PDaDdy Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 You think that his accomplishments have justified the pick? Personaly I don't. You also can't IMO look at the pick in a vacuum. We had 2 solid RBs and little else yet we chose a RB with our top pick. That pick was (IMO) and arrogant move by the Bills new FO and coaching staff. They thought that they had a roster that was a silk purse. All it needed was some tweaking, a new attitude, new coaches. Turns out it was a moth eaten sow's ear. Lynch was all but out the door and Freddy was 29 2 years ago. That's how you justify the pick. If you think the front office was going to keep Lynch despite the screams of an angry pitchfork wielding mob you are as delusional as I used to be. If Spiller was good, how did Gailey not know it? His own RB coach has worked for the HC nearly every year since 2002 and I'm pretty sure Nix and Gailey watched plenty of film of Spiller over the last off-season. Spiller didn't get on the field because the HC didn't think he was ready and was OR the the player wasn't really ready and HC was correct. Regardless, it's an indictment of someone in the organization. Or....maybe....just maybe....they did know how good he was but there weren't enough touches in the game plan to displace Jackson who was playing like the best RB in the league. My point is simply that it was not neccessary to use a #9 on yet another running back, Lynch or no Lynch. It doesn't matter whether or not Spiller is "good." So are Whitner, McKelvin, MaGahee, and Lynch, but they too were wasted picks. We have absolutely no OLBs on the roster, but we used a #9 on a player who cannot beat out a udfa. Dick Drawn makes the point of the w/l record and he is not to be denied. The rbs and dbs have not won us games, even if they are "good." They are easy to get, unlike QBs, LTs and pass rushers. And btw, imo the best player on the field was Dareus, not Spiller. So instead of taking best player available at a position of need you suggest we should have reached for someone else and been the laughing stock of the NFL draft again? What kind of sense does that make. Everybody talks a lot of junk about why we shouldn't have gotten Spiller but nobody talks about what players that were projected to go around #9 we should have taken. Even in hindsight people can't answer that. I'm not talking BS here like saying we could have taken player X that was projected to go 10, 20, 50 picks later I mean someone else that was a legitimate possibility. The Bills almost didn't have any other choice. Don't forget that two years ago FJ wasn't playing like he was this year and he was 29 which is pretty near "put out to pasture" time for a RB. Oh and we are talking best player on offense but you could make a case that it was Spiller for the whole team and I really liked the Dareus pick and his team leading 5.5 sacks from the DE/NT spots.
BillsVet Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Or....maybe....just maybe....they did know how good he was but there weren't enough touches in the game plan to displace Jackson who was playing like the best RB in the league. Weren't enough touches? Spiller had all of 21 carries in the 10 games before FJ was injured. By comparison, in the 13 games Arian Foster played this season, Ben Tate had 116 carries on a team known for throwing the ball. Sure, the offenses are different, but every NFL team employs a two back system. CJ Spiller didn't play because the coaching staff didn't trust him. So which is it? Was the staff inept and didn't know how good Spiller was or is their 9th overall pick actually not good enough to take carries from the other back?
CodeMonkey Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Weren't enough touches? Spiller had all of 21 carries in the 10 games before FJ was injured. By comparison, in the 13 games Arian Foster played this season, Ben Tate had 116 carries on a team known for throwing the ball. Sure, the offenses are different, but every NFL team employs a two back system. CJ Spiller didn't play because the coaching staff didn't trust him. So which is it? Was the staff inept and didn't know how good Spiller was or is their 9th overall pick actually not good enough to take carries from the other back? Not sure what they will do or why they did what they did in the past. But I think I'd split the touches this coming season between Fred and CJ. CJ is not an every down back, but did show he can be effective. While FredEx isn't getting any younger and splitting duties with Spiller might be better for him over the course of the season and might extend his career by a season or two.
