AKC
-
Posts
2,159 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by AKC
-
-
There isn't a league rule, but the Packers could include a clause prohibiting it in the legalese of any potential trade.
I'd guess that it would be dependent upon whether the state in which the "interim" team was located had any employment law restrictions on "non-compete" types of clauses.
My understanding of the law here in California is that a clause that didn't allow Favre to be shopped to any other team would be invalid and his new "employer" would be free to send him where they wished. That wouldn't necessarily keep Green Bay from filing and possibly even winning a judgment against the CA team for violating the original deal, but all the same Green Bay would be able to do nothing to stop Favre from signing on in Minnesota.
-
I guess that pretty much says it all, considering I think Jerry Jones is probably the worst thing to have happened to pro football...well, ever. Certainly, at least since Pat Bowlen.
The fellatio he performs on Robert Kraft* is even worse than the Jerry Jones lick-off.
God forbid we had an owner like either of 'em. Kraft, Jones and any of 20 other owners would have packed us up and left Buff long ago.
-
2. Dallas Cowboys – Jerry Jones (Stephen Jones): Given what the Joneses are in the process of accomplishing in Texas – building the greatest stadium since the Roman Colosseum – it’s difficult not ranking them No. 1. A fourth Super Bowl ring in two decades of ownership might put them over the top, and with all the talent they’re hording on the Cowboys’ current roster, they just may get one come February.
I'll have to guess he had a little better support staff over at SI who would cover for his difficulty with our language.
-
That would suck having an all pro TE on this Buffalo Bills team this year. We will be all set with Derek Fine.
Thanks for the pick-me-up!
-
New Orleans is probably the kind of town he'll enjoy.
It is the kind of place where his shenanigans won't necessarily be a problem, but the lifestyle might also over time consume a kid with his addictive personality. It's a town where much is overlooked and forgiven, but it also has a much deeper dark side than any other U.S. city hosting an NFL team.
Out of the chute, at least for this season, I think Lori has it exactly right. When you give the best QB in the game a dangerous TE to hang on his weapon belt, you're only looking to your defense to play you into contention. They were at 13 against the run last year and added the big key to improve their pass defense; the best interior rusher in the 2008 draft. In addition they took a top CB with their 2nd pick. They deserve to be confident about their prospects in their division.
-
AKC,
Based on that do you think that Stroud will be paird up with Williams or McCargo?
Williams just doesn't look like a 3. He's (up to this time) too small to be a 0 but he fills the 1 role well in the second wave. My best guess is that they think they're playing a positive Depth Chart head game right now with McCargo to charge him up to "gain" the starting spot opposite MS. So the answer to the question is that I figure the opening day starters will be Stroud and McCargo, and the staff knows it but they're hoping JM earns it versus it being given to him. The trick to a traditional Cover 2 line with two 3 technique players is leaving the offense at 2nd and 12, a tough change-of-pagce for most West Coast style offenses who are designed to chip for 4 yards and take any surplus.
And I have to say that I think we play the worst D for Kyle William's skillset- in some ways it's a shame he signed on with us for so long because in a traditional 4-3 with gap responsibilities he'd be playing a lot more downs in another team's defense. He's more of an asset than many creidt him for- but there are some big handicaps with the D the way we've been playing it up to this time. Maybe there'll be some wrinkles this year that let him drill the other line- and that would change the whole way we play D-Ball. This kid has one of the best low games I've seen in our uni and he just hasn't been allowed to use that; in fact he's been discouraged in the way we've played the scheme so far.
-
Just a question AKC but what's your opinion of M. Stroud? Will he help to solidfy the center of the DL and allow McCargo to rome free in the opposing backfield?
On Rome, one thing I can say is that it's the first place I ever saw a vending machine selling nightcrawlers, and I have to admit I was impressed. Not that with a flashlight and little rain that would be necessary but....
On Stroud- we will hope that he somehow finds some of the magic of his best season in 2003. The consistent decline in his performance though makes it very difficult to be logically optimistic- the bottom line is that the front office was very aware we were possibly the worst interior in football against the run last year. Without any ideal options, they selected bringing in a declining player who never took the primary run stopping role on the Jags after John Henderson arrived in Stroud's second season- a job held down very effectively by John Henderson. Stroud was an effective 3 technique DT as recently as 2004, but 2008 is a long way away. The questions are whether we will play him as a 3 or insist he revert back to the 0/1 technique role of his rookie year, (when he had no sacks) where the Jags were using Seth Payne and Renaldo Wynn part-time as the 3 technique Under Tackle in their scheme. To be fair to Stroud, he did a very good job playing the NT that year, but the Jags wanted to upsize and drafted Henderson to play the stopper and give Marcus a chance to bust gaps.
