I still don't like the Whitner and McCargo picks

[Pyrite Gal]

But that isn't my criticism. My criticism was that he refused to resign proven talent at DB and used high draft picks to fill the holes he created by refusing to resign proven DBs.

 

This is something we actually can check the specific cases on to try to judge together (or with disagreements) what happened with the proven DBs he (we) failed to resign and why this decision (mistake?) was made. I will try to look at this with some detail if I get the chance, but this is my sense from my Alzheimered recollections:

 

DBs we failed to resign-

 

Thomas Smith-Well before TDs time but not a mistake by the Bills to let him go as he never produced in the rest of his career as he did here. He was a great cover guy but my recollection his he never produced the INTs on a team which needed turnovers badly to make him worth resigning.

 

It struck me as a reasonable decision not to sign Smith for more than he was worth which the market commanded.

 

Antoine Winfield- The decision to not resign him was on TDs watch so he bears responsibility for this one. However, the Bills had set aside the cap money to r-sign him but did not do so when Lawyer Milloy to the surprise of all (Belicheck being among them) refused to sign with NE for a few hundred thou. below his asking price and BB refused to budge over a small amount of money and Milloy jumped ship over a small amount of money. AW was on record after the Bills made an offer to Milloy which was substantial as the Bears also had need and cap room that the decision to sign Milloy likely ended his career as a Bill.

 

TDs decision to choose this SS over a proven DB was a necessdary one in my judgment as TD was making up for an error by the HC he hired as GW had sign Jenkins to be SS starter, but when it turned out that Jenkins was done, they had to start Wire at SS. I also loved AW but it seemed to me to be the correct move to sign an aging Milloy for more $ than he was worth compared to other SSs who already had deals because playing Wire as starting SS was simply unacceptable.

 

The decision not to resign AW was not a happy one, but it strikes me as the right thing to do given the overall situation.

 

Nate Clements- He is not resigned yet so he qualifies for this list, but we still can sign him so the case is not closed (yet). It would seem we might have had him more cheaply before but it is not certain what he was asking for. It is also not absolutely certain what the tag situation is with him though my sense is that the reports we agreed not to tag him at all are correct. We do have potential alternatives on the roster but a few things would have to work out perfectly for us to really make his loss not be a bad one for the Bills,

 

Of these three CBs, I think 1 move was the right one, 1 move was forced upon us by mistakes at SS which made not resigning AW the right move and the story is not finished yet regarding NC.

 

Did you have other failures to resign DBs in mind as mistakes?

 

 

 

 

If he had resigned the proven DBs, he may have been able to use the draft picks he used on DBs on OLs instead.

 

Yeah, this is true, but in order to determine whether this truth means very much in the real world, we would need some assessment of which OL players were available in the drafts of those years.

 

This is a bit of work that I do not expect anyone to do (though I and other fans would certainly appreciate the info). In the absence of more info while this concept makes enough sense to not merely be the fact-free opinions often seen on TSW, it would need at least some more specifics to consider this as a likely thought or simply an interesting one which may or may not be true IMHO.

 

My choice? What are you talking about?

 

My apologies as this thread has become so long the stats crafted and offered were probably by someone other than you though they used this to substantiate an argument similar to yours. Specifically, in the notable post, the author claimed for example that the Bills had drafted only 1 OL player in the first two rounds under TD, This fact is a true one, but by choosing 2 rounds as the standard for showing commitment to drafting a particular position, the author conveniently chose a standard which left out the Bills using a 3rd rounder on Jonas Jennings.

 

My sense is that selecting the entire first days choices as ones showing a priority for a particular position is a superior arbitrary judgment to the 2 round standard. Because actually we are talking about a relatively small number of choices TD had of high picks in his 5 drafts, the decision to choose a 2 round standard rather than a 3 round standard leaves out an important player when judging how the drafts went.

 

The JJ situation is also instructive in deciding whether the TD error can be summarized best by saying he failed to extend "proven" players. OL player Jennings had merely proven he was too injury prone as a Bill to spend much cash on him. I think his case argues that the Bills OL problems were not failing to resign OL players. but actually picking bad ones and/or failing to train the players well.

