The Rogue Scout

[1billsfan]

That was a good read. Am now reading his blog...

 

 

http://blog.playmakermobile.com/

 

Uh oh...

 

"3. Buffalo: Von Miller - LB - Texas A&M

With a 90 year old owner and 70 year old GM, the Bills continue the trend of “reaching” in first, this time taking the overrated pass rusher..."

 

That's what I've been saying all along...I still hope we pick Robert Quinn.

[dave mcbride]

This guy says production is the most important thing and that you shouldn't make excuses for lack of production, and then turns around and does exactly that with Locker.

That's not actually what he said. He didn't discuss measurable production (i.e., numbers) at all, he simply said that you need to watch the tape and see how they play.

[bouds]

That was a good read. Am now reading his blog...

 

 

http://blog.playmakermobile.com/

 

He's not a Von Miller fan, nice jab at the Bills as well..hahaha.

[BobChalmers]

Uh oh...

 

"3. Buffalo: Von Miller - LB - Texas A&M

With a 90 year old owner and 70 year old GM, the Bills continue the trend of “reaching” in first, this time taking the overrated pass rusher..."

 

That's what I've been saying all along...I still hope we pick Robert Quinn.

 

"Bills continue the trend of “reaching” in first"

 

Anyone who writes that based on last year (Nix's ONLY year as GM) is an ignorant fool not worthy of quoting except for amusement.

 

Spiller was in no way, shape or form, a "reach". He was the exact opposite - regarded as possibly the best offensive player in the draft, but a luxury pick for the Bills who already had two good RB's. That's called taking a "value" pick, not a "reach".

[dave mcbride]

Uh oh...

 

"3. Buffalo: Von Miller - LB - Texas A&M

With a 90 year old owner and 70 year old GM, the Bills continue the trend of “reaching” in first, this time taking the overrated pass rusher..."

 

That's what I've been saying all along...I still hope we pick Robert Quinn.

Further down in his blog, he says that 11 teams are run by career scouts (the right model, in his opinion), but doesn't include the Bills. Nix is of course a longtime scout. That's an error on his part. One also gets the sense that he might not like Nix.

[Cash]

That's not actually what he said. He didn't discuss measurable production (i.e., numbers) at all, he simply said that you need to watch the tape and see how they play.

I'd say these are the quotes we're thinking of:

 

“Everybody says he’s inaccurate,” Razzano said as Locker completed an intermediate pass against USC on the TV behind him. “He’s not – he throws a great ball! It’s a low-percentage offense. There’s never anybody open underneath, and he’s got no protection. You can see it if you look closely enough. People are stupid.

Followed almost immediately by:

 

Said Razzano: “Height, weight, speed, strength – guys fall in love with the numbers, and then coaches justify the lack of [collegiate] production by saying, ‘It was the scheme,’ or ‘He wasn’t coached right.’ The bottom line is, you have to trust the tape.”

 

So Locker's alleged inaccuracy is excused because he was in "a low-percentage offense," but God forbid a coach justify something by blaming the scheme. Huh?

 

I really liked a lot of what Razzano had to say, but I think he's making the same excuses as everyone else, just for Locker instead of Newton or Gabbert.

[dave mcbride]

I'd say these are the quotes we're thinking of:

 

 

Followed almost immediately by:

 

 

 

So Locker's alleged inaccuracy is excused because he was in "a low-percentage offense," but God forbid a coach justify something by blaming the scheme. Huh?

 

I really liked a lot of what Razzano had to say, but I think he's making the same excuses as everyone else, just for Locker instead of Newton or Gabbert.

 

You're proving my point. He's saying trust your eyes when it comes to a player, not a stat sheet divorced from context. Of course, production is important, but my sense is that he's saying that judging it is a function of watching the tape, not counting up the incompletions or the sacks.

Edited April 25, 2011 by dave mcbride

[Thoner7]

"Bills continue the trend of “reaching” in first"

 

Anyone who writes that based on last year (Nix's ONLY year as GM) is an ignorant fool not worthy of quoting except for amusement.

 

Spiller was in no way, shape or form, a "reach". He was the exact opposite - regarded as possibly the best offensive player in the draft, but a luxury pick for the Bills who already had two good RB's. That's called taking a "value" pick, not a "reach".

 

If you read the article, its clear this guy doesn’t care what anyone else in the media, or even his own draft room, says. He calls it as he sees it. If the article is true, he almost broke out in a fist fight with the former Rams GM about Alex Smith – if nothing else you can admire his confidence and conviction. Too me, that’s a breath of fresh air. To be able to go against the grain is something I would admire on my scouting staff.

 

You say Spiller is in no way a reach. You then say he was regarded by many as the best offensive plyer n the draft. Well yea, to those people he wouldn’t have been a reach. But some people didn’t think Spiller was that good, to some he was a reach. I for one didn’t think he was a 1st round talent – that makes him a big reach IMO. I will admit I didn’t expect him to fall out of the 1st round, but at 9th overall its still bad value pick to me. Taking a player top 10 that isn’t graded in the first round is a reach, taking a player top ten who is graded as top 5 is value. It could easily be the same player on two different boards. For example, this is a quote from that dudes blog.

