Pyrite Gal

A lot depends upon what in fact the Bills and NC agreed to in regards to whether the Bills in fact agreed not to tag NC and let him walk this year as part of the negotiations last year when it is REPORTED they made this agreement with NC. It would be unreasonable for Marv to be declared a jerk for exercising the rights NC's representative's the NFLPA agreed to if that is the total agreement both parties made. However, Marv would clearly be a jerk if he simply went back on his word and agreed not to use the Bills rights to franchise Nate for 07 and then did the opposite. It really is a who knows for sure outside of the two parties guessing game for us observers.

It depends upon him as a person. This probably is a good cautionary tale that if one's sole focus is on your self, you can certainly end up with bitter disappointment. He clearly is going to miss being a part of the achievements of his teammates this year and in exchange simply gets a huge boatload (rather than the semi-huge boatload he would have if he stayed) of $. In terms of reality because he is gone and that is that, to the extent that he had retained relationships with a significant # of old friends on the Colts, though he is not really a part of the SB weeks, he actually can experience a nice chunk of happiness for the accomplishments of his friends. In the ned, too the extent his focus is all about him, then he is mostly spending time lying to himself that he is OK. To the extent he is about sharing the joy of his friend's accomplishments as best he can, he probably is a fairly happy camper.

This does not seem likely as from looking at a few draft sites Lynch should still be on the board when the Bills pick as several other RBs starting with Adrian Petersen seem to impress many far more than Lynch. Lynch is a good player certainly but why waste your first round pick on a player who quite possibly spends most of his time on the bench if the competition from him in his FA year lights a fire under WM. It appears the only reason the Bills trade WM since they are in the drivers seat with him contractually is that they decide he is is such a pain in the neck off-field they need to get rid of him or that he will never produce. Neither reason bodes well for getting very much for him. My guess is that WM stays and both Marv and Ralph are too old to spend yet another season preparing for the future. My guess is that they use the 1st round pick to help the team stop the run or to run the ball by getting better blockers rather than wasting the 1st rounder on an RB.

Mostly this goes to show why all draft predictions today and actually anytime before some the reactions of the Bills to the interviews at the Combine are worth the amount of the paper these TSW messages are printed on, The official weights and heights of many players is open to some doubts and the other statistical indicators collected at the Combine and the results of meeting and talking to these players for the first and for many the only time can produce a make or break choice for many a draft pick. The draft is a fun and entertaining distraction and amusement for us fans but until we see whom the team actually chooses it really is little more than that.

Given the outcomes of first day OL picks MW and Jennings, it is pretty clear that all first day OL picks are not created equal so the notion that we should use our first day picks on OL players is a nice thought but half or less of a strategy.

No, I never said do not ever draft a MLB, all I said is that there is a difference between drafting an MLB and developing him to be the pivotal player in a Tampa 2 over time OR drafting him and throwing him to the dogs essentially and demanding that he start immediately. It may be that I simply did not understand what you were saying, but wouldn't you say there is a difference between drafting an MLB (even on the first day of the draft) and either starting him at an OLB position (if he is capable of making the position switch which is quite possible since the OLB positions cover less field than the MLB and in our Cover 2 involves far less complexity since you are not expected to both tackle like a DL yet cover like a safety) or playing him promarily om ST and teaching him the how to do vet reads in practice. These are the different approaches that I think drive this team to get an FA vet to replace F-B rather than throw a talented rookie to the dogs by demanding he play the starting MLB role in our Cover 2, Certainly Willis can start for us if drafted, but if I am an OC or an opposing QB I am salivating over the prospect of facing a rookie MLB and likely the Bills D takes a few steps back in productivity with a rookie (even a talented one) starting at MLB in our Cover 2.

Astro- Thanks for all your work on the draft options! I commented in entirety on an earlier thread you started with your review of a whole bunch of draft site. I include below my comments on Willis who I hope we do not take to fill in for F-B at MLB as even though I also think Willis a very talented player who deserved the Butkus honor. I think our D would end up taking a step back in production if we ask a rookie to play the diverse and pivotal MLB role in the Cover 2 as we run it. F-B led the NFL in INTs by an LB and actually got more INTs than both NC and McGee in 06 because in the Tampa 2 version of the Cover 2 we run, F-B benefited a lot from having a bout a decade of seeing NFL plays run and he could see when they were trying to fool him and do good reads. If one wants to imagine what life will be like with Willis at MLB then think of JP learning how to become an NFL vet. The QB position is in many ways more complicated than the MLB position (and I think that the Bills will need to hand off the playcalling duties Fletch had to another position as there is almost no way a rookie will know the Fewell/Jauron D well enough to inherit the F-B playcalling duties). Even with a simpler task than the physically gifted JP we are likely to have to suffer through the growing pains of the physically gifted Willis as this rookie learns how to become a vet. Even worse for us fans, i think their frustration from seeing Fletch hit player downfield instead of at the LOS or in the backfield will merely switch to seeing Willis first hit players downfield instead of at the LOS or in the backfield. F-B led LBs in the NFL in INTs because the way our D is run on 3rd downs the MLB's responsibilities are more like that of a safety than as a run plugger. Willis is going to be positioned off the line just as Fletch was, In addition. to his INT #s providing a strong indication (stats are good indicators though rarely conclusive) look at the fact that Fletch ran about a 2:1 ratio of unassisted to assisted tackles. If the problem was he was a weak hitter or his weight was simply too light in the pants, then I think you would actually see his assisted tackle # being higher as he held onto rushers for dear life but could not bring them down on his own and the delays caused by this speed bump would allow the safeties to come up or the DL to catch up and split the tackle credit with him. The fact that Fletch tended to get credited for unassisted tackles and also that his team leading by far tackle #s tend to indicate that folks would simply run right through him and need to be brought down by others (who thus would have higher tackle numbers( indicates to me that complaints about him tackling folks downfield probably say more about our turnstile DTs who let folks through to Fletch and toward how Fewell used him in our D. Willis IMHO would be a waste of a 1st round choice we could use on a higher need who might help with that problem. (5) Patrick Willis - ILB (NFLAnswers, walterfootball, eastcoastsportsnews, draftclass, draftace) This pick is a favorite of folks who feel that it is certain we will let Fletch walk (probably will though this is not certain as of yet) and hope (think this an LB who got the Butkus award as best college LB would likely hold the job for years, This sounds to me like very solid thinking for the 2008 or at latest 2009 season, but it strikes me as really doubtful the Bills will go this way and have a rookie fill in for Fletch as like it or not, with the MLB being called upon to read and diagnose 3rd down plays as runs or passes and if it is a throw cover folks like a safety in the deep zone, that a rookie who does not have the years a vet would have of seeing NFL plays call and develop will get undressed a lot as he learns to become a vet. The Bills reliance on the MLB in coverage is seen in F-B not only leading the NFL in INTs by an LB, but actually leading the team in INTs as he got more than CNs like NC and McGee who are asked to do press coverage in the short zone in our Cover 2 and then release receivers going downfield to the safties and MLB. I think it is far more likely that to replace Fletch we move Crowell back to the MLB spot where he started and he takes over the playcalling duties from Fletch which no rookie be it Willis or whomever would be able to do for a while until they master NFL Ds. We then would be looking to acquire an OLN and an FA like Briggs makes more sense or if we draft a rookie LB it more likely woul be OLBs Poluszny or Timmons unless Willis is good enough to start at OLB for us. Willis is a talented player who seems like a bad fit for us if Marv or Ralph have an interest in winning now as our D would likely take a step back for a year while Willis playing a pivotal role learns how to become a vet.