 

I think the problem you identify is real, but actually I think that by moving beyond the failed Vinky/Ruel era to the JMac era, this problem has been much improved. The proof in the pudding is that better assessment by JMac than under Vinky/Ruel has produced not only two starters from the draft (Preston/Pennington) but he gets far more out of players with is traiining (Price/Pennington). He does make mistakes and ain't no miracle worker (Anderson/Reyes) but though we are not where we want to be on the OL, e are clearly IMHO much better off than we were with the move from Vinky to JMac.

 

I the right player is there even in the 1st round and he is an OL player great, but if he is not (Okoye for example) I am fine with us passing once again on the OL early in this draft and instead think there is a reasonable chance that JMac can repeat what he already did in helping build an OL using FAs and retreads like Glenn Parker and Dusty in NYC. Folks are correct in pointing to good teams having used the draft and resigning to build OLs for long-term success. However, I do not endorse us looking for a 4 or even 3 year plan to build the OL and this team. Utilizing JMac and his skills to acquore and train a Peters and draft and train a Pennington and Preston and trying to get as much as he can out of a Butler and Merz strikes me as a far better strategy for the Bills than having traded up our #8 to get the one OL player worth a high pick in this draft and the many changes in plans needed for us to get Mangold.

 

In hindsight this worked extremely well for NYJ, but certainly at the time avoiding us starting Coy Wire at SS and not realizing we would find a DT starter in the 5th round made the decision to go with Whitner and trade up for McCargo a reasonble one which actually did work out not perfectly but better than 2005 for the Bills.

 

 

 

Hmm, all first day draft picks in your list. Perhaps if he had spent some of those first day draft picks on offensive linemen some of them would be solid pros or Pro Bowlers.

 

 

I did list these first day picks specifically to show that if one chose OL players instead and chose well (a doubtful proposition given TD/GW/Vinky mismanagement of OL choices) instead of these players an emphasis on OL picks may well have simply shifted our problems elsewhere rather than give the Bills a winning record. In general I agree with Marv that it all starts with running and stopping the run and with this though more devotion to OL rather than skill positions makes a lot of sense.

 

However, I think the thing I disagree with in terms of a lof of the OL orientation arguments made on TSW is that the Marv bromide is true that it STARTS with running and stopping the run and too many of the posts which call for an OL focus seem to choose to ignore that this would merely be a start and that if they want to make a serious proposal their ideas at least need to acknowledge that what they call for is only a start. Without some semblance of acknowledgement of the limitations of an OL ONLY focus and expression of the reality that reality is simply more than picking an OL player because the pundits have him rated highly (MW and McKinnie) or in hindsight he worked out (Mangold) then we would agree.

 

I agree that the bias should be toward running and stopping the run first, but this bias is easily passed on when a particular draft offers you some other need as part of a winning strategy to fulfill.

[Lurker]

Did Seattle do better in 05 with Hutchinson than without him in 06? Please be serious.

 

I guess he wasn't very valuable then, by your line of reasoning. Steinbach must suck too, since his team didn't do as well this year...

 

 

NFL football games are generally won and lost up front. A strong line affords long scoring drives for the offense and an opportunity for the defense to remain fresh and rested. If you think that the Bills strategy of chasing "skill position" players is so legit, please explain the losses and lack of playoff appearances.

 

This should be good.

 

I have no problem with the "we should have drafted OL" argument. All I'm trying to refute is the "if we'd drafted star OL-men (instead of star DBs), we'd be better off" argument. Losing high profile FA's is the major problem, not the positions being drafted. Losing Winfield and drafting Nate to fill the hole is no different than if the Bills had drafted Hutch and then had to replace him when his rookie contract ran out.

 

Pro-OL posters like yourself and Holcomb's Limb aren't acknowleging that even if the O-line had been addressed with high draft choices who turned into stars, it's likely those players would have also left like Winfield did and Nate's going to, opening up huge holes to be filled--yet again--by premium draft picks. Zero sum game.

 

And BTW, spare me the "this should be good" stuff...

[Bill from NYC]

I guess he wasn't very valuable then, by your line of reasoning. Steinbach must suck too, since his team didn't do as well this year...

I have no problem with the "we should have drafted OL" argument. All I'm trying to refute is the "if we'd drafted star OL-men (instead of star DBs), we'd be better off" argument. Losing high profile FA's is the major problem, not the positions being drafted. Losing Winfield and drafting Nate to fill the hole is no different than if the Bills had drafted Hutch and then had to replace him when his rookie contract ran out.

