RuntheDamnBall Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 BPA all the way baby! In fact the only place the Bills have had some success in the draft is later rounds when they were thinking BPA. Their high "need" picks have almost to a man been a waste. Your turn, why don't you prove your blanket statement that a team at 3 has different needs than one at 25? And that the draft is the appropriate place to address them? Ignore the heart of the question by dismissing it as a blanket statement. Good one. Most teams at #3 are there because they were not good football teams the year before. As such, do they not have more needs, and different needs, than those who have established, successful candidates at QB, at OL, and in the front 7? It's just foolish to believe otherwise, and the Bills will be the laughingstock of the league not just on draft day but for the rest of the season if they try to follow the Detroit Lions' path to suck-cess.
truth on hold Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) Ignore the heart of the question by dismissing it as a blanket statement. Good one. Most teams at #3 are there because they were not good football teams the year before. As such, do they not have more needs, and different needs, than those who have established, successful candidates at QB, at OL, and in the front 7? It's just foolish to believe otherwise, and the Bills will be the laughingstock of the league not just on draft day but for the rest of the season if they try to follow the Detroit Lions' path to suck-cess. OK, since you guys can't offer the slightest support to your argument. I'll put it to a test for you. Let's look at the 2 Super Bowl teams this year. Green Bay finished a strong 11 & 5 in 2009 drafted Bulaga, a tackle at #23 overall Steelers winning record at 9-7 in 2009 and were 1 season removed from winning the Super Bowl drafted Pouncey, a center @19 overall So much for the "established" teams not needing OL. And the implication they should be drafting "talent" positions, while the weak teams should be drafting both lines. Having receiving corp in place is one reason those teams could draft OLine! Edited February 8, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 OK, since you guys can't offer the slightest support to your argument. I'll put it to a test for you. Let's look at the 2 Super Bowl teams this year. Green Bay finished a strong 11 & 5 in 2009 drafted Bulaga, a tackle at #23 overall Steelers winning record at 9-7 in 2009 and were 1 season removed from winning the Super Bowl drafted Pouncey, a center @19 overall So much for the "established" teams not needing OL. And the implication they should be drafting "talent" positions, while the weak teams should be drafting both lines. On the contrary, the stronger franchises can hone in on specific needs and don't have to acquiesce to the most exciting game-changer on the board, just good football players. The Pats, Steelers, and Green Bay have been sitting pretty in this position for a long time, where lots of good interior linemen and TEs lie, coincidentally (not that they exclusively go there). GB's line did in fact need help last year, but you rarely see them making the mistake of picking an exciting player just for the sake of doing so. My implication is really that those teams would rarely go for the dazzling WR or CB pick when they have other, greater needs to fill.
C.Biscuit97 Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 OK, since you guys can't offer the slightest support to your argument. I'll put it to a test for you. Let's look at the 2 Super Bowl teams this year. Green Bay finished a strong 11 & 5 in 2009 drafted Bulaga, a tackle at #23 overall Steelers winning record at 9-7 in 2009 and were 1 season removed from winning the Super Bowl drafted Pouncey, a center @19 overall So much for the "established" teams not needing OL. And the implication they should be drafting "talent" positions, while the weak teams should be drafting both lines. Having receiving corp in place is one reason those teams could draft OLine! You make zero sense. Both the Steelers & Pack have 0 1st round receivers on their rosters. Plus, it could be argued that the Bills' receivers are on par with both of those teams. Only fools build their teams using top 5 picks on receivers.
Jeffery Lester Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 The best scenario in this draft is for Green to be there at #3 Buff trades with Cleveland and lands a 2nd and 4th this year. The Browns pick Green. Patrick Peterson is there for us at #6, He is our pick in this draft. Then Buffalo picks front 7 people almost exclusevely after they take a right tackle in round 2. This would give your team one of the players in the draft marked as special. In a position of need. This is a deep, I mean deep draft for front 7 defensive help. Buffalo would have 8 more picks still in this draft. 2, 3, 4,4,4, 5, 6, 7. Trade Evans prior to the draft for a 3rd or 4th. Your options get expand. I know if no CBA Evans will not be able to be traded. This would be a quick fix of the bills with a signifigant influx of talent, and youth. There is no room on the Bills for past mediocore players any more (Whitner, Evans). Evans has already been replaced on the Bills Whitner will be an easy replacement also. It is time for young talent to carry this team. NOt old pros collecting a pay check.
