San Jose Bills Fan Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 This is why we don't serve miners. Be an arborist and cut Branch. I was a certified arborist for 10 years and I still wouldn't cut Branch.
Best Player Available Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 Spiller is an elite talent and with a couple of breaks going his way, he may very well wind up in the Hall and I love that he's on the Bills team. That said, I get those people who say he was a luxury pick. At that time, Lynch and Jackson were on the roster, and there were some huge holes that I think should have been filled ahead of another RB. As to Nix's drafting record, if you're going to be fair you need to put other teams under the microscope as well. You also need to give credit for changing how the Bills were viewed around the league. If you remember, just over three short years ago they couldn't even get a top candidate to come in for the head coaching opening. When Chan was let go, over 20 people called for interviews in the first 24 hours if news reports from last winter are to be believed. And every candidate the Bills wanted to talk with actually met with them. That's a huge turnaround. I'm sure that the team has been able to resign its own players and some better free agents because the perception of the franchise improved greatly under Nix. BTW, McBride's post is very enlightening. But, if you're a GM that takes over a perennial 7-9 team and in three years it's now a perennial 6-10 team. How does that GM change how a team is viewed around the league? Nix sucked, his drafts were very mediocre, some of his free agent signings were worse. The Spiller and Dareus picks were obvious, and the jury is still out on Dareus. Past that he's drafted depth, (some of it very mediocre) and very few good starters. He took a QB signed before him as a backup, and signed him to starter money. That turned out very poorly. Some of the better players still here are pre-Nix. Like the LG they lost, Eric Wood, SJ13, and the safety that signed today.
GG Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 When the Bills first started being good, they drafted a RB #1, then two years later drafted a RB #2 (he was their top pick though) followed by four out of five consecutive years drafting a CB #1. Granted, they had a better roster overall at that time, than in the last 15 years of sucktitude, but it is directly opposite of good teams don't draft RBs and CBs at the top of the draft. Wasn't the franchise QB and a pretty decent backup already on the roster, while RB was a desperate need considering they traded their #1 RB in the previous year?
BADOLBILZ Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 I don't mean to put words in Badol's mouth,but I guess I will. I think he thinks it's fine to draft RBs and CBs with your first pick if you have the QB, RDE, and LT positions settled. For about ten years, the Bills did with Smith, Kelly, and Wolford. Smith was the best of the lot, but they were all good. The problem with the Bills is that they've been mediocre to bad at all of those positions since 1999 (Flutie's last starting season, Smith's last season, and Fina's last semi-credible season). Schobel did have a couple of pretty good seasons, but he wasn't a fear striker. Get those three positions settled, and then going after RBs and CBs is perfectly OK. Exactly. Those Bills had a QB, a near HOF calliber WR, a great DE and an excellent LT before they went crazy with the DB's. Harmon was a rare poorly producing first round pick at RB(though he was a productive receiver) but the Thurman Thomas pick made perfect sense and the subsequent DB selections seemed like picks made to round out a roster, not construct it. In the middle part of the 1990's, having drafted so much "icing" in the early 1990's hurt when the cake itself was deteriorating. Fortunately, they were able to patch the roster back up somewhat in 1995 with some All Pro LOS defenders and the drafting of Ruben Brown.....but in the end, the reason why the Bills were still competitive that long was because of the mileage they got out of Kelly, Smith and Reed. Contrast that to the mess of the 2000's where the team has been getting on average 4 years? of mileage out of their first round picks while at the same time having no players even close to Kelly, Smith and Reed playing at a Pro Bowl level for an entire decade. Bottom line, if you don't acquire cornerstone, long term solutions at those key positions you will have a hard time establishing and sustaining any kind of success. And that is how a good player can be the product of a poor drafting.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 Exactly. Those Bills had a QB, a near HOF calliber WR, a great DE and an excellent LT before they went crazy with the DB's. Harmon was a rare poorly producing first round pick at RB(though he was a productive receiver) but the Thurman Thomas pick made perfect sense and the subsequent DB selections seemed like picks made to round out a roster, not construct it. In the middle part of the 1990's, having drafted so much "icing" in the early 1990's hurt when the cake itself was deteriorating. Fortunately, they were able to patch the roster back up somewhat in 1995 with some All Pro LOS defenders and the drafting of Ruben Brown.....but in the end, the reason why the Bills were still competitive that long was because of the mileage they got out of Kelly, Smith and Reed. Contrast that to the mess of the 2000's where the team has been getting on average 4 years? of mileage out of their first round picks while at the same time having no players even close to Kelly, Smith and Reed playing at a Pro Bowl level for an entire decade. Bottom line, if you don't acquire cornerstone, long term solutions at those key positions you will have a hard time establishing and sustaining any kind of success. And that is how a good player can be the product of a poor drafting. So, in other words, your thesis should have been "good teams DO draft RBs and DBs high" and not good teams don't draft RBs and Dbs high?
