A Few Thoughts About The Game, in no partIcular order.....

[Orton's Arm]

This has been argued a million times but it's the end of the day and I have some time to kill.

 

1) Yes, Ngata should have been the pick but you gloss over several facts. We just signed Tripplet, who was solid player for the Colts and then drafted McCargo. To act like they didn't address the position is short sighted.

 

2) Bill has the old school football mentality that is completely outdated now. DBs are more important than ever. The reason the Jets can play defense with very average pass rushers is because they have excellent corners. Also, Pittsburgh is a llowed to play the way the do because of Troy P.

 

Whitner was a reach at #8, but if he did become the player they hoped he would be, it would be more than justified in today's NFL. Safties are getting picked higher than ever. Also, the guy starts on the best defense in the NFL. He can't be that terrible.

 

3) Cutler has been to the playoffs once in his career. Let's not act like he's some special Qb. Perhaps, this is the year for him to finally mature but the Bills thought they can fix Losman. and one of the worst things you can do is give up too early on a QB. Obviously, Losman busted.

 

I do agree the Bills need to address the position in the draft but I hate the idea of reaching for a guy. I was praying they didn't reach for guys like Gabbert and Tannehill. But I 100% agree they need to get a truly talented guy for once. I love Fitz' attitude but there's little doubt he's limited. If the Bills have a chance to make a RG3 type deal for a guy like Barkley this offseason, I'd support it 100%.

 

 

 

Football is still a team game. Doesn't that mean Barry Sanders wasn't a good player because his team rarely won? Or that Antowain Smith was a good rb because he won with the Pats?

> 1) Yes, Ngata should have been the pick

 

Either Ngata or Cutler.

 

> We just signed Tripplet, who was solid player for the Colts and then drafted McCargo. To act like they didn't address the position is short sighted.

 

My concern was not about whether the defensive line had been addressed. My concern was that the Bills passed over superior football players (Cutler and Ngata) to reach for an inferior football player (Whitner), at a position of much less importance than QB. The purpose of your first round picks should be to assemble a core of very good football players. The Bills had a golden opportunity to acquire two core players in the 2006 draft (Cutler with the 8th overall pick, Mangold with the pick used on McCargo). Unfortunately, that opportunity was squandered by a front office which was both myopic and blinkered. Myopic, because they were focused on that particular season, not on the long-term. Blinkered, because they went into that draft convinced they needed to take a DT + SS with their first two picks--and therefore ignored better players at other positions.

 

> 2) Bill has the old school football mentality that is completely outdated now. DBs are more important than ever.

 

I agree that if your team has a good secondary, a lot of things become possible on defense! But as nice as it would be to have a good secondary, you can't use early picks on DBs expected to go first-contract and out! You just can't! Well, technically you can, but if you do you'll lose more games than you win.

 

> Whitner was a reach at #8, but if he did become the player they hoped he would be, it would be more than justified in today's NFL.

 

Not if Cutler also became the QB the Broncos hoped that he'd be. A good QB is much, much more valuable than a good SS.

 

> 3) Cutler has been to the playoffs once in his career. Let's not act like he's some special Qb.

 

Football is a team sport. John Elway was on plenty of 7-9 teams due to the lack of a good supporting cast. While not every QB on a 7-9 team is John Elway, Cutler's stats are worth a closer look. Over the course of his career, Cutler has averaged 7.3 yards per pass attempt. In 2010 it was 7.6 yards per attempt; and in 2011 it was 7.4 yards per attempt. A QB should average at least 7.2 - 7.4 yards per attempt to be considered franchise. As of right now Cutler's stats put him in the "borderline franchise" category. To put Cutler's career average into perspective, Peyton Manning's career average is 7.6 yards per attempt--slightly higher than Cutler's. Mark Sanchez has averaged 6.5 yards per attempt over the course of his career. There's a reason the Bears were willing to trade away two first round picks for Cutler.

 

> I do agree the Bills need to address the position in the draft but I hate the idea of reaching for a

> guy. . . . If the Bills have a chance to make a RG3 type deal for a guy like Barkley this offseason,

> I'd support it 100%.

 

Same here. I would support trading the entire roster for a player like Andrew Luck.

 

> Football is still a team game. Doesn't that mean Barry Sanders wasn't a good player because his team rarely won?

 

Sounds like the same point I made earlier WRT Cutler and his playoff appearances!

[JohnC]

John, this will be my final post wrt Spiller on this thread, and for the week. Next week, I will comment on his body of work, OK?

 

I don't play fantasy football. I don't knock it mind you, But from my point of view, I see the possibility that it could alter my view of the game, and make me look at stats more than I should. For instance, if Fitz throws zero picks next week and a td or 2, his overall stats will not look so bad. I think that we can agree on this. But, will this make him a legit QB? You tell me, my friend.

