NoSaint
-
Posts
42,267 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by NoSaint
-
-
I don't know that it's accurate to count Drew as a draft pick per se, considering how far into his career he was when we took him. A draft pick is supposed to be a guy who's never played a down of football in the NFL, but who's young and will have his whole career in front of him if he works out well. Bledsoe was the exact opposite of all that: he was a known commodity in the waning years of his career; and gave TD the quick fix he was looking for at the QB position, while creating no possibility whatever of any kind of long-term solution.
RJ was a different story: being younger and much less of a known commodity than Drew, using a first round pick on him had a lot more in common with drafting a QB than did the Bledsoe trade.
I too would be curious about whether there's a correlation between where resources are allocated and teams' subsequent success. But there's something that would weaken the apparent correlation. Normally teams acquire a certain number of unexpectedly talented players later on in the draft. But there's random variation regarding which positions those players actually play! For example, the Patriots took a Hall of Fame QB in the sixth round. Other teams have been able to find very good offensive linemen, WRs, and other very good players at every position on the field in the later rounds of the draft. Any time a team fills a need with a player like that, it's very unlikely to use an early pick on that same position. (The Patriots haven't used any first or second round picks on QBs since they took Brady, for example.) The fact that the Patriots haven't used any early picks on the QB position in the last ten+ years doesn't mean they consider the QB position unimportant! On the contrary. But if you were to throw the Patriots' drafting record into some statistical model, that model would return the conclusion that a de-emphasis on the QB position is associated with winning lots of games. If a team without a QB tried to similarly de-emphasize the QB position, they'd find that a strategy which works quite well for a team with Tom Brady might not have remotely similar results for a team that's lining up Joey Harrington under center.
The other problem with all this is that a team which uses a first round pick on a QB and gets it right (Colts, Peyton Manning) won't have to come back to the QB well again for a very long time! The opposite is of course true of a team whose QB draft picks turn out to be busts.
I think that a better way of analyzing teams is to do the following:
1) Break a team down into units. (OL, QB, WR corps, RB, etc.)
2) Grade each unit. (OL = B+, QB = B, etc.)
3) Determine the correlation between the strength of each unit and a team's number of wins. With a large enough data set, this will help show you which positions are most important.
Knowing which positions are most important will help you allocate your early draft picks!
I think the obvious answer if getting into stats analysis is wiith 40-50 years with 30 teams theres a decent amount of data out there. I think if you made some generalizations and then actually looked at outliers on a case by case, you would find interesting stuff. I'm not saying throw data into a magic machine and pump out or answers for the draft. I'd also go out on a limb and say most early bust have some sort of correlation to late round gems.
I'm just amazed with the fact that we haven't done more for the position with our first pick, and it seems like no surprise that outside of 5-10 years we have had some lean times around here.I'd guess some team that spent 4-5 high picks over that time might have some busts but probably a franchise qb or two more then us also, and probably a lot more wins over the course of those 50 years.
As for drew and rj - I wasn't correlating there value to a draftee, just saying that they were in fact the product of those picks. Weve invested heavily in the position but not in smart long term answers
-
well if that was the case, struggling for a year with him at CB and moving him to safety and in turn have an Ed Reed in our secondary for 10 years, that would be well worth the 3rd pick IMO.
Obviously I think it's hard to go THAT far, but I mean a player in that style. I think he has speed and ball skills but will play better in center field then he would around the line or in coverage.
-
Have actually seen Patterson play?
You're just as likely to find a solid pass rusher in the 2nd round as you are at the top of the first, and there is no clear cut QB worth taking at 3. Our secondary is equally depleted as our pass rushing at the moment and you do not want to be relying on McGee who is aging VERY quickly and an inconsistent McKelvin. Patterson can be our Revis and at the same time letting our pass rushers get more time to get after the QB. There shouldn't even be a moment in our heads where we completely throw out the idea of drafting this kid IMO. We're in need of stars and guys who have no questions coming in. He IM0 is the closest thing to a sure thing as there is of the top 5 available players.