 

Michael Haynes - DE - Chicago - Pick #14

Concerns: Effort, consistency. Grades were all over board on this player, from 1st to 5th round. When that is the case, watch out. Have to see “discrepancy” players vs best competition.

 

 

This year, this guy calls Miller a reach at 3. Well, if you listed to Kiper or McShay or Walter Football, Miller isn’t a reach at 3. If this scout calls Miller a reach at 3, his statement is obviously based off of his own grade of Miller, which we can safely assume is not a top 3 pick. Its relative to the opinion/board you are referring to. besides, I dont think he was refering to last year only (Whitner/McCargo/Losman/Maybin/McKelvin/Troup/hardy/hell, maybe even Evans, who knows.)

Edited April 25, 2011 by Thoner7

[BobChalmers]

If you read the article, its clear this guy doesn’t care what anyone else in the media, or even his own draft room, says.

 

Then he doesn't know the definition of "reach" and he's an idiot for using that term to describe Spiller - sorry.

 

Nobody takes a player they don't think is good. Unless the Bills were the only team that liked him as a first round prospect, then he wasn't a reach.

 

A reach is taking a player before you HAVE to. "HAVE TO" is defined precisely by what other people think. Taking Tom Brady anywhere before the Patriots took him in the sixth would have been a reach. It doesn't matter that in retrospect he would look good as a #1 overall. It would still be a mistake to take him before you have to in order to get him, because you could have filled other needs with high picks multiple times before still getting him in the fifth.

 

A lot of people thought Spiller was a top pick. Nix believed he was a player he wanted. The only way he was a "reach" in the first is if you think no other team would take him before the Bills next chance. Given all the buzz he had, this seems unlikely - so unlikely that I call it a "no way".

 

How much of a "reach" a player is is defined by how many picks "too soon" you took him - with the assumption sometimes that you might be able to trade down and still get them. Whitner was a slight reach - the Ravens had made it pretty clear they were looking at him at 13 - the Bills took him at 8. Five picks really isn't that big a reach - both teams saw him as the top safety. Calling Spiller a reach at #9 when many saw him as #1 is just stupid.

 

That's the defintion of reach (and it's antonym, "value pick" aka BPA) in the "metagame" of the draft. If he doesn't get that, he doesn't know what he is doing.

Edited April 25, 2011 by BobChalmers

[BobChalmers]

besides, I dont think he was refering to last year only (Whitner/McCargo/Losman/Maybin/McKelvin/Troup/hardy/hell, maybe even Evans,

 

McCargo, Losman, and Troup were probably reaches.

 

Whitner wasn't much of one - he was gone 5 picks later if the Bills didn't take him at #8. I hated the pick, btw - because I wanted Ngata. Being a bad pick doesn't make it a reach though.

 

Maybin, McKelvin, Hardy, Evans - all of those guys went about where predicted by most sources. Disappointment or even total Bust does not equal reach.

[NewEra]

Nice article. Thx for posting.

[UpperDeck]

His view of the Bills prior to last season is pretty accurate. Although he was off a bit on the Edwards vs. Fitzpatrick battle. Nelson was hurt so I'll give him a push on that.

 

http://blog.playmakermobile.com/blog/buffalo-bills/

[We B 4 Da Billz]

A couple of links to Jurell Casey (Sophomore season from the looks of it). He does have explosiveness and a motor too.

 

I like what I see, a good 4th/5th pick up - looks like he'll be very productive.

 

Versus A.Luck

 

 

Edited April 25, 2011 by We B 4 Da Billz

[BuffaloBill]

This is a worthy read, IMO.

 

"Razzano, a respected talent evaluator during a two-decade-plus career with the San Francisco 49ers, St. Louis Rams and Arizona Cardinals, is talking about former Missouri quarterback Blaine Gabbert, and he's not holding back."

http://sports.yahoo....ys_label_042511

 

 

Great read ... thanks for posting it. This draft scares the crap out of me because I till say there are no "locks" among the top 3 picks. Personally I hope Carolina picks Gabbert or Newton to get them off the board. I worry the Bills feel pressured to pick a QB - their greates need is D fornt 7 and I believe their best bet is to focus on it then maybe get back into rd 1 later with a trade to take a QB - I'm also OK with them holding firm at 34 and taking a QB there.

[Thoner7]

Then he doesn't know the definition of "reach" and he's an idiot for using that term to describe Spiller - sorry.

 

Nobody takes a player they don't think is good. Unless the Bills were the only team that liked him as a first round prospect, then he wasn't a reach.

 

A reach is taking a player before you HAVE to. "HAVE TO" is defined precisely by what other people think. Taking Tom Brady anywhere before the Patriots took him in the sixth would have been a reach. It doesn't matter that in retrospect he would look good as a #1 overall. It would still be a mistake to take him before you have to in order to get him, because you could have filled other needs with high picks multiple times before still getting him in the fifth.

