Orton's Arm

I think the above-quoted text from Rotoworld is key to this discussion. Whitner is a hard hitter, and seems to be around the play a lot. Those things matter, and are why he's reasonably well thought-of around the league. His weakness is in covering the TE. It's likely that whoever created those ESPN rankings valued run support more highly than pass coverage. Someone with the opposite preference probably wouldn't place Whitner among the top 10 safeties. The Bills' decision to draft Searcy in the fourth is interesting, in part because the reports I've read about him suggest he's better at covering TEs than at run support. Possibly, the Bills envision stopping the run primarily by having a front-7 that's bigger, more physical, and more dominant than the one inherited from the Tampa-2/Jauron scheme. Making the SS a less critical component of the plan to stop the run would free the Bills up to have a guy who's good in coverage against TEs. (Which is probably the hope for Searcy.)

That's exactly what I'm hoping for. They'd be in a 3-4, and the starting lineup could be Kyle Williams (LDE), Jasper (NT) and Dareus (RDE). I'd love to see other teams try to run the ball against that!

You are exactly right! 1) First, the Bills weren't going to fill all their holes in one draft. Too many holes, not enough picks. 2) Second, you should never reach for a player just to fill a need. Sure, it would have been great if there'd been an Andrew Luck waiting for the Bills at 3rd overall. But there wasn't. Even though there's a need at quarterback, it doesn't make sense to use an early pick on, say, Blaine Gabbert, only to have him turn into Joey Harrington. You're much better off taking a player like Dareus, and waiting until 2012 to address the need at quarterback. 3) I think the best way to evaluate the Bills' draft is to ask, "Will this player provide the team with good value for his draft position?" If Dareus becomes the player we think he is, if Williams becomes a solid starter at CB, and if Sheppard is a good long-term answer at ILB, then we'll have gotten good value from our first three draft selections. Likewise, I suspect the Bills may have found some sleepers later in the draft.

Jets = Just End The Season. Oh, wait, the owners already did that! I find it amusing that Jets fans and their coach talk big about Super Bowl rings, considering who they have at quarterback. This past season, Mark Sanchez averaged 6.5 yards per pass attempt. Trent Edwards' career average also just so happens to be 6.5 yards per attempt. While Trent Edwards competes for a roster spot in Jacksonville, Jets fans giddily use made-up words like "Sanchize" to describe their own team's situation at QB. It's worth noting that Trent Edwards achieved his 6.5 yards per attempt despite often playing without an offensive line; and with a receiving corps that was often suspect. Also, he never had an offensive coordinator, except for his final two games as a Bills' starter. In contrast, Sanchez plays behind one of the very best offensive lines in the league, has a great receiving corps, and a good offensive system. Despite those advantages, he still wasn't able to surpass Edwards' career average this past season! "Sanchize" indeed.

I agree that odds are against any of this year's picks getting a lot of Pro Bowl invites. And that's okay, as long as Dareus plays at a Pro Bowl level. As for Williams, if he plays as well as Jabari Greer played, and if he remains in Buffalo for the entirety of his useful career, he'll have been a good pick. He doesn't have to play at a Pro Bowl level, but he does need to be a solid starter, as Greer was. I too hope and somewhat expect to see Sheppard to become a long-term solid starter at ILB. If he does, it was a good pick. If all three of those things happen, this will have been a very solid draft. If those three things happen and if it turns out we got some late round steals (such as Hairston and Jasper), this will have been a great draft! That said, it's probably a mistake to get too excited about this draft before any of the picks have played a down of football in the NFL.

I agree with these grades. The Bills came away with one true starter (Stevie Johnson), two marginal starters (Bell and McKelvin), and a decent depth player (Corner). Disappointments in rounds 1 - 3 were partially offset by success later in the draft. The Bills need to start finding success early in the draft, so that late round success stories like Stevie Johnson add to what was achieved earlier in the draft. With a draft like 2008's, it's a case of trying to use late round success stories to balance out early round failures. Was this year's draft a case of finding multiple solid starters in rounds 1 - 3? Knowing what we know today, I think that Dareus was about as good a pick as the Bills could have made. I'm less familiar with our picks in rounds 2 and 3, but I hope they turn into solid starters. If they do, the 2011 draft will be recorded as vastly different from the 2008 draft!

