Kiper Re-Grades 2010 Draft

[OldTimer1960]

Not defending Kiper, Green L. He laid an egg on Clausen (better QB than Bradford my Aunt Frannie).

Also agree it's too early to tell which of this year's draft class are "long term starters".

 

That said.....it is my impression that many 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round players drafted later than ours are making very solid contributions to better teams at positions of need for B'lo

Pierre-paul, Graham, and Alualu DL in 1st; Bulaga, Pouncey, and Davis OL in 1st. Not that these players are perfect or haven't had some struggles, normal to rookies, but they've made more contributions than Spiller has at positions of higher need, and some on better teams. Gronkowski and Houston in the 2nd. Mitchell and Peters in the 3rd.

 

I think that when a rookie starts or gets on the field and plays unevenly or makes mistakes it's only to be expected and shouldn't be gloom and doom.

When a rookie can't crack the starting lineup or struggles to see the field on a bad team decimated by injuries, it's not a good sign.

Something is missing - player development? coaching? or player evaluation in the draft?

 

I don't buy the KoolAid that Modrak and his scouts are just "victims of circumstance".

 

First, I am confident that you cannot judge a draft class for at least 2-3 years. Second, I always hear coaches

say that a players greatest improvement is between year 1 and 2. Not just Bills coaches, but many coaches say

this - it was definitely one of Marv Levy's mantras.

 

Also, I think that Gailey insisted that the rookies EARN their playing time rather than just give them time because

they were drafted. I think that is an outstanding approach and was in part responsible for the effort that Gailey

got out of his team each and every week (no doubt they didn't play well every week, but I can't think of any

game where they didn't battle hard - even if outclassed and behind by a lot.

 

Some teams play their rookies a lot even if they haven't beaten out the player ahead of them.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Buddy Nix went into last years draft with stating that the O line was a priority, the Bills came away with a 5th & 7th, not my idea of priority. The 7th was cut in preseason and the 5th never saw a starting role, which is odd considering how many changes were made at RT. Nix came outta that draft stating that things didn't unfold in a way to allow them to take an O linemen early.

(.....)

Now Buddy Nix and Chan Gailey are stating that the O line is fine and that the Bills need to address the ILB-OLB position

 

What I deduced from last year is, anything Nix or Gailey says about the team's needs near draft time needs to be filtered through a giant Salt Shaker.

 

Not disagreeing with what you say about the team's needs though.

 

Probably the single thing about the Nix/Gailey team that bothers me most was the acquisition of Cornell Green for RT. Unless he was playing hurt the whole time (players do hesitate to confide in coaching staff, esp. if it might be a career-ending injury), or Al Davis called up Ralph Wilson with a "hot deal", it has me shaking my head about the player evaluation behind it.

 

Well, next to Kelsay.

[Tortured Soul]

It would, but Spiller was such a stupid pick that it would be very hard to raise the grade of that draft.

 

No. 1 reason why I don't trust Nix and Gailey to get it right.

[Koufax]

D plus is pretty generous after one year. I understand it is too early to tell but if you were going to re-grade right now I can't see how it isn't a solid F.

 

Are you grading the year or grading the draft? I'm not going to argue any grade someone wants to give to our draft, because we probably could have gotten to 4-10 if all picks had year long hold outs.

 

I think Spiller is getting thrown under Maybin's bus a little too early though, and I think round 2,3,4 will all be starters on this team.

 

What bugs me the most is Spiller as a luxury pick, which is a pretty dumb term to me. I think the idea is that a good team can afford to waste a draft pick who might not crack the lineup, but a bad team can't. I think instead a bad team has more of the luxury of taking players who might be slow developing but will contribute more later in their first five or six years.

 

But either way, any team needs to get the most on the field contributions over the 5-6 years. Year one can show a lot about what the coming years might bring, but year one is probably the least important year in actual contribution. If you saw things in year 1 that show that CJ will not be a contributor (can't hit the hole, can't pick up the blitz), then grade him low. But the fact that he disappointed this year is not a huge blow (we had depth at RB, unless it is an indicator that he won't be the star that people predicted. If it is a slow start and making adjustments, we can forget about it in the next couple years.

