Are we becoming a mirror of the Detroit Lions?

[OCinBuffalo]

irregardless of how weak you may be at other positions.

Ramius:

 

You know I agree with you on most things(I still haven't paid enough attention the the 3.5 thing), but do we have to give Molson_Retard a reason to bring up grammar? More importantly, this is a personal pet peeve of mine. There is no such word as irregardless. I know I am being a super-duper annoying prick by raising this as an issue but I can't help it. I fully realize that when one is dealing with this level of short-sighted, "I just read Bill Belechik's book" mentality, grammar goes by the way-side. But, for me, this is on the level of re-signing vs. resigning, and we all know how annoying that can be.

 

I am still waiting for anyone on this board to own up to the facts of the last SB. Namely, the Pats* Lbs are old and that their O line is weak as hell.

 

It's as if the Ravens and the Giants didn't blatantly expose both statements as beyond doubt, in the regular season, never mind the playoffs. MakeBaby suddenly looks like a star? Or was it the fact that both teams were successful using a well-formed game plan, and, the Giants won because they stuck with it(um, 1991 comes to mind), and the Ravetards lost because they got away from it?

 

I have waited a while to bring this up, and, the tools who were arguing with me a year and a half ago based on my "the Pats* are hiring mercs for one last shot at the SB before they go down" are conspicuously absent. Edit: And, their basic, "yeah, but Roosevelt Colvin" argument was silly to begin with, and has been proven stupid per his release.

 

So, apparently, the best news about the server being down is that Dawgg and Hollywood_Douchebag, and the rest, have gotten off the hook regarding the supposed "our Lbs being older than OCinPhilly doesn't matter because of Colvin" argument. Yeah, your Lb corp is so good, you are looking at drafting Gholston as a OLB? Right, so what exactly were those guys saying?

 

Anyway, I have spent the last 30 minutes reading the posts in this thread: commendable on both sides. Rarely do we see logical arguments based on facts, and even acknowledgment of facts that contradict each other's view on this board. At least we can take solace in the mostly objective posts here.

 

For the dumbasses that want to know why this thread is still at the top: it's because this is the quality one can expect from this board when we get our schit together....

[Steely Dan]

The Tennessee Titans have been to the Playoffs 3 times since the Bills last went, and have had one of the league's top Defenses for that whole period.

 

But if I understand your idiotic position, that's not a sign that they've been drafting better than us !?!?!?

 

You are either completely dishonest or you missed the little bus that picks you up for school.

 

There are better examples to choose from but they don't support your argument. I don't think 3 out of 7 years is anything special. It's better than Buffalo but the Titans have had continuity in the front office and with the HC. Buffalo has not.

[Westinghouse]

There are better examples to choose from but they don't support your argument. I don't think 3 out of 7 years is anything special. It's better than Buffalo but the Titans have had continuity in the front office and with the HC. Buffalo has not.

Continuty is no excuse.

No one hires and fires GMs and HCs for the Bills, they make those moves by choice.

[dave mcbride]

Ramius:

 

You know I agree with you on most things(I still haven't paid enough attention the the 3.5 thing), but do we have to give Molson_Retard a reason to bring up grammar? More importantly, this is a personal pet peeve of mine. There is no such word as irregardless. I know I am being a super-duper annoying prick by raising this as an issue but I can't help it. I fully realize that when one is dealing with this level of short-sighted, "I just read Bill Belechik's book" mentality, grammar goes by the way-side. But, for me, this is on the level of re-signing vs. resigning, and we all know how annoying that can be.

 

 

 

Actually, irregardless is a word. Look it up in the OED. It has fallen out of use and is considered archaic, but it is a word nonetheless. I'd get off my high horse ...

[AKC]

There are better examples to choose from but they don't support your argument. I don't think 3 out of 7 years is anything special. It's better than Buffalo but the Titans have had continuity in the front office and with the HC. Buffalo has not.

 

 

So in your opinion there's nothing to be gained by considering the way a franchise that has been in the playoffs 3 of the past 7 years got there?

 

You'll have to excuse me if I disregard every position you ever take on this board that pertains to the game of football.

