CosmicBills

Purged Cornell Green after signing him in the first place. And purged Edwards after entrusting him with the starting job in OTAs. And Andre Davis was less than spectacular this season. There's nothing on that list that I feel validates Nix whatsoever. His first draft and free agent pool, the only real measuring sticks for a GM, were disasters. Outside of Moats and possibly Easley, the draft failed to produce a single play maker. It also failed to address the serious and multiple needs on this team. He reached for Troup, he reached for Spiller, he overpaid for Green, Davis didn't deliver any semblance of stability in the LB corps. This team had so many holes that a blind man throwing darts at a draft board could have had better success in the off season last year than Nix and company did. Nix was an uninspired and incestious hire. Those who feel otherwise are smitten by down home southern accents and posturing. But me, I'll take results.

This is what I've been saying for over a year now. Some people won't get it. They watch the NFL and think the game is the same as it was in 1995. Hell, it's not even the same as it was in 2001 let alone the 60s, 70s, 80s, or 90s. Let's break it down so it's clear. The NFL is an entertainment venture. The powers that be want to put the most entertaining product on the field each week. And despite the many defensive fanatics out there who love smash mouth football (and I'm one of them), the league knows that offense, not defense, sells tickets. Thus, they changed the very rules of the game to up passing numbers and scoring. This has been a continual trend since the invention of the forward pass. AP is a great example of this. With him, the Vikings made the playoffs but couldn't get to the Super Bowl. Here is arguably the best RB in the league with a very good (at the time) offensive line and good enough defense. He couldn't do it on his own. Enter Farve and suddenly this team was one play away from a Super Bowl birth. RBs cannot do it by themselves anymore on offense. It cannot be done. You will never see a "game manager" QB win a Super Bowl again unless they altar the rules once more and give DBs back some of their leverage. Thus, the only people who find solace (or logic) in ever drafting a first round RB, no matter how good he is, are the fans or GMs who don't understand how the game has changed. BuffaloBillsForever wants to validate the Spiller pick. That's fine. Everyone on this board wants Spiller to be nothing short of amazing. Hell, I'd much rather be wrong about this than be right. I'd much rather watch Spiller explode next year for 3,000 all purpose yards and 20 TDs as he guides the Bills to a Super Bowl win. I hope he does.

The point is he may NEVER get 18-25 carries a game. He's not an every down back. Chan said so himself.

I have a feeling that's what San Fran is going to do ... or try to do. The only reason to trade out of the first round (and I'm not advocating this) is to get a second first round pick next year, giving a team the flexibility to move up to get Luck if he came out. This would be a huge roll of the dice, but worth it for a franchise QB. Especially for a team that has very little chance of being competitive in 2011.

I went in to last nights game with my eye specifically on both these players. It should be noted that this is the only time I've seen Auburn play all season and I really don't think you can pass judgment on any player based on one game (or one season). That said, Fairley looked like a men amongst boys out there tonight. I would not mind him slipping to #3 one bit. He has the kind of nasty attitude this team has been sorely lacking for a decade. The people here saying he didn't dominate that game weren't paying attention. Everything Oregon did (or didn't do) on offense was because of Fairley. The guy was an animal. And I think Carolina or Denver would be foolish to pass him up. Again, it's just one game so this ain't worth much, but to me he looked as good as Suh did against Texas ... As for Newton, he did some things that impressed me. There's no question he has a rocket arm and surprisingly (to me anyway) good accuracy and touch on his throws. Like others on here have said, I'm not a fan of spread offenses and it looked like a lot of the plays were one read type plays. This is an entirely unfair critique by me because I haven't studied Auburn enough to know their offense or Newton, but it would worry me that it appears he doesn't have to read the defense ...

You're missing the point. The point is that RBs are interchangeable. Even someone with no body of work in the NFL, like Starks, can be effective in the NFL. They can win playoff games for you. It shows not only how much the league has changed in the past 10 years, but how many talented RBs there are. Throw a rock at the combine and you'll hit a dozen. But it's a passing league now, it's no longer a running league. And what guys like Starks show is that there is a gluttony of talented enough RBs at all levels that you can plug and play. Hence, it's stupid to pick a RB in the first round (or even 2nd) unless he is the missing piece to your Super Bowl team.

It's not flawed. As I said since the draft, even before it, the NFL has changed in the past 10 years and has resulted in RBs being devalued. Gone are the days of one RB carrying the load for a team. Gone are the days of teams being able to win a championship with just a stout D and super star RB. As a result, good teams are less likely to tie up valuable cap space on one super star RB and instead look to find more value by signing two cheaper backs to shoulder the load. RBs have the quickest learning curve of any position in the NFL, meaning they're able to come right in and contribute. They also have one of the shortest shelf lives of any position, meaning you have to get the most out of them for as long as you can and be able to (financially) throw them away and move onto the next one. That means NOT wasting high draft picks on RBs. This team has spent 5 high draft picks on RBs in the past decade. That's a problem. It shows that this organization as a whole, and Buddy Nix in particular, are clueless.