[Green Lightning]

You do relaize we would be ten times better as a team if we chose his picks the last 10 years don't you. I trust him more than our braintrust, that's for sure. How sad is this?

 

I don't think we'd be better with Jimmy Clausen at QB.

[Bill from NYC]

Are you grading the year or grading the draft? I'm not going to argue any grade someone wants to give to our draft, because we probably could have gotten to 4-10 if all picks had year long hold outs.

 

I think Spiller is getting thrown under Maybin's bus a little too early though, and I think round 2,3,4 will all be starters on this team.

 

What bugs me the most is Spiller as a luxury pick, which is a pretty dumb term to me. I think the idea is that a good team can afford to waste a draft pick who might not crack the lineup, but a bad team can't. I think instead a bad team has more of the luxury of taking players who might be slow developing but will contribute more later in their first five or six years.

 

But either way, any team needs to get the most on the field contributions over the 5-6 years. Year one can show a lot about what the coming years might bring, but year one is probably the least important year in actual contribution. If you saw things in year 1 that show that CJ will not be a contributor (can't hit the hole, can't pick up the blitz), then grade him low. But the fact that he disappointed this year is not a huge blow (we had depth at RB, unless it is an indicator that he won't be the star that people predicted. If it is a slow start and making adjustments, we can forget about it in the next couple years.

 

I respectfully, but strongly disagree with this post.

 

Running backs are a dime a dozen. Part time gadget player scat backs come even cheaper. If you don't believe me, ask Green Bay who took their small rb in round 6, and he seems to be a much better player than Spiller, at least as of yet.

 

Also, most rbs do not last 5 or 6 years. They have the shortest shelf life of any position. The Bills were ok at rb before the draft, but in a blatant attempt to sell tickets, and provide what Mr. Wilson called "excitement," they drafted Spiller. This to the detriment of positions of much greater need, such as OL and TE.

 

The idea of the draft is to build a good football team. Gadget players are not the foundation of winning teams. Even if all hell breaks loose and Spiller scores a touchdown from scrimage next year, his was a stupid selection, in line with McKelvin, Whitner, Lynch, etc.

[sllib olaffub]

I respectfully, but strongly disagree with this post.

 

Running backs are a dime a dozen. Part time gadget player scat backs come even cheaper. If you don't believe me, ask Green Bay who took their small rb in round 6, and he seems to be a much better player than Spiller, at least as of yet.

 

Also, most rbs do not last 5 or 6 years. They have the shortest shelf life of any position. The Bills were ok at rb before the draft, but in a blatant attempt to sell tickets, and provide what Mr. Wilson called "excitement," they drafted Spiller. This to the detriment of positions of much greater need, such as OL and TE.

 

The idea of the draft is to build a good football team. Gadget players are not the foundation of winning teams. Even if all hell breaks loose and Spiller scores a touchdown from scrimage next year, his was a stupid selection, in line with McKelvin, Whitner, Lynch, etc.

 

This is where I am of two minds. I can see Nix and Gailey looking over the team Gailey inherited and saying, we'll play out the year with these guys, see what we have. We'll draft the players we think will be perfect for the team we envision - one that will take a few years to materialize. So, maybe Gailey thinks, I'd like a super fast, agile RB who can also run up the middle, if need be, and can play catch when we need him; we need a mobile, accurate QB; we need a tall, fast WR to stretch the field; and maybe a multi faceted TE. Okay, they look at the defense and say, we'll need a powerful DE who can both pressure the QB and hold up against the run; a stout NT who doesn't necessarily have to come off the field on passing downs. Linebackers, etc. Our secondary was, more or less, good in either 3-4 or 4-3, so they left it be. And, of course, depending on who fell in the draft, they grabbed who they could that fit their image of the team they wanted. Spiller, in this view, wasn't drafted for a breakout year in 2010, rather he was drafted to be a part of a type of offense - like Faulk was integral to the Rams exciting offense. And, I'd say Troupe and Carrington look like they have the potential to be long time starters, if they continue to improve. Easley sounded like he might end up being really ideal.

According to this view, they should be looking to add the QB this year, and the linebackers, and maybe the TE, and DE.

