Bill from NYC Posted May 12, 2008 Posted May 12, 2008 This notion of drafting o-line high to achieve success is clearly outdated. Tell that to the 8 teams who drafted one in the first round. Once again, it is not all about OL. It is about first round defensive backs, and letting them walk the very second they can. It is about Marv making that dumb "promise" to Nate, thus handing him all the leverage when he had none! A # 8 and a # 11 in the secondary is a great idea when you have a team that is set at more important positions and plays in a dome, or a place with typically calm weather. The problem with this discussion seems to be that you and others are turning your backs on a pattern of stupidity and losses. How many people complain about JP not being provided the tools he needed? Marv/Jauron came to town and used 4 first day picks (including a # 8) to grab 2 dbs and a dt. Now, here comes second year Trent, and no less than 2 of the first 4 picks are corners, as well as a free agent. Hell, one of them is actually named Corner. I am surprised we didn't grab him in the 2nd. Seriously, putting aside just the OL, and ask yourself if a football team should be built on a foundation of early 1st round defensive backs. If your answer is yes, welcome to the Dick Jauron Fan Club.
eball Posted May 12, 2008 Posted May 12, 2008 Tell that to the 8 teams who drafted one in the first round. Once again, it is not all about OL. It is about first round defensive backs, and letting them walk the very second they can. It is about Marv making that dumb "promise" to Nate, thus handing him all the leverage when he had none! A $8 and a # 11 in the secondary is a great idea when you have a team that is set at more important positions and plays in a dome, or a place with typically calm weather. The problem with this discussion seems to be that you and others are turning your backs on a pattern of stupidity and losses. How many people complain about JP not being provided the tools he needed? Marv/Jauron came to town and used 4 first day picks (including a # 8) to grab 2 dbs and a dt. Now, here comes second year Trent, and no less than 2 of the first 4 picks are corners, as well as a free agent. Hell, one of them is actually named Corner. I am surprised we didn't grab him in the 2nd. Seriously, putting aside just the OL, and ask yourself if a football team should be built on a foundation of early 1st round defensive backs. If your answer is yes, welcome to the Dick Jauron Fan Club. Bill, are you going to continue to selectively ignore that the Levy/Jauron administration has completely overhauled the majority of the football team, and NOT JUST THE SECONDARY? 1st round RB, 3rd round QB, 2nd round WR, 2nd round MLB, 1st round DT, 3rd round DE, Pro Bowl DT via trade, Super Bowl winning WLB via FA....
Captain Hindsight Posted May 12, 2008 Posted May 12, 2008 Bill, are you going to continue to selectively ignore that the Levy/Jauron administration has completely overhauled the majority of the football team, and NOT JUST THE SECONDARY? 1st round RB, 3rd round QB, 2nd round WR, 2nd round MLB, 1st round DT, 3rd round DE, Pro Bowl DT via trade, Super Bowl winning WLB via FA.... Shhhh dont ruin his fun
ans4e64 Posted May 12, 2008 Posted May 12, 2008 Not that I'm advocating one side or another, but those of you arguing against Bill need to change the angle of your argument. Telling Bill that we spent all this free agency money, and where o-linemen on top teams were picked, has absolutely no effect on HOW GOOD THEY ACTUALLY ARE. Spending money doesn't upgrade any position, good players do. Are the Bills' lineman as good or better than those? No. It doesn't matter where they were picked or how much their salaries are. Those teams (Colts, Pats and Giants) that don't have lineman picked high... doesn't matter because those lineman ARE BETTER THAN THE REST OF THE LEAGUE. Obviously it shows that you don't need to draft o-lineman high to ensure success, but that doesn't mean you don't do it and rely on UDFAs to turn into pro bowlers. Obviously your best shot is to draft high, the best talent available. Just because we spent money doesn't mean the problem is solved.
