Cash

SJBF puts it best when he says that just about everything comes down to the HC and QB acquisitions. It's hard for me to demonstrably say the non-QB talent on the team is significantly better or worse than when Buddy was hired as GM. I'd say that the lines are better, even with the loss of Levitre, but the defensive backfield (including LBs) is probably worse, as is the WR corps unless 2 of the rookies break out. Some (not all) of the Nix defenders seem to want to give him credit for Jauron-era additions like Stevie Johnson, or credit their development to Gailey, while simultaneously blaming all of his failures on Gailey. But the bottom line is that Nix is directly responsible for Gailey's record, and it sucks. And Nix inherited a roster with Trent Edwards, Ryan Fitzpatrick, and Brian Brohm as the QBs, and didn't bring in a credible challenger for the job for 3 years. These are monumental failures. I think some of the people defending Nix sound like opposing coaches after a RB kills their team. "Take away those 4 long runs and we held him to 30 yards." Yeah, but unfortunately the 4 long runs still count. Take away Buddy's HC hire, QB acquisitions/lack thereof, and W/L record, and his tenure as GM looks fine. Unfortunately, the things being discounted are by far the most important aspects of a GM's job. Now having said all that, Buddy's tenure will basically be redeemed if Manuel is awesome. It's unfortunate that it took him 3 full years to bring in a QB, but if he got the right one (and the right coach to develop him), the team will be in fine shape going forward. Let's hope so. Go Bills!

The only real surprise is that both Buddy and Russ Brandon went nuts talking about how Buddy was in for the long haul post-draft... if they knew this was coming, why go overboard saying it isn't? And if they didn't know, then what changed?

But then that's pretty unfair to Evans, because rookie (and often 2nd-year) WRs rarely put up good numbers, even if they get tons of playing time. I don't think the lack of PT in years 1-2 was necessarily Stevie's fault -- I don't buy into the argument that Chan made him into what he is -- but it's still a fact that he was on the team but not contributing very much. I think the reason for that was out of his control -- no way Jauron was going to give him PT over Hardy, TO, Roscoe, or the Great Josh Reed -- just like horrendous QB play was out of Evans' control during the Edwards years, or Moulds' control during the RJ years. Anyway, to this date, Lee Evans has definitely contributed more to the Buffalo Bills, but it's really not a fair comparison. Stevie's on pace to pass Evans in a couple years, but who knows how he'll fit into a new offense, with a new QB or two? I did find it worthwhile to break down their numbers like that, though. We all think of Evans as the ultimate burner/deep threat guy, and Stevie as a possession guy, and that is reflected in their numbers somewhat, but it's closer than I expected. Their top 3 years produced almost identical yardage totals, and while it did take Stevie more catches to get there, they're only 2 yards apart in yards/catch. That's a significant difference, but not massive or anything. And for their careers, they're about equally good at getting into the endzone. I'd be interested in comparing their RAC, but those numbers aren't readily available. Thank you. I've seen worse QB play as a Bills fan (Hiya Rob!), but it's hard to top Edwards for sheer frustration. I remember starting a drinking game at the bar where you drink every time he attempted a pass to a WR. Those extra 2-3 sips per quarter didn't make much of a dent in the beer, though. I liked Evans a lot, and continue to like him. I'm not sure why/how he turned into such a whipping boy around here, but I never cared for it. He wasn't as good as Moulds or Reed, certainly, but he was a good player who got a really raw deal in terms of QB play. I like Stevie a lot, too, but I'm a lot less confused about the complaints about him.