 

That is one view. The other is that Wilson said, "We need to put a spark into that offense. That Spiller kid looks like the next Barry Sanders. Go get him. He'll sell some tickets..." You could say, especially if you look at the overall picks in the last ten years or more, that we've had that kind of owner-meddling, undisciplined drafts that are shortsighted and have ruined us. And, if this is the truth, then who can we look to be picking up with this year's 1st? Cam Newton?

 

I want to believe Nix has convinced Wilson to hand over the reigns, and to leave the football stuff to Nix - including all draft picks. I think we'll know more how to judge it after this year's offseason.

[Billsguy]

It would, but Spiller was such a stupid pick that it would be very hard to raise the grade of that draft. To his credit, Kiper called Spiller a luxury pick and he was spot on.

The fact that he was a dumb selection was obvious then and is even more obvious now. I can't argue with the man. That said, production from Troup and Carrington could save this draft to some degree.

Let's hope.

 

I agree that if you blow the top pick it's hard to make up that lost ground with late round picks.

 

The Bills fall from grace can be directly linked to really bad drafting over the last 10 years.

[bladiebla]

After seeing Williams play this year - are we surprised that Troup couldn't start over him as a rookie? If Troup and Carrington still aren't starting next year, then we can be disappointed, but it's not that normal for the vast majority of rookie DL's to be ready their first year. Heck - remember Mario Williams? Eventually it became clear he was a better pick than Reggie Bush - I called that one right at the time - but all the geniuses were screaming about how dumb the Texans were.

 

If anything the guys showed Williams competition which made him step it up a little which is now theirs to respond to. Carrington shows promise imho. Generally speaking though it doesnt look well again; Spiller really needs to step it up next year.

[Koufax]

Right, if he is a "part time gadget player scat back", then he was misevaluated by many teams, and should not have been a top ten pick by us or anybody. That was not his draft expectation, and people were looking for something in between Reggie Bush and Chris Young. I am basing my assessment on what was known on draft day, not how 2010 shaped up.

 

Running back IS a position that routinely has players excel who are not top picks, and is more interchangeable than others, and also is one that we were two deep with good players. Those are all reason to not have CJ in your top ten on your draft board. Explosive talent and speed are reasons that he would be high on your board. But all of those evaluations done, a lot of teams had him as a top 10 guy on their board, mistaken or otherwise.

 

The question is, when it is my turn to pick at #9 with the eight players off of the board (some of whom would have been in my top ten with Spiller), is he my top guy left? And if he is, do I pass on him for another player because I really need a NT/LB/LT? If he is my top guy left, I compare my ratings on him closely with the #2 guy on my list, as well as the best NT/LB/LT if further down the list, and I think long and hard at how much better I think he is than those guys. If it is very close and likely a toss up, I happily take someone else at another position, due to all the uncertainties and the inexact science of my ratings. If it is not close I take Spiller.

 

And as a 6-10 team not expecting to jump to 10-6 in one year, I make sure the difference is significant before I deviate from taking the top guy on my board. It is not going to be a one year turn around, and I want to infuse as much football playing talent onto my team as possible.

 

I agree with some of your arguments, but they are arguments as to why CJ should not be in our top 9 going into the draft, and NOT why we should pass on him because of his position / our need, etc. It is the same reason that DTs don't usually go in the top three, why corners don't go in the top 3, and why QBs are always up there along with DEs. I agree with you that to be a small back in this league and be on my top 10, you have to be really special. And I agree with you that the backup plan for missing out on a special top 10 back is pretty good, and a lot more likely to be successful than finding Tom Brady in the 6th.

 

But all that aside, our front office and many others (including the very talent shrewd Chargers) had CJ very high on their boards. If that is the case, you have to trust your evalutations and pick that player. In 2010 he didn't look like he deserved that grade (although I continue to ask who the Orakpo/Ngata is that did), but he still has a good career ahead of him if he puts it together.

 

As for the five year thing...that might often be true, but of top 15 picks:

 

2005+ too recent for durability

2002-2004 nobody taken in the top 10

2001: Tomlinson, Good past five years

2000: Dayne (best year was in year 8, but mostly a bust)

1999: Edge, Ricky, both good well past five years

1998: Enis (bust), Fred Taylor (good well past five years)

1997: Dunn #12, good past five years

1996: Lawrence Phillips (bust), Eddie George #14, good past five years

1995: Ki-Janna Carter #1 (bust)

1994: Faulk (good past five years)

1993: Hearst (good past five years), Bettis (good past five years)

 

So in the last couple decades, I don't see one single top 15 back who performed well in his first five years but ran out of gas and fell off. I see 4 busts, and 9 guys who were good deeper in their careers. So, again, you can question putting CJ as special enough to be top of the draft material, but when a back makes that cut, durability is not generally your biggest concern, and I think the success rate seems pretty high.

