Mikie2times

This is a freaking message board. With the draft approaching this is relevant. Do you think it’s at all possible given the power of foresight we should have drafted Ngata? If even a part of you thinks that then it’s relevant that our GM did something almost no team does to bypass selecting him.

This was my draft strategy. http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...10&hl=ngata

My title might have seemed like a jab at Whitner. I actually like Whitner, I just don't like the decision to draft his position over others given all the variables. I believe the error was the same one TD committed when he selected a one kneed RB late first round a couple years back. Marv might hit a home run with Whitner, just as TD could have with Willis, but without truly knowing if he would or wouldn't it was a mistake to draft these guys at the slots we did. When you review the draft history you can position the pedigree of Whitner with other safeties. 4% means that in any given NFL season 1 safety will be playing that was drafted in the top ten over the last 17 years. It's true we have 4 playing right now, and the position is evolving, but these top ten selections are still very rare and of the highest pedigree. If Marv saw something that he really loved in Whitner then great, but at the least why wouldn't you trade down? At best why wouldn't you draft the number one DT prospect when it's clear your run defense is going to be a pathetic? There is a reason you see so few safeties drafted this high. The likelihood for bust is the same but the potential for impact is completely inferior to other positions that get drafted routinely in the top 10. It will be great to see this work out and see Whitner be elite, but it was a fundamental error in drafting picking him that high. A standout SS's impact would not equal that of a standout DT. If it did the proportions would become at least somewhat balanced.

That might have something to do with the scheme. Cover 2 is all about the pass, the Jerry Grey is all about the Blitz.

When did Bob Sanders get drafted?

I agree that the middle of the draft was solid as can be, and I'm happy Marv's leading this team. The reason I looked into this was the recent talk of round 1 being a success, and the passing of Ngata. I feel we past on Ngata because he wasn't the idle fit for this defense. Any other reason just wouldn't make sense from an attitude, need, or talent point of view. I really wanted him, and after watching him this year he reminds me of Sam Adams, but actually gave a crap. How is a quick mountain of a man not exactly what we so desperately needed? It's true we needed a safety and as I showed we went against every draft trend to get one. Even those trends established by the dozen or so teams that played the cover 2 the last 17 years (0 top ten picks). Was Whitner viewed as such an elite prospect out of college, or has he done anything this year to place him in such status? This is a category that only 4% of all NFL safeties entered the league in. The ones that have done so have had success, but since 96% of the rest of the safeties entered the league under other conditions the majority of elite pro bowl safeties have come from this group. To top it off not once in the last 17 years have any two safeties gone top ten the same year. So we really couldn't have traded down? I don't know ultimately how this decision will play out. A lot of that depends on how Whitner pans out, and how McCargo pan out. I just think the mistakes in philosophy at this point are clear. That if these mistakes continue we eventually won't have 3 or 4 solid day two picks to make up for it. Marv needs to play game, or he and the Bills will get played.

His parents did the Nigerian Nasty 19 years ago.

It bothers me that so many people talk about how great our draft was, and use Whitner in the argument. You can argue for a lot of players making this a good draft, but Whitner is not one of them (at least for now). Since 1990 170 players have been selected in the top ten picks of the NFL draft. Of the 170 players 7 played either safety position in college. That’s 4.1% of all the top ten picks in the last 17 years. The list includes Mark Carrier, Troy Vincent, Roy Williams, Eric Turner, Sean Taylor, and this years additions in Michael Huff and Whitner. The first four guys on the list have played in a combined 13 pro bowls, and not a single one of them had less then two pro bowl appearances. Taylor looks like he should certainly add to that list if he keeps his head on straight. The point is not that Daunte Whitner can’t become one of these guys. It’s that drafting a safety this early is VERY rare, and in the cases teams did it they found pro bowl caliber players for at least a few seasons. It seems like the barometer for Whitner is if he’s a good player he was a good pick. If I drafted a good kicker in round 1 would it be a good pick if that kicker wasn’t great? Whitner is not a good pick until he shows he can play at a pro bowl level. I’ll give him time to do that, but just by making this decision Marv got himself in an uphill battle.