I think a team with less kick/punt returners gets a lot more value from him short term. I think he struggles early, moves to safety to help make plays and from there plays Ed Reed like. Prob not THAT good, but very good safety that turns elite when he gets the ball. Just my ten year projection
-
My bad forgetting Moats, he could be a quality starter.
But isn't Merriman slotted for ILB?
Never heard or seen that - maybe but I don't think so
-
Someone pointed out that it's been 40 years or so since the Bills took a QB with their first draft pick. (Lee Evans was our first draft pick in 2004; with Losman being our second. Likewise, Jim Kelly was the second of our two first round picks in 1983.) Considering that QB is the most important position on the field, one could safely say the Bills have devoted too few resources to it on draft day. Instead, those resources have been squandered on RBs and DBs.
All this being said, I see no reason whatsoever to take Newton third overall. As someone pointed out, he's a one year wonder. Add to that the questions about his ability to process information quickly and progress through his reads, and you're looking at a QB who has many of the symptoms of a bust. The Bills need a difference maker at third overall, not some QB whose three contributions to the team will likely be the use of the third overall pick, the consumption of lots of Ralph's (comparatively) limited budget, and discouraging the team from drafting some other, better QB either later in the 2011 draft or in 2012.
Hmmm I'm counting drew and rj as taking our first pick, and jp took our first pick but of the following year - just throwing it out there.
I would be curious - correlation of various franchises success over 50 years as connected to how they tend to spend resources.
-
Did Todd Collins get cut yet?
I don't think he's signed for next year.
Also, did anyone else think the video was awful?
-
If Fairley is as good as everyone says, he'll be able to find a place to play be it 4-3 or 3-4 or 5-2 or 2-5 or 1-10. If he's there, you gotta take him if you're the Bills.
Truly the only thing that worries me is, like I said, I think he and KW play the same position. I think a good DC can scheme around it, and as always you go bpa cause you never know with free agency and injuries, and frankly how rarely you play your base defense textbookly. I think dareus on the other hand plays the outside tech naturally, kw does inside, with the olb on his side rushing.
Dareus might be the better textbook fit, but Bruce wasn't a textbook 34 end and that worked out pretty well.
Right now I say fairley #1 and dareus #2 but not as obviously as some people claim
-
Who would I pick? If I'm the Bills it depends on whether or not Fairley can play DE in a 3-4, or if he's capable of playing NT in a 3-4 and holding up. If he can do those things, then I say he would definitely be the pick. If he doesn't project well in the 3-4 lineup, and we are intent on playing 3-4, then you go Dareus, as he seems very safe and destined to be a stalwart on the D-line for his career.
However, again, if Fairley can play versatile positions on the 3-4 D-line (and, I think he can play anywhere on the 3-4 line, and looks even more natural as a 4-3 DT), then he'd be a perfect fit for Buffalo's multi-scheme.
Right now I'm loving our position in this coming draft. If Newton is looking as good as the recent news would indicate, and Fairley is as good as the above poster mentioned (this good after only a few years of instruction), then I think it's almost certain we can get one of them. And, Quinn, Dareus, Peterson, Miller, or Green are very excellent consolations. If we mess up this pick it'll be someone's head.
If I had to guess I think our board reads
1)fairley
2)dareus
3)Quinn
4)green
5)miller
And cam will either be on it at 1, or nowhere near it. If you have to debate whether he will have a bigger impact then a defensive lineman, or you have a defensive lineman ahead of him---- you've already answered your question- he's not your guy at 3. Even if that lineman is gone when you pick.
-
I saw in the paper today that the sticking point is that the owners sock away a cool billion to cover expenses etc. and split the rest with the players. Players want a part of that billion. That's just over the top greed and stupidity, pure and simple.
These guys are getting bad advice. I wonder if Drew Brees know about this?