[dave mcbride]

From the surface of things you do may well have a point.....the first post in this thread is really just saying(apart from we are as bad as the Lions in this area) that we have not drafted enough DLmen in the first round......and we should rectify things.

Considering however that this thread is like a continuation thread for AKC it is perhaps reasonable to assume that his crusade from previous lost threads is still relevant here. In the previous threads he constantly avowed that 'good' teams drafted DTs high in the draft and that is why they are successful.......which is how I interpret his meaning in the first post.

 

 

I think his point is that good teams draft D-line until they have a very good unit, and they then shift to other positions. He's simply saying that it comes first.

[Ramius]

I think his point is that good teams draft D-line until they have a very good unit, and they then shift to other positions. He's simply saying that it comes first.

 

Which one of AKCs arguments are you using? When referring to the Pats* and Eagles, he insists that they keep drafting DL, no matter how good their current line is. When faced with other examples, such as the steelers, then the argument changes to "Well, ummm, once you have a good DL, they you can stop drafting them."

 

Everyone knows that you need and want a good DL. AKC has just gone over the top with his overstatements and oversimplifications, and his utter refusal to listen to any opposing viewpoint or argument. There's more than one way to build a football team, ya know?

[AKC]

I think his point is that good teams draft D-line until they have a very good unit, and they then shift to other positions. He's simply saying that it comes first.

 

Yes Dave, my proposition has been that most of the better teams in the league have used early high picks to build a strong DLine. The teams with the high priority at the position include many of the recent Super Bowl teams- Giants, Pats*, Bears, Philly, Carolina, Ravens. Even a 3-4 D like Pitt has a high priority on quality and depth on their DL.

 

Whan you look at the other side of the coin, the bottom feeding teams like the Bills and the Lions, there is less high draft equity spent on the DLine than among the above.

 

And you're right, a team that's built a strong DLine like the Pats* have the luxury of going out and selecting other positions today because they've used all that early draft equity (3 first round DTs), and in their rotation of 6 DLinemen who play in their interior they set a measure IMO for how to approach building a strong team.

 

None of this means a team should reach for DL- just like I wouldn't support reaching for a WR early in this draft. I think reaching for need is one of the things that keeps the bad teams bad.

 

There's more than one way to build a football team, ya know?

 

There's more than one way to build a football team. There's the way the Lions and Bills do it and the way the Giants and Pats* do it.

 

I'd like the Bills to start paying attention to the way the better teams do it versus approaching it like the bad teams. One of the common threads among the good teams is building a quality and depth at DT. You've pitched our current DT rotation as both, I believe it's not yet either.

[Ramius]

I'd like the Bills to start paying attention to the way the better teams do it versus approaching it like the bad teams. One of the common threads among the good teams is building a quality and depth at DT. You've pitched our current DT rotation as both, I believe it's not yet either.

 

I'll completely agree that building the lines first is the way to build a team. ITs something TD didnt do, and we are still seeing the effects of this neglect. I still dont think you are giving the Bills enough credit along the DL. The DL isnt a top-5 or top-10. But its made some serious strides. Adding in a 3rd round DT wouldnt hurt at all, forcing Kyle Williams to 5th on the depth chart.

 

However, the team has other holes and more pressing needs that must be addressed. I'm not saying reach for a WR at #11. In your poll, i voted best player available. Ideally, i'd like a trade down to 17 or 18, with us taking a WR there. If we cant trade down, i DE would be a great pickup at 11, to bolster our pass rush, bolster our entire DL and infuse some youth into the position.

 

However, given the holes on this team, taking a WR at #11, while not preferrable, would not be the end of the world.

[AKC]

I'll completely agree that building the lines first is the way to build a team. ITs something TD didnt do, and we are still seeing the effects of this neglect. I still dont think you are giving the Bills enough credit along the DL. The DL isnt a top-5 or top-10. But its made some serious strides. Adding in a 3rd round DT wouldnt hurt at all, forcing Kyle Williams to 5th on the depth chart.

