Cash

I'm sorry if I implied I expect to get a value at 9 or 10; I do not. Most drafts have 5ish "elite" prospects, and typically there's not a huge difference between the #10 pick and the #20 pick. The exception is when one of the "elite" prospects doesn't get drafted in the top 5 or whatever. That's when you can get a "value" at #10. Off the top of my head, some "values" that were available at #10 since I've been following the draft: Jevon Kearse, Aaron Rodgers, Brady Quinn, Matt Leinart. All guys thought to be in the elite tier of prospects pre-draft and almost universally mocked in the top 5 or so. Like I said, it usually doesn't happen that one of those guys falls to 9 or 10 or so, and when it does, that doesn't guarantee success. A 2012 example of a "value" for the Bills would be one of the following falling to #10: Luck, RG3, Kalil, Blackmon, Claiborne. Throwing Tannehill and/or Richardson into that top tier is debatable. My original point was not to demand that the Bills get a "value" at #9 in 2010 or #10 in 2012, but to compliment you for having an objective and rational assessment of the value of Spiller in 2010. I've seen many Spillerillos on this board going gonzo with this crazy idea that Spiller was some phenomenal value that the Bills just couldn't pass up at #9. Nope, not true. Arguably BPA (as you said in this thread), but not clearly BPA. And that's fine. (Other debatable BPA candidates at the time: Anthony Davis, Earl Thomas, Jason Pierre-Paul, Derrick Morgan, Mike Iupati, Maurkice Pouncey, Bryan Bulaga, Dez Bryant, TIIIIIIIIM TEBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW. In hindsight, JPP was the BPA. For the record, I wanted Bulaga, who's turned out solid, but nothing special.) Anyway, I'll shut up now, and you can have the last word if you want. This is the most trouble I've ever gone through just from trying to compliment someone, with the exception of every woman ever. But it was fun looking up the teens and twenties of the 2010 draft again. I tend to agree, mostly on principle. If Kuechly becomes the best player he could possibly be, then it's a very good pick. That's probably not going to happen, though, and I view every 1st-round LB as a lot more likely to become Aaron Curry than Patrick Willis. In the abstract, I'd always prefer to go with a more important/harder to find position in the first round. And I'd also like that position to fill an immediate need, unless you're drafting for an already stacked team. Because most non-elite first-rounders are pretty close in terms of value. We fans love to talk about "just take BPA", but that's pretty meaningless in most cases. Is there really a difference in value between a guy with a 97 rating and a 96 rating? If the latter guy plays a position where you have no proven starter and literally no backup on the roster (i.e., LT this year), isn't it better to take him over a guy who won't get on the field this year? I think everyone can agree that if the choice is between a "need" player with a 3rd-round grade and a "luxury" player with a 1st-round grade, you should take the luxury player. But I say that that's rarely the case. I think that most of the time, the top 4-5 guys available on your board will be very close to each other in terms of overall rating, so you should take the one who fills the biggest need. Now, I don't know what the Bills' board looks like, and I don't have a board this year. But I feel confident in saying that if there's an LT prospect available at #10 who has a similar rating to the other available prospects, then the Bills will draft him. To me, if the Bills draft anything other than an LT at #10, that means that they don't have a strong 1st-round grade on whoever's available.

e

I'm not sure exactly what your point is, but we seem to agree that no mocks had Spiller going prior to the Bills pick, and most had him valued somewhere in the early teens. Not a reach at #9, since there was no clear BPA at that point. Also not a value at #9. Getting back to Kuechly, I think I've seen one mock this offseason that had him going to the Panthers, and I think I've seen one or two (excluding Bills fan mocks) with him going to the Bills, but most have him going somewhere in the teens. If he does wind up being the Bills pick, I expect a similar scenario to the Spiller pick, where the best-connected draft gurus move him up to the Bills' pick because they're tipped off by someone close to the Bills. Again, not necessarily a reach, but also not particularly a value. That's fine as long as 1.) your guy pans out, and 2.) you didn't pass up an equal or better value at a more important/needed position who turns out better. #2 was really the crucial problem with the Whitner pick. Whitner pretty much did pan out -- he turned into a solid starter, which is disappointing for a top 10 safety, but all you can really ask of any draft pick. But given that Whitner was taken over Ngata, it's one of the worst picks imaginable. The equivalent scenario this year would probably be something along the lines of drafting Kuechly, who turns into a solid but unspectacular starter, while either Floyd or one of the OTs turns into a dominant All-Pro. (Obviously it would suck if the reverse happened -- Reilly Reiff or whoever turns into a just OK starter, and Kuechly is the next Ray Lewis. But in 2008, most fans considered DT the #1 need entering the draft, with safety as a secondary need. This year, it seems to me like most fans consider OT or WR the primary need, with LB being considered a secondary need.) I don't pretend to have any real idea how any of these guys will turn out, but hopefully whomever we grab will turn into a stud.

