Chilly

You're taking a subjective statement and making it technical. There's about 0 chance that Wilson would have said the Bills were still in playoff contention if they were 3-9 at that point.

It wasn't really a model for anything, actually, even though you keep acting like it was - it was simply to address the statement that the Bills don't spend as many picks on certain positions as other teams. It was not to address whether they spend more valuable picks or not on certain players - which is where you run into all sorts of problems, as your "study" does. The problem is simply saying "the Bills used x number of points at a position out of their total over 7 years." Its simplistic and doesn't get you very far. It acts as though the Bills can plan where they get a pick, and that it is logical for them to have said "well, since we have a top-15 pick, we're going to take a DT." To take your example of the Pats*, they haven't said "Well, we have more draft resources this year, so we need to spend them at _____ position." They took at DT at 6 in 2001, a DE at 13 in 2003, and a NT at #23 in 2004. They aren't magically good because they picked three Defensive Linemen at those positions. The Rams spent a #29, #12, #12, #13 on DTs during the same time frame. Yet, they suck. Know why? Despite having very strong drafts compared to what you are pushing, they don't know how to pick players who will be solid in the NFL. Ah, yes, the great straw-man argument. Claim that I suggested something that I didn't. You have absolutely NO EVIDENCE that your model is a cause for winning. None. Zip. Nada. Its very simple: You're drawing conclusions that you can't make based off of what you did - suggesting that the Bills would be better drafters by being more like past super bowl winners. You must have causation to say that, and you don't. Another straw man argument. I said the most important determination, by far, to being a successful drafter and the largest impact on your win-loss record through the draft is your scouting department. I don't even know why you're arguing that point, its common frickin' sense. If you want to argue positions as being very important in a drafting approach, it would be much more useful to look at return and scarcity vs round/pick for each position. This look at what the past 7 super bowl winners did means little. That - and because it was midnight and I wanted to sleep, not write a detailed post.

Since you keep pushing your "study", I decided to take a closer look at it. First, I want to take a look at how you got these numbers. I decided to do a little test, and see how you came to these numbers. I marked those 7 drafts down, and then divided the number that you assigned it by the total from all 7 drafts. As it turns out, the percentage that I received were the numbers you had listed if you rounded. The problem, therefore, is you are acting as if the Bills decided where in the draft they were going to pick each year for seven years, and planned it out over those seven years, to make RB be 20% of the "points" they were budgeted. In reality, drafts don't work that way. Each team has to choose what to take wear, only knowing that they have a pick somewhere in the first round the year after. Lets also consider how it would have affected your total if the Bills had taken DT Ryan Sims (who was the first DT drafted) at #4 instead of Mike Williams. If you move those 61 points that you've assigned to Mike Williams over to DL, it jumps the percentage up to 20%, pretty close to that 23% magic number that you have. Yet, the Bills would be no better off, because both Mike Williams and Ryan Sims were busts. You have no way to even suggest causation - making these numbers useless. Picking relatively few draft busts is much more important then deciding you're going to take a DT because you have a pick in the top 15 of the NFL Draft. Now for a completely subjective, non-valid view to illustrate my point: Between 2000 and 2005, the Bills found only 8/50 (16%) players I would consider solid starters. In contrast, the Pats* found 13/51 solid starters (25%), including a franchise QB. With 22 starters on offense and defense, those extra 5 players amount to more than 20% of the starting squad, freeing up lots of money for free agency, putting them even further ahead. Likewise, the Colts were 16/49 (32%), versus the Lions at 6/44 (13%). The stronger one drafts, the more holes can be filled via the draft, the more money that can be spent on top-flight free agents, and the more you can spread your drafts around positionally instead of focusing on one area that you keep busting in. Thus, having strong drafts (regardless of the positions drafted) is much more important than sticking to a positional view of the draft.

You said the top teams stockpile DT talent and the Bills don't. This means that they pick significantly MORE Defensive Tackles than the Buffalo Bills. Picking ONE Defensive Tackle at #1 is NOT "stockpiling" Defensive Tackles. Picking a Defensive Tackle in the second round of three consecutive drafts IS stockpiling talent.

Oh yeah, it makes total sense to weight the picks when you're talking about stockpiling DTs. After all, if your team spends the 7th pick in the draft at the Defensive Tackle position, you get more Defensive Tackles than if your team spends the 22nd overall pick in the draft on a Defensive Tackle.

Oh boy. The great AKC "study" is upon me. I shall bow down in amazement. There is a reason why I called what I posted a game, and didn't draw any conclusions from it in my post: The only thing is shows is that the Bills have, at most positions, drafted around the same number of players in the first three rounds at the same positions as last year's playoff teams during the last five drafts. Now, lets see what conclusions we can draw from the game that you posted: The Buffalo Bills have not spent their first two round picks at the same positions as the average of the last 8 super bowl teams. That is the only conclusion that you can draw from your "study" in regards to the Bills. Lets look at this quote by you on "stocking up" talent at DT, shall we? You don't accept that I included the 3rd round. Quite frankly, I think the 3rd round is more than valid, given the quality of players that emerge. But alas, to humor you, lets do the same thing I did earlier, with just rounds 1 and 2 included, for the DT position: Pittsburgh - 0 Indianapolis - 0 Jacksonville - 0 Dallas - 0 San Diego - 0 Tampa Bay - 0 Giants - 0 Seattle - 1 Washington - 0 Green Bay - 1 Tennessee - 0 New England - 1 Average: .25 Buffalo: 1 Unlike what you would have me believe, last year's best teams haven't stuck to stockpiling young DTs through the draft over the last 5 years. Lets increase this to include the 2000 draft, shall we? Pittsburgh - 1 Indianapolis - 1 Jacksonville - 2 Dallas - 0 San Diego - 0 Tampa Bay - 0 Giants - 2 Seattle - 1 Washington - 0 Green Bay - 1 Tennessee - 1 New England - 2 Average: .92 Buffalo: 1 Kinda blows that theory out of the water, doesn't it? Lets look at the whole DL now, in the first two rounds, since the year 2000, for last year's playoff teams: Pittsburgh - 1 Indianapolis - 2 Jacksonville - 4 Dallas - 1 San Diego - 2 Tampa Bay - 2 Giants - 4 Seattle - 4 Washington - 0 Green Bay - 1 Tennessee - 4 New England - 4 Average: 2.41 Buffalo: 5 Hmmm...