Just under the part that talks about Steinbach it mentions the Bills also having interest in Dielman. Given his style I would probably rather have Dielman. Steinbach seems to be the fan favorite and would be just fine, but Dielman is the better run blocker of the two. Since Peters shapes up to be better in the passing game I want a LG whose better in the run game.

I don't have a ton of game viewing experience on Myers but his Bio's make him look like a possible fit for us. He's been a starter everywhere he played and Denver's run defense improved dramatically when he came on (Denver also brought other DL help that year). He's not a long term solution at DT, but might be a solid pick up that buys McCargo, Williams and any 2007 draft pick developmental time. He also seems to be the type of affordable signing we've come to expect from the Bills. Thoughts? http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.php?id=4...;contentID=4194 4. Michael Myers, DL, Alabama 4th Round (100 overall) 6-2½, 285, 5.11 Bio: Came to Alabama from Hinds Community College (Miss.) in 1996 and started from Game Two on. Was a two-time junior-college All-American and an All-Southeastern Conference performer at Alabama in '96, when he also garnered first-team All-America honors from The Sporting News. Ended the '96 season with 62 tackles and a team-high 13 tackles for loss and eight sacks. Had five tackles and half a sack in the '97 opener vs. Houston and then was kicked off the football team because of his involvement with an agent. Myers allegedly accepted hotel expenses from one agent and money from another and then allegedly did not come clean when initially asked about the charges. Was invited to the Senior Bowl after the Alabama coaching staff gave Senior Bowl officials their blessings for the move. Positives: Good athlete. Runs well. Exceptionally quick. Fine quickness off the mark. Can get into gaps quickly. Penetrates. Can be very disruptive to an offense. Will generally beat one blocker with his initial move. Can make the big play. Was helped by the Alabama coaches, who recommended that the Senior Bowl allow him to play in their game after the '97 season to give him another game under his belt. Negatives: Played in only one game in '97 and played just a little over a year of major-college ball. Undersized. Short for end and small for tackle. Plays better inside than out on the edge but is light for a tackle. Can't anchor that well. Will struggle at times if he does not beat the blocker with his initial move. Has a tendency to play too upright at times. Had inconsistent production in '96 and really struggled against some big linemen at times. Also seemed to wear down when the opposition kept putting big bodies on him. May not be that smart and instinctive on the field and has shown some poor judgment off the field. Did not work out that well at the scouting combine. Summary: The type of player who can be effective in the right type of defense if used correctly but would be a big mistake for teams that would ask him to play head up on the tackle and to guard two gaps. Needs to be used a lot like the Vikings use John Randle and the Buccaneers use Warren Sapp to realize his potential.

Good post. This is a horrible story. I've heard others like it, and it's infuriating. Basically this kid now doesn't get his degree, will register as a sex offender, and have to list this on employment applications. Good luck getting an interview to even explain what actually happened. I hope he has the strength to finish school, otherwise I see it as a life ruined. Here is a stipulation I would like to see. Minimum age somebody can have consensual sex acts, while keeping in mind that this area is best left to parenting not prison. From that standard you could set up age specific boundaries protecting the youngest people. The desire for sex at that age grows by leaps and bounds each year and so does the maturity of what is and isn't appropriate. When the age discrepancies clearly show a deviant behavior then the law should get involved. Otherwise it's just not worth it, because the timing is so detrimental. A long jail sentence between 16-23 will literally kill your chance of being a productive citizen.

While I was arguing against players deserving it, the real answer is probably they both deserve it. Some of the early greats like Red Grange, or Bronco Nagurski really had to be sold on Pro Football. Mergers had to made between the NFL, AAFC, and AFL. Lot's of things could have started trouble for this sport, and I like to think the quality of the men behind it has something to do with its popularity now. At the same time the great players over the years have certainly peeked Pro Footballs interest. Hell it could even be argued without Jim Thorpe or Red Grange Pro Football would have folded. So I guess they both deserve it, and both are entitled to fight over it like the rest of us.

If my points were scattered so be it, but you still haven't shown why they deserve more money in the context of how this league came to be. Every point you've made ignores why players are even in this position in the first place. The Buffalo Bills and just about every other team in football have an original owner behind them. The players wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for these men. Most of these owners risked a substantial amount on an unpopular sport while the players shared none of the burden. The players only became irreplaceable because the original owners did such a damn fine job making the NFL as popular as it is today. The reward of creating the most popular sport in this country is empowered players, who now have enough popularity to holed teams and the league hostage. Maybe that was the guaranteed end result of creating such a popular sport, but no way can you sit here and argue the players deserve it.

