Koufax

There are so many things wrong with your first sentence that I realize I probably shouldn't respond. I don't buy the QB issue being the reason Chan hasn't developed Spiller, but as a first year coach with a QB controversy and a new defensive scheme, getting your #3 RB ready isn't job 1. But I don't think coaching neglect is the reason for Spiller's slow learning curve. Danny Woodhead is a much inferior player to CJ. If you don't agree propose a trade and see how fast Bellichick says yes. Your comment is at best a criticism of Chan compared to Bellichick, and not CJ's fault. I have a problem with how CJ has been used and not used enough, and I also haven't been blown away with his 48 carries or 20 receptions and their results. I think he plays less because Fred is good and because he isn't ready to pick up blitzes as well as Fred in our pass happy offense. I agree. Better tackles and a better team make it easier to run, but I don't think our line is the fault of Spiller not getting a yellow jacket this season. Jahvid Best. Hmmm...off to a great start, but he is averaging 3.3 per carry to Spiller's 4.1. And certainly he has gotten more touches as a receiver and a back, but I think that is opportunity and not just ability. And Best came to Buffalo and lit us up to the tune of 17 carries for 35 yards and four catches for four yards. But again, nobody with football knowledge would give up Spiller to get Best. It is just a product of the situation. I am right along with you that Spiller's contribution has been disappointing, but I think he will be fine and we will be very happy to have him a Bill. I guess we have had too many Williams, McCargo, Maybin's in our history for fans to be patient and reasonable. But I am getting impatient with Chan more than CJ. Wasted pick? After 10 games in a going-nowhere rebuilding year? Let's try being a little more rational and use terms like "disappointing performance". You don't draft a player for year 1 contributions. You draft a player based on what you think you can get out of him in 5+ years. I wanted a lot more out of CJ this year, and am not really happy with Chan for not finding a way, but it isn't a wasted pick based on what happens through his first 10 games. Let's run him out of town quick!

Disappointing yes. Stupid pick no. The kid can play and will play. I wish he were getting more touches right now and I'm not clear why he doesn't, but the more he touches the football the more of an impact he will have. I think if Freddie got hurt the weekend after we traded away Marshawn, and Spiller were forced to get most of the catches, his numbers would be fine. EDIT: Also, I'm not clear why nobody compares him to Maurice Jones-Drew in these threads. Just for comparison, through his first 13 weeks (with no two week hammy injury) of playing behind Fred Taylor MJD had 500 yards on 95 carries (although he had some TDs and more receptions), and had 7 games under 50 yards, and 9 games under 10 carries. I'm not comparing the players directly, just finding a reference of smaller back who came in to a situation with an established back in front of him.

The implication is: 1) Using the draft to get the top talented football players and not fill needs. Not taking a reach LT because Kiper says you need an LT, but finding talented building blocks for your team with each pick. 2) Not trading away picks for players 3) Hinting that it will take a few years and not a splashy signing before things are there. 4) Letting drafted players play. But except for trading away picks, I agree with your criticism of the phrase, and not quite sure if Nix really means what I said above.

Really? You would rather have Bulaga? Often doesn't translate? Who are the comparisons? Chris Johnson and Reggio Bush? Who else is getting compared as major success at major college program for a small back with unbelievable speed? Can you let us know who your comparables are who often don't translate? I'm disappointed with his contribution, but I am not clear why his talent makes him "this kind of project". I don't see the player you want to make a difference on this 2010 team and make us a playoff contender (because 2-10 or 7-9 are similar with our long term goals of building a winning team). Certainly not Bulaga. We all agree with Ngata over Whitner and Orakpo/Matthews over Maybin. This strikes me as a very different pick and player and situation. So who from #10 to #32 do you really want instead? Let's leave the five defensive backs out of it, because we know they wouldn't be popular choices. On the RBs obviously no. Maybe they will be better players, but picking Matthews or Best over CJ on draft day would have given people a heart attack. I just don't see any OL / defensive front 7 guys from 10-32 that are such no brainers that we should never have passed up. Chan still has some 'splaining to do with CJ, but plenty of time to do it, and I think he will be a good football player for us.

