2010 Draft Revisited

[JohnC]

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.

 

The hits that were made with Winfield, Clements, Lynch etc were let go for contract and other reasons. In essence it is like filling a hole, make another hole and go back and fill the same hole again. That cycle of futility has been very damaging to this franchise. The point being that instead of adding talent they were replacing the talent that they had. A lot of attention is given to first round picks without giving the required attention to the other rounds. The body of work for this laggard franchise was unimpressive. Over time that sub-par drafting performance in general has anchored this franchise to the bottom of the rankings.

 

Your view that this team took the easy way out by making the easier selections over the higher risk/reward is perplexing to me because this staff had way too many misses to conclude that they made the easy selections.

 

I still hold to my position that if an organization drafts well in general, regardless of the position, over time (maybe three years) it will be successful. The selection of Gilmoure, a CB, in my view was a superb selection. He is a stud player and a major asset although he plays a position that you and NYC Bill place less value on. Spiller is a halfback who I consider to be one of the best and most dynamic offensive players in the league.

 

Baltimore and Green Bay, both in general, have a drafting philosophy of selecting the best players on the board. No franchise can absolutely hold to that philosophy but in general the approach they take is to value talent over position. If that draft strategy is executed properly it works well. Two of the best GMs in the game, Ted Thompson and Ozzie Newsome, subscribe to that approach.

 

Ralph thought like a fan when it came to player evaluations.

 

Ralph's main problem was hiring mediocre staff to make mediocre personnel decisions on his behalf. He got what he got because he selected who he selected. The problem wasn't drafting strategy; it was the caliber of the talent evaluators he hired.

Edited August 21, 2013 by JohnC

[Ramius]

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

 

Exactly. There was that Class of 1983 draft special on this year on ESPN, and it was said by (can't remember his name, Norm Pollum?) that the reason the Bills passed on a QB at 12 was because they would have been with equally happy with Kelly or Marino, and were guaranteed 1 of them at 14. without pick 14, Kelly is the pick at 12.

[BADOLBILZ]

Exactly. There was that Class of 1983 draft special on this year on ESPN, and it was said by (can't remember his name, Norm Pollum?) that the reason the Bills passed on a QB at 12 was because they would have been with equally happy with Kelly or Marino, and were guaranteed 1 of them at 14. without pick 14, Kelly is the pick at 12.

 

 

Well there is that, and then there is the fact that Manuel wasn't drafted with their actual first pick, rather a later one that was acquired in trade. So, Richie Lucas distinction in 1960 is still techinically intact.

 

Either way, the point is that there has been far too little emphasis on the most important position on the field. Never in 53 years, once in 53 years, twice in 53 years......it's splitting hairs when you consider the quality of QB play by this organization.

 

To me, the most interesting aspect of that show was actually how the pass on Dan Marino pertained to his hometown Steelers. The Steelers draft to build a team. Their method has yielded more SB championships than anyone else. But even an organization that does it right can't afford to let the QB position stagnate and still remain a true championship contender. Passing on Marino caused a 7 year run of mediocrity in which they missed the playoffs 4 years in a row at one point....in what otherwise has been a ridiculously successful past 40+ years. That being said, the truth is that they made the AFC championship two years after they passed on Marino(with Mark Malone at the helm) and it's not like they were down for an entire decade after that, they had winning seasons, playoff appearances and by 1992 they had earned homefield advantage in the AFC. Draft to build your team and do not neglect your QB position.

[GG]

Well there is that, and then there is the fact that Manuel wasn't drafted with their actual first pick, rather a later one that was acquired in trade. So, Richie Lucas distinction in 1960 is still techinically intact.

 

Either way, the point is that there has been far too little emphasis on the most important position on the field. Never in 53 years, once in 53 years, twice in 53 years......it's splitting hairs when you consider the quality of QB play by this organization.

 

 

But I think that you are still splitting hairs. It wasn't this way during the entire franchise history. The Polian/Butler team absolutely placed a high value on the QB and rode their superstar to the end. Butler also knew in '95 that he needed to find a replacement to Kelly. I recall talking to Dwight Adams after the draft, and they would have loved to get McNair or Collins, but there's no way they could have moved up that high. So they picked Collins, and at the time the rationale was solid. Big smart winning QB from a major program who could quickly step up to the NFL. They obviously got that one wrong. But when it was obvious Collins was a washout, AJ Smith plucked Flutie and Butler made the trade for RJ.

