I used to think Lynch supporters were bad but then...

[obie_wan]

In and of itself, the fact that some clear difference between our actions positonally at the top of the draft versus the best teams in the game might simply be discounted as consequential, but that evidence is just the beginning.

 

I see premium quality DTs being passed in the draft by the Bills to take other positions. Haloti Ngata passed by in favor of a Safety? I have to say I find that fundamentally an error in the overall strategy of Buffalo.

 

That's a little difficult to ignore.

 

Do you think we'd be a different team today if instead of taking Lee Evans in 2004, we had selected Tommie Harris? We ended up STARTING Justin Bannon. We had the need- Harris was rated one of the best players in that draft- and we ended up with Lee Evans. It's hard to imagine we couldn't have waited another turn to pick up an undersized WR.

 

But our team has NOT seen the need for DT like the good contemporary teams have. How you can sit in a division getting whipped by a team twice a year, a team who has used 3 first round picks for DTs in the past 8 drafts, and not notice that we're undermanned inside?

 

I for one will no longer ignore it. The piss-poor gamble that Stroud represents may get the casual observer giddy, but it shouldn't get students of the contemporary NFL game feeling great about our '08 prospects. The way to beat the better teams today is with great defensive interiors, and entering the 2008 campaign, calling our great should be accompanied with a good burst of howling hysteria.

 

Vince Wilfork was the better pick because the can play NT and gives the defense the flexibility to play multiple fronts.

 

Either pick would have been better than a WR and QB that we got in the 1st round.

[R. Rich]

My God man let it go! The rediculous judgemental attitude of people on this board drove me to stop posting for a number of years. The man says he didn"t see the woman, he went home parked in his driveway, the cops came and towed his car, he called his lawyer, it took a few weeks to get the facts straightened out, the D.A. had no evidence that he "fled the scene of a hit and run" ergo the citation that he received. He's a 22(3?) year old kid and he made a mistake that, according to him and all eye witnessses he didn't even realize he made. The judge has ruled, the D.A. is satisfied, why the h... can't you guys back off?

 

 

Ease up, crappy pappy. My post was less being high and mighty as it was settling down those who would canonize a guy who was involved in something like this. We all know that if this was Laurence Maroney instead of Marshawn, he'd be getting raked over the coals for the same behavior.

 

Like you said, the issues was resolved.

[obie_wan]

I am with you re: Tommy Harris. In hindsight, probably Ngata too...

I don't think there was a better way to address RB last year than Lynch though. Lynch seems pretty close to a can't miss as long as he keeps his nose clean.

 

Also, I think McCargo showed a ton of promise last year and was under-utilized for how well he was progressing once healthy. His style of play is perfect for this scheme.

 

The problem is they should not have been in the position to be forced to take a RB in teh first round just to field the posiiton.

 

The Bills voluntarily created the hole by moving Willis in a contract year for too little and too early.

[VOR]

The problem is they should not have been in the position to be forced to take a RB in teh first round just to field the posiiton.

 

The Bills voluntarily created the hole by moving Willis in a contract year for too little and too early.

You're joking, right? What the Bills got was the best they COULD get. And they absolutely made the right move. And the laughable notion that taking a RB in the 1st round is a waste was put to rest.

[BillsVet]

You're joking, right? What the Bills got was the best they COULD get. And they absolutely made the right move. And the laughable notion that taking a RB in the 1st round is a waste was put to rest.

 

The trading of McGahee in turn forced them to select a RB in the first round. Talk about predictable, it doesn't take Nostradamus to realize Buffalo telegraphs their top picks year after year.

 

More than likely draft picks do not help a team win in their rookie season. Think about what the Bills might have done with that first round pick had they kept McGahee. Two thirds and a 7th are nice on paper, but what they generally offer on the field isn't as much. That's why unused draft picks are worth more than a player. It's why first rounders aren't part of too many trades for veteran players.

 

This is not an argument about whether or not McGahee or Lynch are nice guys or not. It's not even whether one's better than the other. It's about allocating resources. Buffalo's spent 2 first rounders on RB's in five years. This in turn prevents them from addressing other areas, like OL and DL.

