MDH Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 You would rather be 0-16? Can we stop these ' I'd rather lose threads'? Not to mention that having a top 10 pick isn't the greatest thing given how much cash those picks cost and their 50/50 success rate. I'd almost rather have a 11-20 pick and not be in cap hell if the pick doesn't pan out.
Astrobot Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 how about ending a 12 consecutive loss streak. thats good enough for me! how about being the team that breaks indys perfect season. thats good enough for me! officially eliminating falcons....ok i'll give u this one. The psychic jumpstart by winning 2 or 3 of these games would be worth more than the improved draft position. Also, if we lost our last 3 games, we'd still draft no better than 6th, and I will bet you that's still too late for Suh, Okung, McCoy, or Clausen. If we won our last 3 games, our draft position would be ~10 or 11. Players still likely on the board there: #1 ILB Rolondo McClain, LT Charles Brown, possibly Taylor Mays, the best WR's, the best OG, Brandon Graham OLB, and DT Terrence Cody. Players could fall to us as well. There would also be the opportunity to still trade down.
Koufax Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 If you can get a Peyton Manning then there is some value to 1-15. But here is my math: 7-9 team + #11 pick is more likely to make the playoffs than 5-11 team + #5 pick or 3-13 team + #3 pick I also don't see anybody who we need to have to compete, I don't see a Manning here. I would rather find our Haynesworth (15), Freeny (11), Ed Reed (24), Polamalu (16), Dallas Clark (24), Wolfork (21), DeMarcus Ware (11), Merriman (12) than lose to get our sure thing franchise qb Alex Smith, Carr, Herrington... And no matter how much house cleaning is done by the new coach, 30+ guys will be back next year from this roster, and I would rather have them learn how to win than be doormats. I am definitely rooting for the teams close to us to win games to help our draft position, but rooting for the Bills to lose and thinking it will help seems dumb. So Go Raiders! Go Panther! Go Redskins! Go Seahawks! Go Bears! But also GO BILLS!
CountDorkula Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Yes, the Bills desperately need a QB, but drafting high doesn't guarantee anything. There have been some big time busts to go along with the players you listed: 1999 #1 pick Tim couch, #3 Akili Smith 2002 #1 pick David Carr, #3 Joey Harrington 2003 #7 Byron Leftwich (decent, but not a franchise QB) 2004 #22 Darryl Lamonica 2005 #1 Alex Smith (jury is still out on him) 2006 #3 Vince Young (see Alex Smith), #10 Matt Leinart 2007 #1 JaMarcus Russell So, picking high is still hit or miss and if you miss on a high draft pick QB it sets the franchise back even farther.... Remember when everyone freaked out because we passed on the great Matt Leinart glad we "wiffed" there. I'l take the 32nd pick in the draft!!
Thoner7 Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 Yes, the Bills desperately need a QB, but drafting high doesn't guarantee anything. There have been some big time busts to go along with the players you listed: 1999 #1 pick Tim couch, #3 Akili Smith 2002 #1 pick David Carr, #3 Joey Harrington 2003 #7 Byron Leftwich (decent, but not a franchise QB) 2004 #22 Darryl Lamonica 2005 #1 Alex Smith (jury is still out on him) 2006 #3 Vince Young (see Alex Smith), #10 Matt Leinart 2007 #1 JaMarcus Russell So, picking high is still hit or miss and if you miss on a high draft pick QB it sets the franchise back even farther.... 1998 #1 pick Peyton Manning, #2 Ryan Leaf One draft slot can be a BIG thing. Just as the 14-0 Colts.
Orton's Arm Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 so you would rather look good in certain areas than win ugly? glad you aren't in the running for our next head coach You're not? The OP indicated that he has no use for meaningless wins that only hurt our draft position. He also wanted to see evidence of strength in key areas, much like we did in Kelly's first year at the quarterback position. (Despite the fact that team lost a ton of games.) What's so earth shatteringly unreasonable about either of those positions?
