AJ GREEN

[bananathumb]

Get something decent (3rd round pick?) for Evans before or during the draft and I won't be so unhappy to hear Green's name.

[RealityCheck]

Get something decent (3rd round pick?) for Evans before or during the draft and I won't be so unhappy to hear Green's name.

I agree with you. The idea of Evans, Johnson, and Green on the field at the same time would be counter productive.

[Fan in Chicago]

I agree with you. The idea of Evans, Johnson, and Green on the field at the same time would be counter productive.

[Bill from NYC]

Get something decent (3rd round pick?) for Evans before or during the draft and I won't be so unhappy to hear Green's name.

 

Bro, I think that's how we got Whitner, Lynch, and to a lesser degree McKelvin, who came via Marv's "promise."

 

Really, it's enough to make one sick.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

no doubt, but I attribute that to the linebackers more than anything. We had a pro-bowl NT on the line.

 

And two bowled-over DE next to him

[Orton's Arm]

I don't necessarily agree with this. The idea is to build a football team that is capable of winning football games. If in 10 years Green has Larry Fitzgerald numbers and the Bills are still consistently losing, what difference does it make how great he is?

You could use that argument about any good player on a bad team. Steve Young didn't lead the Bucs to very many wins, but that doesn't mean it was a mistake for them to acquire him. Nor was getting Hardy Nickerson a bad move on the Bucs' part, even though his presence didn't lead to many wins either. This past season neither the Miami Dolphins nor the Cleveland Browns won very many games, but that doesn't mean that Joe Thomas and Jake Long were wasted draft picks! What it does mean is that the Browns and Dolphins had been more than just a franchise LT away from having a winning record.

The Spiller pick? Please. How about Losman, Evans, MaGahee, Whitner, McKelvin, and Lynch?

 

History tells the story. Do you not see that the Bills used their best resources on small, skill players and it failed. Even Maybin loosely fell into this category as a 225 pound defensive end.

 

Our receivers were ok last season under the circumstances, those being a poor offensive line, and a non-elite quarterback (and this isn't an attack on Fitz, who I would classify as good). Why go there with a #3.

 

Are you of the mindset that Whitner was a good value at #8 because he makes a lot of tackles? Also, why do you think is the biggest reason for the Bills losing games for the last 10 or so years?

 

And as far as the Spiller pick, yes, it was idiotic to select a part time, small player to run behind a weak offensive line. This with the #9 selection of a draft. To make things worse, they sprinted up to the podium and grabbed him as if he was Marshall Faulk sans the credentials. And, rb was one of the few positions at which they didn't really suck. Green Bay filled this position in round 6 with a player from our backyard.

 

Again, the idea of a draft imo is to build a team that can win, not to seek out flashy ticket sellers who may or may not (ala Spiller) put up good numbers good and while the team is losing. Sorry, I prefer winning football games.

 

I hope we can agree to disagree, and sadly, I would not be at all surprised if they go your way and draft Green or even Peterson. And of course continue to lose.

I agree that Losman, McGahee, Whitner, and Lynch were bad draft picks. But Mike Williams and John McCargo were bad picks as well. I'd say the Bills' drafting problems are the result of the following:

• Poor player evaluation
  
• Too much emphasis on physical measurables, not enough on football intelligence, heart and desire, or the other things teams like the Patriots care about.
  
• Way, way too much emphasis on the RB position!
  
• A willingness to use first round picks on DBs, and then to allow those DBs with the best combination of youth + proven accomplishment to go first-contract-and-out.
  
• A strong willingness to reach for need or for perceived need. No way should Whitner have been taken eighth overall!
  
• Too little emphasis on the offensive line. Since 2001, the Bills have used three first rounders and a second rounder on RBs. In that same span, they used no first or second round picks on LTs, and just one first rounder (and no second rounders) on a RT.
  
• General shortsightedness.

 

Between them, the Whitner and Lynch picks demonstrate almost everything that's wrong with the Bills' front office's approach. Jauron felt he had to have a good SS to make his defense work, and Lawyer Milloy didn't fit his idea of what he was looking for. Not only that, but between them Marv and Jauron decided that SS had to be added right away so that the defense would be credible their first year. That's how they got locked into thinking that they had to take a SS with their first or second pick of the 2006 draft. That rigidity of thought is how they ended up squandering most of the value the eighth overall pick had to offer. (And all the value their second pick in the first round had to offer.)

 

The Lynch pick represented a similar degree of shortsightedness. I realize McGahee's attitude was probably less than perfect. But Lynch has not always been an angel of perfection himself. The larger problem was the thought that the hoped-for upgrade from McGahee to Lynch would be worth the 12th overall pick in the draft. Probably, part of their thought process was that rookie RBs are often expected to have a much greater immediate impact than rookies at other positions. Their focus may have been more on that hoped-for immediate impact than on the long-term benefits of the (theoretical) upgrade of Lynch over McGahee.