 

Pro-OL posters like yourself and Holcomb's Limb aren't acknowleging that even if the O-line had been addressed with high draft choices who turned into stars, it's likely those players would have also left like Winfield did and Nate's going to, opening up huge holes to be filled--yet again--by premium draft picks. Zero sum game.

 

And BTW, spare me the "this should be good" stuff...

 

The Bengals were a mess this season. As I recall, many of their players were injured and/or arrested (even Steinbach had a little brush with the law).

As far as "drafting offensive linemen instead of STAR dbs;" sorry, but it seems that now YOU are going off on a tangent here. Of all of the first round dbs since 93, the only one I would deem to be a "star" would be Nate. Certainly, this is subject to differences of opinion wrt perhaps Winfield, but I simply don't think that T. Smith was a star, and I would consider Burress to be about average. So, we are talking about one, maybe two of the 5 dbs being a star (of course, it is too early to say wrt Whitner).

 

If the Bills had taken OL instead with those picks and had the same success rate (a reasonable proposition), and resorted to the scrap heap of losing teams and late round picks for dbs, would the Bills have been a better team? I think so. We play many of our games in the elements where very often it is hard to pass. The Bills would have been stronger, and more suited for our climate. Hey, jmo.

 

As far as sparing you the sarcasm, I thought that your comments on previous posts were a little snide too, thus the response. That said, I apologize. I come here to talk Bills, and enjoy doing so. I like that much more than I do offending you, or anyone else. Sorry about that.

[Dibs]

I just wrote/researched a really long post & lost it just before I was finished.....sob....it had lots of good points.

 

Quick summary.

 

NC didn't replace AW.

AW 1999

NC 2001

AW left 2004

IMO AW was obtained to accommodate the GW/Grey D which required two very good cover CBs.....they obviously forgot that if they succeeded, there would be heaps of money needed to maintain it.

AW was considered(generally) at the time of leaving us, a top 5 CB(or there abouts)......at least that is what Lindy's & PFW mags rated him at.....also his contract size reflected how he was perceived.

 

What does it matter what the TD/GW/MM era did in regards to what we do now? Surely we should pick what is best NOW regardless of Bills history.

 

Here's the BIG point though.....

In the end...."drafting too many CBs in the 1st round" comes down to 1 pick(i.e. 1 CB less & it would be a totally reasonable numbe)....regardless of reasons/excuses. If we had picked an OL instead of NC, that would have made 3 1st round picks in 7 years on the OL.....but I digress.

 

HERE IT IS....THE BIG POINT

NC = 1 first round pick (#21)

Rob Johnson(& Bledsoe) = 3 first round picks (#9, #13, #22) & a second round pick & all the other little add ons to the RJ, DB & JPL trades

 

Had we succeeded in trading/acquiring a good QB with the #9 pick back in 1998(the RJ pick)....or even if Flowers or MW had panned out, we would have had multiple, multiple, multiple picks extra to play with.....and we wouldn't be too concerned with the fact we are facing losing our top CB.

[Lurker]

NC didn't replace AW.

AW 1999

NC 2001

AW left 2004

 

Yep, you're right. Nate was drafted to plug the Thomas Smith hole, not AW's. Mea culpa.

 

 

HERE IT IS....THE BIG POINT

NC = 1 first round pick (#21)

Rob Johnson(& Bledsoe) = 3 first round picks (#9, #13, #22) & a second round pick & all the other little add ons to the RJ, DB & JPL trades

 

Had we succeeded in trading/acquiring a good QB with the #9 pick back in 1998(the RJ pick)....or even if Flowers or MW had panned out, we would have had multiple, multiple, multiple picks extra to play with.....and we wouldn't be too concerned with the fact we are facing losing our top CB.

 

 

I agree. Giving up premium picks to chase the QB rainbow, plus the MW fiasco, really set the team back. Swinging for the fences can be a dangerous game...

[Alaska Darin]

The Bengals were a mess this season. As I recall, many of their players were injured and/or arrested (even Steinbach had a little brush with the law).

So were the Seahawks. Alexander missed about half the season, Hasslebeck missed 4 starts, Jeremy Stevens missed 5 games, and their offensive line had starters miss multiple games at every position except LT.