 

In the era, the first thing he said was that he needed the franchise QB. When RJ fizzled, immediately traded for Bledsoe and then drafted Losman when he couldn't swing a trade with Houston for Roethlisberger. There's still the debate on why Houston wouldn't deal with Bills, but it wan't for lack of trying on Bills' part.

 

So when you look back at it, you had three successive GMs over nearly 20 years who absolutely put a premium on the QB position. Unfortunately, they got the wrong guys. But it wasn't for the lack of trying, which is what you're implying.

Edited August 22, 2013 by GG

[BADOLBILZ]

But I think that you are still splitting hairs. It wasn't this way during the entire franchise history. The Polian/Butler team absolutely placed a high value on the QB and rode their superstar to the end. Butler also knew in '95 that he needed to find a replacement to Kelly. I recall talking to Dwight Adams after the draft, and they would have loved to get McNair or Collins, but there's no way they could have moved up that high. So they picked Collins, and at the time the rationale was solid. Big smart winning QB from a major program who could quickly step up to the NFL. They obviously got that one wrong. But when it was obvious Collins was a washout, AJ Smith plucked Flutie and Butler made the trade for RJ.

 

In the era, the first thing he said was that he needed the franchise QB. When RJ fizzled, immediately traded for Bledsoe and then drafted Losman when he couldn't swing a trade with Houston for Roethlisberger. There's still the debate on why Houston wouldn't deal with Bills, but it wan't for lack of trying on Bills' part.

 

So when you look back at it, you had three successive GMs over nearly 20 years who absolutely put a premium on the QB position. Unfortunately, they got the wrong guys. But it wasn't for the lack of trying, which is what you're implying.

 

I have never said the team didn't try to find answers to their QB dilemna.

 

The term I have used all these years is "all in". Hence, the emphasis on that very first selection in their draft. They haven't been all in......they have been "yeah, it's very important but we aren't going to mortgage our future".

 

Those words have actually been uttered by Bills GM's with regard to potential trades to move up and get that top shelf QB prospect. Well, their future was sh*t without a QB so virtually no price that anyone has ever paid to acquire a top QB prospect like Roethlisberger would have been too high. They have tried a lot of short cut maneuvers to get a more seasoned QB via trade, or to get one after they addressed another position where they thought they could get a "better available player" .

 

Implying that the Bills have done everything they could to address their problems at the QB position is akin to saying Ralph Wilson was committed to winning. It's just not accurate. There is a very large distinction between wanting something and being committed to achieving it.

 

Ralph is not cheap and the Bills have tried many times to find an answer to their QB position. Both true statements based on factual evidence. Both very misleading though.

 

Hopefully EJ is the answer, but if there is any doubt they need to get right back after it on draft day.

[BADOLBILZ]

The hits that were made with Winfield, Clements, Lynch etc were let go for contract and other reasons. In essence it is like filling a hole, make another hole and go back and fill the same hole again. That cycle of futility has been very damaging to this franchise. The point being that instead of adding talent they were replacing the talent that they had. A lot of attention is given to first round picks without giving the required attention to the other rounds. The body of work for this laggard franchise was unimpressive. Over time that sub-par drafting performance in general has anchored this franchise to the bottom of the rankings.

 

Your view that this team took the easy way out by making the easier selections over the higher risk/reward is perplexing to me because this staff had way too many misses to conclude that they made the easy selections.

 

I still hold to my position that if an organization drafts well in general, regardless of the position, over time (maybe three years) it will be successful. The selection of Gilmoure, a CB, in my view was a superb selection. He is a stud player and a major asset although he plays a position that you and NYC Bill place less value on. Spiller is a halfback who I consider to be one of the best and most dynamic offensive players in the league.

 

Baltimore and Green Bay, both in general, have a drafting philosophy of selecting the best players on the board. No franchise can absolutely hold to that philosophy but in general the approach they take is to value talent over position. If that draft strategy is executed properly it works well. Two of the best GMs in the game, Ted Thompson and Ozzie Newsome, subscribe to that approach.

