Dibs

Ummm....how come if 'Nance is worth anything, he'll get picked up by someone(else)' & Peters who 'never lacked that skill' didn't get picked up by someone(else)?

Just because everyone else is hanging it on you, I thought I'd join in a little.... You can't generalize by saying NEVER & then give an exception. That is logically incorrect. I think this is part of what got up people a bit here. Simply toned down to 'rarely' would have saved you heaps of flak. BTW, I don't see what's so wrong about saying one school/conference produces/doesn't produce good/bad players at a certain position. I know sweet FA about college football but I must have heard a gazillion times on this board how Ohio State produces great DBs.

I don't see why this sort of thing has to be an either/or option. IMO a great QB can 'improve' the OL & a top OL can make the QB look better. A point I think is often overlooked is the 'chemistry' on the OL. A group of hard workers who play well as a unit don't have to be individual 'stars'. Arizona this year will (sort of) be a test on the OL theory here. With Edge James now...along with Bolden, Fitzgerald & Warner....& no OL to speak of, if they produce very well offensively it will have to dint the 'OL is the only way to go' view. Surely the thing to strive for is a top OL with top skills players.

That is intriguing. A few Qs on it.... How many years was the data gathered for it? Can rounds 4-7 be added? It would be interesting to see if rounds 2-3 differ much from 4-7. I'd be very interested to see a similar analysis done on QBs, LTs(not the entire OL), DEs & RBs....QB in particular.....hell, all positions would be good to have a look at. This could be an interesting way of statistically determining the impact(importance) of each position on a team.

I think the concept has merrit. If you take a large enough sample over say 15 years of all 32 teams, there is an average percent that each individual team makes(or wins) the superbowl. If you then figure out the percentage of....in this case high OL draftees taken by each team & then correlate the actual teams that make(win) the superbowl & you find that teams that drafted high with OLmen won the SB much more often than ones that didn't, you could fairly safely conclude that drafting above the average with OLmen would increase your chances of winning....it's always statistcally possible to be fluke.....highly unlikely though if the percentage difference is pronounced.

As far as I could tell, yes.....it's difficult to research when the players have changed teams. Bulgers Rams site profile says he was. I believe Jake Delhomme was also on PS....I think there would be a higher percent of QBs than other positions. Honestly, there must be heaps of UDFAs who have become quality NFL players who spent some time on PS. Truth be told, I couldn't really figure why the question was being asked in the first place. Hasn't the PS rules changed over the years? Is it not a fairly recent situation?

post #5?

Did you read the posts?

Parrish. Injury. Now they are two words which nobody expected to see together.

I think you're being waaaay too harsh. As I said to Kelso's Helmet, HA is addressing the concept espoused around here of "you must draft OLmen early to achieve a good OL". Going along this line, it is important to include ALL early picks, not just the successful ones. Yes, a bottom 2nd = a top 3rd but....you need a cut-off somewhere don't you? My only problem is what I stated in the earlier post....5 years is too small a sample since good OL will last for 10.

I think his formula relates well to the multitude of voices here at TBD who were(& still are) yelling "Why don't we ever take an OL early in the draft. All would be well if we did that." Mind you, I think I would have covered the last 10 years of drafts. Impact OL in the first 2 years is rare and good ones will last generally a decade. This would change the last 6 superbowl appearance teams to Pit to 4 Sea to 6 NE to 4 Phil to 4 Car to 3 OAK to 5 TB to 3 And the bottom 3 teams from the last 3 drafts to Hou N/A NO to 6 TEN to 2 SD to 1 OAK to 5 ARI to 3 CIN to 3 DET to 6 I think this shows it is all pretty inconclusive. Mind you, I don't see any 1s or 2s in the first list. IMO Kelso's Helmets premise that it is not how many drafted but how many good ones drafted is very true.

Well.....yeah, but it's fun to quibble.

Other way around. If Brady was on the colts team instead of Manning.....with Harrison, the Edge, that OL.....it's the Colts that win the SB. What more could Manning have done for the Pats(esp. that 1st SB) that Brady didn't? Manning is my favourite currant non-Bill player(see other thread for proof) but until he steps up & wins big games......well he is still my favourite non-Bill player

I disagree with your disagreeance. It's terrible to see(because Brady is a Pat) but he really is great. He is the sort of QB that elevates his team & simply put.....wins games....all of them.....the big ones especially. AAARRRGGGHHH it gives the shiits but he really is that good.

Not wanting to pick a fight here...& I'm not backing the other fellas argument.....just curious..... How does a 28 year old get into the habbit of calling people junior?

Wow. That's a big statement....& knowing your liking of the lines & looking at your age it sounds like a well considered opinion. I've been meaning to corrolate Superbowl winners to star LTs....you give me further reason to look.

Just looking at the Rams London Fletcher Marc Bulger Kurt Warner I'm sure there are plenty more just from the Rams.

1)Is that a fact?....figure head?.....A fact?....or opinion? 2)Is that a fact?....first choice?......Really?....opinion me thinks. 3)Is that a fact?...Only the Lions & Texans signed more FAs than the Bills.....Fiction!!! 4)Is that a fact?..."Some claim"??? At least be reasonable in the setup of the statement. There is nothing to suggest that the upgrades will not produce adequate-good OL production by midseason. To assume either way at this point is premature. 5)Is that a fact?....Only if you count both N'Gata & Bunkley as 'Monsters'....Umm....why can't Whitner turn into a game breaker????. 6)Is that a fact?....weak line play?....many are telling me otherwise....dumb penalties?....HOORAY!!!! you get one right.....Average QB play?....what exactly do you mean by that? How do you think your 'quality QB prospects' would have played? JP is showing great improvement. To expect a great deal more is totally unreasonable. RJ wrote... & you totally misread what it obviously meant.I think your negativity clouds your (perhaps) better judgement. If you came out with reasonable arguments(as many on this board do) which point out some of our failings as a team & perhaps some thoughts on how to improve things I could take what you say & run with it. Your points & views are so negatively skewed that I find I simply take them with a grain of salt.

I would think if you are keeping an extra WR because you expect Parrish to get injured, you would keep Smith since they are similar types of receiver/PR.

Now: Evans All Time: Tasker

KW got a tackle in the opening drive stopping R.Droughns for a 2 yard gain. IMO it is only a good thing that TA is stepping up. If this new system suits him & KW is a keeper, that will work perfectly with the 'rotation' philosophy the coaches wish to employ.

Yes! Willis will sink or swim this season.

That statement doesn't work for me on multiple levels....do you want to try it again?

I didn't see the game but the play-by-play has KW with a tackle in the first drive. 1-10-BUF16 (10:15) R.Droughns left guard to BUF 14 for 2 yards (K.Williams).

Ooops....& you just know I mucked around then figuring out you are correct. ....& I used to be a math wizz.