BADOLBILZ Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 (edited) So, in other words, your thesis should have been "good teams DO draft RBs and DBs high" and not good teams don't draft RBs and Dbs high? When was that my thesis? Here are the facts, over 50% RB's and DB's drafted with their first pick since the merger. Meanwhile EJ Manuel was the FIRST QB the team drafted with one of those such picks since 1960. If that approach was flipped around Joe Flacco could have been backing up Aaron Rodgers here for the past 5 years. Does that mean you can't draft a CB or RB in round one? No, but how about having a QB or good OL or a good pass rush before you address your running game with your first round pick for the 3rd time in 7 drafts? Especially when the previous two of those picks were very good, you currently have 2 excellent backs on the roster already, and the first one was drafted while the team also had a very productive young one starting. Laughably ridiculous drafting. Edited August 21, 2013 by BADOLBEELZ
dave mcbride Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 And we were talking about the Spiller pick and as I pointed out, what QBs were we supposed to pick at #9? What wide receiver? You can't say that Spiller was a bad pick because the Bills don't have a quarterback. I didn't say wr. As for qb, my philosophy is to keep drafting them first until you're sure you have one. The bills believed otherwise, and hence missed on flacco, rodgers, cutler, kaepernick, russell wilson, and others over the years. They of course addressed the position this year.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 I didn't say wr. As for qb, my philosophy is to keep drafting them first until you're sure you have one. The bills believed otherwise, and hence missed on flacco, rodgers, cutler, kaepernick, russell wilson, and others over the years. They of course addressed the position this year. And according to the logic of some people we should have drafted Tim Tebow or Jimmy Clausen instead of CJ Spiller. What some people can't seem to see is that drafting the best player available regardless of position is a valid draft strategy. CJ was the best player available. The point is a simple one.
JohnC Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 (edited) When was that my thesis? Here are the facts, over 50% RB's and DB's drafted with their first pick since the merger. Meanwhile EJ Manuel was the FIRST QB the team drafted with one of those such picks since 1960. If that approach was flipped around Joe Flacco could have been backing up Aaron Rodgers here for the past 5 years. Does that mean you can't draft a CB or RB in round one? No, but how about having a QB or good OL or a good pass rush before you address your running game with your first round pick for the 3rd time in 7 drafts? Especially when the previous two of those picks were very good, you currently have 2 excellent backs on the roster already, and the first one was drafted while the team also had a very productive young one starting. Laughably ridiculous drafting. Your thesis is well thought out and makes a lot of sense. My thesis on the Bills drafting is slightly different. The problem with their drafting over the last dozen years or so is more attributal to their poor drafting in general and, too often, letting go of good players entering their contract years, thus again needing to revisit a position already adequately addressed. The drafting of Spiller was a good pick based on talent alone. Time has demonstrated that the judgment on him was correct. The mistakes made were not in drafting him but in making sizeable draft mistakes after taking him. If a qb prospect would have been taken after the Spiller pick, the Spiller pick becomes less questionable. It seems you have problems with the sequences in which the positons are drafted. My position is that good drafting in general over a period of time will take care of that issue. In addition, good drafting teams get hits with lower round picks. That hasn't happened too often with this franchise. There is no doubt that the LT is considered a high priority position and most often requires a high round pick to fill that need. A number of years ago that critical position was filled by an UDFA, Peters. That hasn't happened too often for this franchise. Getting a franchise qb usually requires a first round pick. The Bills had multiple opportunities to fill that critical position without even using a first round pick when Kaepernick, Wilson, Dalton were available after the first round. The bottom line for me is that teams that draft well in general and make more of their picks count succeed. Teams that don't draft well in general will not be very successful. I agree with much of what you are saying but the core problem for this lagging franchise has more to do with its mediocre talent evaluations than its ranking of positions. Edited August 21, 2013 by JohnC
GG Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 Meanwhile EJ Manuel was the FIRST QB the team drafted with one of those such picks since 1960. I will quibble with this take, because you have to count 1983 in that regard. Chiefs did Bills a great favor by taking Blackledge, so Bills were very comfortable that they could get a very good QB with the 14th pick and were obviously more worried about not getting Tony Hunter at #14 than not getting the best available QB at #14. If they didn't have two picks in that round, I'm 100% certain that Kelly would have been the pick at #12. BTW, that whole 1983 draft class looks to be one of all time greats
Sisyphean Bills Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 BTW, the 2010 draft class was a load of junk as far as the QB position specifically. Sam Bradford and a bunch of scrubs. OTOH, there were a lot of good TEs in that draft class, which happens to be a position the Bills organization places nearly zero value on...
Joe Miner Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 This is why we don't serve miners. Be an arborist and cut Branch. I haven't seen the practices you have, but so far the preseason games don't look good for Troup to me. Check out the goalline stand (or lack thereof) on 4th down from game 2. I could be wrong, it's not like I have a personal stake in Troup or Branch. Whichever one the Bills decide to keep is fine with me.
