Nix Doesnt believe it trading down

[The Avenger]

Honestly, with the CBA and its treatment of rookies still a big question mark, I don't think too many teams are going to be interested in any trades involving high picks - too much uncertainly. Is there going to be a rookie cap? If so, what's it going to look like? It should make top 5 picks more affordable, but nobody really knows what will happen. With the kind of money and commitment involved with high draft picks I really can't believe too many teams are going to want to play with fire and get involved in trades for top 5 picks - this is not the year.

[Beerball]

With all due respect, Some returning defensive players from '09 had a significant fall-off in performance in 2010.

Because the coaching staff was arrogant enough to force a new scheme on marginal and woefully thin talent or because the coaching staff was ignorant enough to force a new scheme on marginal and worfully thin talent?

[KOKBILLS]

I think many of you are missing the point of this thread...It's not about whether or not The Bills will have a viable trade down option...It's about the fact that, apparently, our GM has gone on record saying he does not believe in trading down...I think that's pretty significant because if that is in fact his philosophy, I for one STRONGLY disagree with it...If he's just throwing out smoke screens it's still a strange thing to say...Not believing in trading down tells me the guy does not trust his Scouting Staff much...It's a dumb statement if you ask me...And no one did btw...

[CosmicBills]

But ... but ... he talks with a folksy southern accent and speaks his mind! Nix MUST know what he's doing!

[Acantha]

By the way, the link in the original post was a snippet from another article that didn't exactly get the whole point across. Relevant parts:

 

Nix conceded he's prone to hold onto the pick and won't shop it before the draft.

 

"I wouldn't ever say we wouldn't do that," Nix said. "But I never have been one to do a lot of that. I don't like giving up a player, especially if you're sold on one."

 

Nix added the Bills would be open to trading out of their slot on draft day, but only if the players they've targeted are claimed within the first two picks.

 

"If the guys that you think merit a 3 are gone, then I think you have to look at moving back," Nix said. "We need as many picks as we can get."

 

But Nix indicated the Bills prefer to stay put.

 

"If there's a guy that you were dead set on getting," Nix said, "you better take him and not move down, thinking you can get him at No. 7 because you might not, and then you don't have the player. If there's a guy we think we're dead set on, we're going to take him."

[Ramius]

Because the coaching staff was arrogant enough to force a new scheme on marginal and woefully thin talent or because the coaching staff was ignorant enough to force a new scheme on marginal and worfully thin talent?

 

Why is switching to a 3-4 arrogant? We got a new staff, and they decided they didn't like the old system and wanted to run a new system. It takes a bit to get all the pieces in place. It's not as if we had a good defense before and Nix/Gailey tore that all apart.

 

GB switched from a 4-3 to a 3-4 and was horrific on defense in 2009. Their only saving grace was a top notch offense.

[Cash]

I think many of you are missing the point of this thread...It's not about whether or not The Bills will have a viable trade down option...It's about the fact that, apparently, our GM has gone on record saying he does not believe in trading down...I think that's pretty significant because if that is in fact his philosophy, I for one STRONGLY disagree with it...If he's just throwing out smoke screens it's still a strange thing to say...Not believing in trading down tells me the guy does not trust his Scouting Staff much...It's a dumb statement if you ask me...And no one did btw...

 

Thank you. I don't get the crippling fear of losing out on the guy you've targeted. You can't tell me Spiller was the only player in last year's draft worthy of a first-round selection. Marv said similar things after drafting Whitner (he admitted they had an offer on the table, but they thought the team was trading up to get Whitner, so they said no). Now, I get it if it's one just spectacular talent that you can't believe is there. In that case, go ahead and sprint up to the podium, like Washington did when they drafted Orakpo. But if you're going to do that, you'd better be right. Washington looks smart for sprinting to draft Orakpo. Buffalo looks dumb for sprinting to draft Spiller (not to mention Troup and Carrington).

 

And if it's just the top guy on your board, it doesn't hurt to take 5 minutes and see if the phone rings, or even make a couple of calls yourself.

[CodeMonkey]

And?

And ... if they had waited instead of picking immediately one of two things would have happened:

1) No trade worth accepting was offered and they pick Spiller.

2) A worthwhile trade was offered, they give up the #9 for presumably multiple picks later. Then they take Spiller with one of the later picks if he was still available (fair to good chance he would have been) and other much needed help. Or Spiller is gone, so they fill multiple positions of need which so far anyway, would have been the preferable choice based on last season anyway.

 

My original point stands, keeping the door open for a trade costs you nothing and perhaps works out better for you. The Bills sure as !@#$ need as much talent as they can get their hands on.