As far as "drafting offensive linemen instead of STAR dbs;" sorry, but it seems that now YOU are going off on a tangent here. Of all of the first round dbs since 93, the only one I would deem to be a "star" would be Nate. Certainly, this is subject to differences of opinion wrt perhaps Winfield, but I simply don't think that T. Smith was a star, and I would consider Burress to be about average. So, we are talking about one, maybe two of the 5 dbs being a star (of course, it is too early to say wrt Whitner).

Thomas Smith was on the verge of the Pro Bowl. His only liability was his inability to hold onto interceptions. He was a very good cover corner. Regardless of that fact, 2 out of 5 in the first round is about average for the NFL draft was far as picking stars. A.Winfield certainly was that, regardless of his lack of turnovers. I'm not sure I've EVER seen a defensive back who was a better tackler.

If the Bills had taken OL instead with those picks and had the same success rate (a reasonable proposition), and resorted to the scrap heap of losing teams and late round picks for dbs, would the Bills have been a better team? I think so. We play many of our games in the elements where very often it is hard to pass. The Bills would have been stronger, and more suited for our climate. Hey, jmo.

Except that ignores the fact that guards are RARELY taken in the first round or even on day one (5 first rounders in the last six YEARS and only 25 OLinemen in the first round total in that time frame). A fact I have pointed out a number of times. Also, it's doubtful that Ralph would have kept any offensive linemen who did develop (much like the cornerback situation). Let's face it, the dude is still pretty cheap.

[Oneonta Buffalo Fan]

The fact that this thread has lasted so long makes me wonder.......should I laugh now or later?

 

Come on people. McCargo and Whitner were great picks. Where's your faith in this team?

[DrDawkinstein]

I just wrote/researched a really long post & lost it just before I was finished.....sob....it had lots of good points.

 

Quick summary.

 

HERE IT IS....THE BIG POINT

NC = 1 first round pick (#21)

Rob Johnson(& Bledsoe) = 3 first round picks (#9, #13, #22) & a second round pick & all the other little add ons to the RJ, DB & JPL trades

 

Had we succeeded in trading/acquiring a good QB with the #9 pick back in 1998(the RJ pick)....or even if Flowers or MW had panned out, we would have had multiple, multiple, multiple picks extra to play with.....and we wouldn't be too concerned with the fact we are facing losing our top CB.

 

one of the BEST points ive read regarding our drafting history/strategy. :D

 

also, you may want to start typing out long, wordy, well-researched posts, then deleting them on purpose and just summarizing. it actually makes for very good posting.

(and not just you almost everyone here)

[Pyrite Gal]

If the Bills had taken OL instead with those picks and had the same success rate (a reasonable proposition),

 

Given the Bills record of success the two times they did as you suggested and drafted OL players on the first day of the draft and ended up with the good playing but injury plagued Jonas Jennings and then the bust Mike Williams do you really want to argue that there is a reasonable probability of success if they had only focused on the OL?

 

I (and I suspect all who agree with Marv that winning football starts with being able to run and to stop the run) certainly would have liked to have seen a bit more attention given to the OL since the turn of the millenia (and even before), but really drafting players high would/should have only played a significant but small role in making this team's OL and record better, as I think the even bigger issues for improving the OL were:

 

1. Having some experienced adult leadership of the OL here instead of the inexperienced Vinky and the littel experienced Ruel. These two almost certainly played a critical role in picking not very good players to spend first day draft picks on like MW an Jennings (a good athlete who did not play often enough because he is injury prone).

 

2. Poor OCs like GW's original choice (Kragthorpe I I think) who was so badhe got canned and Kevin Killdrive ran Os so predictable and bad i douby even the best players could save it.

 

3. Getting better teaching and gameplanning from both of the above for development of individual players in addition to better gameplanning.

 

The draft is an important issue certainly and is a good method for acquiring players as shown by many teams. However, it is not the only way to acquire an OL capable of playing a key role in a team getting to the playoffs (lets use this as our next goal rather than choosing how do SB winners build their team as a measure of greater success by this team.

 

JMac's prescence actually represents a significant improvement in our OL as he meets part of your point by his helping choose better players like Preston for 1st day picks, and even more important in the real world where we have multiple needs to fill, he has been able to identify and train UDFAs like Peters into competent OL players and train and develop low round picks like Pennington into credible starters.

 

As he himself said right from the start he is no miracle man and he has had failures like Bennie Anderson and disappointments like Reyes, but overall, if the Bills under TD had drafted 2 more OL players on the first day, they would have been enough for them to meet the numeric norm for this position and variances this small are easily explained by players they targeted being taken or other needs demanding they look elsewhere first.