 

Typically, having your best RB out on the field implies that your second-best RB is on the bench. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that your best RB gets at least 2/3 of the carries. A situation like this means that any time you upgrade or try to upgrade your RB position, you're taking away opportunities to contribute from the guys you already have. So the net benefit = whatever your new best RB brings to the table - whatever your old best RB had brought to the table. Very seldom over the past ten years have the Bills found that to be much of a net benefit at all!

 

But that logic doesn't apply to most other positions. A team will presumably figure out a way to get its three or four best DEs plenty of playing time over the course of any given game. Likewise, its three best WRs should expect to see plenty of snaps. That's one of the advantages of upgrading the receiving corps or the defensive front-seven over the RB position!

 

Let's say (for the sake of argument) that the Bills project Green to have a significantly better career than any of the DL that will be available when the Bills pick. And let's also say that these hypothetical player evaluations are accurate. If those things were true, drafting Green would not represent a falling back into the error of the Bills' old ways. He'd have the opportunity to contribute, and become the best WR, without sending the second-best WR to the bench. (A situation that doesn't apply to a first round RB.) He'd presumably be here his whole career, which obviously wouldn't apply to a first round DB. His selection wouldn't have been based on a myopic, blinkered focus on one or two positions of extreme "need"--as Marv's first round picks had consistently been.

 

You could argue that an elite WR does not necessarily represent part of a long-term plan to build the Bills into a perpetual winner. But I think a WR pick could be made into part of such a plan. Take the Arizona Cardinals of a few years ago, for example. Their defense was nothing special. Their OL had Mike Gandy as its starting LT. The only special thing about that team was its quarterback and its receiving corps. Those two things, alone, were enough to get them to the Super Bowl. If there's a chance to add an elite WR now, you could take advantage of that chance. Then the expectation would be that you'd add a franchise QB and a solid RT in a future draft. (Or perhaps the RT with a second round pick in this year's draft.) I'm not saying we should mimic the Cardinals exactly. We probably won't end up with a QB as good as Warner, or a receiving corps as good as the one they had. To make up for that, we'll need to be better at other positions than they were.

 

But that doesn't mean that we're not allowed to strengthen the QB and WR positions, in conjunction with an effort to improve the OL and the defensive front-seven.

[Thirty Year Fan]

END OF TOPIC!

 

You dont pass on a Play-Maker Game Breaker, i dont even see a kid like this coming out for the next several years that we may get in position to add to our roster

 

Worked great for the Lions well after about four first rounders .. You have got to rebuild the D you don't stop the run you don't win case closed!!!

[truth on hold]

You could use that argument about any good player on a bad team. Steve Young didn't lead the Bucs to very many wins, but that doesn't mean it was a mistake for them to acquire him. Nor was getting Hardy Nickerson a bad move on the Bucs' part, even though his presence didn't lead to many wins either. This past season neither the Miami Dolphins nor the Cleveland Browns won very many games, but that doesn't mean that Joe Thomas and Jake Long were wasted draft picks! What it does mean is that the Browns and Dolphins had been more than just a franchise LT away from having a winning record.

 

I agree that Losman, McGahee, Whitner, and Lynch were bad draft picks. But Mike Williams and John McCargo were bad picks as well. I'd say the Bills' drafting problems are the result of the following:

• Poor player evaluation
  
• Too much emphasis on physical measurables, not enough on football intelligence, heart and desire, or the other things teams like the Patriots care about.
  
• Way, way too much emphasis on the RB position!
  
• A willingness to use first round picks on DBs, and then to allow those DBs with the best combination of youth + proven accomplishment to go first-contract-and-out.
  
• A strong willingness to reach for need or for perceived need. No way should Whitner have been taken eighth overall!
  
• Too little emphasis on the offensive line. Since 2001, the Bills have used three first rounders and a second rounder on RBs. In that same span, they used no first or second round picks on LTs, and just one first rounder (and no second rounders) on a RT.
  
• General shortsightedness.

 

Between them, the Whitner and Lynch picks demonstrate almost everything that's wrong with the Bills' front office's approach. Jauron felt he had to have a good SS to make his defense work, and Lawyer Milloy didn't fit his idea of what he was looking for. Not only that, but between them Marv and Jauron decided that SS had to be added right away so that the defense would be credible their first year. That's how they got locked into thinking that they had to take a SS with their first or second pick of the 2006 draft. That rigidity of thought is how they ended up squandering most of the value the eighth overall pick had to offer. (And all the value their second pick in the first round had to offer.)