These picks will be horrible. 1: Ryan Tannehill QB - Miami Dolphins 2: Michael Floyd WR - Jacksonville Jaguars 3: Courtney Upshaw OLB - New York Jets 4: Lamar Miller RB David DeCastro G - Tennessee Titans 5: Orson Charles TE Luke Kuechly LB - Houston Texans

I want to thank you for injecting some reason into the pro-Spiller argument. I continue to disagree with you, but that's as may be. More importantly, you are lucid enough to not throw around nonsense phrases like "Spiller was by far the BPA". I don't think I ever saw a mock draft with Spiller going prior to the Bills' pick. That doesn't mean he has to be a bad pick or a reach, but it also means he's not some great value that miraculously fell to the Bills. I don't want to re-open the Spiller debate, because what's the point, but again, thanks for having some perspective. With that said, Kuechly seems somewhat similar in a couple of ways. #1, no one has Kuechly coming off the board before the Bills pick, but some of his fans vehemently think that drafting him at #10 represents great value/BPA. #2, non-pass-rush OLB is fairly equivalent to RB in terms of positional value; new-school football nerds and semi-nerds (I'm the latter) preach that you don't draft them high and don't give them big contracts. Now, I wouldn't be nearly as upset with a Kuechly pick as I was with the Spiller pick, because it does seem like he'd be a 3-down LB, which is more valuable than a run-down guy like Sheppard. I'd be really surprised if the Bills took him, though. With Spiller, there were enough leading comments from Nix/Gailey that it wasn't a total shock when the rumors started flying around. But this offseason, we haven't heard a lot about needing a linebacker. Nix did say he wanted to add another one, but in the same breath said, "Kirk Morrison's up and we don't know what's happening with him," which says to me that when Morrison was re-signed, that was the LB addition. Meanwhile, there've been plenty of comments from the coaches/GM about how much they love Sheppard and Barnett. Sheppard is penciled in as the run-down MLB, and Barnett is the every-down WLB/NLB. With Bryan Scott re-signed, there's your other NLB, and Morrison is the run-down SLB. I realize that many fans think that unit needs a major upgrade, but I don't think the coaches feel that way. In fact, I'll be surprised if the Bills draft a LB before they draft a CB. But we shall see.

"Not that bad" and "middle of the road" are not phrases you should be using to try to justify ignoring the offense.

I don't want to put words in Kelly's mouth, but I think the natural counter-argument is to have you (or whomever) go on record with your "sure thing" prospects before each draft. It might take a couple of years, but you'll eventually be wrong about a few. Personally, I think I fall somewhere between the two of you. I don't think there's really any sure thing, but some guys seem like they're very very close. Dareus is a great example. I viewed him as a 0% risk before the draft last year. Which was probably over-optimistic, but not that far off.