 

 

 

Ralph's main problem was hiring mediocre staff to make mediocre personnel decisions on his behalf. He got what he got because he selected who he selected. The problem wasn't drafting strategy; it was the caliber of the talent evaluators he hired.

 

Your argument is veering off course.....let me help you. Almost by nature, that low hanging fruit loses it's appeal when that first contract is expiring. That's because it is a short, easy and safe grasp to replace those easy evaluations early on draft day.

[Bill from NYC]

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.

 

You give the past front offices way too much room. In 2006 the Bills picked at #8 and had an early extra 3rd round pick. They came away with 3 dbs who ranged from so-so, to a defensive tackle who sucked. This in 4 rounds. Levy and his clone Jauron believed in building a football through the secondary. This of course is idiotic.

When the Bills drafted Spiller, Ralph said that the team "needed excitement." He was right, but more in terms of his own wallet than building a football team that wins games. Running backs have faded in importance to the point that they are rarely drafted in the first round as compared to not so long ago.

 

As for Gilmore, I really hope that you are correct. He had a slow start but I do understand growing pains. Maybe he too will waltz into the hall of fame. And maybe the Bills will start winning games because this year, they look to have had a very good draft.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

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.

 

You've ignored my numerous characterizations of Spiller as not just a running back but a playmaker/game changer/ home run hitter. He's not equivalent to just any "good" running back as you try to argue.

 

Don't straw man the discussion with the best player available argument. Your belief that Bulaga would be a better pick than Spiller is all that needs to be said.

 

The most incorrect statement in this discussion is your's: that the Spiller pick was a bad pick.

 

You come off as pedantic and one who clings to infallibility.

 

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.

 

I was never arguing how the Bills have drafted over the years.

 

I was arguing that the CJ Spiller pick was a good one.

 

Bado thinks we should have drafted Bryan Bulaga. He harps on QBs but there were no QBs worth taking in that draft. I pointed this out to him and he refuses comment on it.

 

Everyone and their non-football fan brother knows that it's a passing league and that the Bills are consistent losers. This does not make CJ Spiller a bad pick just as it doesn't make Jimmy Clausen a good pick.

[JohnC]

You give the past front offices way too much room. In 2006 the Bills picked at #8 and had an early extra 3rd round pick. They came away with 3 dbs who ranged from so-so, to a defensive tackle who sucked. This in 4 rounds. Levy and his clone Jauron believed in building a football through the secondary. This of course is idiotic.

When the Bills drafted Spiller, Ralph said that the team "needed excitement." He was right, but more in terms of his own wallet than building a football team that wins games. Running backs have faded in importance to the point that they are rarely drafted in the first round as compared to not so long ago.

 

As for Gilmore, I really hope that you are correct. He had a slow start but I do understand growing pains. Maybe he too will waltz into the hall of fame. And maybe the Bills will start winning games because this year, they look to have had a very good draft.

 

You are the first person that has ever accused me of being less than scathing toward Jauron/Levy/Wilson. Whenever I mention the owner I immediately come under assault for being unfair. I don't know if the owner had any influence on the Spiller pick. There were rumors that the owner influenced the Lynch pick but I can't say for sure. I was under the impression that Gailey pushed for the Spiller pick, but again I can''t say for sure.

 

Regardless of who influenced the Spiller selecton and regardless of the reasonable reasoning for not selecting him I don't understand how people can be so staunchly against a particular selection after that selection has turned out to be so stunningly good. Spiller is not only one of the best players on the Bills he is also one of the best players in the league. Our agreements on players and how the franchise is operated far outweigh our disagreements. On the Spiller selection we simply sit on the opposite side of the table.

 

The chasm is a result that some people want to immerse themselves in the overarching philosophy of strategic drafting, while in this case I am taking the simple minded approach of a good pick is simply a good pick. It should be relished, not sneered at, especially when it is done in an ocean of bad picks. Bill, just savor what is good. It won'thurt you; it will make you more happy.

 

Bill, trust me on Gilmore. He is a stud CB who is going to be one of the best CBs in the league. The struggles you think he had were more attributable to a defense that was incapable of putting any pressure on the offense. Even playing with a lackluster supporting cast he still shined.

