Pyrite Gal

At #12 there almost certainly will not be any one player we can choose that will almost certainly will not be the franchise guy that alone can get us into the playoffs. This being said giving up the #12 for additional choices the Bills can use to build a team and breed competition, there seems to be a very good case for trading down IF you get the right deal offered to you. Particularly given the good work done by the Bills braintrust last year in making picks which not only all made the team (actually this can be done even if a player plays bad if the braintrust does not want to admit it made a mistake with a choice) but yielded players who got starts and a lof PT (this can also be easily done by a GM who either does not want to admit mistakes if he is insecure, or simply to give rookies PT so they can develop even if they do this by playing badly). However, not only did the Bills team yield a bunch of picks (including 2nd day choices) who made the starting line-up in a majority of their games (Pennington, Williams, Simpson, Whitner but these players produced a better record against tougher competition than last year so these rookies were not simply given PT because they were Levy/Jauron guys. Various knowlegable TSW posters make true complaints that 2 of 3 of the Bills 1st day choices made disappointing non-concontributions to the team due to McCargo ending up on IR and Youbouty missing a ton of time due to his Mom dying. However, my sense is that while this complaint raises questions for those who quite frankly give too much importance to the draft, it actually speaks to how impressive a job the Bills draft team did with their picks last year. The fact that they got so much quality PT from their draftees on an improving squad means that their second day picking was so strong, they produced this result with 2/3 of their first day choices (the place starters usually come from) not conributing initially at all or very much to the final results. If this Marv led group is going to get more picks and choose players who contribute as much to this team as late choices like Ellison did, then trading down makes a lot of sense.

I don't think that there is anything we can see from the outside that would mandate or even merit a coaching change The onfield performance of both the O and the D was inconsistent (the O ended up on the upswing in terms of productivity, the D was run on far too easily and way too much in the second half of the season. However, at the root of the poor performance in these areas the inexperience of the young players (a bunch of rookie starters on D and JP seemingly having turned a corner but still developing into a consistent pro), I think the poor performance in various aspects of the game did raise some serious questions in terms of Fairchild's play calling and implementation of the talents he had (even with the need to be conservative with JP we did not seem to utilize the speed at WR we had or the passing game to the RBs well, and it seems pretty clear our DTs do not have the bulk to be run stuffers, yet other DCs make lower weight DTs work well in the Tampa 2, why didn't we? Yet, despite these questions, the team is clearly on the upswing, (though they clearly are not there yet). Unless Jauron and/or Marv see some problem internally with the braintrust and how they work together, the stability of having them come back would seem to be the thing to do!

Actually probably one of the Pro Bowlers (either Moorman or Schobel as Mike Schneck gets to go to Hawaii but really due to Moorman's accomplishments rather than Schneck in his own regard). As putting a punter in the banner simply tends to emphasize failure in getting a first down (Moorman is great but he is great in doing the essential thing of turning the field to mitigate the failure for the most part) I propose putting Schobel's visage in the banner. Really the keys to the game as Marv so often states are running and stopping the run so I think featuring a Pro Bowl defender not only fits success in the game but coincides with Jauron's D first perspective as fits his views and thus his teams.

It depends upon how we evaluate the RBs but I would hope there is one we see worth taking and developing on the second day as I would rather we spend our first day picks on drafting positions like OL and DL which are more likely to turn this team into a winner. 1200 yards for WM next year would be nice, but the critical thing is for Fairchild to develop this O so that is uses the RB as nore of a pass threat. The Ravens game started off nicely with a very good pick-up on a pass reception by WM which was called back due to an illegal motion penalty (I think) or something which had little to do with the success of the play. WM is unproven as of yet as a receiver, but this is because we have not used him that way and he has shown some potential the few times we have done this such as the opening of the Ravens game. The key here is that he has no leverage if he holds out and Rosenhaus' past MO is that his players do not hold out. If he has a great season he still has little leverage since if he is that good we simply tag him,

In the past few seasons there has been some debate on TSW about the utility of choosing a QB in the first round of the draft. Arguments were made that we must take such actions as make sure we get Joey Harrington in the draft (we all know how that advice turned out as JH will go down in history as an answer to the trivia question which player was a bigger bust than even the Bills' Mike Williams). I countered with the argument that the stats simply indicate that no QB drafted in the 1st round had led the team that chose him to an SB win since Dallas chose Aikman in 1989. The SB run of future organ donor Ben RoboQB has silenced a lot of this discussion. However, I have continued to follow the fate of teams led by a guy they drafted in the 1st round with interest in order to see if RoboQBs win is the start of a new day in the NFL harkening back to the days when the QB draft class of 83 and the marketing efforts of the NFL combined to make everyone feel they had to lock up much cap room and commitment into a QB or they had no chance at an SB win. It may also be the case that last year's Pitt win with a 1st round QB they chose at the helm may simply be the exception to the rule that presages another decade plus wait until a first round choice by a team leads them to an SB victory. The story so far is this: 12 teams in the playoffs 3 teams have QBs they drafted in the first (Pennington, Manning, Grossman *) *Since NYG and SD essentially flipped draft picks soon on draft day one might argue the number is 5 though technically it is not since neither team drafted the QB leading the team right now and the argument is that 1st round QBs can be found through trades so why take the cap hit of drafting them. Certainly the Elway case is quite different than the NYG/SD case as now slotting and the salary cap exist in ways that I think Elway is most accurately considered a player obtained in a true trade rather than the flopping picks case for the two young QBs where their acquisition is much more strongly linked to the up and downsides of taking a QB in the 1st round. Results after bye week, 1 W and 1 L from the 2 QBs who played (*1 W 2 Ls if you want to consider Eli as a drafted 1st rounder since he was acquired on during the draft). At any rate, things seem to be playing out roughly equal to the statistical record of the past. Peyton M, and Rex G, are the two remaining QBs who can replicate the feat of RoboQB. Manning looks somewhat dubious for accomplishing this task as now he must leave the friendly confines of the Dome and if the weather makes passing the ball difficult and forces the Indy D to be stout against the run I do not think many folks will be betting on them. Grossman looks like a better shot at making it through to the Big game though this is due to the weakness of the NFC for the most part. Rivers looks like a better shot if you want to ignore the technical facts but alot of this is thanks to LT and Merriman so we will see. Overall, since Eli has already gone down this season actually is a pretty good performance by 1st round draftees of bringing the team that picked them to the playoffs. However, as two of the 5 if one uses a liberal counting method are already heading home for the off-season once again locking up money and time on a QB rather than simply cherry picking a 1st drafted by someone else as the Ravens did with Dilfer and they are trying to do again this year with McBair appears to be a more sensible method of team building. This is interesting from a Bills perspective as the history of JP has demonstrated that drafting a QB in the 1st is no panacea and it seems to cause folks like TD to turn the reins over to this athlete before they are ready. We'll see what happens with the Bills as they and JP seem to have weathered the storm (so far) of the huge expectations fans place on a QB drafted in the which almost always seems to doom this player to not winning the SB. As a Bills fan I am very happy that RoboQB broke the ice for JP.

