excellent piece by Mike Lombardi in SI

[Dawgg]

Note: that doesn't mean I expect (or want) to read homerism.

 

 

Riiiight.

[Orton's Arm]

Oh, I've read your "stuff." Once in a while you'll actually stumble upon something that passes for intelligent discussion, but those moments are few and far between.

Spare us your commentary about what constitutes intelligent discussion.

It seems to me you serve primarily to fan the flames and feed your own ego.

There's a certain irony to that comment. Your own posts on this thread--and indeed in your own post--have been consistently inflammatory and egotistical. You've implied that you're more of a fan than me. What, precisely, gives you the right to make such an egotistical and inflammatory assertion?

I've never gotten the impression you're a real "fan" of the Buffalo Bills.

If I point out the ways in which I think the Bills could have done better, it's because it's painful to me to see them waste any opportunity at all. It is indefensible for you to use that as a basis to question my "fanhood."

Note: that doesn't mean I expect (or want) to read homerism.

Of course not. Just keep ridiculing any non-homer post that comes your way. No one will conclude that this means you just want to read homerism. Really!

My goal is moderation,

George W. Bush once said his goal was to be a good steward of the environment.

and nothing is more irritating or annoying than reading either extreme.

If reading extreme posts irritates you, I suggest you steer clear of your own posts in this thread.

At least the rose-colored glasses posts lead me to believe the posters are generally happy people.

Do you feel your own posting record in this thread demonstrates that you, personally, are a happy person?

I don't know what the motivations or expectations are of the negative ninnies.

I don't know what would motivate someone to, as you have, barge into a perfectly good, intelligent discussion, and contribute nothing but sarcasm, ridicule, and other inflammatory content.

They appear to me to be miserable people -- at least where the Bills are concerned.

You appear to me to be a miserable person--at least where this thread is concerned. Stop trying to put negative labels on other people: "negative ninny," "not a real fan," etc. Invest that effort in trying to make intelligent contributions to whichever discussions you find interesting. Trust me, you'll have a lot more fun that way, and you'll become a lot less irritating in the process.

[Dibs]

.........I feel they need to maximize whatever resources they've been given. When they fail to do so--as for example their failure to accept Denver's trade-down offer--it frustrates me. You can congratulate me until you're blue in the face, and it won't make my feeling of frustration go away. Only a Bills Super Bowl victory will do that!........

It's your frustration level that is out of whack......and as a byproduct you post as if the 2006 draft should have been better instead of could have been better. This ends up putting across the message that the management buggered up the 2006 draft & did a bad job instead of the fact that the 2006 draft has ended up being a good one.

 

I would surmise that if you hadn't predicted the 'better' way......which easily could have been the case.....you would be looking at the 2006 draft without frustration since you would clearly see that not only was it better than most of the preceding drafts but very good compared to the rest of the leagues 2006 drafts.

 

Even your wording.....'failure' to accept Denver's trade-down offer shows you view the 2006 draft as a mistake rather than being good. They chose to go a different way which ended up working out well....it may not have.....just as accepting Denver's offer may not have. They chose not to accept Denver's offer. By using the word 'failure' you are clearly putting across an impression that they should have taken the offer. In hindsight, it seems that perhaps making the trade could have ended up better......but at the time they chose one option out of many, resulting in good things......there was no should about it.

 

Frustration is watching most of our drafts net no decent players as in the previous 9 years.....not seeing a very good draft & expecting it should be better.

The 2006 draft realistically should give all fans the feelings of relief not feelings of frustration.

Jimmy Johnson once said that you can either be safe and be good, or you can take a chance to be great.

We went through 5 years with TD taking the chance to be great......and look where we ended up. In 2006 we NEEDED some players who were going to help the team in the short term & provide some stability for the long term.....we didn't need a boom/bust type that if he busts was going to see us be yet another year behind on finding players.

