excellent piece by Mike Lombardi in SI

[eball]

A team that is bad for a period of time has every right to expect to improve, unless you are the Lions. They, much like the Bills, chased after 1 particular position in draft after draft. Thier particular bane was the wr position as ours is the secondary. That said, at least the Lions play in a dome where the passing game matters more than it does in Buffalo.

 

Some day when we both have time, I would like to discuss the Levy/Jauron methods more in depth (especially wrt Levy). Hopefully, it will be at RWS over a full cooler of beer that we will happily supply.

 

Oh btw....it is your post that is inconsistent. How many OL did the Bills draft in 07.....you know, the draft that I lavish praise upon? It isn't all about drafting early OL, although the Bills don't do it enough.

It is about NOT chasing defensive backs with your best picks. You break HA's chops, but he is clearly right in that if the Bills see fit to let good corners walk when their contract is up, they shouldn't waste their best picks on them.

You are a smart guy and I truly am puzzled that you cannot see this.

Bill, why do you refuse to answer my question about the relative state of the Buffalo Bills in 2008 as compared to the end of 2005? Is it because the gentlemen solely responsible for the difference between these two rosters are Marv Levy and Dick Jauron?

 

YOU are puzzled?

[Orton's Arm]

The rest is suppositions on either side of the point: specifically, was it a requirement to dump Milloy or was there an alternative? One can suppose that there was no alternative and that Jauron and Levy's hands were tied.

 

On the other hand, someone else can suppose that a head coach can come in to an organization without an agenda to install his systems immediately and without the prerequisite that veterans must be released with no serviceable replacements on the roster. This has nothing whatsoever to do with saying Lawyer Milloy is great, that he's better than Whitner, etc., etc. He was a veteran leader on the team, and let's face it, the team wasn't going to the Super Bowl with or without him. It wasn't going to the Super Bowl based on the upgrade at SS to Whitner, either. Still, considering the alternative makes "no sense" and might smack of things that aren't exactly perfectly comfortable or conforming to idolatry worship of all things Buffalo Bills.

I think I see where you're going with this. You seem to be suggesting that if the Bills hadn't cut Milloy, they could have gone into the 2006 draft without feeling like they absolutely had to have a SS. Without a gaping hole at that position, they could have afforded to trade down, even though doing so would involve some risk of losing out on Whitner. Instead, they put themselves in a position where they absolutely had to have Whitner; and ended up overspending (in terms of draft value) to get him. Is this pretty much what you're suggesting?

[eball]

I think I see where you're going with this. You seem to be suggesting that if the Bills hadn't cut Milloy, they could have gone into the 2006 draft without feeling like they absolutely had to have a SS. Without a gaping hole at that position, they could have afforded to trade down, even though doing so would involve some risk of losing out on Whitner. Instead, they put themselves in a position where they absolutely had to have Whitner; and ended up overspending (in terms of draft value) to get him. Is this pretty much what you're suggesting?

Whether or not that is what he was suggesting, the problem with such a suggestion is that it makes one whopper of an assumption: that the Bills would be stupid enough to telegraph to the rest of the league that they intended to draft a SS in the first round. Apparently some of you believe they would.

 

I believe the Milloy decision was based upon playing ability and finances -- Milloy wouldn't fit in the defense Jauron/Fewell intended to install, and keeping him around as a "veteran presence" wasn't worth it at his salary. Matt Bowen was slated to start at SS until he injured himself in preseason -- that is a fact. I don't believe Jauron or Fewell would tell anyone they "expected" Whitner to be starting on opening day of his rookie season.

 

I just don't know why for some of you it's impossible to consider a scenario under which the Bills thought they had a "workable" solution at SS with Bowen, but had Whitner rated as a potential game-changer at the position and therefore pulled the trigger at #8 because the trade-down options presented to them (of which we have no confirmed details) were not as attractive?

[obie_wan]

Oh btw....it is your post that is inconsistent. How many OL did the Bills draft in 07.....you know, the draft that I lavish praise upon? It isn't all about drafting early OL, although the Bills don't do it enough.

.

 

just to clarify about "enough"

 

The Bills have spen 3 picks out of 44 picks in the top FOUR rounds in the last 10 years.

 

Interestingly, the current regime has use ZERO picks in the top 4 rounds on OL.

 

Sure they spent a bazillion dollars on free agents because they had no choice.