 

A lot of people thought Spiller was a top pick. Nix believed he was a player he wanted. The only way he was a "reach" in the first is if you think no other team would take him before the Bills next chance. Given all the buzz he had, this seems unlikely - so unlikely that I call it a "no way".

 

How much of a "reach" a player is is defined by how many picks "too soon" you took him - with the assumption sometimes that you might be able to trade down and still get them. Whitner was a slight reach - the Ravens had made it pretty clear they were looking at him at 13 - the Bills took him at 8. Five picks really isn't that big a reach - both teams saw him as the top safety. Calling Spiller a reach at #9 when many saw him as #1 is just stupid.

 

That's the defintion of reach (and it's antonym, "value pick" aka BPA) in the "metagame" of the draft. If he doesn't get that, he doesn't know what he is doing.

 

I would consider Spiller a reach and Miller too at 3. Thats because I believe there are better players out there at the time. By your deffinition Koa Misi wouldnt have been a reach at 9 last year because he went one pick before our 2nd round selection. Again its all relative to your board and everyone elses. You cant predict other peoples selections so you have to base yorus off your board alone.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Thoner7

[BobChalmers]

By your deffinition Koa Misi wouldnt have been a reach at 9 last year because he went one pick before our 2nd round selection. Again its all relative to your board and everyone elses.

 

NO, by my definition, Misi would not be a reach prior to #8 for ANOTHER team because #7 or higher is how high you'd have to go to get him. If the team that takes him at #8 is the only team that wants him in the first round, then THEY reached.

 

It's ALL about what other teams are thinking - GIVEN that it's already a player you want. If you don't want the guy you don't take him.

 

You cant predict other peoples selections so you have to base yorus off your board alone.

 

Right - and here's the absurdity - you think you CAN predict what a college player is going to do over an NFL career, even though about half the 1st round picks disappoint.

 

But you think it's too hard to get a sense of what other teams think of a prospect enough to know WHEN the right time to pick him is.

 

Personally, I think it would be easier to know the present (what other teams are thinking) then predict the future (how a player will actually turn out).

[Sisyphean Bills]

You're proving my point. He's saying trust your eyes when it comes to a player, not a stat sheet divorced from context. Of course, production is important, but my sense is that he's saying that judging it is a function of watching the tape, not counting up the incompletions or the sacks.

I recall one game in particular this past season where Locker had horrific numbers in the first half. Yet the game was close and his ability to create offense out of nothing along with Polk's refuse-to-be-tackled running kept them in it. His passing actually was pretty darn good, despite the awful stat line. He was hitting guys right in the hands and they were dropping the ball like they had been coated in grease before the game. Locker is a physical talent. If he gets a chance to sit and develop ala Favre, he just may be what Razzano believes he is, a very special QB. The better QBs out of this draft class will most likely be the ones that are allowed to come along slowly. They are all projects, but some of them will surely be sacrificed and fed to the wolves early.

[tonyjustbcuz]

He makes Gabbert sound like the next Trent Edwards, that's enough to scare me. I hope Buddy has some rogue in him. Maybe this trade back into the first round talk has some fiber to it. Could be Buddy wants Locker or Colin Kaepernick. Now, I'll have to watch Jurrell Casey as well.

 

 

I still have to open up this article...but I like the idea of the Bills going after Locker or especially Kaepernick!!!! I have seen some draft magazines that compares Christian Ponder to Trent Edwards as a QB..and that scares me away from him! I think Gabbert is overrated and he wasn't even a first rounder prior to Andrew Luck's decision to not declare for the draft!

[thewildrabbit]

I recall one game in particular this past season where Locker had horrific numbers in the first half. Yet the game was close and his ability to create offense out of nothing along with Polk's refuse-to-be-tackled running kept them in it. His passing actually was pretty darn good, despite the awful stat line. He was hitting guys right in the hands and they were dropping the ball like they had been coated in grease before the game. Locker is a physical talent. If he gets a chance to sit and develop ala Favre, he just may be what Razzano believes he is, a very special QB. The better QBs out of this draft class will most likely be the ones that are allowed to come along slowly. They are all projects, but some of them will surely be sacrificed and fed to the wolves early.

Locker had a horrid team around him and still took them to a bowl game and won it. He stated his stats weren't as good this year because he was throwing it away rather then try and force it. The guy has amazing accuracy out of the pocket and considering he really had no pocket most of the time he did pretty well. The thing that I've heard and read about this kid is he is burning to be a great NFL player, when he gets around someone who has played with a superstar NFL QB like John Elway all he does is ask endless questions about how he did things in every aspect. After reading this article it just enhances what I've thought about Locker all along, I like the kid and would like to see Buffalo take him, but I highly doubt he will last to the second round. He will go 25 in the first round where Seattle covets him, I've also heard he might go as early as Washinton,Minn, Miami or Tenn. Dalton is another guy I like better then Newton or Gabbert.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Harvey lives

[DreReed83]

I've been saying this all along. Locker will be the best QB in this year's draft. He has the "it" factor.

Edited April 26, 2011 by DreReed83