Will it work in Buffalo? Part of it is how he's utilized, and maybe just as big a factor will be how much he's forced to play. If we end up with Marcus Stroud playing 2/3rds of of our defensive downs, I believe we're going to suffer as a team and as fans. If we can limit him to maybe 55% of our defensive downs, it will mean he's getting the job done on running downs and we're able to put players like Spencer Johnson out there to give him the time on the bench he'll need to last the season.
-
No, I wouldn't, because I am only a Bills fan and get ill at the thought of rooting for anyone else. Without the laundry, and the connection to home, it's just millionaire genetic mutations in Halloween costumes. ;-)
Fair enough on McCargo, but didn't you say earlier that you did NOT advocate big fat run-pluggers? I can't keep up....
Nope, never said I didn't advocate big fat run stoppers. According the scheme you play in the NFL today, you might require one. What I do believe, and have made reference to it in this thread, is that to be effective against short passing games you need guys who can split the gaps when the time comes to rush the passer, which is the handicap of the big fat run stoppers. They don't have the wheels to pull it off. The key in that cae is to penetrate, not sit on your big fat heels and let the opposing QB throw without threat of you disrupting the middle lanes or hitting him in the face.
And if your reference is to Haloti Ngata being a big fat run stopper, I will tell you that he is anything but. Ngata is big but has exceptional feet, and he works the line horizontally as well as he moves upfield vertically when he intends to. He is a force for the Ravens and would be for any team he played on in this league. He's an every down run stopper because he has the ability to pressure the pocket. John McCargo has yet to establish he's even a pass rusher, let along a run stopper or every down DT. God knows we'll all celebrate if he reaches half the level of play that Ngata is already bringing on Sundays.
-
The winners, such as the juggernaut Baltimore Ravens, who were 5-11 last year and are attempting to rebuild?
All snark aside, I understand the point you are trying to make, but perhaps taking into account McCargo's injury, and the possibility that his talent is emerging might lead to a different conclusion?
I am with you re: Tommy Harris. In hindsight, probably Ngata too...I don't think there was a better way to address RB last year than Lynch though. Lynch seems pretty close to a can't miss as long as he keeps his nose clean.
Also, I think McCargo showed a ton of promise last year and was under-utilized for how well he was progressing once healthy. His style of play is perfect for this scheme.
McCargo is athletic but he plays too high. Since that won't interfere with his getting into the opponent's backfield, he should end up with some pretty stats and some Sportscenter plays during the season on passing downs. But that high center of gravity will forever hamper him against the run. He just strikes me as too much of a mixed bag, and I don't want to say a DT who doesn't hold up against the run can't become dominant in the NFL, but a DT who doesn't hold up against the run can't become dominant in the NFL- IMO. The key this season is to move our opponent to passing situations early, otherwise we'll be seeing too much gasping from Stroud/Poluszny/Whitner to bode well for the team overall. I'll guess right now that the best sign that we're getting our 1st and 2nd dwon defense in order will be seeing Johnson getting lots of the 3rd down reps. If Johnson is not getting time in the "Justin Tuck" role, I have to assume it'll be because we're seeing too many 3rd and 1 or 2.
Among the options at RB were to simply have retained McGahee. But outside of that, Jamal Lewis was cut by the Ravens and ended up signing with Cleveland, where he had a top 5 finish. Plus the McGahee trade wasn't the only one involving a high profile vet RB. Outside of kicker, RB seems to be the most universal position in the game these days, and among the easiest to simply "move the pieces" around.
RJ- as to the Ravens- I'll guess you'd take the Ravens play and results, and by adoption their approach, through the past 8 seasons over our Bills during the same period ;-)
-
you have little use for John McCargo... is that just because saying you liked him would undermine your efforts to paint the Bills as unable to address the DL?