I have yet to see the guy play this year. I'm fascinated that whenever he is brought up on Sports Radio (or on here) in any capacity, the conversation always devolves into a screaming match with racial undertones. Still, I have a feeling that the Bills, at the very least will be considering him if he's there at 3 so I am looking forward to seeing him play tonight. Though, no matter how well (or how poorly) he does, I still won't be able to draw much of a conclusion from one game.

True. I was really going for the laugh more than anything. Other than Locker, I haven't seen any of the top QB prospects play much. I'm looking forward to watching Newton play Monday though.

Why would they do that? They'd still have an empty stadium because the fan base would all hang themselves.

I don't really care about the trade. What this shows is the reason why the Spiller pick was so terrible. Even if Spiller becomes good -- which I think he will -- Marshawn and Fred were already good enough for the Bills. There was no need to pick a RB. And there's NEVER a reason to pick a RB in the first round unless he's the one missing piece of your Super Bowl team. It was a huge red flag that Buddy Nix doesn't know how to build a team. He's never done it before. He's 70 years old and thinks the modern game is the same as it was 10 years ago. It ain't. The decision to pick a RB at 9 showed how out of his depth he was, or worse, how much control Ralph still wields when it comes to the draft. Either way, it's not a good sign for things to come. Rant/over.

You're joking right? Lynch ALWAYS played hard. Every game. Every snap. He broke tons of tackles and made our line look better than it was on running plays. Be honest, Spiller will NEVER have a run like that. He's a "scat" back. Lynch is, and always was, a RUNNING back. ... now I feel like an ass 'cause I think you're being sarcastic?

Troup did not impress me at all this season. He was invisible. Ditto with Carrington.

Crunch the numbers. I think you'll find you're way off. Plus, if you're going to count those, then you have to factor in the amount of catches the WRs made that shouldn't have been caught (there were a lot of those).

I'm sorry, but you're way off base with this logic. You're not seeing the big picture. You're assuming the Bills will be able to compete for a title in 2011. They won't. They will have to have an amazing off season and season to even compete for a wild card spot. This team has SO many holes, so many needs it's unrealistic to expect them to turn it around in one season. That being the case, there's absolutely no need to rush your Franchise QB into the fray and risk derailing his development or getting him injured. IF the Bills take a QB at 3 (or even in the second round) that they feel is their franchise QB (I don't know if there is one in this draft by the way), but there is absolutely NO need to start him this year. QB is a very different position than any other on the field. When you pick a QB that high, you have to protect him. Starting him behind this crap-tastic offensive line would get the guy killed and you run the risk of making him gunshy and ruining any chance of developing him. The posters who are arguing that they need to build the lines before drafting a QB are right in one sense -- in that you need a line to protect your investment to make it pay off. But they're not right in the sense that you have to get the OL before getting the QB. Truth is, finding a franchise QB is more difficult than finding a Pro Bowl caliber offensive tackle or guard. So, if there's a Franchise QB staring you in the face, you take him. End of story. That's the beauty of having Fitz. Fitz gives the Bills the freedom to do exactly that. The rational fans out there know that Fitz isn't anything more than a placeholder. And drafting a QB high and sitting him behind Fitz is a wise move (again, if they grade a QB worthy of being a franchise type guy). In fact, it's a necessary move. Even if he doesn't see the field in 2011. Any other position taken in rounds 1 or 2 in this draft however NEEDS to not only see the field, but be a play maker.

Even you have to admit, Nix's design of the team thus far has been less than stellar. Picking Spiller was a huge blunder (though I know I'm in the minority on that), failing to seriously address the OL in FA or the draft, other than Moats, his first draft class seems suspect at best. Easley could be good, Spiller will turn out to be decent, Moats I think will be an overachiever his whole career (in a good way) but outside of those three, I'm not holding my breath. This is a crucial draft for the Bills. They have the ability to get three or four playmakers on Offense and/or Defense. I have no choice but to hope for the best, but so far Nix has been a huge disappointment.

That's just an excuse. Brady has no top flight WRs and you can argue he never has (other than Moss). His accuracy and abilities as a QB made the WRs better. Welker is good, but he isn't a hall of famer (unless he continues to put up huge numbers for 4 more years or bags a Super Bowl MVP). And more times than not, Fitz is being bailed out by his WRs on poorly thrown balls (to the wrong shoulder, low, high etc). He throws it up so they can make plays, but he is anything but accurate -- even on his completions. But fine, let's say you're right. The fact is the league is easier to pass in now than it was in the 90s. Despite that HUGE obstacle, Kelly still put up significantly better numbers in the two categories that matter most for QBs: Wins and Completion percentage.

%58 career completion percentage actually shows the opposite.