 

BTW, Jimmy Johnson was pretty much talking out of his rear with that comment. It's easy to say that sort of thing when you have the #1 pick in the draft.....luck on to Emmit the next year.....and have all of those extra picks they netted from the Walker trade over the next couple of drafts. He drafted well.....he didn't really take chances.

[Orton's Arm]

It's your frustration level that is out of whack......and as a byproduct you post as if the 2006 draft should have been better instead of could have been better. This ends up putting across the message that the management buggered up the 2006 draft & did a bad job instead of the fact that the 2006 draft has ended up being a good one.

I've already acknowledged, at several points in this discussion, that the 2006 draft was a good one. I'm getting a little tired of trying to explain to you that, when I wrote that the 2006 draft was good, what I really meant was that the 2006 draft was good.

I would surmise that if you hadn't predicted the 'better' way......which easily could have been the case.....you would be looking at the 2006 draft without frustration since you would clearly see that not only was it better than most of the preceding drafts but very good compared to the rest of the leagues 2006 drafts.

If I didn't see a particular opportunity, I obviously wouldn't feel frustrated by the Bills having missed out on it. As to your other point, the 2006 draft was clearly better than what we'd come to expect from the not-so-aptly-named TD.

 

Even your wording.....'failure' to accept Denver's trade-down offer shows you view the 2006 draft as a mistake rather than being good.

No, it does not show that at all. It shows that I feel a mistake was made; but you can make a mistake here and there and still have a very solid draft.

We went through 5 years with TD taking the chance to be great......and look where we ended up.

No, we went through 5 years of TD acting in short-sighted ways that sacrificed the long-term. We went through 5 years of TD constantly trying to upgrade positions like RB and slot receiver, while ignoring the offensive line. We went through 5 years of TD letting players like Antoine Winfield go so that he'd have the cap space to overpay for aging veterans like Troy Vincent and Lawyer Milloy. We spent five years watching the Bills use their draft picks on players who had worlds of athletic potential, but lacked the range of mental and other "soft" qualities needed to be good football players. Need I go on?

 

One could write books about the ways in which TD messed up this franchise. Look at the way he used his first round picks:

2001: Nate Clements. Result: a good CB who went first contract and out.

2002: Mike Williams. Result: um, yeah

2003a: traded for Drew Bledsoe. Result: released after three years

2003b: Willis McGahee. Result: traded for two 3rds and a 7th.

2004a: Lee Evans. Result: a successful receiver

2004b: You Know Who. Result: Currently a backup, and has asked to be traded

2005: traded away for You Know Who

 

I feel that each of the above mistakes can be explained by short-sightedness, failure to see the big picture, and over-valuing athleticism while under-valuing soft qualities. Let's look at TD's mistakes.

 

2001: Nate Clements. He already had Antoine Winfield on the roster, so why draft Clements? Based on TD's subsequent actions, the plan was to let Winfield walk after his first contract was over. Nor am I aware of TD making a serious effort to extend Clements. It appears TD was perfectly happy to use first round picks on players that would go first contract and out. Problem: short-sightedness

 

2002: Mike Williams. He had all the athletic talent in the world, but didn't have the toughness or passion for football necessary to succeed. Problem: over-valuing athletic talent.

 

2003a: Drew Bledsoe. Bledsoe had produced several years of mediocre play prior to becoming Tom Brady's backup. A rebuilding team, such as the Bills were at that time, should not trade away a first round pick for a player with most of his career behind him. Problem: short-sightedness.

 

2003b: Willis McGahee. This was the second time in three years that TD used a round 1 & 2 pick on a RB. This, despite inheriting a roster with Antowain Smith, but without an offensive line. Problem 1: failure to see the big picture. Problem 2: short-sightedness. (A RB, even one who's out for his rookie year, provides more instant gratification than trying to upgrade your offensive line as a whole.)

 

2004a: Lee Evans. Problem: none.

 

2004b: J. P. Losman. This was a player who had excellent physical traits, but had never proven himself as a pocket passer at the college level. There were significant questions as to whether Losman could process information quickly enough to be a successful NFL quarterback. Problem: over-valuing athletic talent.