The case is this long complex argument that was made for Pyrite Gal length. Schobel had a better regular season than Freeney.

You are right as Freeney demonstrated by his production Saturday night that he vould have performed much better this regular season. There is no way he deserved a Pro Bowl this year if he could have produced like this in the regular season and did not.

Stay the course and keep an open door and do a little outreach to Rosenhaus as his final season draws near and if WM will sign a deal which is favorable to our cap then sign an extension. If on the other hand he is looking for top RB money he has been a good but not very good RB yet so let him play out his deal and make FA decisions next year. If he continues to perform well at times but is not a consistent top RB next year then see what the market offers him. If he has a great year next year (actually produces like a top 5 RB then negotiate and show him the money or tag him and play him again. As having two go two backs is the trend in the NFL these days drafting an RB we think has potential to one day be a star is a prudent thing to do, but this draft pick must wait until the second day as this team has too many other pressing needs to fill. The GM should not let any fans who have their panties all up in a wad and insist on moving WM because they do not like his "baby momma" comments which have nothing to do with the game on the field or they are mindreaders and can diagnose his attitude influence his actions. he should ignore fan whining about WM as long as he is performing sometimes well but always presents a threat which opponents must gameplan for. Ignore the whiners and stay the course. Its a dumb strategy for something important like Iraq but is perfectly fine for dealing with these men who get far too much money to play a boys game.

Actually, it all depends upon what happens and games that look tough (NYJ beat us at home and was in the midst of a playoff achieving run but we beat the snot out of them in their house, the Detroit game looked like one could win on the road based on their poor play the last few years and in retrospect they were simply bad this season, and if the Ravens had clinched homefield before they plate us and were resting folks this game might have been very different) now and vice versa could be very different. However, as it stands now before reality lets us know how these games will be: Cincy- This historically bad team revived under Lewis but they melted down as the season ended and just as our 5-11 team handled them in our house last season, at this point we likely would be comfortably favored at home against this team. It xertainly does not scare me. Philly- If playing like they were at the end of the season they likely would be favored on the road, but perhaps we catch a break and McNabb comes back NYG- If playing like they were at the end of the season we likely would be favored at home, perhaps we catch an additional break and we get them before Coughlin gets canned. Baltimore- They handled us niftily on the road this year as they fought for a first week bye, but at least we get them in our house next year though we likely would still be an underdog Jax- This wayward team does not scare me at all, Perhaps we get this FLA team in a late season blizzard (though given lake effect snow it may be better for them to come in October for snow). Dallas- This team does not scare me in our house either, perhaps Bledsoe sticks around to give us even more incentive after Romo bollicksed yesterday's game. Denver- All bets our off as to how this team responds to the drive-by shooting but again the game is here rather than having us suck wind at Mile High and we likely are favored. Depending on how scheduling and the off-season goes, the stretch may not be very scary at all and even other close by road games such as CLE, Pitts should see a few Bills partisans so brutal is not the word at all I would use for this schedule.

