Peter King, let me introduce you to AKC

[AKC]

You have absolutely zero facts about the emulation of anything. Your "study" meant nothing.

 

The patterns of you spam posters is pretty clearly documented- fear what contradicts your own tiny little whiffs of understanding of football, and misrepresent any person's whose opinions you fear.

 

Now feel free you get back to another few thousand meaningless posts with no original throughts of any kind, and keep on telling us like you are above about how the fact that not a single team in the football agreed with you idiots about taking a WR in round one "doesn't mean the talent at the position wasn't strong".

 

No matter the evidence, no matter the facts, just keep on spam driveling because you and the other spam drivelers actual goal appears to simply be reaching 10,000 meaningless posts before someone eles beats you to it. Good luck in your endeavor.

[LabattBlue]

The patterns of you spam posters is pretty clearly documented- fear what contradicts your own tiny little whiffs of understanding of football, and misrepresent any person's whose opinions you fear.

 

Now feel free you get back to another few thousand meaningless posts with no original thoughts of any kind, and keep on telling us like you are above about how the fact that not a single team in the football agreed with you idiots about taking a WR in round one "doesn't mean the talent at the position wasn't strong".

 

No matter the evidence, no matter the facts, just keep on spam driveling because you and the other spam drivelers actual goal appears to simply be reaching 10,000 meaningless posts before someone eles beats you to it. Good luck in your endeavor.

Original thoughts= I'm right and you are all idiots? :blink:

[BuffOrange]

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.

 

I don't particularly like or hate either writer. At the end of the day, the homer TBD opinion on both guys is 100% dependant on whatever month it is....

Between September and December, most people here love Easterbrook because he rips the coaches more than just about anyone else. Ripping the coaches - especially Offensive Coordinator during the season is always a huge point-getter at TBD because everything is always the coach's fault.

Pessimism before the season sucks, therefore he's a lousy preseason writer.

King is a good preseason writer because he usually likes the Bills (see Super Bowl prediction in 2003).

During the season King sucks because he's not as high on the Bills and doesn't place all of the blame on the coaches.

IMO King and Easterbrook should become one columnist: King in the preseason and Easterbrook during the season. Easterking (or should that be Kingbrook?) would be TBD's favorite writer ever.

[Chilly]

The patterns of you spam posters is pretty clearly documented-

 

The ol' "Big Post Count = Bad" line of thinking. Pretty original thought there, right before attempting to call one out about not having original thoughts.

 

fear what contradicts your own tiny little whiffs of understanding of football, and misrepresent any person's whose opinions you fear.

 

I'm sitting here shaking in my boots. <-- See, that's me hiding.

 

Now feel free you get back to another few thousand meaningless posts with no original throughts of any kind, and keep on telling us like you are above about how the fact that not a single team in the football agreed with you idiots about taking a WR in round one "doesn't mean the talent at the position wasn't strong".

 

You call my view of the draft simplistic, all while you are unwilling to admit that player values are relative.

 

No matter the evidence, no matter the facts, just keep on spam driveling because you and the other spam drivelers actual goal appears to simply be reaching 10,000 meaningless posts before someone eles beats you to it. Good luck in your endeavor.

 

Just FYI: You're the one that started going off about Ramius in this thread, I simply replied to it. Don't let that stand in the way of a good rant, though.

[Steely Dan]

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...

 

AKC, read that carefully.

 

 

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.

 

Where is there anything in his post about drafting WR's? He never said he was wrong. I was of the same mind and I was wrong about the run on WR's starting in the first round. There were a lot of draft pundits who had the Bills taking a receiver at #11. We weren't the only ones. His post talks about your convoluted logic in regards to drafting linemen. He hit the nail on the head in that post in the opinion of many of us.

 

 

The patterns of you spam posters is pretty clearly documented- fear what contradicts your own tiny little whiffs of understanding of football, and misrepresent any person's whose opinions you fear.

