Hplarrm

Agreed. Its weird to me that folks have a problem with this. It is a relatively small risk ($2.5 Mill against the structure we are using to manage the cap is not gonna make or break signing all but the most marginal of players in the line-up of $ we will pay out)for an unlikely but potentially enormous gain. $2.5 mill is not rolling up the Brinks truck to the Merrimen house, but simply says roster spots will be won on the field. The leverage was on the side of FAs like Poz and now it is more equalized with a small investment.

Not so fast actually. My sense is that the 18 game proposal is best evaluated not simply on its merits as to whether the game is improved or diminished, but as you say what is the bottomline in terms of the cash delivered to either the players or the owners. This means two things to me in terms of first cut evaluation of the proposal: 1. It depends totally on how the proceeds are split between the owners and the players as to whether one the NFLPA or the NFL would support a proposal, A deal which adds two games of regular season revenue with simply adds to the gross revenue of the NFL and then allows each team to distribute this over time as the choose withing the constraints of the current CBA is a totally different thing for the NFLPA than a deal which specifically dictates this money be paid either upfront on a pergame basis to current players. Whether the NFLPA would agree to such a general game expansion depends mostly on the details of the payout to the team owners' partners the NFLPA. 2. The main fiscal issue motivating the owners and the players right now is NOT schedule length but negotiations on CBA. The correct motivation to make bucks actually means the key use of this proposal is to influence CBA negotiation rather than scope out a plan for future expansion,

College football is broke as the game has turned away from its primary use being to provide an educational experience for students to being a massive money-making endeavor. Its particularly a racket in regard to the NFL where taxpayer dollars paid to promote football training mills like U. Nebraska and other state schools provide a massive subsidy to private businesses in the NFL by using taxpayer dollars to train their workers. Even worse, the taxpayer funded state institutions readily participate in private business endeavors like the Combine and the draft which by rule restrict the free market by the NFL and NFLPA not only force players to play for the one team that drafted them and not sell their resources to the highest bidder but also restrict adults older than 18 from even entering commerce until their age group would graduate at roughly 21. While this approach is not communism, it can be honestly described as socialism and is in no real way classic free market capitalism.

The key stat for Peyton Manning his rookie year to me is that he was the ONLY QB in the NFL to start every game. I think Luck is an extremely good player (though demonstrably not so great that various players from Locker to Mallett were thought of by many professionals as better players as recently as a few months ago- Luck is great but anyone who depicts him as being so head and shoulders above everyone else is simply choosing that depiction). At any rate, my recollection is that Indy not only had spent significant resources like early draft picks on the OL but that this crew had substantially played together and begun to develop chemistry. When one added Manning's inherent play reading talent and his quick release to an already budding OL you had a player capable of taking the field. I have no argument about how good Luck is or is not, but I think the pro-Luck arguers fall short in making a case that this OL is not at best a player and a half away from adequacy (at best- they need 1. an RT, 2. a swing guy who allows them to deal with the likelihood approaching fact that the days where all 5 OL players play all 5 games are gone, 3. chemistry to develop for a group which is going to have some significant changes over time but does have a starting base of 5 guys, and 5. has some theory and talent as to how to use the TE either primarily as an extra blocker OR as a receiver). The Bills are well short of adequacy in this area and I see the picking of Luck (even more so if we have to trade draft choices to get him) as not only banking on one player to deliver, but sending him out without adequate primary protection to let him do his magic. Drafting Luck might be getting an essential savior, but more likely if he is hurt and this team is short not only the position player we would have taken instead, but also the top tier player we sacrifice to get him is that more than likely drafting him secures Detroit Lion status for years to come for this team.

