CosmicBills Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Disagree. Chris Johnson has not led the Titans to a superbowl victory, but surely he has justified his selection as the Titans first pick. Football is and remains a team sport and a total organization effort. Based on your criteria neither Jim Kelly nor Dan Marino were good picks. QBs are a different animal. But I'd say again that winning a championship is the only measuring stick to use. It's the only goal that matters in the NFL. To think otherwise is to accept mediocrity.
starrymessenger Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 QBs are a different animal. But I'd say again that winning a championship is the only measuring stick to use. It's the only goal that matters in the NFL. To think otherwise is to accept mediocrity. So Chris Johnson and Barry Sanders and Adrian Peterson and the Kansas Comet and Thurman Thomas and Bruce Smith and all the other great players at every position but QB who never won a world championship somehow don't measure up? Either you are not compis mentis or you are a child.
CosmicBills Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 So Chris Johnson and Barry Sanders and Adrian Peterson and the Kansas Comet and Thurman Thomas and Bruce Smith and all the other great players at every position but QB who never won a world championship somehow don't measure up? Either you are not compis mentis or you are a child. I'm not saying they don't measure up as individuals or players. They all are/were great players. But in terms of achievement, winning a Super Bowl trumps all. Winning solves everything. And when a GM picks a player, he's not picking him so he can be a Hall of Famer and rush for 2,000 yards. He's picking them to help them win a title. Jim Kelly would trade every statistic he put up for a ring. So would Thurman. So would Bruce (well ... maybe not Bruce).
starrymessenger Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 I'm not saying they don't measure up as individuals or players. They all are/were great players. But in terms of achievement, winning a Super Bowl trumps all. Winning solves everything. And when a GM picks a player, he's not picking him so he can be a Hall of Famer and rush for 2,000 yards. He's picking them to help them win a title. Jim Kelly would trade every statistic he put up for a ring. So would Thurman. So would Bruce (well ... maybe not Bruce). No. In terms of football legacy, I'd rather be Jim Kelly or Dan Marino than lots of players who have rings and whose names we have already forgotten if we ever knew them.
CosmicBills Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 No. In terms of football legacy, I'd rather be Jim Kelly or Dan Marino than lots of players who have rings and whose names we have already forgotten if we ever knew them. Again, that's individual. What about you as a FAN. Would you rather have a great player on your team, or a team that wins Super Bowls?
starrymessenger Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Again, that's individual. What about you as a FAN. Would you rather have a great player on your team, or a team that wins Super Bowls? Not credible as a dilemma. If my team is winning superbowls, it has lots of great players on it.
CosmicBills Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Not credible as a dilemma. If my team is winning superbowls, it has lots of great players on it. Now you're just dodging.
CosmicBills Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Not at all. Of course you are. As a fan of the Bills, what would you rather see? Jim Kelly and company go to four Super Bowls and not win one? Or a team with less star power go to a single Super Bowl and win it all?
starrymessenger Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Of course you are. As a fan of the Bills, what would you rather see? Jim Kelly and company go to four Super Bowls and not win one? Or a team with less star power go to a single Super Bowl and win it all? Ok I give up.
CosmicBills Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Ok I give up. Because you don't want to admit you're wrong. You're a fan. Not a player. You want to see your team win Super Bowls. They're all that matter. How they win it, doesn't matter. But in order to justify to the fan base picking a player who plays less than 50% of the snaps at #9 when your team has multiple holes and 2 Pro Bowl RBs already on the roster, Spiller HAS to win a Super Bowl in a Buffalo uniform. To think otherwise is just crazy talk.
JESSEFEFFER Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 If a running back's role in the offense is just carrying the ball, then, yes there are a multitude of guys that can do that and average 4 yards a carry. To consistently produce explosive 50+ yard plays takes a special talent and that's what the Bills thought they were getting. Time will tell, but I beleive that Chan Gailey has plans for Spiller and we barely got a glimpse of them in 2010.
Bart Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 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. CJ will be realized as a bust next year. He has speed but that alone is not enough. He does not run north-south and hit the holes fast enough. He is too small and lacks the power of a RB along with no skill at pass blocking. A total bust.
