Dibs

Another factor you might consider is your time & the inconvenience of the second part leaking in a few years time when you might be extra busy & stressed(Christmas time perhaps). I know some people don't care about that sort of thing but for me a few hundred bucks would be well worth the peace of mind that it won't start leaking at an inopportune time in the future. Just a thought.

I'm 36 Married for 9 years to a slim attractive woman. I'm not over-weight at all I follow Football....having once played it. Love playing poker & I still play D&D(we call it Nerd-games or simply nerding) about once every month. Totally normal(nerdy) guy who happens to play D&D. Personally I think that those that knock D&D are secretly jealous of it. I mean, who wouldn't be jealous of guys who enjoy getting together regularly with each other to sit in a dim room, playing fantasy roll-playing pretendy acting games into the wee hours of the morning.....um...that sounded a little homo-erotic....honestly, I'm married. Honest....& so are my friends.....beer is drunk too....honest!

You are right. I didn't realize how misleading my thread title was to my point until you mentioned it. I am obviously not saying having a great QB is the only way to win the SB. I am not contending anywhere on this thread what might constitute as success(for player or team). What I simply contend is that if you want to win the SB you have a 4 times better chance if you have a 'great' or 'truly great' QB. Since winning a SB is the ultimate achievement for a club it therefore makes sense that they strive to find a QB of the caliber mentioned.

6pm Sept 2 for 53 4pm August 29 for 65

To help punctuate my(& scribo) point I'll ask a question. Since being picked up by us, has Nance shown in rookie camp, or mini-camp, or anywhere that his potential was badly assessed through the draft? In other words, has he done something which has made people re-evaluate his potential? Peters wasn't lauded when he first joined the Bills. I remember at the time thinking "wow, this guy was slated to go 1st day in the draft(as a TE)" but it wasn't until he started to show his potential that 'the word' started on him. If the answer to the question asked is "no", then surely this 'hype' generated here at TBD is not due to any real logic, just fervant hopes. Don't misread me....I understand his production in college gives legitimate cause for hope & I fervently hope Nance is going to become a super-star....there is just a realistic destinction between 'hype' & 'hope'.

I understand your possition now. (& fair enough too) You don't accept that 9 of the last 18 were won by 'truly great' QBs....perhaps just 2?(Elways) Also that there would be at best 2 'truly great' QBs in the league in any given year. Yes...totally....with those figures to play with my hypothesis totally breaks down(not logical to base things on so few figures) If however we defer to the average opinion....saying, say, a 95% agreeance by analysts on who was 'truly great' at the QB position my hypothesis holds very true.

Do you knowingly use spurious logic like this or do you not understand it is not a logical argument. I explained how this premise is incorrect in a previous post. #21

I thought your original posts premise was a very good point....that is why I altered my list down to 'truly great' QBs(from 'great' QBs. What I meant by that was the QBs who pretty much are certain HOFers(based on obvious ability) regardless of weather they win a SB or not. That is how I arrived at 9 SB wins in the last 18 years.(Elway, Brady, Favre, Young, Montana.) Again, I'm not saying you cannot win with a non-'truly great'. I'm saying that a non-'truly great' will win 50% of the time. I'm sick of re-writing this so I'll cut & paste my point again.... 50% of superbowls are won by 'truly great' QBs. 50% are won by non 'truly great' QBs That means that each year the superbowl will be won by either... 1 of the 6 'truly great' QBs that are in the league that year or... 1 of the other 26 QBs This means.... If you don't have a 'truly great' QB you have a 50% chance to be the one team from 26 to win(on average) If you do have one, you have a 50% chance to be the one team from 6 to win(on average) I agree with your point on the media but that does not counter the concept. You might disagree with my premise but....unless you disagree with those 5 QBs I listed as being 'truly great'....or you disagree with the concept that up to 6 QBs in the league each year(by the end of there careers) would be considered 'truly great'.....you do not have an argument. All I have done is extrapolate the odds from those two suppositions.

Yes, I agree....it could all simply be coincidental. It is unlikely however that the well established premise of "great QBs win superbowls" would happen to have coincidental evidence supporting it. You have listed a few coincidences regarding SB trends from a pool of potential thousands of possibilities...i.e. teams with animal logos, teams starting with the letter 'B', teams North/South/West/East of 'any' point on the map...etc, etc, etc. The fact you found some is expected. Great coincidence backing up an established(for decades) theory is unexpected & therefore not likely(though still possible). Your point 'A' is disingenuous. It is totally correct & implies contradiction to my point....but does not, in fact, contradict it. You are saying the odds for all of the teams combined whereas I am saying that half the SBs are won by 1 of 6 QBs each year & half won by the other 26 QBs. Hmmm, based on the last 6 years, Yes....but there are so many more journeyman QBs than others so if you have one of them, so too does 19 other teams. One of those 20 will win 50% of the Superbowls. One of the other 12 will win the other 50% of the Superbowls. I don't care about the odds of a journeymen winning the superbowl, I care about the odds of MY journeyman winning the SB. Is it just me????? Do people not read the posts properly???? Surely I have spelt out the concept clearly & straightforward enough & enough times on this thread that is should be easily understood. Another way of explaining the concept..... It's like the AFC having 6 teams & the NFC having 26 & both putting 1 conference champion into the superbowl each year.(therefore each having a 50% chance to win). You would rather have a team in the AFC wouldn't you?.......AFC = 'Truly great' QBs. NFC = non-'Truly great' QBs I do not like writing such long posts but.....It's not that hard to understand, is it?