 

Now feel free you get back to another few thousand meaningless posts with no original throughts of any kind, and keep on telling us like you are above about how the fact that not a single team in the football agreed with you idiots about taking a WR in round one "doesn't mean the talent at the position wasn't strong".

No matter the evidence, no matter the facts, just keep on spam driveling because you and the other spam drivelers actual goal appears to simply be reaching 10,000 meaningless posts before someone eles beats you to it. Good luck in your endeavor.

 

What the teams took has little to do with this. Nobody can pick the first round of the draft perfectly. Did you have Leodis McKelvin available at #11? Very few pundits did. Prior to the draft only guesses can be made and as pointed out above many other people thought the Bills would draft a WR in the first round. I don't recall you saying they would take a CB in the first round. Once again this about your ability to make a cogent argument about your views which is still a problem for you. You ignore the real argument and try to create a diversion by trying to move the argument to a completely different field. There's your problem.

[Ramius]

fear what contradicts your own tiny little whiffs of understanding of football, and misrepresent any person's whose opinions you fear.

 

funny - most of the posters that have participated in proving you wrong would make this exact claim about your petty little inane "study."

 

Lets break it down:

 

"Fear what contradicts..." - this would be the part where you refuse to acknowledge that there are plenty of teams hat spend high draft picks on DTS and continue to do poorly. This would also be the part where Pittsburgh and Indy have NOT focused on the D-line recently and yet still enjoyed success. Thsi would also be the part where you claim that pittsburgh already has a good line on their team and then turn around and try to say that existing players on the team do not count.

 

"...your own tiny whiffs of understanding of football..." - this would be the part where is has been shown that there are many ways to improve and create a good football team, yet you insist that the only way to do good is to draft early round DTs.

 

"...misrepresent any person's whose opinions you fear..." - this would be the part where you repeatedly chop off my quote in a convoluted effort to make it seem like i said something i didnt. Typical smear campaign? And why would you engage in this type of smear campaign? Perhaps because you fear that i and others have blown the cover off of your lack of intelligence of statistics and football in general. Because i have proven your "study" is completely and statistically invalid, and since you do not possess the mathematical or statistical ability and intelligence to counter my argument, you decide to attack me and my posts.

[Steely Dan]

funny - most of the posters that have participated in proving you wrong would make this exact claim about your petty little inane "study."

 

Lets break it down:

 

"Fear what contradicts..." - this would be the part where you refuse to acknowledge that there are plenty of teams hat spend high draft picks on DTS and continue to do poorly. This would also be the part where Pittsburgh and Indy have NOT focused on the D-line recently and yet still enjoyed success. Thsi would also be the part where you claim that pittsburgh already has a good line on their team and then turn around and try to say that existing players on the team do not count.

 

"...your own tiny whiffs of understanding of football..." - this would be the part where is has been shown that there are many ways to improve and create a good football team, yet you insist that the only way to do good is to draft early round DTs.

 

"...misrepresent any person's whose opinions you fear..." - this would be the part where you repeatedly chop off my quote in a convoluted effort to make it seem like i said something i didnt. Typical smear campaign? And why would you engage in this type of smear campaign? Perhaps because you fear that i and others have blown the cover off of your lack of intelligence of statistics and football in general. Because i have proven your "study" is completely and statistically invalid, and since you do not possess the mathematical or statistical ability and intelligence to counter my argument, you decide to attack me and my posts.

Ya Think!

[IDBillzFan]

Now that AKC has bit, the only thing really missing is a Brett Favre thread.

[Steely Dan]

Now that AKC has bit, the only thing really missing is a Brett Favre thread.

 

 

It's gonna be your fault Jackass!!

 

[AKC]

I was of the same mind and I was wrong about the run on WR's starting in the first round. There were a lot of draft pundits who had the Bills taking a receiver at #11. We weren't the only ones.

 

 

I will commend you that unlike some of the other spammers on their way to their 10Kth post, you're willing to admit here that the reality turned out to be exactly what I suggested in the period leading to the 2008 draft- smart teams in 2008 weren't going to be thinking about taking a WR at the top of the draft.

