Dibs

I suggest you take another look at it......maybe with your glasses on this time.

Though I agree with your post and the thoughts behind it, I don't think that the examples you have given here highlight them. Bradford was the last of the big contract QB rookies. His dead cap hit meant that the Rams couldn't think of letting him go until next season(with $23M being the hit in 2013, $7M next season) & his cap numbers are of the level that essentially locked them into keeping him regardless of what they may or may not have determined his true potential to be(once they saw him play for 2 seasons). Gabbert on the other hand had an extremely friendly contract compared to Bradford. Only a 4 year, $12M deal. They too might have determined that his potential was minimal after seeing him play for 2 seasons......but their replacement options were minimal in the 2013 draft. They had the #2 and #33 picks. Assuming EJ was the only realistic option.....and considering that the Bills were confident enough to trade down to #16 to obtain him.....picking him at #2 was likely deemed as a great waste of such a premium asset. I tend to think it very likely that if there was a premium QB option for them to draft at #2 that they would have jumped at the chance.

Not really. It might mean that Rico wouldn't like the concept of you being a moderator.....but is happy enough to read your posts generally. There are a lot of posters that I am happy to read their thoughts.....but wouldn't want them moderating.

Can't be Miami. If we win out we become 9-7......and the best they could be would also be 9-7. We would hold the better division record.....so if we win out, Miami is a non-factor.

The service around here is abysmal.

I don't think that complexity is in any way out of place for the game. Have you ever tried to explain the basics of Football to somebody who has no idea of the rules? "You get 4 attempts to get 10 yards. If you don't succeed the opposition gets possession of the ball at the spot where you failed. Most teams will chose to punt the ball away or attempt a field goal if they haven't got the 10 yards needed in their first 3 attempts." "What's a punt?" "Kicking the ball. .....they will chose to punt the ball away if they don't have the 10 yards by third down." "What's a down?" "The 4 attempts are called downs. 1st down, 2nd down etc." "But I saw the ball thrown on the 2nd attempt and called a 1st down." "There is two definitions for the word down. Getting the 10 yards needed from the 1st down spot, even achieved on any down, is called getting a 1st down." "Ummm.....okay. What if they get the 10 yards?" "They get a new set of downs." "Ahhh....so the ball is moved in 10 yard increments down the field!" "No....if the ball moves further than 10 yards then the new set of downs starts from where the ball has moved to." "What if the ball only moves 5 yards?" etc, etc, etc. The game is not the easiest to explain at the best of times.

So the answer is obvious......make sure that the drop off in talent between your starters and your backups is minimal. Unfortunately the only way to do that in the cap era is to have mediocre starters.....but it wasn't a problem for the Bills for many years, so we know it is doable.

:lol:

In his 7 games with our #1 QB(EJ) his stats are.... 23-265-1 Extrapolated over 16 games would be... 53-606-2 Catches and yards would be career highs.....TDs are down. I think perhaps, as others have stated, that the carousel of QBs this season has effected his production somewhat.

I don't disagree(generally).....I was just pointing out that it isn't a foregone conclusion(like you stated it to be). You have assumed a certain level of "willingness" on the Bills part. I simply pointed out that if the Bills want to resign Byrd, they have the upper hand over the Skins. If you are running under the assumption that the Skins would well over-pay for Byrd.....I covered that by saying "unless either another team offers him a ridiculously high contract". .....and those same posters were also assuming a higher number of FA dollars being spent. Without that context added, one would have to be a complete moron to say "After signing all of our draft picks we only have $20M in cap space this year. That will be cutting it close." Ummm.....I didn't ask you to be. .....and I never made comment nor implications about your abilities to follow the cap or any of its ramifications.

I think it more that you came to a conclusion that he was not a hard worker based upon selective information and an obviously biased view on the information at hand(being determined to interpret an obviously attempted humourous response as that of moronic honesty for one). Considering all of the many counterarguments put to you about it........you still definitively maintain that SJ is not a hard worker, thus his injury issues. Ignoring the additional concept that there is a plethora of injury issues suffered every season by starting WRs around the league every year & that SJ has remained comparatively very healthy prior to this season, the fact that you have adamantly drawn a conclusion on a topic that one cannot be drawn suggest that you are perhaps somewhat impartial in your views on this. I guess it's just the blind optimist that yet again can't see the clarity of you impartial facts.

I take particular interest in the cap and the discussions involving it on the board and I can't remember anybody suggesting anything at all in regards to what you have written here. There really is no logic in your premise here. The Bills will be in a better cap situation than the Redskins and considering that the Mario signing was just 2 years ago.....there is no reason to believe that if the Bills really want to keep Byrd that they won't do it. My views on Byrd are that up to this point the Bills have obviously factored his potential contract into future cap calculations. A lot of people seem oblivious to the fact that signing players to big contracts not only effects the caps of today and tomorrow.....but for several years after that. I see Byrd being a Bill next year unless either another team offers him a ridiculously high contract(unlikely due to the standard current NFL team cap situations).......or that the emergence of players like A.Williams & Dareus who will likely consume heavy cap dollars in 2015 onwards(mid 2014 hopefully)......Glenn(2016/mid 2015).....and players like Kiko(likely very large contract) and possibly Woods in 2017(mid 2016).....might mean that they readjust their views on the importance of keeping Byrd. (I assume through all of this that they have plans in place for the monies needed to sign a legitimate QB whether that be EJ or somebody else).

I think he meant after the 3rd round(hence the linked list I provided a few posts earlier)......which counts out Graham, Allen and Reed (all 3rd rounders). There is a couple more on that list though....Celek & Daniels. That would make 4 out of 100 players selected......which is a success rate of 4% or 1 in 25. So.....draft 25 TEs in the 4th round or later and you have an even chance to find a relatively decent TE.