In this thread, a poster shared a stat that Spiller, in virtually the same amount of carries as FJ, had the same amount of fumbles. I thank said poster for this info, but does it make you wonder why FJ was clearly viewed as the starter coming into the season? Dropped passes, picking up blitzes, passes off of his hand for ints might enter into the equation, no? But these things don't always show uo in fantasy stats.

I want wins just like you John, and every other fan on this board. The Bills are 1-6 in games in which Spiller started. Do I blame him exclusively? Absolutely NOT!!! But I DO want him to improve on the things that he needs work on. I want him to take over a game and win it for us, and he has the actual talent to do so.

 

Now, am I a bit shell shocked from the way this team has been managed? Of course. Our secondary alone boasts 2 early second round picks, and 2 early firsts. Who had our only interception? Yes, this is frustrating. The OL, which I have bitched about for years on end, looks pretty good. And we are STILLL losing. As Edward's Arm said, we have devoted untold resources to RBs and DBs, and it has only resulted in losses.

 

In any event, if I was a bit rough on Spiller, do see where it was coming from. I want this team to win!!! I want wins from those to whom we devoted major resources, and who are very well paid. The exception would be McKelvin. He, imo, should be traded or tossed.

 

Thanks, as always, for the dialogue.

 

There are a number of problems that can be enumerated regarding the ownership, organization and the roster that contribute to the long term mediocre record of this franchise. There is no one simple reason for the team's long term struggles. However, if you want to focus on one of the major reasons for the team's lackluster caliber of play it is due to the pedestrian level of qb play.

 

A talented qb, even if it is a raw rookie, can elevate the standard of play for a team. Cam Newton was a good example of that last year and RGIII would be a good premature example of that for the Redskins.

 

Spiller performed well last year. He wasn't a major reason for the team's losses. He was an asset, not a liability. I recognize that Fitz was playing hurt last year but overall it was the lack of quallity play at the qb position that contributed to the team's dramatic fade last year.

 

Last year, when Spiller played behind Jackson it shouldn't be considered a slight. One can make a claim that Jackson was one of the best, if not the best back in the league. As a young player he was still in a learning and developing stage. When Spiller got an opportunity to play full time he played at a high level. The mounting losses in the second half of the year were certainly not due to his level of play.

 

For the most part teams that are successful and are serious contenders have upper echelon qbs. This year, the only exception I can think of for a SB contending team is Smith, the qb for the 49ers. He is a manager type of qb compared to a play making type of qb. The Bills with Fitz have an adequate qb. It is not going to take you too far.

 

note: I don't play fantasy football. I'm well aware that stats don't always tell how well a player played or the extent of contributing to a team's performance. Whatever Fitz's stats are don't always reveal how good a player he is or is not. When you watch an upper echelon qb and watch Fitz perform it doesn't take much ability to recognize that there is a great difference. Even with superlative intangibles his physical limitations can not be compensated for.

[D521646]

Good insight. Might be the only reason I hung around to see what you said.

 

BS.. Sorry but Bills "insight" is anything but..

 

Look, we lost because of a few factors.

 

1. Fitz was way off on Sunday, this should and will be corrected.

 

2. The Jets wanted it way more than we did and played physical enough to earn it.

 

3. Our pass rush needs bump and run press cover in order to work, this is a coaching mistake and a very obvious one which if anything gives me serious pause for concern that the game might have passed Wanny by.

 

4. Sanchez 90% of the time stuck to the game plan of 3-step drops. It was clear that this was their plan from the 10 minute mark of the first quarter. Again a coaching error.

 

5. SJ looked noticebly hobbled and not sharp out there.

 

6. Jets played press coverage roughly 75% of the time and timing was way off for both receivers and QB.

 

7. We failed to make adjustments.

 

Positives:

 

1. Despite Bill's rant on CJ (Which gives on pause for his observationla credibility) He played well and looked hungry.

 

2. Feddie isn't gone the whole year.

 

3. Oline was good, very good in fact and was NOT the problem Sunday.

 

4. This is just one game and if we have any coaching at all it better show up this Sunday by both Gaily and Wanny.

 

 

Tim-

[Orton's Arm]

There are a number of problems that can be enumerated regarding the ownership, organization and the roster that contribute to the long term mediocre record of this franchise. There is no one simple reason for the team's long term struggles. However, if you want to focus on one of the major reasons for the team's lackluster caliber of play it is due to the pedestrian level of qb play.

 

A talented qb, even if it is a raw rookie, can elevate the standard of play for a team. Cam Newton was a good example of that last year and RGIII would be a good premature example of that for the Redskins.