PDaDdy Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Weren't enough touches? Spiller had all of 21 carries in the 10 games before FJ was injured. By comparison, in the 13 games Arian Foster played this season, Ben Tate had 116 carries on a team known for throwing the ball. Sure, the offenses are different, but every NFL team employs a two back system. CJ Spiller didn't play because the coaching staff didn't trust him. So which is it? Was the staff inept and didn't know how good Spiller was or is their 9th overall pick actually not good enough to take carries from the other back? Yes there weren't enough carries. Did you stop to think that maybe they run a lot more plays than we do? Well, let me educate you! Total Plays Houston 1063 Buffalo 969 So ...it seems that Houston ran almost 100 more plays than we did in a 16 game season which comes out to a little over 5 more plays a game. Now for the big one: Rushing Plays Houston 546 Buffalo 391 Houston ran about 40% more rushing plays than we did. So ...again there weren't enough touches for Spiller. Not only was Houston not known for throwing the ball they were 30th in the league in passing attempts. Throw on top of that they didn't have to play from behind because they had a top ranked defense. We, unfortunately had the exact opposite. They were in every game because of their defense while we were always in come from behind mode even when we weren't behind. What Houston DID do is lead the league in rushing attempts. Fred probably couldn't have handled too many if any more carries given that he is 30. Basically if we were Houston with their defense and their run first scheme there would have been another 150 or so carries for the rest of our backs or about 9 more a game. We aren't Houston. Throw in the fact that Gailey runs a pass first offense and it's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. Edited January 17, 2012 by PDaDdy
Astrobot Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Once again Spiller was not a luxury pick. The Bills knew how good Jackson was. Everyone did. go and look at that draft. Name one player the Bills should have taken in the first round. The only one is Pierre Paul who was taken 5 picks later. The Bills took the best player available which was Spiller who fell to them. there is nothing luxury about it. the Bills take the best player available period under Buddy Nix. So you won't throw a brick at your TV when this year's pick is Trent Richardson?
PDaDdy Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 So you won't throw a brick at your TV when this year's pick is Trent Richardson? Are we planning on getting rid of Jackson and nobody knows it yet? Spiller was a need pick with Lynch on the way out. This year it's not a need pick. Matter of fact it is one of our few strengths. Of course I do know you're just being obtuse as opposed to contributing something valuable. But...if we do deal Fred, Richardson could be the pick.
Bill from NYC Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 So instead of taking best player available at a position of need you suggest we should have reached for someone else and been the laughing stock of the NFL draft again? What kind of sense does that make. Everybody talks a lot of junk about why we shouldn't have gotten Spiller but nobody talks about what players that were projected to go around #9 we should have taken. Even in hindsight people can't answer that. I'm not talking BS here like saying we could have taken player X that was projected to go 10, 20, 50 picks later I mean someone else that was a legitimate possibility. The Bills almost didn't have any other choice. Don't forget that two years ago FJ wasn't playing like he was this year and he was 29 which is pretty near "put out to pasture" time for a RB. Oh and we are talking best player on offense but you could make a case that it was Spiller for the whole team and I really liked the Dareus pick and his team leading 5.5 sacks from the DE/NT spots. PD, I am making the point that the Spiller selection was part of an ongoing stupid, losing philosophy. Mr. Wilson said that they needed a player to, "add excitement." He meant it imo. Mr. Wilson is a businessman, not a football man, and there is zero reason not to believe that he has not been heavily involved in the Bills drafts. And remember, they FLEW up to the podium and made the selection. There is no reason to suspect that trading down was an impossibility. The other element of stupidity is the emphasis on dbs. WADE PHILLIPPS (not me on a message board) said that he wants players who can rush the quarterback and THEN he will worry about dbs. He is obviously right. We do the opposite and of course lose football games. Imo, it's not about where a player is rated. It's about building a foundation. LaMarr Woodley was a mid second round pick. The Bills need a player like him far more than a flashy, small running back. And as people continue to post, the game has changed. It's about passing and pass pressure these days. Btw, I am not one to demand a consensus. I appreciate the dialogue and hope that you can at least see/consider my points.