How about(& forgive me if I'm wrong on the name...don't have it in front of me)... Levy & Vermeil both coached under George Allen(?). I'm pretty sure Walsh & Gibbs both coached under Levy on College level. Perhaps it is more to do with six degrees type situation than anything else. Coaches change teams...time progresses...cream rises to the top....six degrees. Then again, maybe there is a trick to discovering/developing QBs that those trees of coaches know. Then again, maybe I'm just wildly hypothesizing. The thing is though, if you were to narrow down your coaching list into 'true super-coaches' & top coaches, I wonder what the stats would be...mind you, making that list would be far more contentious than my QB list. Does it count that Levy is GM to DJ?

It might not make any difference if we were to cut PP or JR or even someone with a much higher cap hit for us. I'm pretty sure we have loads of money under the cap & there are no FAs of any worth left for us to spend it on. Since we are obviously not front-loading re-worked contracts(ala Peters), we could probably afford to cut both without noticing.

Yes, but surely if he showed the sort of potential that everyone is talking about, one team would have locked him up as a 7th rounder or something. Don't get me wrong, I'd love for him to turn into an all-pro but, like scribo, I find it odd how somebody with so much potential & production went totally undrafted. When you think about it, it implies that the upside of Aaron Merz our second 7th pick & the 8th last pick in the entire draft is greater than Nance's. Shouldn't we be talking about him as a potential future star?

Firstly I did not overlook anyone. If I was discounting them I would end up with 100% not 71%(or my now adjusted 50%) They were counted(not named) in the percentages. You miss the point.....& I think the answer is YES, these QBs can & do win with slightly lesser teams than the non 'truly great' QB teams. The point is.... 50% of superbowls are won by 'truly great' QBs. 50% are won by non 'truly great' QBs That means that each year the superbowl will be won by either... 1 of the 6 'truly great' QBs that are in the league that year or... 1 of the other 26 QBs This means.... If you don't have a 'truly great' QB you have a 50% chance to be the one team from 26 to win(on average) If you do have one, you have a 50% chance to be the one team from 6 to win(on average) I don't know how else to put it. Yes, half of the superbowls are won by non-'true greats' at QB but what is the likelihood it is your non-'truly great' who wins over the other 25 non-'truly greats'? They all have a similar chance of building good teams around the QB. If you have a 'truly great' then half of the superbowls will be won by your team or the other 5 teams who have a 'truly great' QB. I don't know....the same might apply with 'truly great' OTs...or DEs....it's harder to research them. (krazykat: my post #10 where I narrowed to 50%, I chopped out Warner & Aikman to achieve my 9 out of 18. My 'truly greats' who won superbowls for the sake of the argument are...Elway, Brady, Favre, Young, Montana ) AAAARRRGGHH another long post

Huh? There are only 4 starters on the D-line. We have one established good player. We used a 1st round pick on the D-line & signed one of the most valueable D-linemen in FA this year. If the word on Kelsay is true & he was asked to play heavy last year, he might come out & be the player we all hoped for. That's all you are asked to do....reserve your judgement.....not caste your judgement before you get to see how things will pan out. "only rational explanation" ???? If you are unable to see other scenarios apart from your own as possible, that is an error on your part...not anyone elses. Impossible that the o-line is not as bad as it appeared(ala colts pre Manning or Pats pre Brady)? Impossible that Marv & co. have improved the lines by the additions & methods they have made? Impossible that the bad play was more due to one or two bad seeds combined with bad coaching/schemes & motivation? I personally do not know how good or bad the lines are. What I do know is that every year teams turn around from being great to rubbish & rubbish to great with only minor(& sometimes no) changes.

Firstly let me say that I agree that having good play from the lines is essential to being a good team. I also agree(& who wouldn't) that the o-line & d-line needed a lot of improvement from last year. I contend though that our O-lines sacks allowed over the past 10 years was largely due to poor QB play. I am not saying the O-line was good, I am saying they are not as bad as you state. Since 1998(sorry, lets look at 8 years) 1998 RJ 6 starts 29 sacks......DF 10 starts 12 sacks 1999 RJ 1 start 1 sack...........DF 15 starts 26 sacks......DB(for NE) 16 starts 55 sacks 2000 RJ 11 starts 49 sacks....DF 5 starts 10 sacks........DB(for NE) 16 starts 45 sacks 2001 RJ 8 starts 31 sacks......AVP 8 starts 14 sacks......DB(for NE) 2 starts 5 sacks 2002 DB 16 starts 54 sacks 2003 DB 16 starts 49 sacks 2004 DB 16 starts 37 sacks 2005 JP 8 starts 26 sacks......KH 8 starts 17 sacks........DB(for Dal) 16 starts 49 sacks What can we deduce from this perhaps? When RJ played he got sacked a lot more than the other QBs who were there at the time. Wherever DB plays, he gets sacked a lot. JP being essentially a rookie was sacked a lot more than the vet(KH). As someone else said, Brady did not all of a sudden have a much better O-Line. If you remember when P. Manning started as a rookie for the colts, their sack numbers went from awful to awesome. I deduce that QBs who(for whatever reason) are not good at avoiding being sacked, make their o-lines look worse than what they actually are. Perhaps with the addition of (slightly?) better players(Reyes & Fowler), a QB who feels comfortable in the pocket(a relaxed JP), more experience for the youngsters(Peters & Preston) & an overall better attitude from both players & coaches, the o-line can improve by leaps & bounds.

