BillsVet Posted May 25, 2008 Posted May 25, 2008 As for Bill, i know its a futile effort. no matter what happens, he'll whine about first round DBs, while ignoring the fact we spent 75 million on the OL 1 year ago. So Bill has a take that he hasn't shied away from. Care to admit you were the big proponent of a first round receiver? How'd that go Hondo? Spending money does not translate into automatic success. I'd remind you that the 75 million Buffalo spent went to a left guard and right tackle, and now the team will be spending money on Peters. You could spend 100M on a QB and RB and it doesn't mean the offense will be stellar. And yet with all the money dumped into the OL, they finished 15th in the league in rushing. If I follow your logic, shouldn't San Francisco's secondary be the best in the league? And Minnesota's DL should be the best of the NFL's history, based on what they've paid out. I'd rather have a solid OL that protects the QB and run blocks than 2 safeties and 2 CB's that rely on other things (namely a pass rush) for their success. Perhaps Bill has a point that you are too hard to admit is right.
Ramius Posted May 25, 2008 Posted May 25, 2008 So Bill has a take that he hasn't shied away from. Care to admit you were the big proponent of a first round receiver? How'd that go Hondo? yup, i said i had no problem with the Bills taking a WR at #11 last april. I never said they HAD to take one at #11, but that if they did, i'd be happy with it. However, if you asked me personally, you'd know that i wanted a DE or CB. The difference between me and Bill is that now and 2 years from now, i wont spend each and every single post whining about who the Bills picked. As for the amount we spent, yes, tossing money at a problem doesnt automatically solve it. However, it is important to notice that the Bills HAVE addressed the OL last year. They chose to do it through FA instead of waiting a few years for an OL to develop through the draft. (if you look at the past 3 drafts, you'll notice that the Bills tend to spend high picks on instant impact players that can step in almost immediately and contribute, as opposed to players that may take a few years to fulfill their potential) The draft isnt the only way to to fill needs on a team. I still think we have some issues with OL depth and would liked to have seen a pick or 2 in the mid rounds spent on the OL to develop some decent depth. However, it isnt the end of the world because we didnt do that. I try to understand why the pick was made instead of jumping to conclusions and whining. Take the Reggie Corner pick for example. I was a bit mystified as to why the selection was made. We seemed to be ok at corner, and *I* thought that the pick may have been better spent elsewhere, on the OL or a TE. Bu me whining about the pick isnt going to change anything, so i took a look around, saw the talent the kid had, read some stuff on him, and i think he'll turn out to be a decent player. The main problem is that not many people on here want to discuss or debate anything regarding the draft, because its much easier to scream "ZOMG! Jauron is an idiot and is going to draft a DB with every first round pick for the next 7 years." Bill tends to marginalize whatever good point he may have brought up by his over the top whining about first round DBs that for some reason, must be included in his every post.
Orton's Arm Posted May 25, 2008 Posted May 25, 2008 I'm sure this was just one of a ton of proposals the Bills were swapping back and forth with other teams, but I'm glad it didn't happen. I just don't see any sense in paying first round money to a WR, since most of the time they won't be able to contribute until their second year. There was a lot of speculation in this year's draft that a lot of WR talent would be taken in the first round, but most teams stayed away from that. Detroit seems to be the only team that's consistently taken WR's in the first round and it hasn't exactly panned out for them. Players like Jerry Rice, Michael Irvin, Marvin Harrison, and Eric Moulds were taken in the first round. Taking a WR in the 1st isn't necessarily the kiss of death for your franchise.