Based upon the quality/depth relationship I've been exploring among the rest of the league, I see our interior D rotation right now in the bottom 10 of the NFL. The unknowns on both of our starters just can't be projected to be "premium" in either case when all indications are that neither of them in 2008 will be an elite DT in the NFL. We play against teams with 2-3 elite DTs, and we are likely to recognize somewhere about week 5 that we don't have even 1. Maybe I'm a pessimist.

 

the team has other holes and more pressing needs that must be addressed.

We definitely disagree here. I believe any team with the 31st ranked defense in the league will not get better as a team until that fatal NFL flaw is addressed. All the WR/TE/RB/QBs available in the first round of any draft will make no effective difference until the defense is addressed. Adding one former Pro Bowler to our DLine who missed half his teams snaps in 2007 and 30% of his team's snaps the year before doesn't offer me the level of confidence you are drawing from the same aquisition.

 

I'm not saying reach for a WR at #11. In your poll, i voted best player available. Ideally, i'd like a trade down to 17 or 18, with us taking a WR there. If we cant trade down, i DE would be a great pickup at 11, to bolster our pass rush, bolster our entire DL and infuse some youth into the position.

 

However, given the holes on this team, taking a WR at #11, while not preferrable, would not be the end of the world.

 

I don't think I'll get much disagreement from anyone objective that on the average, most draft analysts have the best WR in the draft at about 18-22. And in many of those the top WR in their analysis is not a greater than 6 foot prospect. There's the phenomenon that also drives analysts to put a position player up higher where his position is actually thin at the top of the draft, basically "I can't submit this Top 50 players list without a ____" in the first round.

 

So there's the likelihood that most NFL teams have WRs this year starting no higher than we'll say 18th.

 

Now let's look at the blessing of an 11 pick. What's great about the pick is that almost surely there will be a player we picked in the top 5 overall who is still there when we get to 11. Now it might be that that player is an Olineman or DE, etc.- but the chances are probably better than not that the Bills will have the option at the 11 spot to grab someone who didn't fit the first 10 teams or was graded higher by us. An overall top 5 pick according to our Board. And if the decision is between an overall top 5 pick, and a WR we likely have at least 17 guys in front of, it seems like the use of the resources are so much more beneficial in the long run to take the best player in most cases that the chances of a WR being taken in this scenario by a well managed football team are virtually nil.

 

I don't find your conclusion that drafting a WR might not be "the end of the world" to be unreasonable. I also don't think it's unreasonable to reach the conclusion that taking a WR at 11 might, on the other hand, turn out to be another of the types of personnel blunders that helps to keep a bad team on the bottom.

[Ozymandius]

Actually, irregardless is a word. Look it up in the OED. It has fallen out of use and is considered archaic, but it is a word nonetheless. I'd get off my high horse ...

 

That is correct. It's like inflammable / flammable. Both are words, meaning the same thing, but both are words.

[Steely Dan]

Actually, irregardless is a word. Look it up in the OED. It has fallen out of use and is considered archaic, but it is a word nonetheless. I'd get off my high horse ...

 

"Without regard to" is much better.

 

So in your opinion there's nothing to be gained by considering the way a franchise that has been in the playoffs 3 of the past 7 years got there?

 

You'll have to excuse me if I disregard every position you ever take on this board that pertains to the game of football.

 

Once again you change someone's words in order to create a straw man argument. I never said there's nothing to be gained from them. I said that it's not the best example. That example also includes a 3-13 season. If you call that a good example then you'll have to excuse me if I disregard every position you ever take on this board that pertains to the game of football.

 

 

Which one of AKCs arguments are you using? When referring to the Pats* and Eagles, he insists that they keep drafting DL, no matter how good their current line is. When faced with other examples, such as the steelers, then the argument changes to "Well, ummm, once you have a good DL, they you can stop drafting them."

 

Everyone knows that you need and want a good DL. AKC has just gone over the top with his overstatements and oversimplifications, and his utter refusal to listen to any opposing viewpoint or argument. There's more than one way to build a football team, ya know?

 

Exactly, AKC's argument is based a lot on his belief that Stroud and Spencer are not good additions. That's a belief I find laughable. IMO, the best way to build a team is take what is the weakest position and address it. With the addition of Stroud and Spencer WR has now become the weakest position. I also believe that if a team has a guy rated as the #1 player at a position of need and the "experts" rate him 7 spots lower than that teams pick it's not a huge reach to take him because he won't be there in the second round. After the big four DL there is nobody at that position better than Sweed IMO.

