Tortured Soul

I don't think you know what cherry picking means. Let me help you out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_%28fallacy%29 Highlighting Olsen while ignoring the tight ends on the other winning teams to demonstrate that you need a good tight end to win is cherry picking. Of course, it would be better to have a good tight end than a bad one. That is true of every position in every sport known to man. Do you disagree?

No question, the Bills have drafted poorly. But it's not like Erik Flowers or Mike Williams worked out much better. The problems with this team did not start in 2006, so if that's your point, then look a little deeper.

I disagree with the point that you need a TE to win. Yes, Olsen had 113 yards, but the TEs on the other three winning teams this weekend, two of which were in cold weather, combined for 68 yards. I disagree with cherry-picking stats to make your argument.

Come on, Bill. You're smarter than that. Remember the Pats-Bears game in the snow earlier this year, when the Pats won 36-7? Brady dominated the Bears, throwing for 151 yards to Branch and 115 to Welker. Hernandez and Gronkowski combined for 62 yards. Cutler and his Mallett-like arm had no TDs and two picks. Olsen had one catch for 6 yards. Point is, a win is great any way you can get.

Let's conveniently ignore that Sanchez played a hell of a game and that the Pats still scored 21 points.

No, actually they haven't. Just add up the point total of recent trades if you don't believe me.

You know that chart is not legally binding, right?

Rivers, Pennington, Warner, Brees, P Rodgers, Rodgers, Schaub, Romo, Ryan, E Manning, McNabb, Cutler, Campbell, Garrard, Favre, Flacco, Collins, Roethlisberger, Orton, Bulger, Hasselbeck Garcia and Young. Glad I could amuse you.

It's not like that was a team with an average quarterback. It was a seventh round pick starting for the first time. And he still won ten games. There's probably two dozen QBs in the league that Belichick could have taken deep into the playoffs that year. And for this thread, if I was starting an expansion team, I would pick Jim Harbaugh as my head coach.

Are you talking about coaches or GMs? Because it's Ozzie Newsome that's making those moves. And FWIW, Ngata got there long before Harbaugh.

Doesn't Wanny run the 4-3?

That was the same logic with Spiller. A dynamic back will make the offensive line look better by turning nothing into something and will make the QB look better by giving him an outlet and keeping the rush at bay.

How can you compare Moss to Keyshawn? They were very different players.

The other would be power.

Really bad sign when your own organization doesn't see you as the starter, and yes, the same thing applies to Fitz.

His daughters are grown and out of the house, though.

"*The Bills want to build their defense around middle linebacker Paul Posluszny, and have wanted to get him under contract before he becomes a free agent in the offseason. Problem? The 30 percent rule. He made $700,000 in 2009, and he can’t make more than 30 percent more than that in a new deal. Posluszny therefore, is basically unsignable until a new CBA is in place." http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/NFP-Sunday-Blitz-2727.html

Maybe it's just my own bias, but I think there is a difference in the quality of hiring Cowher over the other coaches you listed. None of them had competitive teams for as long as he did. Those guys don't seem to have the same draw as Cowher. I think Gruden might be the closest comparison, but he is only facing his third year out of the league to Cowher's fifth. That, and he is six years younger. He has to pick some place sooner or later. Real plum jobs don't open up. You can argue that one of the seven openings this year has a franchise QB in place (Dallas). So if he doesn't get to bring Dick Lebeau, does that mean he's done coaching?

So far, there have been seven openings - Denver, Minnesota, Dallas, San Francisco, Oakland, Carolina, and Cleveland - and the only team that has been remotely connected to Cowher is Miami. And if you believe what you read in the press, they weren't willing to fire Jeff Ireland to bring on Cowher's handpicked GM. I get that Cowher wants to pick the perfect team, but (1) he's not going to find a great quarterback on a team without a coach anyway, (2) this will be his fifth straight year out of the league, and that is a long time, and (3) Mike Tomlin's continued success sure seems to minimize his accomplishments. Is it possible the league is not as high on him as we were?

I think you and I are going to be agreeing a lot this offseason.

You need to pay more attention. Kiper has Gabbert ranked even higher, at 9th overall and the top QB.

It's an awful lot to gamble on Luck, considering if a QB-needy team has the top pick, 3 1sts are likely to not be enough anyway. Also, are you so sure none of the top QBs this year are franchise material?

Crayonz wins. QB rushing leaders this year (att yds): Vick 100 676 Freeman 68 364 Rodgers 64 356 Garrard 66 279 Fitzpatrick 40 269 Cutler 50 232 Tebow 43 227

No, they're not. The chart doesn't apply to the top few picks. Besides, the chart doesn't contemplate a once-a-decade prospect like Luck.

Agreed. The GM who drafted Tebow is still in place. It's not even clear what actual football authority Elway will have. Let's give the other ten members of the Stanford O some credit, too. You could drive a truck through some of those running holes.