 

Even for this big believer in the import of a strong OL, I simply do not see a compelling case for us having made more OL picks as anywhere near the lead explanation for our bad record. IMHO making bad OL choices with our first day picks is the lead OL story here.

[DrDawkinstein]

pyrite gal, check out (the last part of) my post above yours...

 

[jimmyv.]

So were the Seahawks. Alexander missed about half the season, Hasslebeck missed 4 starts, Jeremy Stevens missed 5 games, and their offensive line had starters miss multiple games at every position except LT.

 

Thomas Smith was on the verge of the Pro Bowl. His only liability was his inability to hold onto interceptions. He was a very good cover corner. Regardless of that fact, 2 out of 5 in the first round is about average for the NFL draft was far as picking stars. A.Winfield certainly was that, regardless of his lack of turnovers. I'm not sure I've EVER seen a defensive back who was a better tackler.

 

Winfield should run clinics on how DBs should tackle. Fiesty competitor who could hit for little man and was good in run support. Only knock on him when he was Bills was his lack of intercepts, but he has performed better with Vikes in that regard.

 

One of my favorite CBs of all time for Bills was Robert James, back in early 70's. He had it all and was never given recognition that he deserved due to playing on crappy Bills teams at time and by his career being cut short by a cheap shot block at his knees by Jim Bertlesen of Rams in an exhibition game.

 

Except that ignores the fact that guards are RARELY taken in the first round or even on day one (5 first rounders in the last six YEARS and only 25 OLinemen in the first round total in that time frame). A fact I have pointed out a number of times. Also, it's doubtful that Ralph would have kept any offensive linemen who did develop (much like the cornerback situation). Let's face it, the dude is still pretty cheap.

[Orton's Arm]

This was a simply amazing post. It will fall on many deaf ears, but each and every word is completely true.

 

Imagine if Peters didn't fall into our laps! The Bills would have the worst OL in the NFL. Now that we have Peters (who at the rate he is going will soon be a literal star) and a possible good RT in Pennington, it really shouldn't be too hard to build a good OL if it is deemed important by Levy and crew.

The odds of doing so with another udfa and a 7th round pick are next to nil. Resources must be devoted to making the Bills a strong football team on both sides of the line. Will it happen? You tell me.

 

If my life depended on guessing right, I would predict that Nate will walk, and Marv will draft a first round corner come hell or high water. After that is anybody's guess. Will we get anything at OG besides a scrap heap scrub free agent or a late round draft choice? I hope so. We will need to in order to win.

 

All we can do is hope that I am wrong and that Marv is able to do anything but chase early dbs yet again.

Thanks, Bill, for the kind words. I agree with you that finding another Jason Peters is very unlikely, and that the Bills should use first day picks on the OL if they want it to continue to improve.

[ganesh]

Thanks, Bill, for the kind words. I agree with you that finding another Jason Peters is very unlikely, and that the Bills should use first day picks on the OL if they want it to continue to improve.

 

As I mentioned in a post a few weeks ago....next season we will be facing some really physical teams from the AFC East, AFC North and NFC East.....That is 14 games and every game is going to be won in the trenches....If we don't fix our lines these teams will kill Losman and McGahee and send them to the infirmary. This bills off season should be solely spent on fixing our lines.

[tennesseeboy]

Truer words were never spoken. This is so important this year because I think this year we could really be a force in the NFL IF we strengthen the trenches.

[MDH]

The Bengals were a mess this season. As I recall, many of their players were injured and/or arrested (even Steinbach had a little brush with the law).

As far as "drafting offensive linemen instead of STAR dbs;" sorry, but it seems that now YOU are going off on a tangent here. Of all of the first round dbs since 93, the only one I would deem to be a "star" would be Nate. Certainly, this is subject to differences of opinion wrt perhaps Winfield, but I simply don't think that T. Smith was a star, and I would consider Burress to be about average. So, we are talking about one, maybe two of the 5 dbs being a star (of course, it is too early to say wrt Whitner).

 

If the Bills had taken OL instead with those picks and had the same success rate (a reasonable proposition), and resorted to the scrap heap of losing teams and late round picks for dbs, would the Bills have been a better team? I think so. We play many of our games in the elements where very often it is hard to pass. The Bills would have been stronger, and more suited for our climate. Hey, jmo.

