Ramius

If you're questioning my methodology, in case i didnt explain well enough it above, here it is: I think its a fair assumption that most teams reasonably expect 1st-3rd round picks to be significant contributors for the team for a while. It could be a star, a starter, or a really solid backup. But i'd venture a guess that most teams expect draftees from rounds 1-3 to be on the team for the long term. In rounds 4-7, there cant be that expectation. So thats why i set the bar where i did. I took a look at DBs that can be reasonably expected to contribute to a team and their success. Nowhere do i say or imply that a 1st round pick is equal in value to a 3rd or 4th round pick. I am however, stating that both 1st and 3rd rounds picks can be expected to contribute.

I heard James Hardy pulled a gun on the Bills FO and forced them to draft CBs in rounds 4 and 7.

Hooray for overraction!

i'm 2.5 hrs away, so i'd drive over the morning of the game. i know i'd like to go, so we'll see. PM me of/when you know if you are heading to jax.

One question is who exactly is going to buy those residences and stay in the hotels? Buffalo has exactly zilch for big business with high-paying professional jobs. Until those types of jobs are brought into the area, then theres no reason to expect a few pricey condos on the water are going to trigger an economic boom. Also, with regards to the hotel, whop is going to stay there? Buffalo isnt exactly a hotbed for professional conferences and the likes of other national and international programs that are going to provide a boost for the economy. The hotel would be great if they could actually book it most of the year.

I dont have the data from just the last 3 drafts. I also did not include rounds 4-7, because at that point, you cannot realistically expect anything from those players drafted, except that you may hit on the occasional starter. Yes, teams can and will get starters and even stars in those rounds. But you cannot count on that when planning on building your football team. It is, in my opinion, completely reasonable to expect to get a decent NFL player from each one of the 1st 3 rounds of the NFL draft. After all, these players are the top 100 college players in the nation. After that, you cannot plan on anything from the lower round draft picks. I understand that a team needs to find starters and gems in the late rounds, but my point is that you can't take player X from the 5th round and say that you expect him to develop into a solid NFLer.

keep the comedy coming.

What exactly does Philly drafting DTs and teams drafting WRs have anything to do with the average amount of DBs selected by the NFL? And before you continue your frothing lunacy, read (top to bottom, left to right, group words to form sentences) the next segment of my post where you'll see a comparison of the average # of first round picks spent on DBs.

Tampa went with a CB this year because they let Brian Kelly go and Barber is getting up there in age. They knew they had to have a CB this year. What tampa has done exceptionally well (and this is probably a result of them running the Tampa-2) is uncover DB gems in other rounds. Donnie Abraham was a 3rd, John Lynch was a 3rd, Ronde Barber was a 3rd, Brian Kelly was a second, Dexter Jackson was a 4th, Dwight Smith was a 3rd, Jermaine Phillips was a 3rd, and Tanard Jackson a 4th. Since they had quality DBs already in place, especially with Barber, they were able to focus the bulk of the last couple of drafts on the OL (that, and the fact that their OL was absolute garbage prior to that point. It all comes down to drafting positions that are weak on your team. Tampa had spent a good chunk of 1st day draft picks on the secondary, hitting on a lot fo them, which allowed them to put the secondary on the back burner. They also hit it big last offseason with the signing of Philip Buchanon. He played a role in their success last year.

Have you (or anyone else on here) watched or are watching "The Tudors"? Its a brilliant show and a simply fantastic series (on King Henry VIII for those that dont know). I'd highly recommend it to anyone, especially those that liek historical shows. Also, you get to see boobs every single episode.

i'll set the over/under at 5-6 months before the unions shut this down.

Thats correct. I wanted Sweed at #41 instead of Hardy at #41. http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?s=&am...t&p=1019134 You'll notice how that comment was located in the Second round pick: James Hardy thread, because i wanted Sweed then as opposed to Hardy.

Theres a lot or talk on the boards about the bills drafting strategy lately, namely about the way the Bills use some picks on CBs. I've run some numbers to simply see what the league says about this arguement. I took a look at all DBs drafted by teams in rounds 1-3 (the old "day 1" picks). I feel that these picks can be expected to reasonably complete and develop into NFL players. I also tracked drafts back to, and including the 2001 draft. That gives the past 7 years (to me, a reasonable time frame), plus this most recent draft. Heres the results. The average team in the NFL has drafted 5.03 DBs in the first 3 rounds since 2001. The Bills have drafted 5 DBs in this same span. The most DB picks spent are by the Colts (10), Chargers (8), Raiders (7), and Packers (7) The fewest DB picks spent are by the Texans (2), Dolphins (2), Buccs (3), and 49ers (3) The average NFL team has spent 1.56 first rounders on DBs in that 8 year span. The Bills have spent 3 firsts, along with 4 other teams. The most firsts spent are the Raiders (5), and the Chargers (4) 6 teams have NOT spent a 1st rounder on a DB in that span, the Browns, Chiefs, Saints, Bears, Vikings, and Lions. For those that say no one drafts like the Bills did in 2006, there are some other notable times teams have spent lots of early picks in the DB(we'll call them BillinNYC drafts). Philly in '02 spent the #26, 58, and 59 picks on DBs San Diego in '03 spent the #30, 46, and 62 picks on DBs Seattle in '03 spent the #11 and 42 picks on DBs Denver in '05 spent their 1st 3 picks, 56, 76, 97 on DBs In the 07 and 08 drafts, the giants have spent the #20 (2007) and then the #31 and 63 picks this year on DBs. Some general thoughts: Teams that do NOT spend picks on the secondary generally have bad secondaries. Note the teams with 0 first rounders spent, 5 of the 6 (bears excluded) have had traditionally garbage secondaries. Also, teams that spent few picks on DBs generally have bad secondaries (miami, houston, san fran) The Buccs have only spent a few picks on DBs, but they have had Ronde Barber and Brian Kelly locking down the CB position for a long time now, thus having no need to replenish the secondary. The good teams over the past few years have had wildly different strategies for building their good teams. Some good teams spend more picks on DBs, and some good teams spend fewer picks on DBs. There is no one set formula to follow. The numbers are all over the board. In conclusion: While there is no set method for being a good team, it seems to be that ignoring the secondary on draft day is simply not a smart move. Teams that ignore the secondary early on draft day have bad secondaries. If you look at the teams with few picks early spent on DBs, you'll see a shortage of victories and playoff success.