 

Spiller performed well last year. He wasn't a major reason for the team's losses. He was an asset, not a liability. I recognize that Fitz was playing hurt last year but overall it was the lack of quallity play at the qb position that contributed to the team's dramatic fade last year.

 

Last year, when Spiller played behind Jackson it shouldn't be considered a slight. One can make a claim that Jackson was one of the best, if not the best back in the league. As a young player he was still in a learning and developing stage. When Spiller got an opportunity to play full time he played at a high level. The mounting losses in the second half of the year were certainly not due to his level of play.

 

For the most part teams that are successful and are serious contenders have upper echelon qbs. This year, the only exception I can think of for a SB contending team is Smith, the qb for the 49ers. He is a manager type of qb compared to a play making type of qb. The Bills with Fitz have an adequate qb. It is not going to take you too far.

 

note: I don't play fantasy football. I'm well aware that stats don't always tell how well a player played or the extent of contributing to a team's performance. Whatever Fitz's stats are don't always reveal how good a player he is or is not. When you watch an upper echelon qb and watch Fitz perform it doesn't take much ability to recognize that there is a great difference. Even with superlative intangibles his physical limitations can not be compensated for.

Thanks for taking the time to write a well thought-out post.

 

> However, if you want to focus on one of the major reasons for the team's lackluster caliber of play it is due to the pedestrian level of qb play.

 

I strongly agree with that. This comes back to a point I made earlier: over the last 40 years, the Bills have used between 0 - 1.5 of their first picks of the draft on a QB. During that same span, they've used 10 of their first picks of the draft on RBs, and another 10 on DBs. (Jim Kelly was taken 16th overall back in '83. But he was not the Bills' first pick of the draft that year: they took a TE 14th overall. That's where the 0.5 comes from, on the theory that 16th overall isn't much different than 14th overall.)

 

Everyone points to Tom Brady as an example of why you don't always need to use a first round pick to get a franchise QB. But it's been over ten years since the Patriots chose Brady. Since then, no franchise QBs have entered the league either as draft picks in rounds 4 - 7, or as UDFAs.

 

The Bills have made several categories of QB-related errors over the years.

• Failing to take a QB in the first round when he was among the best available players when they picked. Passing up Cutler to take Whitner is a good example of this.
  
• Drafting a QB too early based on need, and on physical measurables. The Losman pick.
  
• Failure to trade into a draft position where a QB would have become the best player available.

 

I'd like to dwell a little on that last point, because I see it as the single most important reason for the Bills' failure to find a franchise QB other than Kelly. In the 2011 draft the Bills could have traded down a few slots, and could have taken a QB like Locker or Ponder. I realize this would have meant giving up Dareus. In the (highly) unlikely event that no one would have wanted to trade up to 3rd overall, then you take Locker or Ponder there.

 

In his rookie season, Ponder averaged 6.4 yards per attempt; compared to a career average of 6.5 yards per attempt for Sanchez; and 6.8 - 6.7 yards per attempt for Fitz in 2010 and 2011; and 6.1 yards per attempt for Fitz in his first game of 2012. Ponder averaged 10 yards per attempt in the first game of this season. Locker averaged 8.2 yards per attempt last season, albeit in about two games' worth of passing attempts. He averaged 7.2 yards per attempt in the first game of this season. It's too early to say whether Ponder or Locker will become franchise QBs. But their names certainly belong in any discussion about what Nix could have done to address the QB position.

 

Based on the last 10 - 15 years of Bills' front office management, if the Bills had the 5th overall pick, and if the best QBs were expected to be gone by 3rd overall, I would fully expect the Bills to stand pat, and not try to trade up. Or at most, they'd inquire about a trade, then walk away after deciding the price was too high. Then they'd take some non-QB at 5th overall; and the search for The Guy would be postponed another year. At some point the Bills need to identify the guy they want. He needs to be a real quarterback: not the fourth-best quarterback in a draft where everyone else is talking about the big three. Once they've identified him, they should happily pay whatever price is necessary to move up to get him.

[Dr. K]

Thanks for taking the time to write a well thought-out post.

 

> However, if you want to focus on one of the major reasons for the team's lackluster caliber of play it is due to the pedestrian level of qb play.

 

I strongly agree with that. This comes back to a point I made earlier: over the last 40 years, the Bills have used between 0 - 1.5 of their first picks of the draft on a QB. During that same span, they've used 10 of their first picks of the draft on RBs, and another 10 on DBs. (Jim Kelly was taken 16th overall back in '83. But he was not the Bills' first pick of the draft that year: they took a TE 14th overall. That's where the 0.5 comes from, on the theory that 16th overall isn't much different than 14th overall.)

 

Everyone points to Tom Brady as an example of why you don't always need to use a first round pick to get a franchise QB. But it's been over ten years since the Patriots chose Brady. Since then, no franchise QBs have entered the league either as draft picks in rounds 4 - 7, or as UDFAs.