I think you are correct there. Here's a link to the last 10 years(2004-2013) of TEs drafted from rounds 4-7. Towards the far left is the total yards column. It doesn't look good http://www.pro-footb...ce=any&show=all

Doctor: I'm sorry to say, he was mortally injured. The bereaved: Oh no! Was it serious?

A surprisingly large number(of varying degrees).....but no TEs, sorry. I ran out of steam about half way through. I covered QB, LB, WR & OL(OC, OG & OT). There's too many to cover here....and I haven't managed to be able to work the search function well enough to find the threads(of which I'm sure my data attachments have dropped off them anyway). I started typing some of the things I discovered but there were just so many. Suffice to say that IMO a full professional study done and implemented over a decade would likely see a higher percent of successful draft picks.

Though I know that you are not a proponent of this, the statement above is to me one of the most annoying and useless fallback statements that is often bandied around. It is meaningless to any discussion about the relative strengths or improvements(or lack there of) of the current team. For instance. At 3-7 we are a bad team because our record states it to be so. If we go 5-1 over the last 6 games.....does that sudden make us a good team....or does the overall 8-8 record make us a mediocre team. Is a 9-7 team that has had no injuries better than a 6-10 team that loses several key players including its star QB for the season? Anybody who uses the W/L record as a be all and end all in a debate on the relative strength of a team is basically saying "I don't want to discuss it. I will consider us good when we win.....bad when we don't." Which beggars the question of why they are in the discussion in the first place.

IMO this is where the analytics department really needs to focus a lot of effort on. Analyzing the relative success of the general(and even specific) talent evaluator for each football position. I have done a little of this in the past(on an amateur basis) and there are some clear and obvious patterns to be taken advantage of. For instance, I found that the general success rate(over 20 years) of 3rd round WRs was very similar to those of 2nd round WRs......which suggests that overall the talent evaluation for differentiating between the potential of a WR rated for 2nd round and that of one rated for 3rd is poor. The conclusion would be that one would have a better value for pick on average selecting their WR in the 3rd rather than 2nd.

Do I persist? Why not, I've nothing better to do..... Are you in fact saying that you have determined that the current FO is going to be bad? If not.....why do you keep pointing out negative viewpoints about it to me? Very nicely summarized btw.

I have done a study on this which I posted last off-season. My attachments are gone from that thread & I haven't the energy to add them here...but... Though the study I did had certain criteria that doesn't correlate 100% to our needs here, it clearly showed the OG position being selected at a much lower rate in the higher rounds. At a rough look it appears that there is a 2/3 round drop in where they are selected. This showed that OGs selected in the 1st round had an very high success rate compared to those of most other positions. It also showed that the 2nd round success rate was extremely high though a bit lesser than the 1st round. It was the same in the 3rd round.....but the percentages became far less. Under the criteria I had set, the percentages of starters(that remained with their drafting team) were.... 1st round: 44% 2nd round: 36% 3rd round: 13% 4th/5th round: 8% 6th/7th round: 7% All of the above percentages were the best percentages out of all of the positions that I looked at. The numbers don't include however the number of OTs converted to OG in the NFL which possibly(likely?) would raise the lower round percentages a bit higher. You are correct that OG is no different to any other position in regards to the concept that the success rate generally reduces as the selection number increases......and though the percentages are higher than other positions, choosing to draft an OG after the 2nd round when you are in need of an OG is (like every other position) pot luck on whether you find a guy to fill your need. IMO, if one needs an OG(which we do), drafting one in the 2nd round provides the best value for pick. I would also draft OGs in the 6th/7th rounds as my flyer picks, as the success rates for OG in those rounds is much higher than most other positions.....but not to fill a position of need.

Don't forget Williams for defensive players.

Chargers were in the playoffs from 2006-2010. Rivers made probowls in 2009-2011. From memory his star status was routinely dumped upon(and IMO unfairly dumped upon) last season 2012.

I agree with the respecting of other posters points......but I think it a long bow to draw to claim it more prevalent from one side over the other. As I see things, a "SJ is a good WR" post will get just as much strong opposition as a "SJ is a bad WR" post......and IMO understandably so. There are solid views on both sides and for anybody to definitively state one way or the other is bound to see some correction.

You seem to be missing my point each time. I repeatedly ask "objective viewpoint pertinent to what?"......and you keep presenting more objective viewpoints. They aren't objective views that can definitively determine the future outcome. They are at best views that can lead weight to a higher probability of an outcome. On this topic(and most other topics) there is a myriad of objective viewpoints, all of which are speculative unknown quantities, which would provide weight of a positive or negative nature. The ability to obtain a definitive prediction or even rough assessment of the situation is impossible and anybody who voices certain knowledge of how things will be is bound to draw opposition to their comments. The reason why I have not addressed any of your individual viewpoints is that, as you have not stated that they draw the conclusion that the new appointments are definitively going to be bad, there is no need to put forward counter points nor add the many detracting complexities to their simplistic nature. You have simply listed some objective views.......the purpose of which I am unsure. Perhaps you are trying to put forward some counterpoints to nullify an earlier posters irrational optimism. Perhaps you are enjoying the intellectual process of the discussion. I don't know. The fact however that you seem perfectly fine listing off negative views without adding in any complexities which may detract from those views has me doubtful that you are indeed being very objective on this subject.

I heard recently that in the early days of the AFL he secretly(and illegally) invested $500,000 into the Raiders to keep them afloat as the fledgling league couldn't afford to have any teams go under. My point being that he had to work at his investment for it to pay off.