 

 

I'll completely agree that building the lines first is the way to build a team. ITs something TD didnt do, and we are still seeing the effects of this neglect. I still dont think you are giving the Bills enough credit along the DL. The DL isnt a top-5 or top-10. But its made some serious strides. Adding in a 3rd round DT wouldnt hurt at all, forcing Kyle Williams to 5th on the depth chart.

 

However, the team has other holes and more pressing needs that must be addressed. I'm not saying reach for a WR at #11. In your poll, i voted best player available. Ideally, i'd like a trade down to 17 or 18, with us taking a WR there. If we cant trade down, i DE would be a great pickup at 11, to bolster our pass rush, bolster our entire DL and infuse some youth into the position.

 

However, given the holes on this team, taking a WR at #11, while not preferrable, would not be the end of the world.

 

Exactly. Why reach for a DL when a third rounder will do.

[Big Turk]

So, I guess when the teams you hold up to this high standard like the Pats, Colts, etc were all routine bottom feeders when the Bills were wiping the floors with the opposition in the early 90's, those great secrets they have didn't seem to do them much good now did they?? I think what it shows is that if you get enough high 1st round draft picks no matter how bad a drafter you are, you will eventually end up getting very good players...even the Bengals were able to prove that after 11 years...

[Dibs]

I think his point is that good teams draft D-line until they have a very good unit, and they then shift to other positions. He's simply saying that it comes first.

No.....I'm afraid that he isn't simply saying that at all. There has been so many other additional factors thrown into the base premise that he has actually been saying a lot more than just that.......but let's deal with that actual assumption.

 

Good teams draft D-line until they have a very good unit.......specifically the DTs(which he has stated on many occasions). Meaning.....and AKC stated this just a few posts earlier that "most of the better teams in the league have used early high picks to build a strong DLine."(post #148)

 

To continually make an assertion without backing it up with evidence does not make a good discargument.

Here are some raw numbers for the past 8 superbowl teams......and I'll keep it basic to be in line with the first post of this thread.....we'll just use first round DLmen versus first round DBs/WRs for the previous seven drafts prior to the SB appearances.

 

2007

Giants...2 DL...2 DB/WR

Patriots...3 DL...1 DB/WR

 

2006

Colts...1 DL...2 DB/WR

Bears...2 DL...1 DB/WR

 

2005

Steelers...1 DL...3 DB/WR

Seahawks...2 DL...2 DB/WR

 

2004

Patriots...3 DL...1 DB/WR

Eagles...2 DL...2 DB/WR

 

2003

Patriots...2 DL...2 DB/WR

Panthers...2 DL...2 DB/WR

 

2002

Bucs...3 DL...1 DB/WR

Raiders...1 DL...3 DB/WR

 

2001

Patriots...1 DL...4 DB/WR

Rams...4 DL...3 DB/WR

 

2000

Ravens...0 DL...3 DB/WR

Giants...1 DL...3 DB/WR

 

Summary.......of the last 16 SB teams.....in the preceding 1st rounds of the 7 drafts to their SB appearances......5 selected more DLmen than DB/WR.......and 6 selected more DB/WR than DLmen.

Of the 8 SB winners......2 selected more DLmen than DB/WR.......and 4 selected more DB/WR than DLmen.

 

Let's look at the good 2007 teams past 7 drafts....

Giants...2 DL...2 DB/WR

Patriots...3 DL...1 DB/WR

Colts(13-3)...1 DL...3 DB/WR

Cowboys(13-3)...1 DL...2 DB/WR

Packers(13-3)...2 DL...2 DB/WR

Chargers(11-5)...1 DL...4 DB/WR

Jaguars(11-5)...2 DL...3 DB/WR

Titans(10-6)...1 DL...3 DB/WR

Seahawks(10-6)...1 DL...3 DB/WR

Browns(10-6)...1 DL...1 DB/WR

 

Let's look at the bad 2007 teams past 7 drafts....