 

Again, if there was a draft day Orakpo or Ngata to get mad about, I would be more frustrated with CJ's performance this year. But there isn't, and I'm still optimistic about him getting in the end zone, making plays, and helping us win games over the coming years. Putting him in your top 10 can definitely be questioned, but that generally isn't the grounds for questioning the pick. Passing on him once he is in your top ten because of need or position doesn't seem like a good decision to me, even though it hasn't worked out so far.

 

I respectfully, but strongly disagree with this post.

 

Running backs are a dime a dozen. Part time gadget player scat backs come even cheaper. If you don't believe me, ask Green Bay who took their small rb in round 6, and he seems to be a much better player than Spiller, at least as of yet.

 

Also, most rbs do not last 5 or 6 years. They have the shortest shelf life of any position. The Bills were ok at rb before the draft, but in a blatant attempt to sell tickets, and provide what Mr. Wilson called "excitement," they drafted Spiller. This to the detriment of positions of much greater need, such as OL and TE.

 

The idea of the draft is to build a good football team. Gadget players are not the foundation of winning teams. Even if all hell breaks loose and Spiller scores a touchdown from scrimage next year, his was a stupid selection, in line with McKelvin, Whitner, Lynch, etc.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Yea well, from everything I've read over the years I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out that the owner is making these retarded early picks over the last 8 years. The team has utterly failed to find decent O linemen the last 8 years unless they draft guards in the first 2 picks (Wood-Levitre), which is usually reserved for tackles. Guards can be found in later rounds unless they are certifiable all pros.

That's all nice except for the parts where you're completely wrong and talking out of your a$$. Late 1st / early second is EXACTLY where the premier interior linemen go. Maurkice Pouncey (even earlier at #18), Mangold, Hutchinson, Mankins, the list goes on. BTW: Wood and Levitre were picks #2 and 4 for the Bills (late 1st, early second) in the 2009 draft. Maybin was the first, Byrd was third.

 

Wood and Levitre might yet be certifiable all-pros. Levitre continues to play like the Bills' best lineman, and Wood played admirably coming off that horrific broken leg and might be a worthy starting center. I expect both to star in year 3.

[Orton's Arm]

No, I think most people will blame the front office in three years if the team hasn't gotten any better. Spiller had limited playing time, and coaches said he was having trouble adjusting to some differences in the game's speed. Troup was behind our only pro bowl player, but did well when filling in. Carrington didn't play until Edwards got hurt near the end of the season and was respectable. People here need to stop thinking that one draft in a new regime tells you anything in one year. Does Shanahan suck the after the year he and his draft class had? Let's give this FO a chance to actually rebuild this team before we close down the project.

Shanahan has always been a much better coach than GM. The fact that he and whoever the GM is in Washington traded away a second round pick for McNabb simply reinforces the fact that the less influence Shanahan has in the draft day war room, the better. That said, Shanahan is a good coach who could have a lot of success if paired with a good GM who knows better than to follow Shanahan's advice.

[8-8 Forever?]

The whole article is worth a read.

 

Although I actually do see Moats as more of a legit contributor, I can't really argue with the summary. The funniest thing about the defenders of Tom Modrak and the rest of the front office is that the year after the draft they say it's "too early to tell" whether the guys are any good or not. Then, after one or two more years when that line of argument doesn't work because its obvious to all that the players are not cutting it, they switch over to blaming those bad picks on whatever coach or front office guy departed.

 

Since its 2011, it's too early to tell if Spiller, Troup, and Carrington are going to work out. In 2013, those lousy picks will be blamed on Tom Modrak, Buddy Nix, or Chan Gailey, depending on which of them has been sent packing and made the scapegoat for this.