Orton's Arm Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 The Bills are taking every short-term measure to avoid bottoming out. A 26-35 record in four seasons of rebuilding means we're good enough to beat bad teams, but unable to win when it matters. Most fans want to see the team win, and I subscribe to the theory that a higher draft pick doesn't guarantee success next season. But the question remains: Try to be mediocre (which is what we're doing) OR bottom out and start over. Neither is fun, but only the latter might provide substantial change for the benefit of future Bills teams. At the least, there's no doubt the NFL product is as watered down this year as any previous season. This is an excellent post! The fact is that getting a top five pick, or even the first overall pick, gives you an opportunity at a caliber of player who might not be there later on in the draft. Bruce Smith was picked first overall. So was Peyton Manning. And Troy Aikman. And Leon Lett. And Carson Palmer. And Orlando Pace. And (I think) Tony Boselli. Matt Ryan was chosen third overall. Jon Ogden was chosen in the top 5, and may have been first overall. We need a few guys like that. There's currently only one Bill in the top 100 NFL players: the aging Terrell Owens; whose contract expires at the end of the season. This team needs elite players, and the very top of the draft is the best place to find them. The fact that a lousy front office will mess up early draft picks is, quite frankly, irrelevant. If you have a lousy front office, your team is doomed to failure anyway. So you may as well write off its chances for winning games, or building itself into a winner, until those front office people are replaced. But once you get the right front office in place, you want to give it picks as early in the draft as possible.
fansince88 Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 The Bills are taking every short-term measure to avoid bottoming out. A 26-35 record in four seasons of rebuilding means we're good enough to beat bad teams, but unable to win when it matters. Most fans want to see the team win, and I subscribe to the theory that a higher draft pick doesn't guarantee success next season. But the question remains: Try to be mediocre (which is what we're doing) OR bottom out and start over. Neither is fun, but only the latter might provide substantial change for the benefit of future Bills teams. At the least, there's no doubt the NFL product is as watered down this year as any previous season. There is substantail change. We dont have Dick!
dave mcbride Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 This is an excellent post! The fact is that getting a top five pick, or even the first overall pick, gives you an opportunity at a caliber of player who might not be there later on in the draft. Bruce Smith was picked first overall. So was Peyton Manning. And Troy Aikman. And Leon Lett. And Carson Palmer. And Orlando Pace. And (I think) Tony Boselli. Matt Ryan was chosen third overall. Jon Ogden was chosen in the top 5, and may have been first overall. We need a few guys like that. There's currently only one Bill in the top 100 NFL players: the aging Terrell Owens; whose contract expires at the end of the season. This team needs elite players, and the very top of the draft is the best place to find them. The fact that a lousy front office will mess up early draft picks is, quite frankly, irrelevant. If you have a lousy front office, your team is doomed to failure anyway. So you may as well write off its chances for winning games, or building itself into a winner, until those front office people are replaced. But once you get the right front office in place, you want to give it picks as early in the draft as possible. Leon Lett was a sixth round pick. I think you're confusing him with Russell Maryland. Ogden was fourth overall; Boselli was second overall. The fact that I know this without looking it up is sad ...
Orton's Arm Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 Leon Lett was a sixth round pick. I think you're confusing him with Russell Maryland. Ogden was fourth overall; Boselli was second overall. The fact that I know this without looking it up is sad ... Good call. I was also going on memory which apparently proved a little faulty at points.
SouthGeorgiaBillsFan Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 1998 #1 pick Peyton Manning, #2 Ryan Leaf One draft slot can be a BIG thing. Just as the 14-0 Colts. Using Peyton Manning to make your argument is beyond inane. There was never such an obvious future star. If there was a player of Peyton Manning's stock in the draft, then yea, the #1 pick would be a big thing. But since I've been watching football there has only been 1 player of Peyton Manning's caliber coming out of college. It does not take a genius to realize to draft Manning. It also does not take a genius to realize there is no Manning in this draft or in any draft since. You should base your line of logic as if Ryan Leaf had been the #1 QB in the draft that year, because that is the situation that teams usually face when drafting a QB with a high pick. Peyton Manning is an anamoly, and everyone has always known it. The question is do you want to lose games for the chance to draft Ryan Leaf? Alex Smith? etc. Because that is the gamble. There worst thing for me would to see the Bills spend a top 5 pick on Colt McCoy. That would epitomize the poor drafting that has affected the state of this franchise for the past decade.