Dolphins(1-15)...0 DL...3 DB/WR

Rams(3-13)...4 DL...2 DB/WR

Jets(4-12)...2 DL...2 DB/WR

Raiders(4-12)...1 DL...5 DB/WR

Chiefs(4-12)...2 DL...1 DB/WR

Falcons(4-12)...1 DL...3 DB/WR

 

Let's look at the 2007 Bills & Lions past 7 drafts....

Bills(7-9)...1 DL...3 DB/WR

Lions(7-9)...0 DL...4 DB/WR

 

What does all this mean? Absolutely nothing! It does show that AKC was talking total bollocks when he claims that "most of the better teams in the league have used early high picks to build a strong DLine."......but it does not really prove anything else. IMO to try to simplify the reasons why teams select who they do in the draft into base rules is ludicrous. There are sooooo many factors involved with each team & in each draft that there cannot be a common thread to it. What if your star player gets injured? You draft to replace. What if you keep drafting at a position & you keep busting out at it? What if you have salary cap issues & need to let certain players go instead of re-signing them? What if you luck onto good players in the later rounds hence giving no need to draft high at that position for years? Etc, etc, etc.

 

I personally believe that a strong DL is essential to having a good team.......I do not accept that there is some sort of secret which has been discovered & utilized by the better teams involving early high picks to build a strong DLine. The evidence for that theory is simply not supported by the facts.

[Steely Dan]

No.....I'm afraid that he isn't simply saying that at all. There has been so many other additional factors thrown into the base premise that he has actually been saying a lot more than just that.......but let's deal with that actual assumption.

 

Good teams draft D-line until they have a very good unit.......specifically the DTs(which he has stated on many occasions). Meaning.....and AKC stated this just a few posts earlier that "most of the better teams in the league have used early high picks to build a strong DLine."(post #148)

 

To continually make an assertion without backing it up with evidence does not make a good discargument.

Here are some raw numbers for the past 8 superbowl teams......and I'll keep it basic to be in line with the first post of this thread.....we'll just use first round DLmen versus first round DBs/WRs for the previous seven drafts prior to the SB appearances.

 

2007

Giants...2 DL...2 DB/WR

Patriots...3 DL...1 DB/WR

 

2006

Colts...1 DL...2 DB/WR

Bears...2 DL...1 DB/WR

 

2005

Steelers...1 DL...3 DB/WR

Seahawks...2 DL...2 DB/WR

 

2004

Patriots...3 DL...1 DB/WR

Eagles...2 DL...2 DB/WR

 

2003

Patriots...2 DL...2 DB/WR

Panthers...2 DL...2 DB/WR

 

2002

Bucs...3 DL...1 DB/WR

Raiders...1 DL...3 DB/WR

 

2001

Patriots...1 DL...4 DB/WR

Rams...4 DL...3 DB/WR

 

2000

Ravens...0 DL...3 DB/WR

Giants...1 DL...3 DB/WR

 

Summary.......of the last 16 SB teams.....in the preceding 1st rounds of the 7 drafts to their SB appearances......5 selected more DLmen than DB/WR.......and 6 selected more DB/WR than DLmen.

Of the 8 SB winners......2 selected more DLmen than DB/WR.......and 4 selected more DB/WR than DLmen.

 

Let's look at the good 2007 teams past 7 drafts....

Giants...2 DL...2 DB/WR

Patriots...3 DL...1 DB/WR

Colts(13-3)...1 DL...3 DB/WR

Cowboys(13-3)...1 DL...2 DB/WR

Packers(13-3)...2 DL...2 DB/WR

Chargers(11-5)...1 DL...4 DB/WR

Jaguars(11-5)...2 DL...3 DB/WR

Titans(10-6)...1 DL...3 DB/WR

Seahawks(10-6)...1 DL...3 DB/WR

Browns(10-6)...1 DL...1 DB/WR

 

Let's look at the bad 2007 teams past 7 drafts....

Dolphins(1-15)...0 DL...3 DB/WR

Rams(3-13)...4 DL...2 DB/WR

Jets(4-12)...2 DL...2 DB/WR

Raiders(4-12)...1 DL...5 DB/WR

Chiefs(4-12)...2 DL...1 DB/WR

Falcons(4-12)...1 DL...3 DB/WR

 

Let's look at the 2007 Bills & Lions past 7 drafts....