Adam Posted May 12, 2008 Posted May 12, 2008 From Peter King's article: According to NFL playing-time documents, the average third corner in the league played 57 percent of his team's defensive snaps last year. I had no idea it was that high. Not only that, we play in a division with the Patriots. Any discussion regarding our need for more than two starting corners is now dead. 57% of snaps for what used to be called a dime corner? Wow. I'm surprised. We might as well be discussing whether or not we need 3 starting LBs. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writ.../11/mmqb/1.html Which basically shows the importance of a third corner AND a third receiver.
eball Posted May 12, 2008 Posted May 12, 2008 Not that I'm advocating one side or another, but those of you arguing against Bill need to change the angle of your argument. Telling Bill that we spent all this free agency money, and where o-linemen on top teams were picked, has absolutely no effect on HOW GOOD THEY ACTUALLY ARE. Spending money doesn't upgrade any position, good players do. Are the Bills' lineman as good or better than those? No. It doesn't matter where they were picked or how much their salaries are. Those teams (Colts, Pats and Giants) that don't have lineman picked high... doesn't matter because those lineman ARE BETTER THAN THE REST OF THE LEAGUE. Obviously it shows that you don't need to draft o-lineman high to ensure success, but that doesn't mean you don't do it and rely on UDFAs to turn into pro bowlers. Obviously your best shot is to draft high, the best talent available. Just because we spent money doesn't mean the problem is solved. That's certainly not the point I'm trying to make. Of course it all comes down to talent evaluation; that's nothing new. Bill argues that Jauron and Levy "ignored" the rest of the team by continually drafting defensive backs. Period. His sub-argument is that they have "ignored" the OL because they haven't spent any high or mid round draft picks on the line to develop competent backups. He hasn't questioned whether or not spending FA money on the OL was worth it -- I think he's happy with those expenditures. My sole argument is that the Bills (under Levy/Jauron) have made significant strides to upgrade the entire football team -- through draft, FA, and trades -- and they have neither ignored nor favored any one position in their efforts to do so.
Bill from NYC Posted May 12, 2008 Posted May 12, 2008 Bill, are you going to continue to selectively ignore that the Levy/Jauron administration has completely overhauled the majority of the football team, and NOT JUST THE SECONDARY? 1st round RB, 3rd round QB, 2nd round WR, 2nd round MLB, 1st round DT, 3rd round DE, Pro Bowl DT via trade, Super Bowl winning WLB via FA.... The team needed an overhaul. We all knew that. Are you suggesting that the only way to go in terms of the secondary is first round picks? Do you deny that this has been a pattern for 12 or so years that has resulted in no playoff appearances? Tell me...over the years, would it have been a good idea to use just 1 of those 1st round picks on a TE who doesn't suck? e-man, it is you that is ignoring the bottom line imo, which is winning and making the playoffs.
Lori Posted May 12, 2008 Posted May 12, 2008 The team needed an overhaul. We all knew that. Are you suggesting that the only way to go in terms of the secondary is first round picks? Do you deny that this has been a pattern for 12 or so years that has resulted in no playoff appearances? Tell me...over the years, would it have been a good idea to use just 1 of those 1st round picks on a TE who doesn't suck? e-man, it is you that is ignoring the bottom line imo, which is winning and making the playoffs. 1984: 3a - Rodney Bellinger, CB, Miami 1985: 1b - Derrick Burroughs, CB, Memphis St. 1987: 2a - Nate Odomes, CB, Wisconsin; 2b - Roland Mitchell, CB, Texas Tech (no first-round pick in 1988/89) 1990: 1 - James Williams, CB, Fresno State 1991: 1 - Henry Jones, DB, Illinois; 3 - Darryl Wren, DB, Pittsburg St. 1993: 1 - Thomas Smith, DB, North Carolina 1994: 1 - Jeff Burris, DB, Notre Dame Those late-'80s/early-'90s teams turned out okay...
stinky finger Posted May 12, 2008 Posted May 12, 2008 Yes, lets compare the Bills FA strategy to that of the Redskins. That would be a quite valid comparison. Maybe not in totality, but at the position. Buffalo went out and spent good money. Point being, just because you put substantial money towards players at any position doesn't assure success.