I totally understand what you are saying. That is why I expanded the number of 'great' QBs in each year to 12 out of 32. I was intending to not only include the true greats (Montant, Elway etc) but also those capable of appearing great(the next level down)..i.e. Warner. IMO Favre is a true great. Just as Elway was a sure HOFer before he won superbowls, Favre would be a sure HOFer if he didn't win his one. Even seeing him in action last year you could still see he was(at one time) a special QB. If we did cut it down to unargueable(pretty much) 'true greats'... It would be 9 out of the last 18. 50% Each year there would be...???...let's say 6 'true greats' playing in the NFL(including old & young) That means 'true greats' have a 8.3% chance each year(on average) of winning the SB. Non-greats have a 1.9% chance. OR>>>>>>....1 in 12 years compared to....1 in 52 years It is easy to see why every team is desperate for a 'great' QB. Sorry for another long one.

Thanks for the history lesson. I had no idea about any of that.

Um...that is my exact point on 'great' QBs.....they win Superbowls.

I understand where you're at....I was there recently(& still sort of am). That is to say...At this point in time I'd be happy if we just make the playoffs. I know however that if we get closer to the 'big one' I will be petrified of us 'losing' the superbowl(becoming league losers 0-5). Just on the psychological level of having experienced 4 consecutive losses it will be devastating to get there & lose. Truth be told I realized I don't want us to be nearly good enough. I want us to WIN. As the last 17(18) years have shown.... If you have a 'great' QB you have a decent chance of winning the superbowl. If you don't you've got between slim & none.

Upon having a discargument on another thread about whether a team needs a 'great' QB to win the Superbowl I discovered something which altered my views a bit. I went from thinking "they don't need one but it sure helps a lot" to "realistically without one you have very little chance to win it all." What I looked at was.... 13 of the last 18 superbowls were won by HOFers, future HOFers or MVPs. Those players are.... Brady(x3).......Future HOFer Warner(x1).....MVP...(possible future HOFer but I doubt it) Elway(x2).......HOFer Favre(x1).......Future HOFer & MVP Aikman(x3)....HOFer Young(x1)......HOFer & MVP Montana(x2)...HOFer & MVP For the sake of this exercise I'm going to skew things against my argument. I'll drop off year 18 so Montana only has 1 SB ring. That brings things to 12 out of 17 or around 71% (obviously Rothisberger may be a future HOFer which would add to things let's assume he does not make it as MVP or HOFer) On any given year there would be ???? QBs who fit the criteria. I am going to be very generous & say 12 of the 32 starting QBs each year are capable of being HOFers or League MVPs....that's 37.5%. Favre, Brady, McNair, Warner, Manning...a few vets (Vick, Delhomme or Hasslebeck types might make it...who knows?), a few youngsters(JP, Manning2, Palmer) & another QB for good measure. That leaves 20 starters who are not. Mathematically(all things being equal) that means each year... each of those 12 'great' QBs have about a 5.9% chance each of winning the superbowl each of the 20 others have about a 1.5% chance each. OR>>>>>>> 1 in 17 years compared to.. 1 in 68 years (average obviously is 1 in 32 years) Using these figures, a 'great' QB has a 4 times more chance of winning the Superbowl than a non-great QB. If I were to use the 13 in 18 & say only 10 QBs were 'greats' the figures would be... 'greats'...........1 in 14 years 'non greats'.....1 in 79 years As you can see... If you have a great QB, you will probably(on average) win the superbowl within their playing life span. If you don't, you will be waiting(on average) your own supporting life span.

I thought we had close to 15mil left under the cap(before Peters signing). ....maybe it was 12mil??? Anyway, maybe this implies we will be re-signing a few players throughout the season. I hope so, it would be nice to sure up the talent that we actually have for the foreseeable future.

Oh, I was running with the assumption of the thread that he missed on purpose because we wouldn't pay him enough.

A man walks into a sports bar where there is a Bills match playing on the big screen. He walks over to the bar where there is a dog howling at the screen. The man asks the bartender "Why is the dog howling?" The bartender response, "He is a big Bills fan & the Bills are losing the match." "What does he do when they win a game?" Asked the man curiously. "Don't know." said the bartender, "We've only had him for 6 years." .....sorry all. joke works better with the Cards or Bungles of recent history.

True, true....I obviously assume it is feasible....does anyone know if it is or if it isn't? I'm not being funny here, I would really like to know if my assumptions make me astute or if they make me an ass.