Thanks for the compliments. I think that part of the reason the discussion got drawn into specific misses was to make the point that the Bills haven't had nearly as many opportunities to acquire franchise QBs as one might think. That's a perfectly legitimate point, and I'm glad it was made. But there have been some genuine opportunities to acquire franchise QBs over the last ten years--opportunities which have been squandered. It's also telling that, over the fifty year period in question, the Bills took 20 RBs + DBs as their first draft pick, and only two OTs + QBs as their first draft pick. Running backs often have short careers, and Bills' DBs have a very bad habit of going first-contract-and-out. Drafting patterns such as these are indicative of the larger problem: the shortsighted and incompetent approach of most of the GMs the Bills have had over the years. Polian was a rare and welcome exception to that general trend. (And so, of course, had to be fired.) I think the other problem with this discussion is that people interpret your original post to imply that you're unhappy with the Dareus pick, and wish the Bills had taken a quarterback instead. I realize that you haven't said such things. Nor have you implied that there was an Andrew Luck waiting for the Bills at #3. I think this may be one of those times (of which there are many on these boards) when you have to specifically disavow a certain opinion in order to prevent others from associating you with that opinion. I think that once people realize you're not complaining about the Dareus pick, it will help calm things down a little, and get this discussion back on track. Your main point is a very good one, and illuminates some of core reasons for this organization's decades-long record of ineptitude and failure. The better we understand those reasons, the better able we'll be to determine to what extent (if any) those underlying problems are being corrected. I personally feel that Nix took a disciplined approach to this draft; and that he hasn't displayed the same shortsightedness one (painfully) learned to associate with TD and Marv. But I realize my emotions are affecting my judgment, and that I'm really, really happy with the Dareus pick!

First, I want to acknowledge the truth of the point you're making. Opportunities to acquire franchise QBs are very rare. In many drafts, there won't be a worthy franchise QB available. The scarcity of opportunities to acquire franchise QBs means that when such an opportunity does present itself, you have to seize that opportunity with both hands. 51 consecutive years of failing to draft a QB with their first pick of the draft suggests at least the possibility that the Bills haven't exactly been overly aggressive in seizing such opportunities! But the problem isn't just misplaced player priorities. (Though that's certainly a big part of it.) Short-sightedness, poor player evaluations, and a misguided organizational philosophy have their place as well. In 2002, TD traded away the Bills' first round pick of the 2003 draft for the aging Drew Bledsoe. This was a mistake, because rebuilding teams shouldn't trade away first round picks for older veterans. In 2004, TD decided to use another first round pick on Bledsoe's replacement. To acquire this second first round pick in the 2004 draft, TD traded away the Bills' first round pick in 2005 and its second round pick in 2004. All this resulted in JP Losman, a QB selected more for his physical gifts than because of anything he'd proven as a pocket passer in college. Lots of physical gifts + little evidence of accuracy or mental gifts = bust, at least most of the time. That is why I opposed the Losman pick from the beginning. Suppose the Bills hadn't traded back into the first round of 2004. Rumor has it that the Packers would have chosen Losman, which presumably means they wouldn't have used a first round pick on Aaron Rodgers in 2005. Because the Bills wouldn't have traded away their first round pick in 2005, they could have used that first round pick on Rodgers. This is clearly a case where the Bills blew an opportunity to take a franchise QB. This particular instance was more a case of bad player evaluation than de-prioritizing the QB position. In 2006, I felt the Bills should have done one of two things with the eighth overall pick. 1) If they liked a QB at eighth overall, they should have taken one. I argued in favor of Cutler often enough that I was labeled "Cutler's Arm." 2) If not, they should have traded down. There were generous offers on the table from teams who coveted players like Cutler and Leinart. If the Carolina Panthers were justified in using a first round pick on a QB just a year after taking Clausen, the Bills would certainly have been justified in using a first round pick on a QB two years after taking Losman! While I acknowledge that Cutler has his detractors as well as his fans, his career average is 7.2 yards per attempt. This past season he averaged 7.6 yards per attempt, despite playing without an offensive line. 7.2 yards per attempt is borderline franchise QB category, and 7.6 yards per attempt is "you have to declare this guy a franchise QB based on numbers" territory. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Peyton Manning's career average is 7.6 yards per attempt. But even if Cutler reverts to his career 7.2 yards per attempt average, that's still borderline franchise QB territory. A QB like that is certainly a more valuable addition than an overhyped SS who can't cover TEs. Denver ultimately received two first round picks (plus other compensation) for trading away Cutler. I don't exactly recall the other 31 teams lining up at the Bills' door to offer a smorgasbord of high draft picks for Donte Whitner. Matt Schaub was drafted in 2004. He played poorly as a rookie. But he played well in his second and third years, albeit in very limited action. Prior to the 2007 season, the Texans saw enough in Schaub to feel justified in trading away two second round picks for him. He amply rewarded their confidence in him: his career average stands at a staggering 7.8 yards per pass attempt; as compared to 7.6 for Peyton Manning and 7.4 for Brady. While those numbers don't necessarily mean that Shaub is better than those other two QBs, they do mean that he could have been a very good QB for the Bills for many years to come. Between them, Aaron Rodgers, Cutler, and Schaub represent three separate chances the Bills had to find their franchise quarterback. Those chances all occurred during the past decade. If you were to dig back further over the 50 year period in question, I'm sure you'd find a number of other missed opportunities. In the future, I hope the Bills become more interested in acquiring QBs and OTs, and less dazzled by RBs and DBs, than they'd been in the past.