BADOL- Looking at your post and back at my original, I think that I didn't understand the point you were making because we are talking about different things. In my original post, the key point I was jumping off from was where I d said: the performance of the Bills rookies as a group probably pushes the limits of what one can hope for but not expect of draft choices. From this perspective I agree that the production from the first day choices (Whitner, McCargo and Youbouty) was disappointing, but this fact is reduced to mere draft second guessing for those of us primarily driven by how is this year's squad performing, due to the unexpected ability of second day choice Williams to hold down a starting role at DT on a team which produced an improved record record. While one can clearly second guess the details of this Marv led draft team because McCargo did not produce at a level a 1st rounder is normally expected to produce, however, from the team W/L perspective, this mistake is balanced out by a second day choice at DT actually producing at a level that would have been an OK year (not great at all since we got run on alot) for McCargo. Marv (and his charges) deserve bad marks for blowing the trade up choice (so far) but as the draft is fairly much of a crapshoot anyway with even good pickers blowing some picks badly, it really is of a minor concern except to the extent it impacts W/L and given that in the very same draft he found a DT on the second day who met the 1st rounder expectation of starting his first year it seems to be a lesser concern. This is particularly true since despite the draft picks failings, this team improved overall so its not as good as it woulda/shoulda/coulda have been but it really is a point of glaring concern to draft and fantasy junkies and a mistake that for the most part balances out in terms of W/L. While many draft gurus may think these are the same things they simply are not in the real world. Knowledgable folks about the draft stock (which I think you are judging from your previous posts) would certainly be correct in pointing out that the Marv led draft certainly could have done better with a different pick than McCargo (and obviously with the resources uses to get him in a trade). However, since the draft is merely an amusement for me and the means to an end of is the team improving the details while important are simply overwhelmed by the reality of events. It is in this measure of events where this draft was a quite good one (so far) even though the details may be true in terms of which player might you pick where. This draft pushes the envelope of what one can reasonably expect actually because of the failings in production of the 1st day picks. Please correct me if I am wrong as you likely no far more about the broad draft than I do, but it seems to me to beyond any normal expectations that a team would produce 4 regular starters from a 9 person draft (Whitner, Simpson, Williams, Pennington all not only started a majority of their games but started the final game and thus go into offpseason as the heir apparent at their position). Not only did the draft produce these 4 definite starters (pending off-season acquisitions) but in addition, 2 other players who got starts due to injury (Youbouty, Ellison). You are right that an HC can start any schmuck he wants if he wants to look at them or to try to pump up his own regime. However, the fact this 06 team improved over the 05 team has some significance in that the rookies we started simply were part of improving the results. My points can certainly be debunked by a more knowledgable watcher. However, I think that my thoughts are most clearly shown to be wrong not by the mere opinion of a viewer but given that this team improved with the rookies playing a key role, I simply state that our results pushed the outside of the envelope in terms of expectations as if you know of a lot of other teams that improved their record when 4 of the rookies selected got starts in a majority of their games or that 2/3 of the picks got starts at all on this team which improved its record. The fact that there was so little production from 2 of 3 first day choices is interesting to those who are most focused on the draft. However, for those of us who are most impressed with results, the fact this team could improve its W/L even with 2 of 3 picks on the first day producing less than expected results is quite impressive. Sure the draft could have been done better and Mel Kiper may be rolling over in his underweae, but I will take a team which fails in 2 of of its 3 first day choice but improves their W/L. The draft is important but in the end its an important sidelight to the real thing which is important which is W/L.

I'm not sure of the point you are making since it seems at least to divide the play of the team and the management of that team into separate categories as though these were independent items when actually they are so interlinked that a division of these two things based on trying to understand things or do better analysis seems to ignore reality. This is at best since at worst the division you make seems contradictory at worse. Specifically, are you saying that if only the rookies were better players (due to greater talent or more experience) then the Bills braintrust could have/would have managed the team in a better way to produce more wins? In many ways I hope you are right since this implies a strong endorsement on your part of the Bills management style and intellect and bodes well for the future as these players who were rookies last year will play next year with a year's experience and the management should be able to use the winning style which you seem to indicate these rookies held them back from. On the face of it, the Bills improved their record from 5-11 to 7-9. A two game improvement in record in this NFL is in fact quite doable (the Ravens for example turned it around even moreso) but actually is quite substantial. This seems particularly true when one considers the real world results accomplished by the Bills opponents. As it turned out, the 7-9 record was accomplished not against a bunch of patsies (bad patsies not the NE Patsies) but against 6 playoffs teams making half their 16 games against teams which made the playoffs while mathematically only 12 of the 32 teams made the playoffs. The Bills improved their record by two wins while playing 6 of the top 6 seeds in their conference and you add in the Bears whom they faced who actually were the top seed in the NFC. One cannot have it both ways. Either the real world record accomplished by these rookies was quite good or it was not. I think that their accomplishment does push the limits of what one can expect from a team which started so many rookies right from the start in so many games. If not then specifically what teams like the Ravens who really improved their record saw this accomplishment occur from starting rookies the Bills amount or was ample use of Ngata about it for them? Not following other teams as closely I do not know and if you or others do it would be quite educational.

I agree that merely because players are starting that dictates caution about getting too excited. The actual occurence though that indicates that caution is correctly joined with optimism is that the actual results on the field were much improved over 2005. Its simply one thing to choose to start a bunch of your own guys because you can and to have them go 3-13 and to claim you are excited because they played hard and that bodes well for the future but another to play your rookies and have the objective record improve.