 

The Lynch pick represented a similar degree of shortsightedness. I realize McGahee's attitude was probably less than perfect. But Lynch has not always been an angel of perfection himself. The larger problem was the thought that the hoped-for upgrade from McGahee to Lynch would be worth the 12th overall pick in the draft. Probably, part of their thought process was that rookie RBs are often expected to have a much greater immediate impact than rookies at other positions. Their focus may have been more on that hoped-for immediate impact than on the long-term benefits of the (theoretical) upgrade of Lynch over McGahee.

 

Typically, having your best RB out on the field implies that your second-best RB is on the bench. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that your best RB gets at least 2/3 of the carries. A situation like this means that any time you upgrade or try to upgrade your RB position, you're taking away opportunities to contribute from the guys you already have. So the net benefit = whatever your new best RB brings to the table - whatever your old best RB had brought to the table. Very seldom over the past ten years have the Bills found that to be much of a net benefit at all!

 

But that logic doesn't apply to most other positions. A team will presumably figure out a way to get its three or four best DEs plenty of playing time over the course of any given game. Likewise, its three best WRs should expect to see plenty of snaps. That's one of the advantages of upgrading the receiving corps or the defensive front-seven over the RB position!

 

Let's say (for the sake of argument) that the Bills project Green to have a significantly better career than any of the DL that will be available when the Bills pick. And let's also say that these hypothetical player evaluations are accurate. If those things were true, drafting Green would not represent a falling back into the error of the Bills' old ways. He'd have the opportunity to contribute, and become the best WR, without sending the second-best WR to the bench. (A situation that doesn't apply to a first round RB.) He'd presumably be here his whole career, which obviously wouldn't apply to a first round DB. His selection wouldn't have been based on a myopic, blinkered focus on one or two positions of extreme "need"--as Marv's first round picks had consistently been.

 

You could argue that an elite WR does not necessarily represent part of a long-term plan to build the Bills into a perpetual winner. But I think a WR pick could be made into part of such a plan. Take the Arizona Cardinals of a few years ago, for example. Their defense was nothing special. Their OL had Mike Gandy as its starting LT. The only special thing about that team was its quarterback and its receiving corps. Those two things, alone, were enough to get them to the Super Bowl. If there's a chance to add an elite WR now, you could take advantage of that chance. Then the expectation would be that you'd add a franchise QB and a solid RT in a future draft. (Or perhaps the RT with a second round pick in this year's draft.) I'm not saying we should mimic the Cardinals exactly. We probably won't end up with a QB as good as Warner, or a receiving corps as good as the one they had. To make up for that, we'll need to be better at other positions than they were.

 

But that doesn't mean that we're not allowed to strengthen the QB and WR positions, in conjunction with an effort to improve the OL and the defensive front-seven.

Hall of Fame post!!

[Koufax]

The Bills are not in a position to just pick the best player available (BPA), that is a strategy that only works for established teams. Not addressing our needs and taking the BPA only makes us a revolving door of talent. We could just keep taking WRs, RBs, etc... but that will only take the team longer to get the talent where they really need it. I would like the Bills to get back to the Superbowl sooner - not later. IMO - DE is a position that we are weakest at. If we can trade down for more picks, that is great but we need some help on D that can come in and make an immediate impact.

 

Taking an inferior DE over a superior WR is a great way to build a mediocre roster and avoid the Super Bowl. Getting as much talent on our roster as possible with each and every pick matters most. Evaluating that talent correctly and efficiently to identify the best value is crucial, but needs change year after year, and expecting a rookie's main contribution to be filling a need in year 1 that might not be there in his other years is a great way to get mediocre in a hurry.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

btw, both teams in the Super Bowl have Olines that are considered a weakness. And neither has a dominant defensive line.

 

Jt6Pack, curious as to assessment that Olines are considered weakness for Pack or Stillers?

I wouldn't consider it a strength .... but it's not a particular weakness? Middling is my take?

 

Also curious about assessment that Dline not dominant for either team? I think Stillers considered to have pretty dominant DL.

GB D interests me b'cause no part of the D seems dominant but somehow the whole works.

 

A site that interests me is Cold, Hard Football Facts. Facties

You might find it of interest to check it out if unfamiliar.

 

I'm sure it won't come as a shock that on their Defensive Hog Index (an assessment of the DL), Buffalo ranks #32

 

On their Defensive Passer Rating, which takes into account parameters that assess the DL more, B'Lo is #28.

GB and Stillers are #1 and #2 respectively

[Repulsif]

If we draft the next Jerry Rice, I'm not sure he will end as Hall of Famer with this team...

 

just saying

[Hapless Bills Fan]

You could use that argument about any good player on a bad team. Steve Young didn't lead the Bucs to very many wins, but that doesn't mean it was a mistake for them to acquire him. Nor was getting Hardy Nickerson a bad move on the Bucs' part, even though his presence didn't lead to many wins either.