[obie_wan]

The trading of McGahee in turn forced them to select a RB in the first round. Talk about predictable, it doesn't take Nostradamus to realize Buffalo telegraphs their top picks year after year.

 

More than likely draft picks do not help a team win in their rookie season. Think about what the Bills might have done with that first round pick had they kept McGahee. Two thirds and a 7th are nice on paper, but what they generally offer on the field isn't as much. That's why unused draft picks are worth more than a player. It's why first rounders aren't part of too many trades for veteran players.

 

This is not an argument about whether or not McGahee or Lynch are nice guys or not. It's not even whether one's better than the other. It's about allocating resources. Buffalo's spent 2 first rounders on RB's in five years. This in turn prevents them from addressing other areas, like OL and DL.

and that's on top of Travis Henry

[obie_wan]

The trading of McGahee in turn forced them to select a RB in the first round. Talk about predictable, it doesn't take Nostradamus to realize Buffalo telegraphs their top picks year after year.

 

More than likely draft picks do not help a team win in their rookie season. Think about what the Bills might have done with that first round pick had they kept McGahee. Two thirds and a 7th are nice on paper, but what they generally offer on the field isn't as much. That's why unused draft picks are worth more than a player. It's why first rounders aren't part of too many trades for veteran players.

 

This is not an argument about whether or not McGahee or Lynch are nice guys or not. It's not even whether one's better than the other. It's about allocating resources. Buffalo's spent 2 first rounders on RB's in five years. This in turn prevents them from addressing other areas, like OL and DL.

 

The Bills would have been up the creek if GB had traded ahead of them and taken Lynch

 

However, GB did what good teams do.

 

They found a RB in Ryan Grant and plugged him to great success. They also drafted a RB in the 2nd round who will challenge for time.

[VOR]

The trading of McGahee in turn forced them to select a RB in the first round. Talk about predictable, it doesn't take Nostradamus to realize Buffalo telegraphs their top picks year after year.

The Bills telegraphed their 1st pick in 2004 when they took McGahee? In 2005 when they took Parrish? In 2006 when they took Whitner? Okay. And this past draft, everyone figured it would be WR, and it wasn't. And what "telegraphing" a pick has to do with anything is anyone's guess. It's not like any team jumped in front of the Bills and took their guy last year, the only year they actually telegraphed their pick.

 

And you don't keep 1st rounders JUST because they were first rounders. This whole "they let their players go because they've only signed 1-1st rounder to a 2nd contract" is spurious at best. The Bills have re-signed OTHER players to 2nd and 3rd contracts.

 

More than likely draft picks do not help a team win in their rookie season. Think about what the Bills might have done with that first round pick had they kept McGahee. Two thirds and a 7th are nice on paper, but what they generally offer on the field isn't as much. That's why unused draft picks are worth more than a player. It's why first rounders aren't part of too many trades for veteran players.

 

This is not an argument about whether or not McGahee or Lynch are nice guys or not. It's not even whether one's better than the other. It's about allocating resources. Buffalo's spent 2 first rounders on RB's in five years. This in turn prevents them from addressing other areas, like OL and DL.

McGahee needed to go. He had 1 year left on his contract, wanted a big money deal even though he didn't earn it, was bad-mouthing the city, continued to workout in Miami instead of learning the offense, and had a propensity to do stuff like forget which down it was in a game, or give maximal effort when blocking, or throw-up on the sidelines. But if the Bills kept him, do you think he would have been re-signed this off-season? Do you think the Bills would have offered him what the Ravens gave him and/or he would have wanted to return to Buffalo? Doubtful at best. And as I pointed out, no non-1st round rookie RB did anything worthwhile last year, so expecting that the Bills could have drafted anyone after the 1st round and done well is unproven. And the Bills may have gotten their QB of the future with that 3rd rounder they got for McGahee.

[VOR]

The Bills would have been up the creek if GB had traded ahead of them and taken Lynch

Yes, let's play the "if" game.

 

However, GB did what good teams do.