I know folks have both real and actually pretend bones to pick with Peerless (it is definitely true he did not perform at a level anywhere near the amount TD stuck Arthur Blank and AT for when he traded him and AT signed him to a huge contract, but his level of development and then accomplishment which brought him the big contract he never lived up to was deserved which makes him more than the standard journeyman. Also, his accomplishments this past year as a Bill were not amazingly fantastic, but were real snd represent a real comeback from his AT failure which to me makes him more than a simple flash in the pan of his best year. Specifically going to the stats which do not prove he is a great player (stats can "indicate" a lot but really "prove" very little) but indicatee a development and then some resurgence: 1. PP had 4 very good years here. Shat complaint beyond subjective concerns can there be about his production when he increased his number of catches, yaradage and TDs here each one of his four years culminating in the huge 2002 year he had when he earned the huge contract from AT. Many posters even seemed to have misunderstood one subjective complaint they made based on an objective fact when in 2000 he did have four fumbles. However, rather than the subjective conclusion some folks have tried to draw from this that he is a weenie, if one watched the Bills games that year one would have to note that these fumbles actually occured when he almost eluded the first hit and a second tackler tagged him with the first pursuer setting him up hanging on his ankle. If anything, watching the game showed that PP's big problem that year was that he wouldn't go down with the first hit and he would fumble struggling for meaningless yards. Rather than a flash in the pan, his numbers show a football player who developed in a straight upward line before the change of scenery to Michael Vick's team resulted in a complete failure to connect with this unique talent. 2. If you insist on calling him a flash in the pan, the stats indicate that this was a fairly large pan lasting four years. One might call him a journeyman if you consider 3 teams a journey though clearly there are a ton of NFL players (even good ones like Larry Centers) who took a journey to many more cities and teams. However a look at the stats this year indicate that he has flashed at least twice if you want to call his large pan a brief moment. His 49 catches this year as our #2 WR are not great (or even qualify as VERY good) numbers, but I think they do qualify as good numbers for a reciever. If someone told me our #2 would register 3 catches a game I would not have been overjoyed but I would have found this number quite workable for an offense. The problem I have with this number is how he was used in our O since his ypc is so low because he was used as a possession receiver. He can play this game as shown by his relatively low number of fumbles in his career (1 for the Bills this year and his worst year I mentioned before is slightly less than half his total). However, this seems like a waste of resources as the reports from Allen Wilson and others who see him a lot is that though he has slowed from his youth (as all people do) he still retains a lot of speed. I know that we were reining in the O for the developing JP, but I wish Fairchild had actually made better use of the resources I think he had in using more 3 wide sets with the speed of Evans, PP, and Parrish pressuring Ds and him utilizing WM more as a reciever. Even in empty backfield sets I prefer using Reed more a fellow who can then pick on the zones an empty backfield forces opponents into or if one decides to use him have him be our #3 looking for RAC rather than the #2 he was often employed as. Perhaps Fairchild. JMac and Jauron reached a conclusion that our OL was so bad it simply could not protect even the fleet footed Losman in empty backfield or repetitive 3 WR sets. If so and they really laid low this year because they knew we were re-building at best and not going anywhere then I look forward to them coming back in 2005 even with essentially the same O crew. JP looks like he has developed nicely and can be trusted to let it hang out a little more (though his INTs when he was struggling to catch up against a great Ravens D were troubling events which I simply hope are learning experiences) and we can look beyond a Daumon Shelton who really did next to nothing and run WM behind a much improved OL over the crew which began last year. Overall, the best thing about PP is that even in his worse days in AT he repeated the feat he has accomplished 5 times for Buffalo of starting all 16 games (not something valueless and to be ignored in today's NFL). Despite the whines of many fans. objectively PP has a record of answering the starters gun game in and game out and subjectively for the unbiased viewer he is a hard worker and catcher who has given little or no hint of the droppsies which we have seen in real life from Reed in his second year. Peerless is by no means the best WR in the league (and never has been at any point in his career). However, he is a hard worker with mutant speed who can be a potent part of a productive O if used properly and his teammates perform up to reasonable expectations (which our OL did not do this year, which JP finally did as the season went on and WM has not done so consistently.

Thanks for the thorough work! My general reaction is positive but with these late night thoughts. 1. QB- sounds good but if draft lets us have a late second day guy that impresses the braintrust that can be our disaster QB for the forseeable future that is an OK investment IMHO as Holcomn is about done and Nall is still uncertain. 2. RB- Stay the course in my opinion as WM has very little leverage. Folks seem to have their panties all up in a wad about a holdout but this would likely hurt WM fiscally more than the Bills as his past injury (no one can have their docs examine him in a holdout) and failure to prove himself as a consistent RB would be added to by the concern that he is a bad employee and a bad teammate if he held out under contract. Even if the Bills allow him to play out his contract next year and he stars then the Bills can tag him if they want to keep him. I think the major Bills concern is that he will never be consistent or that the injury re-emerges so drafting an RB we feel has upside but needs development as late as possible on the second day seems like a fine strategy. 3. WR- I.m more concerned about whether Fairchild can design an O that utilizes the talent we have effectively than getting another WR with more talent. PP was a good possession receiver at #2 getting roughly 50 catches and making a couple of nice foot dragging catches, but his still remaining speed was never used effectively. Parrish did wonderfully but episodically and inconsistently, He always seemed to make a good effort and the way he took a vicious hit and held on against the Ravens I think is an indicator that his lack of consistency was as much or more use as it was him. Reed is a very good #3 but was often misused as our #2. Fairchild needs to make more use of the RBs a recievers and better use of the TE and this will help the O more than simply misusing a quicker #2. 4. I think we finally have a good base in the starters but getting a superior G to replace Gandy may elevate this unit to being very good and even great. This player likely comes from FA though development of current back-ups to pull a Peters or Pennington is possible.

Thanks. I usually use the writing to think things out as I write and also as I sit on conference calls waiting for my part in the agenda to occur. Because of this often contradictory things can pop up as I am thinking things through (and even change my mind) as I write and also how much attention I am paying to what I am writing varies with the amount of multi-tasking and paying attention to off agenda items occuring on the call. In addition, long posts may well be written over a couple of days in different calls which leads to length and sometimes to contradiction.