 

Well, OK, 3 things:

3) They trade down for multiple picks and waste all of them instead of just the one. But I'd like to think that wouldn't happen.

Edited March 1, 2011 by CodeMonkey

[CosmicBills]

I won't beat the dead horse for too long -- but the Spiller pick was a disaster of epic proportions. I said it on draft day (and many times since ... 'cause I have no life) and it's still true today. It's not a bad pick because of the player, but what the pick represented: placing too high of a value on a RB when they have been devalued in the modern NFL.

 

It was a loud and clear statement to those who were really listening that this front office is dangerously out of step with the elite franchises in the NFL. Nix was an inside hire and doesn't represent true philosophical change from the regimes that got this team stuck in a 11 year playoff drought. But people like him. And it's hard not to because he comes across very well in interviews. He speaks his mind (something I respect) and does so in a down home kind of way.

 

This proclamation about not trading back, while not new for Nix, is just another sign that he isn't the right man for the job. This team needs new blood. It has for awhile. I firmly believe that Nix just doesn't have the chops to get the job done here in Buffalo. And that just plain ol' sucks.

Edited March 1, 2011 by tgreg99

[Ramius]

And ... if they had waited instead of picking immediately one of two things would have happened:

1) No trade worth accepting was offered and they pick Spiller.

2) A worthwhile trade was offered, they give up the #9 for presumably multiple picks later. Then they take Spiller with one of the later picks if he was still available (fair to good chance he would have been) and other much needed help. Or Spiller is gone, so they fill multiple positions of need which so far anyway, would have been the preferable choice based on last season anyway.

 

My original point stands, keeping the door open for a trade costs you nothing and perhaps works out better for you. The Bills sure as !@#$ need as much talent as they can get their hands on.

 

Well, OK, 3 things:

3) They trade down for multiple picks and waste all of them instead of just the one. But I'd like to think that wouldn't happen.

 

There's not a "fair to good" chance Spiller would have been on the board later on. He was a consensus top 10 pick, and SD took Matthews at #12.

[LabattBlue]

I think many of you are missing the point of this thread...It's not about whether or not The Bills will have a viable trade down option...It's about the fact that, apparently, our GM has gone on record saying he does not believe in trading down...I think that's pretty significant because if that is in fact his philosophy, I for one STRONGLY disagree with it...If he's just throwing out smoke screens it's still a strange thing to say...Not believing in trading down tells me the guy does not trust his Scouting Staff much...It's a dumb statement if you ask me...And no one did btw...

Agree!

 

Make Whaley the GM ASAP and see if he has what it takes.

 

Why is switching to a 3-4 arrogant? We got a new staff, and they decided they didn't like the old system and wanted to run a new system. It takes a bit to get all the pieces in place. It's not as if we had a good defense before and Nix/Gailey tore that all apart.

 

GB switched from a 4-3 to a 3-4 and was horrific on defense in 2009. Their only saving grace was a top notch offense.

GB was 2nd in the league in defense in 2009.

 

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&conference=null&role=OPP&offensiveStatisticCategory=null&defensiveStatisticCategory=TOTAL_YARDS&season=2009&seasonType=REG&tabSeq=2&qualified=true&Submit=Go

[K-9]

I won't beat the dead horse for too long -- but the Spiller pick was a disaster of epic proportions. I said it on draft day (and many times since ... 'cause I have no life) and it's still true today. It's not a bad pick because of the player, but what the pick represented: placing too high of a value on a RB when they have been devalued in the modern NFL. ...

 

tg, my man! I've got to give you credit for sticking to your philosophical guns but RBs have not been devalued. Here is the order of importance (value) of position in the NFL and it has been for a long time.

 

1.) QB

2.) DE that can bring pressure by himself

3.) LT

4.) RB

5.) WR

 

It's no coincidence that 2-5 are directly related to number 1.

 

But it's not a linear process nor does it imply that you skip over blue chip talent at other positions just to satisfy one of the top 5. Nor do you pass up blue chip talent to pick a player at a higher valued position who isn't as good a player. If there's a Cornelius Bennett available, you take him.

 

There isn't a position on the field that can't be drafted in the later rounds. There will be Pro Bowl players taken in the later rounds every year. But those rated as late round talents simply can't be compared to 1st round talents during the scouting/drafting process. The perceived talent gap is huge at this juncture.

 

The Bills thought Spiller was one of those rare blue chip RBs, had him rated higher than anyone else on their board and they took him. Maybe they were wrong, maybe they weren't. But nobody can dispute that Spiller was the highest rated player on their board at the time. We can disagree with their rating system all we want but I won't fault them for sticking to their philosophy.

