jumbalaya 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. Starks has one more good game than Spiller for peanuts on the dollar.
Ghost of Rob Johnson Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 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. Jim Kelly and JP Losman come to mind, plus traded 1st round picks for Rob Johnson and Drew Bledsoe.
Bangarang Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 I don't believe this for one second. That would mean that Schopp and the Lapdog would have had to stop crying about not being able to draft Andrew Luck in order to talk about something else football related.
CosmicBills Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 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. 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.
BuffaloBillsForever Posted January 10, 2011 Author Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) 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. I'm not missing the point at all. In fact I agree with most of what is said about drafting in the 1st round. I just find that basing arguments off of players that had one decent game and making absolute statements is diluting the argument. I rather look at the strategy that is being used in the league as the passing game to setup the run game than it being a passing league. Edited January 10, 2011 by BuffaloBillsForever
BADOLBILZ Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 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. The top of your head is right. But not since 1960 have they selected one with their first pick in any draft. I believe the count at running back since then is 12. The immortal Tony Hunter was the Bills first selection in 1983. Not Jim Kelly. That mull-again was the most fortunate bounce in all of Bills history. They PASSED on Jim Kelly once. Lee Evans was selected with the Bills first round pick, they traded up from the second round to select JP. When you trade up from a later round using a future pick or trade for a veteran, you are really saying you aren't willing to go all in. It's understandable to be gun shy. But a dozen frickin' RB's and no QB's? REALLY???? With all due respect to the woefully neglected offensive line, the lack of committment to drafting and developing QB's is the most glaring personnel issue for this franchise. Jim Kelly and JP Losman come to mind, plus traded 1st round picks for Rob Johnson and Drew Bledsoe. No, just Richie Lucas. The rest were second choices and hedged bets. But when you have a meddling 92 year old owner who still thinks the league is RB driven you get that kind of shortsighted, instant gratification/low return approach to draft day.
Koufax Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 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. If his next five years are like this first one, you will have a point. But the reason you take a guy like this with a top ten pick is that you think he can do more than the undrafted guys and be a more explosive play maker. Whether that happens or not remains to be seen, but while I hate the first year lack of production, I care much more about what he does in the next few years, not what he does as a rookie in our twelve loss rebuilding low point.
RealityCheck Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Since Spiller is the new water bug back, how about a legitement comparison with other water bugs.
Sisyphean Bills Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Well, if the Bills draft a CB in this draft, it ought to be evident which recipe Nix is copying.
Bangarang Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Well, if the Bills draft a CB in this draft, it ought to be evident which recipe Nix is copying. Taking BPA is a new recipe for this franchise.
peteski Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 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. The best left tackle we have had on our team in recent years was an undrafted tight end. Maybe we should not draft tackles and just try to convert undrafted tight ends. I know I am a little off topic, but I think Spiller hasn't had a fair shake yet. Nobody in Minnesota is complaining that they drafted a running back in the first round.
Captain Hindsight Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Not to nitpick a nitwit but Starks was a 6th round pick, not undrafted. PTR He was also the number one senior back before breaking his collerbone in the spring game. He would have been a second round pick if he was healthy his senior year
KOKBILLS Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 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. Well he could have used Arian Foster, Fred Jackson, etc, etc... So what if he used Starks?...His point overall is rock-solid...I did not understand the Spiller Pick at the time...I still don't get it...We can't forget The Bills already had Lynch and Jackson...It was a mind boggling Pick...Maybe one day Spiller will be the Bills Reggie Bush when we win the SB...But the Jury is SO out on that right now it's not even funny...
JayD Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 He has a point. But that does not take away that he is a complete idiot on almost every other topic
BuffaloBillsForever Posted January 11, 2011 Author Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) Well he could have used Arian Foster, Fred Jackson, etc, etc... So what if he used Starks?...His point overall is rock-solid...I did not understand the Spiller Pick at the time...I still don't get it...We can't forget The Bills already had Lynch and Jackson...It was a mind boggling Pick...Maybe one day Spiller will be the Bills Reggie Bush when we win the SB...But the Jury is SO out on that right now it's not even funny... But again the Arian Foster comparison is flawed as well if you used the same perspective as you have judged Spiller. This being production and that it his is first year and all. Comparisons to players such as Fred Jackson are valid ones. Edited January 11, 2011 by BuffaloBillsForever
Buckeye Eric Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 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. Determing the success of a pick after one season is rediculous. Talk to me after year 3.
BuffaloBillsForever Posted January 11, 2011 Author Posted January 11, 2011 Determing the success of a pick after one season is rediculous. Talk to me after year 3. People do not realize that he was not even the featured running back on the team this year. Lets judge him when he gets 18- 25 carries in a game.
akm0404 Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Nobody in Minnesota is complaining that they drafted a running back in the first round. I think you are proving the opposing point of view here. Look at one of the most successful first round RB picks of recent history, Adrian Peterson. With him, the Vikings stunk. Until they got an elite-level year out of their quarterback, and they were contenders for a championship. Then, they lose elite-level quarterback play, and look what happens. Same dominant running back and high-quality offensive line. Same elite run-stuffing and pass-rushing defensive line. Utter failure with poor QB play. Funny, huh?
CosmicBills Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 People do not realize that he was not even the featured running back on the team this year. Lets judge him when he gets 18- 25 carries in a game. The point is he may NEVER get 18-25 carries a game. He's not an every down back. Chan said so himself.
CosmicBills Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 I think you are proving the opposing point of view here. Look at one of the most successful first round RB picks of recent history, Adrian Peterson. With him, the Vikings stunk. Until they got an elite-level year out of their quarterback, and they were contenders for a championship. Then, they lose elite-level quarterback play, and look what happens. Same dominant running back and high-quality offensive line. Same elite run-stuffing and pass-rushing defensive line. Utter failure with poor QB play. Funny, huh? 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.
Recommended Posts