Saint Doug

Going back to the OP subject, I do agree with part of your post. We absolutely need to be able to run and stop the run to be successful. We do need a great defensive line. However, you then tell us about huge time-eating drives the winning teams accomplished and that we don't have to worry about Willis. When was the last time (excluding Jets game) when we had huge time-eating drives. Whether it be Wills (but I am not holding my breath) or someone else, we need a dominant RB. And I really don't care about Willis's stupid comments - he is not geting the job done on the field. We need him to improve or get an upgrade. Or, get another force in addition to Willis - like the Saints have.

He's not a character guy.

It's not a PORNO, it's art.

Quick question: What makes a FA restricted vs. nonrestricted? Is it years in the league? Or, contract terms? Enlighten me.

IMWT

I believe Marv will do the right thing. I don't want them trying to jam a square peg in a round hole as the Deadskins do. However, I don't think we can look at weight as the sole determining factor for DT eligibility. That is, we cannot say the Bills will pass on a guy who weighs 330 lbs, but will covet a 300 pounder. Afterall, the Bills made a big push for Pickett and he weighs 322 lbs.

I have a question about Terdell Sands v. Ian Scott. Everyone seems to be blowin their load to get Scott, but I don't see the fascination with him. Is it because he plays for the Bears? I know "stats don't tell everything," but look at them in comparison: Sands: TOT SOLO AST SACK INT FF 2006 41 30 11 1.0 1 0 Scott: TOT SOLO AST SACK INT FF 2006 23 16 7 0.0 0 1 Sands is 27 yo and weighs 335 lbs and Scott is 25 yo and weighs 302. Could it be that people don't think Marv will go after a wide-body (Sands) and would want someone that would fit more into the Tampa 2 (Scott)?

I'll go if someone finds me a ticket.

This fails to show a causal relationship. You may look at it either way: giving him the ball over 22X will cause him to have a great game, or more likely... He is getting the ball more because he is having a great game.

This is good too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QAzwjDRjfE

Wow, I really didn't expect to create a showroom for peoples economical intellect, especially on a buffalo bills chatroom of all places. I guess I should have dumbed down the title of the thread to "value" Anyways, about value; besides what can be regurgitated from textbooks, who here knows where you can find a list of where our current draft picks should have been selected? Also, where we can find what an adequate "control" GM would have done with the draft. Should we ask Donahoe?

I keep hearing about value this, value that. So let's talk basics about "value." Value is in the eye of the beholder, or the buyer. Take houses. I don't care if 100 websites say that your house is worth 400K. What matters is how much you can sell it for. And it goes both ways. You may sell it for more, or less. Your selling price is the TRUE value of the house. Look at stocks. They are only valued at what you can sell them for, not what the media thinks the company is worth. Look at cars. You may see the biggest POS driving down the street and say "that car must have a value of $150." However, this is wrong too. What if the person driving it depends on it to get to work everyday and without it, they would be unemployed. To him or her, this car is priceless. My point: people saying "I don't have any problem with our picks, just the value in which we picked them" is ridiculous. Tell me, what are these picks true value? I can tell you. Whitner was worth an 8th and McCargo was worth a 26th. This is basic economics 101, supply and demand.