Particularly if our base D is a 3-4 then actually dud McCargo is replaced by Kyle Williams, Granted the Marv led braintrust blew it big time buy reaching up to get McCargo by picking him after trading back into the 1st. However, it is pretty silly to declare Marv brainless for picking McCargo without also giving him kudos for the late pick of immediate starter Williams. Certainly with 20/20 hindsight it is true that McCargo was a bust. However, the football reality deems it necessary to: 1. If one wants to fault Marv the problem was not picking Ngati with our #8 pick. 2. However, the gap left by poor slot filling by TD which Marv inherited due to Mr. Ralph messing up management of the team demanded that the Bills fill both a starting S slot and the starting DT slot. 3. The complaints that the Bills took a safety too early with a top 10 pick really represents old football thinking as: A. SS is a critical position in the real game of pro football as shown by Sanders leading Indy's SB winning D and Polamaulu leading Pitts successful franchise. Those who claimed Safties are not worth a 15 or higher pick do not seem to understand the modern NFL. B. Further, 3 safties went 15 or higher again showing pros disagree with the armchair analysis of do not pick a safety early, C. Clearly Whitner failed to have the impact one hopes for from a top 10 pick, but still Whitner was the most productive safty in the draft that year.

I agree that there is not nor should there be agreement at this point about choosing one guy. In fact. in our competitive American system getting the best result depends not only on their being conflicting camps and thinking but in this TEAM coming together to way all the options and come up with a solution that meets a bunch of real world needs in a way that allows everyone to move together toward the same goal. I want Gailey and Nix to disagree about a lot of stuff. I then want them to be adult enough and smart football guys to reach a consensus approach which uses the multiple draft picks, FA. trades. UDFA and any means legal to amass a winning team. The lead post is actually a sign of a good thing if these men respect each others knowledge and can reach a consensus relatively smoothly that has one of the "lose" out in his first choice, but his legitimate concerns (this team needs defensive help badly- a QB may be a great one but even Luck if he he turns out to be the best player he could be with the team he is chosen by strikes me as great plastic surgery on a team whose ability to stop the run is a gaping open chest wound), Who cares if their is a dispute between Gailey and Nis, the important thing is whether they can settle it like adults (WGR and Sully will not want them to as this type of dispute makes for easy reporting and selling column inches and air space for ads for their employers).

If it really is a battle between two diametrically opposed views and one significant "side" wins while the other loses then the Bills likely do not get better without regard to which "side " wins. In a better world all of these folks in charge operate as adults and the team is truly must be a TEAM of we are gonna do better. Dynamics and even adult disagreements are certain to happen, but the problem with the Bills has been it has been too much of a zero sum game, The Bills cannot afford disagreement which leaves half the team leadership and the fan base unhappy because they lost a disagreement,

The thing that amuses me most about some taking this as an opportunity to launch their attack on Olbermann using the seeming anti-intellectual comments of Chris Brown being based in some left-wing egalitarianism when my sense is not only do such stupid anti-intellectualism stem from the left but also from the right. A big part of the whole Sarah Palin shtick seems to be this earthy Momma Grizzly thing that passes over intellectual analysis of complex issues (and doing complex things like reading the paper) and instead simply reacts. Whether its the left or the right these appear to be folks who are simply insecure about anything different than they are. Fitzy being one of the guys probably strikes Brown as being most important because it is simply a declaration of Fitzy not being intellectually different.

On target. My understanding is that good tackling technique is to hit the runner as squarely as you can in his body and wrap up around his body to bring him down. If a tackler instead engaged as you suggested, the runner almost always wins the battle as the tackler is focusing on the opponents arm. As by definition in this example, the RB has taken the initiative in being able to launch a stiff arm. Now add to that the defender trys to act on the suggestiong in this thread to attempt to pull the runner down by his arm. As pointed out above the tackler has responded to the initiative of the stiff arm by giving the runner the leverage advantage of trying to grab that arm rather than attack the body. Its seems like a conceptually simple matter of ju jitsu to fend off the attempts to arm tackle by using what is sometimes called a swim move to fend off this arm tackle and head off down field. None of this is simple since we are talking about 250 pound bolts of greased lightening but the keys here are initiative (by definition in this example the runner delivers a blow with the stiff arm (the force of this jab is added to by the force of the tackler heading towards it. Add to his initiative, the runner now has leverage as he chose the time, location, and force of the stiff arm and his job is to detect how the tackler is absorbing it and then have his body react in a manner that finds the best point of leverage to at least fend off the tackler (who again in your example is playing with the arm rather than taking the body and wrapping up as players are taught to do. Its no wonder we have seen some vicious stiff arms where the RB uses his initiative and gift of leverage provided by the tackler trying to perform an arm tackle in your example of the RB simply forcing the tackler to the ground. Its simply physics.