 

Oh, very interesting example! And before I chew into it, let me say overall very very interesting, thoughtful post - really enjoyed reading it. And we can agree that just because a single draft pick doesn't turn the franchise around, doesn't mean that it was a bad or wasted pick, yeppers, yep, I agree, it can just mean the team was more than a (LT, DE, whatever) away.

 

Now as to your example - Steve Young is undoubtedly a great player. SB winner, 7 years in the playoffs, HOF, multiple probowler, 14 year career. Smart guy, big financial success post-career too.

No one can argue that - well, OK, actually I've seen someone on TSW argue that. Fair to say it would be a minority opinion among knowledgeable NFL fans?

 

The question in a nutshell is: can a great football player be a bad draft pick? Right? That's what this BPA is all about, draft a great football player.

Better to draft a great football player than a good football player at a position of need. I say: not necessarily.

 

Consider this: the NFL draft is a type of "zero sum game". "You can go with this, or you can go with that" like the Kia commercial says. Only so many choices, unless you're named Belichek.

I propose that in fact, drafting a great football player can be a mistake, even if he is the best player available at his position.

I think Steve Young is a textbook example of a great great player at what was probably (analogous to Bills with Fitz) considered a position of need at the time (yeah, Deberg is adequate, but he'll never take us to the SB we need a FRANCHISE QB). And I think Young was a Very Bad Draft Pick for the team that drafted him.

 

Keep in mind Young didn't just not win games for the Bucs (3-16). Young was, quite simply, a poor player for the Bucs: 53% completions, 4.2% INT, QB rating of 63% and the stats make him look better than he did in the game. Absolutely no doubt, if we drafted a QB high and his 1st 2 years he had stats like that, we would be calling him a bust and yelling for his head. Young was sacked an ungodly 47 times his 2nd year (1st year as starter)

 

When Steve Young was drafted, Bucs had the venerable Steve Deberg at the helm and he too, was playing poorly (but afterwards spent another decade in the league and had some good years incl playoffs). Bucs actually had a decent RB and WR. The problem was simple: 1) the OL couldn't protect 2) the DL couldn't make the stop 3) the OC sucked at developing QB

So what did they do? Drafted a RB in 1986, then drafted Testeverde #1 overall in 1987. Testeverde went on to post a stunning 24-48 record, 52% comp, 5.2% INT, QB rating of 64.4. He was sacked >30 times per year all 5 seasons he started for Tampa. So they threw him out too, and he went on to take 2 other teams to the playoffs 3x and become a 2x probowler.

 

Meanwhile the TB D just plainly sucked, allowing >400 points and 28th in a 28 team league. How much of a repeating pattern does one need to see that if a quality player at a given position isn't the core problem, drafting a "franchise player" at that position isn't the solution? Wouldn't the Bucs have been better off focusing on building a quality D and OL around the servicable QB, then looking for their star (Testeverde) down the road?

 

Yeah, yeah, perhaps you say. But who could they have had instead? Maybe Young didn't help them but how did he hurt them?

#4 player in the 1984 supplemental draft where Steve Young was #1: Reggie White. "The Minister of Defense" that's who.

 

I'm sure Bucs had Young ranked higher on their draft board than White and just took BPA. The right thing to do.

No harm. Except a further decade+ of futility for the Bucs who didn't manage a winning record 'til '97

 

I'd say the Bills' drafting problems are the result of the following:

• Poor player evaluation
• Too much emphasis on physical measurables, not enough on football intelligence, heart and desire, or the other things teams like the Patriots care about.
• Way, way too much emphasis on the RB position!
• A willingness to use first round picks on [a position of need], and then to allow th[e players at that position] with the best combination of youth + proven accomplishment to go first-contract-and-out [or trade]
• A strong willingness to reach for need or for perceived need. No way should Whitner have been taken eighth overall!
• Too little emphasis on the offensive line. Since 2001, the Bills have used three first rounders and a second rounder on RBs. In that same span, they used no first or second round picks on LTs, and just one first rounder (and no second rounders) on a RT.
• General shortsightedness.

[fixed]

I agree, and I would say Points 3-7 are symptoms of the same underlying root cause: lack of a long-term strategy for building a top-tier team

I would also add, and I think it's a key point:

• Insufficient attention to building a dominating DL

If at first you don't succeed in picking great players (Maybin, McCargo) reevaluate your process and try, try again!

Edited February 1, 2011 by Hopeful

[DreReed83]

END OF TOPIC!

 

You dont pass on a Play-Maker Game Breaker, i dont even see a kid like this coming out for the next several years that we may get in position to add to our roster

 

How's Spiller workin out for us?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

If we draft the next Jerry Rice, I'm not sure he will end as Hall of Famer with this team...

