Dibs

Nice rec room Spiderweb(link in sig)......I'm jealous The only thing missing is a Poker table

Interestingly though.........boiling water will not scald as severely as steam of the same temperature. Anybody know why?

Averages in Bold......you'll notice that Thomas is highest(rookie deal) and the next three are Jones, Ogden and Samuels(perennial probowl star LTs).....the rest are around $5mil Matt Light having made 2 probowls should be holding out shouldn't he? What about players like Colts CB Antoine Bethea $417,00/year, RB Joseph Addai $2.24mil/year, C Jeff Saturday $3.2mil/year? There are always a good number of probowlers on low dollar numbers due to timing of contracts.

Firstly I'll say to you that I want Peters to be a Bill as much as anyone & that I believe he is certainly worth(baring injury issues) top dollar. You however are being particularly one eyed on the situation. It seems to me that the Bills have a strategy in place in regards to new contracts with young players. They are re-signing their young players early and above what their market worth is(Peters, Butler, Williams). Why? So that if one of those young players develops into a top player then they not only can save some money(having spent more than necessary in the past) but have extra control of the situation due to contract lengths. The young players do not have to sign these deals at the time that provide them with multiple millions more than they currently earn. Overall, some of those young players will not improve(and may regress)......but they all take the extra money. Peters signed a deal in 06 which was a fair bit more than what his perceived worth was at the time......there was even a LT clause in the deal meaning he netted close to $5mil last season. As I see it the Bills are happy to pay him what he is worth but wish to keep his pay level for this season as is. Is this so wrong? He has already been payed close to $4mil more than what he would have been getting last season had the Bills not prematurely offered him a contract. I have read analysts who believe that Butler is a budding star to be. If Butler makes the probowl this season do the Bills who have just given him a massive pay rise(when they didn't need to) give him another straight after? Is it not simply fair that if this happens that the Bills should get an extra year out of him before giving him the mega dollars or do they renegotiate every players contract who improves.....and overpay their young 'potential' players.....and have to take the loss for when these players regress? If we had not re-worked Peters earlier contract there would be no issue now. We would simply sign him for top dollar and probably have spent less money overall than if he plays for his current money this season & gets $10mil per year starting next season. Peters wants his cake & to eat it too.......the problem is there is only a limited supply of cake......and 53 hungry players.

Maybe not great but.... NE Matt Light(2 pro bowls) Logan Mankins(1 pro bowl) Dan Koppen(1 pro bowl) IND Jeff Saturday(3 pro bowls) Tarik Glenn(3 pro bowls)

The Empire Strikes Back Terminator 2 Godfather 2 X-Men 2 Aliens Superman 2 Batman: The Dark Knight LOTR: The Two Towers Mad Max 2 Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan James Bond: From Russia with Love The Bourne Supremacy Rocky 2 Evil Dead 2 .....and many more

Actually, I have found this to be the opposite. Sure, there are always good players at any position found later in the draft but.... 1st round OGs in recent times(15years) have the highest success rate out of any position......also, truly great LTs are only usually found very high in the 1st round(top 8)(Peters might become the exception to the rule). There were quite a high number of busts in recent times with top LT draftees(since 2002) but this simply placed the bust ratio into the same realms as other positions drafted. Every 1st round OG...2006-1991(no true busts.....several stars) Davin Joseph Logan Mankins Vernon Carey Kendall Simmons Steve Hutchinson Alan Faneca Chris Naeole Ross Verba Pete Kendall Jeff Hartings Jermane Mayberry Ruben Brown Lester Holmes Every OT drafted inside the Top 8...1993-2007(draft position first in brackets)......(probowl appearances in brackets after) (8)Willie Roaf(11) (2)Tony Boselli(5) (4)Jonathan Ogden(11) (1)Orlando Pace(7) (6)Walter Jones(8) (7)Kyle Turley(1) (3)Chris Samuels(5) (2)Leonard Davis(1) (4)Mike Williams (7)Bryant McKinnie (8)Jordan Gross (2)Robert Gallery (4)D'Brickashaw Ferguson (3)Joe Thomas(1) (5)Levi Brown

I think the lamenting over days of yore in regards to QBs of the era you are talking about is that there was a very high number of HOF type(or close) QBs in the league at the time. In 1992 there was..... Jim Kelly Joe Montana Steve Young Dan Marino John Elway Warren Moon Troy Aikman Brett Favre(starting career) Randall Cunningham (have I missed any?) There years following(mid-late 90s) saw a tonne of articles bemoaning the lack of QB talent on the field.