when did i ever say we should pick Limas Sweed? I said i would rather have Sweed as opposed to devin thomas. The TBD mock draft voted to take Sweed at #11, and since i started that thread, perhaps your poor reading comprehension led to you thinking that i was advocating sweed. And i'll still stand by my thread that picking a WR at #11 when the highest "rated" one is rated at 17 isnt a reach. Its not a reach no matter what position is picked 6 picks too early. Oh, and i more favor, please find me all of my posts where i was shouting that the Bills need to take a WR at #11. Also, i am still waiting to justify your insane premise that the pats* would be just as good as they are if they had drafted jonathan sullivan and ryan sims instead of wilfork and seymour.

like you've shown a great propensity for doing, again here you aren't making even the slightest bit of sense? So because no WRs were taken in round 1 this year, that means that no WR is worth the #11 pick? As for my prediction, it was correct. More than a handful of WRs (10 to be exact) were taken in rounds 1 and 2 this year.

I have 2 simple questions... 1. If You fully know that Chris Kelsay is so terrible, why and how did he manage to rack up 6.5 sacks in 2006? I mean, he's so terrible, how did he perform that well? It couldnt possibly be that he had a down year in 2007 and not having denney in the rotation hurt his production, could it? 2. When you claim that Kelsay is overpaid, how do you explain Antwan Odom, who put up almost identical stats to Kelsay, and was rewarded with an almost identical contract? It couldnt be that Kelsay was given market value, could it?

that would be your evidence that predicts a Chiefs-Rams super bowl this season...

what kind of meteorologists are you talking about? i'll assume that you are talking about jim jones that does the weather on the local 6pm news. from what the girlfriend has told me, they all get forecast models and such that the NWS issues and the basically interpret them and come up with a weather forecast. you dont need a degree to do that. pass the test and you can get a job as a weatherman. you just need a little bit of ability and a lot of "TV market appeal."

Color me confused. I thought we were suppose to hate Omon because the pick should have been spent on an OL.

anyone else thinking of going to the Jax game? its a short drive for me.

yah shes an FSU grad. right now, shes looking for something until i can get the hell out of here in less than a year.

I see you are fond of the tom donahoe method of running a team. sign lots of big name over the hill players with no real team direction. Ask yourself this...after 2005, was that 5-11 team anywhere near making a super bowl run? no it wasnt. the team was in shambles, and by the time the team was ready to make a run, fletcher, milloy, etc, all the guys we "shedded" would have been over the hill and we would have needed their replacements, thus further delaying the development of the team. The Bills chose to take 2 steps back so they could take 3 forward in the future and actually build a team, not just a bunch of names. The only player you can make a case for is clements, and we've been over this enough times to plainly see it was a wiser move to not pay him the insane asking price and pay the OL instead. You continually bash the 3006 drat for the players being so terrible, but then why is it that all those bad players who were "forced to start" managed to compile a better record than the 2005 "name" team? ITs because they were plain and simply better.

Hard rookie cap, with a max of 3 year contracts. The rookies then are RFAs before year 4 and year 5. If a rook busts, it doesnt kill the team from a salary cap standpoint. If a rook is decent, you can keep him for 2 more years as an RFA to fully see what you've got. If a rook turns out really good, then can make up for their low rookie contract by cashing in after year 3. You'd either basically have the choice of re-signing your rook then to a big money deal, or risk losing him as an RFA to another team. One caveat - NO poison pill contracts.

Hardy doesnt need to draw double teams. He simply needs to take some pressure off of Evans. Coverages arent as simple as just "single coverage" and "double coverage", but i am not shocked that a sh-- for brains poster like yourself cannot understand this. With Evans and no other threat, you can double the safety and corner on Lee, and the other safety can roll towards evans side of the field, effectively closing down that side of the field. Reed doesnt provide the receiving threat from the outside. If hardy can beat the single coverage and make a few catches, that will prevent the 2nd safety from shading towards Lee. Keeping both safeties back not only frees up Lee, it opens up the shorter passes to Reed/Parrish, and frees up lynch with more room to run. However, I'd would like to know how your plan of drafting a backup OL in rounds 1 and 2 would have freed up Lee Evans.

If rookies are getting so much PT, it says 2 things... 1. the previous regime left the team in a really bad way, almost completely devoid of talent 2. the current FO has been drafting well enough that these rookies are good enough to get that much PT As for hardy, no there isnt much pressure on him. If defenses continue to double cover evans, hardy will find himself roaming free. He needs to be able to make about 3 catches per game and teams will stop rolling coverage towards lee. Not to mention that this allows reed and parrish to work the slot where both of them are extremely dangerous. All hardy needs to be able to do is put up respectable 40-600-5, and that will free up evans to put up the 80-1200-10 that he's more than capable of.