AKC

I'm of the thinking that at least in Goodell's mind, he's stuck balancing the league damage to the effectiveness of any additional penalties to the Pats*, and by his measure any further action creates far more damage to the league than the effect it will have on cheating. I hate to agree with him, but it's a reasonable conclusion. If he speaks of the importance of Walsh now uncovering the Offensive signal taping and the further Pats* violations at other elements of the game, it becomes more and more clear that the Patriot's* cheating has probably been worth 2 scores per game to them. And with their cheating worth a minimum of 10 points per game on average, there is the inconvenient little fact that the Pats* don't win any of their Super Bowls, in fact they don't even play in any of those games, if they don't have that 2 score cushion. Goodell just can't find any way to effectively penalize the Patriots* without creating the bigger problem of being left with three unawarded Super Bowls.

The balance of teams in the AFC East should be invited to provide a spotter for all Pat's* practices during the 2008 and 2009 seasons to encourage Belichick* to end this heinous violation of league rules.

Intelligent people are always looking to learn. You on the other hand show an incredible resistance to it. Hang out with the tiny coterie of peanut-brains who are attracted to your mindless posts and continue to hide when you make an incredibly foolish prediction like your giant "WR bonanza" in the first round of the 2008 draft. 80% of the posters on this board are far more intelligent than you, and that fact alone makes your drivel tolerable from the sheer entertainment it offers. It makes your huge body of intellgence insults towards TSW posters that much more precious ;-)

I performed a study of the positional drafting of the past 5 seasons Super Bowl Teams versus the Bills in order to see if there were clear patterns that differentiated the Bills from the draft strategy's of the best teams. WRamius couldn't process the fact that the best teams place a much higher priority at the top of the draft on defensive players and specifically DL when compared to the Bills. This didn't fit all his pre-draft insistence on a WR at 11, which I tried to explain to him was not a good football move in the 2008 draft. Instead of considering the evidence done with a weighting for where the each position is actually taken (the only way to get information of value in assessing segments of the draft), WRamius somehow drifted off to making demands about the whole NFL or the Chiefs, etc. The Chiefs have been in the playoffs three times since the Bills have last appeared, but he somehow finds the need to positions them as some kind of bad example. I didn't include them in my study because I simply don't care what mistakes they do or don't make- I wanted to see how the Bills differ against the best teams in the league. My study shows that. If you recognized before the draft that there was overwhelming evidence that no WR was going to be taken in the top of the draft- at least not by any good football organization, you might further clarify that trend by looking at my study. On the other hand, if you cornered yourself like WRamius did before the draft on how great an idea a #11 WR would be, you have to try to find some innocuous way to cover up your embarrassment. I don't know whether you were screaming like he was for a #11 WR, but if you'd like to see some of the evidence showing the best teams shying away from WRs at the top, take a look at my study. If you got caught up in bad judgment like WRamius, maybe some foolishness like his rating the first 99 picks as pick of "great expected value" and pick 100 on of little or no value, mine won't be of any interest to you.

I sat through a full month of you whining about the Bills taking a WR at the 11 spot. I pointed out that only a bad team in the 2008 draft would take a WR that high, and you whinnied on about how the Bills had to draft a WR for need. Now you try to hide your inability to grasp how the better teams approach the draft with another "reach"- your nonsense about 2nd round WRs. But it just doesn't pass the stink test: On April 23rd you were still advocating wasting the 11 pick in the draft on a WR: "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 The league drafted consistent with the good evidence I provided and not one team followed your naive insistence on wasting their first round pick on a WR. Some people might learn something after being so publicly proven wrong about the top of the draft, but your history of attacking other posters intelligence doesn't allow you to simply learn from your very public mistake- it forces you into an indefensible position. Now you bring in a nonsense "study" that is so flawed in it's methodology that it tells none of us anything- but it is consistent with your desire not to learn about the workings of the NFL but to simpy increase your post total with drivel and nonsense. I guess if you considered the fishing trip in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest a "good discussion" ;-)

I'm waiting for that long list of first-round WRs you insisted we'd see taken off the board in the 2008 draft- Feel free to go ahead and list them here for everyone's amusement!

What a load of drivel- two DBs drafted within 3 picks of each other and your "study" makes one as important as the first pick in the draft and the other inconsequential.

For anyone to accept your "methodology", they'd have to agree that Defensive Back DeCoud Thomas, drafted #98 at the end of the 3rd round, is "reasonably expected to be a significant contributor" to the Atlanta Falcons, whereas Defensive Back Tyvon Branch, drafted #100 at the top of the 4th round, is not expected to become any kind of contributor to the Raiders. Absolute nonsense.

Of course you're absolutely correct. The pick you make first on day one is the most critical to your team- A) It will cost you the most but offers the most likely opportunity for the greatest return. B) You remove a blue chip player who will otherwise benefit an opponent. Every ensuing pick of the day of course has value, but the more highly rated players taken in prior rounds diminish the overall impact of later picks from a strategic standpoint. Any analysis that requires a 3rd round corner to be considered of an equal impact as a 1st round corner simply fails even the most basic test of football logic.

