Koufax

Yeah. We will definitely not be able to line him up at deep prevent free safety and have him get to the quarterback (cut to scene of Lancelot running in Holy Grail). Al Davis will not be drafting him. I think he will be a very good football player and wouldn't mind him at all, but I'm still preferring Dareus. And as I have been saying for a while, I don't think Fairly will be drafted #1, but I'm not sure I prefer him to Dareus anyway.

Thanks. I jumbled the exact pick we used to take him (#34) and must have been confusing that trade up with when we came back into the 1st round to take McCargo.

Very similar to the Rule V draft in baseball, with the idea of good players not getting a chance, and the complex rules after you pick one. I like this idea at some levels, but the complexity and the eliminating the possibility of developing a QB over a year or two makes it seem like a fun thing for a bottom team without a QB to throw about, but not enough upside to ever really get considered.

You mean the 4-3 for bowers? I don't see him fitting in as a 3-4 end as much as a 4-3 end. We need great football players in this draft (and every). If that guy is on defense, or it is a toss up, sure. But passing on better offensive players or skill players because of a need is a vicious cycle that leads to a mediocre roster and more needs. If this team needs so much, then try to get the best player, and not screw up another draft by positional need instead of the top football players. I think AJ Green is a little overrated right now, and the impact of a great WR is less than a great QB or great LB or great DE. In my mind in the current NFL it is harder for a talented WR to be a difference maker than other positions, and he bar is higher in terms of relative positional talent to actually be the BPA. I think he will be an excellent player, but I don't think he will prove to be the best player in this draft over the next five years. If he isn't the BPA by a clear margin, I don't even remotely consider reaching for a WR. It is similar to the Spiller situation last year, except Spiller was widely considered the BPA and played a position where generally you get more of a contribution as a rookie and over five years. I'm happy to have Quinn or Newton erase enough of the question marks, or Green or Prince A. prove to be BPA by a big distance, but if that doesn't happen, I'm most interested in Fairley/Dareus/Bowers, and think Dareus is the most likely with one of the other two being off the board if not both. But I've said since the week after the championship game, I think Fairley's stock will fall before the draft, and he will not be #1, so if Denver passes too, I would be very happy with him.

The main problem with McKelvin is the year before we passed on Revis (taken three picks later) because RB was a need. Then we picked McKelvin with Flacco and Chris Johnson on the board, again focusing on need (or just Jauron being a Mauron). That said, I don't think he was too far from being the BPA based on what teams knew on draft day. I just don't know why one year we pass on Revis at #11 and the next we take McKelvin at #11. Draft for need and you get a mediocre roster and new needs. Draft great football players at every pick. But even passing on Revis, my top four happy first rounders (as draft decisions on draft day) are Evans, Lynch, Poz, Wood. None of them jumping for joy though. Biggest head slaps on draft day were Whitner and Maybin for me, with two drafts I followed closely and really liked other players a lot more (Ngata and Orakpo, but there were others I would have preferred as well).

I'm voting Dareus today, but I think that can change to Quinn or Newton IF they impress with intangibles (not measurables) at the combine. I hate question marks at #3, and I think some of the other guys have to get rid of theirs first for me to think about them. My quick hits: Dareus - Will be available at three, is a great fit for our team, and one of the surest bets to be a great football player over the next 5-6 years. His high talent and low bust-potential has him get my vote today, but I expect that to change as a few players shed their question marks. Newton - if he can show Buddy and Chan he has what it takes to be a fast Big Ben-type, I love it and he can sit and learn. But I have too strong doubts about that to pick him with the info at hand now, and his workouts and interview will be huge. Fairley - I think he will not be the #1 pick, and I would love to have him despite some of the character/motor concerns Bowers - I think he needs a 4-3, so will be a great football player, but unable to be truly dominant if forced into a 3-4. But like Ngata, I don't like picking on scheme, so would be interested if available. Quinn - I like the upside a lot, but between the suspension and switching to LB, there are some questions to be answered before he can slide up the board for me. Green - Could be BPA, but I think WR/DB grades need a little exchange rate, and even if he is better at his position than any of the other guys are at theirs, he will contribute less to winning than the other guys, and with a more complicated BPA calculation he isn't going to be the BPA. No way I even consider him unless I am sure he is BPA. Amukamara - See Green. If he really is going to knock Revis out of the Pro-Bowl maybe, but this is way to high to take a very good DB. Peterson - I think will be less of a shutdown corner than Amukamara and we aren't lacking in the return game, so I think he will be overrated and not BPA or need. Von Miller - I think he has Very Good written all over him, but I don't see great. I want great at #3 and think we have better choices that could be great. Blaine Gabbert - No thanks, I don't think he is a top five talent. Could be a good QB, but I'm not sold. Cameron Jordan - Not at #3. Like Miller, a Very Good player, but I don't see him having the chances of being great of the other guys.