We are in disagreement over two points: First is the notion that this team CAN be competitive in 2011. I think that depends on your definition of competitive. For me, that means contend for not only a playoff spot, but a title. The Bills, no matter what they do this off season, will not be in that category. You feel otherwise, and for all our sakes I hope you're right. But the second point is that I believe it is infinitely more difficult to find a franchise QB than it is to find a Pro Bowl caliber OT, OG, TE, DL, DE, CB, WR, LB etc, etc. That being true (and I think you'd agree that it is), then drafting one in the first round and having him sit a year or two is not the same as drafting a DE and having him sit a year. I personally don't know anything about the QBs coming out other than Luck -- who it seems is not coming out anymore. So the only thing I can do is trust the Bills' front office (scary thought) to grade this class accurately. And if they pull the trigger on a QB at 3, then I have to give them the benefit of the doubt that he is a franchise caliber guy. Basically, I'm saying that this team can win games with Fitz so an immediate upgrade is not needed. I'd be just as happy if the first 5 rounds were spent finding defensive playmakers. But, if they take a QB at 3, I'll also be very excited.

Then you'll also trade some Wins for that as well ...

That is totally ridiculous and untrue. The two most important numbers for a QB are Wins and completion percentage. Kelly absolutely crushes Fitz in both those categories regardless of where they were drafted. the difference between %58 completion percentage and %60 is HUGE. And in his prime years, Kelly was well over %60 -- something Fitz has yet to accomplish. Factor in the truth that the league was different in the 90s than it was today -- read: it was HARDER to pass in the NFL when Kelly played because the rules of the sport were vastly different -- and it makes the comparison of Kelly to Fitz even more ridiculous. Where a player is drafted has nothing to do with how good they are. Brady was a 6th round pick and is the best QB ever to play the game. Fitz isn't a franchise QB because he doesn't have the abilities to be one -- not because of where he comes from.

A %57 completion rate is NOT good enough to win in the NFL on a consistent basis. Everyone here seems to be under the impression that accuracy can be taught. I don't believe that's true (neither do hall of famers like Steve Young). If a QB works, sure he can improve it slightly, but accuracy is one of those "it" qualities like speed that can't be taught. Fitz's CAREER completion percentage is under %58. He's been in the league 6 years and played 42 games. That's almost 3 full seasons of "game" experience in addition to 6 mini camps, training camps and OTAs. Contrary to popular belief, he is not a green, young QB. He is a seasoned vet. Accuracy is perhaps the single most important statistic (other than wins) in which you measure a QB. And for Fitz, those numbers aren't going up regardless of who you put around him. And that folks, is why he isn't a franchise QB and why, if the opportunity is there, the Bills have to take a franchise QB in the draft. If anything, the numbers he showed demonstrate how far off pace Fitz is. Not how close he is to being in the "top 3".

Sure, you can absolutely win games in the regular season with just a great defense and running game. You can even make the playoffs and go rather far in them. But ponder this: When was the last time a team without a franchise QB rode their defense and running game to a Super Bowl win? Yeah. The game has changed. It's a passing league now. Since they changed the rules of the sport to up passing numbers and scoring, you just can't win consistently with the old methods. You can win, yes. But your odds of winning the championship (which I think we'd all agree is the ultimate goal of any NFL team) are almost non existent without a franchise type QB and passing game. And again, this is not to say running games and defenses aren't important. They clearly are. But they are NOT as important as they once were and are certainly not as important in the modern game as finding a Franchise QB.

This is the line of thought that drives me nuts with people who are afraid to draft a QB high. Let's get this straight: Fitzpatrick will be the starting QB for the Bills in 2011, even if a QB is taken at #3. With how bad this OL is, the worst thing the Bills could do is rush their QB of the future into the lineup. As much as I have been ranting that Fitz isn't the answer at QB for the Bills, he certainly isn't the team's biggest problem. And more to the point, he offers the Bills a great opportunity to draft their franchise QB and let him develop on the sidelines for a season or two like Rodgers and Rivers. The other line of thinking that drives me nuts are the people saying that you have to improve the defense or OL first before worrying about QB. That is flat out false. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand how NFL teams are built or doesn't understand how bad this Bills team really is. There are more holes on this roster than there are draft picks to address them. They have huge holes on the OL, DL, LB, DB and TE. This team, no matter who they draft in 2011 will NOT compete for a super bowl. If they overachieve they MIGHT compete for a playoff spot -- but that's a long shot. Finding a true franchise QB is a MUST for any team with Super Bowl aspirations in the modern NFL. It doesn't matter how you get him, you just have to get him. It's infinitely harder to find a franchise QB than it is to find a OG, OT, DL, DE, LB, DB or TE. Thus, if there's one sitting there at 3 that you love, you HAVE to take him. End of story. Now, I am not a college scout or guru. I have watched every Stanford game this year and think Luck is beyond the real deal. I am of the midset that the Bills should do whatever they can to get him. However, I don't think Carolina will trade down no matter how sweet the package offered. Outside of Luck I have no clue if Mallet or Cam are franchise QBs. None. They both could be, they both couldn't be. Who knows. But if the Bills grade either of them as being a Franchise guy they have to draft him at 3. Defense, OL, TE -- that's all secondary IF there's a franchise QB staring you in the face. This team is not one or two or even five players away. If they don't believe they have a chance at a Franchise QB at 3, then you absolutely take the best defensive player available.