I think John McCargo is the perfect example of our team failure to recognize the power of great talent in the middle. Remember he was the excuse given for passing up on Ngata. Ngata is now featured dominating the middle of the Baltimore Raven defense while John McCargo is hoping to finally break into our starting lineup.
There's not enough of the great talent in the defensive interior to go around. The best teams know it, and hence they make it a top priority. We end up passing over the best talent to take guys on the second tier, and that so far has not been a very effective strategy. It's time to start emulating the winners.
-
That was a completely 100% correct characterization of my position, lacking any falsehoods whatsoever.
Yap, picking the correct positions, not players, at the appropriate rounds, is what matters in the draft.Your sarcastic remark from earlier in the string identifies your opinion that "picking the right players is what's important in the draft, not picking the right positions."
I've consistently said there's plenty of evidence that both scouting grade and position are among the considerations made by the best teams before making their selection.
If you don't like your original position, now might be a good time to modify it.
-
Could the Bills have done better for themselves than Lynch and Poz last year with their first 2 picks? I'm not so sure....
There's not always a clear 1st round talent at DT when we pick, like this past season. But there was a clear 1st round DT when we passed over Tommy Harris, and there was a clear first round DT when we passed over Ngata. Either player IMO would have improved this team substantially- IMO you can't seriously say that about the players we ended up favoring. I won't hold my nose and suggest Wilfork, just because he has always been a scumbag- but he is another who would have made us a better football team on the field.
I like Poz a lot. LB is among the safest positions to get quality from at the top of the draft. As far as Lynch, there were other ways to address the RB spot last year, as there are every year. I think the truth is that unless you have a can't miss RB like McFadden this past draft, there are better ways to be competitive at the position. You can't really say that about DT. The days of behemeths playing at 400 pounds well into their 30s are being replaced- rapidly- with more young athletic big interior guys with the burst to take the short passing game away from the West Coast influenced offenses around the league. It's not the old guys busting through those gaps- it's younger guys with a great set of first steps.
-
I hold an unsubsantiated opinion
On a Message Board? How dare you!
I think I can make a very good case for the idea that some teams apply a higher premium to some positions early in the draft- The fact is that we already know, because it's been publicly acknowledged, that some of the best personnel people DISCOUNT positions like WR high in the draft because history has proven the bust rates/payoffs make other positions safer to take. So knowing that some personnel people drop the value of some positions high up in the draft, it's logical to assume there is an opposite effect on positions they deem to be lower bust/better early values.
We also know that there are more dynamics that go into the decision of that first round pick, and it's possible marquee value is one as you point out. We know again for a fact from statements made by teams that they also consider things like fit in the community, and we've seen guys who were picked specifically for their signability over other players who were rated higher.
That's plenty of evidence proving the falsehood of the "good teams draft the highest rated player regardelss of position" argument that Bluefire and a few others promote.
So knowing that teams use means of grading a pick other than "highest rated regardless of position", knowing that some good teams reduce the value of some specific positions and seeing the equity trends among the best teams differing fairly substantially from the way the Bills and Lions have been drafting, it seems like we might want to begin to pay closer attention to the trends of those better football teams with our early picks.
-
The problem, therefore, is you are acting as if the Bills decided where in the draft they were going to pick each year for seven years, and planned it out over those seven years, to make RB be 20% of the "points" they were budgeted.
In reality, drafts don't work that way. Each team has to choose what to take wear, only knowing that they have a pick somewhere in the first round the year after.
Only in your static model where the 71st pick has the same value as the 1st pick would that be true. In an equity model, a quantification of each pick allows a study by position based upon whatever each team ended up with ragardless of any of the factors that determined their position in each draft.
Lets also consider how it would have affected your total if the Bills had taken DT Ryan Sims (who was the first DT drafted) at #4 instead of Mike Williams. If you move those 61 points that you've assigned to Mike Williams over to DL, it jumps the percentage up to 20%, pretty close to that 23% magic number that you have. Yet, the Bills would be no better off, because both Mike Williams and Ryan Sims were busts.You have no way to even suggest causation - making these numbers useless.