They fight for what they get as any of us would do, but they don't deserve this anymore then you or I deserve a raise. Sure players undergo physical risks, and they have extremely demanding professions. If it was a normal business model they would be entitled to benefits to cover these issues, not completely disproportionate incomes compared to the CEO’s and higher ups in the company/team. Without the dozens of original NFL and AFL owners who took huge risks this league would be nothing. A company can't survive without the people who make the product/are the product, but at the same time the CEO/owner is the one who's developed the idea, or believed in what nobody else did. In real world he would be the one making the disproportionate salary, and if employees had a beef they would be let go without a thought. If the company did incredibly well like the NFL has they'll probably get a raise, but in the real world most that money is going back into the pockets of the men who took the risks to begin with. Players get what they get because the media, and fans. If some local newspaper strikes people don't care. If a professional sports league strikes it's talked about all day, and if it's the NFL it's 24/7. If people didn't attach themselves to players so much they would just be another employee who could be replaced. Just another person working for a company, making the same disproportionate salary most people make compared to the higher ups.

I can list dozens of guys who survived in this league late, or slipped threw the cracks because they're system QB's. Obviously what Peyton can do is very rare. As you pointed out in your first post when you have a guy as good as Peyton the entire offense is built around his talent. That's a big part of the reason why we never see these super QB's win the big game. Too much is on one guy, and with an entire offensive predicated one guy a bad playoff game is all it takes. The system QB does usually receive the benefit of more balance, but the style offensive play flat out makes a difference. Turnovers are the single most important aspect in the NFL. Threw out history in the playoffs you'll find system QB's not committing turnovers, while non systems QB's do. You'll find examples of great gunslingers not winning the Super Bowl for a decade. All of these guys aren't getting the benefit of a dominating defense, or outstanding run game. Manning might be more unique then Brady, but I'll take a great system QB over a great non system QB any day of the week. One gives you rings, and the other gives you fantasy points.

The sentence goes "We'll nip, we'll tuck, we'll go, we'll crunch, we'll Jew, we'll do it all.' And he nickeled and dimed 'em. The stereo type is Jewish people are usually frugal. I'm sure that's what his comment referred to. Poor attempt at trying to be witty for old Shadinglebury.

A player like Peyton Manning is more rare for what he does downfield then a player like Brady who gets it done in the quick passing game. Lots of vets can do some of the things in the short passing game that Brady can, very few could ever pass downfield like Peyton can. The problem is Peyton's downfield style lends itself to a higher margin for error. That higher margin for error makes it rare for a downfield QB/Team to win the Super Bowl. Players like Brady or Montana have a style that limits the margin for error, and they happen to be among the best ever at it.They use quick sharp passes, limiting sack/turnover potential and decreasing the chance of third and long. It's a better suited style for the playoffs. The only reason you don't see everybody go to it is the do everything factor. Coaches look for guys that can make every throw in the draft. For whatever reason guys that go down field effectively don't usually translate to West Coast QB's. The increased velocity on the football probably has something to do with it. Many late round or late career success stories have been born from great short passers who couldn’t make all the throws, and went undrafted or in day two.

What you've never seen an owner take a standing dump in a press conference?

I can see your point. Teams have more money now, and aren't bumping up against the cap. It's a more competitive financial environment for Buffalo to jump into. At the same time I feel this is still an off-season that should tell us something. We clearly need help at guard, and have needed it for a long time. Countless mistakes have been made trying to fill this hole with bargain FA's. Jauron, Levy, and Ralph have all discussed getting more help on the offensive line at some point in the season. Two high priced excellent guards will be available in Steinbach, and Dielman. To not extend any interest to either would be telling to me. That's especially true if we don't make a competitive offer to Clements. It's not as if we ever really focused on big money guys, but I expect it to decline even more now. Do you expect we will sign any big name players this off-season, or be willing to do it in the future? Perhaps it will just become a rarity that doesn't happen until other teams have used up more cap room.