truth on hold Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) On the contrary, the stronger franchises can hone in on specific needs and don't have to acquiesce to the most exciting game-changer on the board, just good football players. The Pats, Steelers, and Green Bay have been sitting pretty in this position for a long time, where lots of good interior linemen and TEs lie, coincidentally (not that they exclusively go there). GB's line did in fact need help last year, but you rarely see them making the mistake of picking an exciting player just for the sake of doing so. My implication is really that those teams would rarely go for the dazzling WR or CB pick when they have other, greater needs to fill. Complete, bogus, transparent changing of your argument. You make zero sense. Both the Steelers & Pack have 0 1st round receivers on their rosters. Plus, it could be argued that the Bills' receivers are on par with both of those teams. Only fools build their teams using top 5 picks on receivers. Dont care what round they got them, point is they did have them! Also, Steelers sure could have used 1st rounder Santonio Holmes! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24k3PCL4prU Edited February 8, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack
C.Biscuit97 Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Complete, bogus, transparent changing of your argument. Dont care what round they got them, point is they did have them! Also, Steelers sure could have used 1st rounder Santonio Holmes! youtube.com/watch?v=24k3PCL4prU Holmes was the 25th pick overall, much different than 3rd overall. Pitt also had all of it's pieces in place already. They got rid of Holmes this year & still made the SB. Receivers don't win championships. But Matt Millen loves your thought process.
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Complete, bogus, transparent changing of your argument. Believe what you want. You don't see good teams wasting their top picks on receivers when they have other, greater needs. And you especially don't see good teams wasting their picks on the rare occasion that they're in the top half of the draft. Dont care what round they got them, point is they did have them! :censored: :censored: NO, THE POINT IS THAT VERY GOOD RECEIVERS ARE RARELY THE CATALYST FOR VERY GOOD TEAMS, and that VERY GOOD TEAMS SOMEHOW SEEM TO FIND RECEIVERS EVEN WHEN THEY'RE MISSING OUT ON THE "CAN'T MISS" RECEIVERS AT THE FRONT END OF THE DRAFT. sorry, I left my caps-lock on.
DanInUticaTampa Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 My hope is that someone does want to trade with the Bills and give them an extra second rounder. That would be really nice.
1B4IDie Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) That would be really nice. The odds of that happening are pretty low. If you check the Carolina, and Denver reports they're all dying for a trade down too. No one wants the Top of this year's draft (maybe the lose to improve draft position crowd might finally get why that is so silly.) There are some silly fans in Denver that want Von Miller at #2. They want the lollipop gang for their LBs. Elvis and Von. I really really really really hope they take Von Miller, I would utter a sigh of relief, correction I really really really really hope they take Patrick Peterson, he has the highest bust factor imo out of the three mistakes to take at #3 (Von Miller, AJ Green, and Von Miller) Miller will be a good ILB for many years or maybe bulk up and work on coverage skills enough to play outside. Green should be a good WR for many years. Drafting a CB with bad hips is like drafting a WR with bad hands. Edited February 8, 2011 by Why So Serious?
Koufax Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 I never said, nor do I believe that Spiller was the BPA. He was the BTSA (best ticket seller available). Mr. Wilson commented how Spiller would "add excitement" to the team. ... Knowing the Bills history, I think they will draft Green, with visions of him making acrobatic catches. This will draw fans, but the team will lose because it is small and weak. I hope that I'm wrong, because this would be a dumb move, BPA or not. I still don't see the Ngata in the Spiller draft. Without the benefit of hindsight, who was the BPA at #9? Who is the guy picked 10-20 that you would trade Spiller for straight up AND was reasonably thought to be a better player on draft day? Spiller had a disappointing season as a rookie to say the least, and some people picked after had a great season. I think he was BPA, and I don't think he is a bust. If Green is BPA by a wide enough margin (meaning clearly is BPA, and not just a close BPA on our draft board), then he should be pour pick. Not for fans, but to help the Bills win football games over the next 5+ years. That said, I think that right now Green is likely being overrated and scored too high, and that since we are comparing apples and slightly different apples, you do need some sort of positional multiplier if you want to compare a 95 grade on a WR to a 95 grade on a LB, because I think that the team value of that 95 grade LB is more than the 95 grade WR based on things I have seen. What I am getting at is that my definition of BPA is sort of the WAR of a baseball player evaluation, and the one who will be expected to make the most contribution (above a baseline, not above our current starter, hence not a need) over five years or so. I think a "95" receiver is evaluating how important as a receiver, but is not as valuable as a "94" LB, and therefor when comparing them directly, the "94" LB is actually the BPA. I think that for all the love Green is getting now, he likely is NOT the BPA in the definition I am throwing out there (I think the same for Peterson at the moment), and Dareus or Quinn or someone else might be.
