OK, before we get into the revisionist history

[Bob in STL]

yeah..you were right about the linebackers. Come to think about it, you were right about the offensive line. Let me look at this again...oh..you were right about the defensive line...ooh...yeahhhh...right about the draft picks too.

 

 

He is right about a lot of things. Unfortunately everything he says has been covered 1000 times before.

 

No summary and no ideas.

[bowery4]

You sound like JS only you don't write as well and you want us to criticize it bit by bit and the argue w/ you about it. No thanks!

Personally I guess I am just getting sick of this aspect of the board. Hope you feel better about it and try to spend more time loving the people around you rather than thinking about all this negative stuff so obsessively.

 

BTW did some one say our LBs are circumcised?

 

Oh an one more thing history is never facts, it is written by the winners.

Edited October 9, 2010 by bowery4

[Thoner7]

1.) RE: Offensive tackles. Please explain to me, in detail, who you would've taken to solve the problems at OL and LT. Who would you have picked up in free agency? Flozell Adams? Who would you have taken over Spiller? The Bills are notorious for their reach picks, and yet, when they take the absolute, no doubt highest player available on the board, they're getting bashed. Fact is, Marshawn was on the outs one way or the other, with either his contract situation or his off-the-field behavior. CJ Spiller was a rare gem of a college talent, the type I believe Chan Gailey and Buddy Nix would really like to build a team around.

 

2.) No, we got rid of Jason Peters because he: A.)was underperforming, B.)was being overpaid with regards to his poor performance, and C.)wanted out of Buffalo. Please let me know where this mythical "Offensive Tackle University" is. If you're implying that just because Peters wasn't a stud LT coming up through the ranks doesn't mean he wasn't paid fairly for his high performance, then that's just foolish. Good players get paid.

 

3.) RE: Edwards. Well actually, if you remember correctly, it was the hold-out of the above mentioned LT who was, arguably, seriously detrimental to the development of Trent Edwards. Do you really think that the O-Line would have looked nearly as bad as it did 2 years ago if Peters hadn't held out? Regardless, the QB/OL debate is as old as the chicken/egg argument. A good quarterback has to be able to make plays. It was clear that in this point in his career, Edwards no longer had the vision or even desire to make plays happen here in Buffalo. Whether he's able to do that somewhere else is yet to be seen.

 

4.) Tell you what, I'll let you go coach a pro defense where you have to evaluate the talent at hand and then effectively implement a defensive scheme. In my opinion, the defense was going to look a lot worse this year for circumstances beyond the 3-4. Folks don't like to admit it much, but losing Aaron Schobel was a big hit for this unit. Meanwhile, injuries to key players, especially the linebacker corps, definitely hurt. I'm not particularly impressed by the defense so far, but 4 games in, I'm not going into hysterics. They hung in there with the Dolphins in game 1, and played a solid first half against the Packers. Meanwhile, both the Patriots and the Jets have proven this year to be legitimate playoff, if not championship contenders. No, it doesn't completely excuse poor performance, but forgive me if I'm willing to ride out some of the (what should have been) expected growing pains.

 

Obviously the LBs are circumspect, but I chalk a lot of that to injury at this point. What moves would you have liked them to make? Trade Marshawn for another mediocre LB (A.J. Hawk)? The secondary has been serviceable up to this point, considering the lack of a pass rush.

 

5.) You're right. Put up names on a dartboard and chuck darts up there. That'll get you a 6 game winner. Yeah, it's trite and reeks of Jauron, but it's true: it is extremely difficult to win in the NFL. Honestly, a lot of it is coaching and a lot of it is luck. You can only scout so much, but you don't really know how certain styles of play are going to gel together. There have been some great individual talents, but I truly believe that nothing great exists in a vacuum. It takes a lot of moving parts to get an NFL team functioning at a high level. The Bills need to find the parts to put that together.

 

6.) RE: Draft picks. Well, what do you propose we do about those injuries? I truly believe that a good deal of the problem with the Jauron era fell in the realm of poor strength and conditioning. However, we only figured that out over 5 years. The sample size with Gailey's drafting is simply too small to make an adequate judgment. If you recall, however, Easley was going to be a component of the offense into this coming year. Wang was definitely going to be part of the OL rotation in some way. Danny Batten was also getting looks. And I think we'll see more of Troup as the season goes on. Same goes with Carrington.