Picking relatively few draft busts is much more important then deciding you're going to take a DT because you have a pick in the top 15 of the NFL Draft.
re no other dymnamic, no other influence, no other information used to make the pick than a monolithic "next player at X position down the board". You seem to have the capacity to recognize the concept of multiple variables influencing the final pick, and as I mentioned previously OF COURSE good scouting is part of it, and OF COURSE other intagibles are part of it, but the pattern is defined enough between the best teams who are more likely to use that high equity on DL and TE versus the bottom-feeders like Buffalo and Detroit who are RB/WR oriented. Again, the study is exploring one aspect of the decisionmaking process to see if it's possible to bring to light the types of differences that make the winners the winners and the Bills the Bills- I've never suggested as you insist that this is the "only" factor considered when our number comes up on draft day. I'm suggesting that there's enough evidence to suggest there are "premiums" attached to positions and that the winner's formula varies substantially from the losers.
Thus, having strong drafts (regardless of the positions drafted) is much more important than sticking to a positional view of the draft.I think you have to ignore way to much evidence to the contrary to adopt the "it's only scouting that every draft decision is made upon". There are multiple considerations the best front offices make when that first pick comes up- including team needs, character, signability. There are quotes from personnel guys in the NFL who talk about discounting "first round WRs", for example, to think this same type of general rule doesn't play the other way in the upgrading of other positions. There are far too many facts that must be ignored in order to settle on your simplistic "it's only good scouting" theory.
-
You said the top teams stockpile DT talent and the Bills don't. This means that they pick significantly MORE Defensive Tackles than the Buffalo Bills. Picking ONE Defensive Tackle at #1 is NOT "stockpiling" Defensive Tackles. Picking a Defensive Tackle in the second round of three consecutive drafts IS stockpiling talent.
You make a good point about my word choice there- "stockpile" is too easily associated with a numercial quantity versus a "volume" quantity, which has been my position regarding draft equity all along. I'll retract the word to clarify the discussion.
I'll limit the use of "stockpile" to situations like the Pats* use of 3 out of their last 8 #1 picks on DT. I'll assume we're in agreement that "stockpile" is the appropriate word to use in their case.
-
It's not his first season although it seems like it. Before he got hurt last year it seemed like Posluszny was in on every tackle. I'm really curious to see if he is as good as I remember him to be. Man I hope so.
One of the most promising qualities about Poz is his ability to absorb a mistake and stay clear of making it again. You can see it on film where he gets dusted, comes back and the next time the play is run at him he blows it up. The kid stays healthy and our DL doesn't get him killed, he could become a very, very good football player.
-
Don't forget spending 17.5M on a DL tweener in Spencer Johnson.
That's been one of the great mysteries of this off-season- all the talk in the media about the Bills DLine gaining size, and some in our fan base insisting we're going to be better against the run? I'm having a hard time seeing how Spencer Johnson at 275 pounds is going to help out our interior run defense, among the worst in the NFL not that many months ago.
-
Oh yeah, it makes total sense to weight the picks when you're talking about stockpiling DTs.
After all, if your team spends the 7th pick in the draft at the Defensive Tackle position, you get more Defensive Tackles than if your team spends the 22nd overall pick in the draft on a Defensive Tackle.
Here's the problem with simply "adding up" draft picks. In your unweighted system, the Bills can draft 3 DL with the 60th pick in three drafts, and you consider that to be three times more valuable than picking a DL once with the first pick in the draft. Consequently, your results are not simply misleading, they're false. We know a pick at 12 is more critical than a pick at 46, among the reasons being the money that the team must commit to the earlier pick.
I'm looking at this from the standpoint of how much total equity each Super Bowl team individually have in the draft compared to the Bills, and then positionally how that equity was spent. This allows a quantification of the importance each team places at each position. You might honestly argue that you want to see the methodology of mine expanded, but you can't make any intellectually honest argument that the unweighted sum you've arrived at gives any evidence of how teams are approaching the draft positionally from their highest pick on down the board.
-
Kinda blows that theory out of the water, doesn't it?
My study quantifies an equity for each pick, with the first pick in the draft being worth more than the second, and so on. Anyone honestly considering the subject would agree that this approach is necessary to consider equity. Your premise is, with all due respect, idiotic if trying to determine the equity of picks and hence their importance. You have the 46th pick in the draft being of an equal value to the 1st pick, and that is not only unrealistic, it's virtually useless. If you want to honestly talk about draft pick equity, you must offer some form of quantification. I've done that, and in the most logical way. Let's see your system.