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 I still don't see the Ngata in the Spiller draft. Without the benefit of hindsight, who was the BPA at #9? Who is the guy picked 10-20 that you would trade Spiller for straight up AND was reasonably thought to be a better player on draft day? Spiller had a disappointing season as a rookie to say the least, and some people picked after had a great season. I think he was BPA, and I don't think he is a bust. If Green is BPA by a wide enough margin (meaning clearly is BPA, and not just a close BPA on our draft board), then he should be pour pick. Not for fans, but to help the Bills win football games over the next 5+ years. That said, I think that right now Green is likely being overrated and scored too high, and that since we are comparing apples and slightly different apples, you do need some sort of positional multiplier if you want to compare a 95 grade on a WR to a 95 grade on a LB, because I think that the team value of that 95 grade LB is more than the 95 grade WR based on things I have seen. What I am getting at is that my definition of BPA is sort of the WAR of a baseball player evaluation, and the one who will be expected to make the most contribution (above a baseline, not above our current starter, hence not a need) over five years or so. I think a "95" receiver is evaluating how important as a receiver, but is not as valuable as a "94" LB, and therefor when comparing them directly, the "94" LB is actually the BPA. I think that for all the love Green is getting now, he likely is NOT the BPA in the definition I am throwing out there (I think the same for Peterson at the moment), and Dareus or Quinn or someone else might be. Great, rational post, and you won my heart over with the WAR reference. "game changer" is much like clutch hitter in baseball parlance - oft-referenced and usually not accurate or reliably measurable. I think anyone trying to quantify impact on the game would agree with your 94 LB vs 95 WR argument.
Bill from NYC Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 I still don't see the Ngata in the Spiller draft. Without the benefit of hindsight, who was the BPA at #9? Who is the guy picked 10-20 that you would trade Spiller for straight up AND was reasonably thought to be a better player on draft day? Spiller had a disappointing season as a rookie to say the least, and some people picked after had a great season. I think he was BPA, and I don't think he is a bust. If Green is BPA by a wide enough margin (meaning clearly is BPA, and not just a close BPA on our draft board), then he should be pour pick. Not for fans, but to help the Bills win football games over the next 5+ years. That said, I think that right now Green is likely being overrated and scored too high, and that since we are comparing apples and slightly different apples, you do need some sort of positional multiplier if you want to compare a 95 grade on a WR to a 95 grade on a LB, because I think that the team value of that 95 grade LB is more than the 95 grade WR based on things I have seen. What I am getting at is that my definition of BPA is sort of the WAR of a baseball player evaluation, and the one who will be expected to make the most contribution (above a baseline, not above our current starter, hence not a need) over five years or so. I think a "95" receiver is evaluating how important as a receiver, but is not as valuable as a "94" LB, and therefor when comparing them directly, the "94" LB is actually the BPA. I think that for all the love Green is getting now, he likely is NOT the BPA in the definition I am throwing out there (I think the same for Peterson at the moment), and Dareus or Quinn or someone else might be. I really thought that McClain would drop to us and that we wouldn't pick him. He was the player I was hoping for. After that I was hoping for Brandon Graham or Bulaga. I thought #9 was early for Bulaga because R.Rich and I projected him to RT, but a trade down for Bulaga would have been great, assuming one was available. We will never know this because they used approx. 2 seconds to rush the podium and draft Spiller.
BuffaloFan68 Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Buffalo is not in a position to take a BPA. That system only works on established teams. Buffalo has too many needs. If we keep taking the BPA we'll just be a revolving door of talent that signs with us for short term. If the BPA at #3 was a RB, I sure hope you wouldn't want to draft them. We are stable enough at positions such as RB, WR, and I even believe our def. secondary is solid enough if we could just improve the front. IMO- we need a DE more than any other position.
DanInUticaTampa Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 The odds of that happening are pretty low. If you check the Carolina, and Denver reports they're all dying for a trade down too. No one wants the Top of this year's draft (maybe the lose to improve draft position crowd might finally get why that is so silly.) There are some silly fans in Denver that want Von Miller at #2. They want the lollipop gang for their LBs. Elvis and Von. I really really really really hope they take Von Miller, I would utter a sigh of relief, correction I really really really really hope they take Patrick Peterson, he has the highest bust factor imo out of the three mistakes to take at #3 (Von Miller, AJ Green, and Von Miller) Miller will be a good ILB for many years or maybe bulk up and work on coverage skills enough to play outside. Green should be a good WR for many years. Drafting a CB with bad hips is like drafting a WR with bad hands. Yeah, I know it is very unlikely. But with how deep this draft class is, trading down looks pretty sexy. I see more players I like in the 2nd round than in the first round. Still having a first round, but 2 2nd rounds would just be amazing to me. Probably not going to happen, but it is a bit of a dream.