 

They found a RB in Ryan Grant and plugged him to great success. They also drafted a RB in the 2nd round who will challenge for time.

Yep. All those non-1st round RB's atop the rushing yards list last year. The Packers "targeted" Grant (an UFA of the Giants in 2005 and a training camp body until last year) all along and did it how it should be done. Sure.

 

We'll see how well Grant, or Brandon Jackson, do now that Favre's gone and no one is respecting Aaron Rodgers.

[BillsVet]

The Bills telegraphed their 1st pick in 2004 when they took McGahee? In 2005 when they took Parrish? In 2006 when they took Whitner? Okay. And this past draft, everyone figured it would be WR, and it wasn't. And what "telegraphing" a pick has to do with anything is anyone's guess. It's not like any team jumped in front of the Bills and took their guy last year, the only year they actually telegraphed their pick.

 

I say this in the context of every GM in the league knows what the Bills holes are. They're as obvious as the sun. In 07 they went RB and LB after trading McGahee and letting Fletcher walk. In 08, they went CB and WR, two huge needs, considering they'd let Clements walk in FA two years before and that the Peerless Price experiment failed so miserably. Guys who get paid to do what we only talk about on this board know the tendencies of people like DJ, especially considering Buffalo has no bonafide GM.

 

And you don't keep 1st rounders JUST because they were first rounders. This whole "they let their players go because they've only signed 1-1st rounder to a 2nd contract" is spurious at best. The Bills have re-signed OTHER players to 2nd and 3rd contracts.

 

Check those drafts from about 94-00. You know, the post-Polian years. Overall, they were dreadfull and didn't result in much more than one contributor from each draft. If you like the guy enough to draft him and he works out, why let him go to FA? Good teams don't do this, why does Buffalo?

 

McGahee needed to go. He had 1 year left on his contract, wanted a big money deal even though he didn't earn it, was bad-mouthing the city, continued to workout in Miami instead of learning the offense, and had a propensity to do stuff like forget which down it was in a game, or give maximal effort, or throw-up on the sidelines. But if the Bills kept him, do you think he would have been re-signed this off-season? Do you think the Bills would have offered him what the Ravens gave him and/or he would have wanted to return to Buffalo? Doubtful at best. And as I pointed out, no non-1st round rookie RB did anything worthwhile last year, so expecting that the Bills could have drafted anyone after the 1st round and done well is unproven. And the Bills may have gotten their QB of the future with that 3rd rounder they got for McGahee.

 

You said he needed to go. From a contract perspective, he had no leverage. Ultimately, the Bills did not have to deal him. All they had to do was call his bluff and super-punk Drew Rosenhaus had very little to do. You can hate him as a player (he's a jerk), but the Bills opened up a hole by trading him. Imagine having McGahee for one season, and then using the first to move around in the first round. Replacing RB's happens quite frequently.

 

Right now, it's unclear what this team's long term strategy is. Marv talked about character players, though months after his retirement, the Bills FO has eschewed that in favor or risky characters.

[VOR]

Just a question AKC but what's your opinion of M. Stroud? Will he help to solidfy the center of the DL and allow McCargo to rome free in the opposing backfield?

I'll answer. If Stroud's ankle holds-up, and that's a real concern, he should be a tremendous addition to the Bills' DL. The guy was an all-pro in 2005 (which means something, unlike the Pro Bowl which has become a popularity contest) and was playing well until getting injured in 2006. And in the past 20 games he's played the past 2 seasons, he's had 43 tackles (38 solo) and 5.5 sacks, despite playing a lot of those games with a bum ankle. I'm not concerned about the steroid suspension.

[BillsVet]

Yep. All those non-1st round RB's atop the rushing yards list last year. The Packers "targeted" Grant (an UFA of the Giants in 2005 and a training camp body until last year) all along and did it how it should be done. Sure.

 

You fail to recognize that not all front offices are created equal. Ever wonder why NE, SD, IND, GB, NYG, PHI, JAC, and SEA have success nearly every year? It's because their FO knows what it's doing. They know who to get and how to prioritize their draft. GB's pro scouts had their sh** together and found Grant. Pro Scouting is on the endangered species list in Buffalo, where the department is run by a guy with more failures than the HC.