stuckincincy Posted May 12, 2008 Posted May 12, 2008 1984: 3a - Rodney Bellinger, CB, Miami1985: 1b - Derrick Burroughs, CB, Memphis St. 1987: 2a - Nate Odomes, CB, Wisconsin; 2b - Roland Mitchell, CB, Texas Tech (no first-round pick in 1988/89) 1990: 1 - James Williams, CB, Fresno State 1991: 1 - Henry Jones, DB, Illinois; 3 - Darryl Wren, DB, Pittsburg St. 1993: 1 - Thomas Smith, DB, North Carolina 1994: 1 - Jeff Burris, DB, Notre Dame Those late-'80s/early-'90s teams turned out okay... Before free agency...
stinky finger Posted May 12, 2008 Posted May 12, 2008 Not that I'm advocating one side or another, but those of you arguing against Bill need to change the angle of your argument. Telling Bill that we spent all this free agency money, and where o-linemen on top teams were picked, has absolutely no effect on HOW GOOD THEY ACTUALLY ARE. Spending money doesn't upgrade any position, good players do. Are the Bills' lineman as good or better than those? No. It doesn't matter where they were picked or how much their salaries are. Those teams (Colts, Pats and Giants) that don't have lineman picked high... doesn't matter because those lineman ARE BETTER THAN THE REST OF THE LEAGUE. Obviously it shows that you don't need to draft o-lineman high to ensure success, but that doesn't mean you don't do it and rely on UDFAs to turn into pro bowlers. Obviously your best shot is to draft high, the best talent available. Just because we spent money doesn't mean the problem is solved.
Bill from NYC Posted May 12, 2008 Posted May 12, 2008 1984: 3a - Rodney Bellinger, CB, Miami1985: 1b - Derrick Burroughs, CB, Memphis St. 1987: 2a - Nate Odomes, CB, Wisconsin; 2b - Roland Mitchell, CB, Texas Tech (no first-round pick in 1988/89) 1990: 1 - James Williams, CB, Fresno State 1991: 1 - Henry Jones, DB, Illinois; 3 - Darryl Wren, DB, Pittsburg St. 1993: 1 - Thomas Smith, DB, North Carolina 1994: 1 - Jeff Burris, DB, Notre Dame Those late-'80s/early-'90s teams turned out okay... Most of those teams already had a boatload of superstars, such as Bruce, Kelly, Bennett, Thurman, etc. I thought that Thomas Smith was good, but 93 was probably the beginning of the end in terms of the proper way to build a football team. It might have even been earlier, but starting in 93, these guys simply walked away the second they could. Add Winfield and Nate to the mix, and much of your list is a concrete example of the Bills simply chasing 1st round corners on a merry go-round of losing. Losing Wolford and replacing him with Fina was also something of a kiss of death, wouldn't you agree?
colin Posted May 12, 2008 Posted May 12, 2008 i think the point that bill (who i like but bugs me with this!!! STOP IT BILL11!) is missing is that DBs are generally the best immediate impact rookie performers. you need 4 at all times and up to 6 on D at once -- so a new guy can contribute as opposed to a qb or rb or even DE who needs to displace a guy to play at all it is a speed and instincts position -- that's easy (by nfl standards) to judge in ncaa ball and project to nfl skills they play on an island much of the time -- makes it easy for the rook to jump in and play speed and confidence rule the day -- perfect for the young top rated kids also, they have the ability to make game changing plays instantly, and stop them. a tight game can be blown open on a big pass -- DBs are what stops that. also a db can pick off a pass and bring it back. your whole D on passing downs is dictated by your secondary. if you don't have corners and DBs you are limited in what you can do, showing and disguising coverages, and if you don't get pressure you get picked appart, but if you blitz you are exposing your backfield and at some point will get opened up for a big play. a great wr can destroy a dominant d, but outstanding db play can eliminate or limit that wr's ability to make an impact. philly, balitmore, and the giants played extremely aggresively in the secondary against moss and for the most part took what might be the best player in the game out of it. new englands 1st and 3rd bowl wins, along with pitts and indy all came down to huge interceptions at the right time for their teams. no guard and very very few tackles are worth what a true top cb is (we got a guard and a tackle for what nate clements got).