 

Buffalo Bills

Summary:

Considering the holes on the roster, Buffalo had to get players that could step in immediately and help. I like C.J. Spiller, but emphasized that I considered him a bit of a luxury pick, considering there are other options in that backfield. His season can only be considered a disappointment. Torell Troup and Arthur Moats saw some time, but is there one guy from this class who looks like an anchor? I questioned Buffalo's plan, and I'm not sure this draft shows it really had one. If it did, that plan went off course early.

 

Draft grade: C-plus | Current Grade: D-plus

The bills seem to be a best player available drafter in round 1, then go for need. that actually makes sense to me.

[tennesseeboy]

D sounds like the most appropriate grade. Some draft choices made a minimal contribution to a team with limited talent to start with and the top draft choice couldn't even break into the starting lineup. I'd be hard pressed to find a team deserving a worse grade.

[Orton's Arm]

Right, if he is a "part time gadget player scat back", then he was misevaluated by many teams, and should not have been a top ten pick by us or anybody. That was not his draft expectation, and people were looking for something in between Reggie Bush and Chris Young. I am basing my assessment on what was known on draft day, not how 2010 shaped up.

 

Running back IS a position that routinely has players excel who are not top picks, and is more interchangeable than others, and also is one that we were two deep with good players. Those are all reason to not have CJ in your top ten on your draft board. Explosive talent and speed are reasons that he would be high on your board. But all of those evaluations done, a lot of teams had him as a top 10 guy on their board, mistaken or otherwise.

 

The question is, when it is my turn to pick at #9 with the eight players off of the board (some of whom would have been in my top ten with Spiller), is he my top guy left? And if he is, do I pass on him for another player because I really need a NT/LB/LT? If he is my top guy left, I compare my ratings on him closely with the #2 guy on my list, as well as the best NT/LB/LT if further down the list, and I think long and hard at how much better I think he is than those guys. If it is very close and likely a toss up, I happily take someone else at another position, due to all the uncertainties and the inexact science of my ratings. If it is not close I take Spiller.

 

And as a 6-10 team not expecting to jump to 10-6 in one year, I make sure the difference is significant before I deviate from taking the top guy on my board. It is not going to be a one year turn around, and I want to infuse as much football playing talent onto my team as possible.

 

I agree with some of your arguments, but they are arguments as to why CJ should not be in our top 9 going into the draft, and NOT why we should pass on him because of his position / our need, etc. It is the same reason that DTs don't usually go in the top three, why corners don't go in the top 3, and why QBs are always up there along with DEs. I agree with you that to be a small back in this league and be on my top 10, you have to be really special. And I agree with you that the backup plan for missing out on a special top 10 back is pretty good, and a lot more likely to be successful than finding Tom Brady in the 6th.

 

But all that aside, our front office and many others (including the very talent shrewd Chargers) had CJ very high on their boards. If that is the case, you have to trust your evalutations and pick that player. In 2010 he didn't look like he deserved that grade (although I continue to ask who the Orakpo/Ngata is that did), but he still has a good career ahead of him if he puts it together.

 

As for the five year thing...that might often be true, but of top 15 picks:

 

2005+ too recent for durability

2002-2004 nobody taken in the top 10

2001: Tomlinson, Good past five years

2000: Dayne (best year was in year 8, but mostly a bust)

1999: Edge, Ricky, both good well past five years

1998: Enis (bust), Fred Taylor (good well past five years)

1997: Dunn #12, good past five years

1996: Lawrence Phillips (bust), Eddie George #14, good past five years

1995: Ki-Janna Carter #1 (bust)

1994: Faulk (good past five years)

1993: Hearst (good past five years), Bettis (good past five years)

 

So in the last couple decades, I don't see one single top 15 back who performed well in his first five years but ran out of gas and fell off. I see 4 busts, and 9 guys who were good deeper in their careers. So, again, you can question putting CJ as special enough to be top of the draft material, but when a back makes that cut, durability is not generally your biggest concern, and I think the success rate seems pretty high.

 

Again, if there was a draft day Orakpo or Ngata to get mad about, I would be more frustrated with CJ's performance this year. But there isn't, and I'm still optimistic about him getting in the end zone, making plays, and helping us win games over the coming years. Putting him in your top 10 can definitely be questioned, but that generally isn't the grounds for questioning the pick. Passing on him once he is in your top ten because of need or position doesn't seem like a good decision to me, even though it hasn't worked out so far.