 

just saying

 

+1

 

In fact I would go further, and say there is a very good chance he will disappoint us with his productivity, get traded away or allowed to leave in FA, and go on to have a great career for someone else.

 

Get something decent (3rd round pick?) for Evans before or during the draft and I won't be so unhappy to hear Green's name.

 

Gaaaaaah! AGAIN?

 

STOP THE INSANITY! Quit trading or losing decent players at positions of (relative) strength to make room for "shiny new stars" who will be totally unable to shine while we suck on the lines!

 

Taking an inferior DE over a superior WR is a great way to build a mediocre roster and avoid the Super Bowl.

 

If the DE is truly so vastly inferior, OK, I'll buy that.

If this year's DE are so vastly inferior, why do we think Green may be there at #3?

Do we think no other DE will be drafted in the subsequent 5 picks, and go on to start and contribute for better teams? (eg: 2010 draft)

 

Getting as much talent on our roster as possible with each and every pick matters most.

 

When you need a urologist, how does that medical practice full of the most talented allergists (cuz they were the most talented doctors for each and every hire) work out for ya?

[Orton's Arm]

Oh, very interesting example! And before I chew into it, let me say overall very very interesting, thoughtful post - really enjoyed reading it. And we can agree that just because a single draft pick doesn't turn the franchise around, doesn't mean that it was a bad or wasted pick, yeppers, yep, I agree, it can just mean the team was more than a (LT, DE, whatever) away.

 

Now as to your example - Steve Young is undoubtedly a great player. SB winner, 7 years in the playoffs, HOF, multiple probowler, 14 year career. Smart guy, big financial success post-career too.

No one can argue that - well, OK, actually I've seen someone on TSW argue that. Fair to say it would be a minority opinion among knowledgeable NFL fans?

 

The question in a nutshell is: can a great football player be a bad draft pick? Right? That's what this BPA is all about, draft a great football player.

Better to draft a great football player than a good football player at a position of need. I say: not necessarily.

 

Consider this: the NFL draft is a type of "zero sum game". "You can go with this, or you can go with that" like the Kia commercial says. Only so many choices, unless you're named Belichek.

I propose that in fact, drafting a great football player can be a mistake, even if he is the best player available at his position.

I think Steve Young is a textbook example of a great great player at what was probably (analogous to Bills with Fitz) considered a position of need at the time (yeah, Deberg is adequate, but he'll never take us to the SB we need a FRANCHISE QB). And I think Young was a Very Bad Draft Pick for the team that drafted him.

 

Keep in mind Young didn't just not win games for the Bucs (3-16). Young was, quite simply, a poor player for the Bucs: 53% completions, 4.2% INT, QB rating of 63% and the stats make him look better than he did in the game. Absolutely no doubt, if we drafted a QB high and his 1st 2 years he had stats like that, we would be calling him a bust and yelling for his head. Young was sacked an ungodly 47 times his 2nd year (1st year as starter)

 

When Steve Young was drafted, Bucs had the venerable Steve Deberg at the helm and he too, was playing poorly (but afterwards spent another decade in the league and had some good years incl playoffs). Bucs actually had a decent RB and WR. The problem was simple: 1) the OL couldn't protect 2) the DL couldn't make the stop 3) the OC sucked at developing QB

So what did they do? Drafted a RB in 1986, then drafted Testeverde #1 overall in 1987. Testeverde went on to post a stunning 24-48 record, 52% comp, 5.2% INT, QB rating of 64.4. He was sacked >30 times per year all 5 seasons he started for Tampa. So they threw him out too, and he went on to take 2 other teams to the playoffs 3x and become a 2x probowler.

 

Meanwhile the TB D just plainly sucked, allowing >400 points and 28th in a 28 team league. How much of a repeating pattern does one need to see that if a quality player at a given position isn't the core problem, drafting a "franchise player" at that position isn't the solution? Wouldn't the Bucs have been better off focusing on building a quality D and OL around the servicable QB, then looking for their star (Testeverde) down the road?

 

Yeah, yeah, perhaps you say. But who could they have had instead? Maybe Young didn't help them but how did he hurt them?

#4 player in the 1984 supplemental draft where Steve Young was #1: Reggie White. "The Minister of Defense" that's who.

 

I'm sure Bucs had Young ranked higher on their draft board than White and just took BPA. The right thing to do.

No harm. Except a further decade+ of futility for the Bucs who didn't manage a winning record 'til '97

 

 

[fixed]

I agree, and I would say Points 3-7 are symptoms of the same underlying root cause: lack of a long-term strategy for building a top-tier team

I would also add, and I think it's a key point:

• Insufficient attention to building a dominating DL

If at first you don't succeed in picking great players (Maybin, McCargo) reevaluate your process and try, try again!

That was a well thought-out response! However, there appear to be points upon which we disagree.