I love that they'll compromise from the current 59% not including that billion, down to 51% including it and call it an 8% concession in the media.... Even though dollar for dollar it would be more then they currently get... Yea the owners are the bad guys for scoffing at that. It's not De Smith being a dirtbag by playing that offer.
-
Are you drunk? Fairley is a 6-5 320 who lead the SEC in sacks and TFL and is as agile as he hostile. He could play NT or DE in a 3-4 or either DT in a 4-3 and will be as or more dominant as Suh in ANY defensive scheme.
Dareus couldn't carry Fairely's jock.
Do people not realize that Fairley didn't even play football until his SENIOR year in HS....as an offensive lineman?
Yes, that's right. He's been playing DT for three season total and is going to go no. 1 overall in the NFL draft after dominating CFB.
Marcel Dareus? Pffft.
If we are looking at a pure 3-4 end, I think the guy that's played outside tech in a 34, in the sec is a good fit for us. In the long run I think fairley and Williams play the same position for us. If both there, I pick fairley as I think going bpa is important but if forced to take a guess I think that dareus will have a bigger net impact for our scheme over a decade.
Oh yea - and Marcell dominated a championship game too. A year before fairley did anything. And against a team that didn't game plan him to go unblocked repeatedly.
-
I would want Fairley over Dareus... Dareus is 2" shorter and has shorter arms. Having that big wing span is definitely a plus at the DT position. I think both players dominate their opponents, but I think at the next level Fairley is can't miss Pro Bowl caliber player and Dareus will be a very good player, but not neccessarily as dominant as Fairley.
If I compared there expected careers I'd say fairley will draw more Warren sapp comparisons, Dareus more Richard Seymour....
Both fantastic.
Our defense needs Seymour more.
-
I agree 100%. Smokescreening allllll day baby (I hope)
I'll refer you to my previous post - what's to gain from it? Middle of round one and on has more mobility, and sliding players, picks are closer in value and player ratings vary between teams etc - top 5 tends to have only a small number of trade possibilities to begin with and with CBA restrictions, even fewer. Other then hiding interest in cam I can't figure out one scenario where a smokescreen makes any sense.
On this board the word smokescreen seems to be code for I don't like/understand the idea being discussed.
-
I think they will load up on LB's in the draft .... makes perfect sense. The DLine is set with Wiliams, Edwards, Kelsay and the expected maturation of Troupe and Carrington. They could use a heftier starting NT (frees up Williams to play DE), but there isn't one in this draft. If they want they can go after Miami's for a price, or take a flyer on Shaun Rodgers for nothing.
Linebacker, the real core of a 3-4 scheme, is a complete mess. At ILB, we have no idea how Merriman will come back after injury, and we have no idea if Poz will even be on the team. We have no quality OLBs.
At the same time, there's no LB worthy of a top 3 pick.
So I hope the draft goes AJ Green Rd1, 3 LBs in our 4 picks in rounds 2 thru 4 (the other pick a RT), CB Rd 5, BPA rounds 6 & 7.
With a draft of Quinn at 3 and Taylor at 34 I think our ilb and ends will look better quick.
KW- troup (Taylor)-- Edwards (carrington)
Quinn -- poz-- Davis -- merriman (moats)
-
If you guys like Gaslight, and Alt Country, I suggest checking out Lucero (if you havent already).
Great band out of Memphis. Sad, gritty, country with a good rock edge. Having been a fan of these guys for some time, I haven't been able to get into Gaslight Anthem much because every time I give GA a try I just want to put on Lucero and listen to someone do it better.
Slower Song:
youtube.com/watch?v=Ugj4LKRGOzw
And a video I found while searching for my favorite song, of them rocking out Buffalo
and jw, dont be too mad at me for mentioning another band
love lucero, if you like the DBT, and the alt country scene -- just go buy their cd Tennessee. Definitely their best, and i dont think you will be at all disappointed. ben nichols has a similar way of spinning simple songs that are just so vivid. his tend to lean a little more emotion based then story based, but he can tell a mean story too. i just think he excels in the other category in a special way.