Edited August 22, 2013 by JohnC

[JohnC]

Your argument is veering off course.....let me help you. Almost by nature, that low hanging fruit loses it's appeal when that first contract is expiring. That's because it is a short, easy and safe grasp to replace those easy evaluations early on draft day.

 

I as much as anyone have railed against this franchise's business model. So there is no disagreement there. Where I differ from you is that I see it as a general practice related to finances than it does toward any particular position. Dick Jauron prized DBs more than any other position. I'm aware of that. For him it didn't relate to $$$ so much as it related to his football philosophy and positional biases.

 

I may be wrong in interpreting your posts, so I am receptive to be corrected, but your notion that it is easier to make evaluations on CBs than it is on other positions is not something I agree with. It is just as challenging to evaluate a DB as it is with any other position with the obvious exception of the qb position.

[dpberr]

Drafts are largely research projects in the given moment. Spiller was the all-world home run, once in a decade running back that year. I didn't have an issue with the Bills taking Spiller. I was surprised that they ended up treating him like a garage kept Ferrari though until necessity (injuries to Fred) required he'd be taken out of said garage.

 

I've always had a problem with the Troup pick though. That was an example of where the front office tried being smarter than everybody else when there were more solid players to choose from, i.e. the pair of productive linebackers from PSU that year, Lee or Bowman. (I don't claim to have seen the greatness of the Gronkowski.)

[BillsBytheBay]

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.

so nix doesn't get any cred for keeping that group here? I don't get this. Nix brought in 7 of 11 projected starters on a defense that we are all excited about.

I think people look at the failures to hard, and don't realize how much of our current roster has Nix's finger print. Really, look. We can pretend that Nix had no influence on this draft, but Whaley is walking into a MUCH better situation than Nix did. How did that happen?

 

 

 

I've always had a problem with the Troup pick though. That was an example of where the front office tried being smarter than everybody else when there were more solid players to choose from, i.e. the pair of productive linebackers from PSU that year, Lee or Bowman. (I don't claim to have seen the greatness of the Gronkowski.)

Now this I'll give. I didn't get the pick from ?UCF?

 

[BADOLBILZ]

You've ignored my numerous characterizations of Spiller as not just a running back but a playmaker/game changer/ home run hitter. He's not equivalent to just any "good" running back as you try to argue.

 

Don't straw man the discussion with the best player available argument. Your belief that Bulaga would be a better pick than Spiller is all that needs to be said.

 

The most incorrect statement in this discussion is your's: that the Spiller pick was a bad pick.

 

You come off as pedantic and one who clings to infallibility.

 

 

 

I was never arguing how the Bills have drafted over the years.

 

I was arguing that the CJ Spiller pick was a good one.

 

Bado thinks we should have drafted Bryan Bulaga. He harps on QBs but there were no QBs worth taking in that draft. I pointed this out to him and he refuses comment on it.

 

Everyone and their non-football fan brother knows that it's a passing league and that the Bills are consistent losers. This does not make CJ Spiller a bad pick just as it doesn't make Jimmy Clausen a good pick.

 

Like I always say, the draft is a process not an event.

 

Granted, if you don't pick a running back with your first pick every three years you do run a serious risk...........of your fans possibly having to pick one from another team in their fantasy draft.

 

Our fundamental difference in the matter is that you don't care whether a pick makes sense in the grand scheme......rather all you care about is whether that pick becomes a good player.

 

Just about any well run business has successful systems in place to ensure that success. The Bills are not a well run football operation...I think we can agree on that.....and not surprisingly they haven't had have a successful system in place.

 

That's how an opportunity to have Jason Pierre Paul and Marshawn Lynch both on your team turns into just CJ Spiller. I know your arguments about well if Marshawn this and nobody knew about JPP that etc.. will follow but that is what I mean about the draft not taking place in a vacuum.

 

By all rights, the Bills should be marching out one of the most talented rosters in NFL history on the field by now. With all of the high draft picks they have had, combined with all of the great players they have passed on.....or had and traded away.

 

As for not addressing your "CJ is not a running back, he is a weapon" hypothesis. Here you go:

 

No.......CJ Spiller is a running back who makes some big plays. I mean, are Adrian Peterson, Marshawn Lynch, Chis Johnson, Arian Foster et all not running backs because they can make big plays?