This... ...and this. Both great posts. Of the 3 actual NFL players, I would take Fitty, because he has the most impact. Edwards' Arm broke down the importance and limitations of LT splendidly. It is a very important position, but it got way too overrated for a while, because the pass protection as a unit is only as strong as its weakest member. (To say nothing of poor coaching, communication, or cohesion, any of which can lead to unblocked rushers on stunts or blitzes that aren't properly picked up.) It's absolutely crucial to have a decent starter at LT, unless you've got the ultra-rare QB like Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, or Ben Roethlisberger who can singlehandedly mask a bad O-line. But the upgrade from average pass protector to elite pass protector, while still helpful, doesn't provide a huge benefit. Considering Hairston is far from a sure thing at LT, and couldn't stay healthy last year anyway, AND there's no backup, I'd prefer if the Bills drafted an LT in the first round. He might not turn into a stud, but chances are pretty good that he'd be at least a passable starter. So having said all that, I voted for Fitzgerald, but would prefer the Bills not take Floyd. Why? Because I'd be shocked if Floyd ever got as good as Fitzgerald. Fitty and Megatron are the highest-rated, surest-bet WR prospects in the 20 years or so that I've been closely following the draft. In terms of pre-draft rating, Floyd is not in their league, and not even in the league of AJ Green last year. But Floyd is in the league of Julio Jones last year, who was pretty good - not trying to rag on Floyd, just saying he's nowhere near as safe a bet as Fitzgerald was when Fitzgerald was drafted. As for Kuechly, it's clear I'll never convert any LB-lover, so it's probably time to just agree to disagree. I'll give it one more shot though. Kuechly does at least seem to be a 3-down LB, which means picking him is justifiable, and if he develops into an elite (basically Hall of Fame) linebacker then it's a really good pick. Otherwise, meh. I just view LBs about the same as RBs in the modern NFL -- there are a very few elite difference-makers (Ray Lewis in his prime, Adrian Peterson), but everyone else is mostly a product of the system they play in and the players around them. (Key word: MOSTLY. Obviously Michael Turner is better than Bennie Green-Ellis or Danny Woodhead, but both of the latter guys run well and put up good numbers in the Pats' offense. Turner, meanwhile, is a really good player who is eminently replaceable.) For linebackers, there are some exceptions (Tampa-2 requires a really good MLB to be effective, for example), but I feel like in most schemes, and especially in the Miami U/Jimmy Johnson/Wannstache defense, the big resources need to go into the D-line and the linebackers are plug & play. As long as you've got a guy with a decent ability level, you should be fine, so don't break the bank. Put another way: most LBs are only as good as the D-line in front of them, but the converse is not true. The impact of the D-line is largely unaffected by the play of the LBs behind them. That's my opinion, anyway.

Weeden is old enough to remember POGS. I'll pass.

Excellent post! A good example was Jake Locker last year -- definitely unable to play at the NFL level right away, but scouts who liked him thought that he would develop into a really good QB eventually. So he went in the top 10. The one addendum I'd add is that some mid/late round non-QBs do somewhat fit the mold of "developmental" player. I'm thinking specifically of D. Bell, who was labeled as a potential (eventual) starter as soon as we drafted him in the 7th round. The reasoning being that he had only played football for a couple of years, so was super raw, and not nearly strong enough, but had the frame to add muscle. However, for guys like Bell, who are seen as developmental players at the time, it's always a matter of IF not WHEN -- IF the player gets stronger (Bell), or gets in shape (e.g., Jasper), or learns how to play the game (Bell again), or can handle a position switch (Julian Edelman, maybe? This might be pushing it), then he could be a starter. But to Oldtimer's point, if a guy lasts to the 4th round or so, it means that most or all teams think that it's an unlikely prospect.

There are busts at every position, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a first-round DE, pass-rushing LB, CB, DT, WR, TE, OT, or QB who turned into a good player, but was put on the trade block anyways. If you're going to spend a top 15 or so pick on an interior O-lineman, LB who doesn't get after the QB, or safety, you'd better be sure he's going to develop into not just an okay starter but an elite player. Another aspect, which is specific to the LB position: In today's NFL, your third CB usually plays more snaps than your second LB, unless that LB plays DE on passing downs. I don't think it's wise to spend high first-round picks on defensive players who play about half of the defensive snaps.

I voted "yes" in the poll, because Kalil seems to be a can't-miss LT prospect, and I'd be willing to sacrifice the #41 to get that. Having said that, I think it's a mortal lock that the Vikings take Kalil. So I'd be fine with your scenario, although I think moving down is even less likely than moving up. The Bills have shown at least a little interest in moving up under Nix (they confirmed that they tried to trade up into the late first round in 2009 for someone who wasn't Tebow), and zero in moving down. They've usually put in their selection within a minute or two of being on the clock, which means they're not even waiting to listen to potential offers. Nix has consistently said he doesn't like trading up because he hates losing a pick, and he doesn't like trading down because he can't stand the idea of missing out on the guy he wants. It seems to me that the more immediate concern would be missing out on an actual player you know you can draft right now vs. giving up a hypothetical pick, where there might not be any great values available anyway. Anyway, I'm with you on Glenn. I have a feeling he might be the pick. He certainly fits the physical profile that Nix likes in lineman, as well as the geographical profile Nix likes in all players (major conference, southeast). And the team has had him in for a pre-draft visit. I'm not confident enough to bet on it, but Glenn at #10 would be my guess right now.

