Dibs

Sadly previous other great threads are now gone so I will just have to draw from this one..... What is being suggested here? That drafting WRs & CBs over DL is the way to go.......no real evidence provided. Suggesting perhaps that we would be stupid not to draft a DT this coming draft & that capable competition does? A bold claim that most top teams spend a substantial amount of their top picks on DT.......no balanced evidence to substantiate claim. How did I ever think that you were suggesting that "The ONLY way a team can be good is to draft DTs high regularly"? Um.......that would be the rule of.....just a guess here....."The ONLY way a team can be good is to draft DTs high regularly"? Suggesting again that "The ONLY way a team can be good is to draft DTs high regularly" You have never ever ever even hinted at teams building their DTs not through regular high drafting......nor even that there is any other importance to any other position(to the point in a now gone thread of claiming even QBs were basically interchangeable). You continually claim that "the good teams resoundingly draft DT talent".......this is true.....and it is false. Some have had success with the strategy.....some haven't......some have had success without that strategy......some haven't. If you really want to know the singular position that teams that make the superbowl tend to draft in the 1st at a far higher rate than teams that don't make the superbowl.......it is TE!!!!

You neglected to mention that the past 3 offseasons we have been in the process of correcting it......2006: 1st round DT.....2008: Probowl FA. It's not the "akin to our own" aspect at all. I thought I clearly stated that if you had stuck to your basic premise of "that the Buffalo Bills have spent so much less draft equity on DTs versus the better teams in the league that it is keeping us a bottom-feeder" you have a reasonable point. The Titans were brought up in regards to your more common point of "The ONLY way a team can be good is to draft DTs high regularly and stock up on as many as possible even if other areas are in great need." In regards to 'what's being done right around the league'......though I agree that having a strong DL is invaluable to becoming a strong team, your insistence that the successful teams invariably draft DTs regularly high in the 1st is simply not backed by evidence.......some do....some don't......some unsuccessful teams do.....some don't.

It appears that there is part of the above that isn't clear to you.......you do not put across a single argument, you dilute it with many other arguments & comments which detract from your views. If you were simply saying "that the Buffalo Bills have spent so much less draft equity on DTs versus the better teams in the league that it is keeping us a bottom-feeder" you would have a reasonable argument......though not definitive since it was only the Donahue era where the DT position has been ignored. Instead you seem to say "The ONLY way a team can be good is to draft DTs high regularly and stock up on as many as possible even if other areas are in great need." There are some successful teams that support your theory.....there are some that don't. There are some unsuccessful teams that support your theory.....there are some that don't. Steely Dan was basically saying that the Titans(and others) don't support your theory.....the theory that you continually put across that "The ONLY way a team can be good is to draft DTs high regularly and stock up on as many as possible even if other areas are in great need."

You shouldn't make this so easy ;-) And that was a great example of how you read things differently to what is clearly meant. By saying Steely Dan was not making a point on how the Bills have been drafting......he was giving a counter example for your simplistic generalized view of "You build a top DL through drafting high & with a top DL you will have a top team."

I've wanted to discuss this for a little while now...... Are our receivers really such a disgrace? WR1 Evans: With better playcalling, QBing & better support he could be a top 10 WR. WR2 ???: HIGH NEED WR3(4) Parrish(& Reed): Well above the average for the 3rd/4th WRs on most teams.....could perhaps shine(see Evans) RB Lynch: Supposedly a natural receiver....coming into 2nd season could perhaps shine(see Evans) TE Royals: No true pass catching threat at the TE position. Generally in the passing game a good WR3(4), TE & RB are not all required. Many successful offenses do not use the RB much at all in the passing game.....similarly with TE & WR3(4). Last season our offense was extremely predictable......running on 1st down was the rule.....we had basically rookie production at QB and a rookie RB who's receiving skills seemed much underutilized. We had nobody at WR2. IMO if we find a good WR2, get improvement from Edwards and use a professional offensive game-plan we could well have a very dynamic passing game. Evans/Big fast WR2/Parrish/Lynch......this combination could be great with 3/4 already in place.....all we may need is one player(Big Fast WR2)

Well said. It seems to me that the major flaw being made by certain posters is that instead of arguing the overall importance of the DL they argue that the way to get a good DL is by regularly drafting DL high in the 1st. Not only does this not marry up with hardly any of the successful teams but it dilutes the importance of the original point. Obtaining a good DL is what matters......not how you get one. Teams that fail with their high DL picks(eg Browns) can still develop a strong DL through 'lucky' lower round picks & via FA. Teams that get lucky like that may never need to spend their high 1st round picks on the DL......teams that don't may end up drafting DL every second year till they get what they want....the same goes for every position. It also seems to me that certain posters totally ignore the concept that even with a strong DL you still need decent/good players throughout the rest of the team to become a champion.......where do those players come from? Answer: The same places you get DLmen from.

You guys have it good compared to Melbourne prices. $1.40(average) per liter. That works out to be $4.80(US dollars) per gallon.