 

As far as sparing you the sarcasm, I thought that your comments on previous posts were a little snide too, thus the response. That said, I apologize. I come here to talk Bills, and enjoy doing so. I like that much more than I do offending you, or anyone else. Sorry about that.

 

You conveniently skipped his main point about the Bills not re-signing their own players and needing to replace them via the draft once again. The Bills wouldn't NEED to keep drafting DBs early if they simply re-signed their own players to second contracts. The Bills would still be in the same situation if they kept drafting OL early only to have to keep drafting more to replace the ones they let go. They'd probably be in worse shape since it generally takes much longer for OL to develop.

[In space no one can hear]

I'm still pissed about the Walt Patulski pick........

[Pyrite Gal]

Thanks, Bill, for the kind words. I agree with you that finding another Jason Peters is very unlikely, and that the Bills should use first day picks on the OL if they want it to continue to improve.

 

Given the outcomes of first day OL picks MW and Jennings, it is pretty clear that all first day OL picks are not created equal so the notion that we should use our first day picks on OL players is a nice thought but half or less of a strategy.

[Orton's Arm]

Given the outcomes of first day OL picks MW and Jennings, it is pretty clear that all first day OL picks are not created equal so the notion that we should use our first day picks on OL players is a nice thought but half or less of a strategy.

You've written quite a bit lately, so I need to get around to responding to it.

 

- You argue that I should look at OL drafted on the first day, not those drafted just in rounds 1 & 2. There's no right or wrong answer here. According to the NFL trade value chart, the 15th pick in the first round is worth more than double the 15th pick in the 2nd round; which in turn is worth more than double the 15th pick in the 3rd round; which is worth more than double the 15th pick in the 4th round. If trade values are biased towards early picks, it's because early draft picks are disproportionately likely to succeed. Over the past 11 years, the Bills have only used one pick in the first two rounds on an offensive lineman.

 

- You argue that letting Antoine Winfield go was necessary to free up money for Lawyer Milloy. Milloy in turn was more necessary than Winfield (according to your way of thinking) because the Bills needed to keep Coy Wire on the bench. I disagree. As bad as one year of Coy Wire starting would have been, it would have worth it to have Antoine Winfield with us today.

 

- Coaching improvements. I'm not trying to be blinkered in my assessment of this team's accomplishments and mistakes. You're right to say that coaching was a problem in the past, and is becoming part of the solution today. But ultimately, it's the general manager's job to figure out which players can play, and which can't. The Patriots identify players with high levels of intelligence, toughness, work ethic, and passion for the game of football. Look at their offensive line! TD failed to consistently implement a similar system with the Bills, and his results speak for themselves. You're right to imply Ronnie Vinlarek's advice on offensive linemen wasn't helpful to TD. But TD's errors go beyond just hiring the wrong coaching staff.

 

- Good players might have failed with Kevin Gilbride as their offensive coordinator, and Ronnie Vinlarek as their position coach. I'll grant that's possible in theory. But in practice, no OL released during TD's era has gone on to have success with another team. There's one exception to that rule though: Ruben Brown. Not coincidentally, Ruben Brown was the second most recent Bills' first round OL pick.

 

- You point out some first day OL are busts (see Mike Williams) or too injury-prone to be worth their contract money (Jennings). I'm not really sure why you're bringing that into this discussion. Erik Flowers was a bust on the DL, Travares Tillman a bust as a DB, and Corey Moore a bust as a LB. Does that mean the Bills shouldn't use first day picks on defense? Of course not. Some picks work out, others don't. I've heard it said offensive line has a lower bust rate than most other draft positions, but there's going to be a chance of a bust no matter which position you choose to address in the draft.

 

- You argue that making bad decisions with early OL draft picks is a much bigger issue than investing too few early picks in OL. I disagree. Before taking trades into account, the Bills have had 22 picks in the first two rounds over the last 11 years--enough to draft one player for every position on the team. Had they used five of those picks on offensive linemen, the line would be getting its proportionate share of picks. Instead, just one such pick was used on the o-line. The consequences of that neglect were compounded by a) the fact that pick was a bust, and b) the fact that until very recently, the Bills have had little success finding quality offensive lineman in picks 3 - 7 or through UDFAs.

[In space no one can hear]

You've written quite a bit lately, so I need to get around to responding to it.