For all you "we need to draft a LB in the first round" people, be forewarned: This is what happens when LBs who aren't pass-rushers go high in the draft. There's occasionally a Jerod Mayo or Patrick Willis, but the much more likely scenario is an Aaron Curry, Keith Rivers, AJ Hawk, etc. All decent players, but all eminently replaceable and not necessarily worth what they make. The new rookie salary structure has helped that last problem somewhat, but the biggest change salary-wise was for the top 5 picks.

I like the OP's case (and the Chiefs site's case linked to in this thread) because it's objective and quantifiable. The major flaw with the OP's is that first-round picks, by virtue of their draft position, are given disproportionate chances regardless of their quality of play. Upping the criterion from 3 years starting to something like 5 or 6 might help in that regard, but that's something we need to account for going in. For second-rounders and on, it's pretty good, though. Look at Jimmy Clausen if you think teams are willing to stand by second-rounders and keep giving them chances. Another thing to keep in mind with any QB analysis is that the data pool is very small and will always be skewed. There are only 32 starting NFL QB jobs in the world, and in any given offseason, only 5-10 of them are open. So the 6th round seems disproportionately awesome, but it's usually only because of three guys: Brady, Bulger, and Hasselbeck. Does anyone really think that the 6th round is truly 4 times as likely to produce a good QB as the 5th round? That would be a very interesting analysis. The one counter to that is that most late-round picks do make the team and contribute right away on special teams, whereas QBs really only contribute to wins by playing QB. And even the successful late-round QBs have usually taken several years to develop. (Counter to that counter: it's impossible to tell how much of that delay was from the QB not being ready and how much was from the QB not being given a chance due to his low draft status. I think both factors are in play, but as to what the split is? No idea.) It's not necessarily a bad strategy, especially if you already have a good QB. (If you don't, it's hard to justify buying lottery tickets in late-round QBs instead of just getting a job in the form of a high-round QB. The job might not make you rich, and you might get fired anyway, but there is a much better chance that the job will put food on the table for the next couple of years.) The caveat is that NFL teams have limited resources, especially in the form of practice reps, game time, and time with the coaches. It wouldn't be possible for a team to draft 5 QBs and get any kind of reasonable evaluation on them. Drafting one a year, maybe two if you've got more openings, is somewhat reasonable. You may miss out on Kurt Warner (cut by Green Bay as a rookie), but there's a good chance that Matt Flynn will show enough in camp that he'll beat out Brian Brohm for the backup job and make the team. And the following year, you can probably bring in one more low-round rookie to compete with Flynn, and hopefully get a good read on both of them. I both agree and disagree. I agree that there's no such thing as a safe pick at QB -- it's really hard to become a good NFL starter, and even the safest prospects still carry a decent bit of risk. A lot of fans seem to want to wait for the "sure thing" to come along, but they don't realize that there's no such thing. A team MUST take a chance to get a good QB. But getting a good QB is so important, teams are willing to take those kinds of chances. First-round QBs will always bust at a much higher rate than first-round guards or safeties, because teams are willing to take much bigger chances for the potential payoff of an elite QB. An elite OG or S isn't that big of a jackpot, so teams aren't willing to roll the dice as much. Having said that, I disagree with the notion that there's only a slight difference between rounds. Analyses like the OP's tend to show, over and over, regardless of their methodology, that NFL talent evaluators are pretty good at their jobs. First-round QBs pan out about a third of the time. Second-rounders pan out about a quarter of the time. Third-rounders go down to about 10-15%. Yes, the 6th round is an outlier, but that's skewed by three data points. That's not a lot to draw a conclusion from. Remember, you can think of every late-round QB that's ever panned out, but you've never heard of the vast majority of them whose careers played out more like Levi Brown -- cut in camp in either 1st or 2nd year, maybe given another shot with original or new team, never sees any regular season action, out of the league in 3-4 years. On the other hand, you can probably recite every single first-round bust from the last 20 years, because they're all famous. Fully agree with this, but it's hard to make anything of it, because it's so subject to bias and interpretation. A lot of people (not me) thought that Gabbert and Newton were the blue-chippers last year, and everyone else was the 2nd tier. Not the way it played out, obviously, but if you think a guy is a blue-chipper next year, it's possible that you're actually a fan of the next Gabbert or Jimmy Clausen. Sometimes it plays out like in 2004, but sometimes foresight blue-chippers like Brady Quinn, Matt Leinart, or Aaron Rodgers wind up slipping to the second tier. And it does seem like those guys usually bust, but then there's Rodgers. It's a tough nut to crack.