I'm very disappointed with Spiller's contribution this year, and I find it alarming that he has only rushed 48 times in ten games, and never more than 7 times in a game. We have a very good back in Freddie, and I know Chan is not willing to give charity touches or developmental snaps, but is playing to win each game. But I still think his performance on the touches he has gotten have warranted a few more. I would like to know what the % of times he lines up in the backfield he is handed the ball compares to Freddie. I don't have any basis for this, but I would guess that he gets the ball a higher percentage of the time (given that he is an inferior blocker to Freddie), and defenses can key on him a little more when he is there and cheat run. But without data that could be completely off base. Either way he needs to be a decent blocker to be in the game more in potential pass situations and have an easier time running. I fully expect Chan to be able to make this happen, and find a way to use his talents, and I think his talents fall in the Reggie Bush to Chris Johnson level in terms of the type of player, but I think the Reggie Bush side of things is a little more likely. Remember Bush has averaged under 4.0 running the ball every year except for his 70 carry 2009, so I don't think that is too high a bar. I am not concerned about his ability to be a big playmaker for us, even though I am disappointed on his contribution this year. If he doesn't contribute a lot in year 2 though it would certainly make this a questionable pick. I am confident he will contribute a lot next year and be a key part of our offense for years to come.

Right, and Wisconson's passing game would be approached the same as the Vikings? I know Adrian Peterson got 107 yards and averaged 6.7, but we were also dealing with some talented receivers and NFL QBs. And without Peterson's long run, he was 15 for 64 for just over four yards. And is the single game rushing record holder, HOF talent with 23 100+ rushing games in four years. I do enjoy these threads, but think a lot of people should tune in and watch Saturday and Sunday football. The NFL is a huge leap from college, and the overall level of speed, strength, and quickness is so much higher as well as execution. I don't think any bad NFL vs great NCAA game is even close, and the talk radio "Wisconson would run all over the Bills" is amusing at best. But if we do set up one of these games, can we make sure we play it in Toronto? Canada's lack of capital punishment could come in handy as various Bills players face murder charges. Plus then we might actually win a game in Toronto!

Carolina has to win @Seattle or at home against Arizona to get to 2-14, which would mean us running the table with losses just to lose the 2-14 tie breaker and not get Luck anyway. I still see us at #4 to #6, getting a good player, and I think we should forget about the #1 or Luck any more than we were focusing on who the Rams should take last year (meaning it is fine if you are interested, but it doesn't relate much to the Bills). I am still rooting for the bottom teams to win (and for the Bills to win) so we stay as high as we can, but that 41 yarder against the Browns as time expired on Sunday is the closest we will get to the #1 pick this year. I think we will get a great player anyway, and can find the non-Peyton-Manning-draft-slot QB of the future in this draft or next.

Sign some good role playing free agents, cut some dead weight. Draft the best football player available at each of our seven picks. Don't buy the revolving door of what we are supposed to "need" and expect a rookie to fix it before that isn't our biggest problem anymore. A franchise QB and play maker LB would be my priorities if multiple players are pretty closely graded at our top picks. Continue to play hard every week and progressing in the system and getting better. Lather, rinse, and repeat... but for the record, Spiller, Troup, Carrington, and Easley look like they have the potential to be four very good football players, but you see the limited impact they have on our 2010 team. Don't expect rookies to make a huge difference in year 1, and because of that, don't draft them based on what you think you need most in year 1. Three or four years out your needs have changed, but you are stuck with the reach player instead of the star player. The good news is it is pretty clear that Nix learned something about that while in SD helping build the most talented roster in the NFL, and Chan knows how to coach them. I think we have a lot of potential to do well in 2011, but what I'm most excited about is building a consistent contender who can get us a shot at a ring in the next few years. Just ask Red Sox fans...one ring cures decades of disappointment in a hurry.

Unless of course there is a better football player available who plays offense please! Nobody we pick can turn this team around by himself, but each draft pick can make our roster better and help our chances at catching the very good teams ahead of us in the division. Taking an inferior defensive player over a superior offensive player means that over the next five years this team has a weaker roster because of your perceived need. No thanks. Use every pick available to add as much five-year contribution talent to this roster. So while I really hope that the best player available is a front 7 defensive player because I have many of the same short term observations and emotions as you do, we really need our front office to pick the top talent over and over and over, round after round, year after year. Hopefully Nix spent enough time with the Chargers to realize that is how you build a roster, and drafting for needs ensures you will have more needs.