Thanks OC......just because most of the hard work was done with the DTs.....here is a look at the OL. I'm assuming there will be no correlative value but it will be interesting to see(written before I did the numbers). Again.....Below is a list of every team rated for average wins over the last 4 seasons(average wins in brackets first). Next to them in brackets is the draft picks(1st 3 rounds) they have spent over the last 8 drafts(not including trades etc) and red numbers are OL(bolded OT). (13)Patriots(6,10,13,21,21,21,24,32,32,36,36,45,48,62,63,64,78,84,86,86,94,100) (12.75)Colts(11,24,29,30,30,32,37,42,42,44,58,59,60,62,68,69,74,90,91,92,93,94,95,98) (11.5)Chargers(1,5,5,12,19,27,28,30,30,32,35,37,39,46,48,50,61,62,65,66,69,71,80,81,96) (11)Steelers(11,15,16,19,23,25,30,30,38,39,46,53,59,62,62,75,77,83,88,93,94,95) (10.25)Seahawks(9,11,17,23,26,28,28,31,38,40,42,45,53,54,55,60,63,73,82,84,85,85,85,98) (10)Jaguars(7,8,9,9,13,21,21,28,39,39,40,43,48,52,52,55,60,72,73,79,80,86,87,89,94) (9.75)Broncos(11,12,17,17,19,20,24,41,42,51,51,51,54,56,56,61,70,76,85,87,96,97,101) (9.25)Dallas(5,8,11,18,20,22,25,26,37,38,42,43,52,53,53,56,61,63,67,69,75,83,92,93) (9.25)Eagles(14,15,16,25,26,31,35,36,39,47,49,55,57,58,59,61,63,63,71,77,80,87,89,90,91,95) (9)Bears(4,8,14,14,14,22,29,31,35,38,39,42,44,47,57,62,68,68,70,72,73,78,90,93,93,94) (8.75)Giants(4,14,20,22,25,31,32,34,43,44,46,51,56,63,74,78,78,81,91,95,96) (8.75)Packers(5,10,16,20,24,25,29,36,41,47,51,52,56,58,60,63,67,70,71,72,72,75,78,79,87,89,91,92) (8.5)Bengals(1,4,9,10,17,18,24,26,33,36,41,46,48,49,49,55,56,65,66,67,77,80,83,91,96,97) (8.25)Panthers(2,8,11,13,14,19,25,27,28,34,44,45,50,54,58,59,62,67,73,74,74,76,79,82,83,88,89,89,94) (8.25)Ravens(10,12,18,19,22,24,29,31,51,52,53,55,56,62,64,71,74,77,82,86,86,87,92,99) (7.75)Vikings(7,7,7,9,17,18,20,27,38,40,43,44,48,48,49,51,57,64,69,70,71,72,80,88) (7.5)Redskins(5,6,9,15,25,32,34,35,44,45,48,51,56,79,81,81,87,96) (7.5)Buccaneers(4,5,14,15,20,23,35,36,58,59,64,64,68,71,79,83,84,86,90,91,97) (7.5)Falcons(1,3,8,8,18,21,27,29,35,37,37,39,41,55,59,68,75,79,80,84,90,90,98) (7.5)Chiefs(5,6,15,15,20,23,27,35,36,43,47,54,54,61,73,75,76,77,82,82,85,92,93,99) (7.0)Bills(4,8,11,12,13,21,22,23,26,34,36,41,46,48,55,58,61,70,72,74,76,86,92,94,95,97) (7.0)Jets(4,4,6,12,14,16,22,29,30,47,47,49,49,53,57,57,76,76,79,85,88,88,97) (7.0)Saints(2,6,7,13,13,18,23,25,27,37,40,40,43,44,50,60,70,66,81,82,82,86,88) (6.75)Titans(3,6,15,19,24,28,40,41,42,45,45,50,54,57,60,60,68,71,77,80,85,90,92,93,96) (6.25)Rams(2,12,12,13,15,19,20,24,29,31,33,42,43,46,50,52,64,65,66,68,74,77,81,83,84,84,91,93,95) (6)Browns(3,3,3,6,13,16,21,22,33,34,34,47,52,53,59,65,67,76,78,84) (6)Cardinals(2,3,5,8,10,12,16,17,18,33,33,34,41,44,49,50,54,54,64,64,69,70,72,75,81,81,95,98) (5.75)Texans(1,1,3,10,10,16,26,27,33,33,41,50,65,66,66,67,73,73,75,79,83,88,89) (5.25)Lions(2,2,3,7,9,10,17,18,30,34,35,37,37,40,43,45,50,58,61,61,64,66,68,72,73,74,87,92) (5)Dolphins(1,2,9,16,19,26,32,40,46,49,52,57,60,66,70,71,78,82,85,87,88,90) (4.5)49ers(1,6,7,11,22,26,27,28,29,31,33,39,46,47,57,58,65,69,75,76,77,80,84,89,94,97) (3.75)Raiders(1,2,4,7,17,23,23,28,31,32,38,38,38,45,53,55,59,63,65,67,69,69,78,83,89,91,96,99) I found this very difficult to assess the draft equity spent compared to the Bills since the #4 pick is very high. I think however that this look at OL drafting shows(like the DT drafting) that no true correlation can be found between how 'good' teams draft and specific positions drafted. It is obvious to me that successful teams are generally a result of drafting good players(regardless of position) rather than simply drafting for certain positions.

