Dibs

You added this bit after I responded..... Which ones would have?

Thurman Thomas So you don't think that.....as I said.....having less predictable and overall better playcalling & a better passing game(and playing 16 games) won't improve his stats enough?

You added this after I responded..... No it won't! If Lynch had not been injured he would have had better stats than McGahee.....more TDs......equivalent YPC....less fumbles. He would have had similar stats to Parker......slightly less yards.....equivalent YPC.....far less fumbles. Please.....look at the link & see how close he was last season to probowl numbers. BTW.....why keep raising TT???? To try to make out that a very productive rookie is no good because he does not compare to a HOFer is.....curious.

Firstly I thought that you were making out that Lynch needs to improve his game by a lot to make the probowl. I got that impression when you said..... Secondly......you don't think perhaps that having the 7th YPG in the NFL with all of the negatives he had against him has any baring on the situation? The OL is pretty good......if we stop being predictable....and can get a semblance of a passing game going the opposition will stop keying the run. All of a sudden....better YPC.....and better blocking OL.

Magahee just made the probowl. Did you realize that Lynch.....behind a suspect run-blocking OL.....with rookie(bad) QB play.....no passing game.....highly predictable offence.....and in his rookie year......was 7th in the NFL in yards per game(for RBs with over 1000yds). YPC is OK at 4.0......but honestly....what would one expect from all the negatives he was working with last season. It won't take too much to happen for him to be very, very productive.

You & I greatly differ in our assessment of Lynch's talent. I hope you get a pleasant surprise in the next few years.

That's fine......using the numbers out of context from that season does not support your case though. You have made a bold statement here......you will need to back it up with actual facts of both his coaching record.....and at least several years of won/lost ratio for good, bad and average teams vs above .500 records for anyone on the board to take it seriously.

You don't perhaps think that the entire Bills O had a little something to do with his production?

Dibs' examples also showed that DJs 13-3 team ended with 13 wins against 10 "<= .500" teams.....whereas 3 of the other 5 examples ended with 13 wins against 11 or more "<= .500" teams. I don't see what is sooooo great about beating 1 extra "> .500" team(2 of the 5 examples) when you lose extra games against the "<= .500" teams. DJ had a lesser record(percentage) against the "> .500" teams than the other 13-3 teams I listed. DJ had a better record(percentage) against the "<= .500" teams than the other 13-3 teams I listed. It's all a load of hogwash......a 9-7 may show a lucky crappy team.....or an unlucky good team. An 8-8 team that didn't lose to the specified team would have been 9-7......a 9-7 team that didn't beat the specified team would have been 8-8. The only thing that is set in stone is the end result.....in this case 13-3. I have shown that(give or take) 13-3 teams play between 9-13 "<= .500" teams. That's about all that can be deduced from this analysis.

You will also notice that 4 of the 5 examples had the teams losing more games against the crappy teams. You will also notice that only one of the 5 examples had less crappy teams faced than DJs 13-3 team. The reason that the examples of 13-3 teams had a greater record against winning teams than DJs is that they lost games to the crappy teams.....which DJs didn't do. One could easily argue that since he didn't lose a game against any of the crappy teams he faced......that when he faces a lesser opponent, his teams win(unlike many other 13-3 teams). Your thoughts about DJs abilities may be spot on......using his 13-3 season to try to show it will not work because his 13-3 season was just like every other.....he won 13 games.....and lost 3 games......he played a bunch of crappy teams just like every other 13-3 season team does. *How anyone can try to simplify things down to this level is beyond me. Good team has bad week....bad team has good week....bad team finishes strong......good team starts slowly.....star QB out for the matchup(for either team).....factor after factor after factor to be considered yet people want to boil it all down to 3-3 against good teams. What a joke.*

I am not making a comment here on my views about Jauron......simply a comment about selectively stating numbers. If you had bothered to actually look at a typical 13-3 year (and I know you haven't), you probably will not like what you see. 2007 Packers went 13-3. But let's break that down: the number of teams they faced that ended up > .500? 4 the numbers of teams they faced that ended up <= .500? 12 Dicks W/L against the 4 better than .500 teams: 3-1 Dicks W/L against the 12 .500 or less teams: 10-2 2007 Cowboys went 13-3. But let's break that down: the number of teams they faced that ended up > .500? 6 the numbers of teams they faced that ended up <= .500? 10 Dicks W/L against the 6 better than .500 teams: 4-2 Dicks W/L against the 9 .500 or less teams: 9-1 2007 Colts went 13-3. But let's break that down: the number of teams they faced that ended up > .500? 7 the numbers of teams they faced that ended up <= .500? 9 Dicks W/L against the 7 better than .500 teams: 4-3 Dicks W/L against the 9 .500 or less teams: 9-0 2006 Ravens went 13-3. But let's break that down: the number of teams they faced that ended up > .500? 4 the numbers of teams they faced that ended up <= .500? 12 Dicks W/L against the 4 better than .500 teams: 3-1 Dicks W/L against the 12 .500 or less teams: 10-2 2006 Bears went 13-3. But let's break that down: the number of teams they faced that ended up > .500? 3 the numbers of teams they faced that ended up <= .500? 13 Dicks W/L against the 3 better than .500 teams: 2-1 Dicks W/L against the 13 .500 or less teams: 12-2 What was your point again?