Agreed, but it's not just that we didn't have a "burner," it's that Stevie was our only outside WR ever capable of winning a jump ball. When the D stacks the line, the WRs on the outside get single coverage. It's rare that the WR will be so fast and so good at getting off the line that he'll be able to get several steps on the CB (not many Mike Wallaces or Torry Smiths out there), but if your WR can make the catch against single coverage maybe 60% of the time, the D will get burned stacking the line. Donald Jones makes the catch about 5% of the time. Brad Smith maybe 10% of the time. David Nelson is never in that position because he's a slot guy. So count me in the "WR is still a need" camp, along with Buddy Nix. And like Nix said after the season, you don't necessarily need a speed guy (although it doesn't hurt) so much as a guy who can win those jump balls.

Also anything that was ruled a non-score or non-turnover on the field, but the coach thinks it should have been called a score or turnover. Which is the main thing I don't like about either rule. But there is such a thing as too much standing around waiting for football to resume. Overtime = more football = good. More reviews = more commercial breaks and shots of the ref in the hood = bad.

Very disappointing. Not even close to your best work. Why bother showing up to post if you're just going to mail it in? You are better than this, Jimmy.

A bit more than I would've liked, but not a ton is guaranteed. Plus we don't know how it's structured. If the deal is back-loaded (which the Bills usually don't do), it makes the number look a lot bigger, but it's fantasy money, because he'll never get that big payday in the last year of the deal. I don't love this signing but I don't hate it either. It helps that my cube neighbor (who is a Pats fan) just told me he thinks Anderson was better than Carter last year, and he was hoping the Pats would bring him back. Doesn't think he's more than a situational player, though. I don't think Kelsay or Merriman are going anywhere, at least this year. I do think Dwan Edwards and Spencer Johnson should be worried. I don't think anyone gets cut until training camp, though. Why bother now? The Bills don't have to write any checks until the regular season starts, and they're still under the cap. Wait till training camp and make sure that you can live with Lionel Dotson or whoever playing in a rotational role before cutting the highly paid veteran in front of him.

At face value, I like this signing. Anderson probably peaked last year, but is still in his prime, and probably didn't cost a lot. He is risky in the sense that he's only had 2 good years sack-wise out of 6 or 7 in the league, he was only a part-time player last year (47% of NE's defensive snaps), and he's definitely a threat to turn back into a pumpkin. So I'm hoping the Bills didn't give him any of guaranteed money beyond 2012. However, at this point, the Bills' FO has completely turned me around, and I actually have faith that Anderson's contract 1) gives the Bills plenty of ways out in case Anderson is a bust, and 2) isn't for too much money, because overpaying mediocre players is about the worst you can do. (Overpaying elite players like Super Mario is fine.) If Anderson goes back to the 4-6 sack range, that's probably too good to cut or ask to take a pay cut, but not good enough that you want him making a lot of money. I'll wait to see the financials before making a final judgment, but given that Anderson lasted this long without signing, I have to think it's a pretty reasonable deal for the Bills. Plus it takes away a pass-rusher from New England, so that's another bonus. Tentative thumbs up.

Ha! The Bills only had 29, and that's including the 10 in the Washington game. Yikes. Anyway, I'll say under. 15 is a lot, and requires some luck. But I'll say team sacks go up, and more importantly, team QB hurries go way up. Three straight pass plays with pressure, even if no one actually sacks the QB, is better than two plays with no pressure and one sack.

I think he probably does not. Great story, but I haven't seen much from him that says he's an NFL wide receiver. Special-teamer, maybe. I still think there's a good chance the Bills draft WR in round 2 or 3. Wouldn't shock me if they go OT at #10, then try to trade back into the 1st round for Stephen Hill.

Great interview, and great to see the kind of comments from Ralph that we've been asking for for years. "Can't take it with you", etc. This is the most hopeful I've been as a Bills fan in a while!

I think he WILL shave it before training camp opens. I think he SHOULD keep it - very badass with just the right amount of gray to look seasoned but not over the hill.

And boom goes the dynamite.

F' yeah!