 

In the Michael Lombardi article on this board, he was spoken to by Bill Walsh, who told an excited Lombardi that there are generally about 8 teams competing to win the SB. It's no different this season. Most teams are pretenders. GB is not, despite the Favre fiasco.

[VOR]

I say this in the context of every GM in the league knows what the Bills holes are. They're as obvious as the sun. In 07 they went RB and LB after trading McGahee and letting Fletcher walk. In 08, they went CB and WR, two huge needs, considering they'd let Clements walk in FA two years before and that the Peerless Price experiment failed so miserably. Guys who get paid to do what we only talk about on this board know the tendencies of people like DJ, especially considering Buffalo has no bonafide GM.

And this (people knowing what their needs are) is unique to Buffalo? But I disagree that CB was an obvious need. Had Greer failed to step-up and if they hadn't added Will James, I'd agree.

Check those drafts from about 94-00. You know, the post-Polian years. Overall, they were dreadfull and didn't result in much more than one contributor from each draft. If you like the guy enough to draft him and he works out, why let him go to FA? Good teams don't do this, why does Buffalo?

There's a difference between "working out" and being worth ridiculous money in FA. I have almost no problem with them letting Antowain Smith, Winfield and Clements walk, unlike letting Ted Washington or Pat Williams walk. Those last 2 were real mistakes.

You said he needed to go. From a contract perspective, he had no leverage. Ultimately, the Bills did not have to deal him. All they had to do was call his bluff and super-punk Drew Rosenhaus had very little to do. You can hate him as a player (he's a jerk), but the Bills opened up a hole by trading him. Imagine having McGahee for one season, and then using the first to move around in the first round. Replacing RB's happens quite frequently.

He had leverage. He could have sat-out half the season, played 8 games and fulfilled a year of eligibility to become an UFA after the season and leave. He could have also shown-up and half-azzed it. But again the point is that he had 1 year left on his deal, so the Bills were looking at replacing him eventually anyway, and would have "telegraphed" their need for a RB in this year's draft.

Right now, it's unclear what this team's long term strategy is. Marv talked about character players, though months after his retirement, the Bills FO has eschewed that in favor or risky characters.

Who, Hardy, who allegedly "pulled a gun on his dad" as per a 73-year old woman, yet the father didn't want to press charges and the cops never pursued the case? Because Lynch was drafted by Marv. And not to start this up again, but the evidence points to Lynch not knowing he hit her.

 

But if you want to win, drafting choir boys isn't going to be the answer. It's a violent game played by juiced-up mostly spoiled manchildren.

[VOR]

You fail to recognize that not all front offices are created equal. Ever wonder why NE, SD, IND, GB, NYG, PHI, JAC, and SEA have success nearly every year? It's because their FO knows what it's doing. They know who to get and how to prioritize their draft. GB's pro scouts had their sh** together and found Grant. Pro Scouting is on the endangered species list in Buffalo, where the department is run by a guy with more failures than the HC.

Many of the teams you mentioned have strong QB's like NE (with cheating helping them of course), Indy, GB (with Favre), Philly, and Seattle. The Chargers were lousy for so long that they stockpiled top picks. And the NFC is a weak conference. Had the Bills played in it, they would have made the playoffs several times already.

 

And Green Bay "found" Grant? Why was he inactive for the first game and only became a starter mid-season?

In the Michael Lombardi article on this board, he was spoken to by Bill Walsh, who told an excited Lombardi that there are generally about 8 teams competing to win the SB. It's no different this season. Most teams are pretenders. GB is not, despite the Favre fiasco.

GB is looking a lot more like a pretender than a contender without Favre. You need a good QB to lead your team, do you not? What has Aaron Rodgers done to inspire any confidence in him whatsoever? Not to mention the Vikes should be the best team in the division and the Bears are likely to rebound from their post-SB doldrums, while the Giants, Cowboys, Saints, Bucs, and Seahawks should be good teams.

