BuffaloBillsForever Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) I understand the argument on why not to pick a RB high in the draft but Schopp loves to beat this dead horse unnecessarily. Schopp's logic today on why we should not have drafted C.J Spiller was by referencing Green Bay's running attack (who has one of the worst running games in the league btw) and James Starks (undrafted?) who has had one good game in the NFL. This logic is almost as bad as the posters who start threads on why we should have kept Marshawn Lynch soon after the Saints game on Saturday. Sorry for the rant. Edited January 10, 2011 by BuffaloBillsForever
Chimp Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 I understand the argument on why not to pick a RB high in the draft but Schopp loves to beat this dead horse unnecessarily. Schopp's logic today on why we should not have drafted C.J Spiller was by referencing Green Bay's running attack (who has one of the worst running games in the league btw) and James Starks (undrafted?) who has had one good game in the NFL. This logic is almost as bad as the posters who start threads on why we should have kept Marshawn Lynch soon after the Saints game on Saturday. Sorry for the rant. Take all of Spiller's rookie year and compare it with the handful of games that Starks has played for Green Bay. I would say he has a point. It was a terrible pick. The best running back on this team was an un-drafted guy. Why waste a top ten pick on a running back? Especially when that running back was not touted as an all around running back coming out of college.
zow2 Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 I think he read the James Starks thread on this board because several of us made the same point.
BuffaloBillsForever Posted January 10, 2011 Author Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) Take all of Spiller's rookie year and compare it with the handful of games that Starks has played for Green Bay. I would say he has a point. It was a terrible pick. The best running back on this team was an un-drafted guy. Why waste a top ten pick on a running back? Especially when that running back was not touted as an all around running back coming out of college. I agree that taking a RB last year was not the best idea but Schoop using James Starks as the example is so flawed. That's my beef. Edited January 10, 2011 by BuffaloBillsForever
CosmicBills Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 I agree that taking a RB last year was not the best idea but Schoop using James Starks as the example is so flawed. That's my beef. 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.
PromoTheRobot Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 Not to nitpick a nitwit but Starks was a 6th round pick, not undrafted. PTR
BuffaloBillsForever Posted January 10, 2011 Author Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) 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. Its flawed when you make a point with a player that has NO BODY OF WORK IN THE NFL - James Starks. You really grasp for straws when you make comparisons to players that only have been in the league for 1 or 2 years. A valid argument would be Terrell Davis or even Fred Jackson as a few examples. Edited January 10, 2011 by BuffaloBillsForever
BADOLBILZ Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 I understand the argument on why not to pick a RB high in the draft but Schopp loves to beat this dead horse unnecessarily. Schopp's logic today on why we should not have drafted C.J Spiller was by referencing Green Bay's running attack (who has one of the worst running games in the league btw) and James Starks (undrafted?) who has had one good game in the NFL. This logic is almost as bad as the posters who start threads on why we should have kept Marshawn Lynch soon after the Saints game on Saturday. Sorry for the rant. Basically, the people who defended the Spiller pick just need to shut the hell up right now. It's OK to be wrong, but seriously, there was no defense for that pick. Nothing against CJ Spiller. He may very well have been the best athlete in the draft. That all is irrelevant. It ALWAYS comes down to this: YOU DON'T NEED TO USE A FIRST ROUND PICK ON A RB. EVER The Bills have drafted 3 with their first pick in the past 7 years. That is utterly outrageous. Yet.....some felt a need to defend the pick because Spiller is just so unbelievably spectacular. Forget the fact that the top two rushers in the NFL in 2009 played for non-playoff teams. One even played for the worst team in the league(Steven Jackson). Remember this phrase: Running backs are a dime-a-dozen. But when it comes to the most important position and most difficult to fill, QUARTERBACK , the Buffalo Bills haven't drafted one with their first selection in any draft since 1960. Almost a full quarter of their first overall picks since 1960 have been running backs, but only one QB, their first ever selection Richie Lucas of Penn State. When it comes to the draft, it does matter which positions you address in round one. It's just a fact.
BuffaloBillsForever Posted January 10, 2011 Author Posted January 10, 2011 I'm not defending the pick. We had greater needs.
Gabe Northern Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 Take all of Spiller's rookie year and compare it with the handful of games that Starks has played for Green Bay. I would say he has a point. It was a terrible pick. The best running back on this team was an un-drafted guy. Why waste a top ten pick on a running back? Especially when that running back was not touted as an all around running back coming out of college. +1 The Spiller pick was absolutely idiotic for a team with these holes. I'd honestly rather than LaGarrette Blount (undrafted), who is a 250 pound inside mauler. Way better for pros that CJ's "out-run 'em to the outside" high school play.
OCinBuffalo Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 I think he read the James Starks thread on this board because several of us made the same point. Certainly wouldn't be the first time we've done WGR's work for them. And, it wouldn't be the first time Schopp demonstrated his utter lack of football knowledge. But wait, the last time I busted their balls, one of them tried to flame me, 26-pages and 4 PMs later(of course I still have all of them) = hysterical! :lol: Too funny if they come back here again, and Epic Fail again!