I think part of the problem here is that outside of Evans the Bills did not use the deep threats they had adequately as consistent targets and that getting a speedy guy who can stretch the field is not going to be much of an addition if he is not used adequately. Fairchild never seemed to get the knack of using his RBs much as receivers and this had the effect of allowing DBs and LBs not to worry as much about them and instead concentrate on not releasing or covering the WRs. Some might blame this on WM a part of the continuing crusade to blame him for everything. However, the facts seem to be that he was on occaision effective (for example on the first play Sunday he caught and ran for a nice gain on a play that was called back due to a movement penalty). In addition, Shelton was simply inadequate as a pass catcher. PP in fact was utilized to a nice tune of about 50 catches but these mostly were using him as a possession receiver. Parrish has great speed and good running ability but this happened inconsistently as well. Unless there is some announced recognition of this problem, getting another speedy guy is fairly unexciting to me in terms of improving our O production.

If F-B goes not only will we be looking to fill the gap left by this tackle machine who is shorter than the prototype RB but has the speed to cover sideline to sideline and the intellect to save steps as he loses speed, but really we will be looking to fill a gap of team leadership. My sense is that though London appears to be a great guy, the proof is in the pudding that the results simply have not been there for the Bills during the time with him being a perennial team leader in tackles credited to him. He clearly has also been a team leader in other demonstrable regards as well: 1. He knows the game well enough he is often the first one in the correct refs face when there is a dispute over a call. 2. He is speedy enough and knows the game well so that he can play the multiple skills called for of the MLB in the Tampa 2 both doing an LBs job of run stopping and doing pass coverage in he deep zone. 3. He is an above average ball handler which allowed the Bills to employ him as the short return specialist on ST. 4. He goes to Seminary in his off time and is training to become a pastor. He is limited by his height but the effort he makes reflected in some impressive stats (leading AFC LBs and the team in INTs, tackles credited to him and a couple of defensive TDs this year) are among the reasons he is well liked. However, all in all this leadership has not resulted in the playoffs or even a winning record in most of his seasons here. Replacing him is not an irrational desire, however, cutting him without having a real plan for replacing him is fairly silly. Even though a Joey Porter might replace his numbers statistically, it is doubtful that a low character player can even replace his leadership abilities which proved unable to make the other players better and produce a win. I am unimpressed with the idea of Porter as a replacement not because I doubt his ability to play, but I doubt his ability to lead given some of his antics.

