dave mcbride Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writ...7/august/2.html 1. I think these are my quick-hit thoughts of preseason Week 2: a. Just a hunch, but when Sean Payton saw the highlight on TV Thursday night of Leodis McKelvin of the Bills returning a kickoff 95 yards for a touchdown against Pittsburgh, I bet he had second thoughts about passing on McKelvin (the Saints loved him) and taking Sedrick Ellis in the first round last April.
Cornerville Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writ...7/august/2.html 1. I think these are my quick-hit thoughts of preseason Week 2: a. Just a hunch, but when Sean Payton saw the highlight on TV Thursday night of Leodis McKelvin of the Bills returning a kickoff 95 yards for a touchdown against Pittsburgh, I bet he had second thoughts about passing on McKelvin (the Saints loved him) and taking Sedrick Ellis in the first round last April. So Sedrick Ellis is a bust already??? That was fast
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 a. Just a hunch, but when Sean Payton saw the highlight on TV Thursday night of Leodis McKelvin of the Bills returning a kickoff 95 yards for a touchdown against Pittsburgh, I bet he had second thoughts about passing on McKelvin (the Saints loved him) and taking Sedrick Ellis in the first round last April. Really? Thats good news then. Maybe we can get Ellis for McKelvin!
Dawgg Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writ...7/august/2.html 1. I think these are my quick-hit thoughts of preseason Week 2: a. Just a hunch, but when Sean Payton saw the highlight on TV Thursday night of Leodis McKelvin of the Bills returning a kickoff 95 yards for a touchdown against Pittsburgh, I bet he had second thoughts about passing on McKelvin (the Saints loved him) and taking Sedrick Ellis in the first round last April. So Peter King is a good analyst and Easterbrook is not-so good. Got it. For the record, drafting corners isn't a bad thing. Passing on blue-chip linemen in favor of safeties and receivers that IS a bad thing. The McKelvin pick was a great pick... all blue-chip DTs were off the board and they got the #1 corner in the draft who has the potential to excel at 2 phases of the game. Thank God the Bills didn't do what most posters on this board wanted -- drafting a WR at #11.
dave mcbride Posted August 21, 2008 Author Posted August 21, 2008 So Peter King is a good analyst and Easterbrook is not-so good. Got it. For the record, drafting corners isn't a bad thing. Passing on blue-chip linemen in favor of safeties and receivers that IS a bad thing. The McKelvin pick was a great pick... all blue-chip DTs were off the board and they got the #1 corner in the draft who has the potential to excel at 2 phases of the game. Thank God the Bills didn't do what most posters on this board wanted -- drafting a WR at #11. It's a freaking joke, dude. Re: Easterbrook, he's kind of an idiot about football -- far less sharp about the game than the good posters here. That seems patently obvious to me. And whatever Peter King's flaws, he's far more knowledgeable about football than Easterbrook. As for Sedrick Ellis, he may end up sucking. USC front seven guys haven't had a good run of late, so that wouldn't be a huge surprise. As for NO, it is the case that they spent real draft equity on a DT named Jonathan Sullivan who has helped the team not a whit. Back to Easterbrook, though: he's pretty good on environmental stuff and he's good as a contrarian liberal in the Atlantic and The New Republic. He sucks on popular culture, however.
ET1062 Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 AKC? OK, I know I am tired, but I can not seem to figure this one out.
Huuuge Bills Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 AKC? OK, I know I am tired, but I can not seem to figure this one out. AKC is a poster who came up with this grandiose fool-proof way of drafting. It pretty much says that all good teams draft lineman in the first two rounds, making them smart. Yet bad teams who draft lineman early don't count, because they're not smart. And if the pick is too high it doesn't count, and if you traded up for the player it doesn't count, and current players on your roster don't count, and players aquired via FA or trade don't count. Plus good teams like Indy who don't spend many high picks on lineman don't count. And even though he emplores the Bills would be better off drafting more lineman, he concludes that the lineman we did select don't count, because they suck. And while he thinks that teams who suck don't count, the Bills (who he thinks suck) do count (excpt for the lineman we do pick (because they suck)). My brain hurts now...
Steely Dan Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 AKC is a poster who came up with this grandiose fool-proof way of drafting. It pretty much says that all good teams draft lineman in the first two rounds, making them smart. Yet bad teams who draft lineman early don't count, because they're not smart. And if the pick is too high it doesn't count, and if you traded up for the player it doesn't count, and current players on your roster don't count, and players aquired via FA or trade don't count. Plus good teams like Indy who don't spend many high picks on lineman don't count. And even though he emplores the Bills would be better off drafting more lineman, he concludes that the lineman we did select don't count, because they suck. And while he thinks that teams who suck don't count, the Bills (who he thinks suck) do count (excpt for the lineman we do pick (because they suck)). My brain hurts now... Excellent summary of his points. I was laughing at that the whole way through because it's so on target.
Mark Long Beach Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 Excellent summary of his points. I was laughing at that the whole way through because it's so on target. Likewise! Nice job!
