AKC

I'm sure that is a toungue in cheek response, but the basis is the difference in schemes and offensive sets used on average per down.

My original post used numbers regarding DTs versus CBs or WRs. You've tried to accomodate your opinion by combining WRs and DBs to make them a single quantification, which as I've pointed out makes no sense to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the game. Let me once more show you how your combining WRs and DBs as some block versus DL is bad math- An NFL defense averages using 3.5 Defensive linemen on any defensive play. An NFL defense averages using 4.3 DBs on any defensive play. An NFL offense averages using 2.75 WRs on any offensive play. Your bad math of combining the WRs and DBs when the original post in no way supports that means that you are now comparing the weight of 3.5 players on the field per respective (in this case defensive) play against a combined weight of 7.05 players on the field per respective play in team needs for the combination of WRs and DBs. You've fabricated the equation based upon your desire to support your argument, but even then the facts are not in your favor. You've added WRs and DBs to come out with a "combo" number. We know that the "combo" provides virtually twice the number of players on the field at any one time versus the DL number, but let's give your bad math a run to see how it works: We've been using the post 2000 draft picks. You've selected the first round, my original study was of the top 15 picks since we're drafting in the top half of the draft this year. But we'll use your equation instead of mine. The bottom teams: Buffalo 3 "combo" players and 1 DL Detroit 4 "combo" players and 0 DL Arizona 3 "combo" and 1 DL Raiders 5 combo and 0 DL Those are bottom feeders- bad teams with bad drafting patterns and most important, bad results. This is using your equation, not mine. How about the Super Bowl teams? Pats* 3 DL and 1 "combo" player Giants 2 DL 2 "combo" players Chicago 2 DL and 1 combo Philly 3 DL and 1 combo You are using bad math when you try to somehow claim the Giants drafting of 2 DL versus 2 combo players supports your argument (tie)- the reality is that the Giants as a 4-3 team will be using twice as many of your "combo" players on offense and defense than they will DL, meaning that they drafted twice as many DL players versus "combo" players when weighted for the total players on the field for their respective specialties. This doesn't seem that difficult to understand- if you're still struggling with it tell me what it is you don't get about the combination of DBs and WRs having double the numbers on average playing for a team in their offenses on the field at any time. Indy is an acknowledged exception with 3 combo and 1 DL, but their strength of offense is also an accepted exception to the NFL rule- occasionally a better offensive team wins a Super Bowl, but far more often it's the best defensive teams in the hunt every year. Pittsburgh has 2 combo and 1 DL, but playing in a 3-4, even that is weighted towards the DLine since they would use more than twice the combo players on the field as DL on their respective plays. So I don't know how you are coming up with those false "good teams/bad teams" statements- clearly the bad teams above have focused on the "combo" players while the Super Bowl teams above have put a higher premium on drafting DL. Again, I used DT versus either WR or CB, which has even more significant numbers, but using your misinterpetration of DL versus "combo" numbers, the equity used on DL among the better teams is still far higher among the better teams. Bottom line is we're a bad team for good reason- we don't draft like the good teams; vey specifically, our drafts look more like the Lions or Raiders drafts when it comes to "combo" versus DL players.

C'mon now Dibs- I'm surprised I have to point this out to you. An NFL team starts 6 or 7 WR/DBs every game. Some teams you're pointing to only start 3 DLinemen. The math has to do with the equity stake the better teams put on the positions from a "player on the field/total draft equity for rostered players at teh position" standpoint. Dave is among those who understand that substantially more draft equity is going into the line positions on Defense at the top of the draft for those better teams than at WR/DB- you should be a little leery of jumping into the argument with Steely Dan who says that the Titans drafting offers us nothing to learn because during the span since they played in the Super Bowl and have appeared 3 additional times in the playoffs, they also had a 3 win season. Oh to trade our 0-7 record of playoff appearances over that span for a Super Bowl and 3 other playoff trips!

I guess that would make them the very first "above average” in league history who were: Dead last in yards allowed. Dead last in 3rd downs allowed. Next to last in sacks per pass play faced. Next to last in sack yardage. The good news might be that they were 4th in total tackles- putting them in the same company as Detroit, the Jets and the 49ers.

My first memory of him is going coast to coast on a KR.