 

- You argue that I should look at OL drafted on the first day, not those drafted just in rounds 1 & 2. There's no right or wrong answer here. According to the NFL trade value chart, the 15th pick in the first round is worth more than double the 15th pick in the 2nd round; which in turn is worth more than double the 15th pick in the 3rd round; which is worth more than double the 15th pick in the 4th round. If trade values are biased towards early picks, it's because early draft picks are disproportionately likely to succeed. Over the past 11 years, the Bills have only used one pick in the first two rounds on an offensive lineman.

 

- You argue that letting Antoine Winfield go was necessary to free up money for Lawyer Milloy. Milloy in turn was more necessary than Winfield (according to your way of thinking) because the Bills needed to keep Coy Wire on the bench. I disagree. As bad as one year of Coy Wire starting would have been, it would have worth it to have Antoine Winfield with us today.

 

- Coaching improvements. I'm not trying to be blinkered in my assessment of this team's accomplishments and mistakes. You're right to say that coaching was a problem in the past, and is becoming part of the solution today. But ultimately, it's the general manager's job to figure out which players can play, and which can't. The Patriots identify players with high levels of intelligence, toughness, work ethic, and passion for the game of football. Look at their offensive line! TD failed to consistently implement a similar system with the Bills, and his results speak for themselves. You're right to imply Ronnie Vinlarek's advice on offensive linemen wasn't helpful to TD. But TD's errors go beyond just hiring the wrong coaching staff.

 

- Good players might have failed with Kevin Gilbride as their offensive coordinator, and Ronnie Vinlarek as their position coach. I'll grant that's possible in theory. But in practice, no OL released during TD's era has gone on to have success with another team. There's one exception to that rule though: Ruben Brown. Not coincidentally, Ruben Brown was the second most recent Bills' first round OL pick.

 

- You point out some first day OL are busts (see Mike Williams) or too injury-prone to be worth their contract money (Jennings). I'm not really sure why you're bringing that into this discussion. Erik Flowers was a bust on the DL, Travares Tillman a bust as a DB, and Corey Moore a bust as a LB. Does that mean the Bills shouldn't use first day picks on defense? Of course not. Some picks work out, others don't. I've heard it said offensive line has a lower bust rate than most other draft positions, but there's going to be a chance of a bust no matter which position you choose to address in the draft.

 

- You argue that making bad decisions with early OL draft picks is a much bigger issue than investing too few early picks in OL. I disagree. Before taking trades into account, the Bills have had 22 picks in the first two rounds over the last 11 years--enough to draft one player for every position on the team. Had they used five of those picks on offensive linemen, the line would be getting its proportionate share of picks. Instead, just one such pick was used on the o-line. The consequences of that neglect were compounded by a) the fact that pick was a bust, and b) the fact that until very recently, the Bills have had little success finding quality offensive lineman in picks 3 - 7 or through UDFAs.

 

 

I wish we had a button to press for favorite posters-

Great post as usual!!

[Bill from NYC]

You conveniently skipped his main point about the Bills not re-signing their own players and needing to replace them via the draft once again. The Bills wouldn't NEED to keep drafting DBs early if they simply re-signed their own players to second contracts. The Bills would still be in the same situation if they kept drafting OL early only to have to keep drafting more to replace the ones they let go. They'd probably be in worse shape since it generally takes much longer for OL to develop.

 

I do take his point seriously, because it is partially true. TD did re-sign McGee and Schobel. To his credit, Marv re-signed Peters. Still, too many top players were allowed to walk; this is true.

It is also frighteningly possible that the NFL, because of the new CBA, could end up like baseball, where only a handful of teams stand much of a chance. It COULD end up being worse in this manner.

 

That said, the premise of your post is flawed imo. Where is it said, especially in a cover-2 where there is much more zone play, that a defensive secondary should consist primarily of high picks? Last season we devoted most of our best picks to the secondary (not to mention 2 UFAs), and I think we both agree that the liklihood of Marv grabbing yet another 1st round corner is great. More amazing is that some Bills Fans seem to advocate this lunacy. Sure, Nate will probably walk. Hey, what was the Youboty pick for? Was he not drafted with this in mind, or must we simply draft yet another 1st round DB; this time at #12?

 

The trenches are the most important positions in football, and the place where the Bills do the worst job at drafting. When this changes, the Bills will be a playoff team.