I like Fairley, and I don't buy the don't take a 3-4 DE that high stuff. I would love if our first pick is a franchise QB or an impact front 7 guy, but I still think that you need to take the best player available pick after pick, year after year to build a team. Needs change faster than players get on the field. Talent is talent, and add as much of it to your team every draft and you will like the outcome. I would of course be disappointed if we take a DB, but realistically if the DB is by far the best player available, I still think it is the right decision. Very few places are draft picks going to make huge impacts as rookies, and you are drafting a 5/6 year contribution. Just say no to inferior players because you need them right now. However it also is true that it is a crap shoot and player grades can be pretty similar, so in that case I don't mind getting the positions we think will help us more (by benching a weaker link on our team for the new guy, we add more immediate value), but I hope with the #5 pick or whatever we get, we pick the best football player available (or one of several similarly good players), evaluating on what he will contribute to the Bills from 2011 through 2016, and not based on what position of ours sucks the most in 2010.

Yes, I very clearly agree with this, and my optimism is tempered in reality. I still hope we get Mallett or somebody we like in this draft, otherwise I hope we do in 2012. A hot month does not make a quarterback. I think what we can agree on, is we knew before he got the starting job that he would take a shot more aggressively, and he has shown since he took over that he is pretty capable at completing a lot of the passes he attempts. So I don't view him as the second coming of Kurt Warner, but I feel comfortable with him taking snaps for the rest of the year, and likely think I would be happy with him being our #1 in 2011 for all 16 games if we don't get a QB we want in the draft, or if we do and we want him to sit and learn.

Except Fiedler's career high for TD% as a starter was 4.8, and Fitz is 6.3 right now. Except that Fiedler's yards per game high as a starter was 205, and Fitz is currently 245. Except that Fiedler was a 1:1 TD:INT guy his whole career and Fitz is currently a 2:1. Except that Fiedler never had a QB rating as high as Fitz's right now. Except that all that happened as Fiedler took over for a team that had made the playoffs and won a playoff game the year before, and not the lowly struggling rebuilding Bills. You could do the same if someone compared Fitz to Kurt Warner. And I don't think either comparison is a good one. But I would actually be quite happy with Fitz putting together a couple 10 win seasons in a row as the team rebuilds and finds and develops their QB in the next two drafts (whether Luck, Mallet, or somebody off our radar screen at the moment). So I'm happy with Fitz being our QB right now, winning games for us, and allowing us not to rush/force the QB draft decision. I don't have any problem if he is our Kitna to Palmer or Brees to Rivers, and I think we do take a franchise QB whenever the opportunity presents itself. But Fitz has shown a lot and has six more games to show how much faith he deserves, and if we want to draft a QB not ready to start in the 2011 draft to learn behind him, or whether we want to wait and draft someone in 2012, or whether we want to spend a top five pick in the next draft, etc. I don't see Fitz being our 2015 QB. But I think we will be a better 2011 team with Fitz + Fairley than Fitz + Mallett/Locker, so our decision on how we get better for 2012 and beyond is a complicated one, and I am glad Fitz has stepped up and made it complicated...because in week 2 it was looking pretty depressing and uncomplicated.