 

TD's problems with first round picks were a subset of his problems as GM. Those problems were caused by his lack of intelligent, disciplined, long-range thinking. They were not caused by his having too high a risk tolerance.

 

In 2006 we NEEDED some players who were going to help the team in the short term & provide some stability for the long term.....we didn't need a boom/bust type that if he busts was going to see us be yet another year behind on finding players.

I'd hardly call Mangold a boom or bust type.

[eball]

You've implied that you're more of a fan than me. What, precisely, gives you the right to make such an egotistical and inflammatory assertion?

 

If I point out the ways in which I think the Bills could have done better, it's because it's painful to me to see them waste any opportunity at all. It is indefensible for you to use that as a basis to question my "fanhood."

I call 'em like I see 'em. Being a fan doesn't mean blindly supporting everything the Bills do -- I certainly don't do that and it's nauseating to read the posts of those who do. I've simply read a lot of your posts over the last couple of seasons and you don't strike me as a fan. It's pretty simple, and it's my opinion.

 

Of course not. Just keep ridiculing any non-homer post that comes your way. No one will conclude that this means you just want to read homerism. Really!

If you read any of MY stuff you'd see that I don't ridicule every non-homer post; I primarily direct my attention at those who are overly negative and presume their opinion is the only one that makes sense, in an effort to balance things out. There are certainly a few posters, however, who have earned the right to be ridiculed for their closed-minded approach.

 

George W. Bush once said his goal was to be a good steward of the environment.

That was before he looked up the definition of the word 'steward.'

 

I don't know what would motivate someone to, as you have, barge into a perfectly good, intelligent discussion, and contribute nothing but sarcasm, ridicule, and other inflammatory content.

What's funny about that statement is that many of the discussions I "barge into" contain nothing but sarcasm, ridicule and other inflammatory content before I arrive.

 

Stop trying to put negative labels on other people: "negative ninny," "not a real fan," etc. Invest that effort in trying to make intelligent contributions to whichever discussions you find interesting. Trust me, you'll have a lot more fun that way, and you'll become a lot less irritating in the process.

It's actually more fun to call out the negative nincompoops for what they are, and I'll continue to do so where I see fit. I add plenty of legitimate football talk to this forum and don't feel badly about how I conduct myself. Have a great day.

[Orton's Arm]

I call 'em like I see 'em. Being a fan doesn't mean blindly supporting everything the Bills do -- I certainly don't do that and it's nauseating to read the posts of those who do.

Nauseating indeed.

I've simply read a lot of your posts over the last couple of seasons and you don't strike me as a fan. It's pretty simple, and it's my opinion.

In this case, your opinion is indeed simple, in the strictly pejorative sense of the term.

If you read any of MY stuff you'd see that I don't ridicule every non-homer post;

Your material on this thread is of low enough quality that I'm not exactly inspired to search out the other posts you've written.

 

I primarily direct my attention at those who are overly negative

Being overly negative by your standard and overly negative by any reasonable, objective standard are obviously two very different things. In that free dinner thing, I predicted a 10-6 record for the Bills this upcoming season. Do I need to make a Senator-like 19-0 prediction to avoid your lame attempts at ridicule for "doom and gloom"?

and presume their opinion is the only one that makes sense,

Implicit in your own conduct in this thread is the assumption that yours is the only opinion that makes sense.

in an effort to balance things out.

This board is clearly unbalanced: there is a lot more sarcasm/ridicule/etc. than there is intelligent discussion. Your own activity on this thread has unbalanced it further.

 

There are certainly a few posters, however, who have earned the right to be ridiculed for their closed-minded approach.

If you feel a close-minded approach merits ridicule, ask yourself whether you've made the slightest effort to be open to anything I've written on this thread. If you answer that question honestly you'll answer in the negative; so by your own judgmental standards you yourself deserve ridicule.

