The decline of the Bills' draft picks led

[Orton's Arm]

The 2005 disimprovement was largely due to draft picks leaving or playing worse:

 

Mike Williams 2004: played well, especially in the second half of the year.

Mike Williams 2005: usually benched or ineffective.

 

Jonas Jennings 2004: played well.

Jonas Jennings 2005: gone.

 

Drew Bledsoe 2004: respectable

Drew Bledsoe 2005: gone

 

Travis Henry 2004: ineffective, but pushed McGahee.

Travis Henry 2005: gone.

 

Nate Clements 2004: Pro Bowl-type season

Nate Clements 2005: got beaten more often than an egg at a chef school.

 

Draft picks who contributed significantly more to the team in 2005 than 2004? None. The combination of reduced contributions from many draft picks, without new contributions from others, proved devastating. Add in the loss of Pat Williams and Ross Tucker, the injuries to Spikes, Villarrial, and Teague, and there's the reason for the worse record.

[NorthWesternBill]

I really do feel as though this team will do better next year and I have a hard time buying into the gloomy train of thought that we will have the first pick in the next draft.... losing spikes hurt us alot, our coaching was terrible, and I seem to remember alot of the games we lost we were close in! So if we were on the verge of winning even around 7 games, given that we HAVE improved this year, AND we have a bettter schedule, WE WILL DO BETTER THIS YEAR!!!!

[Pyrite Gal]

The 2005 disimprovement was largely due to draft picks leaving or playing worse:

 

Mike Williams 2004: played well, especially in the second half of the year.

Mike Williams 2005: usually benched or ineffective.

 

Jonas Jennings 2004: played well.

Jonas Jennings 2005: gone.

 

Drew Bledsoe 2004: respectable

Drew Bledsoe 2005: gone

 

Travis Henry 2004: ineffective, but pushed McGahee.

Travis Henry 2005: gone.

 

Nate Clements 2004: Pro Bowl-type season

Nate Clements 2005: got beaten more often than an egg at a chef school.

 

Draft picks who contributed significantly more to the team in 2005 than 2004?  None.  The combination of reduced contributions from many draft picks, without new contributions from others, proved devastating.  Add in the loss of Pat Williams and Ross Tucker, the injuries to Spikes, Villarrial, and Teague, and there's the reason for the worse record.

697194[/snapback]

Are there many (any) Bills whether acquired through FA, UDFA, trades or whatever who you feel contributed more in 2005 than they did in 2004?

 

I think the draft picks and the rest of the team generally sucked in performance last year (and they have the dismal record of Ws to show for it). However, if you are going to blame this failure on the failure of draft picks above other acquistions, you would need to show a comparison or great achievement by the FAs and other's compared to the performance of the draftees.

 

In general, I do not think that is the case because there is a fairly clear record of dismal performances by FA acqusitions like Posey, Adams (who like Clements dropped from a level that got him a Pro Bowl berth). An unfortunately dismal record of injured FAs like TKO and Milloy, and even the case of draftee JPs dismal performance forcing us to us a back-up QB who performed at.. well like a back-up as our starter.

 

Did the draftees disappoint and even suck? Yep! There were notable exceptions among draftees who improved on their 04 output for various reasons like Crowell and Schobel. However, even some FAs like Lindell and the steady Moorman improved their performance so it seems your analysis does not hold with any consistency.

 

In addition, this labeling and attempt to classify the problem as draft or FA related seems pretty tortured. You obviously label Bledsoe as a draft failure on your list because he was traded for a draft pick. He sounds like a trade acquired failure to me. If you want to categorize him as a draft failure then rationally the analysis should look at the performance of the Bill who was drafted in that spot. WM's 2005 performance versus 2004 was huge if you compare the beginnings of the two seasons and a flop if you compare the 2 second halves (the tortured analysis moves further from reality.

 

Likewise if we want to indict performance downturns of draftees as a big issue, McGee had such a fantastic 04 that he suffered a significant downturn in performance in 2005 by the measure of TDs. However, his yards gaomed was pretty good.