I find draft sites to be interesting because they sometimes provide great information about players if they have devoted the time to doing good profiles, and also because almost all of them are so spectacularly wrong about who gets chosen where that it gets fairly hilarious. Basically almost all draft sites are wrong because they have their sense of the correct order of talent of the college players, but the actual draft order is not determined simply by how good the players are but by how good the teams picking think they are. A correct draft order would have to be based on not an assessment of the quality of play of each player but in the 32 assessments of how good those players are, and more importantly how good they are for that team. The fact is that a player may in fact be the most talented player in the world hypothetically, but if he happens to play a position already occupied by a player in his prime playing well for the team picking, it probably is insane for that team to choose this best player in the draft. However, it is probably not a good idea for a team just behind this team to trade that pick as clearly trading down for extra value would allow the first team to pick a player who can actually play for them AND also get additional resources. In essence, it only takes one or two team to choose players which disagree with the consensus and the entire draft is thrown off. Thus, this is my sense of how each of these drafts is probably wrong in their thinking about the Bills: (9) Levi Brown- OT (FootballMinds, DraftConnection, thefootballexpert, draftking, junkyardjake, nflanswers, draftseason.com/outhouse, djnflmockdraft, ffcheatsheets) These folks share Marv's thought that winning the game starts with running and stopping the run. In addition, one only needs to take a cursory look at the stats to see the Bills do not run effectively. However, thinking that the Bills will draft Brown, certainly any tackle and acually probably any OL player in the 1st ignores the other side of Marv's dictum of showing an ability to stop the run. The freshest things in the Bills braintrust's mind will be folks like Travis Henry shredding the DL and D for rushing yards but also the JP led O putting up a few points in their final games. As the OL certainly sucked this season, it also clearly improved after the shuffle at the break. The Bills will likely rely on JMac continuing to improve the play of the young recently extended Paters and the hopeful Pennington and if there is any immediate improvement in talent it more likely come from getting a respected FA G rather than spending draft resources. Many of the vocal OL draft advocates on TSW may hate this but I am not arguing over the theory of the best way to build an OL but instead what I think the Bills will do in real life and this may be another year without a first day OL pick unless there is a specific talent that JMac and them want to argue for as Marv has stated a belief in getting the Best Player Available in the draft. (5) Patrick Willis - ILB (NFLAnswers, walterfootball, eastcoastsportsnews, draftclass, draftace) This pick is a favorite of folks who feel that it is certain we will let Fletch walk (probably will though this is not certain as of yet) and hope (think this an LB who got the Butkus award as best college LB would likely hold the job for years, This sounds to me like very solid thinking for the 2008 or at latest 2009 season, but it strikes me as really doubtful the Bills will go this way and have a rookie fill in for Fletch as like it or not, with the MLB being called upon to read and diagnose 3rd down plays as runs or passes and if it is a throw cover folks like a safety in the deep zone, that a rookie who does not have the years a vet would have of seeing NFL plays call and develop will get undressed a lot as he learns to become a vet. The Bills reliance on the MLB in coverage is seen in F-B not only leading the NFL in INTs by an LB, but actually leading the team in INTs as he got more than CNs like NC and McGee who are asked to do press coverage in the short zone in our Cover 2 and then release receivers going downfield to the safties and MLB. I think it is far more likely that to replace Fletch we move Crowell back to the MLB spot where he started and he takes over the playcalling duties from Fletch which no rookie be it Willis or whomever would be able to do for a while until they master NFL Ds. We then would be looking to acquire an OLN and an FA like Briggs makes more sense or if we draft a rookie LB it more likely woul be OLBs Poluszny or Timmons unless Willis is good enough to start at OLB for us. Willis is a talented player who seems like a bad fit for us if Marv or Ralph have an interest in winning now as our D would likely take a step back for a year while Willis playing a pivotal role learns how to become a vet. (4) Amobi Okoye-DT (GBN, InsideTheEagles, FantasyFootballJungle, drufantasyfootball) The main strike against Okoye is that for the second year in a row we would be spending the 1st round pick on a D player and Fairchild an the O will argue it is their turn among their reasons for going O with the choice. That being said, if someone make a strong case for any individual he will be picked no matter whose "turn" it is. Some view Okoye's youth as a downside as they predict he will not grow into being a pro starter for a couple of years. However, given that even our starting DTs will be in heavy rotation I do not think the braintrust will feel bad about getting a few years to train Okpye as long as they feel his upside will produce some immediate benefit. My guess is he is actually the most likely choice. (4) Leon Hall -CB (FantasyFootballExtreme, draftstudio, northwestscouting, nfldaily) Picking him is premised on the concept that they will let NC walk (again the likely scenario but who knows who is not inside really though we fans have tons of fact-free opinions on this. Yet even if NC goes picking him is dependent on whether the Bills think Youbouty can step up. All in all I doubt this will be our choice. (4) Gaines Adams, DE (warroomdraftguide, huddlegeeks, fantasytailgate, mockdraftcity) A lot depends on what happens with Ke;say, but even if Kelsay starts Denney/Schobel are the likely DE starters abd a DE would need a lot advocates of his talent for us to pick him. (3) Darrelle Revis -CB (NFLDraftCountdown, draftdaddy, fftoolbox/thompson) See Hall notes above (2) Brian Brohm - QB (footballsfuture, fftoolbox/dimon) QB seems like one ofthe more senseless choices the Bills could make and is probably the best sign that the draft predictor knows little about this team. (1) Quinn Pitcock-DT (condraft) Who? See Amoye comments above (1) Jamaal Anderson DE (nfl-draft-site.blogspot) Who? See Adams comments above (1) Troy Smith - QB (NFCNorthdraftboard, Yeah right. See Brohm comments above (1) Sam Baker - OT/OG (saturdays2sundays) OG could be but Baker would need strong advocates and an FA OD kooks like a better choice. (1) Dwayne Jarrett -WR (draftseason.com/Lupagus) IMHO a big part of the problem with the WRs was not simply the talent, but as the Bills reined in the offense to give JP a chance to learn, Fairchild never did a solid job involving the RBs as a good checkdown for the QB and also did not employ the incredible speed we had in Evans, PP and Parrish well at all. PP did an OK at best job as a possession receiver but this is not the highest and best use of his skills (even though he once again showed he will make the tough catch and try to get a yard or two afterwards. Jarrett strikes me as a waste as we are likely getting in a taller more talented #2 to use improperly just as we never used PP as well as we could this year, (1) Lawrence Timmons LB (heardsfootballreport) Possible and see Willis write up above. Overall, all of these are silly as predictive tools at this point since as Marv views character as so important really all thought based on college stats or performance in some showcase game are still heavily dependent upon his interviews of these rookies.