 

What's funny about that statement is that many of the discussions I "barge into" contain nothing but sarcasm, ridicule and other inflammatory content before I arrive.

Such is the nature of these boards. But when an intelligent discussion is underway, I'd appreciate a modicum of effort on your part to refrain from ruining it.

It's actually more fun to call out the negative nincompoops for what they are, and I'll continue to do so where I see fit.

I add plenty of legitimate football talk to this forum and don't feel badly about how I conduct myself. Have a great day.

I don't know whether you're justified in claiming that you "add plenty of legitimate football talk to this forum." Certainly you've added nothing whatever of value to this thread.

[eball]

I don't know whether you're justified in claiming that you "add plenty of legitimate football talk to this forum." Certainly you've added nothing whatever of value to this thread.

So you're telling me your response to my earlier post (#33) was intended to encourage intelligent discussion? Other than typing "whoa, junior" my post was neither inflammatory nor an example of homerism. I merely suggested things might not be as cut and dried as you made them out to be.

 

Similarly, my post #78 addressed a sarcastic statement by another poster and asked a legitimate question about the "strategy" he suggested "other good teams" employ. My post was subsequently ignored.

 

I'm not saying I'm never sarcastic, and when frustrated I'm occasionally condescending, but I do often make efforts to present a balanced side of things. Too many posters unfortunately don't want to actually consider another reasonable alternative to their perspective.

[Orton's Arm]

So you're telling me your response to my earlier post (#33) was intended to encourage intelligent discussion? Other than typing "whoa, junior" my post was neither inflammatory nor an example of homerism. I merely suggested things might not be as cut and dried as you made them out to be.

The "whoa, junior" remark was condescending, and I wasn't interested in being condescended to by someone who, almost in the same breath, announced that Melvin Fowler "is still probably an above-average NFL center."

 

You did ask a legitimate question in that post: "Would the Bills be better overall with Mangold vs. Fowler and [insert player name] vs. Whitner? That's a much tougher question to answer." I touched on some relevant possibilities in some of my other posts in this thread; but the nature of your question is such that it cannot be answered with certainty.

 

Similarly, my post #78 addressed a sarcastic statement by another poster and asked a legitimate question about the "strategy" he suggested "other good teams" employ. My post was subsequently ignored.

I went back and read your post #78. It was a good post, and I agree with it. I couldn't think of anything to add to what you'd written; and I tend to reserve my "Good post " type responses for posts that are truly outstanding.

 

I'm not saying I'm never sarcastic, and when frustrated I'm occasionally condescending, but I do often make efforts to present a balanced side of things. Too many posters unfortunately don't want to actually consider another reasonable alternative to their perspective.

I'm open to persuasion, but it typically takes a fair amount of solid evidence or strong logical reasoning to persuade me to change an opinion. Dibs' list of players post about Whitner caused me to see the Whitner pick in a more favorable light than I had before. If you support your positions in the way Dibs supported his, I'll listen. If you try to use sarcasm or a condescending tone to make your case, I won't. Opinions should be based on logical reasoning and factual evidence; and need only be reevaluated when new logical reasoning or factual evidence is presented.

[R. Rich]

You can't have too many corners.

 

Signed,

 

Marv Levy and Dick Jauron

 

 

Or...

 

 

The well's never empty, even if it looks that way.

 

 

Signed,

 

The Houston Texans' War Room

[Sisyphean Bills]

I went back and read your post #78. It was a good post, and I agree with it. I couldn't think of anything to add to what you'd written; and I tend to reserve my "Good post " type responses for posts that are truly outstanding.

Who knew #78 required a response?

 

The problem with post #78 is that it attempts to extrapolate and build modest straw men to rip down an argument that was never intended as a sermon to describe the one and only way to do something.

 

That part of the thread was about the SS position and the Bills need to fill it, and yet #78 swerves off into discussing DEs, QBs, St. Jauron, and a little ad hominem for fun. But, the sub-thread started with a mere statement of undeniable facts. Lawyer Milloy is still playing. Lawyer Milloy was cut prior to the draft. The Buffalo Bills were compelled to address the hole at their starting SS spot on the roster somehow.