 

The Bills have made several categories of QB-related errors over the years.

• Failing to take a QB in the first round when he was among the best available players when they picked. Passing up Cutler to take Whitner is a good example of this.
  
• Drafting a QB too early based on need, and on physical measurables. The Losman pick.
  
• Failure to trade into a draft position where a QB would have become the best player available.
  

I'd like to dwell a little on that last point, because I see it as the single most important reason for the Bills' failure to find a franchise QB other than Kelly. In the 2011 draft the Bills could have traded down a few slots, and could have taken a QB like Locker or Ponder. I realize this would have meant giving up Dareus. In the (highly) unlikely event that no one would have wanted to trade up to 3rd overall, then you take Locker or Ponder there.

 

In his rookie season, Ponder averaged 6.4 yards per attempt; compared to a career average of 6.5 yards per attempt for Sanchez; and 6.8 - 6.7 yards per attempt for Fitz in 2010 and 2011; and 6.1 yards per attempt for Fitz in his first game of 2012. Ponder averaged 10 yards per attempt in the first game of this season. Locker averaged 8.2 yards per attempt last season, albeit in about two games' worth of passing attempts. He averaged 7.2 yards per attempt in the first game of this season. It's too early to say whether Ponder or Locker will become franchise QBs. But their names certainly belong in any discussion about what Nix could have done to address the QB position.

 

Based on the last 10 - 15 years of Bills' front office management, if the Bills had the 5th overall pick, and if the best QBs were expected to be gone by 3rd overall, I would fully expect the Bills to stand pat, and not try to trade up. Or at most, they'd inquire about a trade, then walk away after deciding the price was too high. Then they'd take some non-QB at 5th overall; and the search for The Guy would be postponed another year. At some point the Bills need to identify the guy they want. He needs to be a real quarterback: not the fourth-best quarterback in a draft where everyone else is talking about the big three. Once they've identified him, they should happily pay whatever price is necessary to move up to get him.

 

This makes sense to me. The Bills are going to have to move up to get a blue chip QB prospect, and then hope to hell he isn't Jamarcus Russell or Vinde Young one of the other "can't miss" QB prospects who fail to work out. It will be a big risk, but I agree that the lack of a first rate QB is holding this team back.

[Coach Tuesday]

Thanks for taking the time to write a well thought-out post.

 

> However, if you want to focus on one of the major reasons for the team's lackluster caliber of play it is due to the pedestrian level of qb play.

 

I strongly agree with that. This comes back to a point I made earlier: over the last 40 years, the Bills have used between 0 - 1.5 of their first picks of the draft on a QB. During that same span, they've used 10 of their first picks of the draft on RBs, and another 10 on DBs. (Jim Kelly was taken 16th overall back in '83. But he was not the Bills' first pick of the draft that year: they took a TE 14th overall. That's where the 0.5 comes from, on the theory that 16th overall isn't much different than 14th overall.)

 

Everyone points to Tom Brady as an example of why you don't always need to use a first round pick to get a franchise QB. But it's been over ten years since the Patriots chose Brady. Since then, no franchise QBs have entered the league either as draft picks in rounds 4 - 7, or as UDFAs.

 

The Bills have made several categories of QB-related errors over the years.

• Failing to take a QB in the first round when he was among the best available players when they picked. Passing up Cutler to take Whitner is a good example of this.
  
• Drafting a QB too early based on need, and on physical measurables. The Losman pick.
  
• Failure to trade into a draft position where a QB would have become the best player available.
  

I'd like to dwell a little on that last point, because I see it as the single most important reason for the Bills' failure to find a franchise QB other than Kelly. In the 2011 draft the Bills could have traded down a few slots, and could have taken a QB like Locker or Ponder. I realize this would have meant giving up Dareus. In the (highly) unlikely event that no one would have wanted to trade up to 3rd overall, then you take Locker or Ponder there.

 

In his rookie season, Ponder averaged 6.4 yards per attempt; compared to a career average of 6.5 yards per attempt for Sanchez; and 6.8 - 6.7 yards per attempt for Fitz in 2010 and 2011; and 6.1 yards per attempt for Fitz in his first game of 2012. Ponder averaged 10 yards per attempt in the first game of this season. Locker averaged 8.2 yards per attempt last season, albeit in about two games' worth of passing attempts. He averaged 7.2 yards per attempt in the first game of this season. It's too early to say whether Ponder or Locker will become franchise QBs. But their names certainly belong in any discussion about what Nix could have done to address the QB position.