 

Was he a mistake or wasn't he by your measure? Should TD be condemned or not for this "bad" drafting.

 

Perhaps we want to look at another drop-off from a significant drafted player Eric Moulds. In many ways he went from being a team leader to getting dumped as a character issue.

 

Overall, the conclusion you draw from your analysis of draft failure seems fairly meaningless in terms of understanding the Bills.

[Orton's Arm]

Overall, the conclusion you draw from your analysis of draft failure seems fairly meaningless in terms of understanding the Bills.

I regard Bledsoe as a draft pick as we used a first round pick to acquire him. We also used a first round pick on McGahee. I felt McGahee had a better season in 2004 than 2005. Granted, he had slightly fewer yards in 2004, but many fewer starts.

 

You're right to point out the decline of Eric Moulds' production as yet another draft pick disimprovement. I also agree the Bills got more production out of some free agent signings (Schneck, Moorman, and Lindell) which partially offset disimprovement elsewhere among free agent acquisitions.

 

The problem with having too many free agent starters was the team got old in a hurry. Of course, had TD done a better job with drafting, maybe some of those free agent starters could have been younger, better draft picks. But the point I was trying to make was that the overall production from draft picks declined in 2005, which was a serious reason for the team's decline. Maybe you could argue Clements just had an off year, but most of the other declines were permanent. TD wasn't building towards something; he was watching his Band-Aid solutions fall apart.

[jarthur31]

I think you left out the 2000 draft which played a huge part in our suckiness.

[Max997]

I really do feel as though this team will do better next year and I have a hard time buying into the gloomy train of thought that we will have the first pick in the next draft.... losing spikes hurt us alot, our coaching was terrible, and I seem to remember alot of the games we lost we were close in! So if we were on the verge of winning even around 7 games, given that we HAVE improved this year, AND we have a bettter schedule, WE WILL DO BETTER THIS YEAR!!!!

697206[/snapback]

 

 

Unless Nall pulls a Delhomme i dont see how you can say that...this team doesnt have a QB. I am not ready to dump Losman but it was clear that he wasnt ready and i dont see how that changes this year unless Fairchild is a magician....and thats not a knock on Fairchild because I think he was a good signing, I just dont think this team will get consistant enough play from the QB spot to win no matter who is starting

[Mickey]

The 2005 disimprovement was largely due to draft picks leaving or playing worse:

 

Mike Williams 2004: played well, especially in the second half of the year.

Mike Williams 2005: usually benched or ineffective.

 

Jonas Jennings 2004: played well.

Jonas Jennings 2005: gone.

 

Drew Bledsoe 2004: respectable

Drew Bledsoe 2005: gone

 

Travis Henry 2004: ineffective, but pushed McGahee.

Travis Henry 2005: gone.

 

Nate Clements 2004: Pro Bowl-type season

Nate Clements 2005: got beaten more often than an egg at a chef school.

 

Draft picks who contributed significantly more to the team in 2005 than 2004?  None.  The combination of reduced contributions from many draft picks, without new contributions from others, proved devastating.  Add in the loss of Pat Williams and Ross Tucker, the injuries to Spikes, Villarrial, and Teague, and there's the reason for the worse record.

697194[/snapback]

Add in that we played the easiest, patsy filled schedule, we could possibly have ever hoped for in 2004 and that summs it up. The reason some of these yahoos didn't produce in 2005 but did in 2004 is because we played crappy teams that made those guys look better than they were in 2004. The 2003 and 2005 team were pretty much the same, 2004 was a scheduling induced fluke.

[Orton's Arm]

The 2003 and 2005 team were pretty much the same, 2004 was a scheduling induced fluke.

There's a lot of truth to this. Jerry Gray's defenses lived and died by the blitz. Inferior offenses--such as those we often faced in 2004--tended to be lousy at picking up the blitz. The better offenses could, which is a big reason why the Patriots killed us in every game except the Lawyer Milloy bowl. While every team's record will be influenced by the strength of its schedule, the nature of Gray's defense made the schedule especially influential for the Bills.