Chimp Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 Certainly wouldn't be the first time we've done WGR's work for them. And, it wouldn't be the first time Schopp demonstrated his utter lack of football knowledge. But wait, the last time I busted their balls, one of them tried to flame me, 26-pages and 4 PMs later(of course I still have all of them) = hysterical! :lol: Too funny if they come back here again, and Epic Fail again! That would be hilarious. You should send them to me. No seriously man...send 'em.
eSJayDee Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 loves to beat this dead horse unnecessarily Isn't that redundant?
purple haze Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 Take all of Spiller's rookie year and compare it with the handful of games that Starks has played for Green Bay. I would say he has a point. It was a terrible pick. The best running back on this team was an un-drafted guy. Why waste a top ten pick on a running back? Especially when that running back was not touted as an all around running back coming out of college. They drafted him not just for this season, but future one's as well. I think some of us fans are being way too myopic about what the draft is. Would Spiller having a more impactful year been welcomed? Yes. If he had a great year this year and did nothing else in his career would people be happy? No. It's a marathon not a sprint in spite of the prevailing sentiments of today's immediate gratification society. Spiller is twenty two or three years old. It's not a Maybin situation where we never saw his talent displayed in preseason or regular season. Spiller did show some good things. Let time tell the tale instead of saying it was a wasted pick. Nobody on the board at that point was rated higher than Spiller. It was the right decision to make. And they should make that decision this season as well. They need elite athletes all over the place and Spiller is that. He has a good chance of paying off in the long run. +1 The Spiller pick was absolutely idiotic for a team with these holes. I'd honestly rather than LaGarrette Blount (undrafted), who is a 250 pound inside mauler. Way better for pros that CJ's "out-run 'em to the outside" high school play. Watch the last several games. Spiller was running between the tackles. LaGarette Blount's running style will wear him out three or four years from now just like Marion Barber's. When Spiller is doing well I hope all of you who were saying these things don't say you knew it all along. LoL
BuffaloBillsForever Posted January 10, 2011 Author Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) I like your term myopic purple haze. It is especially fitting when discussing two unproven players in the NFL. There is not a definitive answer at this point. Edited January 10, 2011 by BuffaloBillsForever
Kettle Creek Football Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) If Schopp was 1/2 as smart as he thought he was, he'd be a mole on Colin Cowherd's ***! But, yes, we all know Spiller had a lousy year. However, that doesn't mean he'll never play to his potential. Look at Darren McFadden this year, being his 3rd year. It's too early to compare Starks to CJ. The main difference so far, is Starks has played out of GB's desperation, but CJ's play was relegated behind FJ and ML. Edited January 10, 2011 by Kettle Creek Football
BuffaloBillsForever Posted January 10, 2011 Author Posted January 10, 2011 If Schopp was 1/2 as smart as he thought he was, he'd be a mole on Colin Cowherd's ***! But, yes, we all know Spiller had a lousy year. However, that doesn't mean he'll never play to his potential. Look at Darren McFadden this year, being his 3rd year. It's too early to compare Starks to CJ. The main difference so far, is Starks has played out of GB's desperation, but CJ's play was relegated behind FJ and ML. The bolded part is very important in keeping perspective as well.
BuffaloBillsSD Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 Basically, the people who defended the Spiller pick just need to shut the hell up right now. It's OK to be wrong, but seriously, there was no defense for that pick. Nothing against CJ Spiller. He may very well have been the best athlete in the draft. That all is irrelevant. It ALWAYS comes down to this: YOU DON'T NEED TO USE A FIRST ROUND PICK ON A RB. EVER The Bills have drafted 3 with their first pick in the past 7 years. That is utterly outrageous. Yet.....some felt a need to defend the pick because Spiller is just so unbelievably spectacular. Forget the fact that the top two rushers in the NFL in 2009 played for non-playoff teams. One even played for the worst team in the league(Steven Jackson). Remember this phrase: Running backs are a dime-a-dozen. But when it comes to the most important position and most difficult to fill, QUARTERBACK , the Buffalo Bills haven't drafted one with their first selection in any draft since 1960. Almost a full quarter of their first overall picks since 1960 have been running backs, but only one QB, their first ever selection Richie Lucas of Penn State. When it comes to the draft, it does matter which positions you address in round one. It's just a fact. Off the top of my head we have drafted two first round qb's Kelly and Losmam plus traded first round picks for Rob Johnson and Bledsoe.
Thoner7 Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 This comes down to two ideologies. 1- Draft OL and make it a priority. That way, any old scrub can run behind that OL. 2- Draft RB and make it a priority. That was, any old scrub can try and block for that back. Only one ideology produces in this day and age. Also, (and Im not certain there is any correlation between this or not – but I think I may be onto something) the teams that have good offensive lines tend to have better pass protection, which helps their passing game too! Now obviously you could find good RBs/OLman in any round, but guess what, no position in the NFL is routinely filled with quality, productive, UNDRAFTED players like the RB position. Its not even close. NO position wears down like a RB does either. The lifespan of a RB is 4-5 years. The days of a RB carring it 350+ times a season are long gone. OLmen can play for 12-15. Schopp’s logic isn’t flawed, its vastly superior to those in charge at OBD. He is saying any street FA can come in and jog through a truck lane sized hole and rack up the yards, which is essentially what happened last night. Figure it out Ralph, its not rocket appliances.
wardigital Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 Take all of Spiller's rookie year and compare it with the handful of games that Starks has played for Green Bay. I would say he has a point. It was a terrible pick. The best running back on this team was an un-drafted guy. Why waste a top ten pick on a running back? Especially when that running back was not touted as an all around running back coming out of college. Because he isn't going to be used as an "all around running back", and was never drafted to be an "all around running back" and for whatever reason you and the obnoxious nincompoop that is Mike Schopp seem to be judging him by that standard.
Recommended Posts