excellent piece by Mike Lombardi in SI

[Ramius]

The Jets whole OL suffered from Kendall being run out of town.

 

But Mangold was their best OL last year./

 

Ferguson, for being a top 5 pick, struggled alot.

 

but according to you, all first round OL picks are great and its the only way to build the OL.

[Dibs]

Back when we had the 8th overall pick, with Leinart and Cutler still on the boards, yes, it would have been easy to trade down. Denver had offered us their 2nd round pick for doing so.

.....but how would that have gotten us Mangold? We would have had the #11 then & an extra 2nd instead of the #8. Mangold went #29.....McCargo #26. We had locked in for the T2 D.....which means we still were not interested in Ngata & were still after McCargo. Unless you would have had us take Mangold at #11.....or managed to trade down yet again....how would we have ended up with Mangold & who would we have selected at #11 if we didn't.....and who would we have to play the important SS position(for the T2)?

 

.....I guess we could have reached for Bunkley at the #11 & taken Mangold at #26.....still no SS though.

Edited May 23, 2008 by Dibs

[Steely Dan]

I liked the column.

 

Another type of football broadcasterism which always makes me chortle is as follows:

 

When a running back takes his time in the backfield and has a nice gain, the announcers show the replay and say "see how patiently he waits for the hole to develop--great job"

 

Then you flip the channel and a running back explodes through the hole for a nice gain, the announces show the replay and say "see how he hits the hole immediately, he doesn't dance around behind the line, he just hits it hard--great job"

 

The same RB can do both in the course of a game. It depends on the O-Line for each play. Sometimes the hole opens up and the back hits it quick because he knows it won't be there long. On another play the hole may be slow opening and the back moves up until the hole opens and then darts through.

 

Those numbers don't really say much against his point. His point is NOT that good offensive teams don't emphasize the run AT ALL, but rather that they run far more in the 2nd half than they do in the 1st half. Simply pointing out that playoff teams are good at running the ball in total does little to counter the point he's making.

 

Just playing 's advocate.

 

There are many reasons a team will run the ball. Is the opponent horrendous against the run? Are they trying to keep a potent offense off the field? Do they have a stellar RB and a bad QB? Are they trying to wear an unconditioned defense down? His analysis is very simplistic.

 

 

My comment about safeties was misdirected. It was meant for the other dave mcbride thread. Sorry about that. You should check it out.

 

As for your other comment, you are right. The Levy/Jauron tandem came to town to lead a team that sucked. The got rid of their best corner, and drafted no less than 5 defensive backs in the first 4 rounds in 3 years. This of course includes a # 8 and # 11, and omits the free agent db signings.

If you think that this is the correct way to build a football team, there really is nothing to do but agree to disagree.

 

Their best corner got rid of them. There was no way Nate Clements is an $80 million corner. I'd rather see the Bills get Dockery, Jason Whittle and the other FA's they could sign with that money. Nate Clements went for the ludicrous money and Buffalo did the smart thing.

[Dibs]

Their best corner got rid of them. There was no way Nate Clements is an $80 million corner. I'd rather see the Bills get Dockery, Jason Whittle and the other FA's they could sign with that money. Nate Clements went for the ludicrous money and Buffalo did the smart thing.

Classic damned if they do, damned if they don't scenario. Either keep NC & get abused for over-spending & using too much of the cap on the position.....or let him go & get abused for drafting a replacement for him thus spending too much cap resources on the position.

[Steely Dan]

Classic damned if they do, damned if they don't scenario. Either keep NC & get abused for over-spending & using too much of the cap on the position.....or let him go & get abused for drafting a replacement for him thus spending too much cap resources on the position.

 

Well said.

 

I think they made the right decision.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

There are many reasons a team will run the ball. Is the opponent horrendous against the run? Are they trying to keep a potent offense off the field? Do they have a stellar RB and a bad QB? Are they trying to wear an unconditioned defense down? His analysis is very simplistic.

I still think if you can show a team is running with far more frequency in the 2nd half than they are in the 1st over the course of a full season, there's a damn good chance they subscribe to the author's philosophy: pass early to build a lead, run late to keep it.

 

Whether or not he showed enough teams have a habit of doing that to actually make a point, is up for scrutiny, as Dibs points out.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

Classic damned if they do, damned if they don't scenario. Either keep NC & get abused for over-spending & using too much of the cap on the position.....or let him go & get abused for drafting a replacement for him thus spending too much cap resources on the position.

Or be happy with good-but-not-great corners in Greer and McGee.

 

[Orton's Arm]

thats never been confirmed. its merely speculation and fantasy that you and bill share.

No, it's more than just a fantasy. It's the logical conclusion based on Marv's comments about not wanting to potentially lose out on the player you want, if all you're getting is a second round pick. If you missed out on the article with those comments, I suggest you Google it.