BADOLBILZ Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 And according to the logic of some people we should have drafted Tim Tebow or Jimmy Clausen instead of CJ Spiller. What some people can't seem to see is that drafting the best player available regardless of position is a valid draft strategy. CJ was the best player available. The point is a simple one. If the consensus best player available to them next year is a running back are you pulling that trigger again? Even if Spiller stays healthy and has season similar to last? If so, then my hat is off to your conviction. If not, you are just bending your argument to fit around your need to validate the use of that pick on Spiller. Pretty sure it's the latter.
Bill from NYC Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 And according to the logic of some people we should have drafted Tim Tebow or Jimmy Clausen instead of CJ Spiller. What some people can't seem to see is that drafting the best player available regardless of position is a valid draft strategy. CJ was the best player available. The point is a simple one. The point is simple if the goal is to sit around and talk about who is "good," or as promo would have it, on the fast track to Canton. But the real goal is to build a team that wins football games. The Bills are consistent losers, and mainly because of idiotic drafts that Badol well describes. And as Badol points out, the league has changed. It is a passing league, period. Even an old football purist like me can grasp this. The bottom line is that Spiller is good, but was an ill advised pick. Win/Loss records are tough to deny.
ChevyVanMiller Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 When Spiller get his bust in Canton the inscription will say "A luxury pick, drafted too early." PTR Great stuff, Promo!
Dopey Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 I'm not calling this draft bad, but you are leaving out a few guys: Ed Wang Danny Batten Levi Brown Kyle Calloway If Troup does get cut that leaves: 1 potential superstar - Spiller 1 solid DL - Carrington 1 backup LB - Moats 1 6th WR - Easley Does 1 potential superstar make a draft class a success? Yes, it does.
NoSaint Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 If the consensus best player available to them next year is a running back are you pulling that trigger again? Even if Spiller stays healthy and has season similar to last? If so, then my hat is off to your conviction. If not, you are just bending your argument to fit around your need to validate the use of that pick on Spiller. Pretty sure it's the latter. if its spiller vs bulaga, yes i hope they draft a spiller clone again next year.
Luxy312 Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 If we're really going to re-visit the 2010 draft and talk in particular about Spiller, let's not forget the other supposed "needs" that the team had at the time. While LT was a need, what was available then? Anthony Davis and Bryan Bulaga. Both essentially graded out at RT at the time and low and behold that's where they're playing right now. Sean Weatherspoon was the best LB available and his career thus far has been injury plagued. If you want to talk QB, we could have drafted Tim Tebow or Jimmy Clausen. Earl Thomas has turned out to be a solid safety, but that wasn't a position of need at the time really. Spiller was the defacto #1 RB talent available in the draft that year and the only guy really worthy at the position of being picked in the 1st round. Best was a reach by Detroit late in the round. IMO a successful draft is any one that you get decently productive players out of. If Spiller becomes the monster that many think he can become, then anything we get out of the other guys is gravy. Can we call it a success if the Bills end up with perhaps the best player to come out of the draft in the last 4 years? I would, particularly when everyone ELSE continues to say that it's the wrong pick. Kind of like E.J. Manuel...
JohnC Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 The point is simple if the goal is to sit around and talk about who is "good," or as promo would have it, on the fast track to Canton. But the real goal is to build a team that wins football games. The Bills are consistent losers, and mainly because of idiotic drafts that Badol well describes. And as Badol points out, the league has changed. It is a passing league, period. Even an old football purist like me can grasp this. The bottom line is that Spiller is good, but was an ill advised pick. Win/Loss records are tough to deny. The idiotic drafts, as you put it, are more attributable to bad player evaluatiions in general than on positional selections. I never thought that I would ever say this but I agree with PTR on the Spiller selection. A good/bad selection is a good/bad selection regardless of position. In my view not only is Spiller one of the bast players on the Bills but he is also one of the best players in the league. Not only was Spiller a terrific pick based on post draft performance but the Gilmore pick, a CB, was also an exceptionlly good pick. He is going to be one of the best CBs in the league. I didn't start out the day intending to rankle you on the draft issues. It just worked out that way. LOL
BADOLBILZ Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 The idiotic drafts, as you put it, are more attributable to bad player evaluatiions in general than on positional selections. Bad player evaluations? No, you couldn't be more wrong about that. Were Henry Jones, Thomas Smith, Jeff Burris, Antoine Winfield and Nate Clements not good players? Well those are CONSECUTIVE first round DB selections by the Bills over the span of 11 years. The Bills list of first pick running backs has two hall of famers, another 10K rusher in McGahee, Lynch etc.......a lot more hits than misses. When your HOF'er to bust ratio is 1 to 1 you aren't misevaluating talent. It IS a positional selection issue. Do you understand the principle of the low hanging fruit? Doing the easiest work first? Well........that approach just doesn't produce winning teams in the NFL. Fortune favors the bold. Everyone knows this. The only real question with the Bills is why they kept taking the easy evaluations over the higher risk, higher reward chances. I think the answer can be found in this thread. Ralph thought like a fan when it came to player evaluations. There was no discipline and precious little learning from mistakes. Each year was just as likely to produce the same mistake as the last.
Recommended Posts