Given the Bills record of success the two times they did as you suggested and drafted OL players on the first day of the draft and ended up with the good playing but injury plagued Jonas Jennings and then the bust Mike Williams do you really want to argue that there is a reasonable probability of success if they had only focused on the OL? I (and I suspect all who agree with Marv that winning football starts with being able to run and to stop the run) certainly would have liked to have seen a bit more attention given to the OL since the turn of the millenia (and even before), but really drafting players high would/should have only played a significant but small role in making this team's OL and record better, as I think the even bigger issues for improving the OL were: 1. Having some experienced adult leadership of the OL here instead of the inexperienced Vinky and the littel experienced Ruel. These two almost certainly played a critical role in picking not very good players to spend first day draft picks on like MW an Jennings (a good athlete who did not play often enough because he is injury prone). 2. Poor OCs like GW's original choice (Kragthorpe I I think) who was so badhe got canned and Kevin Killdrive ran Os so predictable and bad i douby even the best players could save it. 3. Getting better teaching and gameplanning from both of the above for development of individual players in addition to better gameplanning. The draft is an important issue certainly and is a good method for acquiring players as shown by many teams. However, it is not the only way to acquire an OL capable of playing a key role in a team getting to the playoffs (lets use this as our next goal rather than choosing how do SB winners build their team as a measure of greater success by this team. JMac's prescence actually represents a significant improvement in our OL as he meets part of your point by his helping choose better players like Preston for 1st day picks, and even more important in the real world where we have multiple needs to fill, he has been able to identify and train UDFAs like Peters into competent OL players and train and develop low round picks like Pennington into credible starters. As he himself said right from the start he is no miracle man and he has had failures like Bennie Anderson and disappointments like Reyes, but overall, if the Bills under TD had drafted 2 more OL players on the first day, they would have been enough for them to meet the numeric norm for this position and variances this small are easily explained by players they targeted being taken or other needs demanding they look elsewhere first. Even for this big believer in the import of a strong OL, I simply do not see a compelling case for us having made more OL picks as anywhere near the lead explanation for our bad record. IMHO making bad OL choices with our first day picks is the lead OL story here.