Dan Posted May 25, 2008 Posted May 25, 2008 So Bill has a take that he hasn't shied away from. Care to admit you were the big proponent of a first round receiver? How'd that go Hondo? Spending money does not translate into automatic success. I'd remind you that the 75 million Buffalo spent went to a left guard and right tackle, and now the team will be spending money on Peters. You could spend 100M on a QB and RB and it doesn't mean the offense will be stellar. And yet with all the money dumped into the OL, they finished 15th in the league in rushing. If I follow your logic, shouldn't San Francisco's secondary be the best in the league? And Minnesota's DL should be the best of the NFL's history, based on what they've paid out. I'd rather have a solid OL that protects the QB and run blocks than 2 safeties and 2 CB's that rely on other things (namely a pass rush) for their success. Perhaps Bill has a point that you are too hard to admit is right. Didn't we have that last year? As Ramius just posted, the Bills did address the OL. They just did it through FA, no the draft. The problem is that some people want to ignore the fact that the line was addressed. It was. Perhaps you disagree with how it was addressed. Perhaps you disagree with the players acquired. Perhaps you disagree with their salaries. But, you have to, at least, acknowledge that it was addressed. So they spent lots of money on the line... had great pass protection, and were 15th in rushing. Yet, we still want to complain that the line was ignored; primarily because we have no depth. However I would ask, do we worry about Oline depth this year or decent starters at other positions? As much as we do need Oline depth, it was clear we need better players at other positions first.
Cotton Fitzsimmons Posted May 25, 2008 Posted May 25, 2008 The Guy from Roseanne? A little old don't you think? What doesn't kill us is makin us stronger, we gotta keep Gilbride longer than the greatest WALL in China ohhh yeeeahhhh... sing it with me now!!!! WHOOOOOO
Orton's Arm Posted May 25, 2008 Posted May 25, 2008 Didn't we have that last year? As Ramius just posted, the Bills did address the OL. They just did it through FA, no the draft. The problem is that some people want to ignore the fact that the line was addressed. It was. Perhaps you disagree with how it was addressed. Perhaps you disagree with the players acquired. Perhaps you disagree with their salaries. But, you have to, at least, acknowledge that it was addressed. So they spent lots of money on the line... had great pass protection, and were 15th in rushing. Yet, we still want to complain that the line was ignored; primarily because we have no depth. However I would ask, do we worry about Oline depth this year or decent starters at other positions? As much as we do need Oline depth, it was clear we need better players at other positions first. What do you mean by 15th in rushing? Do you mean that the Bills had the 15th most rushing yards of any team in the league? Or do you mean that the Bills had the 15th highest average yards per carry of any team in the league? If a team calls a high percentage of running plays, it may achieve a relatively high rank in the rushing yards per game category; even if its average yards per carry stat is weak. In Buffalo's case, we had some good RBs playing behind an offensive line that wasn't good at run blocking.
obie_wan Posted May 25, 2008 Posted May 25, 2008 Just give it up, Ramius...Bill ain't gonna change. As the sun rises and sets, so will he bemoan the acquisition of defensive backs with any pick higher than a 4th rounder, all the while reminding us he disagrees with Levy/Jauron as to "the way to build a football team." The Bills could win the next five Super Bowls and our friend would posit that it was done "in spite of" their drafting and FA strategy. It just isn't worth the effort. Bills have to get to the playoffs first and their philosophy of ignoring the OL is a big reason they have not made the playoffs this decade
Ramius Posted May 25, 2008 Posted May 25, 2008 Bills have to get to the playoffs first and their philosophy of ignoring the OL is a big reason they have not made the playoffs this decade just because we havent spent high drat picks on the OL doesnt mean we have ignored it. But we all know that the onyl way to success is to draft 1st round OL, which is why the vikings have been making the playoffs every season.
Dan Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 What do you mean by 15th in rushing? Do you mean that the Bills had the 15th most rushing yards of any team in the league? Or do you mean that the Bills had the 15th highest average yards per carry of any team in the league? If a team calls a high percentage of running plays, it may achieve a relatively high rank in the rushing yards per game category; even if its average yards per carry stat is weak. In Buffalo's case, we had some good RBs playing behind an offensive line that wasn't good at run blocking. I was just reciting the ranking provided in BillsVet's post. Not sure what it referred to.