 

It's just a weak attempt to glorify a player at a position that was once of prominence, but is now of questionable value in todays NFL.

 

We have heard the "weapon" idea used to justify the drafting of Roscoe Parrish, the signing of Brad Smith, the roster spot(and subsequent re-signing) of Leodis McKelvin......it gets old and frankly everyone knows or should know the angle by now.

 

"Yeah normally we wouldn't draft a 5'6" 130 pound wide receiver but Roscoe is a weapon" can easily become "yeah, normally we wouldn't use a third first round pick in the last 7 drafts to select a running back who will take a couple years to learn a system and how to hit the hole like a professional running back.....and pay him $7M per year.....when we already have two excellent backs on the roster and when the league is dominated by teams that can PASS the ball at a high level........but hey, CJ is a weapon".

 

Bottom line: if you are a first rounder at a skill position you are supposed to be a playmaker. Reminds me of that Chris Rock routine about people always always wanting credit for things they are SUPPOSED to do. I never been to jail. I take care of my kids. I was a first round pick and I make big plays.

Edited August 23, 2013 by BADOLBEELZ

[Bill from NYC]

Regardless of who influenced the Spiller selecton and regardless of the reasonable reasoning for not selecting him I don't understand how people can be so staunchly against a particular selection after that selection has turned out to be so stunningly good.

 

John, I hope that you know how much I appreciate our dialogue. I have in fact for some time. Where we differ is wrt the philosophy of building a football team, and this is really OK.

I think that Spiller is a very good player. I am more skeptical wrt Gilmore, but I get the potential.

 

But John, I am not getting any younger, and I want the Bills to win football games. And, I was extremely happy with this draft. They got a QB who has tons of potential AND an extra 2nd and 7th. On this RARE occasion, they ran away from running backs and defensive backs.

 

This is how to build a winning team my friend.

 

 

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Like I always say, the draft is a process not an event.

 

Granted, if you don't pick a running back with your first pick every three years you do run a serious risk...........of your fans possibly having to pick one from another team in their fantasy draft.

 

Our fundamental difference in the matter is that you don't care whether a pick makes sense in the grand scheme......rather all you care about is whether that pick becomes a good player.

 

Just about any well run business has successful systems in place to ensure that success. The Bills are not a well run football operation...I think we can agree on that.....and not surprisingly they haven't had have a successful system in place.

 

That's how an opportunity to have Jason Pierre Paul and Marshawn Lynch both on your team turns into just CJ Spiller. I know your arguments about well if Marshawn this and nobody knew about JPP that etc.. will follow but that is what I mean about the draft not taking place in a vacuum.

 

By all rights, the Bills should be marching out one of the most talented rosters in NFL history on the field by now. With all of the high draft picks they have had, combined with all of the great players they have passed on.....or had and traded away.

 

As for not addressing your "CJ is not a running back, he is a weapon" hypothesis. Here you go:

 

No.......CJ Spiller is a running back who makes some big plays. I mean, are Adrian Peterson, Marshawn Lynch, Chis Johnson, Arian Foster et all not running backs because they can make big plays?

 

It's just a weak attempt to glorify a player at a position that was once of prominence, but is now of questionable value in todays NFL.

 

We have heard the "weapon" idea used to justify the drafting of Roscoe Parrish, the signing of Brad Smith, the roster spot(and subsequent re-signing) of Leodis McKelvin......it gets old and frankly everyone knows or should know the angle by now.

 

"Yeah normally we wouldn't draft a 5'6" 130 pound wide receiver but Roscoe is a weapon" can easily become "yeah, normally we wouldn't use a third first round pick in the last 7 drafts to select a running back who will take a couple years to learn a system and how to hit the hole like a professional running back.....and pay him $7M per year.....when we already have two excellent backs on the roster and when the league is dominated by teams that can PASS the ball at a high level........but hey, CJ is a weapon".

 

Bottom line: if you are a first rounder at a skill position you are supposed to be a playmaker. Reminds me of that Chris Rock routine about people always always wanting credit for things they are SUPPOSED to do. I never been to jail. I take care of my kids. I was a first round pick and I make big plays.