 

by spending fewer high draft picks on CBs and DBs, the Bills may have a few more quality OL to plug in as starters and quality backups. Players that typically produce for 10+ years instead of the 4 year and gone track record of CBs

[Ramius]

A team that is bad for a period of time has every right to expect to improve, unless you are the Lions. They, much like the Bills, chased after 1 particular position in draft after draft. Thier particular bane was the wr position as ours is the secondary. That said, at least the Lions play in a dome where the passing game matters more than it does in Buffalo.

 

Some day when we both have time, I would like to discuss the Levy/Jauron methods more in depth (especially wrt Levy). Hopefully, it will be at RWS over a full cooler of beer that we will happily supply.

 

Oh btw....it is your post that is inconsistent. How many OL did the Bills draft in 07.....you know, the draft that I lavish praise upon? It isn't all about drafting early OL, although the Bills don't do it enough.

It is about NOT chasing defensive backs with your best picks. You break HA's chops, but he is clearly right in that if the Bills see fit to let good corners walk when their contract is up, they shouldn't waste their best picks on them.

You are a smart guy and I truly am puzzled that you cannot see this.

 

I'd like to chat too. I dont think it matters what the position, you need to re-sign your top picks. To me, drafting any position in round 1 and not re-signing them is not the way to do business.

 

However, i DO understand why the Bills have done what they do with CBs. CB is one of the easiest positions to get an instant impact player. Also, the Bills F.O. has shown a remarkable talent for drafting very good CBs. Now, these CBs become very good, and command top dollar on the market. What the Bills have been doing is not breaking the bank on CBs in FA, because they know they can get a cheap replacement via the draft. Think about it. Whats better, to pay a FA CB 60 million? or to pay a rookie 20 million and not have much difference in skill level. I'd rather see them pay the rookie and spend the FA bucks on other positions than spend huge bucks on a FA CB. Basically, i'd rather have dockery, walker and mckelvin than clements and a jeff otah, etc.

 

What we havent seen yet is how the new F.O. will deal with re-signings of their drafted players. We are starting to get to the time where a bunch of young players will need new deals in the next few years, and how they handle those situations will say a lot of how they are planning running the team. If i see them keeping most of the top players, and only letting a select few go (like the CBs), i'll be ok with that. If they start letting most of the top players go, i'm going to have a real problem.

[R. Rich]

If you think that McCorner, or even Corner will be in a class with Nate, please let me know. I love good news. After all, you and Badol have been correct far more often than not over the years. Would I ever dispute the truth? The kid was a # 11 Richie, and we play in Buffalo!

 

You tell me!

 

 

Just from what I've seen/heard of McKelvin, he should be a pretty solid corner for us. His hands aren't great, but he does have pretty good instincts, ball skills, and good catch up speed. There are no guarantees, but I do believe he will be an upgrade for us @ corner.

 

In a class w/ Nate? Why not? Now, had Clements worked his tail off (ala Jerry Rice) to refine his game instead of just relying on his ability, the answer would probably be no.

[Pyrite Gal]

Just from what I've seen/heard of McKelvin, he should be a pretty solid corner for us. His hands aren't great, but he does have pretty good instincts, ball skills, and good catch up speed. There are no guarantees, but I do believe he will be an upgrade for us @ corner.

 

In a class w/ Nate? Why not? Now, had Clements worked his tail off (ala Jerry Rice) to refine his game instead of just relying on his ability, the answer would probably be no.

McKelvin has a history of not getting INTs on passes he seemed to be in position to do so. However, shorthanding this stat into an assessment he has bad hands seems to ignore the fact he has a great rep for fielding kicks and returning them big time.

 

What this signals as a likelihood to me is that an inability to handle the ball is not his problem but may well be something that is episodic bad luck or if it is some problem it may well be coachable. While can reasonably be concerned about any problem, his hands not being great seems like something that is not a worry at all.

[stuckincincy]

McKelvin has a history of not getting INTs on passes he seemed to be in position to do so. However, shorthanding this stat into an assessment he has bad hands seems to ignore the fact he has a great rep for fielding kicks and returning them big time.

 

What this signals as a likelihood to me is that an inability to handle the ball is not his problem but may well be something that is episodic bad luck or if it is some problem it may well be coachable. While can reasonably be concerned about any problem, his hands not being great seems like something that is not a worry at all.