This is something we actually can check the specific cases on to try to judge together (or with disagreements) what happened with the proven DBs he (we) failed to resign and why this decision (mistake?) was made. I will try to look at this with some detail if I get the chance, but this is my sense from my Alzheimered recollections: DBs we failed to resign- Thomas Smith-Well before TDs time but not a mistake by the Bills to let him go as he never produced in the rest of his career as he did here. He was a great cover guy but my recollection his he never produced the INTs on a team which needed turnovers badly to make him worth resigning. It struck me as a reasonable decision not to sign Smith for more than he was worth which the market commanded. Antoine Winfield- The decision to not resign him was on TDs watch so he bears responsibility for this one. However, the Bills had set aside the cap money to r-sign him but did not do so when Lawyer Milloy to the surprise of all (Belicheck being among them) refused to sign with NE for a few hundred thou. below his asking price and BB refused to budge over a small amount of money and Milloy jumped ship over a small amount of money. AW was on record after the Bills made an offer to Milloy which was substantial as the Bears also had need and cap room that the decision to sign Milloy likely ended his career as a Bill. TDs decision to choose this SS over a proven DB was a necessdary one in my judgment as TD was making up for an error by the HC he hired as GW had sign Jenkins to be SS starter, but when it turned out that Jenkins was done, they had to start Wire at SS. I also loved AW but it seemed to me to be the correct move to sign an aging Milloy for more $ than he was worth compared to other SSs who already had deals because playing Wire as starting SS was simply unacceptable. The decision not to resign AW was not a happy one, but it strikes me as the right thing to do given the overall situation. Nate Clements- He is not resigned yet so he qualifies for this list, but we still can sign him so the case is not closed (yet). It would seem we might have had him more cheaply before but it is not certain what he was asking for. It is also not absolutely certain what the tag situation is with him though my sense is that the reports we agreed not to tag him at all are correct. We do have potential alternatives on the roster but a few things would have to work out perfectly for us to really make his loss not be a bad one for the Bills, Of these three CBs, I think 1 move was the right one, 1 move was forced upon us by mistakes at SS which made not resigning AW the right move and the story is not finished yet regarding NC. Did you have other failures to resign DBs in mind as mistakes? Yeah, this is true, but in order to determine whether this truth means very much in the real world, we would need some assessment of which OL players were available in the drafts of those years. This is a bit of work that I do not expect anyone to do (though I and other fans would certainly appreciate the info). In the absence of more info while this concept makes enough sense to not merely be the fact-free opinions often seen on TSW, it would need at least some more specifics to consider this as a likely thought or simply an interesting one which may or may not be true IMHO. My apologies as this thread has become so long the stats crafted and offered were probably by someone other than you though they used this to substantiate an argument similar to yours. Specifically, in the notable post, the author claimed for example that the Bills had drafted only 1 OL player in the first two rounds under TD, This fact is a true one, but by choosing 2 rounds as the standard for showing commitment to drafting a particular position, the author conveniently chose a standard which left out the Bills using a 3rd rounder on Jonas Jennings. My sense is that selecting the entire first days choices as ones showing a priority for a particular position is a superior arbitrary judgment to the 2 round standard. Because actually we are talking about a relatively small number of choices TD had of high picks in his 5 drafts, the decision to choose a 2 round standard rather than a 3 round standard leaves out an important player when judging how the drafts went. The JJ situation is also instructive in deciding whether the TD error can be summarized best by saying he failed to extend "proven" players. OL player Jennings had merely proven he was too injury prone as a Bill to spend much cash on him. I think his case argues that the Bills OL problems were not failing to resign OL players. but actually picking bad ones and/or failing to train the players well. I think the problem you identify is real, but actually I think that by moving beyond the failed Vinky/Ruel era to the JMac era, this problem has been much improved. The proof in the pudding is that better assessment by JMac than under Vinky/Ruel has produced not only two starters from the draft (Preston/Pennington) but he gets far more out of players with is traiining (Price/Pennington). He does make mistakes and ain't no miracle worker (Anderson/Reyes) but though we are not where we want to be on the OL, e are clearly IMHO much better off than we were with the move from Vinky to JMac. I the right player is there even in the 1st round and he is an OL player great, but if he is not (Okoye for example) I am fine with us passing once again on the OL early in this draft and instead think there is a reasonable chance that JMac can repeat what he already did in helping build an OL using FAs and retreads like Glenn Parker and Dusty in NYC. Folks are correct in pointing to good teams having used the draft and resigning to build OLs for long-term success. However, I do not endorse us looking for a 4 or even 3 year plan to build the OL and this team. Utilizing JMac and his skills to acquore and train a Peters and draft and train a Pennington and Preston and trying to get as much as he can out of a Butler and Merz strikes me as a far better strategy for the Bills than having traded up our #8 to get the one OL player worth a high pick in this draft and the many changes in plans needed for us to get Mangold. In hindsight this worked extremely well for NYJ, but certainly at the time avoiding us starting Coy Wire at SS and not realizing we would find a DT starter in the 5th round made the decision to go with Whitner and trade up for McCargo a reasonble one which actually did work out not perfectly but better than 2005 for the Bills. I did list these first day picks specifically to show that if one chose OL players instead and chose well (a doubtful proposition given TD/GW/Vinky mismanagement of OL choices) instead of these players an emphasis on OL picks may well have simply shifted our problems elsewhere rather than give the Bills a winning record. In general I agree with Marv that it all starts with running and stopping the run and with this though more devotion to OL rather than skill positions makes a lot of sense. However, I think the thing I disagree with in terms of a lof of the OL orientation arguments made on TSW is that the Marv bromide is true that it STARTS with running and stopping the run and too many of the posts which call for an OL focus seem to choose to ignore that this would merely be a start and that if they want to make a serious proposal their ideas at least need to acknowledge that what they call for is only a start. Without some semblance of acknowledgement of the limitations of an OL ONLY focus and expression of the reality that reality is simply more than picking an OL player because the pundits have him rated highly (MW and McKinnie) or in hindsight he worked out (Mangold) then we would agree. I agree that the bias should be toward running and stopping the run first, but this bias is easily passed on when a particular draft offers you some other need as part of a winning strategy to fulfill.

