Shaw66

Magox That's an outstanding analysis. I think it's on the money. Nicely done.

Time will tell, but I think this is a good assessment. There has not been a ti e in the last 20 years when I could envision a GM holding the Lombardi in the air and saying "this is for Buffalo," but I can now.

Nicely done.

Well, your underlying premise is wrong, but I think your draft strategy is correct. You don't need studs but you need a lot of good players. Beane has said you get those on the draft. I wont be surprised if the Bill's trade out of 9 so they can picked later in the first round and twice in the second.

You know, all you guys are talking about this, and as far as I'm concerned, Terry had the right answer the other day at the owners' meeting. He said "let's wait until the current study is complete." That's what a smart business man would do. So are so many different factors to consider that it's never going to be an easy decision. If the core infrastructure at New Era is sound, upgrading New Era probably makes the sense. With $500 million, they probably could widen the concourses, install seats, create some more corporate boxes and upgrade all of them, cover a lot of the seats, do some work on the score boards and sound system. That would be fine with me. I have no idea how much control the owners have or what they want, but they certainly understand the math. The market studies will show how much the fans are willing to pay, and if what they're willing to pay won't cover the cost of a new stadium downtown, I doubt the owners will fight it. They aren't going to gang up on the Pegulas and force them to drop ANOTHER billion dollars into Buffalo - they already made a lot of money for the owners simply by paying $1.2 billion for the team. That forced the value of ALL the other franchises up by a few hundred million dollars. Plus, they aren't going to want the bad publicity that would flow from forcing the Bills to move. At least that's my guess. I've said all along that a downtown stadium is a mistake. It chews up a lot of real estate that eventually is going to be very very valuable, more valuable that a stadium that's used 8 to 15 times a year. It's not like a baseball venue, that brings in fans 75-90 times a year. It's just a big white elephant sitting there. I know others have other opinions. The good news is that the Pegulas are committed, they're smart and they're tough. They will force a decision that meets everyone's needs, including the city, the NFL owners and the fans. Some of us won't like it, but it will be a good decision. (Plus, by the time it's done, I probably won't be going to games any more, so what do I care?)

I think as a general rule, the more time that goes by, the more your value goes down. Yes, it's true that injuries occasionally may make a guy more valuable, but I think even that is unusual. A guy like Beane decides how much a guy is worth, and he doesn't pay more. In Spain's case, for example, Beane has a price he's willing to pay. One reason Spain hasn't signed, perhaps, is he doesn't like the money. A second is that he doesn't like the competition. He's a afraid that the money that Beane is offering isn't real, because there's some chance he gets cut and never makes even what Beane is offering. When a guard in Buffalo gets hurt, Beane doesn't think Spain is more valuable, but Buffalo just became more attractive to Spain, because he's closer to a guaranteed spot on the roster. You have to remember that as far as Beane is concerned, free agents are stopgaps. They are guys he hires to fill a spot until he drafts a guy who will be the guy he wants. So Beane is not going to overspend. Now, when Beane thinks he may be going to the Super Bowl and he desperately needs a guard, yeah, then he might overpay Spain to get to the Super Bowl. But Beane isn't in that position, so I doubt he's overspending.

I think you have this backward. He will get more before the draft. The risk he runs is that some team interested in him drafts a good guard and drops out of bidding. As fewer teams are interested, the price teams are willing to pay will go down. He isn't signed yet because no one needs a guard as badly as he would like to think. He has to recognize that people aren't going to pay as much as he wants.

That's pretty well done. Nice.

Don't forget Wray Carlton

I didn't post in that thread. My draft night list was Mayfield, Darnold, Rosen, Allen. Then, when the Bills traded up, I thought to myself, "no, Allen. Take Allen." Not that I thought he'd be great. I was disappointed we didn't get one of my first two, and I tended not to like either Josh. At the last minute, I thought "I want the big guy, the big arm. Maybe the Bills can teach him what he needs to know. Rosen will never have a big arm." I felt a little better when I heard McBeane talk about him. They sounded like they really wanted Allen, that they knew that he could be their horse. But even then I didn't know what you've concluded, which essentially is his upside is better than his downside. Ask me last June, and I wouldn't have said that.

Interesting. I'm fascinated by Belichick. I read half of the biography about him. Got to the Patriots part of his life and I'd had enough. I think there are several basics in his philosophy. In no particular order no turnovers do your job study take the easy play be fundamentally sound tacklers hit hard. That last one is right in line with his preferences, so he may in fact have a bias for a guy like Brown. Still, I'd tell you it's a coach's bias - he's telling you the player HE'D like to have. This is the best coach probably in the history of football, whose interests are exactly in line with what his fans want - wins, and he's telling you he'd take Brown. He wants to win, he could take Sanders if he wanted, he takes Brown. That's a pretty powerful argument. Any way, there are no answers. Thanks again for chatting.