-
I am just throwing this out there -- I honestly dont believe the bills have any reason to put up a smokescreen this year, unless they take cam.
as the boards sit right now.... which could change after the combine, and prodays.... if they want to stand pat at three, i dont think anyone trades ahead of them for green, peterson, dareus, or miller when they could wait for jones, prince, jordan or quinn. i think arizona deciding they want cam is the only way it happens.
i dont think anyone buys them saying "wellllll i waaaasss going to select "insert player name from above", but now that youve offered me this trade package ill let you have them instead." and i think you see very little trading that high with the restrictions on next years picks and player movement. literally 3-4 teams have the ammo to move up, and i dont see them doing it by way overpaying us for a guy we both want.
its really cincinatti and to a lesser degree arizona that is going to drive the value of our pick for a trade back. if someone thinks cincy is taking their guy, they come to us for a trade back. and i dont buy that. again, i see very few trades. not a lot of ammo out there without players or 2012 picks on the table.
i suppose my point is, unless cam is at number one on our board, can someone give me one example where the bills would really hurt themselves by announcing the top three players on there board?
not saying they should, just saying i dont expect a lot of gamesmanship with where they are sitting. if we hear "i like this guy" i think we can more or less take it as face value. might not be our pick, but i think its clear those people will be high on our board. same for "i dont like this guy"
-
But that's the rub ... and where you're off.
If any owner left the league, 1000 others would be lining up to take their spot that would bring as much to the league in terms of quality as the current owners do.
The same can NOT be said for the players. If the players leave, there would be 1000s willing to take their place. But the quality of their play and the entertainment value they bring to the fans would NOT be the same.
Not sure what in that statement is scary to you ... the owners are printing money right now. They will get everything they want from the players in this negotiation because they have all the leverage. But that doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do or that there won't be ramifications on their business.
some points i will make that i dont fully stand behind but will throw out there for discussion
its said that greenbay turned about a 20-30 million profit this year, elite qbs will be turning 20-30 million in profit this year. i think thats a little out of whack with the investment that owners make. if you put a billion in the stockmarket that would be like a 2% dividend. i dont really know how fast resale value goes up to on the franchises, but you cant tell me theres any real liquidity as far as assets go. when you look at it as an investment its nice, but not a knockout.
also, i think you will see a lot of the burden of stadiums fall back on owners in the coming years. if the structure is anticipated to change, it wont reflect in the past numbers and your average fan probably will just hear de smith trumpet the profit number, and not everything that goes into it, and may in the future. i think the owners are trying to get out in front of the stadium issue, and dont trust de smith for a second.
just like he did to you, an educated person with his 50-50 offer, he will do with the owners books should they turn them over. they have nothing to gain unless they are losing money hand over fist.
-
way ahead of you NoSaint, but appreciate the heads up. i've already downloaded their free single a couple of months ago, and am hitting the record theatre here in town on Tuesday.
i've also kept an eye on their tour dates, but nothing excites me just yet. they're either playing too far away or at venues that are too big. for the first time i see them, i'd prefer a smaller club as opposed to a stadium and opening for tom petty and that ilk.
i am keeping an eye on that show they just announced in backwoods ontario, though the date's a little too far in advance for me to commit, given that i have a very uncertain schedule.
my wife and i are hitting the Loretta Lynn show up at the Riviera Theater in North Tonawanda in a few weeks. can't wait for that.
jw
yea i saw them in nashville consecutive days. the first was a larger (1000 or so people) venue for a standard show. phenomenal. played a 26 song set and blew me away, yet again. was my 5th time seeing them, and probably the shortest set they had played by a couple songs (seen them do 30+ more then once and go for 3+hours), but one of the best setlists. played a lot of older stuff that i had missed recently (bulldozers and dirt! and others of that timeperiod)
the second show was at jack whites recording studio/practice facility/lil bit of everything. It was maybe 200 people there, just dbt playing. only about a ten song set of mostly their more retro sounding stuff -- mercy buckets, everybody needs love, love like this, and even covered take time to know her from percy sledge. they were doing a limited run vinyl copy of it for the people at the show. cant wait to get it.
but yea, definitely make sure your local independent shop will be doing the "Sometimes late at night" cd as a free gift. it should be worth it even if you have to drive a little further or pay an extra couple dollars.