Yours is a very well-expressed and informative post!

 

Nevertheless, I tend to be a bit leery about the idea of taking a RB with such an early pick. According to a regression analysis done by the New York Times, an improvement in your passing attack will help your team four times as much as an equal improvement in your running game. The same is true of pass defense versus rushing defense.

 

Not only is your running game a lot less important than you passing game in the first place, but the success of your running game will typically have a lot more to do with your offensive line than with the quality of your RBs. Bearing both these things in mind, it's very difficult for a RB to justify the kind of draft position Spiller received. Certainly, none of the RBs the Bills have taken in the first or second round since the mid '90s have come remotely close to justifying their draft position. Antowain Smith didn't, Travis Henry didn't (especially because we already had Smith!), McGahee didn't, Lynch didn't.

 

You could point out that if Spiller had brought elite skills to the RB position, or if he's had a Thurman Thomas-like or Marshall Faulk-like effect on the passing game, he would have more than justified his draft position. That brings up two questions: 1) did he do enough in college to justify people in thinking he'd run the ball at or near a Hall of Fame level? 2) Did he show enough in the passing game to make people think he'd have a Thurman-like effect on the passing game?

 

I suspect the answer to both those questions is no, but I could be wrong about that. But unless Spiller either runs the ball at an elite level--not merely a "very good" level--or unless he's a Thurman Thomas in the passing attack, he will not have lived up to what a team should expect from the 9th overall pick.

 

Somewhat recently, I read an article about the safeties that have been picked in the top-10 over the last ten or fifteen years. Almost none of those safeties have justified or come close to justifying their draft position. That's largely because safety is not an impact position, unless you have an elite player like Ed Reed who turns it into one. However, Ed Reeds are very rare, and most teams that think they've found one turn out to be mistaken.

 

The RB position is very similar: like safety, it's a low-impact position unless you have a truly elite player or a very good pass receiver. And like safety, your odds of finding that kind of elite player are lower than you think. This is why the Spiller pick was--at least potentially--a higher risk, lower reward move than some of the other options the Bills may have had, even if Spiller was the highest-rated player available when the Bills picked.

[tennesseeboy]

If we are giving the grades the only thing we have to go on is this year. And this year the bills regressed with the players on board, and most of our draft class didn't even break into the starting lineup, let alone stand out. Will they be great next year? I don't know nor does anyone else. They are what they are...Grade D.

[Astrobot]

We're doing the same at DraftTek. We are having each of the analysts do their team, then having the boss look over the grades. Check it out. See if you think I was fair on the Bills' selections. We have the first 4 rounds up already.

[Fan in Chicago]

 

Wood and Levitre might yet be certifiable all-pros. Levitre continues to play like the Bills' best lineman, and Wood played admirably coming off that horrific broken leg and might be a worthy starting center. I expect both to star in year 3.

As frustrated as I am with the Spiller pick, if Troup, Carrington and Moats turn out to be as good players are Wood and Levitre, I will mostly forgive Nix for being more right on average. Also, this coming year, we may see a similar pattern - the top pick going to a position of less critical need but #2 - #4 being devoted to our need areas. With 5 picks in the top four rounds (as of now), it will be great if atleast 3 are devoted to LB and OL. I have been reading in other threads about how 'happy' the coaches seem to be with Urbik, Wrotto, Pears etc. I simply shudder if we go into next season with that sentiment. If Nix and co are true to their word, they should draft more linemen in the early rounds despite the feelings about the existing right side O linemen.

[Koufax]

Yours is a very well-expressed and informative post!

 

Nevertheless, I tend to be a bit leery about the idea of taking a RB with such an early pick. According to a regression analysis done by the New York Times, an improvement in your passing attack will help your team four times as much as an equal improvement in your running game. The same is true of pass defense versus rushing defense.

 

Not only is your running game a lot less important than you passing game in the first place, but the success of your running game will typically have a lot more to do with your offensive line than with the quality of your RBs. Bearing both these things in mind, it's very difficult for a RB to justify the kind of draft position Spiller received. Certainly, none of the RBs the Bills have taken in the first or second round since the mid '90s have come remotely close to justifying their draft position. Antowain Smith didn't, Travis Henry didn't (especially because we already had Smith!), McGahee didn't, Lynch didn't.