-
Sorry, but while your analysis may convince you I don't find it incredibly persuasive. There is far too much left out and I think your desired results are influencing what you decide to look at. It's simply not enough to look at the top teams and say they did X, therefore X led to their success. The bottom-feeders are relevant too, because if they do the same things as the top teams it pretty much shoots down the whole theory.
For the record, I've been hoping the Bills would invest more resources in the OL and DL for a while now. But I think there are a lot of problems with how you're choosing to argue this if you want to set up a statistical analysis.
In and of itself, the fact that some clear difference between our actions positonally at the top of the draft versus the best teams in the game might simply be discounted as consequential, but that evidence is just the beginning.
I see premium quality DTs being passed in the draft by the Bills to take other positions. Haloti Ngata passed by in favor of a Safety? I have to say I find that fundamentally an error in the overall strategy of Buffalo.
That's a little difficult to ignore.
Do you think we'd be a different team today if instead of taking Lee Evans in 2004, we had selected Tommie Harris? We ended up STARTING Justin Bannon. We had the need- Harris was rated one of the best players in that draft- and we ended up with Lee Evans. It's hard to imagine we couldn't have waited another turn to pick up an undersized WR.
But our team has NOT seen the need for DT like the good contemporary teams have. How you can sit in a division getting whipped by a team twice a year, a team who has used 3 first round picks for DTs in the past 8 drafts, and not notice that we're undermanned inside?
I for one will no longer ignore it. The piss-poor gamble that Stroud represents may get the casual observer giddy, but it shouldn't get students of the contemporary NFL game feeling great about our '08 prospects. The way to beat the better teams today is with great defensive interiors, and entering the 2008 campaign, calling our great should be accompanied with a good burst of howling hysteria.
-
So how does that compare to NON-Super Bowl teams, or even non-playoff teams? Simply showing that the Super Bowl teams have spent their draft picks differently in a couple of areas than the Bills doesn't really prove anything.
I would think it would be more relevant to look at percentages spent on different positions in that timeframe for each team in the league and compare that with the team's record. If it plays out as you expect then the teams that invest more resources in OL/DL should have better records. But as it is, I think your comparison is incomplete.
Feel free to add to the results. The methodology is included. I frankly didn't care about how we draft versus other failures; I'm interested in how the best front offices do it versus my team. My study was done as a way for me to quantify what is not exactly clear when you simply look at all #1 picks just as a #1 picks, and ignore where in the round the pick is made, plus providing a quantification of how each team's individual draft record showing how they got to the big game in recent years was done on a per position equation.
Can we add to it- sure- we can add more information and broaden the results. The bottom line is that I can see fairly well what I was hoping would become clear- that our front office simply doesn't believe that top DL talent is any more important, or even possibly is less important than talent at WR and RB. And the record is perfectly clear that the best teams do feel top DL talent is a better value with their top picks than stockpiling early round equity in WRs and RBs.
-
Lets look at the playoff teams from last year, and the number of picks at DT within the first 3 rounds since 2004 (5 drafts total):
Here's a study with detail, done prior to us ADDING to our ante at WR in the 2008 draft:
Studying the drafting trends of the way Super Bowl teams approach the Top of the Draft versus the Buffalo Bills (one of only 4 teams in the NFL to have missed the playoffs this Millennium) may offer some insight into why we’ve been one of the consistently bad teams in the league for an extended period of time.
Using the draft records of Super Bowl teams allows a look into how those teams have “budgeted” at specific positions at the Top of the Draft. This study does not establish whether these Positional Budgeting Trends are a conscious strategy on the part of all or any of the teams in the study, but the trends do represent contrasts between the players Super Bowl teams target at the Top of the Draft versus the positions the Buffalo Bills have been drafting.
The methodology used for the study follows the primary trending results.
A comparison of Super Bowl Draft Budgets versus the Bills looks like this:
Super Bowl Teams: Giants, Colts, Steelers, Pats*, Bears, Seahawks, Eagles, Panthers:
% of Draft Top of the Budget by Position:
Super Bowl Teams
DL 23%
DB 21%
WR 14%
OL 12%
TE 9%
RB 8%
LB 7%
QB 6%
Bills
DL 16%
DB 20%
WR 18%
OL 12%
TE 0%
RB 20%
LB 6%
QB 8%
A few substantial differences in tendencies:
Buffalo has used 59% of its draft budget in the study period for Offensive players, while the Super Bowl Team Draft Budgets favor Defensive selections more often than Offensive.