No apologies necessary, for me, anyway. Your point about schemes is also interesting to me in a different context near and dear to many Bills fans. Who's the best running back in BILLS history? Man, I can recite that debate from memory. What brings me to the conclusion that it's Simpson is in my mind I can put Simpson on the field with Kelly, Reed, Lofton and Beebe, and what I see is an offense that would have won some Super Bowls. Simpson would have been BETTER in the K-gun than he was in the offense the Bills ran back then. Why? Because the Bills would have thrown to him more, so he would have gotten the ball more in open space. In open space, only Sanders and Sayers regularly did what Simpson could do. So, yeah, I agree completely that scheme is important. In the SI article, Belichick said the modern runners run in a much more run friendly scheme. They get to line up deeper in the backfield, which Belichick says is a big advantage. Still, if you ask me how Sanders would do in the Browns 1958 run offense, I don't know. And I don't exactly how Brown would have done in Sanders offense, either. And beyond THAT, Brown played for the Bill Belichick of the era, and Sanders played for, I don't, but it wasn't anyone who was winning championships. Brown had a coach whose game planning was a week or a year ahead of the opponent. We complain the the coaches misused Simpson so badly in his early years. I mean, what were they thinking? Brown, on the other hand, had a coach who when asked why he didn't give the ball more to Bobby Mitchell, a BIG, BIG open field threat, said "when you have a shotgun, why shoot a popgun?" If you haven't read the SI article, read it, especially the Belichick section. Belichick knows more about football than anyone, and he seems to be saying, from a coach's perspective, that there isn't any question Brown is the guy. It's impossible to prove anyone right. What I like about the discussion as much as anything is that the discussion makes revisit memories of all those players we've seen, including just on video, and the amazing things they did and still do. Remembering Brown and Sanders, watching a few clips here and there of Simpson and Campbell, it's fun. It's why I dug up the Terence McGee video and posted it. The discussion of Sayers made me think about kick returning and I hadn't see McGee's return for a few years. So this discussion got me to watch that play again. Thanks for chatting. Sayers has jumped in and out of the conversation some. I don't know about similar styles, but they are my all-time top 2 guys in the open field.

I want to jump in here. I haven't been on much and just came back to read what's being said. I'll get to that in a minute. First, I guess I've got to apologize. I've upset some people and certainly did not intend to. I thought we were just having a football conversation. I talk football the way I do because that's my manner. I think I know what I'm talking about, but I'm also quick to say that I don't know anything compared to what the coaches and gms know. I DO think I'm right about what I say, as do you all of you. I'm sorry that the way I say it makes you think I think I'm some sort of guru. I know I'm not. Truly sorry. Second, I think this is a pretty high level football conversation going on here. Post after post has really good and interesting thoughts. I gotta say that, altho some may think it's politically incorrect, mannc probably is correct that Brown stood out because he was playing in a league that didn't permit many blacks to play. Doesn't establish what Brown might or might not have done in more modern football, but it certainly supports the notion that the modern players actually DO get better, and that rising tide of better players lifts the stars to ever greater levels. Third, I thought the discussion about Jordan and Lebron, whoever did it, was very interesting. Your brain has a way to cement in your head that the heroes of YOUR day are the GOAT, bar none, whatever happens. But year after year as you watch Lebron do what he does, you start questioning your memory, and, it's true, you DO have the ability to watch video, a lot of video or both of them. And so, there's the additional problem in Brown vs. Sanders, of many people being too young to have memories and pretty much no video to go back to. So the Sanders crowd brain is saying "all we've seen is some video of Brown; we SAW Sanders. And the old timers are saying "well, we SAW them both and let me tell you" when in fact maybe our brains have been denying Sanders greatness because we want it to be OUR guy. No one's perspective is the correct perspective, it's just a perspective. Oh, and speaking of perspective, someone said something like "the oldtimers talk like they'd seen every game Brown played live." I thought that was amusing, because it's not like he had any real way to know, but some of us actually probably did see live, on television, 80% of the games he ever played, maybe 90%, maybe even 100%. If you were growing up in Buffalo in the 50s, you were either a Browns kid or a Giants kid. (Bills didn't exist.) Browns were on every week on WBEN and Giants were on every week on WGR. Even when they played each other, they were on both stations, same video, different announcers. In short, a lot of the oldtimers here watched the Browns EVERY week, just like your kids watch the Bills now. So, yeah it IS like we saw every game of Browns career. Doesn't mean I'm right, I know, but when we were kids we watched Jim Brown the way kids watched Thurman or Cribbs, pick your generation. Finally, i think there's another perspective here. That's the "values" perspective. Chamberlain was amazing, but I bought the Celtics' view that Russell was GOAT he made his team a winner. So what defines greatness, individual talent or productivity (and leadership) that brought championships? I think Sanders was the greatest in terms of visual greatness - if you had to pick one running back to watch, who would it be? Sanders, as I've said. If you had to pick based on contribution the team effort, because of individual greatness and play after play consistency, I'd pick Brown. Last play of the game, you need a touchdown, 2 yards from the goal line, who do you want? Brown, no question. Forty yards to the goal line, who do you want? Some will say Sanders, I'll say pick 'em. Brown had exceptional big-play capability. Thanks for talking about this. And, again, apologies to anyone I've upset.

