Nix Doesnt believe it trading down

[tennesseeboy]

makes me wonder about Nix. "doesn't believe in trading down?" Even if the situation warrants it? To indicate that option doesn't exist in your calculus is is not a good sign at all. Every other general manager in the game believes that when the situation warrants it trading down is something to be considered. Sounds like an guy so set in his ways he doesn't consider the options. Result...we are going to be getting very high draft picks for years to come.

[Beerball]

And the cowboys did nothing under bill Parcells.

I'd take some of that nothing right about now.

 

makes me wonder about Nix. "doesn't believe in trading down?" Even if the situation warrants it? To indicate that option doesn't exist in your calculus is is not a good sign at all. Every other general manager in the game believes that when the situation warrants it trading down is something to be considered. Sounds like an guy so set in his ways he doesn't consider the options. Result...we are going to be getting very high draft picks for years to come.

Unless you read what he actually said.

[Thoner7]

Not sure where you guys are getting this hindsight from. Just because Spiller didn't have a great 2010 doesn't mean that no one wanted to draft him in the 2010 draft except for Buffalo. He was one of the top prospects (easily top 10) going into the draft, and a lot of experts had him as one of the top 5 players overall. He would have gone somewhere close to #9 regardless of who was picking.

 

And we don't know who SD would have drafted at #12. Since they took Matthews, there's a good chance they would have taken Spiller if he was on the board. For all we know, SD was afraid of losing out on both, and thats why they traded up.

 

Again, its not hindsight at all. Spiller was easily top 10? Well he went at 9, if we passed on him like we should have (I said all along he wasn’t a 1st round talent, not hindsight.) then I guess you assume he was so must-have that the Jags would have snapped him up? I bet not. That “easily” puts him out of the top ten. I already said I doubt the Chargers would have taken a gimmick back, and I doubt the 9ers trade up for him and not Davis. I don’t think you see the Eagles take him at 13 either. In fact, I could argue that he doesn’t go before 30 – where Javid Best went (all off season I said Best was a better prospect than Spiller).

 

Sure the media may not have thought it was possible, but they also thought Clausen was a top 10 pick too. Get my point? Just because the media think guys are top 10 picks, doesn’t make them top 10 picks, and just because the Bills took Spiller at 9, doesn’t mean another team woulda taken him at 10 or 11 or 12 if they had the chance. If we took Clausen at 9 (not a stretch at all at the time, according to the same people who loved on Spiller) me and you could be having the same argument about him…. You saying he was an easy top ten pick and me saying he coulda fallen to 30 or later if we passed on him.

 

Who knows what coulda happened, but regardless of what media pundits think, gimmick RBs are not top 10 picks. Ever, end of discussion.

[Bob in STL]

See if this link helps any:

This is probably linked somewhere in this thread, but I think it gives a better idea of what Buddy's words were and Grahams interpretation of them.

 

 

 

Thank you for the info and the second link. I sure looks like Tim Graham took a few liberties with Buddy's quotes. Relative to trading down Buddy stated (in quotes): "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."

 

That means if his guy is there they don't trade down and hope to get him later. It does not mean the does not ever believe in trading down, which was implied.

 

Well, I feel better about that clarification.

[K-9]

Great post. Lots of food for thought and I appreciate the clarity of your point. My responses follow.

 

I presume, based on the quoted post below, that your point is that RB is more important than every position on the field but QB, DE, and LT, correct?

 

All positions are important. I can't think of any other team sport that is so interdependent on the proper execution of everyone's assignment on a given play, especially on the offensive side of the ball. The list I gave isn't mine as it comes from Bill Polian some 20 years ago in response to being asked if he was to start a team from scratch what positions would he fill first and why. Quickly the whys were: QB because he's the most important asset on a team. DE because you need a guy who can create pressure on the other teams' most important asset by himself. LT because you have to protect your most important asset from the other teams' DEs. RB because you need a reliable runner/receiver/blocker in the same backfield to alleviate pressure on your most important asset. WR because you need a reliable, go to, clutch receiver for your most valuable asset to utilize in the passing game.

 

How is a RB's rushing production directly related to the QB, other than taking a hand-off?