The Moorman assessment remains the same as it was which is who can we get who is better than him, Without regard to whether he is a Pro Bowler or a stiff this is the question in regard to virtually all players and quite to the point for an ST skill position player. It was only a couple of years ago that in order to be better than Moorman one needed to be a Pro Bowl talent. Moorman;s production has clearly decreased but one would be pretty hard pressed to find a punter who is better than he is that we can stand much of a chance of acquiring. My sense is that the major change we would make in this area is that in the recent past we would bring in a player to share punting duties in pre-season almost completely as a player to save Moorman's leg. However, we should look to bring in some body with at least the possibility of challenging Moorman, This player will almost certainly lose out to Moorman but competition helps make a player better.

Lee Evans is NOT a top quality WR in the NFL. I think this is flat out true. However, there has to be some logical recognition that there are more than two choices that a player is either a top quality WR or is horrible. The simple facts are that Evans so-called "one trick" is a trick that has made him third on the career list of Bills for receptions, yardage, and I think even TDs. If this is a mere trick it is a pretty darn good one. Is it the best making him equivalent to Andre Reed and Elbert Dubenion? NO! However his value as a player due to this little thing called performance far exceeds the accomplishments and role in the O of Don Beebe (who will forever deserve our respect for his SB inspired fumble causing hit of some idiot Cowboy- however, he defines the label on trick- though I think his toughness which saw him bounce off his head moves him up to two tricks with his Evans like speed), of someone like Billy Brooks (great for us in an episodic way), and even James Lofton (a far better player than Evans overall, but as a Bill he was clearly on the backend of his great career unlike Evans who has made good use (but not maximum use of the peak of his career). Does Evans deserve the multi-gazillion he is paid? No (but I do not think any football player really DESERVES more than a fireman, nurse, or even a good teacher to play this boys game). However, if Evans were actually the one trick pony you maintain there is no way that any DC would give up the passes to him which have allowed him to simply accomplish #3 career totals as a Bill. He can actually be taken out of a game as the lead producer for the Bills if you double him with over and under coverage or slant the pass coverage to whatever side he is patrolling. However, the real shame and failing of the Bills is that until Gailey and Stevie Johnson the Bills have been unable to make the best use of what a dc must do to avoid real world Evans production which at its best has produced 3 TDs or over 200 yards. We saw yesterday that Stevie Johnson can be productive in a well designed O! However, we also saw yesterday on the play where Fitzy got picked off just before the end of the half, that when the opponent has the ability to dt Johnson that a good CB can cover him tight and even get an INT if he knows he has help over the top. The pea brain non-football thinking we see here is the idea that if Johnson performs this means we must cut Evans. This is bad football and actually just plain stupid. The BEST thing about Evans and Johnson's skillsets is that the complement each other far better than those of a declining Peerless or a declining Moulds do. Yesterday's gamewinning (the only important thing really)passing attack is that it is a tribute to Galey that he got it to be productive with talent which was essentially passed over by the entire NFL. This fact however does not mean you chuck who though no where near Jerry Rice productivity can still prove to be an effective top; giving Stevie single coverage in the end zone at crunch time in a game. Lets hope he does not drop the TD pass like he did against Pitts.