 

You mentioned the example of how the Bucs drafted Steve Young to replace Steve DeBerg. As long as we're on that topic, I may as well cite the example of a different QB who'd also been drafted to replace Steve DeBerg: Joe Montana. At the time, Bill Walsh's offense was based on the idea of using a deep passing game to complement the running game. A lot of NFL offenses were like that at the time. Montana didn't have elite arm strength--which is one of the things you look for in a QB for an offense like that. That lack of arm strength is why he fell to the third round.

 

The 49ers took Montana there; and Walsh soon created a new kind of offense to take advantage of Montana's strengths: his uncanny accuracy and ability to hit receivers in perfect stride. Obviously, Montana did very well in the offense Walsh built for him. Steve Young also had the ability to play at a Hall of Fame level in the offense Walsh designed, as he proceeded to demonstrate with the 49ers. Even though Young posted lousy numbers in his two years with the Bucs--like you pointed out--Bill Walsh still thought enough of him to spend a 2nd and 4th rounder to acquire him in a trade. Walsh realized--and the Bucs did not--that Young's problems were not due to Young himself, but to the bad situation in which he'd been placed.

 

You can make a quarterback look worse than he is by putting him in a bad situation. (As the Bucs demonstrated with Young.) Or you can make him look better than he really is by putting him in a great situation (as the Jets have done with Sanchez). The importance of putting a quarterback in a good situation doesn't mean that the importance of the quarterback position itself should be discounted. Nor does it mean that you should wait until after your other offensive problems are fixed before attempting to acquire a franchise QB. Opportunities to get franchise QBs are very rare. An analysis I did a while back showed that less than one new franchise QB enters the NFL per year, which means each NFL team gets a new franchise QB on average once every 40 years or so. But once you have a guy you feel is or might be your franchise QB, you obviously have to put him in as good a situation as possible as quickly as possible. I'm also a fan of making rookie quarterbacks spend the year on the bench, as the Bengals did with Carson Palmer.

 

The Bucs should be lauded for having drafted Steve Young in the first place. His presence on the roster represented a golden opportunity to solidify the QB position for a decade or more with a Hall of Fame player. A player like that could have given the Bucs a significant advantage over their opponents for many years to come.

 

But the Bucs did everything they could to squander the opportunity that having Steve Young on the roster represented. They started him his rookie year, despite the problems on the OL you mentioned. Throwing a player to the wolves like that is bad for his confidence, bad for his teammates' confidence in him, and probably contributed to the concussion problems that ultimately caused Steve Young to retire.

 

It's also worth noting that the Bucs did almost nothing to improve Young's situation while he was there. In the 1985 draft--the year the Bucs acquired Young--they did not draft any other offensive player before round 8. (With the possible exception of 4th rounder Mike Heaven, for whom no position is listed.)

 

Their 1986 draft was Bills-like in its incompetence. They took a RB, Bo Jackson, first overall. He never played a down of football for the Bucs, who did not sign him, and ultimately forfeited their rights to him. With their second pick in the first round the Bucs took a DB. That DB spent the first four years of his career with the Bucs, and the remaining seven years with the Bengals. The Bucs spent two second rounders and a 4th rounder on defense that year, and (other than the unsigned Bo Jackson pick) did not address the offense at all until round 5. The Bucs clearly demonstrated what not to do once you've acquired a Hall of Fame-level quarterback! Had the Bucs upgraded their offensive coordinator, had they used the 1985 or '86 drafts to make a serious effort at fixing their OL, and had they kept Young on the bench his rookie year, Young's time in Tampa would have been considerably more successful. It's also worth noting that the Bucs gave up on Young too early, despite the fact he'd shown enough at the NFL level that Bill Walsh was willing to trade a 2nd and 4th rounder for him.

 

As for my comment about the Bills' DBs going first contract-and-out: there have been three times during this past decade when the Bills' DB with the best combination of youth + proven accomplishment has left. The first was Antoine Winfield, the second Nate Clements, and the third was Jabari Greer. Donte Whitner looks like he may leave as well, which means that over the last ten years, the total number of DBs who have done this is . . . 3.5. And that 3.5 doesn't even include first round DBs such as Jeff Burris who went first-contract-and-out back in the '90s. The Bills seem to have a split personality when it comes to DBs. On draft day they are seen as pure gold. But once their rookie contracts expire, they're seen as overpriced and easily replaced. That kind of split personality can and will create a draft pick drain/talent drain at any position on the field to which it's applied. For whatever reason, the Bills have applied it to the DB positions and the RB position, but seemingly not to other positions.

[Orton's Arm]

Just to add to my earlier post: quarterbacks aren't the only players whose performance will suffer if they're not placed in a good situation. Consider Lawrence Taylor, taken second overall. He went to the New York Giants, where Bill Parcells was his defensive coordinator and Bill Belichick was his linebackers coach. Parcells installed a 3-4 defense to take advantage of Taylor's strengths.