Bills(7-9)...1 DL...3 DB/WR

Lions(7-9)...0 DL...4 DB/WR

 

What does all this mean? Absolutely nothing! It does show that AKC was talking total bollocks when he claims that "most of the better teams in the league have used early high picks to build a strong DLine."......but it does not really prove anything else. IMO to try to simplify the reasons why teams select who they do in the draft into base rules is ludicrous. There are sooooo many factors involved with each team & in each draft that there cannot be a common thread to it. What if your star player gets injured? You draft to replace. What if you keep drafting at a position & you keep busting out at it? What if you have salary cap issues & need to let certain players go instead of re-signing them? What if you luck onto good players in the later rounds hence giving no need to draft high at that position for years? Etc, etc, etc.

 

I personally believe that a strong DL is essential to having a good team.......I do not accept that there is some sort of secret which has been discovered & utilized by the better teams involving early high picks to build a strong DLine. The evidence for that theory is simply not supported by the facts.

 

 

You're absolutely right that Buffalo cannot absorb an injury to Evans as much as any other position. If Evans goes down the Bills O is ed. More DL always help but they don't have to be first rounders. After thinking about an injury to Evans I think Buffalo should use two picks on WR's before the 5th round.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Actually, irregardless is a word. Look it up in the OED. It has fallen out of use and is considered archaic, but it is a word nonetheless. I'd get off my high horse ...

It is a word, but it isn't archaic. Not standard, American slang...

 

Re: Drafting

 

The only common thread may be that good teams draft good players. There is pretty obvious non-starters, such as drafting WRs over and over when your QB and defense suck or constantly drafting the "big surprise" or freak athlete that comes out of nowhere to excel at the combine and/or on the Wonderlic, never to be heard of again.

 

Great teams have great players. Plural.

[AKC]

Summary.......of the last 16 SB teams.....in the preceding 1st rounds of the 7 drafts to their SB appearances......5 selected more DLmen than DB/WR.......and 6 selected more DB/WR than DLmen.

Of the 8 SB winners......2 selected more DLmen than DB/WR.......and 4 selected more DB/WR than DLmen.

 

C'mon now Dibs- I'm surprised I have to point this out to you. An NFL team starts 6 or 7 WR/DBs every game. Some teams you're pointing to only start 3 DLinemen. The math has to do with the equity stake the better teams put on the positions from a "player on the field/total draft equity for rostered players at teh position" standpoint.

 

Dave is among those who understand that substantially more draft equity is going into the line positions on Defense at the top of the draft for those better teams than at WR/DB- you should be a little leery of jumping into the argument with Steely Dan who says that the Titans drafting offers us nothing to learn because during the span since they played in the Super Bowl and have appeared 3 additional times in the playoffs, they also had a 3 win season. Oh to trade our 0-7 record of playoff appearances over that span for a Super Bowl and 3 other playoff trips!

[Dibs]

C'mon now Dibs- I'm surprised I have to point this out to you. An NFL team starts 6 or 7 WR/DBs every game. Some teams you're pointing to only start 3 DLinemen. The math has to do with the equity stake the better teams put on the positions from a "player on the field/total draft equity for rostered players at teh position" standpoint.

 

Dave is among those who understand that substantially more draft equity is going into the line positions on Defense at the top of the draft for those better teams than at WR/DB- you should be a little leery of jumping into the argument with Steely Dan who says that the Titans drafting offers us nothing to learn because during the span since they played in the Super Bowl and have appeared 3 additional times in the playoffs, they also had a 3 win season. Oh to trade our 0-7 record of playoff appearances over that span for a Super Bowl and 3 other playoff trips!

sigh

I only simplified things to that level since that was your original break down from post #1.

Your statement of......"most of the better teams in the league have used early high picks to build a strong DLine."(post #148)....is wrong! To say substantially more draft equity is going into the line positions on Defense at the top of the draft for those better teams than at WR/DB is wrong! It would not even be accurate to simply say more.....let alone substantially more.