 

I find it funny how eveyrone bitches that we "reached" 3-4 spots to get whitner, but would have been ok "reaching" 1/2 a round to grab a center. And for the record, Mangold did NOT have a good season last year.

Your implication that Whitner would have gone 3 - 4 spots after Buffalo had picked is, to use your own phrase, "merely speculation and fantasy." I've seen at least one sports writer claim that if Detroit didn't get Huff, their next choice was that LB, Ernie Sims. Are you right that Detroit (or someone like them) would have taken Whitner? Is the sportswriter correct in asserting Detroit would still have taken Sims, even if Whitner was there? Who can say for sure? A large number of mock drafts didn't even have Whitner going in the first round. Vic Carruci didn't have Whitner rated as a first round talent; although he was quick to point out that where you rate Whitner all depends on the style of defense you run.

 

Unless you know something the rest of us don't, there's no justification for you to assert as fact that Whitner was taken 3 - 4 spots early. We simply don't know where he would have gone, had Buffalo not taken him.

 

As for your comment about "reaching" 1/2 a round to grab a center, it's easy to say with 20/20 hindsight that Mangold went with the 29th overall pick. But before the draft, neither Bill nor I suggested that the Bills trade down to exactly pick #28, and take Whitner right there. I suggested that if the Bills didn't think any of the available QBs were worth the 8th overall pick, they should trade down and take Mangold. Bill did better, because he simply suggested trading down for Mangold, without confusing things by mentioning QBs. Trading down to #15 (which I believe was Denver's original spot in the first round) would have gotten us that 2nd round pick Marv mentioned; and would have allowed us to pick a better football player than Whitner. So yes, the Bills would clearly have been better off trading down and taking Mangold, even if they took Mangold at #15.

 

Yes, they could have improved that situation even more by trading down yet again, and taking Mangold in the early to mid 20s. I simply don't know whether this second trade-down would have been feasible. How sure were they that Mangold would have lasted until the late 20s? Would there have been a willing trade partner to let the Bills go from #15 to somewhere in the early to mid 20s? Without knowing the answers to those questions, this second trade-down might belong in the 20/20 hindsight category.

 

To address a point someone made earlier, the Bills lacked a starting quality SS (our best SS on the roster was Matt Bowen) and we lacked a starting quality C (our best C on the roster was Melvin Fowler). Mangold would have filled one of those positions of real need, and that 2nd round pick from trading down would have allowed us to fill some other position.

[Ramius]

robble robble robble...

 

The only speculation was that the bills could trade down with philly or denver and receive a second OR third round pick. And what your dumb ass cant understand is that The front office was ok with starting fowler at OC, but NOT with starting Bowen at SS. Just because YOU thought mangold could/should come in and start doesnt mean the team did. And as stated above, Mangold didnt look so hot last season, and neither did D'brick.

 

http://buf.scout.com/2/526808.html

 

Levy had indicated prior to the draft that, aside from Ferguson, there were no offensive linemen available in this draft who were certain to be starting in the NFL this season

 

I'm trusting a guy who's been in football for 50+ years over some dumbass who thinks you cal roll a 3.5 on a die and that birds should evolve back into dinos.

 

Well, maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. According to Mike Holbrook of Pro Football Weekly, it wasn't. Holbrook reported that, contrary to Clayton's reports, the Bills were trying to make a trade that would have allowed them to draft Whitner and acquire additional picks, but that they received word that there were other teams interested in Whitner that might take him before they could if they traded down.

[Orton's Arm]

The only speculation was that the bills could trade down with philly or denver and receive a second OR third round pick. And what your dumb ass cant understand is that The front office was ok with starting fowler at OC, but NOT with starting Bowen at SS. Just because YOU thought mangold could/should come in and start doesnt mean the team did. And as stated above, Mangold didnt look so hot last season, and neither did D'brick.

 

http://buf.scout.com/2/526808.html

The article you've linked to doesn't mention Mangold's most recent season, so don't cite it in a way which implies that it does.

I'm trusting a guy who's been in football for 50+ years over some dumbass who thinks you cal roll a 3.5 on a die and that birds should evolve back into dinos.

I was wondering how long it would take you to a) start acting like a two year old and b) prove you didn't, and still don't, understand my earlier posts. The concept of expected value is clearly way over your head.

[Ramius]

The article you've linked to doesn't mention Mangold's most recent season, so don't cite it in a way which implies that it does.

 

I was wondering how long it would take you to a) start acting like a two year old and b) prove you didn't, and still don't, understand my earlier posts. The concept of expected value is clearly way over your head.

 

i wasnt implying that the article said mangold didnt have a good year. i was showing you that article in response to your bone-headed accusations about the Bills 2006 draft.