One of the funniest things about all the rants about TO being a cancer that divides a lockerroom are internally contradictory if EVERYONE hates you! The only way to divide a locker room is if half of the folks hate you but also half love you. By this I do not mean that half hate you and half think you are OK but are happy to abandon you when push comes to shove. This is why a lot of the rants and the early press work on TO as a Bills were just plain wrong. It was virtually guaranteed that TO was going to be just about a modern citizen in his first year as a Bill because he had to build up his rep as a good teammate before he divided the locker room The early press reports which described TO as being selfish because he had skipped the team's first voluntary training camp simply ignored the fact they were voluntary and the even bigger fact that TO missed the initial camp as he was in Philly to attend a long scheduled award ceremony that actually honored TO for his work supporting cancer victims. It was no surprise to anyone with half a brain to see TO not only show up for every voluntary practice (unlike many other prima donnas) but TO was pretty much a model Bill in his first year. Everyone with even a quarter of a brain should have expected this even if they fully expected him to eventually become a cancer, This tirade against Bengaldom is interesting mostly because it came in his first year, However, I think it is clear from his stats that he has proven to be a productive WR even at the end of his career. From what I read rather than him throwing his teammates under the bus he actually threw the owner and the coaches under the bus. Rather than dividing the locker room I think it points to Marvin Lewis and perhaps the GM being dead men walking. My guess us this will set up TO well as guaranteed heads are gonna roll and TO has established himself as a sign the team is moving beyond its losing ways if it gives him a big contract.

Actually this is why the NFL interests me in terms of comparing it to other major sports leagues as arguably the NFL comes closer to not only having an actual partnership between the workers and employees but in fact there is a reasonable numeric argument that the players are actually the majority partner in this deal (the measure is that the CBA is now calculated by the TOTAL gross receipts and that Gene Upshaw as pres of the NFLPA was able to dictate that the agreement would have to include a final player take which would begin with a 6. A player share of 60.5% was the final outcome, My sense of why the NFL differs from the basic arrangements achieved by players in baseball, hockey. and basketball is that the NFL did manage to secure a deal where collegiate sports (and in many cases taxpayers subsidizing player development with state schools) pays for player development for the NFL. The NFL benefits from having taxpayers pay for its minor league development but it now is having to give up bigger bucks to athletes who began organizing as adults rather than minors.

Does the a Pro Bowl nod mean that a player is demonstrably great? NO! It shows an ignorance of the game to make that statement. However, should getting a Pro Bowl nod be counted as meaning nothing as you state. NO! It shows an ignorance of the game to make that statement. A Pro Bowl nod proves nothing but particularly as it is produced from a shared decision bu 3 different groups who are not perfect in their views but all legit stakeholders to attempt to ignore this totally represents a refuge to pure views which do not fully describe reality. The Pro Bowl nod is actually a useful tool not to assert for sure a player is great but as a not unreasonable indicator of positive production. This is just reality and as we often see on the internet or in the mainstream media you have a right to totally ignore reality if you choose.

It would serve Sully right as even though the stakes of him running around are high, in fact as best as I can tell only two QBs Breea and Favre reached the 30 mark last year. The hype sounds ballsy but in the end it is a pretty gutless prediction.

I agree as I have argued this should have been the approach from the start. Spiller has actually shown better ability than I expected of him to run in traffic, but to me he is clearly an even more productive player in space, He needs to demonstrate the ability to understand and run routes as designed, but my sense is the highest and best use of him is as a wideout anyway.

It likely depends far more on internal team dynamics that us outsiders cannot really know than it depends upon statistical achievement which we outsiders can measure. The statistical outcomes are a crucial indicator of things (if they cannot adjust to stop the run they simply cannot and if that were the case some heads should certainly role be it the DC if the problem is strategy or players if the problem is execution. However, the indicators say that this team is actually capable of making adjustments on the fly (the DC part) and implementing those changes effectively (the player part). Thia is a necessary showing but not necessarily sufficient in that making these changes against a horrible opponent in late season at home is no where near a certainty that such approaches can be done sustainably across and entire season. A lot has to do on whether you trust Gailey to make a good judgment as to whether and the D have the chemistry to do well when reinforced with whatever the draft, FA, and trade can give us this offseason to reinforce the team. If the concentration in the draft is on improving the D (either with a stud pass rusher or a stud LB then I am comfortable with Edwards. If however, the focus is on once again tilting at the windmill of trying to get a franchise QB to replace Fitzy then it seems clear to me that we will need some other strategic vision on D to get this done with what we got. I was impressed with Edwards ability to make changes on the fly with the cutrate talent we have on D. However, uif there is not a focus on getting more talent on D then this team needs some savior to come in and not simply adjust on the fly but to create some D miracle with limited talent even before the game gets underway.