My sense is that there are different answers to this question depending upon which need you are trying to fill. Players like Mangold have shown that even for seemingly complex positions like C it is possible to find a 1st rounder who can start for your team right away. However, despite the Bills finding several rookies capable of starting on a team that improved a lot and almost finished at .500 the performance of the Bills rookies as a group probably pushes the limits of what one can hope for but not expect of draft choices. 1. Whitner- expected to start and did so and performed at a level where he was second on the team in tackles and was chosen AFC rookie of the month early in his appearances. Very good job and Bills fans are reasonably hopeful for his future. However, as opposing teams began to figure out the Tampa 2 scheme we use the safety plau was a midseason weakness to pick on and Whitner had some quick learning to do though it looks like he is learning. Clearly an player of high impact for the Bills some express some doubt about him as an NFL impact player and with 20/20 hindsight folks question whether we should have drafted in another way. 2. McCargo- went on IR early in the season and though in terms of absolutes his first year was not worth trading up to get him, the jury is still way out on this draftee and we will need to see him play for a year or two before any reasonable conclusion is drawn. Some are even talking about dedicating our 1st rounder to a run stuffer though this would mean a pretty significant number of DL picks in the first round since the moving van pulled up and this team as rebuilt starting with the 02 draft. 3. Youbouty- The jury is still way out on him as he missed a significant amount of training and PT due to the death of his mother and him being the oldest man left in the family. He did finally break into the Bills line-up and actually was trusted enough to start as Jauron/Fewell decided to give a surprising look to our D that game. Simpson- a big surprise in terms of success as he actually quickly won a starting job with his play and old age ending TVs career as a Bill as he went on a limited version of IR. He also started impressively but team with Whitner to be a mid-season target for teams who diagnosed our safeties as biting on intial run fakes and then covering WRs late. He seemed to get it together as the season wore on and he showed some ballhawk capability which will be interesting as he gets more time. 4. Williams- a very nice draft pick as he became everything Mccargo was supposed to be and did this as a second day pick without the cost of trading up to get him. He did start, but clearly the Bills could be run on up the middle through our DTs spots. 5. Butler- This appears to be a case where the interviews and discussions made a difference. Butler performed well in college and there was some talk of him ending his final year if he played as he appeared capable of being a first day choice. Yet, in a game late in the season he commited a completely low class act of striking a unsuspecting opponent a vicious non-football blow. He was suspended for a game and correctly villified. Apparently his discuassions with the Bills braintrust and the testimony of folks who knew him convinced even the Bills who were emphasizing character in their rhetoric that his choice was a reasonable one and his low class act was an aberration, In terms of performance we really did not see much this year actually and he had his chances since a lower pick made the starting line-up in the OL. However, he did get into the game for a look against the Pack and then the Ravens and the jury is still out. 6. Ellison- broke into the starting line-up with injuries to TKO and Crowell and held his own though like almost all rookies he was a weaker point that OCs could pick on. 7. Pennington- impressive performance as his play allowed him to break into the starting line-up when the Bills shuffled their OL mid-season as Peters play mandated a move to the crucial LT spot which allowed Gandy who did a surprising adequate job at LT last year which unfortunately he was not capable of building upon. Gandy shifted to G which allowed the Bills to sit journeyman Reyes who was used up. He is not notably very good (yetr) but Pennington's rooki play provides hope for the future. 8. Merz- Got some PT on ST and actually got a game start against NE but did not perform well enough to stick in the lineup. So what do these results say? 1. A tremendous draft job led by Marv. Of the 8 picks all proved good enough to get onto the field. This can easily happen when a team is simply using regular season to try players out. However, these rookies had an impact on a team which improved from an awful 5-11 to a still inadequate 7-9 where this team was certainly not good enough to win but still there were semi-serious scenarios for them even making the playoffs in the next to last week. Well over half this group commanded a start on a team whose record simply improved a lot against competition which did well this year. In fact, half this class ended up as consistent starters on this improving team. 2. The work was not perfect all though as they stretched to get McCargo who simply did not produce in his rookie year. Gowever, it is way to early for anyone to call this disappointing player (so far) a bust as a big part of his non-performance was that he ended up on IR before the middle of the season. The other irony here is that a real world proof that the Bills expended resources on him they did not need to spend to get the level of performance they got at DT is that it actually was second day pick Williams who ended up holding the starting DT role (though in the end this D got run on up the middle with him having this spot so it is both true they got the same level of play from a fourth rounder they not unreasonalbly could have expected from a 1st rounder (starts games but is learning), Kudos to the Marv led braintrust for getting consistent (though not adequate IMHO) starts from a second day pick rookie, though this amplifies that trading up for McCargo ended up being a reach though this assessment was not really predictable though it true in hindsight. 3. It is doubtful that a draft class is going to do much better than this one did (as measured by the number of starts and PT they logged on an improved and improving team. The interesting thing is that given this very good performance for a draft class it stands as a demonstration that rookies as a whole are simply going to be inadequate to get you to the playoffs. I am pleased with this draft class because I think they are a great investment which bodes well for the Bills in the future. Yet, I think that this demonstrates on the whole that one would be foolish to think that a draft class as a whole is going to contribute significantly to remaking your team or key units to allow you to make the playoffs, Overall, i think that a good sraft class may provide you with a couple of players who fill in nicely to allow you to go over the top or happens to contain the one or two per seasons players who are special and can lead the team right out of the box. However, though one always aspires to get this player it strikes me as foolish to count upon or expect that to happen. For the 2007 draft, it seems reasonable to expect that our first round choice will be a starter and if we get lucky someone drafted later might step up to be a starter. However, in terms of what we want to count upon and plan for in 2007 it is going to be player development of folks on the roster: 1. Peters may step up to be one of the best and I think he can, 2. JP seems ready for a break out year where he establishes himself as a solid NFL QB, 3. the Bills should stay the course on Willis and if he begins to show he can be the breakout player his college days before his injury indicated he might be show him the money but if not let him walk and acquiring a future primetime RB this off-season is a useful thing to do as having 2 working RBs is the current trend in the NFL. 4. Fairchild needs to fulfill the promise of designing an O that truly is a St. L type threat. However, he will need the expected continued growth of JP, better utilization of WM as a receiver. and potentially additional quality play from the WRs to do this. Our existing WRs seem to have the skillset (Evans progressed and produced nicely and is a legit #1, PP had a nice year as a #2 but utilizing him as a possesion receiver does not seem to be good use of the speed he apparently still has, Parrish showed flashes of brilliance but performed and/or was used inconsistently, Reed showed some nice play at times which indicates to me he could be a stud #3 WR with the experience to savage zones and RB toughness but he is stretch still to occupy the #2 slot). We either need real development from these 4 from Fairchild or get some more talent. The TE position is simply not a threat and I wish Royal for the occaisional good work he showed had attracted attention from good blocking to spring WM rather than the occaisional nice TD or failure to get a foot down. On D, assuming NC does not agree to an extension (the failure to reach agreement yet is probably the most telling sign they will never reach agreement) and given Marv apparently promised not to tag him again then development of Youbouty is critical. The lack of a reasonable#2 MLB on the depth chart mandates resigning Fletch and rehab of Crowell and ongoing rehsb of TKO is of import. The holes that I see are getting better run stopping out of the DL, another stabilizing force on the OL, a run stuffer on the DL. a back-up MLB who can develop into a future starter assuming F-B re-signs, some mutant to play TE in a positive way in this O, DB depth at the level needed depending upon whether NC re-signs. Overall, given the sense that I think we can count on one starter immediately and one player to grow into being a contributing starter this season (an indicator of this Marv led draft really producing unreasonably well for this improving team), I see the draft producing one or two players that we should count on and plan for. Given the Bills emphasis on quality, waiting until after there are reactions and results from the Combine seems to be the most reasonable way to approach the draft (though us fans will make all sorts of unreasonable predictions based on our favorites from the college ranks). The ultimate selection will actually be dictated by NPA IMHO so even more so than in the past where we had a top 10 choice and could estimate with some accuracy which of a couple of choices to meet our clear needs for a great player we would fill. However, given that we are going to get around the 12th best player waiting to see how this draft plays out seems most prudent. My guess is that we will most likely find a stabilizing OL force at this pick and that FA is actually a better place to go to fill any of our needs rather than the draft.

Acrually the question is one of the old debate regarding approaching your draft lookig for the best player available or to fill particular needs. Another form of blather in addition to my posts is that actually in reality it does not strike me that this debate is a debate at all in reality as teams actually strike a balance and do both in most drafts. The draft is actually a crap shoot in part because it is simply impossible to tell until moments before your pick who actually is really available as teams difference in ranking the BPA is pretty variable even with everyone sharing the same information. I think the Bills needs will start with the concept of being able to run and to stop the run. This will mean a bias toward looking for DTs to shore up the middle where we were run on alot, but given the contractual uncertainties regarding F-B (even if we extend him his age and our lack of an MLB back-up on the depth chart and injury recovery issues for Crowell (our best back-up and TKO finding a solid potential star at MLB is probably our greatest D need. On offense, our OL is probably best described as havimg potential but still in disarray. Butler seeing some PT in the Ravens game was interesting (anyone have a sense in how well he is judged at having played. We are still unsettled there and my guess is that if we identify a good one in the first round we will go for him.