The line which i think is most true in this post (things in it look fairly accurate) is where it notes that correlation does not prove causation. There clearly is a correlation between the Bills failure to draft OL players and their bad records. However, there are so many essentially notable reasons for this failure (my personal favorite whipping item was their miscalculation in thinking Jimbo was going to be good enough to sign a new deal when Ralph made his handshake agreement and then spending virtually each and every year through the end of the Butler era scrambling and overpaying to get a QB which finally resulted in this team being unable to afford vets on ST who could stay in their lanes for the Homerun Throw-Up) that it simply does not stand as a full explanation of reality to pin the bad record on this OL issue. Even worse, when you look to the OL failure, it is correct that the team did not find good players in the draft to replace them, however, its not like TD made zero effort to do this (though the effort was obviously too small of one as I think he should have been closer to the numeric expectation of him picking 4 OL players from his three first day choices each of five years rather than the 2 he did pick on the first day in his 5 tears - your choice of 1 pick in the first two rounds rather than the 2 picks he made on the first day of his 5 drafts is an amusing arbitrary choice of a cut off by you and a nice statistical choice to buttress your argument but avoid the broader truth). My sense is that not only do you admit that causation and correlation are different things but attempt to prove they are the same by carefully choosing statistical cut off dates and ignoring a gross and repetitive series of Bills braintrust errors which arguably are at least as important (and in my mind more important than our OL errors such as the mishandling of the QB position and a really dumb choice to switch from a 3-4 D to a 4-3 thus increasing our need for DL players while at the same time losing Big Ted, Wiley, Bruce and Hansen to the cap and retirement), but also your analysis of not making enpugh draft choice commitment to OL simply ignores the fact that our OL problems were due to other significant failures which deserve attention or fixing as much as the draft situation does. Specifically: 1. TD's biggest OL failing in my mind was that he hired GW as HC and ge appeared to be so bad and insecure about offensive work that his first OC he picked was so bad he got canned while under contract and he hired personal buddy Vinky who has zero OL coaching experience as our OL coach. Adding insult to injury, they followed up by hiring Kevin Killdrive as OC and the equally inexperienced Ruel as OL coach to replace Vinky because he was so bad. If one wants to look at a likely big part of the reason we had such poor OL focus in the draft and even more horribly made bad choices of the few OL players picked, the OL analysis really needs to start with the bad pickers and horrible trainers before one goes to complaining we did not pick enough OL players. I know that a focus on the men in charge of the OL and offense is not the focus you want to make if your goal is simply to argue for more OL drafting, as JMac is such a clear upgrade over Vinky and Ruel. What is interesting about choosing him is that actually his OL skill has not resulted in more prime OL choices but actually in us being comfortable using out draft asset elsewhere. This actually appears to be a not horrendous strategy as Peters was not a UDFA we lucked into, but it was JMac who identified and convinced him to give up on his TE desires and instead focus on OL. This decision paid off. JMac ain't flawless by a longshot and has always said he is no miracle worker (Bennie Anderson proved this was true). However, his hiring has made a marked difference in the quality of our OL and allowed us to do this on the cheap actually with folks like Peters, training of Pennington, relatively cheap acquisition of servicable FAs like Fowler and use of a few big draft choices on folks like Preston. Will that be enough? We will see but certainly I feel better about our OL than I have in years. 2. TD was aware he was playing it fast and lose on OL and tried to compensate for his marginal but significant ignoring of the draft for Ol prospects by attempting to get lucky with some late OL picks of talented damaged players or cheap talented but damaged FAs. Our lack of early OL draftees would not have been a problem if the attempts to get players Sobieski or Farris to work out and overcome their injuries or if folks like Vinky could train a Pucillo or Sullivan into being better players, I think that one needs to at least acknowledge that TD in choosing to not pick enough OL players in his 5 years did not simply pass on them because he was dumb (other things showed how dumb he was IMHO) but instead of OL players he actually chose 12 men from the 15 first day picks he started out with who actually were still playing with the Bills last year, It was not like he passed on OL players to choose players who did not fill other needs for us, One might disagree with his choices but one should note if you want to make a full case amd an honest case which of our first day choices you think we could do without (Losman, Evans, Whitner) and whether you would be comfortable with Holcomb, Peerless, or Coy Wire being your starter or you have some other plan beside the draft for filling these holes. At any rate I do not disagree with the facts as they are presented in the lack of OL commitment, i just think it is a more complex story than the simple solution of picking some more Jonas Jennings and Mike Williams to solve our problems if you do not think that the GW and Vinky assessments and training were not a big issue.

TDs record of addressing OL issues was lousy during his time here as GM. However, it would be a mistake to simply assume that because he did poorly at addressing the OL that his mistake was that he did not resign his OL players beyond their first contracts. In fact, it was his failure to draft good "performers" at OL positions which led to it being a dumb thing if the Bills has not cut MW, had not cut Sullivan and in particular it would have been horrible strategy to spend big bucks to resign JJ given his record of injury proneness here and its continuation (actually acceleration) since SF was foolish enough to sign him to an FA deal. A good point is raised in that though TD did draft an OL player each uear (WR is the only other position which can make this claim) and though he did spend his highest selection on an OL player, overall only 2 od hia 5 years of 2 first day choices were for OL players when given OL is 5 of the 22 position player positions numerically he should have drafted 4 OL guys on the first day. However, even this variation from a numerical norm does not seem to be such an abject departure from the numeric norm that I think its hard to make a case of him ignoring the OL for the most part (and actually its impossible to claim he ignored it completely given his choices). The interesting thing to me though is despite this flawed OL strategy, when one totals up the Pro Bowl appearing players he did pick from Clements and Henry and on through Schobel (he made it this year but he was a choice by the TD led crew) numerically he seemed to do pretty well in making successful draft picks overall ( a number of his choices such as Evans and even JP look like very good pros for which their play being good enough to win the Pro Bowl popularity contest is not impossible at all). Overall, i think it simply shows how big of a crapshoot the NFL draft really is and that thanks to a great promotional job of the draft by the NFL and ESPN and kicked into high gear by the education many fans fans have been given about the stats of individual players in fantasy leagues and Madden video games, folks simply seem to ignore the many failures picked by the best of GMs in each and every draft and make false conclusions (often seen on TSW) that just because it is true that stud RBs can be found late in the draft, that somehow it is also true that a proven RB like WM who can gain a 1,000 yards in a season is somehow the equivalent of a first day draft choice when there is a significant chance that even a first round RB may end up being a bust, Even RBs who do turn out to have produtive careers can unfortunately turn out to be crap initially (see Larry Alexander his first two years when he gained 85 yards and then just short of 600 yds his second year). The concept that one should count upon a draftee being your #1 RB (with a requirement that he has to be better than WM in production to not be a disappointment) is simply a little bit risky to advocate a GM or HC stake their jobs and their team's future on unless they are simply forced to do so by injury, retirement or the player being unable to play.

It can also be taken from the statement that our problem is taking DBs instead of OL players that we have failed because we took performers such as AW, NC and even Thomas Smith when instead we should have taken more first round quality OL players like Mike Williams. In the end it comes back to making poor choices of specific players rather than emphasizing one position or the other. TD did devote attention to spending first day picks on players like Mike Williams and Jonas Jennings and in fact he did draft 1 or 2 OL players each draft. The problem was not simply one of philosophy but of the players chosen. The problem was not one of TD being too cheap to extend the OL players he acquired, it would have been a stupid strategy to extend rather than cut the failed MW, to extend the injury prone Jonas Jennings or to keep Sullivan who simply was not a good player. The real irony here is that looking at TD's drafts as a whole, even with these horrendous failures his record of drafting even with flops like MW is not really all that bad. If anything, I think he can be faulted based on the record of not finding (ie, lucking into) second day picks outside of McGee who became Pro Bowlers. In the end, I think that these conclusions are based in the faulty idea that the draft though ONE of the tools for building a good team is simply ONE and not even the lead tool for many good teams in terms of building a winner. Thanks to fantasy leagues and the hype of ESPN the draft is given far more importance than it is worth as a tool for building a winning team. The draft is important, just certainly not the ONLY important or even the most important thing.

