billsfreak Posted April 27, 2011 Posted April 27, 2011 (edited) 2010's Worst Drafts I guess I am not the only one who thinks Buddy and the gang blew their first draft in Buffalo. Let's hope the second time through the process is a charm. Go Bills! Edited April 27, 2011 by billsfreak
Captain Hindsight Posted April 27, 2011 Posted April 27, 2011 If you include Donald Jones and David Nelson Id say it was a pretty solid class.
dave mcbride Posted April 27, 2011 Posted April 27, 2011 This is disturbing, largely because I can't argue with it. None of their first four picks showed much of anything.
LabattBlue Posted April 27, 2011 Posted April 27, 2011 If you include Donald Jones and David Nelson Id say it was a pretty solid class. Why would you include them when the article is grading players that were DRAFTED?
JasoninMT Posted April 27, 2011 Posted April 27, 2011 To pick one small nit... they were 2nd worst by the blogger. Not the worst as the topic title would suggest. I don't disagree w/ the blogger that the draft didn't have an immediate impact. Last year was year 1 of the latest "rebuilding" campaign... we'll have to see how it works out this year (assuming there is a this year). When your team finishes in the bottom 5 of the league - is there much positive to say about them?
mattsox Posted April 27, 2011 Posted April 27, 2011 The 2010 draft was a piss poor draft. If you can't get 3-4 starters out that group, that counts as a bad draft to me. They have to do waaay better starting tomorrow night, if they want to get out of the cellar. They should know this, but it is the Bills. You know, the guys who are too smart for us and know what their doing. Obviously Tom Modrak is god and we're just pee-ons compared to his knowledge of scouting talent.
billsfreak Posted April 27, 2011 Author Posted April 27, 2011 If you include Donald Jones and David Nelson Id say it was a pretty solid class. They were pleasant surprises, but since they weren't drafted, and that is what the article is about they aren't included. Like I have said in the recent past, the Bills got as much if not more production from the undrafted rookies in 2010 than they did from their draft picks.
K-9 Posted April 27, 2011 Posted April 27, 2011 Typical knee-jerk evaluation by another writer that doesn't know any better and hasn't learned a thing about the process over the years. Then again, if a writer had to wait the three years it takes to properly evaluate a draft, they wouldn't have much to write about in the interim. Nobody involved in the game itself subscribes to the line of thinking that one season is enough to evaluate a draft. There has ALWAYS been pressure to win NOW and there has ALWAYS been pressure to make the right personnel decisions. However, there is one thing worse than drafting a player that doesn't look good his rookie year and that's cutting him too soon and seeing him become a great player for someone else. Teams simply have too much invested in the process to think otherwise. While the cap increases the pressure to "hit" on players immediately, the lack of a crystal ball still makes it an inexact science. But hey, if you like fast-food football, by all means eat this up. GO BILLS!!!
Johnny Hammersticks Posted April 27, 2011 Posted April 27, 2011 The 2010 draft was a piss poor draft. If you can't get 3-4 starters out that group, that counts as a bad draft to me. They have to do waaay better starting tomorrow night, if they want to get out of the cellar. They should know this, but it is the Bills. You know, the guys who are too smart for us and know what their doing. Obviously Tom Modrak is god and we're just pee-ons compared to his knowledge of scouting talent. Your logic, IMO, is pretty ridiculous. So the barometer for a successful draft class is finding 3-4 immediate starters? Do some research, and find some teams that got 3-4 immediate starters from the 2010 draft. I'll wait.....
Thoner7 Posted April 27, 2011 Posted April 27, 2011 Your logic, IMO, is pretty ridiculous. So the barometer for a successful draft class is finding 3-4 immediate starters? Do some research, and find some teams that got 3-4 immediate starters from the 2010 draft. I'll wait..... The pats did. And yes I agree that is pretty rediculous expectations for most teams, but considering how terrible our roster is and how high our draft slot is, I would almost expect to see 3-4 starters added this year, and I think we could have done that last year too.
Wagon Circler Posted April 27, 2011 Posted April 27, 2011 Last year's draft looks terrible right now but can still be saved if Troupe, Carrington, Easley and the LB's develop. I'm not counting on Spiller ever being much.