Orton's Arm Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 Using Peyton Manning to make your argument is beyond inane. There was never such an obvious future star. If there was a player of Peyton Manning's stock in the draft, then yea, the #1 pick would be a big thing. But since I've been watching football there has only been 1 player of Peyton Manning's caliber coming out of college. It does not take a genius to realize to draft Manning. It also does not take a genius to realize there is no Manning in this draft or in any draft since. You should base your line of logic as if Ryan Leaf had been the #1 QB in the draft that year, because that is the situation that teams usually face when drafting a QB with a high pick. Peyton Manning is an anamoly, and everyone has always known it. The question is do you want to lose games for the chance to draft Ryan Leaf? Alex Smith? etc. Because that is the gamble. There worst thing for me would to see the Bills spend a top 5 pick on Colt McCoy. That would epitomize the poor drafting that has affected the state of this franchise for the past decade. Before the Manning/Leaf draft, there was considerable debate about which prospect was better. Manning was labeled the more "polished" and "NFL-ready" passer; whereas Leaf was supposedly the quarterback with more "upside" due to his stronger arm and general physical attributes. Some sports writers implied that a team that wanted a quick fix at the quarterback position would likely take Manning, but a team with a more disciplined, longer-term outlook would accept the delayed gratification of Leaf in order to receive the eventual benefit of that higher upside. In hindsight, that position looks a little silly. Recently, the Falcons took Matt Ryan third overall, and he's turning into a franchise quarterback. Other franchise quarterbacks taken in the top five include Carson Palmer (first overall), and Philip Rivers (fourth overall). Clausen seems like he has the potential to join that category. I agree we shouldn't use a top five pick on Colt McCoy though. The question we have to ask ourselves is, should the Bills consider trading up for a franchise QB like Clausen? I'm not thrilled with that idea, because there are so many other holes on this team (such as offensive line). On the other hand, there aren't very many opportunities to draft franchise QBs. So it's important to take advantage of those opportunities you do have.
Astrojanitor Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 Before the Manning/Leaf draft, there was considerable debate about which prospect was better. Manning was labeled the more "polished" and "NFL-ready" passer; whereas Leaf was supposedly the quarterback with more "upside" due to his stronger arm and general physical attributes. Some sports writers implied that a team that wanted a quick fix at the quarterback position would likely take Manning, but a team with a more disciplined, longer-term outlook would accept the delayed gratification of Leaf in order to receive the eventual benefit of that higher upside. In hindsight, that position looks a little silly. Recently, the Falcons took Matt Ryan third overall, and he's turning into a franchise quarterback. Other franchise quarterbacks taken in the top five include Carson Palmer (first overall), and Philip Rivers (fourth overall). Clausen seems like he has the potential to join that category. I agree we shouldn't use a top five pick on Colt McCoy though. The question we have to ask ourselves is, should the Bills consider trading up for a franchise QB like Clausen? I'm not thrilled with that idea, because there are so many other holes on this team (such as offensive line). On the other hand, there aren't very many opportunities to draft franchise QBs. So it's important to take advantage of those opportunities you do have. Despite everyone going crazy over the O-line, I think getting a serious franchise QB needs to be top priority. cats like manning, Brady, Brees...all them, they'd be just as good behind our line. Admittedly impossible to prove, but I still believe it. We get a real leader who is fearless and can make quick decisions and we do A LOT better.
Clippers of Nfl Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 This is an excellent post! The fact is that getting a top five pick, or even the first overall pick, gives you an opportunity at a caliber of player who might not be there later on in the draft. Bruce Smith was picked first overall. So was Peyton Manning. And Troy Aikman. And Leon Lett. And Carson Palmer. And Orlando Pace. And (I think) Tony Boselli. Matt Ryan was chosen third overall. Jon Ogden was chosen in the top 5, and may have been first overall. We need a few guys like that. There's currently only one Bill in the top 100 NFL players: the aging Terrell Owens; whose contract expires at the end of the season. This team needs elite players, and the very top of the draft is the best place to find them. The fact that a lousy front office will mess up early draft picks is, quite frankly, irrelevant. If you have a lousy front office, your team is doomed to failure anyway. So you may as well write off its chances for winning games, or building itself into a winner, until those front office people are replaced. But once you get the right front office in place, you want to give it picks as early in the draft as possible. free agency is actually the best place to find elite players.
Tasmo Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 free agency is actually the best place to find elite players. Fight to win. That's what my dad taught me and that's good enough. At the end of the day what do you really want? To win! Gee.. I know what I'm doing. Losing to get some unproven talent and take a big risk. Lets LOSE!!! Get real.. Fight to win or go home to mama.