 

You mischaracterize my opinion when you say of me "you don't care whether a pick makes sense in the grand scheme......rather all you care about is whether that pick becomes a good player."

 

The actual truth is what I said earlier (paraphrasing) that "there is an art to the draft. You have to know when to follow rules and when to think outside the box." You can't be dogmatic and conventional in your thinking at every pick." I made the poker analogy I'm sure you recall.

 

As far as your addressing the "weapon, playmaker, home run hitter" topic, Roscoe Parrish, Brad Smith, and Leodis McKelvin are not even in the same solar system as CJ Spiller.

 

Chris Johnson would be the closest comparison. Jamaal Charles would be another one. Reggie Bush in college. Adrian Peterson is a good comparison in terms of explosiveness, not in style though. Peterson is in a league of his own. Workhorse AND home run hitter.

 

You are also dismissive of the fact that in spite of having been very underused, CJ had 43 receptions for 459 yards and 2 TDs receiving last year. Point being that he's a weapon in the passing game too. His mere presence in the backfield or lined up wide opens things up for the other players. CJ both directly and indirectly is a significant benefit to the passing game and it seems like you really short him here.

 

You have season tickets. You don't remember times when Spiller's mere presence as a receiver influenced how the defenses lined up? You can see more in the stadium than I can on TV and I've seen it on TV.

 

As far as your final idea that first rounders are "supposed to be playmakers" two of the first round running backs you mentioned earlier, Travis Henry and Antowain Smith were absolutely not playmakers.

 

They were first rounders and they were running backs but they were plowhorses, not playmakers and defensive coordinators never lost sleep wondering how to defense them in contrast to the clear problems a player like CJ Spiller presents.

 

The Spiller pick was a great pick.

[dave mcbride]

You are the first person that has ever accused me of being less than scathing toward Jauron/Levy/Wilson. Whenever I mention the owner I immediately come under assault for being unfair. I don't know if the owner had any influence on the Spiller pick. There were rumors that the owner influenced the Lynch pick but I can't say for sure. I was under the impression that Gailey pushed for the Spiller pick, but again I can''t say for sure.

 

Regardless of who influenced the Spiller selecton and regardless of the reasonable reasoning for not selecting him I don't understand how people can be so staunchly against a particular selection after that selection has turned out to be so stunningly good. Spiller is not only one of the best players on the Bills he is also one of the best players in the league. Our agreements on players and how the franchise is operated far outweigh our disagreements. On the Spiller selection we simply sit on the opposite side of the table.

 

The chasm is a result that some people want to immerse themselves in the overarching philosophy of strategic drafting, while in this case I am taking the simple minded approach of a good pick is simply a good pick. It should be relished, not sneered at, especially when it is done in an ocean of bad picks. Bill, just savor what is good. It won'thurt you; it will make you more happy.

 

Bill, trust me on Gilmore. He is a stud CB who is going to be one of the best CBs in the league. The struggles you think he had were more attributable to a defense that was incapable of putting any pressure on the offense. Even playing with a lackluster supporting cast he still shined.

 

I do agree that Gilmore was an excellent pick. Elite CBs are like elite DEs these days - worthy of first round picks.

 

Chris Johnson would be the closest comparison. Jamaal Charles would be another one. Reggie Bush in college. Adrian Peterson is a good comparison in terms of explosiveness, not in style though. Peterson is in a league of his own. Workhorse AND home run hitter.

 

None of these guys can get their team past a skin-of-their-teeth moment in week 17, including Peterson. If memory serves, none of these guys got their teams past 10-6, and on average their teams' seasons have been 7-9 to 8-8. Bush did play on a 13-3 Saints team in 2009, but he only started 8 games that season.

Edited August 23, 2013 by dave mcbride

[San Jose Bills Fan]

None of these guys can get their team past a skin-of-their-teeth moment in week 17, including Peterson. If memory serves, none of these guys got their teams past 10-6, and on average their teams' seasons have been 7-9 to 8-8. Bush did play on a 13-3 Saints team in 2009, but he only started 8 games that season.

 

I don't understand your point.

 

No one player is going to get their team to the playoffs. I've said this innumerable times.

 

Archie Manning and Bert Jones were considered elite quarterbacks. Unfortunately they played for horrible teams. I don't know if either of them ever made the playoffs.