Only 1 in the first round......but as I showed earlier, we have drafted similar(or used more resources) on DTs in the first 3 rounds over the last 8 drafts as IND, SD, PIT, SEA, DEN, DAL, NYG, GB, CIN, CAR & BALT.....11 of the 15 teams that have had above 50% wins over the last 4 seasons. When there are so many other ways to acquire players it is really quite futile to try to narrow things down to simply drafting. If there was going to be an area where I believe we really have been well below average on drafting at a certain position it would be OL.....one 1st & a 3rd in the last 8 drafts. But then the same situation applies.....we have a probowl UDFA, two good FAs & a solid promising 5th rounder. At the end of the day we need a good overall team......assuming we achieve that, does it matter which positions were filled by drafting & which were by FA?

The problem with peoples objection to AKCs thoughts isn't that they disagree with the concept that DTs are very important to a team......it's that he persists with the ludicrous notion that 'the good teams use higher draft equity on DTs(and that's why they are good)"

Here we go again. You nitpick on semantics all the time while conveniently changing words to suit. You said.... "Any DT".....not just "any DT taken in the first round" This is all besides your point......your point is clear.....and clearly wrong. You state 'best teams' and 'higher draft equity'. You have stated this many times and every time I see it I show you that it is wrong(I figure eventually you will man up to your mistake and accept it is wrong....so I persist). Who are the best teams? If your definition of 'best teams' is teams that use higher draft equity on DTs then of course you are right. Most would define 'best teams' as those that consistently perform well. High draft equity? Obviously meaning a higher ratio than the norm of their draft resources spent on DT. Below is a list of every team rated for average wins over the last 4 seasons(aveage wins in brackets first)....red teams have used noticeably high draft equity on DTs(IMO) than the Bills......green is noticeably less. Next to them in brackets is the draft picks(1st 3 rounds) they have spent over the last 8 drafts(not including trades etc) and red numbers are DTs. (13)Patriots(6,10,13,21,21,21,24,32,32,36,36,45,48,62,63,64,78,84,86,86,94,100) (12.75)Colts(11,24,29,30,30,32,37,42,42,44,58,59,60,62,68,69,74,90,91,92,93,94,95,98) (11.5)Chargers(1,5,5,12,19,27,28,30,30,32,35,37,39,46,48,50,61,62,65,67,69,71,80,81,96) (11)Steelers(11,15,16,19,23,25,30,30,38,39,46,53,59,62,62,75,77,83,88,93,94,95) (10.25)Seahawks(9,11,17,23,26,28,28,31,38,40,42,45,53,54,55,60,63,73,82,84,85,85,85,98) (10)Jaguars(7,8,9,9,13,21,21,28,39,39