I also happen to think they draft an RB this year as long as the identify one with reasonable prospects for success who is available the second day. I think theu make this move however for Bills's reasons rather than doing this for McGahee reasons, As far as it goes the Bills are in a position of real strength regarding WM and contract terms and I hope they stay the course of simply letting him play out his contract and become an FA unless he will agree to an extension that is kind to the Bills and reasonable under our salary cap. If he refuese to make a deal unless he is paid top RB in the NFL money, fine simply let him play out his contract and if he has a top 5 RB season next year then you either pay him actual top 5 money as befits his production or you simply tag him. Potentially he could simply try to hold out next year, but this move would hurt him financially likely and not make a lot of sense for him to do financially. An analysis of the WM's production shows him to be a good starting EN for us, but this is what his current contract pays him. If he tried to hold out for top RB bucks he stands the great possibility that when analysis is done by the pundits of his production that most will draw the conclusion that he is good but not great (and not even very good if one considers this years injury based on the fear he has not returned to the form he showed in college. It simply will hurt WM alot if he tries to stick the Bills up for big bucks his production does not indicate he merits and he gets a rep for running out on his teammates while still under contract. All of this however is a reading on the hypothetical of him holding out which certainly is not a reality yet even though some seem to conclude this non-reality is a done deal. I am glad that WM has played for us and he still has potential that with half way decent blocking, the QB threat to pass JP is becoming and with proper usage by Fairchild (despite great passing gains by WM receiving the ball on the first play against the Ravens, Fairchild simply has not even tested much less utilized his potential receiving skills). His production his first season and the first half of last season was simply outstanding and his being the fastest Bills RB to gain 2,000 yards rushing is quite impressive given that this exceeded he rushing achievements of great players like the Juice and Thurman. It does not mean he is a better RB than these two (he has no where near the pass catching production of Thurman is not the football force OJ became so these two are better RBs) but his play in this time and in episodes (usually against the Jets) are quite impressive and indicate he still can become a great one. However, I think the moderate view of WM is the right one, he can not be called great or even very good unless he plays a full season and folks who don't like him because they claim he has a bad attitude both have their panties all up in a wad over something in their own mind rather than his performance on the field.

There is no real evidence whether the Bills will concentrate on O or D with this draft and there will not be any real evidence until after the Combine when the Bills coaches get a real chance to interview and meet the likely draftees, many of them for the first time. If there is one thing that this team has shown can either veto a talented player from being taken or raise a potentially suspect player higher on their charts than the NFL it is character issues and the braintrusts assessment of a players' character. As my post attempts to clearly state that while there is no conclusion which can be drawn that this will be an offense oriented draft, I think it is reasonable to think of that as the default if only because the 06 draft was so heavily weighted toward defensive help. Jauron is a D guy by playing and training and this bias was reflected in all the first day choices being defenders and in fact no offensive guys being taken until the OT Butler in the 5th. I think it is reasonable to state that the default is on the O because among the central tenets which Marv has stated is that the the key to the game boils down to running and stopping the run. They had troubles in both areas this year so both are valid considerations, however he also has talked about the draft as a great source for future talent. While he has also seemed to be more invested in a best player available approach rather than a need approach, it would seem that we devoted the last draft to loading up on the D side so there will certainly be a demand from Fairchild and the O types that it is their turn. While this is in no way guranteed because if a potential 1st round defensive player falls to the 3rd (Youbouty is probably an example of this) we likely would take him and Bills fans will wail if they do not. However, the demands of Fairchild that it is his turn will not fall on depth ears and it seems a quite reasonable assumption that the default which can be easily brushed aside by reality is that its the Os turn. The real default is take the BPA. This view would not only speak against a focus on OL, but also would speak against a focus on DT. The next default though would seem to be its the offenses turn or the team may well get in real trouble down the line and it will be taken by some as an admission of bad choosing if the Bills belly up to the DL bar again (in fact more than an overdedication to taking skill players or CBs, there is an argument that the Bills have devoted too much draft attention and then made poor choices in selecting DL players heavily in the draft since the great housecleaning and reloading after the Wade era. In that time we selected, Schobel, Kelsay, Denney, Edwards, and McCargo with first day choices and folks are cheesed we had to go after Kelsay so quickly after Denney. I think they made fairly good choices as Denney I think deserved to be resigned after a slow start and Kelsay likely will get extended when his contract ends and this was made necessary because GW (stupidly IMHO) tried to replicate his TN D here which needed a Jevon Kearse to really be great and he did this on the heels of losing Bruce to the cap, Wiley to FA, Big Ted to the cap, and Hansen to retirement from a 3-4. The fact we are still striving for a quality seems to me to be because though we signed FA Triplett and drafted Anderson and McCargo high we balanced that by letting Sam Adams walk and losing Phat Pat to FA and letting Edwards walk. IF a DT is the best player available we may well take him, but if we do the too many skill player talk will correctly be replaced by a question as to why we cannot get it right on the DL. I aggree with you we have stopping the run problems that necessitate us getting some more talent there, but my guess is that unless the braintrust has given up on McCargo we likely would look to get a vet FA player who is a proven run stuffer but in the last couple of years of his playing days rather than look to the draft. Its not a sure thing or a conclusion at all, but I think it is the default primarily because of the recent past DL focus.