Based upon the quality/depth relationship I've been exploring among the rest of the league, I see our interior D rotation right now in the bottom 10 of the NFL. The unknowns on both of our starters just can't be projected to be "premium" in either case when all indications are that neither of them in 2008 will be an elite DT in the NFL. We play against teams with 2-3 elite DTs, and we are likely to recognize somewhere about week 5 that we don't have even 1. Maybe I'm a pessimist. We definitely disagree here. I believe any team with the 31st ranked defense in the league will not get better as a team until that fatal NFL flaw is addressed. All the WR/TE/RB/QBs available in the first round of any draft will make no effective difference until the defense is addressed. Adding one former Pro Bowler to our DLine who missed half his teams snaps in 2007 and 30% of his team's snaps the year before doesn't offer me the level of confidence you are drawing from the same aquisition. I don't think I'll get much disagreement from anyone objective that on the average, most draft analysts have the best WR in the draft at about 18-22. And in many of those the top WR in their analysis is not a greater than 6 foot prospect. There's the phenomenon that also drives analysts to put a position player up higher where his position is actually thin at the top of the draft, basically "I can't submit this Top 50 players list without a ____" in the first round. So there's the likelihood that most NFL teams have WRs this year starting no higher than we'll say 18th. Now let's look at the blessing of an 11 pick. What's great about the pick is that almost surely there will be a player we picked in the top 5 overall who is still there when we get to 11. Now it might be that that player is an Olineman or DE, etc.- but the chances are probably better than not that the Bills will have the option at the 11 spot to grab someone who didn't fit the first 10 teams or was graded higher by us. An overall top 5 pick according to our Board. And if the decision is between an overall top 5 pick, and a WR we likely have at least 17 guys in front of, it seems like the use of the resources are so much more beneficial in the long run to take the best player in most cases that the chances of a WR being taken in this scenario by a well managed football team are virtually nil. I don't find your conclusion that drafting a WR might not be "the end of the world" to be unreasonable. I also don't think it's unreasonable to reach the conclusion that taking a WR at 11 might, on the other hand, turn out to be another of the types of personnel blunders that helps to keep a bad team on the bottom.

OK, switch it up: It's the 11 pick and you're up. Still available is a player the Bill's had as #2 overall in the draft, an OLineman. That OLineman is 17 players better on the Bill's draft board than the highest rated WR at 19. Your selection?

Most Draft analysts don't show a WR in their "Top Player" list until about pick 20 this year. If you'd prefer to answer the question using #20 as the position on our draftboard of the first WR, feel free to offer your selection.

Yes Dave, my proposition has been that most of the better teams in the league have used early high picks to build a strong DLine. The teams with the high priority at the position include many of the recent Super Bowl teams- Giants, Pats*, Bears, Philly, Carolina, Ravens. Even a 3-4 D like Pitt has a high priority on quality and depth on their DL. Whan you look at the other side of the coin, the bottom feeding teams like the Bills and the Lions, there is less high draft equity spent on the DLine than among the above. And you're right, a team that's built a strong DLine like the Pats* have the luxury of going out and selecting other positions today because they've used all that early draft equity (3 first round DTs), and in their rotation of 6 DLinemen who play in their interior they set a measure IMO for how to approach building a strong team. None of this means a team should reach for DL- just like I wouldn't support reaching for a WR early in this draft. I think reaching for need is one of the things that keeps the bad teams bad. There's more than one way to build a football team. There's the way the Lions and Bills do it and the way the Giants and Pats* do it. I'd like the Bills to start paying attention to the way the better teams do it versus approaching it like the bad teams. One of the common threads among the good teams is building a quality and depth at DT. You've pitched our current DT rotation as both, I believe it's not yet either.

So in your opinion there's nothing to be gained by considering the way a franchise that has been in the playoffs 3 of the past 7 years got there? You'll have to excuse me if I disregard every position you ever take on this board that pertains to the game of football.

The Tennessee Titans have been to the Playoffs 3 times since the Bills last went, and have had one of the league's top Defenses for that whole period. But if I understand your idiotic position, that's not a sign that they've been drafting better than us !?!?!? You are either completely dishonest or you missed the little bus that picks you up for school.

Let me just make sure- Brandon, you're on board with ignoring our draft board even if it shows we're pushing aside 16 better football players to take a Wide Receiver at 11; your belief is that would be the best thing for the Buffalo Bills in 2008?

You sir, may be the most honest among the very exclusive membership of the Wild Receivers Club.

USA Today has had a large draft contingent for many years. This year, their first WR over 6 foot is rated #22 on their Board. That is in line with many other services. Why would it be "loaded" to imagine our draft board might not have the first big WR at 27? Or if we change the poll to show the WR at 22- do you really think the results are going to magically change to fans reaching for a #22 player with the #11 pick?

Play the GM game in this hypothetical situation- or maybe not so hypothetical if most of the Draft Services are to be believed. Or if you have another option considering you must pick at 11 and you can't edit the Draft Board.

I'd be interested in your handling of the following scenario also: You're running the Bill's War Room and the 11 pick stays in our hands without any trade-down. It's our turn to pick but our draft board has 16 other players in front of the first WR on our board who's available. Do we take a WR we clearly have judged we are reaching for because of our need, pay him money we have already determined is far too much for his talent level, and pass on the 16 other players at other positions we have rated much higher?

What's the biggest reason for the drop in yards (40%) and catches (20%) in Carlson's Senior campaign versus Junior? My question about Nelson is really limited to whether he'll be on the field in our regular offense much in 2008- do you think he can put Reed on the bench? Give me some insight into how you would handle this scenario: You're running the Bill's War Room and the 11 pick stays in our hands without any trade-down. It's our turn to pick but our draft board has 16 other players in front of the first WR on our board who's available. Do we take a WR we clearly have judged we are reaching for because of our need, pay him money we have already determined is far too much for his talent level, and pass on the 16 other players at other positions we have rated much higher?