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted April 27, 2011 Posted April 27, 2011 I do understand where angst comes from. If you have such a lousey team then rookies should more easily make an impact and be more likely to be the starters. Perhaps though only better teams can afford to plug in rookies and weather rookie mistakes because the other talent can better compensate and the team can afford the increase in athletic talent at the expense of experience. That combined with coaching philosophy might be the answer to why the bills rookies may still have a bright future despite year one. Even moats started slowly and he has been the star of the bills class I feel. I do agree that spillers struggles are a big concern. But he showed glimpses and I think even he could be in for a vastly better year. Easley and Batten are also completely unknown.
The Cincinnati Kid Posted April 27, 2011 Posted April 27, 2011 I dont think you can judge a draft after 1 season of play. I think you need 3-4 years before you judge a draft. Personally, I like Troup and Carrington. We'll see. Jury is still out.
Koufax Posted April 27, 2011 Posted April 27, 2011 Very funny stuff. The only thing less useful than a 2010 draft grade right now is a 2011 draft grade. I know everyone is rightly disappointed in Spiller's 2010 season, but I think he is being thrown into the Maybin pile way too soon. Whether this was a good draft or not will be determined in a couple years, when Carrington and Troup and Easley and Moats could all be starting, and Spiller may have learned to pick up the blitz and hit the hole and be an impact player. Not saying that will happen or won't happen, but how good this class is depends on if it does happen or not, not on the 4-12 2010 team's performance.
JESSEFEFFER Posted April 27, 2011 Posted April 27, 2011 It's semantics really. Judging the spectrum of worst to best based on one year is premature. Judging it based on "first year impact" of the class is more in line with what is being done here. In that case, I can't disagree that the Bill's 2010 draft was low impact in a situation where the opportunity was there to have a high impact.
dayman Posted April 27, 2011 Posted April 27, 2011 Last year's draft looks terrible right now but can still be saved if Troupe, Carrington, Easley and the LB's develop. I'm not counting on Spiller ever being much. I agree it can be saved long term if these guys show up. But as bad as we were it was rough to not have them make a bigger impact. And Spiller will be something man, have faith. Jesus...Spiller didn't blow up but he didn't look terrible give him time. Bush is a good player in the league and he struggled. The idea backs just come in and explode right away is not true. A lot of them take time. Freddy himself took a long time, and had a long time, to get to where he is. Spiller is talented. More so than Fred.
Sisyphean Bills Posted April 27, 2011 Posted April 27, 2011 It's semantics really. Judging the spectrum of worst to best based on one year is premature. Judging it based on "first year impact" of the class is more in line with what is being done here. In that case, I can't disagree that the Bill's 2010 draft was low impact in a situation where the opportunity was there to have a high impact. And then you have Buddy sticking to his board and drafting the BPA... maybe the problem is the board? Nah.
Ramius Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 If having a "disaster" draft like Chicago did gets you to the conference championship game, i'll take those "disasters" all day long.
billsfreak Posted April 28, 2011 Author Posted April 28, 2011 (edited) I dont think you can judge a draft after 1 season of play. I think you need 3-4 years before you judge a draft. Personally, I like Troup and Carrington. We'll see. Jury is still out. I agree that it might take a little time, but if you wait 4 years, you will be saying that that pick finally turned out to be good now that he is playing for another team because his rookie contract is up and he left as a free agent. That is the reality of the NFL today, so is that really a good draft, when they finally pan out after 3 or 4 years just in time to leave for big bucks somewhere else? What does the team that drafts them get out of it besides at best a low compensatory pick in the draft? I agree it can be saved long term if these guys show up. But as bad as we were it was rough to not have them make a bigger impact. And Spiller will be something man, have faith. Jesus...Spiller didn't blow up but he didn't look terrible give him time. Bush is a good player in the league and he struggled. The idea backs just come in and explode right away is not true. A lot of them take time. Freddy himself took a long time, and had a long time, to get to where he is. Spiller is talented. More so than Fred. If you ever watched Spiller trying to block in the backfield, yes he did look terrible-"lost" is another good way to describe his rookie year. He WAS the biggest disappointment in the entire draft when you take the draft slot, expectations and everything else in consideration. Edited April 28, 2011 by billsfreak
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 don't you need at least 3 years before you can claim a deaft a bust? And maybe this writer / hack should talk to Tim Graham who indicated the Bills have actually drafted as well if not better than the AFCE and more!
Recommended Posts