 

I will give you that the Bills have had a poor history with drafting this past decade, at least in the first round. But it's a knee-jerk reaction to judge this latest draft class 4 games into the regime's first season. Gailey and Nix didn't draft those guys, so at least try to judge them on their merits.

 

 

 

If that rant made you feel better, than by all means, go ahead. But don't expect us all to buy what you're selling.

 

1- Brian Bulaga, round 1, John Jerry, Round 3. Neither being a hindsight pick

---- "they take the absolute, no doubt highest player available on the board"

------- Whose board are you refering to? The Bills Board? Clearly you must be, No one else had Spiller that high, and he is proving the Bills wrong every week. Mayock didnt have SPiller as the best avaialable. neither did McShay or Kiper - so it wasnt someone in the media. Whose board are you refering to? Because I dont belive Spiller was the best player available at all and I said that on draft day. In fact, I had Best and Mathews as better backs. Best went with the 30th pick and has produced better than Spiller to date....

[EasternOHBillsFan]

You sound like JS only you don't write as well and you want us to criticize it bit by bit and the argue w/ you about it. No thanks!

Personally I guess I am just getting sick of this aspect of the board. Hope you feel better about it and try to spend more time loving the people around you rather than thinking about all this negative stuff so obsessively.

 

BTW did some one say our LBs are circumcised?

 

Oh an one more thing history is never facts, it is written by the winners.

 

And I am getting SICK of all of the LOSING that is going on... don't you think that is just a BIT frustrating??!?!?

 

Ohh, I guess not... all we are supposed to do is sit back and medicate. NO THANKS!

[FightinIrishBills]

1- Brian Bulaga, round 1, John Jerry, Round 3. Neither being a hindsight pick

---- "they take the absolute, no doubt highest player available on the board"

------- Whose board are you refering to? The Bills Board? Clearly you must be, No one else had Spiller that high, and he is proving the Bills wrong every week. Mayock didnt have SPiller as the best avaialable. neither did McShay or Kiper - so it wasnt someone in the media. Whose board are you refering to? Because I dont belive Spiller was the best player available at all and I said that on draft day. In fact, I had Best and Mathews as better backs. Best went with the 30th pick and has produced better than Spiller to date....

 

Now you're practicing revisionist history here. Believe me, if it weren't so hard to find articles regarding individual player's stock from the 2010 draft, then I would be able to back up my points a little better. However, Bulaga's stock was definitely falling before the draft; hence, he dropped down to #25. Meanwhile, with regards to Carrington over Jerry, you have to assume that the Bills knew they would have to re-load on defense for their new scheme. It wasn't, however, a massive gaffe as you seem to be saying, considering Carrington was injured and inactive through the first 3 games of the season.

 

I won't even dignify the Spiller comments. We both know that you're in the wrong here.

[Thoner7]

Now you're practicing revisionist history here. Believe me, if it weren't so hard to find articles regarding individual player's stock from the 2010 draft, then I would be able to back up my points a little better. However, Bulaga's stock was definitely falling before the draft; hence, he dropped down to #25. Meanwhile, with regards to Carrington over Jerry, you have to assume that the Bills knew they would have to re-load on defense for their new scheme. It wasn't, however, a massive gaffe as you seem to be saying, considering Carrington was injured and inactive through the first 3 games of the season.

 

I won't even dignify the Spiller comments. We both know that you're in the wrong here.

 

-Oher was what, 23 or 24? Whats your point? Oher is/was worth 11, Bulaga is/was worth 9. Just because he fell is not evidence he is not good.

 

-Why do I have to assume that? I thought we were taking BPA? (see your own Spiller arguement) And Carrington is NOT INJURED. He has been a healthy scretch the first 3 games, then he finally was on the active roster when Stroud and McCargo were injured. Thats right, MCCARGO is higher on the depthchart than Carrignton. O yea, and he has yet to play a single snap in teh NFL - Thats really "reloading on defense" I never said it was a massive gaff, I said I would have taken Jerry if I were Nix.

 

- Choose to ignore me referencing facts. I dont really care. The fact is Spiller was no where near a lock as BPA when we drafted. I wont deny some people had him as that, but he was so far from a "lock" its silly. I think he is proving that by being 3rd string (well, now 2nd string by no positive play of his own) on the worst team in the NFL.

 

Again, Spiller was not a concensous top ten pick on this board til about 3 weeks after we drafted him and fans were trying to cope. I am so tired of hearing he was "the lock most obvious player ever to draft because we took him and go Nix" A gimmick RB whose name you only knew because of his college return abilities is not a top ten player.