 

The rest is suppositions on either side of the point: specifically, was it a requirement to dump Milloy or was there an alternative? One can suppose that there was no alternative and that Jauron and Levy's hands were tied.

 

On the other hand, someone else can suppose that a head coach can come in to an organization without an agenda to install his systems immediately and without the prerequisite that veterans must be released with no serviceable replacements on the roster. This has nothing whatsoever to do with saying Lawyer Milloy is great, that he's better than Whitner, etc., etc. He was a veteran leader on the team, and let's face it, the team wasn't going to the Super Bowl with or without him. It wasn't going to the Super Bowl based on the upgrade at SS to Whitner, either. Still, considering the alternative makes "no sense" and might smack of things that aren't exactly perfectly comfortable or conforming to idolatry worship of all things Buffalo Bills.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

That part of the thread was about the SS position and the Bills need to fill it, and yet #78 swerves off into discussing DEs, QBs, St. Jauron, and a little ad hominem for fun. But, the sub-thread started with a mere statement of undeniable facts. Lawyer Milloy is still playing. Lawyer Milloy was cut prior to the draft. The Buffalo Bills were compelled to address the hole at their starting SS spot on the roster somehow.

Again: how much better was Lawyer Milloy than Matt Bowen at this point? Should either have been a starting safety in this system?

 

How much bigger of a hole at SS was there without Milloy than there was with him?

[obie_wan]

Who knew #78 required a response?

 

The problem with post #78 is that it attempts to extrapolate and build modest straw men to rip down an argument that was never intended as a sermon to describe the one and only way to do something.

 

That part of the thread was about the SS position and the Bills need to fill it, and yet #78 swerves off into discussing DEs, QBs, St. Jauron, and a little ad hominem for fun. But, the sub-thread started with a mere statement of undeniable facts. Lawyer Milloy is still playing. Lawyer Milloy was cut prior to the draft. The Buffalo Bills were compelled to address the hole at their starting SS spot on the roster somehow.

 

The rest is suppositions on either side of the point: specifically, was it a requirement to dump Milloy or was there an alternative? One can suppose that there was no alternative and that Jauron and Levy's hands were tied.

 

On the other hand, someone else can suppose that a head coach can come in to an organization without an agenda to install his systems immediately and without the prerequisite that veterans must be released with no serviceable replacements on the roster. This has nothing whatsoever to do with saying Lawyer Milloy is great, that he's better than Whitner, etc., etc. He was a veteran leader on the team, and let's face it, the team wasn't going to the Super Bowl with or without him. It wasn't going to the Super Bowl based on the upgrade at SS to Whitner, either. Still, considering the alternative makes "no sense" and might smack of things that aren't exactly perfectly comfortable or conforming to idolatry worship of all things Buffalo Bills.

 

sounds like the "treadmill to nowhere"

 

cut players and create holes where there were none before

 

thus diverting resouces from improving other areas .

[eball]

Who knew #78 required a response?

 

The problem with post #78 is that it attempts to extrapolate and build modest straw men to rip down an argument that was never intended as a sermon to describe the one and only way to do something.

 

That part of the thread was about the SS position and the Bills need to fill it, and yet #78 swerves off into discussing DEs, QBs, St. Jauron, and a little ad hominem for fun. But, the sub-thread started with a mere statement of undeniable facts. Lawyer Milloy is still playing. Lawyer Milloy was cut prior to the draft. The Buffalo Bills were compelled to address the hole at their starting SS spot on the roster somehow.

 

The rest is suppositions on either side of the point: specifically, was it a requirement to dump Milloy or was there an alternative? One can suppose that there was no alternative and that Jauron and Levy's hands were tied.