Great data. Thanks. So I think we can all agree we won't intentionally trade 1st round picks for 2nd or any other full round trade downs, because top players are more likely to come from the higher rounds. Back to the actual discussion, the issue is whether losing and drafting higher would 1) Help us get a franchise QB or 2) Help us be better overall in the next few years. I think our move in the last two weeks from the #1 pick to #4-6 was inevitable (look at the road OT losses against two first place teams), and we weren't going to go 0-16 which is what it likely would have taken to beat the soon-to-be 1-15 Panthers. It felt like it at 0-8, but when the dust settles we aren't going to be looking at just one half of football (2nd vs Bengals) where if we did a little worse we would have gotten a savior. Also, with due respect to Luck, the evidence that has been put forth here shows generally picking #4-6 isn't such a difference from picking #1. We all love the Peyton story, but the Colts were considering Leaf as well, and there are many other #1 busts who were considered locks six months before the draft happens. Also, drafting well is much better than drafting high. There just isn't any way around this. Look at what the Steelers and Patriots have done over the last decade without cracking the top 10, and compare that to what the Lions and Raiders have done. Those are just examples in the extreme, but it is clear that it does not take top picks to build an amazing roster (even their superstar QBs were not picked in the top 10). Now, in every isolated case I would rather have a higher pick than a lower pick, but there is nothing isolated about it. We have guys on this team now who are building what the Bills will be in the next few years, guys who will be part of our 2013 team whether it is in last place or the Super Bowl. And to the development of those guys and the coach and more, I think that turning 0-8 into 4-12 will be more valuable than riding it to an "It-Doesn't-Matter-Anyways" 1-15 (and likely the #2 pick at 1-15). Not more valuable because it is fun to win as a fan, but more valuable to the actual progress of our team into a champion. Rooting for losing because you think it will make you better is not just pretty sad as a sports fan, I also think that realistically it is not a very sound objective. But if Joe_the_6_pack has some extra time to do statistical research, can you get us a list of the 0,1,2 win teams that appeared in a super bowl or conference title game in the following five years? Even Manning's Colts didn't get to a conference championship until the sixth year. Or are you looking towards the 2016 season and beyond? Our best path to the playoffs is finding a way to be a 4-12 or even 5-11 team this year, and rolling that momentum into next year and see what year #2 of a new system and coach can do, as players start understanding the system and start learning how to win. Even in 2001 I don't regret beating the Panthers to miss Peppers and fall to #4 for Mike Williams. What I regret is picking Mike Williams at #4 instead of Dwight Freeney, Albert Hayensworth, or Ed Reed. And maybe Mallett or Locker will fall into our laps at #4-6 and five years from now be the steal of the draft people are talking about. Eli Manning #1, Rivers #4, Big Ben #11. Or maybe Fitz is our guy for now, we draft a QB in a later round or in 2012, and we pick up a defensive beast that changes the character of our front 7. A lot can happen after draft day, so I think we will be fine if Chan and Buddy make good decisions. But right now I just hope we find a way to win one Sunday at a time. Go Bills!

I AM SO SICK OF THIS!!!!! SOME OF YOU GUYS DON'T GET IT!!!!! It seems like most of this thread is Win-To-Enjoy-It vs Lose-For-The-Future. That just isn't the choice. 1) I don't think our chances of getting Luck are very good. He will likely not come out, and it would have been very difficult to catch the 1-15 Panthers. 2) Winning to build a winning tradition and for the value it adds to the 30+ guys coming back matters more than any draft improvement. There are a handful of turn arounds, but aside from Aikman and Manning, very few tied to the #1 pick in the last several decades. 3) As The Dean said, winning correlates much more closely with future winning than anything else. I have posted some numbers about this, but Super Bowl teams don't very often have a bad season in their previous five years or so. 4) GREAT QBs are selected after #1. Everyone is high on Luck right now, and I don't follow college football closely enough to have a strong opinion on the other guys, but there are a lot of drafts that go the way the Eli #1, Rivers #4, Rothlisberger #11 compared to the Peyton #1, Leaf #2. That plus QB busts at #1 doesn't make me sold that we are better off drafting #1. 5) 1-15 seasons (forget 0-16) are very hard on a team, coach, and fan base. 6) Fitz is good enough to not make QB an absolute 1st round need. We need to get a QB of the future in the next couple drafts, but Fitz takes the urgency off, and we can get the best players at each pick to make our team better. GO BILLS! One game at a time, playing to win, and now that we have two wins I can't wait until #3. I see us picking #4 or #5, and we will get a great player there. I'm still rooting for all the other bottom teams to win, but each and every week we should hope this team wins both for our enjoyment now, and for the future of the franchise.

It was already pretty wrapped up. Carolina will finish 1-15 and likely have the tie breaker. I'm happy to have a top five pick, a 300yd/4td QB who can at the least hold us over until the right time to get a QB and keep us from "you have to get one", and a #2 receiver with three tds. And I don't actually mind heading in to my afternoon with a 49pt scoring effort victory either. Maybe I would be disappointed if this was week 17 and Luck had declared, but we are going to have a tough time out-sucking the Panthers.