 

Anyways, even if he was the concensous top player, he wasnt worth it. Look at what hes done so far. Look at how much he is helping the team. Its anothe rbad pick by a bad team with a bad FO.

Edited October 10, 2010 by Thoner7

[Thoner7]

-Oher was what, 23 or 24? Whats your point? Oher is/was worth 11, Bulaga is/was worth 9. Just because he fell is not evidence he is not good.

 

-Why do I have to assume that? I thought we were taking BPA? (see your own Spiller arguement) And Carrington is NOT INJURED. He has been a healthy scretch the first 3 games, then he finally was on the active roster when Stroud and McCargo were injured. Thats right, MCCARGO is higher on the depthchart than Carrignton. O yea, and he has yet to play a single snap in teh NFL - Thats really "reloading on defense" I never said it was a massive gaff, I said I would have taken Jerry if I were Nix.

 

- Choose to ignore me referencing facts. I dont really care. The fact is Spiller was no where near a lock as BPA when we drafted. I wont deny some people had him as that, but he was so far from a "lock" its silly. I think he is proving that by being 3rd string (well, now 2nd string by no positive play of his own) on the worst team in the NFL.

 

Again, Spiller was not a concensous top ten pick on this board til about 3 weeks after we drafted him and fans were trying to cope. I am so tired of hearing he was "the lock most obvious player ever to draft because we took him and go Nix" A gimmick RB whose name you only knew because of his college return abilities is not a top ten player.

 

Anyways, even if he was the concensous top player, he wasnt worth it. Look at what hes done so far. Look at how much he is helping the team. Its anothe rbad pick by a bad team with a bad FO.

 

http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/09000d5d8171c657/article/bryant-beats-out-bradford-as-drafts-top-offensive-prospect

 

here is the link I found. Mayocks big Board. Spiller at #6, Dez bryant at #3. Therefore, Mayock has Bryant as BPA - so how could Spiller be the lock concensous BPA? McShay I dont remember and really dont care. He is so wrong his opinion couldnt be worth crap. Kiper aint much better.

 

-I fell like these guys all moved him into the top 10 to accomadate the reports that the Bills were going to draft him - hence making themselfs look good by ranking him in the top 10 when they heard we were gonna take him.

[NaPolian8693]

To any outsider, it's blatantly obvious the Bills are one of the those junk franchises that always screws it up. The Bills are a bit of a punchline.

 

Maybe this draft class will go against the grain and pan out, but given it's the Bills odds are that it will turn out to be another draft failure.

[FightinIrishBills]

-Oher was what, 23 or 24? Whats your point? Oher is/was worth 11, Bulaga is/was worth 9. Just because he fell is not evidence he is not good.

 

-Why do I have to assume that? I thought we were taking BPA? (see your own Spiller arguement) And Carrington is NOT INJURED. He has been a healthy scretch the first 3 games, then he finally was on the active roster when Stroud and McCargo were injured. Thats right, MCCARGO is higher on the depthchart than Carrignton. O yea, and he has yet to play a single snap in teh NFL - Thats really "reloading on defense" I never said it was a massive gaff, I said I would have taken Jerry if I were Nix.

 

- Choose to ignore me referencing facts. I dont really care. The fact is Spiller was no where near a lock as BPA when we drafted. I wont deny some people had him as that, but he was so far from a "lock" its silly. I think he is proving that by being 3rd string (well, now 2nd string by no positive play of his own) on the worst team in the NFL.

 

Again, Spiller was not a concensous top ten pick on this board til about 3 weeks after we drafted him and fans were trying to cope. I am so tired of hearing he was "the lock most obvious player ever to draft because we took him and go Nix" A gimmick RB whose name you only knew because of his college return abilities is not a top ten player.

 

Anyways, even if he was the concensous top player, he wasnt worth it. Look at what hes done so far. Look at how much he is helping the team. Its anothe rbad pick by a bad team with a bad FO.

 

1.) Consider this: If the Bills thought that Spiller was significantly more valuable than any other player available at that point, as their draft stock of him was extremely high, then it would make sense for the team to take said player. If, however, we're talking about a scenario where the team does not significantly value that one player relative to the rest of the field, then it might make more sense to choose a player at a position that they consider of greater need. Hence, the strategy of taking the best player available doesn't apply in all situations.