 

The problem with some of the other WR fans is that while like you they couldn't at accept the evidence being offered before the draft, unlike you they are still fighting the reality of the draft as it played out.

 

As far as any of the spammers who live in their denial to this day about playing up WR while decrying any evidence that it wasn't desirable for us as a team, you can do better than to buy into misrepresentations and outright lies. I have made the offer to all the spammer to show a single post in which I suggested that selecting "any DT" was somehow a logical or desirable draft strategy. Of course not a single spammer has produced any such nonsense.

 

So as you accrue the big post total you're headed for, you get to decide. Do you jump into promoting falsehoods against those of us who come here to actually talk about football, or do you keep some integrity between your content and the nonsense spewed out by the few who clearly to spend a majority of their waking hours becoming an overriding presence on internet message boards?

[dave mcbride]

Hey AKC: In case it wasn't clear, I did post this as a joke. I actually thought you'd get a kick out of it given recent discussions. No harm intended ...

[Dibs]

......I have made the offer to all the spammer to show a single post in which I suggested that selecting "any DT" was somehow a logical or desirable draft strategy. Of course not a single spammer has produced any such nonsense......

 

The record is there for anyone honest to see- what I've said is that the best team's use a higher amounts of their early draft equity on DTs than the Bills and the Lions.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

Dibs FTW

 

[/spam]

[R. Rich]

I will commend you that unlike some of the other spammers on their way to their 10Kth post...

 

 

Hey!

[Dawgg]

I don't particularly like or hate either writer. At the end of the day, the homer TBD opinion on both guys is 100% dependant on whatever month it is....

Between September and December, most people here love Easterbrook because he rips the coaches more than just about anyone else. Ripping the coaches - especially Offensive Coordinator during the season is always a huge point-getter at TBD because everything is always the coach's fault.

Pessimism before the season sucks, therefore he's a lousy preseason writer.

King is a good preseason writer because he usually likes the Bills (see Super Bowl prediction in 2003).

During the season King sucks because he's not as high on the Bills and doesn't place all of the blame on the coaches.

IMO King and Easterbrook should become one columnist: King in the preseason and Easterbrook during the season. Easterking (or should that be Kingbrook?) would be TBD's favorite writer ever.

 

Bingo

[Steely Dan]

I will commend you that unlike some of the other spammers on their way to their 10Kth post, you're willing to admit here that the reality turned out to be exactly what I suggested in the period leading to the 2008 draft- smart teams in 2008 weren't going to be thinking about taking a WR at the top of the draft.

 

The problem with some of the other WR fans is that while like you they couldn't at accept the evidence being offered before the draft, unlike you they are still fighting the reality of the draft as it played out.

 

As far as any of the spammers who live in their denial to this day about playing up WR while decrying any evidence that it wasn't desirable for us as a team, you can do better than to buy into misrepresentations and outright lies. I have made the offer to all the spammer to show a single post in which I suggested that selecting "any DT" was somehow a logical or desirable draft strategy. Of course not a single spammer has produced any such nonsense.

 

So as you accrue the big post total you're headed for, you get to decide. Do you jump into promoting falsehoods against those of us who come here to actually talk about football, or do you keep some integrity between your content and the nonsense spewed out by the few who clearly to spend a majority of their waking hours becoming an overriding presence on internet message boards?

 

 

QUOTE (AKC @ Aug 12 2008, 05:46 AM) *

The record is there for anyone honest to see- what I've said is that the best team's use a higher amounts of their early draft equity on DTs than the Bills and the Lions.

 

 

Any guesses on how he weasels out of this one?

[AKC]

 

Any guesses on how he weasels out of this one?

 

And I'll continue to point out that the best teams use higher draft equity on DTs than the Bills.