,40,43,48,52,52,55,60,72,73,79,80,86,87,89,94) (9.75)Broncos(11,12,17,17,19,20,24,41,42,51,51,51,54,56,56,61,70,76,85,87,96,97,101) (9.25)Dallas(5,8,11,18,20,22,25,26,37,38,42,43,52,53,53,56,61,63,67,69,75,83,92,93) (9.25)Eagles(14,15,16,25,26,31,35,36,39,47,49,55,57,58,59,61,63,63,71,77,80,87,89,90,91,95) (9)Bears(4,8,14,14,14,22,29,31,35,38,39,42,44,47,57,62,68,68,70,72,73,78,90,93,93,94) (8.75)Giants(4,14,20,22,25,31,32,34,43,44,46,51,56,63,74,78,78,81,91,95,96) (8.75)Packers(5,10,16,20,24,25,29,36,41,47,51,52,56,58,60,63,67,70,71,72,72,75,78,79,87,89,91,92) (8.5)Bengals(1,4,9,10,17,18,24,26,33,36,41,46,48,49,49,55,56,65,66,67,77,80,83,91,96,97) (8.25)Panthers(2,8,11,13,14,19,25,27,28,34,44,45,50,54,58,59,62,67,73,74,74,76,79,82,83,88,89,89,94) (8.25)Ravens(10,12,18,19,22,24,29,31,51,52,53,55,56,62,64,71,74,77,82,86,86,87,92,99) (7.75)Vikings(7,7,7,9,17,18,20,27,38,40,43,44,48,48,49,51,57,64,69,70,71,72,80,88) (7.5)Redskins(no DTs selected) (7.5)Buccaneers(no DTs selected) (7.5)Falcons(1,3,8,8,18,21,27,29,35,37,37,39,41,55,59,68,75,79,80,84,90,90,98) (7.5)Chiefs(5,6,15,15,20,23,27,35,36,43,47,54,54,61,73,75,76,77,82,82,85,92,93,99) (7.0)Bills(4,8,11,12,13,21,22,23,26,34,36,41,46,48,55,58,61,70,72,74,76,86,92,94,95,97) (7.0)Jets(4,4,6,12,14,16,22,29,30,47,47,49,49,53,57,57,76,76,79,85,88,88,97) (7.0)Saints(2,6,7,13,13,18,23,25,27,37,40,40,43,44,50,60,70,66,81,82,82,86,88) (6.75)Titans(3,6,15,19,24,28,40,41,42,45,45,50,54,57,60,60,68,71,77,80,85,90,92,93,96) (6.25)Rams(2,12,12,13,15,19,20,24,29,31,33,42,43,46,50,52,64,65,66,68,74,77,81,83,84,84,91,93,95) (6)Browns(3,3,3,6,13,16,21,22,33,34,34,47,52,53,59,65,67,76,78,84) (6)Cardinals(2,3,5,8,10,12,16,17,18,33,33,34,41,44,49,50,54,54,64,64,69,70,72,75,81,81,95,98) (5.75)Texans(1,1,3,10,10,16,26,27,33,33,41,50,65,66,66,67,73,73,75,79,83,88,89) (5.25)Lions(2,2,3,7,9,10,17,18,30,34,35,37,37,40,43,45,50,58,61,61,64,66,68,72,73,74,87,92) (5)Dolphins(no DTs selected) (4.5)49ers(1,6,7,11,22,26,27,28,29,31,33,39,46,47,57,58,65,69,75,76,77,80,84,89,94,97) (3.75)Raiders(no DTs selected) IMO having good DTs is very important to having a good team.......but to assume that good teams use a higher percent of their draft equity on DTs is ludicrous. Apart from the facts do not support the theory, teams can draft a lot at DT and keep getting busts(therefore needing to draft more) while other teams may get lucky in the lower rounds or via FA. This is the last time that I spend so much time on this subject. You would be wise to alter your theory to "Good teams generally have good DTs" From there you can put forward an argument that drafting for them would be a wise move. Continually saying what you have been is at best stubborn & misguided......at worst moronic.