We will beat some of the following teams, and not all of the following teams: CIN, PIT, MIN, CLE, MIA, NE, NYJ A lot can happen in football games, and you would not have thought we would have been in Overtime with the Ravens. Cincinnati: a bad team playing below their talent, and a lot can happen. Steelers: they got crushed by NE showing vulnerability, but us winning that road game is unlikely Minnesota: With all that is going on for that team, the likely QB change, anything can happen, but stopping Peterson and winning in the dome doesn't seem too likely Cleveland: I guess you are drinking the Kool Aid yourself here. Seems like a fun surprising team that is playing well, but who knows where they will be in a month.... Miami: Their QB situation makes anything possible, and I don't think they were a great team before their injuries. I like our chances here. NE: Nope, barring a miracle or them resting people, and the division is close enough that that won't be happening. I will still watch the game and hope. NYJ: Who knows what the week 17 situation is. We beat the Colts last year because of circumstance. If they are resting people and we are playing well and starting to come together this isn't that unlikely. So you seem pretty sure we won't win two more games by your response. I appreciate your pessimism. It has been a hard decade. But I don't think you should gamble any money you can't lose. I think Sunday will say a lot. If we lose Sunday it will be likely we don't do any better than 3-13, and I think only Carolina and Detroit would have a chance to do that, meaning we would be a top 3 pick. If we win Sunday, we are in position to be a 4-12 or better team, and would push down Cincy, so I think we likely would be picking 4th or lower. I don't see Carolina winning another game (but will root for them), so I see us at 2-3 if we lose to Cincy and 4-6 if we beat them. Fortunately there are a lot of teams that will get to 5-6 wins and stay ahead of us no matter what we do.

I am a BPA guy, so I am tempted to put everything at P3 just out of principle. I would likely put: QB=P2* (definitely need it, but if the right value isn't there, Fitz has shown we can wait another year) LT=P3* (I think Bell has played well enough to target this if value is there DE=P2 OLB=P2 RT=P3 NT=P3 ILB=P3 WR=P3* (I wouldn't pass on a better WR because we needed a RT or NT more, so this has to be at the same level in my mind) TE=P3 CB=P4* (Lower priority, but if a much better football player I would still take one...although hopefully the P4 is enough to keep from taking one in the top five) S=P5* (Lower priority, but I would still take a special safety over a so-so RT) RB/Punter/Kicker=P9 (these are the positions where I would actively pass on a better player to take an inferior player at another position). So that is my BPA take on the values you have put in. Not sure how the math works and if you have to force things lower to avoid getting all DBs. And with my "way too soon and I don't follow college football closely enough" disclaimer, I wouldn't mind Fairley at all.

Draft inferior players for need and you will ensure that you have mediocrity and more needs. Draft the best football players you can and you will have the best football team you can. There are some exceptions to this (franchise QB yes, if BPA is a running back this year, don't do it, and we probably don't need a punter), but for receivers, lines, linebackers, secondary, I think the best player available is the only way to go. When it comes down to a close toss up, I would be happy to take the DE over the DB based on "need". But given that players don't step in immediately and dominate (although top picks should and it would be nice if it happened more often), planning out the later rounds based on need is silly. We needed a nose tackle and picked Troup...but he isn't the one filling our nose tackle need. We needed pass rushing and picked Carrington, but again, not filling that need right now. If better football players were available at either of those picks, we would have been better served getting them, because to build a good team you string together draft after draft of getting the most football production over the 5-6 years you expect to have a guy. If you settle for 80% as good but at a more important position at the moment over and over, you will end up with a lot of 80% as good players on your team, and five years down the road will not be as talented a football team. Okay, that is all the BPA > Need ranting I can do today. I say we just see who the best football player there is available at #3 or wherever we pick, and bring position and what we think we need into it only if there are two or three guys very closely rated on our board.

Yeah, and prior to picking Peyton, in the 14 history of Indianapolis they had six seasons with double digit losses and zero seasons of double digit wins. And it was a small town without much going on. And in two decades before picking up Brett Favre for the 1992 season Green Bay had one double digit winning season and eight double digit loss seasons. And it was a small town without much else going on. If Luck really is that HOF type QB, I don't think trying to stay away from Buffalo makes any sense. He can help elevate whatever team he goes to (and #1 QBs don't usually go to powerhouses). And you can't fault Eli landing with the Giants, but Rivers has ended up with a pretty great situation after Archie thinking San Diego was pretty bleak and to be avoided. But I think he will stay in school and we won't be picking #1 either, so it will likely be a moot point. We obviously don't pass on him if he is available at our pick in 2010 and probably not in 2011 (although going that far in QB projections gets you in to the Claussen/Quinn/Locker future #1 pick territory).