The person who benefits the most (and likely would be hurt the most if Favre came out for one snap) would be Minn coach Leslie Frazier. If Favre had been wheeled out for a ceremonial start it would have made a mockery of Frazier being committed to do everything he could to win every game, It would have been a statement that one man reaching 300 games was a higher priority than the Vikes getting a 6th win. Frazier may end up done as Vikes HC anyway when they do not make the playoffs and blame will be apportioned out far and wide. However. of Favre had started and the Vikes sacrificed one plsy for this then Frazier would almost certainly have been done.

Actually my sense is that the Bills perform better with a vet QB in 2011 than with either rookie as the Bills O game is going to be defined by however the adventure of OL development turns out (the Bills current OL is at least 1 and a half players away from adequacy and a starting RT talent and a swing guy capable of allowing us to deal with injuries to starters are going to have to be acquired). Even with this acquisition, 2011 is gonna be about building chemistry between the players. Even if Luck or Newton turns out to be the real deal career wise, one thing that the far less physically talented Fitzy brings than these notable rookies is a vets ability to: 1. Read NFL Ds and not be fooled by opposing DCs as easily as any rookie QB will be no matter how good he is. 2. Be able to help Hamgartner or Wood change blocking schemes to fit the defense likely blitzes. Until the rookie sees a bunch of games and learns how truly fast the game is as a pro as a;; rookies express wonder at this. The C is gonna be on their own for awhile with any rookie QB. 3. No one can judge right now how quick the rookie's release is going to be (even P. Mannings lightening release was not as fast as a rookie and it would be football foolish to make claims that any rookie QB is simply going to turn inadequate OL talent into marvelous stuff merely by his presence. If the Bill were disciplined enough to sit the rookie QB and let him watch and learn his rookie year that would be a good thing for the Bills to do. However, I doubt seriously whether Mr. Ralph would withstand the whines and rants of Sully and WGR and a small but vocal screamers who will claim any 1st rounder not starting is bust. Since I think the Bills might well allow themselves to pick a "franchise" QB with their first pick I am wondering whether this team would do better picking Luck or Newton. My sense is from watching the highlights and looking at the stats that actually Luck is a more complete QB and even if I am certain the main feature of his game next year is that he will be a rookie, I like him as a more complete QB than the dynamic Newton. However, I am given pause by the fact that basically any rookie QB picked by the Bills is going to have to run for his life behind this OL. Luck appears to be the better QB to me. However, he is a significantly smaller boy than Newton. Further, though Luck dies have very good wheels, they are no where near what Newton has. The sad thing about Luck is that I think he is the real deal but is likely killed by a sack behind this OL pr ;ike HOFer Steve Young or Brett Favre gets run out of town as a bust behind our OL. I think Luck is gonna have a better career overall, but Newton has a far better chance of survival and production with this team. The smart football move would be to use fitzy for the the things a vet can do and allow the rookie to become a vet before we do what we did to JP, Collins, (and even Edwards to some extent) which is to rely on them to start before they are ready and instead use the 1st rounder to build the trenches for this team. However, I am curious if we make the mistake of taking a QB whether folks think that Luck or Newton would be less of an error.

You also present a reasonable analysis and correctly identify that additional information is need to do a proper analysis. The argument about whether he would be a good complement to a #1 or could be a good #1 with a complementary good #2 strikes me as a debate which is 5.9 of one or 6.1 of the other. Sure there is a difference but the difference is a pretty marginal one. It strikes me that the difference in how productive Evans turns out to be in his career when one looks back on it obviously has as its basis how talented an athlete he is, but my sense is that good coaching, good planning, and quality teammates must make some difference, When assessing Evans and looking for an explanation of why he is good but not great, I think it is pretty hard to deny that: 1. The offense he has played within has been developed for the most part by some pretty unproductive OCs. 2. Though the last two years have seen some notable talent and production by his peers he really has had miscast players due to their age or talent (Price, Josh Reed) as his compliments. 3. The game playcalling under Jauron has mostly been about emphasizing the D to keep things close and rarely has been an attacking offense in terms of the playcalling. It is within this light that one should assess the competitive with virtually all Bills receivers career #s produced. Given all the negatives he has worked with (unless you want to argue that game planning, play calling, or teammates are irrelevant- they do not dictate who is a great player but they are not irrelevant) I think it is simply a reasonable guess that the problem her is not that Evans is a below average player over the middle or in traffic (if he were he likely would be out of town or out of the league by now as a one-D player in a bad offense is pretty easily eliminated and never could be the #3 producer in many career Bill categories.

