Dibs

It's situations like this which actually make me think that steroid use is nowhere near where most might think...i.e. used by every professional athlete. Having such a standout 'beast' of a player be pinged for 'roids implys that a lot of his piers(who are not quite as 'standout') do not use 'roids....& that if they did they might achieve a similar level of play. I'm interested to see how well he develops now he has been sprung....will he continue to use, or will his play drop back to the pack?

Actually......IMO there is more chance that it is people like you who will make us suffer through many more years of awful football. If we give up on JP too early & use our high 1st round pick on another QB, we do not add a potential OL stud to the team & we must wait 3 years(average?) to see if our new 1st round QB will pan out. That is another 3 years with 50%(average) chance the new QB will fail. If we keep JP another year, we get to spend the pick on a potential stud OL & hopefully improve the OL to give JP more opportunity to develop.....remembering he still has not played a full season to this point....& it was known before we drafted him that he would need a lot of development time. If after that year he shows he is one of the 50% busts, we can then try for the 1st round QB gamble again. That would be another 4 years but with an extra potential stud OLman.....with the possibility of only 1 year wait. That's either 2 years better than the 'give-up' option or only 1 year worse(with the added potential OL stud).

You might be right....I'd like to see a game where the Offence executes the gameplan with precision & discipline before I give up on him......though, I'm leaning towards the negative side more so far this season.

Hard to say.....I'd want to see him play behind one for a season before I commit myself. Yes, P. Manning could have some success behind our line.....but to compare a young JPL to a veteran P.Manning is not really a fair comparison.

The situation is developing into one that is starting to make me feel really grateful that Marv is 80+. I've noticed that when most people get to a ripe old age, they don't buckle so much to public opinion or in this case, what the fans & media might say. Based on the awful OL & the marked improvement in JPs game(....& yes, he is still greatly improved over last years JP), I do not see Marv diverting from his plans come next draft.....we will be drafting OL (& D again).....definitely not a QB in the first round(or WR for that matter).

.....and that's because they found Brady & replaced Bledsoe with him. Had they not lucked onto Brady, they might well be drafting QBs in the first round again. Don't get me wrong here....there is no way I want us to draft a QB over an OT next draft. Surely the BIG question is....does JP look like he could be decent(& continue developing) if he had good protection on a (semi)regular basis? If the answer is at least maybe, then he should not be given up on. Why replace a 'maybe' struggling behind a sub-standard OL with another 'maybe' who will struggle behind a sub-standard OL?

There should be laws against being avatarist.

Reich was drafted before Marv came to Buffalo.

But you don't know that you will snag some good linemen in the 2nd & 3rd when you are picking in the first do you?

No arguments there.

That is sounding draconian.....why wouldn't they just have an enforced delay of how long you have to wait to get your money online to gamble with? That would stop problem gamblers from losing their heads & blowing everything they have in one fit of mania but would still enable responsible gamblers to enjoy their chosen recreation. I hope it doesn't effect me. BTW....yay me....I just played my first live/in person at venue poker tornament(not for money) with 145 people &......I won!!!! Good on me, me.

It's a bit of both obviously.....not all your players will fit any system so changes will always be needed to the personel. I totally agree with you about Vick though. When you have a 'name' player like him, there is obviously no way that any new coach would be considering getting rid of him.....and with his unique talents, it is logical to assume that a system should be brought in to suit those talents. It appears to me however that the reigns have been taken off Vick again this season. Last year they had been trying to mould him into a pocket passer obviously from fear of his (regular) injuries from all the rushing. Particularly at QB, I think a system should be tailored to suit the player.

Man, I hope so. GO BILLS!!!

What exactly is the legislation doing?(We don't get all your news over here....but I play online so....) From reading between the lines of the conversation here it is simply hindering the ease in which one can transfer money.....is that correct? If so, what's the big deal? (pun intended:))

