Casey D

As everyone here knows, drafting players is more art than science. Real GMs and armchair ones are all making their best guesses as to who can make the jump from college to NFL. History shows it is a very inexact art, see Tim Couch v. Tom Brady. Whether a draft is any good or not turns on something that cannot be known yet--how good were you at predicting who will become a good NFL player. That's why the old adage is you can't judge a draft for three years--it takes at least that long to see if your prediction is right. So why are the Bills grades by the "experts" mostly low? Well the Bills thought, for example, Torell Troup was better than Terrence Cody. So the Bills get a lower grade because they "reached" for Troup, when they could have had Cody. At the end of the day, this grade reduction is based totally on the "expert's view" that Cody will be the better player in the NFL, which, of course, is unknowable right now. The Bills obviously prefer Troup. The Bills are also downgraded because they did not get a stud LT and a franchise QB. I don't know how Wang and Brown will turn out, but the Bills obviously believed that Claussen and McCoy are not a franchise QBs, and any LT other than Williams and Okung were not surefire LTs. So they went elsewhere for talent and value, but for that they are downgraded. But if Claussen and McCoy turn out to be Jason Campbell and Brady Quinn, how wrong were the Bills? The Bills would have gotten a great grade from folks like Kiper and Bob Matthews if they took Bulaga, Claussen and Cody instead Spiller, Troup and Carrington. Are they any better with the former rather the latter--the Bills FO thought not, because they could have done that if they wanted. At bottom, whether this was a good draft turns on whether they the Bills new FO are correct that they got "value" at each pick, because they had a higher grade than the draft position they took the guy. Only time will tell, but this grading stuff is a circular clusterf%$k.

Exactly--if you are doing it right, position should be something of a tiebreaker. But if you have an RB with a much higher grade than an OT, you should take the RB, not the OT even though you have a much greater need for the OT. Teams deviate from this--but the better teams don't.

Wow, now I understand all the anger.

He said he was taken, so they did not move up...

And CBS gave the Bills one of a few As, and ESPN says Spiller was a tremendous value at 9. Again, I think these grades reflect the need v quality debate. If there was an OT or DT of roughly equal quality to Spiller, they would have taken him. But to take a player with a much lower grade to get a position seems like a mistake to me.

That may be right--there is nothing I personally can do about flat out bad decision makers. I can't reach that conclusion of this new regime based on one pick If you feel that way, you may be better off following a team that better emulates how you would do things--otherwise you will simply be angry and frustrated all the time.

This seems right to me. What the Bills need to do is get "value" with every pick--that is a player who will have an impact beyond his draft position. That is hard to do, but it is the only way to elevate your talent level and become competitive. Thus in Round 2, if the Bills could get an LT whose production is close to Okung or T Williams, they get value. Seems to me when you are in as deep a talent hole as the Bills, that is what you need to do.

OK--your position is that they are bad talent evaluators--that Spiller did not deserve the high grade the Bills gave him. Got it.

Let's explore people's thinking on this, in terms of the Spiller pick, and info from NGU. Buffalo has big needs at QB, OT and DT, also LB. By the time the Bills picked, the two highest graded OTs are gone, the best LB, and no DTor QB has a high first round grade. Spiller has by far the highest grade on you board when the Bills pick--what do you do? If you are trying to build a team by getting the best players, you take Spiller. If you draft for need, you take Bulaga or D. Williams or Claussen --which the remainder of the draft indicates that any of them would have been a tremendous reach. I don't see how a team with as many holes as the Bills ever gets better by taking lesser talent at positions they have a current need. Isn't that what the Bills have been doing for years? Maybe taking the best player available is something people only like in theory, but not in practice. That seems to be Sullivan's position, who yesterday wrote basically the Bills should draft talent, but today says Spiller is a bad pick because he does not fill a need. Perhaps people will say trade down, but let's leave that option off the table until the draft is complete, and we see what else we get. Trading down means getting quantity v quality, which is a legitimate strategy but we need to see how our other picks pan out to determine if more picks would have been a better way to go. We amy trade Lynch today a gain picks, for all I know So which is it? What should Nix do? What would you do?

Who would you have taken instead of Spiller?

Yes, Aaron Wilson in Baltimore, John Wawrow in Buff., both reporting that there is no deal but talks continuing as of 20 minutes ago.

No, it is reporting ESPN says it is a done deal.

Two reporters are NOW indicating Schefter is wrong, no deal done, but talks are continuing.

That is what John Wawrow is reprting as well. So it may still get done, but not yet.

You are correct. Only source of this story is Schefter--everything else repeats it. JW says no deal .. he is the tiebreaker right now.

Story is incorrect. He was LB coach last year with Dolphins. He's been DC at UF for less than a month...CD

And of course you'll never know the answer to that...

Good point. The Bills have drafted some good players. Last year, Woods Levitre and Byrd look like good picks. The problem seems to be in the first pick we have. And when we pick a Maybin or McKelvin or Whitner, it may be a failing at the top to pull the trigger on the right guy, not the failure of the scouts. With Jauron gone, and Nix and Gailey in charge, perhaps the decision making at the top, i.e, sifting through the raw talent evaluations and making good decisions on who to take, will improve. Stated differently, I don't think we really know if Modrak sucks or his rep has been tarnished by the ultimate decision makers.

Why?

Why do you feel this way? Re-tread? Of realistic candidates, who would you want?

I can't say I'm thrilled. I am willing to give it a chance and not reject it out of hand given Gailey's body of work and endorsements... CD

Thanks.

And you are very cynical. We just disagree... cd

LOL!

Just reporting facts. But why mess up your ravings with facts.