It is in these measures that I think Evans actually has better skills than he has demonstrated fully in the real world because for the most part he has played in Bills Noffenses which were so badly designed and implemented that it made sense to fire the OC Schonert on the verge of the season beginning. I think one of the most impressive things we have seen from Chan Gailey in comparison to the sophomorics shown under Turk/AVP ( a good guy but being elevated in mid-stream showed his failings as a nascent OC), Kragthorpe (so bad he got canned with time left on his contract), etc) is that finely with Gailey this year we are seeing what an entire O and pass game can produced when one intelligently uses the strengths and minimized the weaknesses pf players (and no one including Evans is perfect). My estimation from watching too much football in general and way too much Bills football specifically is that: 1. You are correct that Evans is a great fly pattern specialist (in fact his record of more 70+ TD receptions than any other player over the last 5 or 6 years is an objective indicator of how good he is at this skill. 2. However, I do not think your complaints of him being less than average going over the middle are not supported by objective info. Evans has not only been outstanding league wide in long TD, but the simple fact is that career wise he is pretty much third on the list of all time Bills receivers in receptions and yardage gained. Yes, in part this is due to his fly pattern success, but this also demonstrates and ability to catch shorter passes as he has racked up reception amounts which allow him to compare favorably on objective measures with the likes of Andre Reed, Dubenion and the rest. Even better for Evans he has racked up his totals over a career which almost certainly will see him in the league for a long time and at least a couple of more years as the feature receiver for the Bills. The simple objective fact is that he collects catches, produces yards and scores TD that place him at the highest level of objective achievements by Bills WRs. 3. On the subjective side, it is true that Evans can be stopped and rendered essentially a non factor in specific games. However, the cost for stopping him can be quite huge for an opponent and can end up with the Bills exploiting weaknesses the opponent chooses to create in exchange for shutting down Evans. We have seen that big time this year in the success experienced by Stevie Johnson scoring TDs as he destroys the single coverage left for him to face as opponents shut down Evans by dting him over and under or slant the coverage his way. The simple fact is that if Evans were as below average as you state going over the middle and on short passes then the obvious coverage is to have a CB stay deep on him and cut off the fly patterns and simply count on the "below" average Evans you claim exists to simply blow short and over the middle passes. This simply is not the case. Evans is already third on the list of career Bills receptions because far from below average he needs to be covered underneath or his RAC ability forces one player to tackle him or see him peel off one of his 70+ yards TDs which he has simply led the NFL in producing the last several years. Evans is no Jerry Rice. He can be stopped. However, we Bills fans have seen actual below average play by WRs in short patterns or over the middle such as Josh Reed simply dropping passes consistently his sophomore year or the recent (it is hoped to be simple episodes) of Stevie Johnson simply dropping a game winning TD against Pitts and a few too many drops last week. Evans does make a failed play over the middle from time to time, but he has been no where near the below average consistent play Reed showed in his second season. The facts simply are that Evans is already among the career leaders in catches by a Bill and this objective showing would likely not be there if Evans were as below average as you claim. Evans has never produced like the perrenial Pro Bowler we want, but this seems more attributal to ur #2 WRs being folks like a getting too old Peerless, a recalcitrant Moulds, or the total failure of the Jauron led Bills to make use of the talents of Evans and likely HOF player Owens. There is a problem here in a lack of production, but based on objective evidence the problems seems to be more of one with the Bills play planning than Evans abilities.