 

Based on the last 10 - 15 years of Bills' front office management, if the Bills had the 5th overall pick, and if the best QBs were expected to be gone by 3rd overall, I would fully expect the Bills to stand pat, and not try to trade up. Or at most, they'd inquire about a trade, then walk away after deciding the price was too high. Then they'd take some non-QB at 5th overall; and the search for The Guy would be postponed another year. At some point the Bills need to identify the guy they want. He needs to be a real quarterback: not the fourth-best quarterback in a draft where everyone else is talking about the big three. Once they've identified him, they should happily pay whatever price is necessary to move up to get him.

 

There were pretty strong rumors that the Bills were attempting to trade back into Rd 1 to take Ponder - the Vikes took him much earlier than anticipated.

[Orton's Arm]

Wtf re: Lynch?? He had a great year last year, as anyone who actually watched the Seahawks play can tell you. The only guy who had a higher ypc was Leon Washington (4.7 to 4.2), and he ran it 53 times to Lynch's 285. In his final season with the Bills, he led the league in ypc after the first hit. Sure, his numbers weren't good, but a lot of that wasn't him. I'm not trying to justify the Lynch pick - after all, McGahee remained a good player and has a pretty decent chance to get 10,000 yards. But let's not miss the fact that Lynch is actually quite good. Also, be careful about twisting stats when your eyes can see that he's a guy who always gets the safety up in the box.

A perfect RB should be part offensive lineman (blitz pickup), part WR (catching passes out of the backfield), and very good at running the ball. Not that Thurman Thomas was perfect, but he was very good in all three areas. Fred Jackson is also an example of this kind of complete football player.

 

I don't put Lynch into that kind of complete football player category. I view him as more of a specialist: with his specialty being to pound the ball between the tackles. He lacks the instinctive elusiveness of Fred Jackson, or the speed of Spiller (or even Jackson's speed, for that matter).

 

There are times when pounding the ball between the tackles is exactly what your football team needs. A guy like Lynch can inflict punishment on the defense, take punishment himself, and physically haul defenders forward for an extra yard or two most other RBs wouldn't have gotten. If Marv had taken a RB like that in the third or fourth round, I wouldn't have complained at all. But to take a player with that skill set at 12th overall is absurd.

 

When the time came to trade Lynch away, nobody offered the Bills a first round pick. Or even a second round pick. The best they could do was a 4th + 6th round pick. A "pound the ball between the tackles" RB just isn't that valuable, even when he's as strong and physical as Lynch.

[Orton's Arm]

 

There were pretty strong rumors that the Bills were attempting to trade back into Rd 1 to take Ponder - the Vikes took him much earlier than anticipated.

Agreed. If there's a QB you want, it's always best to err on the side of taking him too early. (As opposed to trying to save on draft picks by letting him fall to you.) There are plenty of teams which need QBs. Generally, at least one of those teams will also be willing to take the QB too early--especially if the QB has established himself as a pocket passer at the college level.

[JohnC]

Thanks for taking the time to write a well thought-out post.

 

> However, if you want to focus on one of the major reasons for the team's lackluster caliber of play it is due to the pedestrian level of qb play.

 

I strongly agree with that. This comes back to a point I made earlier: over the last 40 years, the Bills have used between 0 - 1.5 of their first picks of the draft on a QB. During that same span, they've used 10 of their first picks of the draft on RBs, and another 10 on DBs. (Jim Kelly was taken 16th overall back in '83. But he was not the Bills' first pick of the draft that year: they took a TE 14th overall. That's where the 0.5 comes from, on the theory that 16th overall isn't much different than 14th overall.)

 

Everyone points to Tom Brady as an example of why you don't always need to use a first round pick to get a franchise QB. But it's been over ten years since the Patriots chose Brady. Since then, no franchise QBs have entered the league either as draft picks in rounds 4 - 7, or as UDFAs.

 

The Bills have made several categories of QB-related errors over the years.

• Failing to take a QB in the first round when he was among the best available players when they picked. Passing up Cutler to take Whitner is a good example of this.
  
• Drafting a QB too early based on need, and on physical measurables. The Losman pick.
  
• Failure to trade into a draft position where a QB would have become the best player available.
  

I'd like to dwell a little on that last point, because I see it as the single most important reason for the Bills' failure to find a franchise QB other than Kelly. In the 2011 draft the Bills could have traded down a few slots, and could have taken a QB like Locker or Ponder. I realize this would have meant giving up Dareus. In the (highly) unlikely event that no one would have wanted to trade up to 3rd overall, then you take Locker or Ponder there.

 

In his rookie season, Ponder averaged 6.4 yards per attempt; compared to a career average of 6.5 yards per attempt for Sanchez; and 6.8 - 6.7 yards per attempt for Fitz in 2010 and 2011; and 6.1 yards per attempt for Fitz in his first game of 2012. Ponder averaged 10 yards per attempt in the first game of this season. Locker averaged 8.2 yards per attempt last season, albeit in about two games' worth of passing attempts. He averaged 7.2 yards per attempt in the first game of this season. It's too early to say whether Ponder or Locker will become franchise QBs. But their names certainly belong in any discussion about what Nix could have done to address the QB position.