I tried to post the following in the "Evans or Stevie" thread that got locked. Apparently, this is the only thread that allows player vs. player discussion, or maybe just WR vs. WR discussion? Honestly, it seems like the mods are slacking, because I'd say at least 90% of the threads in this forum fall under the topic of "Buffalo Bills Discussion", yet less than half of them get locked or merged. Anyway, I put too much work into my reply to let to dissolve into the ether, so I'm posting it here: ----------------- [Evans vs. Stevie] Not really a fair question. Evans played 7 years for the Bills, Stevie's only played 5, and was a non-factor for the first 2: Lee Evans w/ Bills: 109 games (102 starts), 377 rec., 5934 yards, 43 TDs, 15.7 yards/catch, 54.4 yards/game, 0.4 TDs/game Stevie's first 5 years: 64 games (46 starts), 249 rec., 3235 yards, 25 TDs, 13.0 yards/catch, 50.5 yards/game, 0.4 TDs/game Evans' first 5 years: 80 games (73 starts), 296 rec., 4745 yards, 32 TDs, 16.0 yards/catch, 59.3 yards/game, 0.4 TDs/game Stevie in years 3-5 (2010-2012): 48 games (45 starts), 237 rec., 3123 yards, 23 TDs, 13.6 yards/catch, 65.1 yards/game, 0.5 TDs/game Evans in years 3-5 (2006-2008): 48 games (47 starts), 200 rec., 3159 yards, 16 TDs*, 15.8 yards/catch, 65.8 yards/game, 0.3 TDs/game* It's definitely Evans so far, but Stevie's career is (hopefully) less than half over. If Stevie's next 3 years are comparable to his last 3 years, he'll overtake Evans. Then again, if Evans had been able to keep up his early-career production, he might well still be a Bill. This is why I don't like comparing an active player to a retired player, especially a guy who's in his prime. There's no way of knowing how long that prime will last. Even if he stays healthy, some guys just tail off. *Evans' best 3-year stretch for TDs was his first 3 years (2004-2006): 24 TDs, 0.5 TDs/game. 2008 was his second-best statistical season in receptions & yards, but his career-worst season for TDs as a Bill with only 3. Then he had a pretty bad year in 2009 (44 rec/612 yds), but bounced back to 7 TDs. Go figure.

Much thanks for the summaries!!

Because not all bets are equal. If 9 Pats fans each plunk down $10 on the Pats -7, but I put down $100 on the Bills +7, 90% of the bets are on the Pats, but 53% of the money is on the Bills. For what it's worth, from what I've heard, Vegas is willing to take a stand some of the time -- i.e., bet against the majority of the betting public because they think they're smarter than the betting public. And they're almost always right! In any case, very few individual games are very close to 50% money wagered on each side. I don't know if Walter's sources are reliable, but he always posts the % money bet on one side in his weekly picks. If his numbers are accurate, almost every game has at least 60% bet on one side, and several games a week are over 80% on one side. Vegas makes their money via the big picture -- they can afford to take a loss on a given game or a given Super Bowl winner (1999 Rams, e.g.), they just need to offset those losses with wins. Since every bet carries a vig of some sort, they make money in the long run as long as the public doesn't win all the time. And since Vegas is almost always smarter than the public, they win a lot more than they lose.

Could anyone summarize? I'd be very appreciative.

The one thing you can say in Evans' favor is that he was more consistent/better at finding the endzone than Moulds. This despite being a significantly smaller guy and having generally worse QB play during his Bills career.

I'll be shocked if CJ winds up on any of my teams this year, because I expect him to be over-drafted. Like top 5 overall. And while you can certainly make a case that he deserves that ranking, there's too much uncertainty there (Fred might share time, we don't know how good the O will be, Marrone/Hackett used 3 backs at SU) to justify that high a pick for me. In my main league, they laughed at me for drafting Spiller in the 4th round last year. Didn't keep laughing very long.

To be fair, it's really the headline that's misleading. The content of the post says things like, "who will b, under center for the Bills..." and, "Bills fans... do not have much confidence in Jackson." But the headline is directly wrong. I don't know if ESPN's NFL Nation blogs follow the traditional journalism model where editors write the headlines, or the typical blog model where the author does everything himself, but if it's the former, the headline isn't Walker's fault.

I thought the idea was that "Buffalo Bill's Football Team" meant that the team belonged to Buffalo Bill? If not, then who the hell is that old geezer in the owner's box?

Seriously. I'm supposed to be outraged that a father doesn't see his son's faults?

Graham probably has some value, exactly equal to whatever round grade another team had on him last year. However, given that he was perceived as a massive reach, there's no guarantee that any other team had a 3rd-round grade on him, or even a 4th or 5th. Trading a 3rd-round pick for a lower pick just 1 year later is an admission of incompetence that no NFL team would make. (Nor should they -- they're better off with the chance of Graham turning things around.) Easley absolutely has no value. Smith probably has no value because of his contract. The Jets or someone would probably sign him if he was cut, but I doubt anyone would be willing to part with a draft pick AND pay him $3.75 million. Honestly, I think just the $3.75 million would be a dealbreaker. If he gets cut, I'll be surprised if anyone puts in a waiver claim.