-
i too have gotten really into the DBTs over the past year, ever since i latched onto "Creation's Dark." what an ambitious piece of work, filled with an eclectic mix of music, some of it countrified, but in a very good way. i have picked up Decoration Day and don't know why i haven't made it through their whole catalog just yet, including Hood's solo stuff.
they strike me a little like Blue Rodeo, but far more mature and developed.
helps, too, that they've got a Replacements influence behind them now, Peter Jesperson, the man who first discovered the Mighty 'Mats, and thought enough to see them through their first albums.
what's also curious is part of their tour this year will be with Petty. it's somewhat ironic, considering The Replacements final record label had them touring with Petty in a bid to show the fall-down drunks how a "real pro" band tours. didn't work. the 'Mats, true to their rock and roll spirit, rebelled.
Petty at least got something out of it by ripping off the line, "Rebel without a clue."
hope the same don't happen to the DBTs.
one question: who is this Shonna Tucker, and when did she formally join the club. her voice provides a wonderful counterpoint to everything else that's going on.
jw
saw them twice in the last week or so -- great band. have heard the whole go-go boots cd which is due out tuesday and expect it to be one of the best yet.
shonna is their bass player, has been for as long back as ive followed them. was married to fellow band member jason isbell, they divorced he left, she stayed. theyve just recently gotten her into writing and singing. i think they like the extra wrinkle of a third person like they had with jason, and especially a female voice now. some of her older songs, not so good but the ones on this cd are head and shoulders better.
*bump*
The new DBT album drops next Tuesday and they are live streaming the entire record for the next few days at http://www.livestream.com/drivebytruckers. Enjoy! 66 minutes of pure wonderfulness. One of their best efforts, and that is saying something.
just an fyi if you get the cd at an indie record store, they are including a bonus EP with an extra studio song and a lot of live material from big to do and go-go boots
Fun fact: Patterson Hood's father is David Hood, bass player for the Muscle Shoals Sound. They were the back up band for all those soul and blues albums Dickinson and Wexler were producing back in the day. When you grow up with the cat that lays rhythm behind Aretha, you grow up with respect.
I also love the dimension Shonna Tucker brings, but it's a drag the divorce drove Jason Isbell out of the band. He offered a gorgeous sense of melancholy that offered a brilliant couterpoint to Patterson and Cooley's "I will rock in spite of you" lyric narratives. Plus that softer vulnerable voice wears thin over the span of his solo albums, but kills it for one or two tracks in the middle of an overlong DBT opus.
They're one of those bands I've been lucky enough to watch grow up. Back in the day they couldn't even function on stage if they were sober. I saw one gig where they were begging people to buy them alcohol because they were too broke to get drunk enough to rock proper. Those early jams were these intense character studies. The more they get their act together they songs are not just about people's actions, but where the people live and the influences on their actions. They keep taking in more and more of the picture, which I find even more touching. There's a lyric on the new album on the song Birthday Boy that kills me. Not verbatim, but something like: pretty girls in small towns are remembered like scars and floods. The actual lyric is a lot better; but still, man what a beautiful and perceptive line. compare that to the faux deep drivel of the modern rock gibberish that's choking the airwaves.
the second show i saw them at, david hood joined them for several songs, and it was recorded for a live vinyl release later this month. great show. David was actually mentoring shonna on bass before she joined the truckers, and thats how she got hooked up with them.