There should be some reasonable middle-ground of agreement here. John is correct that Pro Bowl recognition is far from a perfect indicator of the highest level performance by a player (for example witness Ruben Brown continually being awarded Pro Bowl status for umpty ump years in a row without seeming regard to the fact we Bills fan know that his performance varied between great Guard work and very troubled Guard work during that time. His Pro Bowl recognition simply did not accurately reflect his performance each year). However, it would be outlandish for someone to claim that the Pro Bowl honors racked up by Ruben were meaningless completely due to these individual year errors. My estimation (and feel free to educate with facts to indicate my estimation is wrong in toto) is that: 1. Ruben really had an outstanding career overall for the Bills and his solid record of quality play year in and year out anchoring the Bills OL is reasonably noted and reflected in his record of Pro Bowl acknowledgment. Individual years are certainly arguable but overall the Pro Bowl honors were a pretty good indicator of his performance and contributions as a player. 2. Though there were individual years the Pro Bowl honor did not seem merited by his performance in general this seemed to be an effect that there were few or no other Guards who performed so well that it clearly merited choosing them over choosing him virtually any one year and never when you look at total or consistent performance each year. 3. The Pro Bowl is NOT a completely accurate indicator of performance in any one given year. However, this popularity contest due to the diverse nature of voters whose views should not be ignored (the coaches know stuff and see lots of stuff we do not see- they do not see or analyze everyone but they should not be completely ignored, just not given total responsibility for choosing with any expectation of accuracy- the players know things about how their peers perform and who they fear to face in a big way that cannot be totally ignored, again it is not perfect as no players sees everyone and popularity factors in, but this should not be ignored- likewise fan sentiment is subject to gross inaccuracy and front running publicity, but ultimately the game is about entertaining the fans and as this survey is really one of huge sample size it should not be ignored completely. Overall is the Pro Bowl an accurate indicator of play quality in a given year. For many case yes but for all cases no. However, even if not a perfect indicator is it a far better measure than most others of a gross (or contractually more significant measure of performance? YES. The Pro Bowl is not a perfect measure of good play in a given year but it is one of the better measures we have of solid performance over a career.

Many thanks for focusing on some factual information in this debate. I do not have time to look exhaustively now but my first reaction to this list of very impressive performers is that the key for the Bills is not simply whether they were drafted in the 1st, but is how were they acquired by the team they are a franchise (or simply better than Fitz). Offhand looking at this impressive list you were nice enough to give to us that many of these QBs drafted in the first round were actually acquired through other means than the draft. The key for the Bills ls likely not to draft Luck but to let him learn the game and get run out of the town he is drafted by and then pick him in FA or a trade. Historically, this is how HOFer Steve Young and future HOFer Brett Favre were acquired. More recently a Drew Brees flamed out in his first start but then NO picked him up as an FA. I agree with you that the Bills need QB talent capable of being a 1st round draftee. However, until the recent wins by P Manning and RoboQB one has to go back to Dallas taking Aikman at the end of the 80s to find drafting a 1st round QB to be the road to an SB win. If one can identify a player who will make the difference for you then trade on draft day for an Eli but simply drafting Luck is likely a poor winning strategy for the Bills as this team is not like Pitts when they got RoboQB and one player away and not like Indy who had invested successfully in their OL and he had a lightening release that made picking him a good winning strategy. Picking the elites available in the 2011 draft simply looks like a losing strategy for the Bills even if Luck is as good as he is supposed to be.

I think many fans do ask the question you pose. However, they see the BEST answer at getting to a top 5 QB as not being a draft pick of Harrington, Leaf, Smith, etc, The actual fact is that the Bills and 31 other teams made the complete error of passing on Brady 6 or so times rather than not trading up to pick Harrington over Mike Williams.

It was the owners and not the players who are swallowing the golden spoon as it was the owners who exercised the reopener on a CBA which delivered a record amount of $ compared to the old operating agreement between the owners and players, If we are gonna cast aspersions at least we shou;d be accurate about which side is upsetting the applecart that has brought all parties far more $ than the old deal.