He still does not fit the category of "fairweather fan" though. The fairweather fans will come out of the woodwork once we start winning games. The proper fans are following/supporting the team during the down times......even the ones that are too critical one week and too homerish the next.

I see your point. There are two factors which I think are important for perspective on the Peters situation. Firstly, it is relatively unprecedented for the LT position. In the modern era(to my knowledge) there has not been a star LT who has not been a top 6 draft pick. In all previous situations the young LT was earning very good money and usually if he pans out to be a star would have had a new contract before the last(5th) year of the contract was hit. Peters I think needs to be looked at in a similar way to QBs. Both QB & LT are primo positions which attract top dollar and QBs regularly get paid big money after less than one season of good play......often for QBs who were lower round picks. Secondly, the level of money that he is getting now is actually pretty low. IIRC Brad Butler & Kyle Williams just got contract extensions to be in a similar range to Peters......I was actually surprised that those two players were given the new contracts simply based upon the concept that they are in no way 'good' players(yet) and were both still well within their rookie deals. Peters who has had glowing reviews all throughout his career.....improved consistently to become a pro bowl player at one of the most important positions.....is still extremely young.....and is considered by most analysts(that I've seen) to be top 3 at the position is only earning the same amount as our 3rd year RG who at best is being spoken of as 'potential'. It may well be a year too early.......but with the current level of contracts and the importance of the position I personally would love to see him signed up to a long(7 year) deal. It's also quite possible that waiting an extra year will end up costing more(with contract ballooning each season).

I'm not sure I quite follow your argument here. Players who are in the top few of their position are generally paid at the appropriate level. This means that top QBs & LTs are certainly paid a hell of a lot more than the best FB in the league. Position determines the amount of money paid. (I'm assuming Peters will be wanting to be paid similar to other star LTs). Certain positions are more important than others. Young Star LTs(or QBs) do not move teams.....I can't think of any.....at least not without special reasons(injury/character) There are very few who actually think that Peters does not deserve more money. How many young players considered to be in the top 3 at their position(regardless of position) are not re-negotiated into 'star' money levels? IMO Peters needs to get to camp......and then the Bills need to pay him top dollar.

Actually, 1billsfan isn't a fairweather fan. A fair weather fan only show up when their team is doing good. 1billfan shows that he is a fan even when we are doing badly......while the fairweather fans are nowhere to be seen. Patriots fans are a good example of fair weather fans. 1billsfan might be an erratic & overly emotional fan......but with 4000 posts here since 2002(through all the bad years) he clearly isn't a fair weather fan.

I think he's got you here Kiwi Bills fan. No way to rebut that. Obviously NZ is not as good an ally as Australia to the US......therefore your great Olympic medal/population ratio is invalid.

I didn't know this(and am not overly surprised as I believe he is a master writer, especially of dialog). The end result though is that he has pretty much become a ghost writer who very occasionally directs or writes his own projects. I'd just love him to do more QT stuff rather than fixing others work.

Don't get me wrong here......I'm a huge QT fan......I just think he is very lazy. NBK & TR were made in 1993/94 and his help on Sin City was only a guest direction for one scene. I believe Rodriguez wanted him to do it to show him how versatile filming digital is.

Only when we can be bothered lowering ourselves to their level.

Over hyped? Perhaps. I tend to think QT is extremely talented. His hit/miss ratio IMO is very, very high......but he must be one of the laziest directors in the business. 6 movies in 15 years and 2 of those were one movie(KB I&II). He hasn't even written or scripted a movie(that he didn't direct) since 1996. QT directed movies 1992 Reservoir Dogs 1994 Pulp Fiction 1997 Jackie Brown 2003/4 Kill Bill(1&2) 2007 Grindhouse(Deathproof)