From 1995-2004 we were strong at DT with Ted Washington, Pat Williams & Sam Adams.....prior to 1995 we had superbowl caliber teams back to 1990.........AKC is really only talking about the last 3 years, and guess what? We have drafted a DT in the first round & traded for a 3xprobowler DT in that time. The only time that the area seems to be totally ignored is the Donahue period where he let PW go without any reasonable plan of replacement. To continually maintain that the only way one can achieve either good DTs or success in this league is by drafting DTs in the 1st round seems totally single minded.

I just read Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. Considering the era it was written it was pretty good. His style is fairly fluid & he creates a nice foreboding atmosphere.

Totally agree about PF being incredibly funny. The main difference in styles between BDS & PF is that in BDS the main characters are waaaay OTT heroes whereas PF has odd extraordinary characters. The heroes in BDS are pretty much brilliant in everything that they put their minds to......and the universe seems to bend to them. I certainly wouldn't assume that if you liked PF that you will like BDS......it's a bit like comparing the Bourne movies with the X-Men 1&2 movies.

From my experience there are very few males who are truly interested/capable of being 'just good friends' with a female......even if they intellectually want it to be. Most often is the case where even when professing to be happy with 'just friends' they are wanting more.....often without even acknowledging it to themselves. Many of my female friends(including my wife) have made the same mistake in assuming that the male friends around them have the same level of friendship towards them as they do towards the male friends. Invariably at some point they discover that it usually is not the case. In regards to your friend, he has already shown that he is not one of the rare males that can simply enjoy the friendship of the opposite sex without sex being a factor(at least with you). It is sad but my advice would be to face the concept that his friendship towards you was probably never the same as yours towards him.....and move on. At some point down the line, even if you are both partnered up it is most likely that his old 'feelings' towards you resurface and hurt you even more. The ironic part of the situation as I see it is that if you ever find a guy who has the ability to put his friendship towards you before any biological urges, i.e. truly regards you as a friend.....this is probably the sort of guy whom you would want more than friendship with yourself. Good luck with it all.

But the thing is that I saw the movie not knowing anything about it......I didn't know it was(or was going to be) a 'cult' movie. I certainly enjoyed the movie in and of it's own right without influence. I found it a romp.....lotsa fun. I fully agree that the movie was crappy......but it was not crap. The superheroic nature of the characters was consistent.....consistently over the top & unrealistic. Personally I generally get turned off by movies that break the laws of reality/probability. It is usually a pretense that a story is set in our real world & when the laws of the universe are changed in order to progress plot/action that I personally find a true crappyness. BDS was consistent in that it was OTT in a stylized & fun way throughout......it never pretended to be anything other than what it was & therefore deserves the right to be judged from within the universe that it created......similarly with Superhero movies, Desperado, Transporter 2 and any movie which base themselves outside of our normal reality. In the end, it was a fun action/comedy with style. Just because one does not connect with the comedy or style does not mean that the movie was crap......just that it didn't float certain peoples boats.

You mentioned that she has had substance abuse problems as well..... I had a very dear friend who had major alcohol & drug problems. I trusted him implicitly since my home & association was his only avenue of normalcy. To put it bluntly he was happy to use my generosity & I was happy(enough) for many years to strive to help him kick his habits & get some form of life together for him. I was very secure in the concept that he wouldn't bite the hand that feeds. I left him once to look after the house & cats when I went on a holiday with my wife . All was mainly fine.....however I did discover a little later that a few things were missing......things that I might not normally look at & miss. I know exactly what would have gone through his mind(I had a lot of experience understanding the illness). He would have rationalized that he would 'borrow' the items & buy them back the next week when he got some money. This of course he never did. My point is that 'theft' almost always becomes a part of an addicts life. Even if it goes against their nature or places them in a more detrimental position, the urge to feed their addiction usually will win out at some point. Confrontation? I'd ask you......How much do you care about her?.....and.....Is it worth the effort? What would you want to achieve from the confrontation? If you actually care enough about her then confronting her has to lead to time/effort/money on your part to truly try to help her. If you do not care about her enough to upset the balance of your own life for her......I would say it is simply not worth the effort of the confrontation. She will likely deny it......or if pressed(or doesn't deny it) will beg forgiveness etc leaving you feeling guilty that you could do something to help her yet are unwilling to. At worst she could become aggressive in her denial.

Happy B'day

"Come fly with me"

I think this is a very important point. I have not done a full study of bust percentages however upon looking at DT recently I noticed that(what appeared to me) a larger than normal number chosen in the first round panned out.....it usually took a few years or so but the percentage was high. QB for instance has an extremely small percentage of success when drafting in the first round(not #1)......this I have crunched the numbers on. From impressions(again) it seems to me that TE, WR, RB & DE have a fairly bad track record in the bust percentages. I have also noticed that there seems to be a higher percent of good WR, CB, LB & to a lesser extent RB that hit the FA market.....a lot of teams obviously feel that those positions are either more easily replaceable or perhaps they feel the extra money involved in paying them does not outweigh the 'extra' they bring to the table over a lesser player of the same position. Does this factor into how (good)teams draft? Perhaps. It is not so much important which position is drafted where......but more so that whichever position that is drafted needs to succeed. A team gets nowhere drafting DT after DT if every guy they draft busts out. When looking at drafting trends it is obvious that there is generally no easy 'rule' to deduce. Teams will draft generally for need. If a good team has 3 top DTs, they won't draft another simply because they have one available in the draft unless they can foresee those players moving on or declining soon......this goes pretty much for every position.