I have concerns about both Miller and Quinn, but prefer the physical beast that is Quinn to Miller based on what I have seen. Quinn is a #3 talent with some risks. Miller will be a good player, but I don't think an impact worthy of the #3 spot. I still like Dareus here, but am warming up to Quinn if the character and football smarts questions get answered positively. I also think that Fairley will slide a little between the championship game wrecking crew and the draft. Not sure if that is enough for him to slide out of #1 and if so all the way to #3, but I think it is at least 50/50 he will not be the top pick.

Buffalo is not in a position NOT to take BPA. I don't understand the revolving door comment. I would rather have great players leave after five years than pretty good players leave after five years (great players staying is the best...but no great player has ever fallen in love with Buffalo and continued to live there after retirement...could never happen). Yes, I agree, if BPA at #3 was a RB, it would be very tough to pick, and the BPA argument would probably lose some ground. But the good news is that BPA isn't a RB so we don't have that issue. For Bill, I found Bulaga interesting, although I am not sure if he is a better LT than Bell, and #9 is too high for me to take a RT, so I don't think he was a fit at #9. Trying to trade down would have been cool, and is a good enough reason to wait until the end of your time instead of rushing to the podium. If I know I want Spiller at #9, I still wait 10 minutes, and call all 31 other teams to see if they will blow me away. But I think Spiller was the best pick at #9, even though he had a disappointing season and Pouncey or Bulaga would have made a bigger 2010 difference in hindsight, and could end up as more valuable players overall. Right now my BPA board goes, based on my WAR-like positional values (but not need): Fairley Bowers Dareus Quinn Green Peterson I'm sure people who have seen more of each of these players could come up with a better order, and I'm more concerned about the model and strategy than any expectation of being able to better evaluate the individual players.

I still don't see the Ngata in the Spiller draft. Without the benefit of hindsight, who was the BPA at #9? Who is the guy picked 10-20 that you would trade Spiller for straight up AND was reasonably thought to be a better player on draft day? Spiller had a disappointing season as a rookie to say the least, and some people picked after had a great season. I think he was BPA, and I don't think he is a bust. If Green is BPA by a wide enough margin (meaning clearly is BPA, and not just a close BPA on our draft board), then he should be pour pick. Not for fans, but to help the Bills win football games over the next 5+ years. That said, I think that right now Green is likely being overrated and scored too high, and that since we are comparing apples and slightly different apples, you do need some sort of positional multiplier if you want to compare a 95 grade on a WR to a 95 grade on a LB, because I think that the team value of that 95 grade LB is more than the 95 grade WR based on things I have seen. What I am getting at is that my definition of BPA is sort of the WAR of a baseball player evaluation, and the one who will be expected to make the most contribution (above a baseline, not above our current starter, hence not a need) over five years or so. I think a "95" receiver is evaluating how important as a receiver, but is not as valuable as a "94" LB, and therefor when comparing them directly, the "94" LB is actually the BPA. I think that for all the love Green is getting now, he likely is NOT the BPA in the definition I am throwing out there (I think the same for Peterson at the moment), and Dareus or Quinn or someone else might be.

How about replacing Top Tier with "a good football player". I would love to see a good RT in free agency who is better than what we have, and forces the young guys to step up or sit. The problem with Green is that he wasn't a very good football player in 2010. Maybe he never was and he was evaluated badly, maybe he was and had a bad year. But it isn't because he wasn't top tier, but instead because he just stunk it up. I think getting difference makers in the draft and role players in free agency is a good model, and I hope we find a good RT to throw into the mix if one is available.

When healthy (and/or when juiced) he is a dominant player. He hasn't been healthy in those three years. If he can't/won't be healthy, he won't play well. If healthy but not juiced for the first time he isn't as good, he won't play well. But I think the third option is fairly likely as well. That he is going to be healthy, and his previous injury seasons don't have any correlation to his health in 2011, and that his roid factor is overblown (he clearly is strong and a hard worker). In which case he will not just be better than Maybin (an unfair joke), but will play at his pre-injury level and be a difference maker. I think after the upcoming season we will both be happy about the signing, and happy that it is a two year deal and we get to keep him for another year.