I think the real answer considering whether Whitner was a good pick is to simply think about the other options for the Bills at SS. Once the Bills decided to cut Lawyer Milloy and made a decision that there were no FA SS's they were interested in starting, the draft really was their only choice. This was not an outrageous thought since the Bills not only had the #8 pick with only a few teams in front of them, but given the apparent needs of those teams, the Bills might even have a choice at SS between two players they felt could start right away Whitner and Huff. The Bills had probably looked carefully at the needs of teams picking behind them as if in fact the had the choice between the two, even if the preferred one of the other (and they said they always wanted Whitner, but everyone says that about the guy they picked really). Methinks that if in fact Oakland had not picked Huff we likely would be arguing over whether they got enough value in their trade down as I suspect they would have happily traded down to get more picks in this rebuilding year to a point where they still felt sure of getting one of these two. Once Huff was picked, it was really not a question of who they would choose but when would they pick Whitner. A look at the alternate draft choices the Bills would have had if they had risked trading down in the hopes of still getting Whitner or if they had in fact taken DT N'gata and thus made their SS choice late is interesting. These were the potential SS's taken after Whitner: #15- Jason Allen- Miami #40- Daniel Bullocks- Detroit #42- Danael Manning- Chicago #54- Bernard Pollack- KC There seems to me little question comparing these players to our choice that Whitner had a better season. Allen was not able to break into Miami's starting lineup at all this season and neither did Pollack for KC. Bullock did eventually become a starter but did not start right away for DET. Even worse he lost the job for whatever reason and not only did not start the last 5 games but was not even active for DET's final game. Manning was the best performer among the players listed as potential SS candidates, though he did finish the season as a constant starter it was at FS for the Bears and he did not start immediately. He produced no where near the 100+ tackles Whitner produced. Thus, anyone who says they do not like the Whitner pick at all reasonably needs to say who they would have had at SS (Coy Wire was the heir apparent) or if they insist that we could have traded down, the fact that Detroit which had #9 behind us went with an SS in round 2 is a sign they clearly needed and valued this position and if we had traded down we may well have ended up with one of these other players as our choice as SS starter. Not only is there a risk in trading down that DET might take Whitner with the next pick, but we also risked MIA trading up above us and picking off Whitner. It appears to me that not only would have been a huge risk not to take Whitner at #8 if you want him in particular, but actually the likelihood if we had passed on picking him would have been Coy Wire starting at SS. I'm not sure how much folks would have preferred N'gata or even disliked Whitner but its hard for me to believe that they would have named this thread based on the likely outcome if we had done this which is that Coy Wire would have started the season for us at SS. As Willis says. Case closed.

I think rthe language which makes your argument least compelling is that you summarize Price as being "worthless" Certainly, its not unreasonable for a big time Bills rooter to describe him as inadequate or to describe his play as not achieving a reasonable expectation for a #2. I can see someone disagreeing about whether he was adequate or inadequate, or about whether his play was sufficient for a number 2 WR. However, the 49 catches he produced, working as a possession WR which is certainly not the way he has been used to greatest impact before, and him showing work with a minimum of fumbles, a couple of nice memorable plays like the nice footwork on the TD in Houston you mentioned but he was also impressive on a TD run where he broke a tackle for a TD against MN. Your arguments would be much more credible if they reflected the truth that Peerless giveth this season but Peerless also taketh away. He gave gave the first game against the Jets a good start catching about a 20 yarder, but disappeared in that game. He seemed to me to be our best receiver in the second NE game, but not only was the entire O ineffective that game but PP drew a penalty on a critical play. He had his best game with about 7 catches against TN but this was in a losing cause as well. In addition to the good games with the TDs, the so-so games like the losses to TN and NE, he simply disappeared in several games either getting a couple of catches or merely producing a handful of yards. Is this important because PP's erratic performance is justifiable? No! its important because he had some good moments this season and actually I think the over declaration of simply calling him worthless obscures what appears to me to be the more notable potential problem, which is what type of O game is Fairchild calling, By exaggerating and painting a broadbrush by calling him worthless, i think many folks are simply letting Fairchild off the hook for the way he called games and used Price. I think he turned out to be too clever by half often as he tried to cross up Ds by using Peerless in a different way (possession rather than speed) this deception can work once or twice, but even if you consider limited, I think there is a serious question whether Fairchild went with the best part of his game. The thing I would hate to see folks rejoice if Peerless is let go (with the resulting cap penalty which must be added to the salary of his replacement to judge his actual costs) but then see his replacement also used ineffectively by Fairchild if no one questions the way he used what he had on O this year. I think the hyoerventilating over PP distracts from exploration of how to really improve this team.