 

On the other hand, someone else can suppose that a head coach can come in to an organization without an agenda to install his systems immediately and without the prerequisite that veterans must be released with no serviceable replacements on the roster. This has nothing whatsoever to do with saying Lawyer Milloy is great, that he's better than Whitner, etc., etc. He was a veteran leader on the team, and let's face it, the team wasn't going to the Super Bowl with or without him. It wasn't going to the Super Bowl based on the upgrade at SS to Whitner, either. Still, considering the alternative makes "no sense" and might smack of things that aren't exactly perfectly comfortable or conforming to idolatry worship of all things Buffalo Bills.

Good Lord, you're self-absorbed.

 

Your original post that led to my reply said the Bills created a hole at SS, and certainly WAS sermon-like it its admonition of the Bills for not "bridging the gap" from veteran to replacement. You seem to want to ride both sides of the fence -- you imply Jauron was Gregg Williams-like in his insistence to instill his own systems and created holes by jettisoning veterans, yet you don't acknowledge the opportunities that were given to existing players on the roster he played no part in acquiring. Other than Milloy, which is a horrible example because the hole at SS existed regardless of his presence, can you provide an example of a serviceable veteran Jauron kicked to the curb that created a "hole" the Bills subsequently had to fill at the expense of addressing other team needs? Clements was all about value, and if a mistake was made it was made by Levy in promising not to use the franchise tag on him.

 

Look, man, you can get cute with the "St. Jauron" references all you want, but I'll stand behind my posts as evidence I don't praise him for everything he's done. I AM willing to give him the benefit of the doubt right now, however, after seeing an on-field turnaround the past two years. What he's brought to the table is clearly much more than what we saw during the Donahoe/Williams/Mularkey era, and I guess my "problem" is I don't understand why so many fans want to repeatedly knock the guy.

 

I've asked this question in other threads, but I believe it has only one answer: looking at the roster objectively, are the Bills in better shape today, talent-wise, than they were the day Jauron and Levy arrived?

 

If I'm a "homer" for viewing that situation in an optimistic way and challenging those who bash Jauron based upon a W-L record with a prior team or because he drafted a bunch of DBs, so be it.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Again: how much better was Lawyer Milloy than Matt Bowen at this point? Should either have been a starting safety in this system?

 

How much bigger of a hole at SS was there without Milloy than there was with him?

In my opinion, there was a steep drop off from even an aged Milloy to an aged Matt Bowen who was going into his last season as an NFL player. Bowen was more of a special teams / role player. Lawyer Milloy is and was a respected NFL veteran and leader. Milloy may not be the player he once was at this point in his career, but I'm not sure why you want to try comparing him to a bubble, career journeyman type player. Milloy, even in the twilight of his long productive mostly injury free career as an Atlanta Falcon, has posted 2 consecutive years with more tackles than Bowen's absolute best year in 2003.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/stats?playerId=2329

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/stats?playerId=988

[Bill from NYC]

I'm open to persuasion, but it typically takes a fair amount of solid evidence or strong logical reasoning to persuade me to change an opinion. Dibs' list of players post about Whitner caused me to see the Whitner pick in a more favorable light than I had before. If you support your positions in the way Dibs supported his, I'll listen. If you try to use sarcasm or a condescending tone to make your case, I won't. Opinions should be based on logical reasoning and factual evidence; and need only be reevaluated when new logical reasoning or factual evidence is presented.

 

I wouldn't get too excited over the 06 draft. Not yet. Whitner, a #8, looks like a good player. The jury is out on McCargo. Youboty and Simpson are question marks to say the least, and we gave away a 3rd round pick in the process. Forgive me if I am not doing cartwheels.

Posters can deny that Levy/Jauron had offers to trade down, but I heard Marv say that he did in fact have numerous offers to do so on Sirius. If anyone wishes to call me a liar please do so, but I fully stand by this.

In 06, TB drafted Joseph (OG) and Trueblood (RT) in rounds 1 and 2, and they picked in the mid 20s. We took defensive backs, and spent 73 million dollars on an OG and RT in 07. We gave up Clements in the process, and continued to chase after defensive backs. I continue to make the case that this is stupid. Btw, raise your hand if you think McCorner will be as good as Nate.