[AKC]

Just a question AKC but what's your opinion of M. Stroud? Will he help to solidfy the center of the DL and allow McCargo to rome free in the opposing backfield?

 

On Rome, one thing I can say is that it's the first place I ever saw a vending machine selling nightcrawlers, and I have to admit I was impressed. Not that with a flashlight and little rain that would be necessary but....

 

On Stroud- we will hope that he somehow finds some of the magic of his best season in 2003. The consistent decline in his performance though makes it very difficult to be logically optimistic- the bottom line is that the front office was very aware we were possibly the worst interior in football against the run last year. Without any ideal options, they selected bringing in a declining player who never took the primary run stopping role on the Jags after John Henderson arrived in Stroud's second season- a job held down very effectively by John Henderson. Stroud was an effective 3 technique DT as recently as 2004, but 2008 is a long way away. The questions are whether we will play him as a 3 or insist he revert back to the 0/1 technique role of his rookie year, (when he had no sacks) where the Jags were using Seth Payne and Renaldo Wynn part-time as the 3 technique Under Tackle in their scheme. To be fair to Stroud, he did a very good job playing the NT that year, but the Jags wanted to upsize and drafted Henderson to play the stopper and give Marcus a chance to bust gaps.

 

Will it work in Buffalo? Part of it is how he's utilized, and maybe just as big a factor will be how much he's forced to play. If we end up with Marcus Stroud playing 2/3rds of of our defensive downs, I believe we're going to suffer as a team and as fans. If we can limit him to maybe 55% of our defensive downs, it will mean he's getting the job done on running downs and we're able to put players like Spencer Johnson out there to give him the time on the bench he'll need to last the season.

[Chilly]

Your sarcastic remark from earlier in the string identifies your opinion that "picking the right players is what's important in the draft, not picking the right positions."

 

I've consistently said there's plenty of evidence that both scouting grade and position are among the considerations made by the best teams before making their selection.

 

If you don't like your original position, now might be a good time to modify it.

 

What I meant by my sarcastic remark is that picking the right players matters 100x more than the position.

 

That's not to say the position doesn't matter - picking a RB in round 1 when you already have a strong starting RB is, IMO, silly (I'm looking at you Donahoe). So is picking a kicker, punter, or special teams gunner in the first round.

 

Outside of that, though, it doesn't bother me what a team chooses to build through FA versus through the draft, as long as they have well-rounded drafts.

[John from Riverside]

On Rome, one thing I can say is that it's the first place I ever saw a vending machine selling nightcrawlers, and I have to admit I was impressed. Not that with a flashlight and little rain that would be necessary but....

 

On Stroud- we will hope that he somehow finds some of the magic of his best season in 2003. The consistent decline in his performance though makes it very difficult to be logically optimistic- the bottom line is that the front office was very aware we were possibly the worst interior in football against the run last year. Without any ideal options, they selected bringing in a declining player who never took the primary run stopping role on the Jags after John Henderson arrived in Stroud's second season- a job held down very effectively by John Henderson. Stroud was an effective 3 technique DT as recently as 2004, but 2008 is a long way away. The questions are whether we will play him as a 3 or insist he revert back to the 0/1 technique role of his rookie year, (when he had no sacks) where the Jags were using Seth Payne and Renaldo Wynn part-time as the 3 technique Under Tackle in their scheme. To be fair to Stroud, he did a very good job playing the NT that year, but the Jags wanted to upsize and drafted Henderson to play the stopper and give Marcus a chance to bust gaps.

 

Will it work in Buffalo? Part of it is how he's utilized, and maybe just as big a factor will be how much he's forced to play. If we end up with Marcus Stroud playing 2/3rds of of our defensive downs, I believe we're going to suffer as a team and as fans. If we can limit him to maybe 55% of our defensive downs, it will mean he's getting the job done on running downs and we're able to put players like Spencer Johnson out there to give him the time on the bench he'll need to last the season.

 

 

AKC,

 

Based on that do you think that Stroud will be paird up with Williams or McCargo?

