oldmanfan

You don't run an NFL team either. I consider Bill Polian to be one of the best GMs in history. And he would laugh when the concept of the draft chart came up. I'll go with Bill

The argument involves a single vs. cumulative effect. Any time you flip a coin, or make a draft pick, as a single event it's heads or tails, success or bust. But if you flip 10 times or make ten picks statistics say you will average things out and it will be unlikely you get all heads or tails, or that all players are success or failure. It's a good argument to acquire more picks.

You just want a kid like that to succeed.

So taking gender out of the equation, you have someone here who certainly has the education in statistical methods to offer a different perspective on things. I have said many times in this board that stats are misused constantly by not only posters but the media. So she brings a fresh approach, like this draft article. She uses modeling to try and project picks. I have only seen her a couple times on TV, but her draft article takes an interesting slant. So why is she not that predictive of who wins a game, overall records (assuming she's not, which is itself an estimate)? Maybe it's because of the complexity of an NFL game, and the huge number of variables that can affect performance. Which makes statitical analysis very difficult.

Proving my point

Yes, in rounds 1and 2.

Well, umm, yeah. To me it shows the importance of continuity for their organization. They know exactly how they want to play and thus know exactly the kinds of players they need.

OJ got traded because he was fooling around with a mob boss' girlfriend.

Josh could be great. Could be. He has all the physical tools, but great QBs become great due to what's upstairs. How well do they read defenses, how quick can they make decisions - the right decisions. That is the challenge for all young QBs. My guess is that Josh will get there; if working hard at it is a trait that will improve him then it's a guarantee- the kid works his butt off from what we can see. He may may not get all the way there this season, but given the additions to the offense and how work ethic I expect we'll see significant progress. Fans just need to chill and not place unrealistic expectations on a second year QB.

Maybe he didn't get the offers he expected

As a general rule I trust McD's thoughts on defensive players over random columnists and wannabes.

I think Beane wants to see how guys perform first. Some will be extended and some shuttled out to continue upgrading next year.

You have to imagine Johnson's interview for O line coach: Daboll: What would you do as our O line coach Johnson: Replace everyone except maybe Dawkins, because they stink. Daboll: I was thinking the exact same thing. Beane: Ditto. Consider it done.

If one is available and the best guy on the board, sure.

The OP says they have to build the offense. Last year they got a QB, this year they got two WRs, a TE, a veteran former All Pro RB, two WRs (one of whom gives the short passing game the OP howls about), and 6 O linemen. But to the OP that's not good enough, because in his infinite wisdom they needed to get better players. So let's say they do go offense in the draft, say a WR, TE, and a T. We all know he'll just say those weren't good picks. Such a troll.

Trade down, and get both your punter and kicker day 1 and 2. The problem though is they have to come into the league knowing everything ever known about their positions because players never learn anything after being drafted. Just like Tasker's Ghost's quarterbacks.

Acoustic neuromas are generally benign, and not cancerous.

These tumors are close to the vestibulocochlear and facial nerves. The first affects hearing and balance and the second supplies muscles in the face and carries taste sensations. So depending on the size and involvement you could affect these functions. No fun obviously but it's not a malignant tumor.

You're not confused. The OP is confused.

She has an acoustic neuroma which should not be life threatening. Still scary to have surgery involving the brain, of course.

I read it. There's one statement that exposes the author for what he is, an anti- Bills and especially anti-Allen troll. The statement refers to how few if any QBs that come into the league not being able to read defenses survive. To which I can respond with one word: Bull. No rookie QB hits the ground running being able to read NFL defenses. In fact, the ability to learn that is what will separate those who make it over those who don't. It takes time to learn, and the insinuation that Allen is doomed because he did not hit the league with that talent is absurd on its face.

Interesting point

Speaks to the concept of a team sport. Beenna lot of discussion about us old farts comparing generations. Hard to do with a single player in a team sport. But for an individual one? If Snead or Nelson or Hogan played with the clubs and balls of today they might make Tiger look like just another guy on tour.

I would challenge you here. When you say Sanders had stuff no one else could match, what parts? Sayers was his equal in terms of elusiveness. OJ was at minimum his equal in terms of speed, hitting a hole and taking off. Dorset was also a guy not mentioned a lot here but he had acceleration like few others. Power? Campbell, Czonka maybe, hell even Lynch were great. Now, you put them all together there are very, very few guys that had it all. You have Sanders 1 and Brown 2 and I have them flip flopped. Maybe for this simple reason: if I had 3rd and 3 and I could pick one guy to make the yards or die a terrible death, has to be Brown. I saw Sanders take too many losses. Rarely did Brown get stopped behind the line. Fun stuff to discuss.

It is fun to try though. The error I think you make is in assuming the older guys would not improve over the absolute excellence they had in their day if they played now. A guy like Jimmy Brown would have access to modern training regimens, medical technologies, and so in. So it is perfectly reasonable that they would also be improved. And thinking of a Jim Brown being even better than he was then is scary. Brown would dominate I feel. As I pointed out above he's the one guy I've ever watched that could run past you, around you or over you. Having access to modern training, access to turf instead of grass fields? Whoa. By the way us older guys aren't shaking a stick at the younguns. We just want to be sure you appreciate history.