 

Based on the last 10 - 15 years of Bills' front office management, if the Bills had the 5th overall pick, and if the best QBs were expected to be gone by 3rd overall, I would fully expect the Bills to stand pat, and not try to trade up. Or at most, they'd inquire about a trade, then walk away after deciding the price was too high. Then they'd take some non-QB at 5th overall; and the search for The Guy would be postponed another year. At some point the Bills need to identify the guy they want. He needs to be a real quarterback: not the fourth-best quarterback in a draft where everyone else is talking about the big three. Once they've identified him, they should happily pay whatever price is necessary to move up to get him.

 

Your post is excellent. However, I differ with you on the issue of not drafting Dareus and instead taking Ponder or Locker, even if it involved a trade down with acquiring additional picks. I'm not making the assumption that Ponder or Locker is going to be a good qb or not. The issue comes down to in that particular draft whether the organization believes that those prospects are the caliber of qbs you want to build your franchise around. I liked Ponder a lot coming into that draft. But in my view he was a lower first round caliber of player. I also liked Locker a lot. But the issue with him is his accuracy. Will he become more accurate as time goes on? Probably. But given that particular concern over his passing abilities I understand why the organization bypassed him for the more safe pick in Dareus.

 

My criticism of the organization has little to do with a particular draft mistake (although they are too numerious to mention). My criticism is that over a long period of time (more than a decade) this organization has not been successful in filling the most important position with a high quality prospect. Why is it that the Ravens could maneuver back into the lower first round and select Flacco, who is now emerging as an upper tier qb? Why is it that the Packers drafted Rodgers in the lower portion of the first round and developed him to the level where many people believe he is the best qb in the game?

 

I understand that when a team is bad there are no quick fixes. Elite qbs are not easily found. But when the time frame is more than a decade and the most critical position on the team is still inadequately staffed then that it is a reflection of organizational ineptitude.

 

I'm not a Fitz basher. He is what he is: a mediocre caliber starting qb or a good backup qb. That level of qb is not going to get the organization very far. He is the type of qb that can get an above average team to be a fringe wildcard playoff contender. We can do better!

 

There are times when pounding the ball between the tackles is exactly what your football team needs. A guy like Lynch can inflict punishment on the defense, take punishment himself, and physically haul defenders forward for an extra yard or two most other RBs wouldn't have gotten. If Marv had taken a RB like that in the third or fourth round, I wouldn't have complained at all. But to take a player with that skill set at 12th overall is absurd.

 

When the time came to trade Lynch away, nobody offered the Bills a first round pick. Or even a second round pick. The best they could do was a 4th + 6th round pick. A "pound the ball between the tackles" RB just isn't that valuable, even when he's as strong and physical as Lynch.

 

Lynch's value was severly depreciated due to his troublesome behavior off the field. Because he was on the league's watch list for repeated bad behavior he was a known character risk that a lot a team's didn't what to deal with, regardless of his talent level.

Edited September 11, 2012 by JohnC

[dave mcbride]

A perfect RB should be part offensive lineman (blitz pickup), part WR (catching passes out of the backfield), and very good at running the ball. Not that Thurman Thomas was perfect, but he was very good in all three areas. Fred Jackson is also an example of this kind of complete football player.

 

I don't put Lynch into that kind of complete football player category. I view him as more of a specialist: with his specialty being to pound the ball between the tackles. He lacks the instinctive elusiveness of Fred Jackson, or the speed of Spiller (or even Jackson's speed, for that matter).

 

There are times when pounding the ball between the tackles is exactly what your football team needs. A guy like Lynch can inflict punishment on the defense, take punishment himself, and physically haul defenders forward for an extra yard or two most other RBs wouldn't have gotten. If Marv had taken a RB like that in the third or fourth round, I wouldn't have complained at all. But to take a player with that skill set at 12th overall is absurd.

 

When the time came to trade Lynch away, nobody offered the Bills a first round pick. Or even a second round pick. The best they could do was a 4th + 6th round pick. A "pound the ball between the tackles" RB just isn't that valuable, even when he's as strong and physical as Lynch.

Like I said, I'm not justifying the Lynch pick. I'm just saying he's pretty good. He's not a terrible receiver either.

 

The bigger question - in retrospect, why did we let McGahee go? He's actually still good, and we ended up getting pretty much nothing for him!!

[RuntheDamnBall]

 

Like I said, I'm not justifying the Lynch pick. I'm just saying he's pretty good. He's not a terrible receiver either.