 

A team as thin as the Bills needs football players. Regardless of position. Regardless of "value" of the position.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Beerball]

Why is switching to a 3-4 arrogant? We got a new staff, and they decided they didn't like the old system and wanted to run a new system. It takes a bit to get all the pieces in place. It's not as if we had a good defense before and Nix/Gailey tore that all apart.

 

GB switched from a 4-3 to a 3-4 and was horrific on defense in 2009. Their only saving grace was a top notch offense.

We did not have the personnel to make the switch.

 

We didn't have Dom Capers.

 

We were less after the switch. If you are OK with that then you're willing to accept a throw away season, I'm not.

 

 

A much more accomplished coach than Gailey once inherited a team that ran a 4-3. This coach was a huge proponent of the 3-4, but he looked at his roster and decided that making the switch when the personnel didn't fit was the wrong thing to do. His team ran the 4-3 that season, they improved their record and began making the transition to the 3-4 in the next offseason. They had 2 drafts and FA periods to get the personnel they needed. That coach saw that switching when you don't have the proper personnel isn't the way to go. In year 2 they transitioned to the 3-4 as the season wore on.

 

To me that is the approach you take.

[LabattBlue]

We did not have the personnel to make the switch.

 

We didn't have Dom Capers.

 

We were less after the switch. If you are OK with that then you're willing to accept a throw away season, I'm not.

 

 

A much more accomplished coach than Gailey once inherited a team that ran a 4-3. This coach was a huge proponent of the 3-4, but he looked at his roster and decided that making the switch when the personnel didn't fit was the wrong thing to do. His team ran the 4-3 that season, they improved their record and began making the transition to the 3-4 in the next offseason. They had 2 drafts and FA periods to get the personnel they needed. That coach saw that switching when you don't have the proper personnel isn't the way to go. In year 2 they transitioned to the 3-4 as the season wore on.

 

To me that is the approach you take.

Exactly!!!!!!

[Ghost of Rob Johnson]

It's not a bad pick because of the player, but what the pick represented: placing too high of a value on a RB when they have been devalued in the modern NFL.

 

It was a loud and clear statement to those who were really listening that this front office is dangerously out of step with the elite franchises in the NFL. Nix was an inside hire and doesn't represent true philosophical change from the regimes that got this team stuck in a 11 year playoff drought. But people like him. And it's hard not to because he comes across very well in interviews. He speaks his mind (something I respect) and does so in a down home kind of way.

 

This proclamation about not trading back, while not new for Nix, is just another sign that he isn't the right man for the job. This team needs new blood. It has for awhile. I firmly believe that Nix just doesn't have the chops to get the job done here in Buffalo. And that just plain ol' sucks.

I respect your opinion and feel it's a decent argument to make, especially with the recent success of late round or undrafted RBs such as Arian Foster or Ryan Grant. However, I feel your argument that the devaluation of the RB position by "elite" teams is greatly exaggerated as recent Super Bowl teams such as New Orleans (Bush), Indianapolis (D Brown & J Addai) and most recently Pittsburgh (Mendenhall) have all taken RBs with their top picks.

 

Also, as seen earlier in the thread, it was less of a proclamation and more of a sentence taken out of context.

Edited March 1, 2011 by Ghost of Rob Johnson

[habes1280]

I don't think this is awful, but I don't think it's terrible for Bills fans to scoff at this, either.

 

I think the source of a lot of frustration is that this is NOT a good team; yet despite having crying needs at nearly every major position, Buddy hasn't exactly taken a leave-no-stone-unturned approach to turning this thing around. Rushing to the podium last year without waiting for last-minute trade offers is one example, going to bed at the start of free agency is another. What's more, he's been exceptionally confident in this approach, laughing at those who suggested that the Bills be aggressive in the early hours of free agency, or others who thought that the Bills might have been wise to play the board on draft day (how foolish!).

 

And while the long-term yield of this approach is still being written, the short term shows some definite mis-cues. The front office couldn't have forecasted Brad Butler's retirement, but Cornell Green failed to even be a stop-gap, and was not the best that the free agent class had to offer. On the whole, the rookie class of '10 looked promising, especially their un-drafted players, but it's NOT overstating things to say that picks 1-3 were underwhelming in their first year, and did less than the front office, led by Buddy, anticipated ("with our top picks we want players that can come in right away and produce"). Not the kind of results that earn a guy an across-the-board benefit-of-the-doubt status among fans.

 

At this point, I think everyone would simply appreciate SOMEONE saying "We're going to wait and see what's out there. We'll listen to all offers, and explore all possibilities," instead of hearing of all the things that they WON'T do, and WON'T consider.

 

I personally think that Buddy is simply saying that they want a premiere player, one of the best prospects in the college class, and that additional picks aren't worth losing a guy they think is a franchise player. But I understand those fans that are bristling a bit by the way he's saying it.

