Sisyphean Bills

Riffing on your general direction of thought... yes, the NFL has become more of a passing game. Part of that is by design, with rules changes to favor the passing game, to increase explosive exciting plays, and produce more scoring, and a more marketable, exciting product. Bill Walsh was ahead of the curve there, embracing those changes and transforming offensive football into the "pass to set up the pass" game it has become. Other coaches like Mouse Davis started introducing the spread formations, option routes, etc. into the professional level. It's rather ironic that it is Marv Levy who is so often quoted with his "run and stop the run" comments. It could be argued that his successful Bills teams were anything but built that way and actually were ahead of the curve as far as running a spread look offense and using a smaller, faster defense against the air forces of the AFC East, the look of most NFL offenses of today. Jim Kelly brought the run-n-shoot, spread concepts from the USFL to Buffalo (and would later in his career butt heads with Bresnahan and Shofner on an annual basis); and, while the smaller, quicker defense was ideal against the AFC teams of the day (Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, etc.), it was not built to stop the run as the mammoth OL of the NFC East demonstrated over and over in the biggest games of the season.

Well said. The hope for some of these new faces is floated on where other teams, teams that let them go, drafted them. Wrotto is dubbed an extra 4th round pick, Urbik and Rinehardt a pair of extra 3rd round picks, and also Erik Pears, the backup to Cornell Green 2 years ago in Oakland.

Obviously. Nope. You clearly wanted it to be more than what it is though, as you tried to use it as ammo in an argument to imply other posters were wrong in their criticism of it. So, there's an "optimistic way" to read articles? OK. Seriously, I have no problem with the article or the author. I'm sure he spent a lot of time on it and it's well-written. Doesn't mean I have to gullibly accept it at face value and unplug my head, though. I thought it was kind of obvious, but I'll run some simple numbers for you. He said the table is a 2 deep of the entire NFL. There are 11 players on offense, 11 on defense, and 3 STs positions listed. That's roughly 90% of an NFL roster. There are roughly 2000 players in the NFL, so that comes to 1800 players in his chart. Now, factor in that teams average 7 picks a year, the average NFL career is 2 or 3 years, and even if we skew things towards the drafted players optimistically, there is a significant percentage of roster positions that have to be filled by somebody -- these happen to be UDFAs. Let's say every team keeps all 7 of their picks for 5 years (which the data does not support), there would still be 25% of the positions in the chart left to be filled by somebody. Now, if you factor in the pressures of the salary cap and free agency and actually do look at the data over time, it's obvious that NFL teams have been trending towards depth that is cheaper and younger, precisely UDFAs. Again, it's pretty clear why this is the case, but if there is 50 dollars to split 50 ways and you start off giving the star players 15 dollars, then there is going to be much less than a dollar left over for the backups on the team. If the CBA guarantees veterans at least 85 cents, then there is going to be a tipping point where the cost of the star players makes it impossible to keep the veterans. Whatever.

The chart is the 2-deep average for every NFL team. Since it includes K, LS and P, that's 47 players out of a 53 man roster on 32 teams. There is no differentiation given for good teams, good players, starters vs. backups, replacement players that moved into the 2-deep because of injuries (this was compiled later in the season), no consideration of the salary cap, the breakdown by position lumps some positions together (OL, LB, WR) and differentiates others (RB vs. FB), it doesn't consider that there are 32 1st round picks per year and ~2000 roster positions in the NFL. So, yeah, some could disagree with any conclusions based on such data and they'd have ample reasons to blow holes in the study. About all this really says is that NFL teams (good and/or bad) value certain positions more and draft those positions higher than others (with good and/or bad results) -- this is hardly news as any draftnik would tell you the same thing. With the salary cap, short careers, and the small constant number of annual 1st round picks, it's a statistical certainty that depth in the NFL is going to come via cheaper talent via the pool of UDFAs and since this chart lumps depth with All-Pros, it provides little other meaningful information.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. He doesn't have the pure NFL arm to fire the ball in a compact throwing motion. That's utterly different than winding up and pitching it like a baseball. Feel free to disagree, but I don't think he's got an NFL arm (and it sounds like a few scouting reports agree) and I wouldn't count on him being a Franchise QB. (FWIW, Tom Brady didn't have a big cannon coming out either, and he developed into an elite QB. But at age 24, if you add 3 years of development time, the window of opportunity on Stanzi is minimized.)

Is this a pot meets kettle moment? (It was the Bills that made Dockery one of the highest paid LG in the entire NFL.)

Harris can't run.

Was Tolzien the QB that missed (almost) every throw (at the combine)?

Grape Newton? Some negative ammo on Cam Newton: Some scouts believe his inexperience shows and he is still low on the learning curve for the QB position. Needs to learn basic QB footwork, how to read receivers, and time and adjust his throws.

If Wannstedt wants to adopt a pet and try to teach it new tricks, what about Aaron Maybin? He's looking for a good home and a tasty treat.

Muhammad Wilkerson

The negatives on Stanzi are that he's 24 years old. His footwork needs work. His arm strength is below average and his throwing motion can have more of a big windup to it as a result, he doesn't just snap the ball out there. He's a student of the game and a hard worker, but he's physically more of a journeyman QB in the NFL.

BTW, Gabbert didn't throw at the combine.

I gotta agree that Paea is a football player that can really throw weights, not a weightlifter that happened to make the football team.

In less than 1 minute.

And, Ben Roethlisberger played in the MAC. Kaepernick is a projection in the NFL because he played 100% out of the pistol offense.

The way Nix has talked up all the street free agents and practice squad fodder he brought in to plug holes in the dikes last year, it seems like he's content with the OL at this point.

Is there really any doubt that he'll have to address it with NFL teams? It's an agent's job to manage his client's public reputation, otherwise what is he there for? Anybody can be a bystander with his hands in his pockets and watch as he gets dragged through the mud. Hey, it's not my millions of dollars going up in smoke.

I wonder if you'll still be confident if Nix continues to follow what they did in San Diego and drafts his Quentin Jammer and Sammy Davis DB picks the next couple of years.

The agent should be out there front and center as the **** magnet. That's his job.

Well, from the Jackson standpoint, they are the model of what other teams want to do. It's not really anything new around here, but the sense is that teams looked at the Spiller pick, the Bills situation when they took him, his absence of production, the shelf life of the average NFL RB these days, and the result is that the atmosphere surrounding RB in general at this combine is deflated and one of apathy. To paraphrase, why be the next knucklehead to pick an athlete like Spiller when you can get better football production out of an Arian Foster?

Who is his agent? Complete and total botch job with this kid.

Still, I know a 7 year old that can use "due diligence" correctly in a sentence.

The Bills were exhibit A this morning about the RB position. First, that you don't need to waste a top pick on the position (see Fred Jackson). Second, that spending a top pick on the position may not be the best move for your team (see Spiller). Seems like the Spiller pick is already being used as a negative benchmark at this year's combine.