The better teams are drafting DL at the top of the draft at the same rate as the bottom teams!!!!

 

As I clearly showed......over the last 7 drafts

....only 1 of the top 7 teams from last season invested more in 1st round DLmen than WR/DB.....with 2 ties.

....2 of the bottom 6 teams from last season invested more in 1st round DLmen than WR/DB.....with 2 ties.

For the top 7 teams from last season(11+wins & SB), the average DLmen selected in the first round for the preceding 7 drafts was 1.7 per team.

For the bottom 6 teams from last season(4 wins or less), the average DLmen selected in the first round for the preceding 7 drafts was 1.7 per team.

 

The better teams are drafting DL at the top of the draft at the same rate as the bottom teams!!!!

[Steely Dan]

C'mon now Dibs- I'm surprised I have to point this out to you. An NFL team starts 6 or 7 WR/DBs every game. Some teams you're pointing to only start 3 DLinemen. The math has to do with the equity stake the better teams put on the positions from a "player on the field/total draft equity for rostered players at teh position" standpoint.

 

Dave is among those who understand that substantially more draft equity is going into the line positions on Defense at the top of the draft for those better teams than at WR/DB- you should be a little leery of jumping into the argument with Steely Dan who says that the Titans drafting offers us nothing to learn because during the span since they played in the Super Bowl and have appeared 3 additional times in the playoffs, they also had a 3 win season. Oh to trade our 0-7 record of playoff appearances over that span for a Super Bowl and 3 other playoff trips!

 

Exactly, that's why depth at those positions is critical. You seem to think the signing of Stroud and Spencer was nothing. They have a better than average starting DL. McCargo and Schobel and Denney will all benefit from Stroud taking on the double teams. The teams need more depth at backup but that can be found in the third round. The Bills do not have a better than average WR corp or CB corps. A team needs to fortify it's weakest points first.

 

 

sigh

I only simplified things to that level since that was your original break down from post #1.

Your statement of......"most of the better teams in the league have used early high picks to build a strong DLine."(post #148)....is wrong! To say substantially more draft equity is going into the line positions on Defense at the top of the draft for those better teams than at WR/DB is wrong! It would not even be accurate to simply say more.....let alone substantially more.

The better teams are drafting DL at the top of the draft at the same rate as the bottom teams!!!!

 

As I clearly showed......

....only 1 of the top 7 teams from last season invested more in 1st round DLmen than WR/DB.....with 2 ties.

....2 of the bottom 6 teams from last season invested more in 1st round DLmen than WR/DB.....with 2 ties.

For the top 7 teams from last season(11+wins & SB), the average DLmen selected in the first round for the preceding 7 drafts was 1.7 per team.

For the bottom 6 teams from last season(4 wins or less), the average DLmen selected in the first round for the preceding 7 drafts was 1.7 per team.

For the top 7 teams from last season(11+wins & SB), the average DB/WR selected in the first round for the preceding 7 drafts was 2.4 per team.

For the bottom 6 teams from last season(4 wins or less), the average DB/WR selected in the first round for the preceding 7 drafts was 2.7 per team.

 

The better teams are drafting DL at the top of the draft at the same rate as the bottom teams!!!!

 

Dibs, I think everyone here realizes that you're right and your using facts to make your point. AKC thinks he can baffle us with Bull ! He keeps moving the goalpost and we'll never hit it. He takes things people say and twists them so they sound stupid so he can use them as straw men and knock them down. Those who are reading carefully and with intelligence know what a fool he's made of himself. If I didn't think it was funny to watch his schtick I'd leave but it can get tiresome at times.

[Big Turk]

Dibs, I think everyone here realizes that you're right and your using facts to make your point. AKC thinks he can baffle us with Bull ! He keeps moving the goalpost and we'll never hit it. He takes things people say and twists them so they sound stupid so he can use them as straw men and knock them down. Those who are reading carefully and with intelligence know what a fool he's made of himself. If I didn't think it was funny to watch his schtick I'd leave but it can get tiresome at times.

 

I can't believe the original drivel in this post warranted 8 pages of responses to basically come to the conclusion that this guy is a total and complete numnut....