Trader Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 The Giants Insider June/July 2008 post draft issue states that the Buffalo Bills offered the Giants their 2nd and 3rd round picks for the Giants 1st round pick, but Jerry Reese decided to stay put and select Kenny Phillips. TGI also states that Phillips was "by far, the highest rated player on the Giants board, with some reports stating that Reese & Co. had him rated as the 15th-best overall player in the draft". http://corner.bigblueinteractive.com/index...p;thread=289839 One of these three. Jordy Nelson, Devin Thomas, Hardy
obie_wan Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 just because we havent spent high drat picks on the OL doesnt mean we have ignored it. But we all know that the onyl way to success is to draft 1st round OL, which is why the vikings have been making the playoffs every season. over the last TEN years (44 picks), the Bills have drafted 3 OL in the top 4 rounds. Playoff teams have drafted double and triple that, and have made those picks count. 2 of the 3 Bills picks were a reach for a RT at #4 and the illustrious Preston of the Yukon in round 4. The 3rd pick was Jennings who is was not kept. Most teams that make improving the OL a priority make the playoffs. The Bills haven't on either count That is why they spent $75 mil on free agents and still have zero depth # of OL picked in rounds1-4 % of picks on OL Rnd 1-4 % of picks on OL Rnd 1-7 BILLS 3 7% 14% BEARS 6 13% 14% CHARGERS 5 13% 21% COLTS 5 12% 16% COWBOYS 7 17% 18% EAGLES 9 19% 18% GIANTS 4 11% 12% JAGUARS 7 17% 15% PACKERS 6 12% 17% PANTHERS 8 20% 21% PATS 7 16% 16% RAMS 6 13% 19% SEAHAWKS 9 20% 17% STEELERS 9 21% 19%
Sisyphean Bills Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 Which teams have starting caliber backup LT's? How many teams starting LTs were not acquired in a draft?
VOR Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 How many teams starting LTs were not acquired in a draft? I'd say most of them drafted them. The Bills didn't. But what does that have to do with starting caliber backup LT's?
Sisyphean Bills Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 But what does that have to do with starting caliber backup LT's? Nothing.
Ramius Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 Still waiting for the list of teams with starting caliber backup LTs. Note: answering that question has nothing to do with the Bills drafting tendencies, the way the Bills have addressed the OL, nor does it have anything to do with how the Bills acquired their LT.
Sisyphean Bills Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 Still waiting for the list of teams with starting caliber backup LTs. Note: answering that question has nothing to do with the Bills drafting tendencies, the way the Bills have addressed the OL, nor does it have anything to do with how the Bills acquired their LT. You'll probably go on waiting since you haven't defined what you mean by "starting caliber" which means anyone that is fool enough to spend time on an answer is walking into a trap.
Ramius Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 You'll probably go on waiting since you haven't defined what you mean by "starting caliber" which means anyone that is fool enough to spend time on an answer is walking into a trap. Regarding the Bills OL, no, i am not happy with our depth situation. I would have liked to have seen us snag a mid round OL or 2 to bolster the depth. My question was to obie wan, who previously claimed that "numerous teams have starting quality back up LTs." I would just like to see the list of teams with starting quality backup LTs.
eball Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 You'll probably go on waiting since you haven't defined what you mean by "starting caliber" which means anyone that is fool enough to spend time on an answer is walking into a trap. I believe the foolish statement was the one suggesting a number of teams have starting caliber backup LTs in the first place. What some of you apparently fail to realize is that nobody is praising the Bills' OL depth. If that's your argument, you're speaking to an empty room. We'd all love to have 3-4 "quality" O-linemen on the bench to fill in for injured starters. Unfortunately, in order to build a team of playoff caliber, there are 17 other starting positions besides the OL. If your team is deficient in those areas, you have to find quality starters. Once that process is complete, you can look to build depth. Why is that such a difficult concept for so many of you to grasp?
Captain Hindsight Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 How many teams starting LTs were not acquired in a draft? Buffalos
Recommended Posts