Wow, nice to see that Screamin' A is still on the cutting edge of hard-hitting journalism. "Guys! Someone texted me! I got a text about Geno Smith! Wanna hear it?" I can't wait for the day when he just reads his Twitter feed live on-air.

That's very clever! Well done!

The gist is that we should expect the Bills to have a "fullback by committee" approach, unless one of the 2 UDFA fullbacks make the team. I.e., using Kyle Williams or another DT (or maybe a backup O-lineman) as a lead blocker in short yardage, and using the TE/H-Back types we have (Gragg, Dickerson) as fullbacks part of the time.

We were still running a 3-4 when he was drafted. Only switched to a 4-3 last year, Sheppard's 2nd year.

Which goes back to KC Joyner's point that LTs are overrated: If the purpose of an elite LT is to neutralize the opponent's best pass rusher, the LT can only do that if the pass rusher lines up across from him and doesn't stunt. (Or if the pass rusher stunts his way.) I don't think we'll ever see an O-lineman who moves around to line up against the opponent's best pass rusher the way Revis moves around to cover the best WR. And if we did, it would still be pretty useless, because defenders are allowed to shift around before the snap, whereas O-linemen have to be set for at least one full second. Also, stunts exist, so you can't guarantee that you'll block the guy lined up across from you.

Yeah, Randy Moss was arguably the most perfect physical freak ever to play WR. He allegedly ran a 4.25 40 into the wind and posted a 47" vertical at his pro day. (Per wikipedia, but they don't cite any sources and I can't find any corroboration online of the "into the wind" part or the vertical jump part. That the 40 time was into the wind I buy, but a 47" vertical seems impossible. Still, he was such a freak I can't discount the possibility.) I don't think Moss was ever overthrown until he went to the Raiders. I remember his rookie year, the Vikings QB's would talk about how they'd have contests in practice to see if anyone could overthrow Moss, and no one was ever able to do it. The guy was so big and so fast, with such amazing hands, coordination, and leaping ability, he was basically the perfect outside receiver. Not a guy who did a lot of damage over the middle, but why would you ever want him running over the middle? Just have him run posts, flys, corners, and fades and huck it up to him all day.

Per the Buffalo News, Hughes played about 55% of the Colts' snaps last year. Per Football Outsiders, he played 56% of the defensive snaps -- 624 defensive snaps, seventh on the team and fourth among LBs. See above. Hughes averaged 39 plays a game last year (624/16), and came up with 4 sacks. It would be a pretty big surprise, and a testament to Pettine, if he turned it around at this point. On the bright side, he's no stranger to special teams, playing 57% of special teams snaps. (269 total, 4th on the team.) You can always use good athletes on special teams.

Makes sense. In terms of the O-line as a unit, it's obvious that sufficient poor play will kill the offense's performance -- i.e., even a great QB will be ineffective, same for a great RB. But it's not clear what (if any) the effects are of improving O-line play above a certain threshold. Once a hole for a RB is open, does it really matter how wide? More important at that point is the talent of the RB himself -- can he make the safety or linebacker miss, and turn a 6-yard gain into a 20-yard gain? We can all agree that the more time in the pocket the QB has, the better. But is there a significant difference between 3 seconds and 5? How about between 5 and 7? If your QB lacks the talent (arm strength/accuracy/touch) to make the throws he needs to make, does it really matter how much time he has? What about a mediocre QB, like Fitz? If he'd had an extra second or two per pass play last year, would he have thrown fewer interceptions?

Buddy's made it pretty clear in interviews that the 2 ILB spots are the Will (Bradham) and Mike (Alonso), and that they want everyone at one spot to be able to play the other. The 2 OLB spots are a little less clear, since Buddy seems to call them Sam (Lawson) and "Rush End" (Mario? Anderson?), but whatever they are, Buddy wants personnel for those positions to be interchangeable as well. In speaking about ILBs/versatility, Buddy mentioned Bradham, Alonso, and Moats. Interesting that 1.) he didn't mention any other backups, which tells me all of them are strong candidates to get cut, and 2.) the new coaching staff also thinks that Moats should be in a position where he can hardly ever do the one thing he does well, which is edge-rush the passer.