His results and the manner he was used last year (as indicated by his ypc) do not indicate what you say is correct that he is a wuss. He collected 49 passes as our #2 WR last year which of course no where near his 90+ catches he got in his best year teaming with Moulds, but it is just this stat which folks seem to expect is the norm for PP and a #2 WR which seems to be why at least some folks are disappointed in his performance. Actually collecting almost 50 catches is not horredous for a WR or a #2 in this league. Folks correctly wish he had done better, but simply folks being disappointed because their hopes or expectations were higher than the norm does not mean a player is bad or was a wuss. In fact, what seems to be the case from my observations of his play, the Bills O and his stats is that rather than being used for his speed as he was in his best year, Fairchild instead used him as a possession WR. Rather than being a wuss, PP actually performed off the type cast by being a player who ran short routes and over the middle where generally wusses fear to tread. As best as I can remember and see from the stats, PP had only one fumble this year and did not exhibit any indication of having a droppsie problem similar to one Josh Reed had a few years ago, Perhaps if he had any signs of the droppsies before a catch or an inordinate number of fumbles after the catch this might indicate some sense of him being a wuss but I see no substantiation. Your argument seems to be he rounded off patterns. Outside of him and JP best of all and members of the team, who knows for sure what pattern was called on a particular play and claiming that he rounds off patterns is not something which can really be observed for sure by an outside observer. What indicators there are is that he made almost 50 catches and he was a steady target of JPs on short possession routes. Again there are no indicators that JP or the team thought this was a problem so are there any objective indicators of this. I could see a complaint that Fairchild did not use him in the way he apparently could be used by sending him on more deep routes, or someone could TRY to make the case that the fault was PPs for not breaking tackles for RAC after the catch. However, even this contention should be somewhat comfirmable by the accuser naming specific games and plays where this performance by PP can be seen and I do not think this exists. The Bills would obviously profit from a #2 who brought in 75 catches and helped stretch the field. Yet, it seems more likely that this could be achieved by using PP differently than paying more than an unreasonable amount for an FA or a speculative draft choice which might be better spent on the OL or DL.

Its not that straight forward that all would be happy with this activity. If the Skins were to decide they are going to pay Redskin's level salary (though the cap hit is the same as for a contract with other teams, the Skins can use their superior cash flow to make payments to players which gives the athlete a higher level of control and they seem to be willing to even pay a lil bit more than market rates for talent)) for their next CB. If they end up having a choice between NC but because of the tag he also is going to cost them compensation or some other CB they judge to be of equal or even slightly less talent who is not tagged, they may pass on NC and go to the other CB. NC is then left with his second choice team which may pay a lower salary than what Snyder seems to regularly have the Skins pay. NC may not be happy with the franchise tag if it costs him a shot at the higher level contract.

Many posters who try to justify (or argue for or whatever language you want to use) trading WM for a draft choice (likely folks seem to think he would comman a 3rd plus or minus one round seems to be the general consensus) seem to be treating the idea that RB is the easiest position to fill in the draft with the idea that drafting a starting RB is easy to do. The two are very different things and though the first is true (its easier to find a stud RB in the draft than it is to find a stud QB, SB or any other position is something I agree with). However, just because this is true simply does not mean that finding a stud RB in the draft is an easy thing to do. Basically many fans simply overvalue the draft. They seem to remember the Peyton Mannings and forget the Ryan Leafs. Last year's Bills draft is an interesting example. The general consensus is that the pundits deserve to eat crow for badmouthing the Levy led draft (I agree). However. remember that this is true even though the actual results produced by the 3 picks this Marv led team made on the 1st day simply were quite unproductive as rookies. Whitner started out with great plaudits winning rookie of the month plaudits and finished second on the Bills with over 100 tackles, but even with this he is a controversial choice for many and due to injury and the death of his mother, the Bears simply got very limited production from 2 of their 3 choices in a draft which turned out to be very solid for this team because a bunch of second day choices stood up. Likewise trading WM even if you got a second for him is such a speculative maneuver that really it would be no surprise if he turned out to be one of 2 of 3 first day Bills choices that gave little to the Bills if the 07 crew produces like the 06 draftees. A few fans may care so much about WM's attitude towards women and his crack financial management advice that they would prefer a speculative draft choice to an NFL vet, but it seems doubtful that Marv or Ralph whose football work is tied to the Bills and whose football careers are probably countable on one hand (or at most two if they are very very very lucky will be willing to roll the dice and depend on s draft choice becoming our starting RB. The concept that anyone commited to winning football is going to depend so much on a rookie RB is simply foolish.

It also seems rational, thought out and nicely detailed (particularly compared to the typical post which combine the oddity of even more outlandish claims with far less detailed information). General comments: 1. The whole piece seems pretty incremental in the changes suggested which if true certainly will not excite the fan base at all. Thus will not be a problem if this team wins as winning trumps the lack of glitz everytime. However, I do not think that this incremental approach is going to result in much more than an incremental improvement and the fate of this team is likely gonna be determined by random events like injury and how the oddly shaped ball bounces if this approach is taken. 2. It would not surprise me if this team actually goes after some its own potential FA losses in a big way and many folks that the fans consider to be goners (I yhink your thoughts about NC may be correct) actually remain Bills because we show them the money. I also think you are correct that the Bills likely value Peerless more than many fans who were disappointed in his play not because of his achievements (he actually did what we asked him to do coming up with just short of 50 catches and did solid work as a possession WR. He did not have the amazing ypc he had when he was playing off of Moulds lead, but if folks were disappointed I think it says more about their inability to look beyond the past than a bad effort on PPs part. Fletcher though is the big deal in terms of our decision to sign or not to resign him, The problem is the only real answer to equal his output of last year on our roster would be moving Crowell to MLB but given the injury recovery issue lies over both other LBs resigning F-B even if folks do not like his play may be the best football solution, Signing an FA like Briggs is probably the best off team answer and the idea of drafting his replacement in someone like Patrick Willis looks like it may be a good idea for 2008 or 09 but our defense likely will step back in production if we have a rookie (even a very talented one) man the critical MLB spot in our Tampa 2 style of the cover 2. I hope you see Poluszny if we draft him as an OLB replacing Crowell moving inside since if he is our starter at MLB then get ready to watch a talented gifted player drafted in the 1st go through a season of mistakes and growing pains as he learns to do the pro reads and control the team as JP had to do for a couple of years on O. MLB requires a bit less skull work than QB, but still it will simply take any rookie a while of learning by his mistakes as he sometimes reads run when its a pass and sometimes pass when it is a run and is a step late with diverse skills called for of our MLB in our D.

The main problem with the local media though is that their sports reporting get so driven by them saying or writing stuff to merely attract ears or eyeballs to their column or show that one hesitates to use the word journalism to describe their latest screeds or lack of analysis. It would certainly be nice if one could get good information or a rational and somewhat balanced perspective on the Bills from the local media. its one thing to see their offerings when they come from us fans but really it is the media's job and they should answer to a higher standard.