That requires you believe Ashton Yobouty was as critical a decision for the team as Nate Clements- believe what you want; if you'd actually like to expand your understanding of the subject you should try this link- Well Researched Top Of The Draft Positional Study

With your unsupportable "average" requiring we consider the drafting of Ashton Yobouty be of the same impact as drafting Nate Clements. Try again- your hole keeps gettin' bigger! WRamius has made some argument that requires you accept the 94th pick in the draft having the same impact on any team that the 4th player taken, and it's sheer lunacy. His inability to recognize that teams making an investment in DBs with an 11 pick is going to have more impact on the team making the pick immediately and into the future versus a team making a DB selection at 84 is among the worst analysis made on TSW this year. Perhaps ever.

Excellent call. Showing WRamius attacking this study that uses a weighting by draft pick and position versus his idiotic "any DB taken in the first 3 rounds is of the same value" post offers a good contrast to how serious we should take people on this board when it comes to football issues. I'm still waiting for WRamius to provide us that list of all the 1st round WRs taken in the 2008 Draft!

What a total load of crap. You consider a CB taken with the 1st pick in the draft the same as a cornerback taken with the 90th pick. In your fantasy the Bills used 3 first round picks on DBs since 2001, including an 11th, 12th and 21st overall. Philly has used only one 1st rounder in that span, a #26, on a DB. Your argument ignores the value of the pick as it goes up the board. Philly HAS used three 1st rounders on DLinemen, but we all know what you think about drafting DLinemen in the first (Go WR! Go WR!)! You either don't understand the game of football in any meaningful way or you're full of crap- no one with a grasp of the game would try to suggest a third round corner is an any way the equal of a early 1st round corner like your poorly framed view insists.

Sounds good in a vacuum, but when you consider that he hasn't played at that level since the 2004 season, you might be wise to lower your expectations. I don't believe there's a player on the roster who will have a greater impact on our 2008 record than Stroud- if he defies all the odds by starting 12 or 13 games and playing at the level he did in 2004, we could be competitive in our division and take advantage of a weak schedule to at least be knocking on the door come the postseason. On the other hand, and if his last two season are any indication, he's likely to play in less than half our games and we'll be as bad against the run as we were last year, making us once again a below .500 football team.

"I wanted Sweed" WRamius, April 27, 2008, TSW

I'm in. For a guy like WRamius- who's made a career of calling everybody he disagrees with on this board an idiot or moron, to suggest his whining for Limas Sweed at 11 and insistence on "all the #1 quality WRs" in the draft was somehow a "correct prediction"are among the most clearly contradicted opinions ever posted on TSW- not to mention total nonsense. But it is humorous to see him exposed as a Draft know-nothing. It became pretty clear before the draft how loose a grip he had on winning draft strategy- "Picking someone at #11 when the dumbass "experts" say they shouldnt go until 17-18 isnt a "reach" WRamius, April 23, 2008

As a devoted WRetard, it's no surpise you're still unable to grasp the clear patterns of drafting done by good ball clubs versus bad. Maybe the Bonehead Post of the Year so far on TSW: "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, April 24th, 2008

Hey GGG- great to meet you- a wise and studied crowd no doubt, sorry you missed the "After" party. We'll get you some photos of it ;-) CU during the season. Oddly, we didn't have to remove anyone for cheering a WR pick at 11- or 15- or even 31! The crowd was universally in tune with the fact that only someone who ignored all the evidence offered on TSW before the draft would insist on taking a WR at 11 in 2008.

And made ourselves contenders immediately. Instead we drafted "skill" players early at a much higher priority than the best teams do, and sat under .500. In 2008 if Marcus Stroud has a season like his last 2, we'll once again be a league laughingstock against the run and all the freaking skill players we "had to have" will be rendered moot by their lack of time on the field.

It's popularly accepted that acknowledgement is the first step towards recovery. Good luck along the way.

Mayock is as good as you get on the media side- but many of the mocks still showed that clearly the class of WRs was poor this year at the top. It was hardly a secret that it would have been throwing a pick away to draft a WR at 11, but the record of those who were "insisting" on it as a "need" pick on this board is comprehensive. It's typical- the most reasonable voices drowned out by the hysterical.

Across the board, 2008 Mock Drafts proved no more reliable than 50% of know-nothings on this board insisting on a WR with our first pick. On the other hand, teams did a whole heck-of-a-lot better than media/fans because they pay attention to things like the track record of positions, the draft strategy of opponents, etc. Not a single NFL team was stupid enough to draft a 2nd round quality WR with their first pick. The nearly total disconnect between the idiots who write up mock drafts and the not-so-confusing draft day actions of the best organizations in the league offer some easy rules to follow. Among those is to pull the lever if you have quality at TE on your draft board at the top of the draft. There's other rules- like the 20% differential of the best teams that favors drafting Defense over Offense in the first two rounds. Much of this is easy enough to see, but apparently the mock draft folks are as inept as casual fans in putting 2+2 together when it comes to the way a good organization handles themselves on day one and beyond.

A top TE from the draft is definitely one point of separation between us and the best teams in the league. The problem with opening the subject now is that the same idiots who demanded pre-draft this year that we reach for a WR with the 11 pick will be on some other bonehead bandwagon because they simply can't grasp the clear patterns the best teams use to get to and stay on top.

Preseason "Power Rankings" carry all the relevance of the idiotic "mock drafts" that had us taking a WR with the 11th pick.

Not too big a problem for 70% of their "base"- the bandwagon. That seems to include 80% of our *s Trolls here like HollyweirdDonahoe who bought his first *s gear in 2003. Oddly, there's some evidence he might have been a Giant's fan last time around ;-)