 

You could point out that if Spiller had brought elite skills to the RB position, or if he's had a Thurman Thomas-like or Marshall Faulk-like effect on the passing game, he would have more than justified his draft position. That brings up two questions: 1) did he do enough in college to justify people in thinking he'd run the ball at or near a Hall of Fame level? 2) Did he show enough in the passing game to make people think he'd have a Thurman-like effect on the passing game?

 

I suspect the answer to both those questions is no, but I could be wrong about that. But unless Spiller either runs the ball at an elite level--not merely a "very good" level--or unless he's a Thurman Thomas in the passing attack, he will not have lived up to what a team should expect from the 9th overall pick.

 

Somewhat recently, I read an article about the safeties that have been picked in the top-10 over the last ten or fifteen years. Almost none of those safeties have justified or come close to justifying their draft position. That's largely because safety is not an impact position, unless you have an elite player like Ed Reed who turns it into one. However, Ed Reeds are very rare, and most teams that think they've found one turn out to be mistaken.

 

The RB position is very similar: like safety, it's a low-impact position unless you have a truly elite player or a very good pass receiver. And like safety, your odds of finding that kind of elite player are lower than you think. This is why the Spiller pick was--at least potentially--a higher risk, lower reward move than some of the other options the Bills may have had, even if Spiller was the highest-rated player available when the Bills picked.

 

I completely agree with everything you have said, and looking at the top 10 picks over the last 20 years, and seeing that the expectation of a RB is to be really special, I would much rather have a blue chip LB/LT/QB/DE/WR in general. So I think that making a top ten slot on your draft board as a RB takes a really high evaluation for all of your reasons and more. It is definitely possible that Spiller was ranked too high by our front office and by a bunch of teams that saw him in the top 10.

 

The problem I have is with those who think we should have passed on a top 10 ranked RB because of need/luxury/tickets/salary/defense/roster. There is one reason I pass on Spiller: if he isn't my top guy available at #9, or another player is ranked very similarly. Passing on him because you don't need him etc to take an inferior player is a bad move. Taking a LB, etc. you have rated almost as high sounds great to me because of the lack of precision. But not if it isn't close.

 

We may have messed up that evaluation and made a mistake by having CJ #9 or higher on our board. That evaluation involves a lot of different things about the player, and about how the draft works in general, and we might have been way off. But that is a player evaluation error. If he is a situational scat back as Kelly said, then he has no business being in your top 10.

 

I still think he will be an impact player for this team over his first five years, and not put in the reach category of Whitner or McKelvin or Lynch, and certainly not the bust category of Maybin and Mike Williams.

[Kelly the Dog]

How can they say the Bills didn't have a plan? The Bills said before the draft that they needed to add some playmakers, and they were changing to a 3-4 defense. With the first pick, they chose the biggest playmaker in the draft, and they explained the reasons why they needed it, which matched their earlier thinking.

 

Then in the second round they chose the best NT in the draft in their opinion, which is not only the most important position on a 3-4 team but the hardest to fill and the one thing we needed the most ( a run stuffing DT).

 

Then in the third round, they chose a prototype size and type 3-4 DE whose specialty was stopping the run first. Exactly what they needed and precisely the plan.

 

In the fourth round they chose a fast playmaking WR, a huge position of need going into the draft as well as following the plan.

 

In the fifth and sixth they chose two LBs who were known for rushing the passer in college, another part of the switch to 3-4 and the plan. 5 of the first 6 picks were positions of need directly according to their plan. The other, the #1 pick, was the BPA and the best playmaker in the draft they thought could help the run game, the pass game and the return game.

 

It was exactly the plan going into the draft, and a clear plan, on both O and D, regardless of whether you like the players they took or not. Saying it looks like the Bills didn't have a plan is just nonsense.

 

Time will tell whether this was a good draft of not. I fully expect Spiller to be an impact player in the next two years. I have no idea if Troup or Carrington will be good but they both showed flashes. Moats looks good. Easley and Battan never had a chance. Nelson was a steal. Jones and Roosevelt proved they at least probably belong in the league.