[John from Riverside]

I feel this year more then any other since TD's regime that there is actually a plan in place for this team.....which is at least a step in the right direction....

 

To me this this offseason said:

 

- Biuld defense through the draft (we got some really good quality players in this draft)

 

- Biuld offense through FA (Fowler, Reyes, WR's)

 

It wouldn't shock me to see next years draft heavy on the offensive side of the ball.......

[Lori]

Random thoughts added in italics:

Mike Williams 2004: played well, especially in the second half of the year.

Mike Williams 2005: high ankle sprain in game 2

-Given his pre-2005 injury history BigMike probably wouldn't have lasted the season anyway, but we'll never know just how bad that ankle was. I remember thinking it looked pretty serious when it happened.

 

Nate Clements 2004: Pro Bowl-type season

Nate Clements 2005: got beaten more often than an egg at a chef school.

Partially due to the nonexistent pass rush. Clements bears his share of blame, but you can't cover today's WRs forever, either...

 

Draft picks who contributed significantly more to the team in 2005 than 2004?  None.

Mostly agreed. The only possible arguments could be made for McGee (fewer return TDs, but went from a fill-in for Vincent to a decent starting CB), Josh Reed (bad in '04, not quite as bad in '05), and Evans.

 

The combination of reduced contributions from many draft picks, without new contributions from others, proved devastating.  Add in the loss of Pat Williams and Ross Tucker, the injuries to Spikes, Villarrial, and Teague, and there's the reason for the worse record.

Agreed. The only way they could have gotten less of an impact from their first-day picks would be if Parrish had joined Everett on IR, and Spikes' absence can't be overstated. Even with all the other problems you mentioned, this still might have been a .500 team with a healthy TKO.

[Orton's Arm]

Mostly agreed. The only possible arguments could be made for McGee (fewer return TDs, but went from a fill-in for Vincent to a decent starting CB), Josh Reed (bad in '04, not quite as bad in '05), and Evans.

Evans had 843 receiving yards in 2004, and just 743 receiving yards in 2005. He had 9 TDs in 2004, and just 7 in 2005. Are you suggesting Evans played better in 2005 than 2004, but had fewer yards and TDs because of poor QB play?

 

While Takeo was clearly the best player on the Bills' defense, I felt Crowell played well in his absence. The upgrade from Crowell to Takeo would have helped, but I doubt it would have brought in an extra three wins.

[Pyrite Gal]

I regard Bledsoe as a draft pick as we used a first round pick to acquire him.  We also used a first round pick on McGahee.  I felt McGahee had a better season in 2004 than 2005.  Granted, he had slightly fewer yards in 2004, but many fewer starts. 

 

You're right to point out the decline of Eric Moulds' production as yet another draft pick disimprovement.  I also agree the Bills got more production out of some free agent signings (Schneck, Moorman, and Lindell) which partially offset disimprovement elsewhere among free agent acquisitions.

 

The problem with having too many free agent starters was the team got old in a hurry.  Of course, had TD done a better job with drafting, maybe some of those free agent starters could have been younger, better draft picks.  But the point I was trying to make was that the overall production from draft picks declined in 2005, which was a serious reason for the team's decline.  Maybe you could argue Clements just had an off year, but most of the other declines were permanent.  TD wasn't building towards something; he was watching his Band-Aid solutions fall apart.

697295[/snapback]

 

I have few problems with the diagnosis that many players including the draft acquisitions had worse 05 than 04s (well duh the team was 9-7 in 04 and 5-11 in 05).

 

What simply is not substantiated by the many true facts you lay out was the the failure of the team was led by those widespread failures of draft choices. Most draftee declined in their productions but also most FA acquisitions declined in their production. In addition, some (only a few unfortunately) draftees improved in production from to 05 and also some (only a few unfortunately) FAs improved in their production from 0-4 to 0-5.

 

Even worse with this analysis, is that it does not attempt to get at what I see as the lead reason for these failures by draftees. For some it was likely poor picking of players who were not as good as hoped and for some their careers might have been salvaged by better player development.

