have been a logical draft choice for the Bills at that time. Stranger this have happened but to continually say "I said Mangold was good & we should have drafted him........and he is good so the Bills buggered up" is single minded. Mangold was very unlikely(given the circumstances of the 2006 draft) to be considered by the Bills.

I'm not arguing that Mangold would have been a reach at #15......simply that OC is not considered(correctly or incorrectly) to be worth a top 15 pick. It virtually never happens that a team(any team) will draft a C in the top 15. Whether that is because the prospects are generally not as good as those in other positions.....or whether it is because teams simply view that the OC position to be not worth the draft equity, I don't know. The end result is the same though.......as it turned out he was selected near the end of the 1st round......so that is the level he was generally considered. End of story. IMO there is no reaches.....never....ever. If a player is selected at #8 then that is what his value is. We(as observers) never know how the 32 teams in the NFL grade the draft prospects. For all we know there could have been 20+ teams who had DW as a legit top 10 prospect. Every year 'top prospect' fall in the draft......and other 'lesser' prospects are selected well ahead of where the media has them projected. All this means is that the 'media' and 'general public consensus' was wrong......not that some team got a steal....or reached for the player. It is only in hindsight that we can determine whether the player selected was worthy of the position he was selected in. In the case of DW, the answer is yes he was worthy.

No....you are.

Oh....well, if you say so then I guess it must be the case. Thanks for informing us of the real situation.

4, 6, 24, 25, 32, 35

Funny really.....you talk about things sailing over the heads of others yet in 26 posts the only thing you have put forward to back your statement that "Lynch is ordinary" is.....well.....saying that "Lynch is ordinary". This thread feels a bit like a Python sketch....... "Lynch is ordinary" "No he isn't" "Ohhhh, yes he is!" Perhaps if you'd back up your base claims with some analysis of his play. Dissection of certain key plays where he has erred, assessment of his blocking & blitz pickup, pass catching analysis, fumble proclivity, toughness, durability, initial burst.......all compared with the analysis of other RBs(particularly FJ).....perhaps if you did more than state "This is what I reckon & all y'all are wrong if you disagree.....because it's obvious you idiots." you would have less antagonistic responses and might actually garner respectful responses leading to intelligent football discussion.

There is quite a solid argument against Guy being the best punter of all-time.......there is no argument as to who the best STer of all time was. Tasker should have been inducted the first year he was eligible.......there was never anyone better.

IMO this is the most important question. If he is then who cares if someone else is a bit better or worse. LE so far this season(7 games) = 31-637-3(projects out to 71-1456-7) LE last 2 games = 15-205-1(projects out to 120-1640-8) LE over 6 TE games = 29-537-2(projects out to 77-1432-5) No matter which way you look at it, LE is producing at a #1 WR level. FWIW, his stats are extremely similar to Smiths & S.Moss

Royal is in his 7th season......and was a 5th round pick originally. I don't think 'bust' is the correct descriptive word when applied to FA pickups. Hasn't panned out......waste of money....etc would work better.

I think it just perception and not the reality that we have made the "secondary" the "primary" goal(I've addressed the current regimes 1st/2nd round drafting here.) Doing so directly coincided with the Bills turning into a losing team? It is debatable because you directly correlate drafting DBs in the first round with the Bills inability to win games. This is not the case.....it is the success or failure of a pick(regardless of position) and what the team does with the player which helps determine the success of a team. It makes no difference if the player was a DB, QB, OT, DE or DT.....if the player busts they do not help the team win games. Similarly, if a team(for whatever reason) lets a good player go, this has nothing to do with drafting. Pat Williams was let go, as was Antoine Winfield. How we acquired them in the first place is irrelevant......two good players were let go which their positions then needed replacing. Our lack of success is really from 2000-2007.....it is our bad drafting/bad management of players/bad luck over the 1997-2004 drafts that is the reason....not that we spent 2 1sts & a 2nd on DBs over that period. Going through our 1st & 2nd round picks 1997-2004 red=player didn't pan for the team long term bold=long term key player 1997 1st Antowain Smith(bust) 2nd Marcellus Wiley(let go at prime) 1998 Sam Cowart(injury) 1999 1st Winfield(Let loose in prime) 2nd Peerless Price(???) 2000 1st Eric Flowers 2nd Tillman 2001 1st Clements 2nd Schobel 2nd Henry(???) 2002 1st Mike Williams 2nd Josh Reed 2nd Ryan Denney 2003 1st McGahee 2nd Kelsay 2004 1st Lee Evans 1st JP Losman Having all that said.....I see no real correlation anyway between drafting DBs & losing seasons. The only section that one could draw a comparison on was 1999-2001 drafts leading to 6 dodgy seasons(2002-2007). Lack of coaching/QB/overall drafting through that period is unquestionably the biggest reason for lack of success. Year....(DBs selected in 1st or 2nd rounds)....record 1985....(1st) 2-14 1986....(-) 4-12 1987....(2nd & 2nd) 7-8 1988....(-) 12-4 1989....(-) 9-7 1990....(1st) 13-3 1991....(1st) 13-3 1992....(-) 11-5 1993....(1st) 12-4 1994....(1st) 7-9 1995....(-) 10-6 1996....(-) 10-6 1997....(-) 6-10 1998....(-) 10-6 1999....(1st) 11-5 2000....(2nd) 8-8 2001....(1st) 3-13 2002....(-) 8-8 2003...(-) 6-10 2004....(-) 9-7 2005....(-) 5-11 2006....(1st) 7-9 2007....(-) 7-9

Oh stop it YOOOOOO......with all your logic and knowledgeable analysis.......you just don't seem to understand that until DW gets a chunk of INTs & PDs he is at best an average player. Best we cut our loses & cut him next off season.

I think you may well have pipped a few others to the post on this one.