 

I'm also sorry that you still cant understand why there is no error in a die roll. But i've been meaning to ask you since you been back...in your little padded room, did you ever roll a 3.5 on a die? (no matter what your answer, i am glad to see you've improved to the point to where the psych ward was able to get you out of solitary and return you to the general population. What cocktail of meds do they have you on this time?)

[Orton's Arm]

i wasnt implying that the article said mangold didnt have a good year. i was showing you that article in response to your bone-headed accusations about the Bills 2006 draft.

The article appeared on May 1, 2006: shortly after the Bills' draft. If memory serves, Marv's comments about potentially missing out on the player you want to get a second round pick were made weeks or months after the draft had been concluded. The article you found didn't "disprove" any assertion I'd made, except in your own mind.

 

I'm also sorry that you still cant understand why there is no error in a die roll. But i've been meaning to ask you since you been back...in your little padded room, did you ever roll a 3.5 on a die? (no matter what your answer, i am glad to see you've improved to the point to where the psych ward was able to get you out of solitary and return you to the general population. What cocktail of meds do they have you on this time?)

As your earlier comments made clear, the concept of expected value is beyond you. Your most recent comments demonstrate you also don't understand the concept of estimation error.

[Ramius]

As your earlier comments made clear, the concept of expected value is beyond you. Your most recent comments demonstrate you also don't understand the concept of estimation error.

 

 

So whats the "expected value" of a coin flip? Tails.5 or Heads.5?

[Orton's Arm]

 

So whats the "expected value" of a coin flip? Tails.5 or Heads.5?

I'm done trying to explain the concept of expected value to you. There are plenty of good explanations out there already. I suggest you Google them.

[BuffOrange]

I concur that is a pretty good article.

re: FG's obviously 50yarders and 30 don't have the same expectation. If there's an argument to be made for turovers being overrated, I think you have to look at how many int's are thrown when a team is already behind in the 2nd half. Of course you can't conclusively prove that they wouldn't have otherwise happened, but it's safe to say that a lot of them wouldn't.

[BuffOrange]

on the other hand, the steelers were quite successful with running the football and stopping the run. but i agree that a good pass rush helps the corners. and indeed a missed FG is a turnover

 

Can't argue that in general that is the Steelers blueprint and they win with it. But they don't upset the Colts if they don't throw the hell out of the ball in the 1st half; which clashes w/ the traditional "pound the ball & keep Manning off the field" strategy.

[BuffOrange]

BTW it's good to see the Whitner debate still alive; which I thought was dead after he got outrun by Brandon Jacobs but I guess not.

[DC Tom]

The article you've linked to doesn't mention Mangold's most recent season, so don't cite it in a way which implies that it does.

 

I was wondering how long it would take you to a) start acting like a two year old and b) prove you didn't, and still don't, understand my earlier posts. The concept of expected value is clearly way over your head.

 

What, it's time for your quarterly beating already? My, how time flies.

[Kelly the Dog]

The turnover battle, as is, still has the team with the least winning 75%-80+% every year. I don't see how that isn't a decent factor, and fact, regardless of desperation tosses, and missed FGs.

 

The shutdown corner comment I think is somewhat foolish, too. While he may be right that these guys cannot completely shut down WRs, there are about 10 excellent CBs in the game that make a huge difference, consistently but not always shut down their guy, and almost all of them are terrific against the run, too, which are 50% of the plays. And there are a like number of pass rushers that consistently get any kind of serious pressure on the QB.

[Sisyphean Bills]

The turnover battle, as is, still has the team with the least winning 75%-80+% every year. I don't see how that isn't a decent factor, and fact, regardless of desperation tosses, and missed FGs.

 

The shutdown corner comment I think is somewhat foolish, too. While he may be right that these guys cannot completely shut down WRs, there are about 10 excellent CBs in the game that make a huge difference, consistently but not always shut down their guy, and almost all of them are terrific against the run, too, which are 50% of the plays. And there are a like number of pass rushers that consistently get any kind of serious pressure on the QB.

Fair points, KFBD.

 

On the establish the run point, that seems like a bit of cherry picking as well. Picking 5 teams that run a West Coast or spread offense, have enough offensive aerial firepower to establish a sizable lead early, and then play kill the clock in the 4th quarter, doesn't exactly prove that all teams have to come out of the gate slinging the ball all over the sandlot to be successful. An offense needs to stick with what they do best. If its banging the rock up the gut and mixing in the play action, ala the Pittsburgh Steelers, or some other system. Also, teams the would go significantly the other way, with a balanced or run oriented attack early in the game and then swing to heaving it nearly every offensive snap are, probably, more likely to be playing from behind and are at a disadvantage to the defense, further reducing their offensive success.