AKC Posted May 12, 2008 Posted May 12, 2008 Pro Bowl DT via trade Sounds good in a vacuum, but when you consider that he hasn't played at that level since the 2004 season, you might be wise to lower your expectations. I don't believe there's a player on the roster who will have a greater impact on our 2008 record than Stroud- if he defies all the odds by starting 12 or 13 games and playing at the level he did in 2004, we could be competitive in our division and take advantage of a weak schedule to at least be knocking on the door come the postseason. On the other hand, and if his last two season are any indication, he's likely to play in less than half our games and we'll be as bad against the run as we were last year, making us once again a below .500 football team.
Lori Posted May 12, 2008 Posted May 12, 2008 Most of those teams already had a boatload of superstars, such as Bruce, Kelly, Bennett, Thurman, etc. I thought that Thomas Smith was good, but 93 was probably the beginning of the end in terms of the proper way to build a football team. It might have even been earlier, but starting in 93, these guys simply walked away the second they could. Add Winfield and Nate to the mix, and much of your list is a concrete example of the Bills simply chasing 1st round corners on a merry go-round of losing. Losing Wolford and replacing him with Fina was also something of a kiss of death, wouldn't you agree? Bellinger, Burroughs, Odomes, and Mitchell were all before Thurman and Bennett, and there was no guarantee Kelly would ever sign here when the first two were drafted. I think stuck already answered your question about "starting in 1993." Before free agency... That changed everything, and the Bills -- with pricey contracts to second-tier players -- were slow to catch on.
Bill from NYC Posted May 12, 2008 Posted May 12, 2008 your whole D on passing downs is dictated by your secondary. You too are a very good poster, but the above is our fundamental disagreement. Hey, that's cool, ya know?
colin Posted May 12, 2008 Posted May 12, 2008 That changed everything, and the Bills -- with pricey contracts to second-tier players -- were slow to catch on. god this made me mad under butler. we let ted washington, thomas, reed, and bruce smith walk because of big contracts to holecec ostroski parker fina reimersma flutie rj and we let marcelles wiley go cuz we were in cap jail too. bruce smith, phat pat, washington, wiley would have made an INSANE front 4 throw cowart and any 2 draft picks behind them and you have a monster front 7. :<
Rubes Posted May 12, 2008 Posted May 12, 2008 1991: 3 - Darryl Wren, DB, Pittsburg St. Damn that Wren. That pick alone set this franchise back at least 5 years.
MRW Posted May 12, 2008 Posted May 12, 2008 Not that I'm advocating one side or another, but those of you arguing against Bill need to change the angle of your argument. Telling Bill that we spent all this free agency money, and where o-linemen on top teams were picked, has absolutely no effect on HOW GOOD THEY ACTUALLY ARE. Spending money doesn't upgrade any position, good players do. Are the Bills' lineman as good or better than those? No. It doesn't matter where they were picked or how much their salaries are. Those teams (Colts, Pats and Giants) that don't have lineman picked high... doesn't matter because those lineman ARE BETTER THAN THE REST OF THE LEAGUE. Obviously it shows that you don't need to draft o-lineman high to ensure success, but that doesn't mean you don't do it and rely on UDFAs to turn into pro bowlers. Obviously your best shot is to draft high, the best talent available. Just because we spent money doesn't mean the problem is solved. But if the players we've picked up aren't actually any good, why would you want this administration to compound their errors by throwing high picks at the position too? It seems to me that the Bills historically have had a knack for finding good players to draft in the secondary, and... not so good with the OL. To reverse your argument, simply picking a player in the first round doesn't mean he's going to be good (see: Williams, Mike). In my opinion the free agent OL they've brought in recently have been good pickups, and if the front office is better at evaluating veteran OL than college OL they should stick to their strengths.
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted May 12, 2008 Posted May 12, 2008 You're correct. McGee, Greer, and (who the hell played nickel?) could all start in most college intramural leagues. ...and Will James, the seemingly forgotten man.
Recommended Posts