 

Not an uncommon story.

 

CIN drafted CBs at #1 consecutively - Jonathan Joseph in '06 and Leon Hall in '07.

 

Joseph in his rookie year was blistered early on, but had several near-picks. He busted his foot in camp last season, but came back in the latter half and had 4 picks.

 

Hall, like Joseph, was a piece of burnt toast for his first several games, learned from experience, and ended up with 5 interceptions and named to the all-rookie team.

 

McKelvin will likely present the same way.

[obie_wan]

I'd like to chat too. I dont think it matters what the position, you need to re-sign your top picks. To me, drafting any position in round 1 and not re-signing them is not the way to do business.

 

However, i DO understand why the Bills have done what they do with CBs. CB is one of the easiest positions to get an instant impact player. Also, the Bills F.O. has shown a remarkable talent for drafting very good CBs. Now, these CBs become very good, and command top dollar on the market. What the Bills have been doing is not breaking the bank on CBs in FA, because they know they can get a cheap replacement via the draft. Think about it. Whats better, to pay a FA CB 60 million? or to pay a rookie 20 million and not have much difference in skill level. I'd rather see them pay the rookie and spend the FA bucks on other positions than spend huge bucks on a FA CB. Basically, i'd rather have dockery, walker and mckelvin than clements and a jeff otah, etc.

 

What we havent seen yet is how the new F.O. will deal with re-signings of their drafted players. We are starting to get to the time where a bunch of young players will need new deals in the next few years, and how they handle those situations will say a lot of how they are planning running the team. If i see them keeping most of the top players, and only letting a select few go (like the CBs), i'll be ok with that. If they start letting most of the top players go, i'm going to have a real problem.

 

You are correct that the Bills have magic dust when picking CBs.

 

they can get good production from a CB in the 1st round all the way to undrafted free agents and guys off teh street. This ability with CBs is uncanny.

 

Yet it is the exact opposite with OL. They have no ability to identify good OL which goes to a systemic problem in the organization.

 

Due to this imbalance, the Bills wold be much better served by spending a few higher picks on OL that are more likely to be productive, than trying to rely on the magic dust - which seems only to work for the Bills on CBs

[Dawgg]

You are correct that the Bills have magic dust when picking CBs.

 

they can get good production from a CB in the 1st round all the way to undrafted free agents and guys off teh street. This ability with CBs is uncanny.

 

Yet it is the exact opposite with OL. They have no ability to identify good OL which goes to a systemic problem in the organization.

 

Due to this imbalance, the Bills wold be much better served by spending a few higher picks on OL that are more likely to be productive, than trying to rely on the magic dust - which seems only to work for the Bills on CBs

 

Or they could give the richest contract in Buffalo Bills history to a guard who isn't even among the top 10 in the NFL.

[Pyrite Gal]

I wouldn't get too excited over the 06 draft. Not yet. Whitner, a #8, looks like a good player. The jury is out on McCargo. Youboty and Simpson are question marks to say the least, and we gave away a 3rd round pick in the process. Forgive me if I am not doing cartwheels.

Posters can deny that Levy/Jauron had offers to trade down, but I heard Marv say that he did in fact have numerous offers to do so on Sirius. If anyone wishes to call me a liar please do so, but I fully stand by this.

In 06, TB drafted Joseph (OG) and Trueblood (RT) in rounds 1 and 2, and they picked in the mid 20s. We took defensive backs, and spent 73 million dollars on an OG and RT in 07. We gave up Clements in the process, and continued to chase after defensive backs. I continue to make the case that this is stupid. Btw, raise your hand if you think McCorner will be as good as Nate.

 

I find it interesting that when Levy and Jauron broke this mold of stupidly chasing after defensive backs with our best resources in 07, they had (imo) a great day 1, and I mean really splendid. I am very high on Lynch and Poz. Trent might turn out to be one of the best Bills picks ever in terms of value. I mean.....it is possible.

 

My hope is that some day, the Bills can find a coach and GM who can figure out that DBs are not the way to go in terms of allocation of the best resources that our franchise has. Again, it worked in 07.

I also tend to stick with the conventional wisdom that one can draw reasonable conclusions about a player until after 3 years of play, but while it is too early to claim conclusive outcomes, one can easily get excited about the 06 draft right here and right now:

 

I think this is because:

 

1. The Bills had pressing immediate needs that it was essential to address before they could rebuild and the 06 draft produced results which did this immediately.