 

The bigger question - in retrospect, why did we let McGahee go? He's actually still good, and we ended up getting pretty much nothing for him!!

Drafting shiny new RBs is fun!

 

In all seriousness, this is even less defensible than the coterie of DBs they have spent high picks on, at least many DBs see the field at once and it's such a passing league that you always need good ones. The bills have always had upper echelon / top-15 backs and not much else.

[KOKBILLS]

Fumbles like his give away football games. This is nothing new either. Passes fly off his hands for interceptions as well. He will not be an elite player until he fixes his bad habits. His stats were great. Now, how about him winning us a football game? How many has he won for us? Serioulsy, you tell me!

 

Zero point zero zero...

 

Like I said, I'm not justifying the Lynch pick. I'm just saying he's pretty good. He's not a terrible receiver either.

 

The bigger question - in retrospect, why did we let McGahee go? He's actually still good, and we ended up getting pretty much nothing for him!!

 

We end up getting pretty much nothing for anybody because we can't hit on a Draft Pick to save our freaking lives...

[GG]

 

 

The bigger question - in retrospect, why did we let McGahee go? He's actually still good, and we ended up getting pretty much nothing for him!!

 

Something to do with Buffalo lack of culture, museums and Golden Corral.

[truth on hold]

 

Like I said, I'm not justifying the Lynch pick. I'm just saying he's pretty good. He's not a terrible receiver either.

 

The bigger question - in retrospect, why did we let McGahee go? He's actually still good, and we ended up getting pretty much nothing for him!!

He had the audacity of saying south Florida had more things to do than Buffalo. Even though vacantion travel btw the 2 cities would wholly support Buffalonians feel the same.

[Hplarrm]

Fumbles like his give away football games. This is nothing new either. Passes fly off his hands for interceptions as well. He will not be an elite player until he fixes his bad habits. His stats were great. Now, how about him winning us a football game? How many has he won for us? Serioulsy, you tell me!

 

I don't think anyone can correctly point to games Spiller won for this team. However, I also do not think that it is reasonable to expect him to "prove" he was a worthwhile pick (even a worthwhile top 10 pick) that the demand for folks to be excited about his performance is that he demonstrate he is an HoF worthy player.

 

I think Jimbo for example was an idiot though I also think this idiot was a HoF worthy player because he time and again did what you are asking for of really virtually winning games for his team through his individual play and leadership. Spiller did not do this Sunday and has not done it at all during his brief career.

 

However, despite the fact I agree generally with many of the points in your assessment, I think it asks a bit much (in fact it is downright silly) to demand that Spiller demnstrate this level of ability before folks get excited about his play.

 

Even though Kelly is a deserved HoFer in my biased opinion, he actually was not until well after he led the team to its designation as the "Bickering Bills" before he was able to consistently make the demonstration you are demanding of Spiller before you get excited or praising of him.

 

Even with the bad fumble looked at in its worst light, his statistical, big play and overall performance was one of the few bright lights in Sunday's debacle.

 

Has CJ shown us the wins you ask for yet?

 

Nope. No way no how.

 

Is the standard of him showing us these wins a reasonable declaration for anyone to get excited about his real world performance.

 

Nope, this standard is not reasonable at all for a young player.

 

I think a reasonable football person should by no means declare Spiller HoF worthy based on his performance to date and Sunday, but I do not think it is unreasonable at all to be very excited and even give some serious props to Spiller for his not perfect but vey impressive showing Sunday!

[CodeMonkey]

Lynch's value was severly depreciated due to his troublesome behavior off the field. Because he was on the league's watch list for repeated bad behavior he was a known character risk that a lot a team's didn't what to deal with, regardless of his talent level.

Character risk? I would think Merrimans use of the juice would have disqualified him on those grounds as well if that's what was worrying ChaNix.

 

The real reason, in my opinion, is Gailey wanted a scatback and a power runner like Lynch didn't suit him. Pure and simple. So far it seems to have worked out OK for Seattle. For Buffalo not so much. Though with any luck this may be the year that starts turning around for Buffalo.

Edited September 12, 2012 by CodeMonkey

[Orton's Arm]

Your post is excellent. However, I differ with you on the issue of not drafting Dareus and instead taking Ponder or Locker, even if it involved a trade down with acquiring additional picks. I'm not making the assumption that Ponder or Locker is going to be a good qb or not. The issue comes down to in that particular draft whether the organization believes that those prospects are the caliber of qbs you want to build your franchise around. I liked Ponder a lot coming into that draft. But in my view he was a lower first round caliber of player. I also liked Locker a lot. But the issue with him is his accuracy. Will he become more accurate as time goes on? Probably. But given that particular concern over his passing abilities I understand why the organization bypassed him for the more safe pick in Dareus.