THEY NEED TO GET THE BEST FOOTBALL PLAYERS THEY CAN! Sorry, I just found a Caps Lock key and it seems to have calmed me down. I definitely have an open mind about Fitzy, and while he isn't our HOF QB of the future, he totally takes the pressure off us to get a QB at all costs, and lets us pick the best fit and value of the next draft or two or three and then mentor him. I think Luck is a phenomenal talent and football player, and I pick him anywhere he is available. But if he isn't there, I'm happy to consider along with the top QBs the BPAs at other positions, and get the best players each round to make our roster more talented. The way Fitz has played, it takes off the "QB is a glaring weakness", and allows us to pick the best football player talent each round and in doing so, become a more talented football team. He isn't good enough to pass on a franchise QB if available, but he is good enough to keep us from pretending an also-ran is a franchise QB.

+1. I think he will come out, and I would love to have him, but I also think we will be fine at 2 or 3, and while I certainly hope for some Carolina wins at some point, I think they are the team most likely to finish 1-15. I was happy to see the Cowboys and Niners win today, although I wasn't too worried about them. But I am also very worried about the Lions and Bengals, and can see us picking #4. Right now I'm just happy for the win, and think the benefits of getting the 0-16 monkey off of this team's back outweigh the draft position side.

That decision has not been made, and he is just talking now. That decision will be made months down the road with a lot more information at his disposal, and with some professional advice related to the labor situation, and more. Stay tuned, but I don't think anything said at this point in either direction should carry much weight other than where he would be leaning if making the decision right now.

I think we are getting too focused on "It" just because our last several guys haven't been good QBs. Trent and JP were not good QBs. They had the talent but were never good QBs and failed to become them when in Buffalo. For all the love I have for Flutie, and I am not really interested in finding a Flutie...I'm interested in finding a Rivers/Rothleisberger/Brady/Manning/Rodgers. So while I think just looking for measurables and getting stuck with Losman/Leaf/George is dumb, also over focusing on intangibles isn't a great idea, and college success doesn't always project well either. Let's get a big strong accurate QB with a strong arm and great football sense. Luck to me seems like the obvious choice, but Mallett could be a fit too. Not so sure about anybody else in this draft, but I'm sure there is going to be a surprise or two here as well.

Has he been ruled out for Sunday? Or maybe just needs some ice and some stretching and will practice on Friday? Either way I'm happy to have him on the roster and helping us field more talent in the last 8 games than the first 8. There are probably 15-20 guys in uniform who won't be on our 2011 team, so I don't think that is a requirement. The reasons against Merriman: 1) Don't want Ralph to lose some money (he wouldn't spend it on another player, and he has lots, and there is no cap issue, so I don't see this as valid) 2) You think he will take playing time from someone who might be part of our future and stunt their growth (i.e. Maybin, but I think that is a silly argument, and I would expect he would have a positive impact, if any, on Maybin's development, and we don't have a lot of quality young OLBs) 3) You actually don't think he is talented enough to be on our roster if healthy. I consider this argument pretty laughable. 4) You knew he was going to be hurt and will not be able to help us because of this. Might have something here, although I would consider passing a team physical more important than tweaking something in his first practice in a long time. If he sits out Sunday or beyond, this could start to have some weight. 5) Because he is not going to play for us in 2011, you don't want him around messing up our draft order by making us a better football team. This one I am not going to touch. Because I couldn't without quoting Herm Edwards and bringing up Tim Couch and Jamarcus Russell and that Rivers and Rothlisberger are better than Eli Manning, etc. Get some ice Merriman, and get back on the field soon.

I'm a big fan of good spelling. I think Erik could have been a little nicer about it, but you do seem to be getting a little riled up and pursuing a flame war instead of saying "oops...my bad". But to your point, are you implying that all Elitist Jerks voted for Obama, or that everyone who voted for Obama is an Elitist Jerk? Either one seems pretty silly, but obviously one is sillier than the other. I definitely know Elitist Jerks on both sides of the aisle, and don't really like any of them.