 

To show what a difference a 3-4 defense can make consider Bryce Paup. While with the Packers and their 4-3 defense, Paup averaged about 8 sacks a year. But once he went to the Bills and their 3-4 defense, he was able to achieve an absolutely ridiculous 17.5 sacks for the year! Unfortunately he got hurt in a subsequent season, and was never the same player again.

 

If Taylor had been consigned to a 4-3 defense, if he hadn't had coaches like Parcells and Belichick, he would still have been a very good linebacker. But his statistics and accomplishments would look a lot less impressive than they do.

 

If you have the chance to add a quarterback like Steve Young or a linebacker like Lawrence Taylor to your team, you should obviously take advantage of that opportunity. But your team also needs to be well-run, so that your team won't do to your QB what the Bucs did to Young.

[Koufax]

Worked great for the Lions well after about four first rounders .. You have got to rebuild the D you don't stop the run you don't win case closed!!!

 

I don't think the Lions regret taking a receiver. They regret taking bad receivers. The reason Suh and Calvin Johnson are great for the Lions is that they are amazingly talented impact players.

 

 

If the DE is truly so vastly inferior, OK, I'll buy that.

If this year's DE are so vastly inferior, why do we think Green may be there at #3?

Do we think no other DE will be drafted in the subsequent 5 picks, and go on to start and contribute for better teams? (eg: 2010 draft)

 

When you need a urologist, how does that medical practice full of the most talented allergists (cuz they were the most talented doctors for each and every hire) work out for ya?

 

Right, I have said many times that player evaluations are not exact nor is your big board. Saying that someone who is a 93 is better than a 91 is just not true. Your margin of error is greater than +/- 2, so those players are relatively interchangeable talent wise. If their positions are of the same importance or depth chart, take the guy rated 93, but if the 93 is a WR/RB in this year's case, and the 91 is a DE/LB I happily take the 91 without considering him a lesser player. If he is an 83, I have reason to think he really is a less talented player, and taking him based on need is dumb.

 

As for the doctor thing, I think that analogy was soundly beaten into the ground in another thread. We don't need a urologist, and we aren't suggesting drafting seven RBs this year or having a roster of 53 DBs. On the individual pick going with the talent matters. And with a medical specialist analogy, you only need one allergist, but want him to be a great one. On a football team you need depth at every position (more so at some than others). But even with your analogy, passing on a great allergist when you have an okay one and taking an okay urologist is going to mean you are not going to see a great doctor when your pee is red OR your throat is swelling shut, and that sounds pretty sucky. If I can get a Mayo clinic allergist and put my mediocre allergist on the bench, then I can draft a pretty good urologist later or sign a free agent urologist. In the end my way has a great allergist and a pretty good urologist.

 

I personally don't have enough reason to think that Green or Peterson are enough better than the front seven guys available at #3 to pick one of them. I will gradually form a fan-level opinion between now and the draft, but that will pale in comparison to what Buddy will have in making his big board. My only request for him is to put his big board in order of projected football playing ability over five years, and take the top talent with each pick (using need as tie breaker when it is close). If that lands Green or Peterson or Dareus or Fairley or Newton, so be it. I will trust his evaluation skills way ahead of my own.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

That was a well thought-out response! However, there appear to be points upon which we disagree.

 

Thanks. Actually we seem to be in "violent agreement" on a lot of points.

 

You mentioned the example of how the Bucs drafted Steve Young to replace Steve DeBerg. As long as we're on that topic, I may as well cite the example of a different QB who'd also been drafted to replace Steve DeBerg: Joe Montana. At the time, Bill Walsh's offense was based on the idea of using a deep passing game to complement the running game.

 

I'm not sure that's true, 'Arm'. According to Kirwan's "Take Your Eye Off the Ball", Walsh began developing what became known as the "West Coast Offense" (accurate short passing game used to open up the deep ball) as the Offensive Coordinator for the Bengals in the early '70s, to the benefit of Ken Anderson. He took elements of it to San Diego as the QB coach after he resigned from the Bengals (to the benefit of Fouts), and finally had the chance to implement his ideas completely in SF when he became head coach. You can see Steve Deberg's numbers took a big jump between '78 (b4 Walsh) and '79 (when Walsh took over). 1st yr to 2nd year improvement, sure, but also big benefit from Walsh's system.

 

The 49ers took Montana there; and Walsh soon created a new kind of offense to take advantage of Montana's strengths: his uncanny accuracy and ability to hit receivers in perfect stride. Obviously, Montana did very well in the offense Walsh built for him.