This is also hit & miss though. A guy who looks & plays like a champion on one team does not always carry that through to the next. I have no idea but to hazard a guess of the percent that fail(not live up to expectations) I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's up around the 50% mark. I'm surprised that so many would advocate another skills position player over the lines. As I said before, it's a lucky dip.....therefore Johnson might well be a bust. Everyone should pay close attention to the Cardinals offence this season. They have two fantastic WRs & a star RB with an awful OL.....this is potentially what we would be if we drafted a superstar WR. They have a solid veteran QB who simply cannot handle the pressure his OL puts him under so they have gone with their rookie(effectively giving up on the season). The question becomes......what is the percentage difference between Johnson & Thomas being able to become a star.....& how will that effect the structure of the team? I propose that since nobody has any real idea(just look at every drafts hits/misses) the effect of a star WR will perhaps put some bums on seats(though I thought we sell out all home games) & little else. A star OT will help win games on a regular basis......QB gets sacked less, QB has more time to make the WRs that are there look closer to their actual skill levels, RB has bigger holes to run through thus looking more talented with longer runs, when we have a lead we can grind things out easier with a talented OT overpowering tired DLmen near the end of games. The only way I'd be happy with a WR in the 1st round is if the OL starts looking like it is going to be good.....or we sign 2 very good to star level OLmen in FA. The Lions used 3 top 10 picks(#2, #7, #10) on WRs in 3 years. Hands up who thinks that was a good move on their part.....how good did Charles Rogers look before the draft? IMO Evans is looking to develop into a true game-breaker.....he probably would be already if the OL could regularly give JP enough time to get him the ball deep. If we got the best available player in Johnson.....what if the following year the best available is another WR? Do we get him too? At some point you have to build a team.....not just a collection of good athletes.

Where did you get that from? ....and again with the JPL thing.....I'm not arguing about him.....I'm discussing the merets of adding in QB rushing stats to the YPA without adding in the sack stats. Theoretically you might have a QB who is an awesome scrambler who can gain tonnes of yards each time he rushes, ala Vick, but has very little to no pass rush awareness, ala RJ. This hypothetical QB would have vastly over-stated stats without adding in his sack stats.....& would be massively benefitted by the dodgy OL that allowed him to scramble his heart out due to OL breakdowns(stats added) & get sacked to the max(stats not added). If a Marino type QB who cannot scramble to save himself but has supreme pocket awareness is hindered greatly without adding the sack stats. The premise for adding the rushing stats is surely to get a more accurate YPA statistic. A general QB run that is negative is called a sack. It makes sense to add all the negative runs as well as all the possitive runs.

Ummmmm, you are aware that the people making the decisions in this organization have changed in the last off-season....aren't you?

I purposefully tried to keep my response general so as not to bring JPL into what I was saying. What I'm saying is a general look at the situation & in no way reflects on JP as an individual performer. The reason I think sacks should be used.... 1. The relative abilities of those around the QB are ignored in all other aspects. A top OL/WRs/RB/TE will all help a QBs yards/attempt. To argue that sacks are caused largly(often) by a lack of OL ability and therefore should be ignored is IMO overtly selective in it's premise. Teams with bad WRs who drop lots of balls & fall to the ground with a nasty look will reduce the QBs ypa as well. There are very few star TEs that can change a game.....we don't discount receptions to TEs due to the disparity. A QB like RJ was notorious for getting sacked. He had a ypa of 7.2(7.1 with his scrambles) Only by adding the sack stats would we see that his actual ypa was far less (5.4). 2. A QB who has good scrambling ability will have an opposite effect with a bad OL. The lack of protection will cause them to run more than a decent OL would do, therefore over-inflating their rushing stats. Again, if we discount the sacks due to bad OL play, we should discount the runs due to bad OL play. Basically I view it that if you are to include a QBs 'ground' abilities, you should include all the ground stats....including sacks.

I'm not meaning to be facetious here but isn't drafting another DT in the 1st round relying on potential as well? I'm actually getting a little confused(seriously) about the DT situation. Many on this(& other) threads have stated that "this unit needs a serious upgrade" & we should use our 1st round pick on DT. I can understand using the pick....unless there is a top OT at the time available.....what I don't understand is the "serious upgrade" bit. One 1st round pick which will most likely take at least a year to realize his potential is not IMO a "serious upgrade". We keep 4 DTs on the roster....& to use GuessWhozBack21s views since they seem to be fairly standard(the normal/consensus view).... Triplett is OK......I'd add that with better talent around him he could excel....also he is newly signed so is most likely staying. John McCargo is a 1st year, 1st round pick....there is no way he gets dumped unless his injury problems persist. Kyle Williams is decent.....he has shown talent & who knows how he might improve? We'll probably know more of him by end of season but he certainly looks like a keeper. That leaves Tim Anderson.....he needs to be upgraded. That is only 1 DT to get(at this point). Considering there is only 2 starters & we have no choice but to see through the potential talent we have invested in, I really cannot see how the "major upgrade" view is valid. Am I missing something here?

If you are going to do that, you should also add the attempts & loss of yards from each QBs sacks. And to preempt the argument that sacks are mainly caused by bad OL play, a QBs rushing attepts/yards are increased by a bad OL too.