-
Plus maybe they are playing cards close to vest and putting out all of the We want xxxx so they can play folks off each other for moving down. Chan likes Fitz and realizes we need to fix the D and OL lets follow the lead of Rams fix the lines etc than we can draft that wonderful QB everyone wants.
but if we like cam, people dont come to us with trades, they go to denver and carolina. if we liked him i dont think we trade back and give him to someone without quite a kings ransom and i think that any reasonable person sees through that game.
plus i dont think its near far enough in the game for those games to be serious.
like i said, im pretty sure they could take a picture of their draft board and post it on this website and short of cam being number one on it, it effects nothing. no one is trading up to 1 or 2 for anyone else that we could legit take at 3. even with cam there it would be tough to trade up like that because of cba issues, and just the fact that trades almost never happen up there.
-
two words to describe Bills interest in Cam...
Smoke screen
i guess i dont get what for though?
so no one trades up to #2 to get dareus?
im pretty sure with the way the draft is sitting, they could publish there top 5 online and it wouldnt change anything unless they were serious about cam and then someone might go after the #2 pick. i dont think you trade the house to get ahead of us to get a corner or wr or dareus, and we arent in line for fairley.....
-
They don't but now they have much better players and potential for the 3-4 than 4-3, especially Moats and Merriman, Troupe, Carrington and Edwards. They're very likely going to be exactly what they said they would be, a hybrid, until they get the players for the 3-4. If, say, they sign a guy like Solari in FA, it will go a lot quicker. If they draft a DL at #3, what that player plays best will also be a factor. Chances are, you will see FA and draft picks better suited to the 3-4 though.
pretty much every team that has ever switched over has gone through the same struggles. its silly to say they are clueless, as i think they knew there would be growing pains until we got the right personnel. the only move that confuses me is the kelsay signing, but otherwise, i think it all makes sense. and for all i know, the kelsay deal has an easy out written into it this offseason or next.
-
There's a difference between the coach being quoted as saying he wants a waterbug RB versus a reporter saying how much they like a specific player.
If Chan or Buddy were quoted as saying they love Newton, I'd give it more weight.
it struck me when talking about him at the senior bowl how much he seemed to be interested in him and how much work they had to do to see if he really could be the guy. it seemed like they thought he could but werent 100% sold on him yet. couple that with his SEC connections, and chans interest in a mobile qb.... it seems like a similar situation. could be that they are playing on having done that last year in hopes someone will take them serious again, but it seems like making teams behind you think you want cam only helps the broncos.....
-
Great.
And with the 7th overall pick in the 2012 NFL Drafts, the Buffalo Bills select *.
We can load other positions but without a qb, it's going to be a long string of 7-15 picks. Are you implying that a draft of cam, and a lot of defense will produce a lot fewer wins this year? Will dareus somehow vault us into January play? See pretty much every team drafting in the top 5..... Either through free agency or that pick they get a qb or they stay there
-
To take your thought one step further, it's worth noting that Dick LeBeau became a proponent of the 34 because he never could grasp the intricacies of the 43. He was clueless when it came to even-man fronts. If it weren't for the advent of the 34, I'm pretty sure LeBeau would be out of football.
GO BILLS!!!
i hope your being sarcastic!!
linebackers drafted in the top five in the past 10 & 25 years
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
One thing that irks me is I think inside and outside backers, especially in our scheme are as different as LT vs guard or cb vs safety yet we always group LB across the board regardless of inside or out, 43 or 34.... I think an impact Derrick Thomas, Lawrence Taylor, even shawne merriman if he had stayed at early levels is worth a top 5. That is essentially your pass rush DE, but he has to be even more physically special and an even more rare body to be successful on those levels then an elite DE. Rare body + key position = top 5 value
Question- does this count college DEs that took there hand off the ground for OLB as a pro ala someone like Quinn?
Last, you can take a guy like bush when you have 2 probowl defensive ends, a probowl left tackle, and you just signed drew brees. Just like you can draft torry holt at wr when you already have pace, little, and Trent green- without those other blocks in place, skill guys are wasted.