Flynn would be very intriguing for the Bills; especially if the asking price was reasonable. (Hopefully no more than a third round pick.)

I agree with your larger point: over the last 40+ years, the Bills' draft day priorities have been misplaced and misguided. But this year, there wasn't a QB who deserved to go third overall, which means Dareus was the right pick. Hopefully the Bills will find a franchise QB in next year's draft, even if it means trading up. Because you're right: until this team gets a franchise QB, it isn't going to be a serious contender to win the Super Bowl. Your post prompted me to look at the first player the Bills drafted each year, starting in 1967. Below is a list of the positions the Bills addressed with their first pick in the draft. RB: 10 (including 9 first rounders) DL: 7 DB: 10 WR: 7 (including 5 first rounders) OT: 2 Interior OL: 2 LB: 4 TE: 3 QB: 0 That's ten running backs! Ten defensive backs! Zero quarterbacks, and only two offensive tackles! (Of those two offensive tackles, one was John Fina, the other Mike Williams.) This is not the right way to build a football team!!

According to CBS sports, Searcy "Demonstrated the agility to stick with tight ends and even cover slot receivers in a pinch while at the Senior Bowl." I love that fact! Last season, one of the posters here indicated that he'd attained a perfect record in fantasy football by starting whichever TE was facing the Bills that week. If this guy can help us get better at covering TEs, then he's a solid addition to this football team! However, I am concerned about the fact that nothing has been done to address the offense, and specifically the hole at RT. Then again, the Bills were more than just one draft away from filling all their holes; and I strongly suspect the 2012 draft will be offense-oriented. (Not that this draft has been defense-oriented or anything . . .)

Just to expand on what you've written: I think the Bills should have taken Dareus even if they had the first overall pick. (As opposed to taking Cam Newton or Von Miller.) Having Dareus available at third overall is therefore a lot like having the first overall pick in the draft! (Except that you have to pay Dareus a third overall salary, not a first overall salary.) The first overall pick is very valuable; and it would have to take a very special offer for the Bills to move out of that spot. And it's not like Atlanta's pick was only a few spots below the Bills' pick. It was significantly below. Plus, it's reasonable to expect Atlanta to have a winning record in 2011, so their first round pick of next year's draft probably won't be anything special. For the right price, trading down from third overall would have been worth it. But it would have had to have been a very high price; and the Atlanta trade down didn't even come close to meeting that price. Of course, if Atlanta goes 1-15 in 2011 (thus making its first round pick the Andrew Luck pick), then I'll be proven wrong about the value of what Atlanta had to offer. But the odds of that happening are small. Based on what we know today, the Bills made absolutely the right decision by trading Dareus instead of trading down. However, I would have traded away the Bills' second round pick, straight up, for Oakland's first rounder next year. (Assuming of course, that this option had been on the table. Which it probably wasn't; because if it had been the Patriots would have done it with their own second round pick!)