If we're in the situation to get him(Johnson), I'd try a trade down. If for some reason it didn't work, I'd bypass Johnson & take Thomas. Why? The draft is a crap shoot at the best of times. Here is a complete list of WRs drafted in the top 5 going back 20 years #3 Braylon Edwards ??? #3 Larry Fitzgerald #2 Charles Rogers #3 Andre Johnson #4 Peter Warrick #1 Keyshawn Johnson ??? (for the #1, is he a bust?) #4 Michael Westbrook #4 Desmond Howard If I'm going lucky dip, I'd rather get something we are in more need of.

No.....not at all. Your premise.....even though you know it is....& I quote...."......it was just a thought to waste time." Steve Smith is of similar to McGee in size and age & both have good Return games. Smith the WR started to concentrate on his WR role more.....& became an awesome WR. Should we give McGee a shot at WR based on this?(even though he is a CB whereas Smith was a WR)......with obvious implications that he might(within reason) be able to achieve Smith levels otherwise why ask the question in the first place. If not that & you were simply saying "Golly, do you think McGee could become an OK WR if we tried him out?" It is a totally pointless question since why swap a great KR & potentially top CB for an OK WR? Now come on....anyone with half a brain can grab pieces of information to formulate a rebuttal to anything. Since you know this is a throw-out-there/throw-away idea, to rebut the obvious is argumentative & disingenuous. I don't have a problem with you doing that(that can be fun & is probably why I'm still typing), but you seem to have taken on board the initial premise....you no longer play devil's advocate for a silly concept, you are actually arguing the case with fervor & taking offense when the stupidity of the premise is pointed out. Examples:- "What is the difference between a great kickoff returner who plays offense and a great kickoff returner that plays defense." Nothing in their KR abilities....but that was not what you were asking. Do you really not know the difference? "McGee is a CB, meaning he has the speed to stay with WR's and their routes, so he must have the speed to atleast be an average WR." OK....then all one needs to be an average WR in the league is speed. "BTW: Do you remember Troy Brown? Do you remember him? In 2004 he had 17 tackles and 3 INT's and 2 fumble recoveries as a CB on defense and 17 receptions and a TD on offense ... but he plays OFFENSE , not DEFENSE ... right?" Again with the..."This guy did it so why not ours?" argument. It doesn't even correlate (WR-CB, not CB-WR). In the entire thread, these 3 points are the only rebuttals you have made. Silly arguments? I just don't understand why you would throw out an idea that you have said multiple times is a waste of time(with your initial post being neutral to the idea) & then argue against the obvious with it....& take offence when people point out what it is you are doing.

You must be really tired. I said I had no problem with the post....I'll repeat myself again.....the waste of time is playing devil's advocate without a reasonable counter argument. In the context of the sentence....yes decent meant good....meant in the same ballpark as who we were talking about. I perhaps should have been a bit more succinct but some benefit of doubt on my intelligence would have been appreciated. You have a habit of picking out exceptions to the rule to prove a general point. It does not hold water. To say that an existing athlete known for their versatility such as Bush or K. Stewart shows that any gifted athlete can excel outside their expert area is not a logical progression. Very, very few athletes are that versatile. You were not simply saying anything is possible & McGee if given the chance might make an OK receiver.....you were initially asking a silly question which you knew was silly so that when people refuted it by basically saying it was silly, you could use silly rebuttals against them because you are bored. Did I say Troy Brown was an exceptionally good athlete? (which he is, simply based on the fact he is a pro-football player). I actually said...."Troy Brown is an exceptionally versatile athlete." It is the versatility of the player which I focused on. Very few players are that versatile....so versatile that they can play multiple positions at a high enough level to warrant them actually playing those positions. Very few OLmen can play all 3 positions. Most RBs(who have the speed/awareness/moves etc) can't catch the ball or get open easily enough to make it as WRs....neither can most TEs. LBs often can only play one position etc, etc, etc. Your comparison in the end is with Steve Smith....one of the best in the league. If you were not implying that McGee had a shot at emulating him what were you saying? You could have just as easily had a thread saying "Deon Sanders played a little WR & failed miserably so I hope we don't waste our efforts in trying to use McGee as a WR." Then, when people would naturally point out that it is a silly thing to say & that just because Sanders couldn't, blah, blah.....you could have argued the opposite of this thread.....either way, it fills the time.

No, the waste of time is playing devil's advocate without a reasonable counter argument......I have no problem at all with the initial post. Obviously by "decent PR/KR" I meant of probowl level or there abouts.....well, I thought it should be obvious. My first sentence countered 4 of your 5 smileys. I'd say you wasted 3 smileys on me. BTW, it's a much more manageable 6:53pm where I am.