 

I find it interesting that when Levy and Jauron broke this mold of stupidly chasing after defensive backs with our best resources in 07, they had (imo) a great day 1, and I mean really splendid. I am very high on Lynch and Poz. Trent might turn out to be one of the best Bills picks ever in terms of value. I mean.....it is possible.

 

My hope is that some day, the Bills can find a coach and GM who can figure out that DBs are not the way to go in terms of allocation of the best resources that our franchise has. Again, it worked in 07.

[R. Rich]

In 06, TB drafted Joseph (OG) and Trueblood (RT) in rounds 1 and 2, and they picked in the mid 20s. We took defensive backs, and spent 73 million dollars on an OG and RT in 07. We gave up Clements in the process, and continued to chase after defensive backs. I continue to make the case that this is stupid. Btw, raise your hand if you think McCorner will be as good as Nate.

 

You mean as good as Nate could've been?

 

 

Ah, William.

 

I posted this once upon a time re: Nate.

 

 

Clements? He's a great talent, but he needs to play more disciplined @ times. It's hard for a guy whose nature is to go for the big play to grasp that, and, in reality, they may not even want him to do so, fearing he'll lose the edge that makes him what he is. I say that it would be great if he'd just pick Troy Vincent's brain to find out all the tricks of the trade that made Troy such an outstanding corner for so many years. If he were a willing pupil in that way, Nate could become one of the best corners to ever play that game. He's that gifted athletically. The problem is, he knows how gifted he is and relies on it far too often when he could just refine his game and become so much better. Remember, it was that kind of work ethic and attention to detail that made Jerry Rice the best WR to ever play the game, as he wasn't the greatest athlete (people dissed his slow 4.5 40 time and thought he'd never become a deep threat.....yeah, right!) around.

 

 

I always thought he was good, but could've been great w/ more discipline. Oh well.

[eball]

I wouldn't get too excited over the 06 draft. Not yet. Whitner, a #8, looks like a good player. The jury is out on McCargo. Youboty and Simpson are question marks to say the least, and we gave away a 3rd round pick in the process. Forgive me if I am not doing cartwheels.

Posters can deny that Levy/Jauron had offers to trade down, but I heard Marv say that he did in fact have numerous offers to do so on Sirius. If anyone wishes to call me a liar please do so, but I fully stand by this.

In 06, TB drafted Joseph (OG) and Trueblood (RT) in rounds 1 and 2, and they picked in the mid 20s. We took defensive backs, and spent 73 million dollars on an OG and RT in 07. We gave up Clements in the process, and continued to chase after defensive backs. I continue to make the case that this is stupid. Btw, raise your hand if you think McCorner will be as good as Nate.

 

I find it interesting that when Levy and Jauron broke this mold of stupidly chasing after defensive backs with our best resources in 07, they had (imo) a great day 1, and I mean really splendid. I am very high on Lynch and Poz. Trent might turn out to be one of the best Bills picks ever in terms of value. I mean.....it is possible.

 

My hope is that some day, the Bills can find a coach and GM who can figure out that DBs are not the way to go in terms of allocation of the best resources that our franchise has. Again, it worked in 07.

Bill, compare the Bills' roster today with how it looked following the 2005 season, top to bottom. Are there fewer holes? Is there more talent? Is there plenty of room under the salary cap? Yes, yes, and yes. Are those not the jobs of the GM and personnel people?

 

Is the team perfect? Hardly, but compared to the 2005 model, it's light years ahead. I'm sorry your insistence on harping upon the drafting of DBs prevents you from observing this certainty.

 

That ain't homerism, Bill. Every football expert in the country will agree with what I just typed.

[Ramius]

Bill, compare the Bills' roster today with how it looked following the 2005 season, top to bottom. Are there fewer holes? Is there more talent? Is there plenty of room under the salary cap? Yes, yes, and yes. Are those not the jobs of the GM and personnel people?