 

We were 5-11 in 05 and it would have been unfortunate but understandable if the Bills had actually produced a worse record in 06 if Levy/Jauron had chosen a course of action that took the immediate hit of clearing the decks of TD/MM errors and rebuilt still quickly (in order to be judged a success) but more slowly than they did. (In fact, your suggested methodology of investing in the OL likely would have produced this result as OL players drafted outside the 1st often need a little time to develop and even NYJ which chose 2 OL players in the 1st with positive results have taken a step backwards from their nice start with two rookie OL players).

 

The 06 draft can reasonably be excited about because the simple facts are it produced out of the 9 players chosen 7 of them got starts that year. Most impressive it is an easy thing to start draftees on a team willing to get worse before it gets better, but the 06 draft go a lot of PT on a team which went from 5-11 to 7-9.

 

It is too early for another year to draw reasonable conclusions, but it is not too early at all to get excited about the team both rebuilding (giving a bunch of PT to the rookies) and also producing a significantly better record.

 

2. Again, while it is certainly too early to draw conclusions about this draft, the so-far so-good is such that this Bills team merits getting excited about and the 06 draft in terms of player assessment to early to draw conclusions about is quite exciting for the incomplete results to date.

 

Specifically:

 

Whitner- solid starter who has shown some durability. Not a Pro Bowler yet, but a definite possibility. From his getting rookie of the month his first month to his adoption of McKelvin this year the tea leaves are good on the field and off of it.

 

McCargo- Slow start and IR his first year, but definitely a solid part of the DL rotation now and if Stroud plays well DT may become a strength for a team which had this as a weakness before.

 

Youbouty- Really the one big disappointment of this draft so far, but rather than throw him under the bus right now like some, my sense is that the CW that calls for three seasons before drawing conclusions is reasonable in this case. He will determine on the field whether the untimely death of his mother his first year and the dreaded high ankle sprain last year are reasons for his disappointment he can overcome or were they just excuses for a bust.

 

4. Simpson- 1st year starter on a team that improved makes his starting year reasonably judged a success. He ended up on IR which makes his second year something to forget. The OTA tea leaves though report him fully healed and he will get to prove on the field the first year was no fluke.

 

Williams- This pick was a huge bonus as he started on an improved team and Mccargo who was supposed to start went on IR. The fact he is now below Stroud on the depth chart and Mccargo has surpassed him in buzz are good signs because he seems to have fallen behind other Bills not because he was bad but because they hold the potential to be very good. We got a consistent part of our DL rotation on the second day of the draft.

 

Butler- Now a solid starter on a developing OL. Like most OL players drafted outside the 1st, we are talking one step backward before we step forward but Butler shows signs of being the real deal on an OL which allowed fewer sacks than the Bills had in years.

 

Ellison- Another second day pick who surprisingly was able to start consistently on a team which improved over the previous year. The acquisition of Mitchell now makes him a back-up with pro starts to his credit which is reasonably what can be hoped for from a late second day pick.

 

Pennington- A failed Bill since he is gone though he gave value his rookie year as a consistent starter on an improved team.

 

Merz- Also a failed Bills as he is gone, but given that there appear to have been some bad luck with injuries which knocked him out of the line-up and that we did get an emergency start out of him his rookie this was a pick we made use of in 06..

 

I do not draw any somewhat final conclusions about this group but I think it is actually unreasonable for a Bills fan not be be appropriately excited by this group.

[Ramius]

You are correct that the Bills have magic dust when picking CBs.

 

they can get good production from a CB in the 1st round all the way to undrafted free agents and guys off teh street. This ability with CBs is uncanny.

 

Yet it is the exact opposite with OL. They have no ability to identify good OL which goes to a systemic problem in the organization.

 

Due to this imbalance, the Bills wold be much better served by spending a few higher picks on OL that are more likely to be productive, than trying to rely on the magic dust - which seems only to work for the Bills on CBs

 

Agreed. I am not sure why they are against spending picks along the OL in rounds 2-4, where the best value can be found.

[Orton's Arm]

I dont think it matters what the position, you need to re-sign your top picks. To me, drafting any position in round 1 and not re-signing them is not the way to do business.