[AKC]

AKC,

 

Based on that do you think that Stroud will be paird up with Williams or McCargo?

 

Williams just doesn't look like a 3. He's (up to this time) too small to be a 0 but he fills the 1 role well in the second wave. My best guess is that they think they're playing a positive Depth Chart head game right now with McCargo to charge him up to "gain" the starting spot opposite MS. So the answer to the question is that I figure the opening day starters will be Stroud and McCargo, and the staff knows it but they're hoping JM earns it versus it being given to him. The trick to a traditional Cover 2 line with two 3 technique players is leaving the offense at 2nd and 12, a tough change-of-pagce for most West Coast style offenses who are designed to chip for 4 yards and take any surplus.

 

And I have to say that I think we play the worst D for Kyle William's skillset- in some ways it's a shame he signed on with us for so long because in a traditional 4-3 with gap responsibilities he'd be playing a lot more downs in another team's defense. He's more of an asset than many creidt him for- but there are some big handicaps with the D the way we've been playing it up to this time. Maybe there'll be some wrinkles this year that let him drill the other line- and that would change the whole way we play D-Ball. This kid has one of the best low games I've seen in our uni and he just hasn't been allowed to use that; in fact he's been discouraged in the way we've played the scheme so far.

[Ramius]

Since you keep pushing your "study", I decided to take a closer look at it.

 

 

 

First, I want to take a look at how you got these numbers. I decided to do a little test, and see how you came to these numbers.

 

I marked those 7 drafts down, and then divided the number that you assigned it by the total from all 7 drafts. As it turns out, the percentage that I received were the numbers you had listed if you rounded.

 

The problem, therefore, is you are acting as if the Bills decided where in the draft they were going to pick each year for seven years, and planned it out over those seven years, to make RB be 20% of the "points" they were budgeted.

 

In reality, drafts don't work that way. Each team has to choose what to take wear, only knowing that they have a pick somewhere in the first round the year after.

 

Lets also consider how it would have affected your total if the Bills had taken DT Ryan Sims (who was the first DT drafted) at #4 instead of Mike Williams. If you move those 61 points that you've assigned to Mike Williams over to DL, it jumps the percentage up to 20%, pretty close to that 23% magic number that you have. Yet, the Bills would be no better off, because both Mike Williams and Ryan Sims were busts.

 

You have no way to even suggest causation - making these numbers useless.

 

Picking relatively few draft busts is much more important then deciding you're going to take a DT because you have a pick in the top 15 of the NFL Draft.

 

Now for a completely subjective, non-valid view to illustrate my point: Between 2000 and 2005, the Bills found only 8/50 (16%) players I would consider solid starters. In contrast, the Pats* found 13/51 solid starters (25%), including a franchise QB. With 22 starters on offense and defense, those extra 5 players amount to more than 20% of the starting squad, freeing up lots of money for free agency, putting them even further ahead. Likewise, the Colts were 16/49 (32%), versus the Lions at 6/44 (13%).

 

The stronger one drafts, the more holes can be filled via the draft, the more money that can be spent on top-flight free agents, and the more you can spread your drafts around positionally instead of focusing on one area that you keep busting in. Thus, having strong drafts (regardless of the positions drafted) is much more important than sticking to a positional view of the draft.

 

wanna know something else thats funny blue?

 

Using AKC's supermostexcellent © system, lets say the bills swapped the places where they took josh reed and ryan denney (both 2002 2nd rounders). All of a sudden, we are at the magic number like the SB teams. So, taking ryan denney before reed would have led us to a super bowl, according to AKC.

 

Not to mention we have all seen how well the "stockpiling" of DTs has gone for KC and St louis.

[AKC]

taking ryan denney before reed would have led us to a super bowl, according to AKC.

 

We get it. You don't mind lying about other posters here when they expose you for what you are.

 

You should stick to your Football Know Nothing Club where post counts are the gold standard over content and context. I know in your mind that's probably the easy way to cover up your insistence about all the 1st round WRs we'd see in the past draft, and why we should burn the 11 pick on Limas Sweed.