There have been times when I've said similar things about Spiller. I've written that most analysts had him pegged as one of the two or three best players in the entire draft. I've pointed out that a good running back can help your team not just by running the ball, but by becoming a receiver or a blocker on passing downs. A Thurman Thomas, if you will. The problem with all this is that I want a general manager who's able to identify actual player talent, not a general manager who goes along with a consensus view even when that view is incorrect. If Spiller starts looking like the second coming of Thurman Thomas, then Buddy's high opinion of him will have been confirmed. Thus far that hasn't happened. At least after the first year, Spiller seems like a significant step down from the best player available when the Bills were picking. That makes the Spiller pick significantly harder to justify, especially considering that, given the team's needs, running back was the absolute last position the Bills should have been seeking to address. Assuming equal player talent/production, a draft pick at literally any other starting position, on offense or defense, would have made more sense than a pick at running back. But no GM has a perfect drafting record. Not even Bill Polian, not even in the first round. If Spiller turns out to be no better than what you'd expect from a second or third round pick, he'd fit right in with the last several RBs the Bills chose in the first round!! But hopefully that instance of a first round pick becoming less than you'd expect (based on draft position) will be balanced out by many other Nix picks who play above their draft position.

As others have pointed out, what really jumps out from that list is the lack of offensive linemen. If the Spiller pick had been on an offensive lineman instead, I think the rest of Buddy's draft approach would be considerably easier to justify. I understand the reasons why they made the Spiller pick, but those reasons clearly haven't (yet?) panned out. I disagree with the above post. Teams generally run more pass plays than running plays. Let's suppose that, for the sake of argument, teams are disproportionately likely to call running plays against the Bills to take advantage of their league-worst rushing defense. Maybe that gives you a 50/50 mix of run/pass. Or even a 60/40 mix of run/pass plays called against you. The point here is that there were a significant number of passing plays called against the Bills last season, just as there will be this season. A guy who can help upgrade that pass defense makes your team better. The Bills' run defense became considerably better in rounds 1 and 3 of the draft. Also, players like Troupe, Carrington, and Moats may contribute more in 2011 than they had in 2010. As it becomes harder to run the ball against the Bills, teams will tend to pass the ball more often. A highly suspect secondary--such as the one the Bills fielded last season--would make it that much easier for teams to complete passes against the Bills.

The thing to remember here is that New England didn't think Mallett was worth a second round pick. If they did, they would have taken him in the second instead of risking loosing him by waiting until the third. New England has dabbled with non-Brady quarterbacks before. Most of their experiments have fizzled out. (Such as Rohan Davey.) Matt Cassell had some success, but I don't necessarily see him as the next Tom Brady. Mallett isn't the next Tom Brady either; and probably won't be the next Matt Cassell.

The last time the Bills' OL was where it needed to be, Jim Kelly was still taking snaps from Kent Hull. Wanting the OL addressed is perfectly legitimate. (Especially because the Bills don't have a RT.) Also, the Bills have had the habit of using lots of first round picks on DBs, and then letting those DBs go first-contract-and-out. That's a stupid way to run a football team; and fans are right to be displeased by it. None of these things make Williams a bad pick at all. If he becomes a good starter at CB, and if he remains with the Bills for the vast majority of his career, he'll have been a fine pick.

I'm actually okay with the Bills using their second round pick on a CB. McGee is getting on in years and McKelvin's instincts are suspect. But the bolded statement has me worried. If the Bills are going DB with their second round pick, it has to result in a starting CB--not some CB/FS tweener who can play CB only in a zone scheme. I don't know whether the bolded statement is correct; but if it is I'm not happy. Also, if this guy can play, he must not be allowed to go first contract and out!!!

You are absolutely correct about this. A franchise QB elevates the level of your entire team. If, prior to the playoffs, Aaron Rodgers had gone down with a season-ending injury, and had been replaced by a Dilfer-like backup, there's no way that Green Bay even thinks about a Super Bowl win! They'd be lucky to make it to the divisional round of the playoffs in a scenario like that! Once you have a franchise QB, you can basically ignore the QB position in the early rounds of the draft for the next ten+ years. That allows you to focus on building other aspects of your team without significant new draft-day investments at the QB position. During that ten+ year period, that franchise QB will significantly enhance your team's efforts every year; much like Manning does for the Colts or Brees does for the Saints. Imagine two teams trying to win the Super Bowl. Team A contents itself with Dilfer-like QBs, and focuses the next ten years on trying to build a Ravens-like defense, OL, etc. Team B acquires a franchise QB in year one or two of its plan, and focuses the following eight years on building a defense + offensive supporting cast as good as the Packers of 2010, or that of the Patriots teams that won those three Super Bowl rings. It's much, much easier to acquire Packers/Patriots/Saints-level talent at the non-QB positions than it is to build a Ravens of 2000-like defense + OL. The team with the franchise QB is therefore much more likely to succeed in winning the Super Bowl than the team with Dilfer at QB that's attempting to replicate the Ravens' defense of 2000.