It depends on their assessment of what they think they can get from McCargo, This likely is the offenses turn in this draft and just as they used all their intial picks on D players until well into the second day, generally the default is going to be for the Bills to want to use a good chunk of their first day choices on the O in this draft. This is the default but is going to be subject to alteration based on who they assess as good and it likely will take a very solid Combine performance to allow a backer of a D selection to win this debate. Harrell goes on the possible list based on his performance this year, but he will need a great combine performance and a good interview to close the deal over O choice and depending upon how the Fletcher negotiations go and assessment of the TKO recovery and Crowell recovery if there is an LB they are impressed with I think this position may be a D priority over a DT. If they judge that we need immediate help (as our porous run D seems to indicate) I think it is much more likely for them to try to solve this problem by looking for an FA run stuffer rather than drafting yet a third highly ranked (or performing in Williams case) DT from the draft.

Assumption is prettty much anybody has for these woulda/coulda/shoulda arguments made mostly based on the benefit of 2-/2- hindsight. I certainly have been guilty of making some of these w/c/sh argruments myself raising the point about alternative draft moves and folks such as SDS himself were quick to point out that all it takes is one draft move to change at some point early in the draft and everything else changes as well to make these arguments actually fairly meaningless. I agree with this general perspective but still feel these type of alternative draft posts are worthwhile under certain constraints that most of these posts don't meet. Specifically: 1. They tend to be most worthwhile when advocating that the Bills should have taken a player available when they chose who plays the same position as the player they chose. When an alternative actually suggest picking a different position it essentially makes all pick suggestions for taking another position later in the draft worthless as the first change would trigger different actions and different strategies than those that actually occured. 2. If the alternative involves a trade being made it is essentially a worthless alternative as it takes two teams to make a deal and when one proposes an alternative based on any trade (even one that happened in real life) it is quite doubtful that it would have happened in real life given we are assuming different actions. 3. If the alternative involves more than one round it is probably a pretty worthless w/c/sh as so many things would have been altered by the first different move. Theories which involve a gap being filled by picking a player in a later round who was available in real life are fairly worthless as the intial change offered in their alternate reality means that the player may well have not been available later. 4. Reality makes a big difference in terms of performance in unpredictable ways. If the Bills had drafted recently murdered CB Williams he would almost certainly be alive today. If the Broncos had drafted McCargo maybe he wouldn't have gotten hurt. I advocated the Bills take Ngata with their pick last draft and in theory his performance with the Ravens means perhaps this would have been a higher impact pick. However, the Ravens play a 3-4 and Ngata actually plays him at DE. Maybe he would have sucked playing DT in the Bills Cover 3 so it is even difficult to make assertions based on assumptions about how he would have been as a Bill. 5. In order to avoid the perception that ones arguments are merely based on 20/20 hindsight (which quite frankly most posts on TSW that site him are) then one should be able to produce the posts from the archive that argue this point. If not, and this is not acknowledged then so what for this "insight." It is a worthwhile note that Mangold has played well and certainly it is rational to propose that the Bills might have had a strategy involved in working to run the ball as their first priority rather than stop the run as their first priority and drafting defensively and moving up into the first round to assure a get of McCargo. However this argument is simply better made by debating which strategy (O first or D first rather than worrying about what assumptions one should make to support some fictitious theory that they should have picked this guy. If one must link actual player performances into this argument then it actually is a much cleaner argument rather than hatching trading theories to simply say that the Bills should have not traded up into the 1st round to get McCargo as they should have waited until the second day to get their DT because Williams would be available and he could start at DT for the Bills, This is obvious and as far as I know no one was predicting that Williams could start immediately but this clearly this is by far the best specific player argument that picking McCargo and trading up to get him at DT was not a necessary move. I think folks tend avoid this rather obvious argument which I think is far superior to the various arguments people make that McCatgo was a bad pick specifically because no one was making this argument which turned out to be true beforehand. If they did then I bow to them and say we truly not worthy of their brilliance. On the other hand if folks simply try to prove this point by attacking McCargo as a bad player, really the right response to this is so what? As it stands, folks also try to use the overreach for McCargo argument to claim Marv does not know what he is doing. Granted he made a moved up for a player who did not produce or work out, but when one makes this argument they also need to acknowledge he found a guy capable of credibly startig immediately on the second day of the draft so IMHO as far as assessing the Marv performance re:Mccargo, its not a good one as he traded value away to move up for since he got a starting DT from this draft kudos to him for this and making the poor performance by McCargo (so far) a wash as far as real world assessment is concerned.

My mistake, I thought you were saying that he wanted to play in LA rather than in Buffalo rather than what the quote seems to indicate that he simply is planning on making a movie which many folks want to do and he could do while playing for the Bills.

and he told you this when you slept with him when? I hope you were being sarcastic as it is amazing how many mindreaders there are who know what someone thinks or feels. For the Bills, they will be buffeted contractually when FA begins (and even prematurely if WM stupidly decides to hold out (his leverage in such a situation is pretty low prior to the draft when the Bills might take alternatives and low afterward because either they will or it will be so late in the process he would hurt his value to his teammates and other teams. The right answer appears to be Stay the Course. This was a stupid non-strategy in a real situation in Iraq as we had committed far too few troops to maintain the initiative and do the police work necessary (and since our brave soldiers are not policemen anyway and our intelligence was slam dunk bad going to war there was simply a big mistake). However, we retain a lot of initiative and advantage with WM through mid-season next year (and even beyond if he produces enough next season to be worth tagging) so stay the course.