 

2.) First off, you're right about Carrington being a healthy scratch. I was under the wrong impression and thought he was injured earlier in the year during training camp. That being said, I believe that, just as it was with the Trent Edwards situation, Gailey and Edwards are allowing the players on the roster to get a shot playing within their new system. If we're thinking of this year as a rebuilding season (which I've unfortunately resigned myself to at this point), then it makes sense that the Bills would like to see what they have to work with as they move forward. McCargo was a 1st round pick after all; I don't blame Edwards for seeing how he would look in his 3-4 scheme. I think that we'll continue to see a purging of ineffective players from this organization as we move into the future.

 

I also believe that we'll see Carrington get his shot at live action. However, it was important for them to see what they've got talent wise. One argument may be that they have a whole off-season and game-film to evaluate these players; however, as the Trent Edwards' example has shown, a player can be a pre-season hero and then wilt when the bullets start flying. And judging the game film from last year isn't very effective when they're running a different scheme with different players. Hence, it makes sense to let the experienced players on the roster get their shot early on to see what they have to offer. Having said that, I think it's time to inject some of the younger blood into the roster, although you may not see that until the last 8 games or so of the season.

 

And if Carrington just isn't good enough to play on the field? Then the team whiffed on that pick. However, I don't blame them for trying to find the right players to fit the new system they wanted to install.

 

3.) It's a really tricky business talking about draft value. Every team obviously has their own big board, every analyst has their big board, every fan has their idea of what certain players value should be (believe me, I was one of Brady Quinn's biggest partisans. And while I don't think he really got a fair shake with things, he's proven that he probably doesn't have the skill to be a viable NFL starter). So allow me to add the caveat that Spiller was the absolute best player available on the Bills' draft board, and most likely the draft boards of other NFL teams. Either way, I don't believe that the Bills valued any of the OL players available on the board enough to justify reaching with their pick over a talent in Spiller that they so highly regarded.

 

I was mistaken in thinking that it was fairly obvious that Spiller was viewed as a rare talent. Seems as though it was debatable at the time, although my memory alone tells me that praise for Spiller seemed nearly universal before the draft, with certain analysts saying that he could be the most talented player in the draft. But credit to you for finding an article backing up your point.

 

However, you mention that in hindsight, Oher was a top 10 pick and so was Bulaga, even though they weren't drafted in those spots. Unfortunately I think this is a case of hindsight being 20/20, despite your claims to the contrary. Teams drafting obviously work with the information that they have on hand; in that very same draft, wouldn't everyone have said that Andre Smith of the Bengals was not a consensus top 5 pick? The truth is, there are a lot of factors that go into drafting a player, and it takes a keen eye to discern which players will thrive on your team and which ones won't. Figure out which factors are the most important is the difficult part.

 

However, Bulaga was an iffy proposition for a lot of teams. Nobody was really sure if his footwork and his upper body strength was good enough to justify drafting him higher than where he was taken, IIRC.

 

4.) You've made some good points, but here's where I really think you're veering off into conjecture. We're dealing with an extremely small sample size of data here in evaluating Spiller (as well as Bulaga and any of the other players out of this draft class). If, by season's end, Spiller continues to have the limited role on offense that he's shown thus far, then yes, you would be justified in saying that he was a bad pick. However, in keeping with the theme of "tryouts", I believe that Lynch and Jackson were both given their auditions both to work in Gailey's offense in real play and as showcases for other teams. While Marshawn looked strong running the ball, I believe Jackson has better awareness for finding gaps and blocking.

 

Bottom line? There's no way right now that Spiller can be said to be a bad pick.

[Thoner7]

1.) Consider this: If the Bills thought that Spiller was significantly more valuable than any other player available at that point, as their draft stock of him was extremely high, then it would make sense for the team to take said player. If, however, we're talking about a scenario where the team does not significantly value that one player relative to the rest of the field, then it might make more sense to choose a player at a position that they consider of greater need. Hence, the strategy of taking the best player available doesn't apply in all situations.

 

2.) First off, you're right about Carrington being a healthy scratch. I was under the wrong impression and thought he was injured earlier in the year during training camp. That being said, I believe that, just as it was with the Trent Edwards situation, Gailey and Edwards are allowing the players on the roster to get a shot playing within their new system. If we're thinking of this year as a rebuilding season (which I've unfortunately resigned myself to at this point), then it makes sense that the Bills would like to see what they have to work with as they move forward. McCargo was a 1st round pick after all; I don't blame Edwards for seeing how he would look in his 3-4 scheme. I think that we'll continue to see a purging of ineffective players from this organization as we move into the future.