Ummm...the reason that they were bad picks is that they were players who didn't do very well and were not BPA. Calvin Johnson was a great pick because he was a great player. All things being equal and I would love a difference maker in the front 7, and I'm hoping Dareus grades out to really be a more elite player than we think. But if Green is on the board and better than anybody else, you have to take him. And with the Fitz passing attack in year two, he is likely to be able have an immediate impact. I don't think Peterson will live up to the hype, and I haven't seen enough Green to know if he really is the Calvin Johnson level to deserve his current hype. But we have to get an impact player whether it is a position that excites us on draft day or not.

No impact? First, I think that most would agree that Green is a better player than Lee, and is more likely to get open when double teamed. But forcing a double team or getting Revis on him does make our team better. We aren't playing fantasy football, we are trying to win games. I would love for Green not to be the right pick. I would love if upon the careful studying of talent, there is a front-7 guy who we think is the best player, or close enough. But right now I don't see another A talent like Green making it to us. And I don't want a B talent with the pick because we need it. If it ends up being A and A-, go ahead, take the LB/DE/DT. But I want an elite player at #3, not just a solid contributor. If the most elite player plays WR or DB, I will be disappointed that that is the reality, but happier if we pick that player and not pass on him. As for the Detroit WR vs Suh stuff, others have covered that pretty well, but Calvin Johnson is a big part of what the Lions are doing. I think they would pick Suh over him if they were in the same draft, but the real Detroit problem, much like the Bills, was not getting great players before Calvin Johnson, with picks that should be able to get great players.

I don't know. If the gist of this is negativity, then yes, we should laugh at it. But if the gist of it is understanding that great drafts depend on talent evaluation and good luck, and not always the highest picks, then we can learn something from this as well, regarding our expectations as fans and the strategy we want to see our front office pursue. I have in other threads defended the strength of the Lynch/Poz/Trent draft, even though they haven't turned into our three cornerstone Pro Bowlers. I think they were pretty good draft day decisions, even though the wisdom of trading up can usually be questioned and value isn't usually there. But the Jets got Revis/Harris with their picks after, both after we got Lynch/Poz respectively. You can nit pick every draft this way, and that isn't productive. It is different than Whitner/Ngata or Maybin/Orakpo where there was a lot of agreement who the best player was, and we didn't pick him. But still it is illustrative of the fact that we need three things going our way on draft day: 1) Buddy making smart talent assessments on how good each football player is. 2) Us taking the best football player. We took Lynch because RB was a need. The needs move like a revolving door from year to year (even when we don't pick those needs like our LT/QB need draft last year). Getting great players matters most. 3) Some luck. Both in determining the best player, and then on that player developing and staying healthy. Scouting isn't an exact science. Some teams do it better than others, and on the aggregate reap the rewards, but each draft is full of uncertainty no matter what. Those things at the moment guide the only semi-informed fan that I am towards the unpopular pick of AJ Green. I don't see Dareus or Peterson or Bowers as as talented a football player right now. I'm sure Nix is working on a lot of different information than we are, but I hope the methodology of his decision is the same. BPA isn't just the highest guy on Kiper's board or the best college performer. It is the best likely expectation of what the player will do over five or more years, and that takes some complex assessment of talents and a lot of projection. And while Harris has proven to be the more successful player, I think that Poz was the reasonable draft day BPA, and I'm okay with the draft choice because of that.

I didn't say they were all okay or good. I rated four, giving two a Good, one an okay, and one a weak (or maybe a stronger word, but I wasn't going with a Spinal Tap/Homeland Security eleven step rating system). Your individual points on players are right, and I was not ranking individual picks. I was ranking what we got out of the draft over several years. So no rating on 2010 or 2009 makes sense (agree with Maybin blowing, agree with wanting more from a #9 rookie RB). my appraisal of 2007 is not about Fletcher, or Trent having a fork stuck in him, or Lynch making his beast mode a national event in Seattle. It is about getting a 1000 yard back who gets in the end zone, a starting LB, and a starting QB (who forever changed when his head hit the ground in Arizona in October 2008. That strikes me as a pretty good draft when you aren't picking in the top 10. It was not a great draft like the Revis/David Harris one the Jets got in players we passed on. But we got three good starters (traded one, one has missed time to injury, and one has been released after having his brain scrambled). I think the expectations of drafts are often a little too high, and looking back at draft history helps to better understand it. If you look even at the Steelers, they tend to hit their top pick full of super stars (something we should really expect our front office to do), but their overall drafts aren't night and day different beyond that. So I hope CJ is a playmaker, but am not pining away for Bulaga.