[Bill from NYC]

tg, my man! I've got to give you credit for sticking to your philosophical guns but RBs have not been devalued. Here is the order of importance (value) of position in the NFL and it has been for a long time.

 

1.) QB

2.) DE that can bring pressure by himself

3.) LT

4.) RB

5.) WR

 

It's no coincidence that 2-5 are directly related to number 1.

 

But it's not a linear process nor does it imply that you skip over blue chip talent at other positions just to satisfy one of the top 5. Nor do you pass up blue chip talent to pick a player at a higher valued position who isn't as good a player. If there's a Cornelius Bennett available, you take him.

 

There isn't a position on the field that can't be drafted in the later rounds. There will be Pro Bowl players taken in the later rounds every year. But those rated as late round talents simply can't be compared to 1st round talents during the scouting/drafting process. The perceived talent gap is huge at this juncture.

 

The Bills thought Spiller was one of those rare blue chip RBs, had him rated higher than anyone else on their board and they took him. Maybe they were wrong, maybe they weren't. But nobody can dispute that Spiller was the highest rated player on their board at the time. We can disagree with their rating system all we want but I won't fault them for sticking to their philosophy.

 

A team as thin as the Bills needs football players. Regardless of position. Regardless of "value" of the position.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

I would agree with almost all of this post, but I suspect that the Spiller selection was ordered by Mr. Wilson.

The end of you post is another issue. We don't need more first round running backs or defensive backs, no matter how good they are. They are not what is needed for the Bills to win football games, even if they are good players. Their talents would be wasted on a small, weak team.

 

BPA is a good philosophy for strong teams. A team with amateurs playing at offensive tackle needs to fill this type of hole to have a chance to compete. And a team that is last against the run has to fix this problem. It's common sense imo.

[Ramius]

We did not have the personnel to make the switch.

 

We didn't have Dom Capers.

 

We were less after the switch. If you are OK with that then you're willing to accept a throw away season, I'm not.

 

 

A much more accomplished coach than Gailey once inherited a team that ran a 4-3. This coach was a huge proponent of the 3-4, but he looked at his roster and decided that making the switch when the personnel didn't fit was the wrong thing to do. His team ran the 4-3 that season, they improved their record and began making the transition to the 3-4 in the next offseason. They had 2 drafts and FA periods to get the personnel they needed. That coach saw that switching when you don't have the proper personnel isn't the way to go. In year 2 they transitioned to the 3-4 as the season wore on.

 

To me that is the approach you take.

 

So why give Gailey flak when they ran a lot of 4-3 mid-season? Why the flak this offseason when he said he wants to continue to build for the 3-4 but will run hybrid this year? Sounds like he's following a plan.

 

The team was garbage and largely devoid of top talent after the 2009 season. An overhaul and re-build was needed, so that was as good as a time as any to make the switch. Had the defense been top 10 in 2009, you'd have a point. But i fail to see how a rebuilding team swithcing defensive schemes is "arrogant," when the team was crap and had crap for talent to begin with.

 

Its not as if playing 4-3 all season would have suddenly made us a playoff contender. The defense still would have been ass, and we would have still finished with about 4 wins.

[Beerball]

So why give Gailey flak when they ran a lot of 4-3 mid-season? Why the flak this offseason when he said he wants to continue to build for the 3-4 but will run hybrid this year? Sounds like he's following a plan.

 

The team was garbage and largely devoid of top talent after the 2009 season. An overhaul and re-build was needed, so that was as good as a time as any to make the switch. Had the defense been top 10 in 2009, you'd have a point. But i fail to see how a rebuilding team swithcing defensive schemes is "arrogant," when the team was crap and had crap for talent to begin with.

 

Its not as if playing 4-3 all season would have suddenly made us a playoff contender. The defense still would have been ass, and we would have still finished with about 4 wins.

Because #1 I want to, #2 they wasted resources, #3 they wasted time in the middle of the season to morph again.

 

I haven't mentioned the fact that they ignored areas of need in the 2010 draft because of the switch either. O-line anybody? Spiller? yeah, they're doing fine.

 

If the plan is hybrid shouldn't that have been the plan from day 1? Why switch? Because they figured out that they had screwed up. (a wasted season)

 

Talk all you want about playoffs and how 'ass' the team is/was. They weren't put into the best position to win games. End of story.

 

I realize that you'll never see things the same way as I so I'll now step aside and hope that they don't screw up this offseason.

[Bob in STL]

With all due respect, Some returning defensive players from '09 had a significant fall-off in performance in 2010.

 

 

True ... and Nix added who to help the defense?