Orton's Arm Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 free agency is actually the best place to find elite players. No it isn't. Elite players almost never hit free agency. Do you think the Colts are going to let Peyton Manning hit free agency while he's still in his prime? Do you think that the New England Patriots will let Tom Brady leave when he's still got some gas left in the tank? On the rare occasions when a top tier player hits free agency, it generally results in a bidding war. Look at Nate Clements, who wasn't even quite top tier! San Francisco clearly overpaid for him, but that's a function of there being too little supply (of players of that caliber) and too much demand. But a Nate Clements level player is typically about the best your team can expect from free agency. Normally, players are allowed to walk for a reason. Head-butting someone. Being too old and too injury prone. Not being a particularly good player in the first place. Being a cancer in the locker room. If a guy doesn't have any negatives associated with him, why would his team let him hit free agency in the first place? Look at the free agents the Bills have signed, for crying out loud! Peerless Price. Tuten Reyes. Melvin Fowler. Langston Walker. Derrick Dockery. Watching the Bills' front office look for free agents is like watching an animal rummage through the feces of some other animal in search of undigested nuts. Yes, there are stories about teams finding such undigested nuts. But they are few and far between. Across the NFL, what were the ten best free agent signings of 2007? How about 2006? What about signings 11 - 20? Is the 20th best free agent signing of 2006 still making a useful contribution to his team? Is he still even with that team? Now compare that to the 20th best draft pick of 2006, who's almost certainty a better player than Donte Whitner. The draft is both better on the high end (Manning and Brady) and deeper than free agency.
Clippers of Nfl Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 No it isn't. Elite players almost never hit free agency. Do you think the Colts are going to let Peyton Manning hit free agency while he's still in his prime? Do you think that the New England Patriots will let Tom Brady leave when he's still got some gas left in the tank? On the rare occasions when a top tier player hits free agency, it generally results in a bidding war. Look at Nate Clements, who wasn't even quite top tier! San Francisco clearly overpaid for him, but that's a function of there being too little supply (of players of that caliber) and too much demand. But a Nate Clements level player is typically about the best your team can expect from free agency. Normally, players are allowed to walk for a reason. Head-butting someone. Being too old and too injury prone. Not being a particularly good player in the first place. Being a cancer in the locker room. If a guy doesn't have any negatives associated with him, why would his team let him hit free agency in the first place? Look at the free agents the Bills have signed, for crying out loud! Peerless Price. Tuten Reyes. Melvin Fowler. Langston Walker. Derrick Dockery. Watching the Bills' front office look for free agents is like watching an animal rummage through the feces of some other animal in search of undigested nuts. Yes, there are stories about teams finding such undigested nuts. But they are few and far between. Across the NFL, what were the ten best free agent signings of 2007? How about 2006? What about signings 11 - 20? Is the 20th best free agent signing of 2006 still making a useful contribution to his team? Is he still even with that team? Now compare that to the 20th best draft pick of 2006, who's almost certainty a better player than Donte Whitner. The draft is both better on the high end (Manning and Brady) and deeper than free agency. 50/50 your draft will be good 50/50 your acquired free agent player will be good overall the jets got a bust in favre overall the vikes got a winner in favre (he's having one of his best years in his long @ career. if he wins the big game that would mean he took down the saints and beat the colts or bills. it would probably be his best year ever)
Orton's Arm Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 50/50 your draft will be good50/50 your acquired free agent player will be good overall the jets got a bust in favre overall the vikes got a winner in favre (he's having one of his best years in his long @ career. if he wins the big game that would mean he took down the saints and beat the colts or bills. it would probably be his best year ever) I'll grant the truth of your post. But there's a difference. The Vikings got a good player in the form of Favre, but how many years will he give them? One? Two? Three at the very most (and that's probably pushing it). But if you draft a player like Manning or Brady, you get him for his whole career. Getting ten years of elite quarterback play is ten times as good as getting just one year. Another good example of how free agents are generally short-term solutions is our signing of Chris Vilarrial. He was a nasty, tough guard from Chicago. He gave us one good year--one!--before a combination of age and injuries made him a shell of what he once had been. There are a lot of areas on a team--such as offensive line--in which continuity is important, which makes the short clock often associated with free agent signings that much more detrimental.
billnutinphoenix Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 Doesn't everyone remember the great win in Denver last year when it didn't mean anything but helped keep Dick's job for 2009?
Recommended Posts