 

My criticism of the organization has little to do with a particular draft mistake (although they are too numerious to mention). My criticism is that over a long period of time (more than a decade) this organization has not been successful in filling the most important position with a high quality prospect. Why is it that the Ravens could maneuver back into the lower first round and select Flacco, who is now emerging as an upper tier qb? Why is it that the Packers drafted Rodgers in the lower portion of the first round and developed him to the level where many people believe he is the best qb in the game?

 

I understand that when a team is bad there are no quick fixes. Elite qbs are not easily found. But when the time frame is more than a decade and the most critical position on the team is still inadequately staffed then that it is a reflection of organizational ineptitude.

 

I'm not a Fitz basher. He is what he is: a mediocre caliber starting qb or a good backup qb. That level of qb is not going to get the organization very far. He is the type of qb that can get an above average team to be a fringe wildcard playoff contender. We can do better!

 

 

 

Lynch's value was severly depreciated due to his troublesome behavior off the field. Because he was on the league's watch list for repeated bad behavior he was a known character risk that a lot a team's didn't what to deal with, regardless of his talent level.

I agree that a main problem is the Bills' pattern of failing to select QBs early in the draft, coupled with their failure to find a franchise QB. One year of that could perhaps be justified. Ten+ years, not so much so. At some point, you have to say, "This is the year we pull the trigger. This is the year we take The Guy."

 

That didn't happen under TD. Sure, some could point to Losman. But if Losman was the QB TD really wanted, why did he try to trade up for Roethlisberger? I'm not convinced that happened under Marv either, even if we were told that Trent Edwards was supposedly this first round talent who somehow slipped to the third round. Nor has that happened under Nix.

 

As for the 2011 draft: I've read that Locker is a much more accurate QB than his college stats made him look. The problem--at least according to the article I read--was that Locker would throw perfectly accurate passes, only to have his receivers drop them.

 

The pre-draft evaluation for Ponder reminds me of the pre-draft evaluation for Drew Brees. Brees was picked 32nd overall, which is about where many experts thought Ponder would go. Both had established themselves as good pocket passers at the college level. Both have physical attributes which convey, "good enough to get the job done, but not necessarily spectacular."

 

My sense is that NFL GMs might be learning from past failures. While first round QB busts come in all shapes, sizes, and flavors, the most common type of first round QB bust is a guy who has great physical attributes, but who is considered "raw" as a college pocket passer. In other words, Losman. First round QBs most likely to succeed at the NFL level are generally considered "polished" pocket passers--guys like Ponder. Once NFL GMs figure this out--as many already have--it stands to reason that good college pocket passers will start coming off the boards earlier than in the past. "Raw" guys with great physical attributes will tend to fall in the draft. (As Ryan Mallett did.)

 

That said, Nix can perhaps be forgiven for (erroneously) thinking Ponder would be available later in the first.

[Orton's Arm]

Like I said, I'm not justifying the Lynch pick. I'm just saying he's pretty good. He's not a terrible receiver either.

 

The bigger question - in retrospect, why did we let McGahee go? He's actually still good, and we ended up getting pretty much nothing for him!!

 

I think you and I agree more than we disagree about Lynch and about Marv's drafting strategy. Taking Lynch 12th overall is like paying $300,000 for a brand new Buick. Sure, maybe the car runs well, and is reliable in bad weather. Maybe it gets you from point A to point B. But no way is it worth $300,000.

 

I agree it was a mistake to trade away McGahee. The two third rounders we got for him were nice, and better than the fourth + 6th rounder we got for Lynch. (One potential reason we got more for McGahee than for Lynch is, as JohnC pointed out, the character concerns associated with Lynch. McGahee may also have been viewed as the better RB.) The bigger issue is that unless a RB is considered elite/game changing, most front offices aren't willing to spend high draft picks on him. Nor should they be! Even if a front office is willing to use a lower first round pick on a non-elite RB--as the Colts did a few years ago when they took Joseph Addai in the lower first round--they realize that most RBs tend to have short careers. Nobody is going to trade away all that much for an Addai with 4 - 5 years of mileage on him.

 

For a team that's already a serious Super Bowl contender, shorter-term value propositions like that might make sense. For a rebuilding team, such decisions merely indicate short-sightedness.

[Rico]

Agreed. If there's a QB you want, it's always best to err on the side of taking him too early. (As opposed to trying to save on draft picks by letting him fall to you.) There are plenty of teams which need QBs. Generally, at least one of those teams will also be willing to take the QB too early--especially if the QB has established himself as a pocket passer at the college level.

Unless his name is J.P. Losman.

[34-78-83]

Associating single players to Wins and Losses will ALWAYS be 100% subjective and nothing more. There's really no validity to it. What CJ did in Sunday's debacle of a game was nothing short of impressive in any way.