I agree with you about this.

 

When you think about the Bills during the Super Bowl years, the core of the team was made up of talented players who spent all--or nearly all--their careers in Buffalo. Jim Kelly, Andre Reed, Thurman Thomas, Bruce Smith, Phil Hansen, Kent Hull, Jim Ritcher.

 

Every first round pick spent on a first contract and out type player is one less attempt to build a team's core.

 

Building a team's core through free agency is typically difficult, because other teams are typically loathe to allow their own core players to hit free agency. The Colts are never going to let Peyton Manning walk. Orlando Pace spent his useful career with the Rams.

 

Because it's so rare for good players to hit free agency, you typically run into two problems: with a few exceptions, even the best free agents are typically a step or two down from the best players available in the draft. Also, because good free agents are so rare, teams typically bid up the prices of those free agents to high levels.

 

The Bills' own signing of Dockerey and Walker exemplifies both these things. As someone pointed out, the Bills overpaid for those players. Moreover, even though those were some of the best available free agents when they were signed, neither is a top-10 guy at his position. The Bills handled that situation about as well as any team could have: the fact those two players are overpaid is a function of how the free agency game is played.

 

When you acquire your core players through the draft, there's typically a higher ceiling on the kind of player you can get. Moreover, the pay/performance ratio is typically a lot more reasonable than what one might expect from signing young, good free agents.

 

For these reasons, I strongly disagree with any plan which involves using a first round pick on a player who's going to go first contract and out. Those first round picks are absolutely required for core players--guys who will spend their entire careers with your team.

[Ramius]

I agree with you about this.

 

When you think about the Bills during the Super Bowl years, the core of the team was made up of talented players who spent all--or nearly all--their careers in Buffalo. Jim Kelly, Andre Reed, Thurman Thomas, Bruce Smith, Phil Hansen, Kent Hull, Jim Ritcher.

 

Every first round pick spent on a first contract and out type player is one less attempt to build a team's core.

 

Building a team's core through free agency is typically difficult, because other teams are typically loathe to allow their own core players to hit free agency. The Colts are never going to let Peyton Manning walk. Orlando Pace spent his useful career with the Rams.

 

Because it's so rare for good players to hit free agency, you typically run into two problems: with a few exceptions, even the best free agents are typically a step or two down from the best players available in the draft. Also, because good free agents are so rare, teams typically bid up the prices of those free agents to high levels.

 

The Bills' own signing of Dockerey and Walker exemplifies both these things. As someone pointed out, the Bills overpaid for those players. Moreover, even though those were some of the best available free agents when they were signed, neither is a top-10 guy at his position. The Bills handled that situation about as well as any team could have: the fact those two players are overpaid is a function of how the free agency game is played.

 

When you acquire your core players through the draft, there's typically a higher ceiling on the kind of player you can get. Moreover, the pay/performance ratio is typically a lot more reasonable than what one might expect from signing young, good free agents.

 

For these reasons, I strongly disagree with any plan which involves using a first round pick on a player who's going to go first contract and out. Those first round picks are absolutely required for core players--guys who will spend their entire careers with your team.

 

1. I dont think dockery and walker are overpaid. If they are, perhaps they are slightly, but not as much as people make it out to be. Dockery was widely regarded as a very good young, up and coming guard. The Bills were smart to not let him leave buffalo without a contract. Dockery would have gotten a similar contract somewhere else. And i'd rather have dockery on the Bills for his current contract than have dockery somewhere else for $5 million cheaper. As for walker, he's another young up and coming player. Look at what tackles are getting paid. Walkers 5 for 25 contract isnt too far off from where his talent level is.

 

2. As for letting the CBs walk, theres just 2 comments. We dont know how this new bills front office will deal with re-signings in the future. As for McKelvin, we'll have to wait 5 years to find out. Who knows what the team (or NFL) will look like then, so speculation is pointless. I'd rather have him stay here, but I can see certain situations where its acceptable to let McKelvin walk if it comes to that.

[eball]

I dont think it matters what the position, you need to re-sign your top picks. To me, drafting any position in round 1 and not re-signing them is not the way to do business.

THIS is the real issue, in my opinion. I understand why Clements was let go -- he is grossly overpaid and not the sort of guy who will give a "hometown discount" -- but the same had better not happen with Evans, Whitner, McCargo, and Lynch.