Oh, alright. I didn't realize that players like, oh, Pat Williams, Darnell Dockett, Shaun Rogers, Kris Jenkins, Kelly Gregg, Jamal Williams, Cornelius Griffin, etc. didn't count. Sorry, my bad.

Lets play a game. Lets look at the playoff teams from last year, and the number of picks at DT within the first 3 rounds since 2004 (5 drafts total): Pittsburgh - 0 Indianapolis - 1 Jacksonville - 0 Dallas - 0 San Diego - 0 Tampa Bay - 0 Giants - 1 Seattle - 2 Washington - 0 Green Bay - 2 Tennessee - 1 New England - 1 Average: .67 Buffalo: 2 How about D-line in total? Pittsburgh - 1 Indianapolis - 1 Jacksonville - 2 Dallas - 2 San Diego - 2 Tampa Bay - 1 Giants - 4 Seattle - 4 Washington - 0 Green Bay - 2 Tennessee - 4 New England - 2 Average: 2.08 Buffalo: 3 Lets look at the TE position, since you also said that: Pittsburgh - 2 Indianapolis - 1 Jacksonville - 1 Dallas - 2 San Diego - 0 Tampa Bay - 1 Giants - 0 Seattle - 1 Washington - 2 Green Bay - 1 Tennessee - 2 New England - 2 Average: 1.25 Buffalo: 1 For ***** and giggles, since everyone likes to B word about DBs, lets look at that too: Pittsburgh - 3 Indianapolis - 5 Jacksonville - 1 Dallas - 2 San Diego - 5 Tampa Bay - 2 Giants - 4 Seattle - 3 Washington - 3 Green Bay - 5 Tennessee - 3 New England - 4 Average: 3.33 Buffalo: 3 Lets look at Offensive Linemen: Pittsburgh - 3 Indianapolis - 2 Jacksonville - 1 Dallas - 3 San Diego - 2 Tampa Bay - 5 Giants - 1 Seattle - 2 Washington - 1 Green Bay - 2 Tennessee - 1 New England - 1 Average: 2 Buffalo: 0 Finally, lets look at Wide Receivers: Pittsburgh - 2 Indianapolis - 1 Jacksonville - 3 Dallas - 0 San Diego - 2 Tampa Bay - 3 Giants - 3 Seattle - 0 Washington - 2 Green Bay - 4 Tennessee - 3 New England - 1 Average: 2 Buffalo: 3

We already had way too much corn - which is one of the reasons why the ethanol spending happened in the first place. Corn is artificially cheap because of the farm subsidies that encourage farmers to grow as much of it as possible. Politicians see: Removing subsidies make Iowa farmers vote against me. However, if we keep the subsidies, and then turn the excess into Ethanol, we get votes from the farmers and environmental types. Brilliant! Plus, it reduces the cost of oil. However, it also removes the incentives to grow other crops. Why should they when they're getting pai dso much for ethanol? And thus increased food prices.

lolz http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/bro...0,4784447.story Does this remind anyone else of Idiocracy?

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...eedName=topNews

Governments don't do backups.

Unless he wired a bomb to go off when you connect a peripheral, open the case, or eject a cd-rom drive. What then, HUH, smart guy?

wtf? I didn't attack you, I attacked your argument. And choosing the correct players is not a myth. When drafting in the NFL, the top priority is to pick someone who is going to succeed as a player. The next priority is determining where the resources should be allocated. I could draft OL all day, but if they suck, it won't matter.

Nope - I'm waiting till next week or the week after, and seeing it on the local IMAX.

There are some pretty awesome conference games this year: Ohio State-Michigan (usually good), Texas-Oklahoma (usually good), Florida-Georgia, Missouri-Kansas, Georgia-LSU, Texas-Texas Tech, Florida-LSU, Ohio State-Wisconsin, etc. Still, though, I think you are definitely missing two games from your list: Kansas Vs South Florida BYU Vs Utah Just sticking to the non-conference game I want to see the most, though, I have to go with Ohio State-USC. I do wish both teams could lose that game. In second is BYU vs Utah, and 3rd WVU vs Auburn. I'd still put those games down below many of the in-conference games though - I think Florida-Georgia is the game of the year.

Apparently they aren't - but are - going to sell the seats. What baffoons.

o great, they're going to give the sh-- seats to poor people for free

lol awesome

Not yet, my tv at work watching today was dedicated to the past 2 episodes of the Daily Show, and I'm about to go play Mario Kart. I'ma watch tomorrow.

Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinteresting.

Yap, picking the correct positions, not players, at the appropriate rounds, is what matters in the draft.

I had more compassion for him before I watched the video.

/if anyone puts any of 120 minute in the freezer, I'll kill em //aging a bottle of the '08 120 vintage for 5 years or so.

he picked the wrong area!