My girlfriend wanted to know how 14 teams could try to sign him, but none of them would draft them... I didn't really have an answer for her. You would think that one of them would've thrown a 7th-rounder his way. Especially a team with a relatively good/deep WR corps, who has to expect that he would choose somewhere else as a free agent. There aren't 14 teams with terrible WR corps. Fame. Honey Badger is super high-profile, whereas Rogers is a guy that only draftniks know. (I'd never heard of him till a few months ago, for example.) I believe that super-exposed, high-profile guys always get overdrafted. Tebow, Maurice Clarett, WR Mike Williams all come to mind. I don't think the fame of a prospect does anything for the scouts, but the scouts aren't the ones doing the drafting. It's head coaches, GMs, and in some cases owners, and they're much more likely to be influenced by the media.

Didn't forget Andre Johnson, just don't have him near the top 10 anymore. He's still good, but I'd take any of the guys I named over him, and other than Welker, it would be a slam dunk every time. But his size/speed combination was pretty freakish when he was at his peak -- 6'3", 230 lbs, 4.41 40. I feel like he's lost a step or two since then. Absolutely. It's less likely, but it definitely still happens. Cruz is a particularly great example, because he wasn't even drafted. That would be excellent! I'll hold off till I see it on the field, but let's hope so. You really need 3 good receivers these days, and one or two can be a TE. Stevie's one. Given Chandler's situation, I don't think he can count more than a half. So we need at least 1.5 additional receiving threats at WR or TE. If Woods can step in and be one immediately, I'm confident that some combination of Goodwin, Graham, Rogers, Easley, Dickerson, and Gragg can fill the other 0.5 we need. I don't include Brad Smith because until I hear about him filling a major role, I expect him to be cut. If he wins a starting WR job, or if the new offense features a significant amount of Wildcat (or any subpackage that features Smith), or maybe even if he becomes the primary kick returner, he might stay. But $3.75 million is a lot to pay for a 4th wideout/special teams gunner. Especially when there are young options who need practice/playing time to develop.

It's possible to make a viable argument for drafting Barkley over Goodwin in the 3rd, but this isn't one. You realize that nearly every non-goalline formation has at least 2 WRs starting, right? And that most NFL offenses spend over 50% of the time with at least 3 WRs on the field, and frequently 4? To say the Bills "addressed the WR position" by drafting Woods is like saying a team addressed the O-line by drafting a center. It's technically true, but if the team has needs at both center and tackle, the center they drafted isn't going to help with both. Likewise, the Bills basically needed 2 starters at WR heading into this draft. Stevie Johnson I'll grant you; he's really good. But aside from him, we have no one on the roster who has had proven success at WR in the NFL. You mention Easley, but that's a pipe dream. He couldn't even get on the field over Ruvell Martin last year. Now, I agree that he should have gotten a lot of burn last year, but he didn't. You can't use a 4th-year WR with 0 career catches to say we have a stock of talent at the position. "Hope is not a plan." Easley is a lottery ticket, nothing more. You also mention Spiller and Chandler as receiving threats. Of course, the problem with using Spiller as a WR is that you can't simultaneously use him as a RB. And Chandler can't play WR and TE at the same time, either. In fact, he can't play anything right now, because he's recovering from a major injury. It's unclear how many games he'll be able to play this year, or how effective he'll be when he comes back. Now, your point about a 20% chance of a franchise QB being the better play in the 3rd round -- absolutely and I wholeheartedly agree. But I respectfully disagree that Barkley provides anywhere near that chance. You seem to think there's no scenario where Barkley's arm recovers and he doesn't become a franchise QB. Me personally, I think if his arm's healthy, he's got about a 5-10% chance of being a franchise QB. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I guarantee that it's less than 100%. Luck was the best prospect since Elway, and neither he nor Elway had a 100% chance of becoming a franchise QB if healthy. Anyway, even if I'm right, you could still argue that a 1-3% chance of a franchise QB is more valuable than any WR or Goodwin specifically. And you might be right! I just take exception to the idea that the WR position went from abysmal to "all set" with the addition of one 2nd-round pick.