 

It's true the Montana thrived in Walsh's offense. Walsh drafted Montana b'cause he thought he'd be a good "fit" in the offense as a backup for DeBerg. Then Montana took over late season in '80 and never looked back. I'm sure Walsh refined the offense for Montana, but Montana was plugged into the offense, not the other way around. Frankly, I think one reason Walsh was willing to take Young was that he knew Deberg was a better QB than he was able to show in Tampa, which lent credibility to the notion that the problem was Tampa and not Young.

 

This is a minor point though. I don't disagree about the importance of a quality QB or mean to discount the importance of a QB. And it doesn't sound as though you disagree that whether or not a good prospect becomes a "franchise QB" (or not) depends on the situation he's in. I'm not sure of the relative rarity of Peyton Manning or Dan Marino vs. Reggie White or Bruce Smith. I think real impact players may be rare on both sides of the ball.

If we thought the 2nd coming of Peyton Manning was there to be drafted, I'd be for it, but I don't see that. I do see what seem like some true beasts on the DL this year, and I shake my head at the thought of a WR or DB.

 

The Bucs should be lauded for having drafted Steve Young in the first place. His presence on the roster represented a golden opportunity to solidify the QB position for a decade or more with a Hall of Fame player. A player like that could have given the Bucs a significant advantage over their opponents for many years to come.

 

Sure. And I agree with you about the OL, letting Young learn before throwing him in, the OC, and giving up on Young too early. But don't you think having Reggie White on their roster could have given the Bucs a significant advantage over their opponents for many years to come? White might even have anchored and solidified a defense that could have allowed them to win with a quality NFL starter (DeBerg) or at least take full advantage of a 2nd potential franchise QB (Testeverde).

 

By focusing on the QB as "the Man" and failing to properly tend to the D and the OL, the Bucs squandered the opportunity to develop into a winning franchise and squandered not one, but two opportunities to develop a franchise QB along the way. I'm sorry, I can't laud them for that. I think they should have drafted Reggie White in the supplemental, focused on the lines, and then looked for "franchise man" when they had their system. We'll never know I guess, they don't get a "do over".

 

See, one of the things about these truly great QB is that we identify them as such in hindsight. I agree with everyone that the probability of finding a quality NFL starter is highest in the 1st round. But the rare, HOF "Man" QB show up when they show up -- Montana (3rd round), Manning (1st), Warner (UDFA), Brady (6th round). And not always when you're looking for them.

 

As for my comment about the Bills' DBs going first contract-and-out: there have been three times during this past decade when the Bills' DB with the best combination of youth + proven accomplishment has left. The first was Antoine Winfield, the second Nate Clements, and the third was Jabari Greer. Donte Whitner looks like he may leave as well, which means that over the last ten years, the total number of DBs who have done this is . . . 3.5. And that 3.5 doesn't even include first round DBs such as Jeff Burris who went first-contract-and-out back in the '90s. The Bills seem to have a split personality when it comes to DBs. On draft day they are seen as pure gold. But once their rookie contracts expire, they're seen as overpriced and easily replaced. That kind of split personality can and will create a draft pick drain/talent drain at any position on the field to which it's applied. For whatever reason, the Bills have applied it to the DB positions and the RB position, but seemingly not to other positions.

 

Oh, I agree with you on the Bills DB - I just think you understate it! I see the same trend towards split personality at other positions on the Bills. RB position is a prime example, as you note. WR, OL and LB we don't quite draft like they're gold, but we do seem to throw them away as "easily replaceable". The NYT article cited in another thread implies 3-5 years to develop a good LB and here we are ready to toss Poz in the trash after what, 3 years and just 1 in the new system? It's why I'm a little nuts on the concept "gee, let's draft AJ Green, he's gold and that makes Evans expendable so we'll trade him for peanuts". Talent drain city!

 

Good conversation!

[peteski]

I hate to break it to all of you but we are not anywhere close to being a playoff team. We have ZERO play makers on the team. If Nix thinks that Green will be a play maker then we have to take him.

Even if we get our run D respectable we are not a playoff team. WE DO NOT NEED A QUICK FIX!!!!!!!! Miami did that after their 1-15 season and look where they are now. We need to get play makers at every position. We need depth at every position. We are going to have another year or two like this season to be able to turn the corner.

We have a couple of #2 receivers in Evans and Johnson. We have a #3 in Roscoe. We do not have a #1 receiver. If Green is as good as they say he is then we need to get him unless Nix thinks there is a better play maker at another position.

We were close in some games, but do we have a line up that puts fear in other teams? No we don't. If we draft the player that is rated the highest on Nix's board then we will be one step closer. We need to take baby steps in order to be competitive for a long time.

[HailMary]

Ill be happy as long as they stay away from a QB like Mallett/Gabbert, i think any of the other players: bowers/fairley/peterson/green/dareus, will make us better this year.

 

 

Agree