Sisyphean Bills Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Yes there weren't enough carries. Did you stop to think that maybe they run a lot more plays than we do? Well, let me educate you! Total Plays Houston 1063 Buffalo 969 So ...it seems that Houston ran almost 100 more plays than we did in a 16 game season which comes out to a little over 5 more plays a game. Now for the big one: Rushing Plays Houston 546 Buffalo 391 Houston ran about 40% more rushing plays than we did. So ...again there weren't enough touches for Spiller. Not only was Houston not known for throwing the ball they were 30th in the league in passing attempts. Throw on top of that they didn't have to play from behind because they had a top ranked defense. We, unfortunately had the exact opposite. They were in every game because of their defense while we were always in come from behind mode even when we weren't behind. What Houston DID do is lead the league in rushing attempts. Fred probably couldn't have handled too many if any more carries given that he is 30. Basically if we were Houston with their defense and their run first scheme there would have been another 150 or so carries for the rest of our backs or about 9 more a game. We aren't Houston. Throw in the fact that Gailey runs a pass first offense and it's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. The team with the closest total number of rushes was the Arizona Cardinals. Like the Bills, they had a #1 back that got the bulk of the work in Wells. The backup backs for the Cardinals accounted for (roughly) 28% of the load. Taking the original figures from above, the Bills split was only 10% of the load by the backup RB before Jackson went on IR. I realize Tashard Choice didn't factor into the mix until later, but if you ignore that he took (more than) 21% of the load off Spiller in overall rushing attempts. Comparing the situations, one might wonder who LaRod Stephens-Howling was and ask if the drop-off between Wells and Stephens-Howling wasn't at least as significant as Jackson to Spiller. The data means that Choice subbed for Spiller more than twice as often as Spiller subbed for Jackson and the Cardinals subbed Wells almost 3 times as often as the Bills did Jackson. That seems significant enough not to be coincidence. In other words, the ratio of carries would support what fans that watched the games often questioned. That the Megamind offense couldn't really figure out how to get the guy they considered the best player in their first at bat in their first draft involved in the offense until injuries at WR and then RB forced him into the rotation. When he was finally used, he seemed to play well and then the GM proudly claimed that he knew it all along. There was the Trent Edwards issue and this year a lot of discussion on the Aaron Maybin issue, especially in contrast to a total lack of ability to put any pressure on a QB. It's pretty unlikely fans will stop wondering and posting about some of these moves. The Packers were the next closest team in terms of gross number of rushing attempts on the regular season. To say their offense favored the pass (and for great reason) would surprise no one. They split the carries almost exactly 50-50% between their top 2 backs however.
PDaDdy Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 PD, I am making the point that the Spiller selection was part of an ongoing stupid, losing philosophy. Mr. Wilson said that they needed a player to, "add excitement." He meant it imo. Mr. Wilson is a businessman, not a football man, and there is zero reason not to believe that he has not been heavily involved in the Bills drafts. And remember, they FLEW up to the podium and made the selection. There is no reason to suspect that trading down was an impossibility. The other element of stupidity is the emphasis on dbs. WADE PHILLIPPS (not me on a message board) said that he wants players who can rush the quarterback and THEN he will worry about dbs. He is obviously right. We do the opposite and of course lose football games. Imo, it's not about where a player is rated. It's about building a foundation. LaMarr Woodley was a mid second round pick. The Bills need a player like him far more than a flashy, small running back. And as people continue to post, the game has changed. It's about passing and pass pressure these days. Btw, I am not one to demand a consensus. I appreciate the dialogue and hope that you can at least see/consider my points. Right on. We don't need consensus. I guess I don't put too much stock into what Ralph says. WE are sort of agreeing. As I have said we would have been just fine with FJ and Lynch but Lynch was on the way out. To me with Fred being 29 at the time RB was a position of need. He had not been given the chance nor was he performing to the level we have now seen so I think at the time it was good idea. We love to make new holes and then use our resources to fill them instead of addressing our weaknesses. Totally agree about Wade Phillips' philosophy about defense. He has a GREAT track record in that respect. The team with the closest total number of rushes was the Arizona Cardinals. Like the Bills, they had a #1 back that got the bulk of the work in Wells. The backup backs for the Cardinals accounted for (roughly) 28% of the load. Taking the original figures from above, the Bills split was only 10% of the load by the backup RB before Jackson went on IR. I realize Tashard Choice didn't factor into the mix until later, but if you ignore that he took (more than) 21% of the load off Spiller in overall rushing attempts. Comparing the situations, one might wonder who LaRod Stephens-Howling was and ask if the drop-off between Wells and Stephens-Howling wasn't at least as significant as Jackson to Spiller. The data means that Choice subbed for Spiller more than twice as often as Spiller subbed for Jackson and the Cardinals subbed Wells almost 3 times as often as the Bills did Jackson. That seems significant enough not to be coincidence. In other words, the ratio of carries would support what fans that watched the games often questioned. That the Megamind offense couldn't really figure out how to get the guy they considered the best player in their first at bat in their first draft involved in the offense until injuries at WR and then RB forced him into the rotation. When he was finally used, he seemed to play well and then the GM proudly claimed that he knew it all along. There was the Trent Edwards issue and this year a lot of discussion on the Aaron Maybin issue, especially in contrast to a total lack of ability to put any pressure on a QB. It's pretty unlikely fans will stop wondering and posting about some of these moves. The Packers were the next closest team in terms of gross number of rushing attempts on the regular season. To say their offense favored the pass (and for great reason) would surprise no one. They split the carries almost exactly 50-50% between their top 2 backs however. Interesting point and also something that baffled me. Obviously Spiller was worlds better than Choice as a rushing and receiving threat. I can't explain the use of Choice other than potentially he is better at blitz pickup.
Recommended Posts