That is an incredibly ridiculous statement. Brown's attributes are not the norm today. There is exactly ONE player today who has the tools Brown had, and his name is Adrian Peterson. The fastest guys in the league today, which Brown was, do not have Brown's size. The 230 to 240 pound backs do not have Brown's speed and ability to change direction. That's the whole point. As for Sanders as a power back, the Lions regularly removed him from the lineup on on first and goal. He was NOT a great short-yardage back. He was good at it, but he wasn't great.

I love the look into the future. What those people will be saying about Sanders is that he had the greatest ENTERTAINMENT value. This is a football forum, not an entertainment forum. If you ask people who know football whom they would choose as their running back to build a championship team, they would not pick Sanders. Certainly some people wouldn't pick Brown, but very few would pick Sanders. The greatest backs are the backs who, along with everything else they can do, will regularly get you three yards when you need two. Sanders simply wasn't a great power back. He was a threat to get you 60 when you need 2, but on a percentage basis, on third and two, Sanders was not the guy you wanted to give the ball to.

You know, this just isn't true. Brown played around 230 pounds. Most of the full backs in the league were 220 to 235 or 240. None of those other fullback were gaining 1500 yards in a 12 game season . They were gaining 800. And qbs were attempting 15 passes a game, so it was no because Brown was getting more carries. They couldnt tackle Brown for the same reasons they couldn't tackle Peterson or Dickerson. If you listen to anyone who played or coached in that era, NO ONE talks about Brown being oversized liken you say Chamberlain was oversized. And to talk about Sanders' power is silly. He was a power back just like McCoy. Just because he ran inside didn't mean he had power,

Amazing balance and ability to absorb hits. Relentless. Since we're posting videos, here it is, the greatest kickoff return of all time.

That's interesting. Most of you aren't old enough to have seen Sayers. He was amazing. I remember when he was coming out of college I saw three highlights from his career. Kickoff return for 99, punt return for 95 and run from scrimmage for 97. It was jaw-dropping. Simpson had this way of gliding in the open, just sort of flowing through the defense. Sayers ran like that.

I really don't agree with this. As I've said elsewhere, I think Shady is a poor man's Sanders. Sanders' change of direction was simply devastating. He'd keep his center of gravity low, bend his knees and get his feet out in from of him. When his feet hit the ground, he would push off one way or the other or straight ahead. In any case, his hips and torso were still going full speed, trying to catch up where his feet were. When he pushed off, often to change direction, his hips and torso lost almost no speed, so he was going full speed almost immediately out of his cut. I don't think there are any more defenders who could deal with those cuts today than there were when he was playing. He was just amazing. The reality is that what makes the top 5 (maybe Brown, Simpson, Peterson, Sanders and, oh, just say Jackson) so great is that they would be great in any era. OJ was clearly better than Tomlinson, and Tomlinson was real tough in the modern game. Brown and Peterson are similar, so they clearly could move between generations. Jackson was like them, too - speed, power and shiftiness. And Sanders was and would be uncatchable. Obviously, I was and am a big Brown fan. I did like sweetness simply because he was running over Brown's records. I kept watching him and thinking "he's got nothing." But "nothing" always seemed to turn into 100-yard games. At some point I put my prejudice aside and just started watching him. He was a truly fantastic back, even though he looked ordinary week after week. Still, the very best were better.

Your description of the Juice is accurate. Your description of Brown isn't.

Yes, but I've thought that what's likely is that the Bills would do something like package a couple of later round picks, which is where their extra picks are, with maybe their third to move up for a second pick in the second. And I've also thought that Beane might be very willing to trade out of 9 with some team that's QB hungry, so that he could end up with two late first round picks. Bottom line, as we all know, is almost anything is possible. Beane's certainly not afraid to make deals.

Great example of why draft talk here and everywhere is worthless. It amazes me that you think you know that Simmons is better than Oliver and Wilkins but that he will be drafted behind them. That means that no GM drafting in the top 10 will figure what you know. Man, those GMs are stupid!

I agree. I seriously doubt Beane would give up his first next year for anything. It's contrary to his philosophy. I think it's more likely that he'd move up 5 or fewer slots, just to get the guy he wants. That's essentially what he did with Edmunds.

Wow. That sounds like he's been told by someone who knows that there are one or more players that Beane really would like to get, so much so that he'd be willing to give up picks to move up. We all know that it makes sense to move up for a QB, but that's not happening. And we saw last season that he was willing to move up for a middle linebacker. He'd need a second pick, or a third and fourth, to move up to 5. Very interesting.

Payton was amazing in a different way. He didn't have any of the classic attributes of any of the great ones - he didn't have great speed, he didn't have great moves, he didn't have great power, but he had just the right combinations of just enough of all those things that he was a great, great back.