I tend to think that a lot of people don't 'get it'. It was a stylized OTT action comedy in the vein of Desperado.....not Pulp Fiction. All those thinking that it is meant to be like PF are perhaps missing what it is actually meant to be......a bit of fun. I suppose just as I will never understand how people laugh & laud comedies such as The Naked Gun, 40 year old Virgin or Anchorman there is bound to be plenty of people who will never understand how people like myself laugh & laud Boondock Saints. To each his own.

This has nothing to do with drafting them......I never said anything about spending 1st round picks on QBs. I pointed out that when a team ends up with a top QB they have the luxury of not having to continually spend resources on trying to obtain a top QB......those resources can then be spent on other areas. If you read the last paragraph of my post(#27) you will see that I actually back your premise......I just don't think that the method you have used(basically looking at top 15 selections) holds much weight.

Your point therefore seems to be......We have a top 15 pick, what do good teams do when they have a top 15 pick? Unless you are saying that good teams alter their draft strategy when they have a top 15 pick to when they don't and say....."Hmmmm, lets wait until we have a top 15 pick to get the needed position and select something different this year." I cannot see any relevance to having a top 15 cutoff point. When any team has a position of need they will either try and fill that with their highest draft pick or via FA.......they won't delay the situation because their pick isn't high enough.....nor will they overpay for the position in a weak FA year(at that position).

Hilarious.

Though I generally don't disagree with the importance of DTs(DL) I don't think one can make a reasonable assessment of importance based upon the data you have chosen. The basis of what you want your analysis to say is......"Successful teams often spend their major draft resources on DL." Though this may well be true, there are a lot of factors which need to be considered when determining this concept. What is the reasoning of limiting things to the top 15? Surely a good team in need of position upgrade would not say....."Hmmmm, lets wait until we have a top 15 pick to get the needed position and select something different this year." Though I believe that Philly generally follows the DL/OL model.....most teams seem to be far more flexible.....or even draft against the theory. Over the last 10 years.....selected in 1st round Ravens DL 1 OL 1 WR/DB/TE 6 other D 1 other O 1 Philly DL 4 OL 2 WR/DB/TE 2 other D 0 other O 1 Pats DL 3 OL 2 WR/DB/TE 4 other D 1 other O 2 Colts DL 1 OL 0 WR/DB/TE 4 other D 1 other O 3 Green Bay DL 3 OL 0 WR/DB/TE 4 other D 2 other O 1 It is clear to me that teams select mainly for areas of need.....or perceived future need. If they have a good QB they will not spend 1st round draft picks on the position for many, many years......similar goes for most areas on a team. WR/DB/TE selections in the 1st round seems to be higher amongst the successful teams over the lesser teams. Is this due to their importance? I tend to think not.......perhaps it's an indication that the successful teams have had success in selecting good QBs, Linemen & coaches therefore enabling them the luxury of drafting WR/DB/TE more often.

There are soooo many good/great posters here providing great discussion, argument, fun, information and most importantly different points of view. I'm narrowing my list to 4.......but to all the other worthy candidates.....and you know(or should know) who you are.....thanks for making TSW a great place to be a part of. My nominations..... Lori (Brains) Bill from NYC (heart) SDS (body) Clumping Platelets (posts & links I would miss the most)

Totally agree.....particularly since we have a high rotation system. IMO if Ellis did drop to us it would be wise to pick him. We might well be set at DT......but we may well still be weak. There are no guarantees that McCargo will develop into the level of player that we ultimately want(need)......and there is a reasonable possibility that Stroud will not fully recover from his injuries to his past levels as well as the whole substance abuse issue. Even if both Stroud and McCargo both play at probowl level, the high rotation system we use will not only enable us to get a lot of use out of Ellis in the next few seasons but provide us with great flexibility when Stroud & McCargo come to the end of their contracts in 3 years time.

If you mean the Cowboys......the chart has it at about our 1st & 3rd equals their 2 1sts.

Picking out one example and imply that it is a standard is not a reasonable argument. In the last 10 drafts there has been 21 DTs selected within the top 16. Of those 21, 13(62%) were not starters their rookie years......listed below. Justin Harrell, Broderick Bunkley, Travis Johnson, Johnathan Sullivan, Jimmy Kennedy, Ty Warren, Ryan Sims, Wendell Bryant, Albert Haynesworth, Damione Lewis, Marcus Stroud, Anthony McFarland, Jason Peter