Uh oh......he didn't by any chance have bloodshot eyes & act a little paranoid as well did he?

Yet we still managed 7 wins. I agree with your assessment about OC. It may spell little improvement.....though it may well show just how bad the OC was last season & how much talent we actually have on O. I know most think we are devoid of talent but as I said earlier, it will hinge on Edwards. If he can show solid QB play.....we have a potential top 10 WR.....Probowl LT.....good overall talent on OL(sans C).....good #3/4 WRs.....and a budding star at RB(how good could he be with a better gameplan & being allowed to use his natural receiving skills?). A #2 WR &/or TE is all that may be needed for this O to be very good.....along with Edwards improving of course......and a professional game plan by the OC.

Not everyone gets tattoos to look cool nor even to be generally looked at. I got my tattoo for my own personal reasons. It is not there for others to see(though I have no qualms if they see it)......it is there for me. It actually has meaning for me and even 17 years now after getting it done I have never regretted it.

And potentially we might not have gotten him later. I personally would prefer our HO to get the player that they want rather than their second(potentially 3rd or 4th) choice. I would like to see someone who plays up to Troy Polamulou's level or something along those lines from the #8 overall pick as well(though with a better support cast we just might see that from DW)......but I am quite content to get a top 15 safety from the #8 overall pick considering that around 50% of top picks bust out.

Good one ofiba......I missed that thread at the time.

His QBR has been 80.5 in 2006 & 102.2 in 2007.....winning 9 of 12 starts last year. It'll be interesting to see if he remains consistent.

IMO it will all hinge on Edwards. GO TRENT!!!!

1 tattoo

Interesting list(Kiper's top 25). Branden Albert #9 Rivers #17 Thomas #20 Harvey #23 According to Kiper, Harvey would be a bigger reach than Thomas.....and Thomas a little bit bigger than Rivers. If OG Branden Albert is legit at #9 I'd be happy with that pick at the #11.

If we get Rivers I couldn't see us switching to a 3-4 at this stage......to heavily invested in the T2 type(need) players. I would think it means we would not re-sign Crowell & let him walk after 2008.

I was responding to the concept that one rarely drafts safeties that high(top 8) I showed that in recent times that certainly is not the case.

Normally I read the entire threads before I respond........I really should have read this one before I responded before. There is some good stuff here

You mention some concepts which I tend to agree with......though you seem to make some rash assumptions. On QBs..... I assume you don't mean drafting one in the first round every year.......but drafting one every year is too frequent. They can take time to develop & you only have so many roster spots. I'd draft a QB every second year. I'd also never draft a QB in the 1st round unless I had the #1 pick.......the bust rate is similar for 1st round(non #1) picks to 2nd/3rd round......and not that much better than 4th/5th rounds. Running game..... Very big assumption that this is the product of a good RB. Generally it is the OL which helps create the good running game.....and much harder to achieve than getting a decent RB. Apart from QB, LT is the most important position on an offense. It not only enables your top QB to perform to his abilities but it opens up the running game. History shows that nearly every elite LT is obtained by drafting within the top 7 in the draft. Obtaining an elite LT should be a very high priority. Signing FA defensive talent..... Firstly, signing FAs is definitely no guarantee. Many, many FAs do not perform to the levels in their new team as with their original team......also, they typically require big contracts(over-paying). As with nearly every position, the star players are rarely let go via FA. CB, LB, WR & RB are the 4 positions that from what I see are let go far more often than other positions.....maybe of recent times OG as well. You will rarely be able to get a star DT or DE via FA. Busts.... Busts abound throughout the draft(as well as FA).....but the draft remains the only real way to obtain star players of the important positions. I've done a good deal of research in this area & know that(as I stated) the worst is 1st round QBs. Though I have not done a comprehensive study it looks like there has been good success in recent times in drafting DTs in the first round. OG would perhaps also be a position which has a low 1st round bust rate.....even in the 2nd round. Splash with fans??? I don't get this at all.