Right, but we have added Troup, Carrington, Merriman, Moats, Edwards to our front 7. We need to add more, but that doesn't mean it has to be at #3. Some reasons we might be better against the run in 2011: 1) Troup, Carrington, Moats get better in year 2 than as rookies (remember, Kyle was a 5th rounder and not a pro bowler as a rookie). 2) Everybody learns the scheme and gets better at it (typical in year 2 of a change in scheme) 3) Merriman stays healthy and contributes 4) We add a front 7 impact player at #3 5) We add front 7 contributors after round 1. 6) We add front 7 contributors in free agency. 7) DW helps this team be coached better and use the talent on the defense to perform better (whether hybrid or just doing better 3-4) Those seem like a lot of places for improvement, and not all loaded into the #3 pick. I actually think we will be better off defensively if we could improve our pass rushing than our run stopping with #3 in a perfect world. But in an imperfect world, at #3 I want to get the best football player possible...someone we think will go to Hawaii with a Bills helmet and will be able to at least dream of Canton. I would love it to be our Bruce Smith or Jim Kelly, but I don't mind if it is our Andre Reed or Bennett or Ballard, as long as he is truly an excellent football player at whatever position he plays.

I don't think the Lions regret taking a receiver. They regret taking bad receivers. The reason Suh and Calvin Johnson are great for the Lions is that they are amazingly talented impact players. Right, I have said many times that player evaluations are not exact nor is your big board. Saying that someone who is a 93 is better than a 91 is just not true. Your margin of error is greater than +/- 2, so those players are relatively interchangeable talent wise. If their positions are of the same importance or depth chart, take the guy rated 93, but if the 93 is a WR/RB in this year's case, and the 91 is a DE/LB I happily take the 91 without considering him a lesser player. If he is an 83, I have reason to think he really is a less talented player, and taking him based on need is dumb. As for the doctor thing, I think that analogy was soundly beaten into the ground in another thread. We don't need a urologist, and we aren't suggesting drafting seven RBs this year or having a roster of 53 DBs. On the individual pick going with the talent matters. And with a medical specialist analogy, you only need one allergist, but want him to be a great one. On a football team you need depth at every position (more so at some than others). But even with your analogy, passing on a great allergist when you have an okay one and taking an okay urologist is going to mean you are not going to see a great doctor when your pee is red OR your throat is swelling shut, and that sounds pretty sucky. If I can get a Mayo clinic allergist and put my mediocre allergist on the bench, then I can draft a pretty good urologist later or sign a free agent urologist. In the end my way has a great allergist and a pretty good urologist. I personally don't have enough reason to think that Green or Peterson are enough better than the front seven guys available at #3 to pick one of them. I will gradually form a fan-level opinion between now and the draft, but that will pale in comparison to what Buddy will have in making his big board. My only request for him is to put his big board in order of projected football playing ability over five years, and take the top talent with each pick (using need as tie breaker when it is close). If that lands Green or Peterson or Dareus or Fairley or Newton, so be it. I will trust his evaluation skills way ahead of my own.

+1 I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. I don't think this will be looked at as a bad draft three or more seasons down the road, which is when you can realistically grade drafts. How great it is will be determined by what these players contribute over the next few years, and I see reason for optimism. Kiper graded the perceived value right after the draft based on his projections, and then amended it to the first year impact in this article. Both are fun, and the second is somewhat important, but what really matters is what these players contribute over a number of years. 2005: We didn't have a 1st, and we end up with Roscoe on our 2011 roster, and nothing much else useful in between. WEAK 2006: Whitner, Youboty, Kyle, Ellison. Obviously we would like Ngata, but four contributors, one of them a pro bowler is a pretty GOOD draft 2007: Lynch, Poz, and Trent. Trent fizzled after the concussion, but not a bust for a 3rd round QB, Lynch performed and gave us a 4th rounder, Poz is a contributor when healthy, but not the impact we hoped. OKAY draft. 2008: McKelvin, Ellis, Corner, Bell, Stevie. McKelvin wasn't worth #11, but definitely a GOOD draft, especially in the seventh round with starting LT and #1 receiver 2009: Too soon, but Maybin bust partially offset by Wood, Byrd, Levitre 2010: Too soon, but I like our chances as explained by Kelly below

Taking an inferior DE over a superior WR is a great way to build a mediocre roster and avoid the Super Bowl. Getting as much talent on our roster as possible with each and every pick matters most. Evaluating that talent correctly and efficiently to identify the best value is crucial, but needs change year after year, and expecting a rookie's main contribution to be filling a need in year 1 that might not be there in his other years is a great way to get mediocre in a hurry.