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 AKC is a poster who came up with this grandiose fool-proof way of drafting. It pretty much says that all good teams draft lineman in the first two rounds, making them smart. Yet bad teams who draft lineman early don't count, because they're not smart. And if the pick is too high it doesn't count, and if you traded up for the player it doesn't count, and current players on your roster don't count, and players aquired via FA or trade don't count. Plus good teams like Indy who don't spend many high picks on lineman don't count. And even though he emplores the Bills would be better off drafting more lineman, he concludes that the lineman we did select don't count, because they suck. And while he thinks that teams who suck don't count, the Bills (who he thinks suck) do count (excpt for the lineman we do pick (because they suck)). My brain hurts now... Too true.
MikeInABQ Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 AKC is a poster who came up with this grandiose fool-proof way of drafting. It pretty much says that all good teams draft lineman in the first two rounds, making them smart. Whew. I thought I was entering a thread linking Peter King to the American Kennel Club.
LabattBlue Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 AKC is a poster who came up with this grandiose fool-proof way of drafting. It pretty much says that all good teams draft lineman in the first two rounds, making them smart. Yet bad teams who draft lineman early don't count, because they're not smart. And if the pick is too high it doesn't count, and if you traded up for the player it doesn't count, and current players on your roster don't count, and players aquired via FA or trade don't count. Plus good teams like Indy who don't spend many high picks on lineman don't count. And even though he emplores the Bills would be better off drafting more lineman, he concludes that the lineman we did select don't count, because they suck. And while he thinks that teams who suck don't count, the Bills (who he thinks suck) do count (excpt for the lineman we do pick (because they suck)). My brain hurts now... :lol:
Ramius Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 AKC is a poster who came up with this grandiose fool-proof way of drafting. It pretty much says that all good teams draft lineman in the first two rounds, making them smart. Yet bad teams who draft lineman early don't count, because they're not smart. And if the pick is too high it doesn't count, and if you traded up for the player it doesn't count, and current players on your roster don't count, and players aquired via FA or trade don't count. Plus good teams like Indy who don't spend many high picks on lineman don't count. And even though he emplores the Bills would be better off drafting more lineman, he concludes that the lineman we did select don't count, because they suck. And while he thinks that teams who suck don't count, the Bills (who he thinks suck) do count (excpt for the lineman we do pick (because they suck)). My brain hurts now... An excellent summary!
Sisyphean Bills Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 So Peter King is a good analyst and Easterbrook is not-so good. Got it. For the record, drafting corners isn't a bad thing. Passing on blue-chip linemen in favor of safeties and receivers that IS a bad thing. The McKelvin pick was a great pick... all blue-chip DTs were off the board and they got the #1 corner in the draft who has the potential to excel at 2 phases of the game. Thank God the Bills didn't do what most posters on this board wanted -- drafting a WR at #11. How's Devin Thomas doing anyway?
ricojes Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 AKC is a poster who came up with this grandiose fool-proof way of drafting. It pretty much says that all good teams draft lineman in the first two rounds, making them smart. Yet bad teams who draft lineman early don't count, because they're not smart. And if the pick is too high it doesn't count, and if you traded up for the player it doesn't count, and current players on your roster don't count, and players aquired via FA or trade don't count. Plus good teams like Indy who don't spend many high picks on lineman don't count. And even though he emplores the Bills would be better off drafting more lineman, he concludes that the lineman we did select don't count, because they suck. And while he thinks that teams who suck don't count, the Bills (who he thinks suck) do count (excpt for the lineman we do pick (because they suck)). My brain hurts now... Man, that really sucks...
AKC Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 Thank God the Bills didn't do what most posters on this board wanted -- drafting a WR at #11. Thank God the team finally appears to be distacning their strategies from that of the least intelligent of our fans. The screaming mimis like WRamius who demanded we had draft a WR at 11 in 2008 to avoid the inevitable first round run on WRs are so threatened by being expsoed for the football ninnies they really are that they'll spend hours and hours spamming false representations of the facts about the Bill's long-term failure in emulating the better teams in their draft philosophy. Fans who understand the larger concepts of personnel recognize that one of the things that has led to our struggles has been passing on the Harris/Wilfork/Ngatas in favor of WRs and RBs in too many cases. The WR crowd hates to admit it so they try to spin the facts in some way to hide their failed grasp of drafting strategy, but no matter how many ways they try to hide their postions, the facts are the facts: Here's a great example of the type of shame they're trying to hide: WRamius on Apr 24th, 2008= 2 days before NO WR were taken in the first round "Just because there is no clear cut #1 does NOT mean that the draft is WR weak. There are quite a handful of WRs that will go in the 1st" WRamius on Apr. 23, 2008 "the Bills may have WRs rated higher than the "experts" do, and there might not be much to choose from when our 2nd round pick comes around." WRamius on picking a WR at #11: Apr 24th, 2008= 2 days before NO WRs were taken in the first round, proving the draft weak at WR in the minds of every NFL team needing WRs: "Just because there is no clear cut #1 does NOT mean that the draft is WR weak. There are quite a handful of WRs that will go in the 1st" Apr 24 WRamius on why the Bill's must draft a WR with the 11th pick- "The Bills may have WRs rated higher than the "experts" do, and there might not be much to choose from when our 2nd round pick comes around." "Picking someone at #11 when the dumbass "experts" say they shouldnt go until 17-18 isnt a "reach" WRamius again on drafting a WR at 11: "If we draft a WR at #11, we are NOT doomed to go 4-12, and it isnt the end of the world. It will be an upgrade to the offense." I'd like to thanks Scott for providing us with the Ignore User Feature a way to take spamming D-bags out of the conversation here and in doing so improve the football discussion dramatically.
buckeyemike Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 My brain hurts now... My brain hurts after reading all of that and trying to follow along.