As others have pointed out, the second pick of the second round is almost like a first round pick. I wouldn't want to part with a pick like that unless the price was right. I fully expect Oakland to have a losing record this coming season; which means their first round pick in next year's draft will probably be in the top-15--and likely the top-10. If the deal on the table was to trade away our second round pick, straight up, for their first rounder in next year's draft, I'd do it.

If possible, I'd try to arrange things so that Oakland gives us their third round pick this year and their first round pick next year, in exchange for our second round pick. Even if that third rounder turned into a fourth rounder instead, I feel like I have to have Oakland's first round pick in next year's draft!

I think your bolded statement is why some of the grades for Dareus aren't higher than they are. Also, it's hard to give the Bills credit for being smarter than the fan base when they did exactly what 95% or more of the fans would have done in that situation. That being said, the Bills seem to have gotten a great player who will be an excellent addition to their DL for many years to come. I'm very happy with the Dareus pick, and I'm among the 95% who would have taken him. The Vikings were in desperate need of a quarterback; and Ponder could very well be a long-term answer for them. It's very hard for me to fault a pick like that. (Except that I wish the Bills had found a way to trade back into the first to take him.) I agree with whoever it was who said that the Falcons made a bad trade, and that Cleveland is the winner there. I also think New Orleans was the loser in its trade with the Patriots. If the Saints felt that nervous about their running back situation, they could always have added some guy in the third round. Then they could have used their second round pick to improve their OL or their defensive front-7. Odds are that the two starting RBs they had on the roster prior to the draft would have been able to carry a large portion of the load, so it's not like they'd be that reliant on their third round RB. And the second round pick this year, plus the first rounder next year, would make them a much better team in other areas.

Tom Brady isn't exactly an Olympic sprinter gold medalist. Mallett's lack of mobility is of far less concern to me personally than are other questions. Can Mallett throw the ball with Brady-like touch and accuracy? Can Mallett process information with Brady-like or Fitz-like quickness and excellence? Can Mallett sense and avoid pressure in the pocket? These are the questions which will determine whether Mallett goes to the Hall of Fame, or whether he becomes yet another failed quarterback with a million dollar arm and a ten cent brain. I personally had been hoping the Bills would trade back into the late first to take Christian Ponder. Obviously that didn't happen! I think the best quarterback still available at this point may be Dalton. From the Bleacher Report (quoting Peter King):

Thanks, Bill, for your thoughts and for starting this thread! What intrigues me about this second round pick is the number of different positions upon which the pick could justifiably be used. Below is a list. QB. Normally you wouldn't expect to find your franchise QB at the top of round 2. But if (insert QB name here) proved an exception to that rule, getting the Bills' QB of the future would be a bigger win than anything else the Bills could do with this pick. RT. The Bills' OL was deeply flawed last season, and those problems began at RT. A good player here could solidify the second most-important spot on the Bills' OL for a decade or more. Plus, it would allow Bills' TEs to become a bigger part of the passing game, instead of staying home to help the RT block. TE. A TE is supposed to be a QB's best friend. Not that Bills fans would know this, because it's been over a decade since the Bills have had a bona fide long-term answer at TE. NT. The theory with this pick, if it was made, would be that Kyle Williams belongs at LDE, and Dareus belongs at RDE. Troupe could play some of the snaps at NT, with this player playing the rest. Williams and Dareus would of course be your starting DEs (3-4), with players like Carrington and D'wan Edwards in the rotation as well. The Bills would release Marcus Stroud and John McCargo. OLB. In a 3-4 you can get by with average ILBs; but you need at least one really good OLB/pass rusher. It's not certain that Merriman will return to form from his injury, or that Moats will become the really good OLB that the Bills need. ILB. The Bills need an ILB, and perhaps they could get a really good one here. CB. I'm hesitant to add this to a Bill from NYC thread, but here goes. Your pass rush and pass coverage work together. A pass rush that can get to the QB in three seconds is great! But allowing a WR to get open after only two seconds makes that pass rush significantly less useful than it otherwise would have been. McGee isn't getting any younger, and McKelvin's instincts are flawed. If the Bills do take a CB with this pick, they'd better not let him go first-contract-and-out!!!! I'll likely be reasonably happy if the Bills get a solid football player at one of the above-described positions of need. (Assuming, of course, that this player remains with the Bills for the vast majority of his career.)