CodeMonkey Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 CJ will be realized as a bust next year. He has speed but that alone is not enough. He does not run north-south and hit the holes fast enough. He is too small and lacks the power of a RB along with no skill at pass blocking. A total bust. He can learn to run north-south. I expect him to improve in this way next season. I think generally he hits the holes (when there was any) too quickly, not to slowly like you are saying. He needs to learn to wait for his blocks to happen. He tries to hit the hole too early and ends up trying to bounce it outside. I also expect this to improve next season. I agree that he is too small, cannot pass block, and doesn't seem all that adept at running pass routes. I hated the pick then and I still do now. If Gailey can figure out a way to use him effectively next season (which he couldn't do this season) and Spiller improves in the ways mentioned above, he won't be a bust. That is a lot of "if's" for a #9 pick going into his second season though. I hope Nix does a considerably better job at the draft this year.
Scraps Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 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. What was he drafte to be?
akm0404 Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 What was he drafte to be? A situational, gimmick 10-touch a game guy. That's why people had torches and pitchforks when he was drafted. And those people were right to do so.
Ronin Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 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. We should never have drafted Spiller because he was ridiculously overrated. But when everyone like sheep dance to the beat of the same media bilge, then what do we expect. If a running back's role in the offense is just carrying the ball, then, yes there are a multitude of guys that can do that and average 4 yards a carry. To consistently produce explosive 50+ yard plays takes a special talent and that's what the Bills thought they were getting. Time will tell, but I beleive that Chan Gailey has plans for Spiller and we barely got a glimpse of them in 2010. Unfortunately, and for anyone that looked at Spiller independently instead of upon the relatively shallow assessments of the pro raters, there was very little basis for assuming that Spiller would break many big plays as a rusher out of the backfield. Oh sure, he did it against the worst Defenses in college, but so did 100 other RBs.
Chimp Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 I'll play devil's advocate. If next year, Spiller's second year as a pro, he rushes for 1200+ yards, has 30-50 catches for another 500 yards and returns a few kicks for scores.....does the Spiller pick suddenly become 'Genius' and we then consider him a success? yep. But the only end result that matters is wins. Not stats. To justify the pick, Spiller has to win a Super Bowl in a Buffalo uniform. If he puts up 2,000 yards and this team doesn't make the playoffs, that does not justify the pick. If anything, it would do the opposite. Using that logic...Every player the Bills of the NFL have drafted was wrong. Nobody they have ever drafted was worth it. Ever. Because you don't want to admit you're wrong. You're a fan. Not a player. You want to see your team win Super Bowls. They're all that matter. How they win it, doesn't matter. But in order to justify to the fan base picking a player who plays less than 50% of the snaps at #9 when your team has multiple holes and 2 Pro Bowl RBs already on the roster, Spiller HAS to win a Super Bowl in a Buffalo uniform. To think otherwise is just crazy talk. I know. I couldn't believe the pro bowl performances that both backs turned in last year. I thought Marshawn's pro bowl record setting touchdown performance was going to stand at 5 in 1 quarter until Freddie played the second quarter and scored 6. Best pro bowl performance I have ever seen. Please, one was an alternate and I can't find anything that Says Fred Jackson is a pro bowler.
Chimp Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Because you don't want to admit you're wrong. You're a fan. Not a player. You want to see your team win Super Bowls. They're all that matter. How they win it, doesn't matter. But in order to justify to the fan base picking a player who plays less than 50% of the snaps at #9 when your team has multiple holes and 2 Pro Bowl RBs already on the roster, Spiller HAS to win a Super Bowl in a Buffalo uniform. To think otherwise is just crazy talk. I know. I couldn't believe the pro bowl performances that both backs turned in last year. I thought Marshawn's pro bowl record setting touchdown performance was going to stand at 5 in 1 quarter until Freddie played the second quarter and scored 6. Best pro bowl performance I have ever seen. Please, one was an alternate and I can't find anything that Says Fred Jackson is a pro bowler.
Projay89 Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Leonhard impact player, maybe. He certainly looks good with plenty of probowl talent around him. Leonhard played in 6 postseason games 2008-2009. with 26 solo tackles,2 int, 2 forced fumbles,1.5 sacks. we cut him. genius.
Recommended Posts