MRW Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 I'd like to thanks Scott for providing us with the Ignore User Feature a way to take spamming D-bags out of the conversation here and in doing so improve the football discussion dramatically. Please, if you're going to ignore the guy, ignore him. I don't know why you thought this was a worthwhile post to make.
Chilly Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 Thank God the team finally appears to be distacning their strategies from that of the least intelligent of our fans. The screaming mimis like WRamius who demanded we had draft a WR at 11 in 2008 to avoid the inevitable first round run on WRs are so threatened by being expsoed for the football ninnies they really are that they'll spend hours and hours spamming false representations of the facts about the Bill's long-term failure in emulating the better teams in their draft philosophy. Oh AKC, you just can't stop posting on this, can you? Another episode of "Open Mouth, Insert Foot" awaits. If you want to talk about "false representations of the facts", lets get it all out on the table, shall we? You have absolutely zero facts about the emulation of anything. Your "study" meant nothing. Fans who understand the larger concepts of personnel recognize that one of the things that has led to our struggles has been passing on the Harris/Wilfork/Ngatas in favor of WRs and RBs in too many cases. Weren't you just talking about not having "false representations of the facts"? Strange, I could have sworn you were. In any event, I haven't seen your critics say that the Bills shouldn't have taken Harris or Wilfork over Evans, or Ngata over Whitner (who, by the way, isn't a RB or WR). The WR crowd hates to admit it so they try to spin the facts in some way to hide their failed grasp of drafting strategy, but no matter how many ways they try to hide their postions, the facts are the facts: I'm interested in this idea of a "WR crowd", seeing as I haven't seen a single person advocate the Lions strategy of taking a WR every year - but rather only when the Bills have needed it. Here's a great example of the type of shame they're trying to hide: WRamius on Apr 24th, 2008= 2 days before NO WR were taken in the first round "Just because there is no clear cut #1 does NOT mean that the draft is WR weak. There are quite a handful of WRs that will go in the 1st" I believe you were just talking above about "false misrepresentations of the facts". If you're so concerned with that, why did you chop off the rest of the quote? The whole thing was: "Just because there is no clear cut #1 does NOT mean that the draft is WR weak. There are quite a handful of WRs that will go in the 1st and second rounds." WRamius on picking a WR at #11: Apr 24th, 2008= 2 days before NO WRs were taken in the first round, proving the draft weak at WR in the minds of every NFL team needing WRs: Here is where your simplistic view of draft values takes effect. The idea that no WRs went in the first round doesn't necessarily mean that the WR class was weak. When deciding whom to draft, it is necessary to look at the overall group of players available, and the drop-off from one player to the next. In this WR class, there were many players that were pretty close to each other (10 WRs all went in the 2nd round). However, there was no standout WR who really separated himself from the pack last year. In other positions, there was a much smaller group of players that had separated themselves from the pack. This does not mean that the NFL GMs must have thought the draft was weak, but rather could have been that there was better value drafting a different player, and waiting to take a WR later when a run started. It could mean that the class was weak, and it could also have indicated a solid all-around class with no standouts (not exactly weak). You're assuming the first, when we don't know whether that is true or not. Not a surprise though, since throughout this whole debate you've been assuming things. WRamius on why the Bill's must draft a WR with the 11th pick-"The Bills may have WRs rated higher than the "experts" do, and there might not be much to choose from when our 2nd round pick comes around." "Picking someone at #11 when the dumbass "experts" say they shouldnt go until 17-18 isnt a "reach" Its funny that you choose this quote as an attempt to prove poor draft understanding, when he's correct - its possible the Bills did have a WR or two rated higher than the pundits, and picking someone in relation to draft values to other teams is what determines a reach, not what the pundits say. As it turns out, they didn't, but no one on this board knew whether they did or didn't at that time. If your theory was correct that they overvalue WRs, they would have. WRamius again on drafting a WR at 11: "If we draft a WR at #11, we are NOT doomed to go 4-12, and it isnt the end of the world. It will be an upgrade to the offense." Even funnier, since that quote was entirely true. I'd like to thanks Scott for providing us with the Ignore User Feature a way to take spamming D-bags out of the conversation here and in doing so improve the football discussion dramatically. Scott didn't code the Ignore User feature for everyone, he purchased the board software which includes the feature. He should be thanked for his hard work, but thanking him for the ignore feature is a bit silly. I don't suspect you'll understand the difference, though.
Ramius Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 Funny how AKC claims to be ignoring me, yet is still sooo hung up on what i said around draft day.
Recommended Posts