I wasn't too impressed with the article myself. It seemed like a standard-issue pro-players, anti-owners propaganda piece to me. I don't think it added anything particularly new or insightful to the overall discussion.

"Players win. fans win. owners lose." The problem with that equation is that I don't necessarily see "venture capitalist wins" in it. I'll grant that if everything goes well, the venture capitalist probably would come away with significantly more money than his initial investment. But there are considerable risks fraught with trying to build a football league that would not merely compete with, but actually replace, the NFL. I have heard it said that for every ten ventures a venture capitalist funds, eight will fail, one will be a moderate success, and one will be a big success. Therefore, venture capitalists want to know that any given new venture they undertake will have at least the potential to pay for ten failed ventures. The two questions we need to ask are: 1) would $2 billion be enough to start a football league that's good enough to compete with the NFL, and 2) could the venture capitalist reasonably expect to turn that $2 billion into $20 billion if the league succeeded? To address the first question, the NFL receives over $9 billion in revenue each year. $1 billion is taken off the top, and the players can receive up to 60% of the rest. That is about $4.8 billion in player salaries each year; though the actual sum is a little less due to some teams not spending up to the salary cap. If this new league wanted to attract all the NFL's players, it would presumably have to similarly spend at least $4.8 billion on player salary costs alone. There are also stadium costs: this new league would not own any stadiums of its own. It would take several years (and a lot of money) to build the stadiums it would require. At least initially, the new league would have to negotiate deals with existing owners of stadiums. The NFL would, of course, put pressure on the NCAA to avoid letting this new, competing league use their stadiums. There would also be considerable advertising costs, promotion costs, etc. Not to mention all the non-player employees who'd need to be hired to make this work. $2 billion wouldn't be nearly enough to cover the league's first year costs, at least not if you wanted an NFL-scale league. If this league had, say, $10 billion set aside to cover these costs, it could probably convince both players and television networks it was here to stay. This would cause NFL players to leave for this new league, and would also help the new league obtain a critical television deal. These things wouldn't happen if the league was under-funded. An NFL player who was reasonably happy with his contract probably wouldn't want to jump leagues, even for a little more money, if he felt the new league would collapse in a couple of years. Now that you've overcome the aforementioned hurdles, you now have to contend with the biggest hurdle of all. NFL fans have decades of emotional and financial investments in their existing teams; and no connection at all to this new league's expansion teams. How many Green Bay Packers fans do you think would willingly miss Packers games to watch this league's Green Bay team instead? If the Bills were to make it to the Super Bowl, would you skip watching that Super Bowl to see the new league's Buffalo team play a championship game instead? How much connection did you feel to the Buffalo Destroyers back when the Buffalo Destroyers existed? NFL fans largely root for the uniforms, and the NFL owns the rights to those uniforms. If the new league stuck around long enough, and gained enough attention for itself, even the problem described in the above paragraph could be overcome. But now--assuming all this has worked--it would be time for the venture capitalists to receive their reimbursement. Your idea seems to be to have this league's players receive even more money than the NFL is willing to pay its players. One could imagine the NFL raising its salary cap to allow itself to outbid this new league for player services. The problem is that whatever money gets absorbed by the players--and they'll be absorbing a lot!--will be unavailable to the venture capitalists. The prices the VCs get for selling their shares will be largely determined by the expected future profitability of the franchises. The venture capitalists would be taking a ton of risks here, which means they're going to want a ton of compensation if those risks are successfully overcome. I just don't see them getting that kind of compensation. The NFL players are already being very generously compensated. From a financial standpoint, it does not make sense to create a new league with a goal of further increasing that compensation.