Koufax Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Buffalo is not in a position to take a BPA. That system only works on established teams. Buffalo has too many needs. If we keep taking the BPA we'll just be a revolving door of talent that signs with us for short term. If the BPA at #3 was a RB, I sure hope you wouldn't want to draft them. We are stable enough at positions such as RB, WR, and I even believe our def. secondary is solid enough if we could just improve the front. IMO- we need a DE more than any other position. Buffalo is not in a position NOT to take BPA. I don't understand the revolving door comment. I would rather have great players leave after five years than pretty good players leave after five years (great players staying is the best...but no great player has ever fallen in love with Buffalo and continued to live there after retirement...could never happen). Yes, I agree, if BPA at #3 was a RB, it would be very tough to pick, and the BPA argument would probably lose some ground. But the good news is that BPA isn't a RB so we don't have that issue. For Bill, I found Bulaga interesting, although I am not sure if he is a better LT than Bell, and #9 is too high for me to take a RT, so I don't think he was a fit at #9. Trying to trade down would have been cool, and is a good enough reason to wait until the end of your time instead of rushing to the podium. If I know I want Spiller at #9, I still wait 10 minutes, and call all 31 other teams to see if they will blow me away. But I think Spiller was the best pick at #9, even though he had a disappointing season and Pouncey or Bulaga would have made a bigger 2010 difference in hindsight, and could end up as more valuable players overall. Right now my BPA board goes, based on my WAR-like positional values (but not need): Fairley Bowers Dareus Quinn Green Peterson I'm sure people who have seen more of each of these players could come up with a better order, and I'm more concerned about the model and strategy than any expectation of being able to better evaluate the individual players.
Mr. WEO Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 BPA all the way baby! In fact the only place the Bills have had some success in the draft is later rounds when they were thinking BPA. Their high "need" picks have almost to a man been a waste. Your turn, why don't you prove your blanket statement that a team at 3 has different needs than one at 25? And that the draft is the appropriate place to address them? If you're picking in the top three, you are a bad team--you have many needs. This is self-evident. A team that picks late in the first round is more successful, typically. They don't have to fret over whether to take a CB or a WR when other deficits cry out louder. Is the the draft the appropriate place to address this for those teams? I don't understand the question (why wouldn't itbe appropriate?). Because the Bills have drafted poorly for need, you dismiss this as the way to go. Teams like the Jets, Patriots and Green Bay draft what they need frequently. They just draft better than we do. The pats drafted 5 starters last year alone. We found one (Spiller was hardly "drafting for need"). And to answer my question--those SB teams all had outstanding QBs. Did you notice that?
K-9 Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Buffalo is not in a position NOT to take BPA. I don't understand the revolving door comment. I would rather have great players leave after five years than pretty good players leave after five years (great players staying is the best...but no great player has ever fallen in love with Buffalo and continued to live there after retirement...could never happen).... I know. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that Kelly, Thurman, and Tasker weren't great players. GO BILLS!!!
Kingfish Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Buffalo is not in a position NOT to take BPA. I don't understand the revolving door comment. I would rather have great players leave after five years than pretty good players leave after five years (great players staying is the best...but no great player has ever fallen in love with Buffalo and continued to live there after retirement...could never happen). Yes, I agree, if BPA at #3 was a RB, it would be very tough to pick, and the BPA argument would probably lose some ground. But the good news is that BPA isn't a RB so we don't have that issue. Last year in an interview Nix said he believes in drafting the best player available with the caveat that certain positions would be taken off the draft board early on based on the teams current personnel. So basically they could pass on a higher rated RB to pick a LB or whatever and technically still be picking the BPA because the RB wouldn't even be on their draft board in the first place.
ColdBlueNorth Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 What if Nick Fairley has been taken, AJ Green is still sitting there at #3 and no one wants to trade into the Bills pick? This is a major dilemma, for I think that the Bills will certainly rue the day they select marginal talents like Miller, Dareus or whomever over Green. If this scenario plays out I hope that the Bills select the BPA Green because of the bust (mediocre player) potential of all the other guys we would select over him. We already have a Von Miller type in Moats and we do have an early second round pick where there will certainly be a starting ILB for us. I just don't see the Bills going for offense at least not early (said the same last year and RB???) - with all the young emerging WR talent that the Bills already have and Easley who will turn heads next year. What the Bills need is a freakishly strong, pocket collapsing, run stuffing, QB crushing D-linemen who will force double-teams and keep our linebackers clean to make plays. If we don't stop the run, teams are just going to continue to score on us, eat up the clock, and put our offense in a pass to catch up situation. That coupled with our offensive line woes means a long day for any QB who is taking snaps for our team regardless of where he was drafted. Fitz has a fast release and made our line look better than they are more often than not. The Bills need to be able to get opposing teams off the field so our offense actually has more chances to use the receivers we have.
Recommended Posts