Willis looks like a very good player and this Butkus award winner is likely to be a fixture at MLB whereever he goes for a number of years. However, he seems like a choice if made by the Bills which would need us to find a significant number of ways to compensate for the things we will lose from F-B leaving as our starting MLB and if we specifically replace our MLB with a rookie draft pick (even a good one) we will have to find these compensations elsewhere. If we decide to draft an LB with the #12 pick, it would seem like getting an OLB to replace Crowell and then shifting Crowell to his drafted and initially trained for MLB slot would be a far better strategy for getting wins in 07 than training Willis to play there by having him go through the growing pains of learning to be an NFL vet at this centerpiece of the Tampa 2 version of the Cover 2 we run. I'm not arguing that F-B is by any means the greatest LB in the NFL as his shortcomings are fairly clear. However, most posts in trying to badmouth these shortcomings and justify trying to get a run plugger at MLB have simply pretended that F-B is a slow do nothing stiff rather than the reality that he actually has accomplished quite a few measureable impressive things this season and in his career. I'm not saying his is the best but it is simply silly for some to claim he can do nothing and that we will need to replace some real benefits when/if we lose him. In particular, so many of those good things Fletch brings to the table are related to the skills he has gained from a decade worth of seeing NFL plays that simply there is no way a rookie can replace them. Again, I am not arguing that no rookie can start at MLB in the NFL, I am simply saying that if we start a rookie we need to be prepared for this D likely taking a step back in its production while the rookies learns the game. I simply do not see Ralph and Marv who while there are no plans for them to die next week they simply cannot be on a schedule where they choose to go through yet another learning experience for a central player on the D. Some of this compensating action will come from other players. For example, I do not think anyone seriously expects the rookie Willis to immediately master the D and be able to take on the traditional role of the MLB as signal caller for the D. I think this is particularly true because of the crucial role which the MLB plays as a deep cover guy on passing downs in our Cover 2 as the MLB divides the field in 3 with the safeties (in fact part of the reason that F-B led all NFL LBs in INTs and actually led the Bills in INTs beating out both CBs who really play short zone press coverage in the Cover 2 and as a result simply are called upon less to have INT oportunities in the D the way we run it than the MLB is. One way or the other when/if F-B goes we will need to find either from newly acquired or current Bills players: 1. Someone with enough NFL experience and success to be our D capt. 2. Someone who has seen enough NFL plays they can quickly read and diagnose whether the 3rd down play is a run or pass and he should cover or pinch in. 3. A ballhawk with the ballhandling skills Fletch showed which not only led to his good INT #s but us comfortably using him as a short kickoff return guy 4. Someone else capable of leading the team and NFL LBs in INTs. It would seem like a strategy much more likely to produce a better production from our D next year to try to replace the loss of F-B by spending what is likely to be some significant bucks on a WLB like Lance Briggs from Chi and then moving Crowell to MLB. With TKO at the other LB spot (assuming he continues to recover though I don't think he will ever be as good as he was) we definitely would have one of the best LB corps in the NFL and it will take a couple of years for this to happen if we relied on drafting Willis to do this. If one wants an analogy, think of the painful process we went through as the very gifted and talented JP Losman went through a process learning to be the central player on the O. My guess is that we would have the LB version of this experience with Willis as our MLB starter.

I think the stupid thing here is not the analysis of a particular play or game withing which Losman (or some other player) screwed up, but it is the typical TSW or fam over-reaction of a desire to cut a player or throw him under the bus because of it. Such over-reactions simply make little sense in terms of team-building and player development. I actually think WM is the current example of the media and some fans current whipping boy. I think most agree that his play has been sporadically good at best. I think most people would agree that his attitude toward women is horrendous at best and he is just plain horrible, negligent and near criminal as a Dad. Most agree that his fiscal and team location management advice is not appreciated at all at best. However, all these things being said, the logical thing for the team to do given that he is under contract and his leverage to do something like a holdout is so low because he has failed to perform consistently is simply to stay the course. Playing in his FA season next year gives him as much financial incentive to perform as he can have and if he does perform like the elite RB he wants to be next year we would still be in the drivers seat regarding handling him because of the franchise tag. Losman sucked initially agreed, but wanting to cut him was silly. WM has sucked also in many ways, but wanting to cut him is also fairly silly. The team has far too many other needs for us to feel like we have the luxury of giving away our #1 RB in exchange for a speculative mid round draft pick.

Exactly

Yep, but so what as in hindsight everyone wishes that they had picked players who worked out and did well. The view that in hindsight the Bills would have been better picking any two players rather than the two players they chose is pretty meaningless. PERHAPS suggesting 1 change of the picks looking at the change being an early top 10 pick MAY be a relevant comment because this change is possible, but the idea that a pick of Mangold was at all forseesble or even doable as the right thing to do is actually pretty outrageous (and actually a pretty small minded notion) in retrospect. The only way the Mangold decision would have made a sense as a pick for the Bills would have been IF they targeted this OL need for all to see by them not making the effort to solve the problem by signing Fowler as an FA. If they had such a clear need for a center it seems quite likely that a team like the Jets would have figured that the Bills were going to go for Mangold with their second choice and they would have been dumb not to trade up of do what they had to do to prevent the Bills from getting him. Everyone clearly has the right to do the woulda/coulda/shoulda second guessing on this one but to do this without acknowledging the unlikelihood of this outcome by the Bills without the benefit of hindsight just comes off as incredibly small minded whining.

As far as WM next year, stay the course. He has little leverage to mount a holdout and every fiscal incentive to perform well in his FA year, If he performs well simply tag him or sign him if its a god deal for both parties can be reached. If he sucks next year then let him walk and we should acquire either a cheap FA or a second day draft pick we think will develop to create competition for him next year and to replace him in 08 if he sucks next year. I am not going to sleep with him, i don't follow WM's fiscal or management advice, and I expect the football players I follow to stay out of jail and off drugs but beyond that I really couldn't care less what they think.