 

The next question becomes- why are you really trying to publicly argue that the football fact I agree with (the best teams use a higher amount of top draft equity on DTs than the Bills) in any wildly grasping way suggests that "any DT taken in the first round" is a the strategy used by the best teams?

 

Weasels probably get a bad rap when it comes to those who would misrepresent something over an over- hoping that by lying again and again, someone who wasn't paying too much attention might buy into it. At this point I'd thought it had become very clear who was't intelligent enough to see the difference between the position I've always had above and the idiot's position a couple of you spammers have tried to frame it into to. I was thinking your only problem was that you weren't honest enough to admit to the framing attempts, but perhaps I instead simply overestimated your intellect.

[AKC]

Hey AKC: In case it wasn't clear, I did post this as a joke. I actually thought you'd get a kick out of it given recent discussions. No harm intended ...

 

King is a perfect media guy- he loves the guys with the ball. That guarantess his position with the majority of fans, but I have to assume most teams simply laugh if they are forced for some reason to read his tripe. I won't be surprised if Sean Peyton gets more than the occasional chuckle at King's expense this coming season.

 

Hey!

 

19,000 posts and every one you've ever made about football has been a positive contribution to TSW. Continue on my friend- the reason some of us take the limited casual internet time we have to come here in the face of increasing spam is because of posters like you and DMcBride. Like I had to tell you two that.

[Steely Dan]

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...

 

Read below for proof.

 

And I'll continue to point out that the best teams use higher draft equity on DTs than the Bills.

 

The next question becomes- why are you really trying to publicly argue that the football fact I agree with (the best teams use a higher amount of top draft equity on DTs than the Bills) in any wildly grasping way suggests that "any DT taken in the first round" is a the strategy used by the best teams?

 

Weasels probably get a bad rap when it comes to those who would misrepresent something over an over- hoping that by lying again and again, someone who wasn't paying too much attention might buy into it. At this point I'd thought it had become very clear who was't intelligent enough to see the difference between the position I've always had above and the idiot's position a couple of you spammers have tried to frame it into to. I was thinking your only problem was that you weren't honest enough to admit to the framing attempts, but perhaps I instead simply overestimated your intellect.

 

Did you or did you not type the quote Dibs dug up from your past posts? Did you or did you not challenge someone to show you where you said that? Do you or do you not see the obvious contradiction in what you said? Why are you ignoring your obvious "lack of memory" to put it nicely. When you're caught dead to rights you ignore it and move on to a different argument that never has anything to do with the previous comments. You commend me for being honest, why can't you be?

 

You really are a bust to read.

[Bill from NYC]

19,000 posts and every one you've ever made about football has been a positive contribution to TSW. Continue on my friend- the reason some of us take the limited casual internet time we have to come here in the face of increasing spam is because of posters like you and DMcBride. Like I had to tell you two that.

 

Quickly add yourself to the above crowd my friend. New posters will learn as did I, that when they disagree with you, they are far more likely to be wrong than right.

 

Pass rushing DEs are the hardest guys on defense to find, but DTs are the players who free these guys up. People can chide you as they wish. Some of them I think are joking, others are blind homers (which isn't a bad thing), but there ARE a few reasons why the Bills have been losing year after year. A primary one is the lack of quality DTs. Yes, you are correct.

 

Posters can always pull out stats to prove anything. They can cite things such as the Colts drafting a lot of DBs, ignoring the fact that they only did so AFTER their lines were stocked, and they had a great running back, QB, and WR.

 

The Bills are lucky to have Jason Peters. They even cut him in 2004. Now, they want him to play for peanuts. I won't call the addition of Stroud luck. That was a marvelous trade that Levy made, and I am far from being his biggest fan. The Bills historically forego Lineman in the early rounds of the draft, and when they DID select a DT or OL in round 1 or 2, the last good pick was Ruben Brown. This is unacceptable.

 

In any event, lets hope that Stroud can play back to form. I think that he can but who knows? If McCargo is any good, we might have a decent rotation, because Spencer looked better than I expected.