I don't know if Okoye will develop or not, I just have serious questions if he's the right guy for what we need right now. Our biggest issue is run defense, we don't necessarily need a big guy, but a 19 year old that weighs 280 is probably not who we need either. If he drops to the second, or shows great strength and is available late first then maybe. I just see him being at least one year away from potentially having strong run stopping ability, and most likely two. Later on in the draft his potential could be worth it but not if we stay put. As for Stanton I guarantee he will be a bust. I've watched and played against him in high school, watched most his games at MSU, It's the same story. He has a lot of skill but he completely implodes at times, and will make some horrible mistakes. He's also injury prone, and showed a disturbing decline in play late in the year, and against Big Ten teams. I knew his skills and intelligence would attract some people, but he's just not NFL caliber. One team will end up using a early pick for what amounts to a practice hero.

Lot's of talk about what Buffalo will do with Nate. Some say look at the cap we can sign him, others see him out of our price range. I believe the correct answer is Buffalo will not sign high priced players anymore. We might see guys get some healthy contracts, but Buffalo will never hand out huge money to a FA, or sign one of our FA's if they have unreasonable demands. It's not a matter of cap room; it's a matter of Buffalo trying to even out the financial field by staying below the cap. It puts us at a disadvantage but if it happens it’s something we can overcome. For starters this team and town appeal to certain players. So some players will be reasonable, I would expect JP to be that type of player. Past trying to draft those personalities we need to sign draft picks to longer contracts, and renegotiate our best players as early as possible. We also need to evaluate players like Nate a year or two before they hit the market. If it's clear a player wants to hit the market and our team is in a rebuild mode we need to trade him. Looking back we all knew in 2 years we wouldn't be winning a super bowl no matter how well Nate played. Trade him while he still has value. We could accumulate draft picks and drafting will play the biggest role for us in the future. Obviously it's a different story if we looked to be a contender, but the point is we need to really think long term with some of these guys. We can't just keep losing our top draft picks every year without at least getting something back. This off-season will show if this is true or not. We do have lots of cap room, we have some holes, we look to be on the rise. If ever their was a time to bring in an influx of talent it's now. Just remember, if we don't sign anybody to a huge contract it's not the end of the world.

I'll bring my coloring sticks.

Even with the losses the Patriots look like the Hoover dam compared to the Bills, Jets, and Dolphins. Tom Brady has proven year in and year out that he's a top 3 QB. BB has shown year in and year out he's going to field competitive defenses. The things your saying could have been said after every year the Patriots won the Super Bowl or went to the playoffs. Each year they've lost dozens of players and coaches, and during almost all of they're runs they've done it while being completely decimated at OL or DB or RB or WR. The lesson shouldn't be that some mystique is magically allowing them to do these things. It's that having a top 3 QB and a decent defense will give you 10 wins in a league of parity.

I wouldn't think much of it. IMO more reasons favored Dungy's approach then putting it into Manning’s hands. -The Colts have run well and finished games pounding the ball the last two weeks -They had a very tired Patriots defense on field -They might have seen a match up advantage as they ran on 3rd and 5 earlier in the quarter -BB had to be thinking at least one pass in that series -Running limits the time left for the Patriots to respond -Running limits the likelihood of a turnover -They could still pick up a first without scoring giving them the ball last He probably would have drawn some criticism because it's some people’s job to criticize. But given the circumstances I think three consecutive runs was the best approach for the situation. He took a risk in hoping that he would catch NE playing pass at least once in the series of downs. If he failed he did so without risking a turnover, and all but guaranteeing a tie game with a short clock for Brady.

Lovie would be wise to abandon the deep passing game in this one. If he doesn't it plays right into the Colts defensive plans. On the other side I believe Chicago's defense can force Manning into turnovers. Just because he got over the conference championship hump doesn't mean his big game collapses are over. Manning played well against the Patriots but he nearly cost the Colts the Ravens game with balls that should have been intercepted. This is a game the Bears can win if they have a game plan suited to being a defensive juggernaut. If they try and run with the Colts and let Grossman loose they have no chance. Good Bears Game plan Bears 20 Colts 13 Bad Bears Game plan Bears 13 Colts 24