[Ramius]

THIS is the real issue, in my opinion. I understand why Clements was let go -- he is grossly overpaid and not the sort of guy who will give a "hometown discount" -- but the same had better not happen with Evans, Whitner, McCargo, and Lynch.

 

Yup, i do too understand why clements was let go, and from time to time, you are going to have ot let a relatively big name or good player walk, for the betterment of the team. However, the new front office better not make it a habit of letting young talent walk.

[eball]

Yup, i do too understand why clements was let go, and from time to time, you are going to have ot let a relatively big name or good player walk, for the betterment of the team. However, the new front office better not make it a habit of letting young talent walk.

In my opinion, you let young talent walk only if (a) you're pretty certain you've got his replacement ready to step in or (b) his financial demands will wreak havoc on your cost structure. In the case of Clements, (b) certainly came into play. The Bills have the money right now to pay Evans and Peters what they're worth on the market without destroying the budget, and it will go a long way towards stabilizing my faith in this front office if they make it happen before the season starts.

[Ramius]

In my opinion, you let young talent walk only if (a) you're pretty certain you've got his replacement ready to step in or (b) his financial demands will wreak havoc on your cost structure. In the case of Clements, (b) certainly came into play. The Bills have the money right now to pay Evans and Peters what they're worth on the market without destroying the budget, and it will go a long way towards stabilizing my faith in this front office if they make it happen before the season starts.

 

Yup. i see no reason why we cant extend Evans, Peters, and Crowell within the next calendar year. Lots of other teams extend their young stars. However, if we fail to re-sign Lee, i am going to have a real problem with the front office in a hurry.

[Bill from NYC]

So is this thread actually ending in some sort of mutual agreement? Gotta tell ya, that is pretty cool.

 

You guys made some great points here, especially (imo) about inking Peters to a long term deal. If we are to be considered a franchise with a chance to compete, retaining the services of a pro bowl LT is an absolute must.

 

Also, I would like to point out that I agree with those who said that the Bills have a generally high success rate with dbs in the draft. The thing is, the obvious reason for this is how early they are selected.

People point to Mike Williams as a bust, and he most certainly was, but he came to town as a Right Tackle who was fat, and as I recall had a history of a bad ankle. Please, find me a RT selected as high as #4. It doesn't happen, and I truly don't want to hear about the left handed QB. Williams was nothing but a mauler in college who was big and fat enough to beat up smaller kids. McKinnie and Jones were out there, and the Bills had no Left Tackle. It was an idiotic pick of unexplainable proportion.

Still, think about Ruben Brown as a mid round first. Seriously, look at most of the OGs drafted in the first round....they usually don't go very high, yet their success rate is huge.

 

All I ask to those who are OK with wasting early picks on dbs is the following......on which players does the success of our season rely the most upon? If your answer is DBs, I obviously disagree.

 

Anyway, thanks to all for a great thread.

[obie_wan]

So is this thread actually ending in some sort of mutual agreement? Gotta tell ya, that is pretty cool.

 

You guys made some great points here, especially (imo) about inking Peters to a long term deal. If we are to be considered a franchise with a chance to compete, retaining the services of a pro bowl LT is an absolute must.

 

Also, I would like to point out that I agree with those who said that the Bills have a generally high success rate with dbs in the draft. The thing is, the obvious reason for this is how early they are selected.

People point to Mike Williams as a bust, and he most certainly was, but he came to town as a Right Tackle who was fat, and as I recall had a history of a bad ankle. Please, find me a RT selected as high as #4. It doesn't happen, and I truly don't want to hear about the left handed QB. Williams was nothing but a mauler in college who was big and fat enough to beat up smaller kids. McKinnie and Jones were out there, and the Bills had no Left Tackle. It was an idiotic pick of unexplainable proportion.

Still, think about Ruben Brown as a mid round first. Seriously, look at most of the OGs drafted in the first round....they usually don't go very high, yet their success rate is huge.

 

All I ask to those who are OK with wasting early picks on dbs is the following......on which players does the success of our season rely the most upon? If your answer is DBs, I obviously disagree.

 

Anyway, thanks to all for a great thread.

 

Ruben was drafted as a LT which is what he played at Pitt.

 

The plan was to move Fina to C. It didn;t happen but they found a spot to start Ruben anyway.

 

That's what happens when you draft quality OL