 

Is the team perfect? Hardly, but compared to the 2005 model, it's light years ahead. I'm sorry your insistence on harping upon the drafting of DBs prevents you from observing this certainty.

 

That ain't homerism, Bill. Every football expert in the country will agree with what I just typed.

 

I just love Bill's inconsistencies.

 

We give up a 3rd rounder in 2006 - bad horrible draft, marv is senile.

We give up a 3rd rounder in 2007 - great draft!

So giving up a 3rd rounder isnt ok when we use a high pick on a DB, but it ok when we use a high pick on some other position.

 

We draft our current starting FS in the 4th round of 2006 - bad horrible draft, marv is senile.

We spend a 4th rounder in a backup RB who may not even make this year's roster in 2007 - great draft!

So drafting a starter in the 4th rounder is bad, and makes the 2006 draft garbage because said stater is a DB, but drafting a player in the 4th round thay may get cut the following year is part of a good draft?

 

We draft Donte Whitner - Marv is a drolling senile idiot

That same draft, marv says "we could have traded down." - All of a sudden Marv is a great man of truth

So is Marv a senile idiot, or a great man of truth?

 

I hafta admit, these OL chubby chasers make it simple on themselves for draft analysis, regardless of the talent of the player. Draft an OL - great draft, great FO! (except mike williams, they all knew he was going to be a bust). Draft a DB - boooo, horrible draft, FO is senile.

[Bill from NYC]

I just love Bill's inconsistencies.

 

We give up a 3rd rounder in 2006 - bad horrible draft, marv is senile.

We give up a 3rd rounder in 2007 - great draft!

So giving up a 3rd rounder isnt ok when we use a high pick on a DB, but it ok when we use a high pick on some other position.

 

We draft our current starting FS in the 4th round of 2006 - bad horrible draft, marv is senile.

We spend a 4th rounder in a backup RB who may not even make this year's roster in 2007 - great draft!

So drafting a starter in the 4th rounder is bad, and makes the 2006 draft garbage because said stater is a DB, but drafting a player in the 4th round thay may get cut the following year is part of a good draft?

 

We draft Donte Whitner - Marv is a drolling senile idiot

That same draft, marv says "we could have traded down." - All of a sudden Marv is a great man of truth

So is Marv a senile idiot, or a great man of truth?

 

I hafta admit, these OL chubby chasers make it simple on themselves for draft analysis, regardless of the talent of the player. Draft an OL - great draft, great FO! (except mike williams, they all knew he was going to be a bust). Draft a DB - boooo, horrible draft, FO is senile.

 

A team that is bad for a period of time has every right to expect to improve, unless you are the Lions. They, much like the Bills, chased after 1 particular position in draft after draft. Thier particular bane was the wr position as ours is the secondary. That said, at least the Lions play in a dome where the passing game matters more than it does in Buffalo.

 

Some day when we both have time, I would like to discuss the Levy/Jauron methods more in depth (especially wrt Levy). Hopefully, it will be at RWS over a full cooler of beer that we will happily supply.

 

Oh btw....it is your post that is inconsistent. How many OL did the Bills draft in 07.....you know, the draft that I lavish praise upon? It isn't all about drafting early OL, although the Bills don't do it enough.

It is about NOT chasing defensive backs with your best picks. You break HA's chops, but he is clearly right in that if the Bills see fit to let good corners walk when their contract is up, they shouldn't waste their best picks on them.

You are a smart guy and I truly am puzzled that you cannot see this.

[Bill from NYC]

You mean as good as Nate could've been?

I always thought he was good, but could've been great w/ more discipline. Oh well.

 

If you think that McCorner, or even Corner will be in a class with Nate, please let me know. I love good news. After all, you and Badol have been correct far more often than not over the years. Would I ever dispute the truth? The kid was a # 11 Richie, and we play in Buffalo!

 

You tell me!