 

This distinction is a serious issue as it would mandate a different approach or solution in each case and this is where I think good conclusions based on good analysis is most helpful to read.

 

I found your post a little disappointing because it strung together a bunch of true facts while conveniently avoiding true facts that undercut the conclusion (this form of argument is not a rarity at TSW unfortunately). Even strangely it left out a few true facts (like draftee Moulds suffering a downturn in production) that might even support the broad conclusion drawn.

 

Overall, if one wants to attempt to draw a conclusion from the various factoids it would actually be that we had some seriously dysfncional team leadership in TD who for whatever reason made a horrible choice for his first HC and then GW exacerbated or made real this mistake by hiring an inexperienced and unproven staff that failed miserably on the offensive side of the ball, made some poor draft decisions and even worse really did a poor job of training and developing OL players.

 

In terms of conclusions the source of much of this problem has been eliminated. TDs desire to never again be fired by an HC he hired led him IMHO to pass on two coaches (Fox and Lewis) that he feared might beat him if they turned on him likw Cowher and instead he hired GW whom he knew he could beat if push came to shove. Even worse, GW had the same infection and hired a staff without the experience this team needed, but had no one who could naturally beat him.

 

Even worse, his failings were obvious enough to TD that he went out and hired folks to supplemt GW's failings but failed to insist on the OC he advocated and took HW's choice Kevin Killdrive and he hired a previous OC as RB coach but failed to force GW to make Killfdrive vary his O when it failed in 2003.

 

I think good analysis would go beyond statimg obvious facts and drawing half and false conclusions from them.

[Lori]

re: Evans - I'm looking beyond the raw numbers, and more at his maturation into a solid starting-quality WR. (Numbers don't always tell the whole story. See: RJ's QB rating.)

As good as LE's rookie year was, there were still some things he needed to learn... and yes, I believe the overall mediocrity of the passing O affected his '05 stats.

 

Better than '04? Maybe not, according to the statsheet... but I wouldn't be concerned about the slight dropoff in his numbers, either.

 

As for Crowell? He did play well in TKO's absence, but Spikes has (had?) game-altering ability. I have no problem envisioning a combination of big plays and overall on-field leadership from #51 flipping the scoreboard in a couple of those close losses.

[Orton's Arm]

What simply is not substantiated by the many true facts you lay out was the the failure of the team was led by those widespread failures of draft choices. 

The decline of the Bills' free agents was predictable and unavoidable. If you've got a guy as old as Lawyer Milloy or Troy Vincent, you know it won't be long before age starts to take a serious toll.

 

The problem with relying on free agents as heavily as TD did was that guys don't last very long. Take Chris Villarrial. IIRC, he was one of the highest rated free agent guards the year we signed him. But the very next year, nagging injuries caused his play to be very poor. If you have a bunch of older free agent starters--as TD did--it's only a matter of time before stuff like this is going to happen to many of them.

 

If you know you've got a free agent who may be getting close to the end of his career, you need to have a draft pick waiting in the wings to take his place. The Troy Vincent/Terrence McGee situation is a good example of how this is supposed to work. (I'd actually forgotten about McGee when posting my original analysis, so it's good Lori reminded me of him.)

 

Clearly, the unavoidable decrease in the quality of free agent contributions should have caused an increase in the overall contributions from draft picks. Had TD done his job on draft day and in contract negotiations, the team would have been riddled with young, promising draft picks waiting to replace the declining free agents. Instead, the Bills witnessed an overall decrease in the contributions they received from the players TD drafted.

[ganesh]

The problem with having too many free agent starters was the team got old in a hurry.  Of course, had TD done a better job with drafting, maybe some of those free agent starters could have been younger, better draft picks. 

697295

[/snapback]

 

 

One of the problems with the TD draft picks was that because he had two different coaches, his coaching staff had to fit in the existing players to their schemes. And TD did not help them in getting the type of players they wanted from the draft.

 

On the other hand, Levy has drafted players that will suit the DJ system, at least on paper. One can only hope that since the strength of the drafted players is in

this coaching staffs system they should be able to excel.