That's not my issue with him. My issue is with him being a useless football player. Taking useless football players in any round sucks, but in round 1 it is worse. Getting a good to great player at that pick (or where we were before the trade up) is what matters. We didn't and our roster is weak because of it. Every team will hit and miss. But the goal of each pick has to be getting a good football player and making your roster better. Do that often enough and good things happen, do that not so often and bad things happen.

If Peterson is Revis-like or Green is Calvin Johnson-like I would be happy with either of them. So if either of them is much better than the alternative a positions we crave, then I am happy with them. Remember last year when we had to solve QB and LT. Now we have our QB (for now) and our LT without drafting those positions. We drafted d-line in 2nd and 3rd and still were a wreck. I think the guys we have now will go out there and do a lot better next year, with Troup and Carrington and Moats developing, Kyle becoming a star, and Merriman in the mix. We definitely will add more talent to the front 7 in the early rounds of the draft, and I love Dareus at #3. But if we don't go front 7 in the first round it is not the end of the world, especially if it is to get a better player.

I completely agree with everything you have said, and looking at the top 10 picks over the last 20 years, and seeing that the expectation of a RB is to be really special, I would much rather have a blue chip LB/LT/QB/DE/WR in general. So I think that making a top ten slot on your draft board as a RB takes a really high evaluation for all of your reasons and more. It is definitely possible that Spiller was ranked too high by our front office and by a bunch of teams that saw him in the top 10. The problem I have is with those who think we should have passed on a top 10 ranked RB because of need/luxury/tickets/salary/defense/roster. There is one reason I pass on Spiller: if he isn't my top guy available at #9, or another player is ranked very similarly. Passing on him because you don't need him etc to take an inferior player is a bad move. Taking a LB, etc. you have rated almost as high sounds great to me because of the lack of precision. But not if it isn't close. We may have messed up that evaluation and made a mistake by having CJ #9 or higher on our board. That evaluation involves a lot of different things about the player, and about how the draft works in general, and we might have been way off. But that is a player evaluation error. If he is a situational scat back as Kelly said, then he has no business being in your top 10. I still think he will be an impact player for this team over his first five years, and not put in the reach category of Whitner or McKelvin or Lynch, and certainly not the bust category of Maybin and Mike Williams.

Right, if he is a "part time gadget player scat back", then he was misevaluated by many teams, and should not have been a top ten pick by us or anybody. That was not his draft expectation, and people were looking for something in between Reggie Bush and Chris Young. I am basing my assessment on what was known on draft day, not how 2010 shaped up. Running back IS a position that routinely has players excel who are not top picks, and is more interchangeable than others, and also is one that we were two deep with good players. Those are all reason to not have CJ in your top ten on your draft board. Explosive talent and speed are reasons that he would be high on your board. But all of those evaluations done, a lot of teams had him as a top 10 guy on their board, mistaken or otherwise. The question is, when it is my turn to pick at #9 with the eight players off of the board (some of whom would have been in my top ten with Spiller), is he my top guy left? And if he is, do I pass on him for another player because I really need a NT/LB/LT? If he is my top guy left, I compare my ratings on him closely with the #2 guy on my list, as well as the best NT/LB/LT if further down the list, and I think long and hard at how much better I think he is than those guys. If it is very close and likely a toss up, I happily take someone else at another position, due to all the uncertainties and the inexact science of my ratings. If it is not close I take Spiller. And as a 6-10 team not expecting to jump to 10-6 in one year, I make sure the difference is significant before I deviate from taking the top guy on my board. It is not going to be a one year turn around, and I want to infuse as much football playing talent onto my team as possible. I agree with some of your arguments, but they are arguments as to why CJ should not be in our top 9 going into the draft, and NOT why we should pass on him because of his position / our need, etc. It is the same reason that DTs don't usually go in the top three, why corners don't go in the top 3, and why QBs are always up there along with DEs. I agree with you that to be a small back in this league and be on my top 10, you have to be really special. And I agree with you that the backup plan for missing out on a special top 10 back is pretty good, and a lot more likely to be successful than finding Tom Brady in the 6th. But all that aside, our front office and many others (including the very talent shrewd Chargers) had CJ very high on their boards. If that is the case, you have to trust your evalutations and pick that player. In 2010 he didn't look like he deserved that grade (although I continue to ask who the Orakpo/Ngata is that did), but he still has a good career ahead of him if he puts it together. As for the five year thing...that might often be true, but of top 15 picks: 2005+ too recent for durability 2002-2004 nobody taken in the top 10 2001: Tomlinson, Good past five years 2000: Dayne (best year was in year 8, but mostly a bust) 1999: Edge, Ricky, both good well past five years 1998: Enis (bust), Fred Taylor (good well past five years) 1997: Dunn #12, good past five years 1996: Lawrence Phillips (bust), Eddie George #14, good past five years 1995: Ki-Janna Carter #1 (bust) 1994: Faulk (good past five years) 1993: Hearst (good past five years), Bettis (good past five years) So in the last couple decades, I don't see one single top 15 back who performed well in his first five years but ran out of gas and fell off. I see 4 busts, and 9 guys who were good deeper in their careers. So, again, you can question putting CJ as special enough to be top of the draft material, but when a back makes that cut, durability is not generally your biggest concern, and I think the success rate seems pretty high. Again, if there was a draft day Orakpo or Ngata to get mad about, I would be more frustrated with CJ's performance this year. But there isn't, and I'm still optimistic about him getting in the end zone, making plays, and helping us win games over the coming years. Putting him in your top 10 can definitely be questioned, but that generally isn't the grounds for questioning the pick. Passing on him once he is in your top ten because of need or position doesn't seem like a good decision to me, even though it hasn't worked out so far.