 

As it relates to just "rushing" the ball, it isn't related. As it relates to having a running threat to alleviate pressure on your QB, having a reliable and dangerous threat as an outlet on checkdowns, and having a reliable player to read and pick-up blitzes consistently and who can block blitzers effectively, the RB position directly relates to the well being of your QB. Like QBing is more than just passing, being an RB is more than just running.

 

Huh? Teams can draft BPA all they want, but it's a luxury afforded to only the best clubs. Buffalo isn't one of those franchises. We can debate draft strategy all we want, but unless Spiller can block for himself and make people miss 3 yards deep in the backfield, I don't see the point of picking a RB without a solid OL. The Bills have done this now with 3 RBs in 8 drafts and it still hasn't worked out. Spiller was set up to fail, and he did just that in his rookie season. Theoretically, what you're saying is you take BPA no matter what. So AJ Green ought to be the pick at 3 because the experts have him as the most can't miss prospect? It makes no sense given Buffalo's better than average WR corps.

 

My post wasn't about the "Spiller" pick so much as it was about debunking the idea that RBs have been devalued by the league. They haven't been. Obviously there needs to be a balance between need and BPA. One thing that is hard for me to accept is that there is never room for good players. The "best" players. I don't fault a team for taking BPA when they don't have a lot of good football players. The Bills don't. Like many, I would have preferred to take one of the OLman they rated higher but they were gone. Taking a much lower rated player at a position of greater need is just not as wise as taking a highly rated player at a position of less need. Playmaker is always a position of need, regardless of position. That's what the Bills thought they were drafting in Spiller. I don't judge them with the benefit of hindsight. Not that it matters to us but I don't think the Bills put any stock into what the experts say about anybody at this point. I'd be willing to bet they have higher rated players at positions of greater need than AJ Green anyway.

 

Sure, every position can be drafted in later rounds. But what's the chance that player goes on to be Pro Bowl caliber? At RB, I'll venture to say it's a lot higher than say, DT/NT, CB, or LB. And let's not marginalize my argument by saying that chances are better of finding top players in early rounds. If a team has limited picks (unless you're NE), I'm using the high picks on harder to find positions. Replacement value being what it is, I'll take less production from a RB if I can use my top picks on a DE, OT, or perhaps a DT.

 

I don't necessarily disagree but if an RB is rated so much higher than the remaining DEs, OTs, or DTs, I have no problem with taking him as was the case with Spiller. All things being equal at the time you pick, the DE and OT are getting drafted first, like you say. All things weren't equal when they took Spiller. Sure you can find Pro Bowl RBs in the later rounds. Perhaps by a 2-1 margin over any other position, I don't really know. But without looking it up or trying to marginalize your argument, the great RBs, the HOF RBs, were most likely selected in the first round.

 

A team as thin as Buffalo needs to begin rebuilding with the proper pieces. As it stands, they have no more than 1 starting caliber NFL OT, no legit OLB to rush the passer, a transition QB, no all around TE, and may be hurting at CB. It wasn't much different than last year, and they picked a RB. Buffalo's been sticking to their philosophy of picking WR's, DB's, and RB's for years now and clearly it doesn't work without the horses up front.

 

This isn't a Spiller argument. It's a team building concept which has been re-hashed time and time again. If RB's were so valuable, teams would be taking them high every year and yet 6 of the top 10 rushers in 2010 were not first rounders.

 

Agreed. This isn't a Spiller argument and it was never meant to be. It's about team building. Secure the top 5 positions with blue chip talent and you are on your way to being a great team for a long time. That doesn't mean that if there's a Suh or Ware or Willis available you don't take them.

 

I'm not going to bite on your last sentence. If you accept that just because teams don't take RBs high every year and that because 6 of the top 10 rushers last year were not first rounders as definitive proof that RBs aren't valued so be it. Let me know where those guys are in a few years. Meanwhile, the next HOF running back currently active in the NFL will more than likely have been chosen early in the draft. If you are willing to settle for "dime-a-dozen" that's fine. I'll take an Adrian Peterson over an Arian Foster any day of the week. And no, I'm NOT saying Spiller is the next Adrian Peterson.

 

GO BILLS!!!