 

Like Adrian Peterson, Calvin Johnson is one of the best players in football and he's made the playoffs once in 7 years.

 

There is no one single way to win a championship. All teams need good QBs and good coaching as I've stated ad infinitum.

 

After that all teams are different.

 

Any great player will help their team win a championship.

 

No single player can do it by themselves.

 

Is that clear enough?

 

I've been saying that Spiller was a good pick.

 

Are you saying that he wasn't a good pick?

 

If not what is your point?

[Kelly the Dog]

Good and bad teams draft RBs high.

 

Last year, The Browns, the Bucs and the Giants (Super Bowl winners) drafted Rbs #1.

The year before, the Saints, a playoff team was the only one that drafted a RB (it was a bad year for RBs).

In 2010, the Bills, The Chargers and the Lions did.

In 2009, The Broncos, Colts and Cardinals did (two of three playoff teams).

In 2008, the Raiders, Panthers, Cowboys, Steelers and Titans did (three of five were playoff teams).

 

There is no question the NFL is a passing league now. There is no question that QB is by far the most important position. But I would bet that all 32 head coaches and GMs still say you have to be able to run. There is a lot of people who think that teams like Green Bay, who could pass as well as anyone, needed a good RB and run game to put them over the top. Atlanta went out and got Steven Jackson.

[Koufax]

I still think the draft is largely about adding total value, and not value over current depth chart, with a couple exceptions. We had two good running backs, and adding another meant getting rid of one, and that played out well, especially considering how dynamic CJ has become.

 

Most positions don't share touches as specifically, and beyond QB I think best player available is the best scenario. RB is the only other position that sort of comes close, but even then only if you have 2 good ones. People often want to draft or not draft based on what has gone right or wrong with other picks. No Gilmore because of McKelvin. But if you find a way to get the best five year contributing football player you can at each and every pick, you don't usually regret it.

 

Our regrets come from inferior football players, not position and scheme and the previous drafts. We all wanted Ngata over Whitner, because he was the superior football player then, and still clearly is. We wanted Orakpo (and others) over Maybin. Troup and Hardy were both second round picks wasted on inferior football players because of what the front office thought we needed.

 

If you take the best expected five year contributor, (QB excepted which you don't take high if you have one, and reach if you don't), weighted towards the impact of the position (fungible guards, impact pass rushers and tackles and skill players), you won't look up five years later and be disappointed with your choices. A draft doesn't fix a football team, and everyone tries to rate them after year 1, but I want the draft to infuse the roster with as much talent as possible. For me this is measured against a zero baseline, not the guy you have on your 53 at that spot.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I still think the draft is largely about adding total value, and not value over current depth chart, with a couple exceptions. We had two good running backs, and adding another meant getting rid of one, and that played out well, especially considering how dynamic CJ has become.

 

Most positions don't share touches as specifically, and beyond QB I think best player available is the best scenario. RB is the only other position that sort of comes close, but even then only if you have 2 good ones. People often want to draft or not draft based on what has gone right or wrong with other picks. No Gilmore because of McKelvin. But if you find a way to get the best five year contributing football player you can at each and every pick, you don't usually regret it.

 

Our regrets come from inferior football players, not position and scheme and the previous drafts. We all wanted Ngata over Whitner, because he was the superior football player then, and still clearly is. We wanted Orakpo (and others) over Maybin. Troup and Hardy were both second round picks wasted on inferior football players because of what the front office thought we needed.

 

If you take the best expected five year contributor, (QB excepted which you don't take high if you have one, and reach if you don't), weighted towards the impact of the position (fungible guards, impact pass rushers and tackles and skill players), you won't look up five years later and be disappointed with your choices. A draft doesn't fix a football team, and everyone tries to rate them after year 1, but I want the draft to infuse the roster with as much talent as possible. For me this is measured against a zero baseline, not the guy you have on your 53 at that spot.

 

Great post.

 

Everyone would agree that having pass rushers is very important but that doesn't make Aaron Maybin a good pick.

 

The Bills have picked too many bad football players more than they picked the wrong positions.

 

To make matters worse, over the last decade they've have had a poor percentage of retaining those draft picks who do pan out.