Kelly and others covered most of what I think, but I always have to chime in on BPA conversations. BPA means trying to get the best 5+ year playing contribution from your selection. Over that 5 year period needs changed dramatically, and most players don't make big enough first year impact to address a need (although it is great when they do). If you pick someone else who is an inferior player because you think he is more of a need (Bulaga over Spiller), over the course of the 5+ years, you will have less talent on your roster, and less individual contributions towards victories, which leads to fewer victories. There are certainly some wild cards to this. 1) Hindsight is 20/20, but draft day evaluations are very often not good, and a lot of other times circumstances and injuries step in. But I honestly feel that at #9 Spiller was the draft day BPA, and Maybin and Whitner were not. I think it is very likely that someone taken after him will outperform him, but without a crystal ball picking that player instead of Spiller would have been lucky and not smart. 2) There are special positions like QB where if you have a good one, you would pass on the BPA at QB, and if you don't have a good one, you might have to overspend if there is a good one (even if there is a better player at another position, as long as the QB is considered a good one). 3) Player ranking boards are not exact, so when players are rated very close, they can be considered interchangeable on the BPA chart even if you have one higher, and you can pick the player who better fits your needs and depth chart, as well as taking into account picks in previous rounds (so you don't end up with a 7 LB draft). Spiller didn't play 2010 like the best player at #9, but I still don't see who the Orakpo/Ngata who we should have picked, and I think he has a very good chance to be an impact player over the next few seasons. The reason people are down on Spiller (maybe rightly so) is because he didn't play well in 2010, not because he was a RB, or wasn't the seeming best player when picked. He doesn't have to play LT or LB to make people happy...he just has to play well and make an impact. I think Troup and Carrington were not picked as BPA, and they were uh-oh picks related to the 3-4 switch. While I don't love that decision, I like both players and I think it is an understandable reason to deviate slightly from BPA if you still really like players.

Are you grading the year or grading the draft? I'm not going to argue any grade someone wants to give to our draft, because we probably could have gotten to 4-10 if all picks had year long hold outs. I think Spiller is getting thrown under Maybin's bus a little too early though, and I think round 2,3,4 will all be starters on this team. What bugs me the most is Spiller as a luxury pick, which is a pretty dumb term to me. I think the idea is that a good team can afford to waste a draft pick who might not crack the lineup, but a bad team can't. I think instead a bad team has more of the luxury of taking players who might be slow developing but will contribute more later in their first five or six years. But either way, any team needs to get the most on the field contributions over the 5-6 years. Year one can show a lot about what the coming years might bring, but year one is probably the least important year in actual contribution. If you saw things in year 1 that show that CJ will not be a contributor (can't hit the hole, can't pick up the blitz), then grade him low. But the fact that he disappointed this year is not a huge blow (we had depth at RB, unless it is an indicator that he won't be the star that people predicted. If it is a slow start and making adjustments, we can forget about it in the next couple years.