Buffalo has “outspent” the Super Bowl teams at RB and WR while “under spending” them at TE and DL.
This makes the following areas those in which Buffalo most widely bucks the Top of the Draft Trends of Super Bowl teams:
A) Bills have a higher Top of the Draft spend on Offense than Defense, contrary to the trend with Super Bowl teams
B) Bills have no TE selection at the top, whereas all but one Super Bowl team has spent a portion of their Top of the Draft Budget on the position.
C) Bills have spent a higher ratio of their budget on WRs versus DL, bucking the Super Bowl team trend of loading up on DL at the Top of the Draft
Every Super Bowl team except the Seahawks has a higher DL spend than they do at WR. The DL/WR ratio favoring the DL is common among 87.5% of the Super Bowl Teams. Buffalo is already out of balance on this trend, and a selection of a WR with the #11 pick this season would put us at a nearly 1:2 DL/WR ratio, a stark contrast to the almost 2:1 ratio favored by the Super Bowl Teams on average. (The ratio favoring DL over WRs is also a trait of recent playoff teams like the Cowboys, the Chargers and the Packers).
Every Super Bowl Team except the Panthers has a Top of the Draft investment in the TE position except the Carolina Panthers. The Bills have none.
Super Bowl teams are spending over 23%- or almost a quarter of their Top of the Draft Budget- on DL, while the Bills have committed less than 16%.
In order to compile usable information for the study, the following reasonable stipulations were adopted in order to establish a study group and time window:
1) Top of the Draft- This is represented by the first two rounds. The players selected in these two rounds represent the prospects that NFL teams have concluded are the best talent entering the league from college each season.
2) Draft Budgeting- To establish a position by position numerical score for each team, the study uses the sum of the specific draft choices in which each team selected players at each position during those first two rounds. In order to end up with a highest to lowest sum, the selections were counted inversely. Since there are 32 team picks in each round each of the first 64 picks is assigned the inverse of its position, with draft pick #1 being given a numerical score of 64 points, draft pick #2 counting for 63, etc.
3) Compensatory picks- Compensatory picks following the 64th pick of the draft were counted as 1 point in each case.
4) In establishing a window to study successful draft budgeting, the average number of years first round draft picks average playing for their original team (6-7) was used. The past 7 drafts were those considered.
5) “Super Bowl Teams” will be NFL teams who have won their Conference Championships over the past 5 seasons. This allows the Super Bowl rosters to have two mature draft classes entering the study and limits teams declining from bad contemporary drafting over the study window like the Super Bowl Raiders following the 2002 NFL Season.
6) Positions- Positions are defined by: DL, DB, WR, OL, TE, RB, LB and QB.
7) Percentages- Percentages are carried to the closest whole number.
-
if 2004 and 2006 are your only examples here, they show how much your argument is a matter of perspective.
I'm not merely pointing out "examples", I'm pointing out absolute disasters that have left us non-competitive.
DT has become one of- if not the- most important position in the NFL today. Smart and successful teams continue stocking young, premium talent at their D interior, while we keep on stocking up on RBs and WRs and settling for lesser DTs in the draft and old, arguably twilight players in FA.
About midseason we'll see how well the "Bill's and Lion's approach" is paying off. My guess is we'll be watching those teams who've put big early draft investments in their OLine setting their playoff strategies while our highly paid WRs and RBs are making January vacation plans.
-
Lets play a game. Lets look at the playoff teams from last year, and the number of picks at DT within the first 3 rounds since 2004 (5 drafts total):
That's all you're doing is playing a game, and not a very enlightened one.
I'm talking about top of the draft Tommie Harris/Haloti Ngata talent, and you're wasting bandwidth talking about 3rd round/Tim Anderson talent. Go ahead and compare it all you want, but it won't get you any closer to understanding why the best teams in football clean our clock on the field and at the draft.
Peters may be willing to sit all season
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
If we had a QB, RB or WR play the season at Peter's level in 2007, make the Hawaii roster and miss day one of Training Camp over a contract issue, there would be scant posts on any other subject on TSW today, the mods wouldn't have any chance of keeping up with the duplicate subject posts, and the news around the league would lead off all day with the talk about the penny-wise and pound-foolish Ralph Wilson.