 

I also believe that we'll see Carrington get his shot at live action. However, it was important for them to see what they've got talent wise. One argument may be that they have a whole off-season and game-film to evaluate these players; however, as the Trent Edwards' example has shown, a player can be a pre-season hero and then wilt when the bullets start flying. And judging the game film from last year isn't very effective when they're running a different scheme with different players. Hence, it makes sense to let the experienced players on the roster get their shot early on to see what they have to offer. Having said that, I think it's time to inject some of the younger blood into the roster, although you may not see that until the last 8 games or so of the season.

 

And if Carrington just isn't good enough to play on the field? Then the team whiffed on that pick. However, I don't blame them for trying to find the right players to fit the new system they wanted to install.

 

3.) It's a really tricky business talking about draft value. Every team obviously has their own big board, every analyst has their big board, every fan has their idea of what certain players value should be (believe me, I was one of Brady Quinn's biggest partisans. And while I don't think he really got a fair shake with things, he's proven that he probably doesn't have the skill to be a viable NFL starter). So allow me to add the caveat that Spiller was the absolute best player available on the Bills' draft board, and most likely the draft boards of other NFL teams. Either way, I don't believe that the Bills valued any of the OL players available on the board enough to justify reaching with their pick over a talent in Spiller that they so highly regarded.

 

I was mistaken in thinking that it was fairly obvious that Spiller was viewed as a rare talent. Seems as though it was debatable at the time, although my memory alone tells me that praise for Spiller seemed nearly universal before the draft, with certain analysts saying that he could be the most talented player in the draft. But credit to you for finding an article backing up your point.

 

However, you mention that in hindsight, Oher was a top 10 pick and so was Bulaga, even though they weren't drafted in those spots. Unfortunately I think this is a case of hindsight being 20/20, despite your claims to the contrary. Teams drafting obviously work with the information that they have on hand; in that very same draft, wouldn't everyone have said that Andre Smith of the Bengals was not a consensus top 5 pick? The truth is, there are a lot of factors that go into drafting a player, and it takes a keen eye to discern which players will thrive on your team and which ones won't. Figure out which factors are the most important is the difficult part.

 

However, Bulaga was an iffy proposition for a lot of teams. Nobody was really sure if his footwork and his upper body strength was good enough to justify drafting him higher than where he was taken, IIRC.

 

4.) You've made some good points, but here's where I really think you're veering off into conjecture. We're dealing with an extremely small sample size of data here in evaluating Spiller (as well as Bulaga and any of the other players out of this draft class). If, by season's end, Spiller continues to have the limited role on offense that he's shown thus far, then yes, you would be justified in saying that he was a bad pick. However, in keeping with the theme of "tryouts", I believe that Lynch and Jackson were both given their auditions both to work in Gailey's offense in real play and as showcases for other teams. While Marshawn looked strong running the ball, I believe Jackson has better awareness for finding gaps and blocking.

 

Bottom line? There's no way right now that Spiller can be said to be a bad pick.

 

Very logical post.

 

But I want to address the last line. Yes, you could argue that Spiller was worth the pick, when that is all you considier. "Is Spiller worth a top 10 pick" Most people would agree (I for one dont but that is another topic).

 

 

When you see that you have 2 great RBs, and acknoledge how meaningless teh RB position is relative to other positions, it doesnt make sense to add another in the top ten. My beef with the selection is that look at where we were and were we are now in terms of rebuilding.

 

Me, I am looking at not 1 draft pick, but the entire roster with the overall goal of building a championship team. IMO this pick cannot be viewed as one random transaction with no ramifications elsewhere. This one a move that is inherently tied to other moves.

 

The day before the draft the Bills had Lynch, J.Bell/C.Simpson, and a top 10 pick. After the Spiller Pick and Lynch trade the Bills have Spiller, and a 4th round pick. How is that rebuilding? Thats a huge huge huge huge huge huge huge step backwards. After 1 draft and offseason the Bills are now a worse team than before we started "rebuilding"

 

Thats my problem with the Spiller pick, not Spiller himself, but the fact that his selection and the events that were bound to transpire have made the Bills a worse team and even farther from a playoff berth.

Edited October 10, 2010 by Thoner7