Carlson looked bad running at Indy, although I understand he had a later workout and improved in that bad 40 time with the claim he'd had the flu in Indy- Is he really ready to come in and block effectively at the NFL level? If he's as good a blocker as reputed, it seems likely he could get productive time on the field in 2008. On WR Jordy- does he have any realistic chance of pushing Josh Reed to the bench over the course of the season, or would he simply be a project playing in extra wideout sets?

Au Contraire. My position has never shifted- until the Buffalo Bills have a complete rotation at DT, we'll be a team opponents look forward to beating up on Sundays. It's predicted there won't be a top 11 DT available when we pick, so it would be idiotic to reach for a DT we've got rated #30 at the 11 spot. Just as it would be idiotic to draft a WR we've rated #30 at the 11 pick. The posters worming around trying to misrepresent my clearly stated position are those who are insisting that we are best served taking any WR, no matter of his true upside, at the 11 pick. I'm looking back at some of these "valid claims" you bring up, gems like "Tennessee's strategy of drafting has had no better results than the Bill's". I'm sure it's discouraging for you to be left on that side of the discussion, finding yourself aligned with such nonsense. As to not having the discussion open to the difference between taking a WR or DT at the 11 pick, I've clearly in the record said that among the vast pool of draft analysts, the consensus is that the best bet at WR is probably no better than about the 20th player in the draft. I've invited you to produce draft experts who claim there's a top 11 WR- and I see no offering from you. Now the math here is a little too easy- if the best WR is a 20, and we're drafting 11th, it doesn't take an MIT grad to figure this one out. We should NOT make a major reach like that- it's the sign of a bad team versus a good and disciplined front office.

I've fully acknowledged what we've been doing. I've given the team credit for moving in the right direction. I've also gone on to point out how woefully inadequate the current actions are compared to the best teams in the league. You'll waste a lot of your time trying to find any post where I've suggested: "The ONLY way a team can be good is to draft DTs high regularly and stock up on as many as possible even if other areas are in great need." I realize Ramius has oversimplified it again and again that way so you may be adopting that from his posts, but you won't find it in any of mine. I have steadfastly held that a common trait of most of the best teams in the league is a far higher equity stake in the DL, and especially DT, versus the bottom-feeders like Detroit and Buffalo. And the numbers prove that to be true.

Not to mention he'd been working up a business plan to put an authentic Mexican Restaurant in downtown Buffalo based upon a favorite of his from his childhood neighborhood.

Teams with a solid DT rotations with both quality and depth are in a position to look to other positions in the draft. Contrary to your obvious opinion, let me tell you right now that we don't have a solid rotation of DTs. My clear and alliterated observation is that a MAJOR COMPONENT OF SUCCESSFUL FRANCHISES is the use of early draft equity on DL, and specifically DT. You have tried to morph that into some imbecile statement like THE ONLY WAY TO SUCCEED IS TO DRAFT ONLY DEFENSIVE TACKLES but that's simply not being honest. I understand you believe the Bills get better by getting one of the best receivers available in the upcoming draft. I don't argue that the Bills don't need help at WR nor doubt that the Bills might get better by drafting the right receiver in the upcoming draft; I just don't believe the receiver that makes us better will be one available at the #11 pick. I think THAT receiver, if we make that mistake, will continue to cripple the Bills and keep us a bottom-feeding team. Well Dibs- that's EXACTLY what I've been saying for 3 years on this board. We're now close enough to do something to correct it. We'll see what happens. On a side note- I still don't understand you and Steely Dan insisting that the work of the Titans front office should be disregarded as some model of inteptitude akin to our own? That's exactly the kind of failure to recognize what's being done right around the league that I just astounding anyone could miss. Do the other 509 of your posts offer the same depth of football aptitude and observation as this one?

OK, let's break it down. I've made the very specific charge that the Buffalo Bills have spent so much less draft equity on DTs versus the better teams in the league that it is keeping us a bottom-feeder, or if you prefer, the #31 defense in the NFL. During the discourse, I cite the Titans as a team who have made a major commitment to DTs in their draft strategy. Steely Dan decides to challenge the Titans as a good example by bringing up their record, failing of course to point out that while it's been a long time since the Titans knocked us out of our last playoff game and went on to the Super Bowl, they've returned to postseason play regularly while we've been spending more early draft equity on WRs than any other position. Is there some part of the above that isn't clear? His obvious contention is that the Titans aren't really any better than the Bills, and that's laughable. It's the whole problem of all the WR obsessed bunch in nutshell. The Titans are competitive, and part of that success is due to their insistance on having a premium DT rotation.

You shouldn't make this so easy ;-)

When we've got someone in here trying to sneak by us their notion that the Bill's draft strategy of the past decade has been more successful than the Titan's, it's hard to imagine any discussion with them being represented as "arguing".