Did anybody else hear that guy on WGR yesterday?

[PDaDdy]

The guy from profootballgeeks.com or something? Anyway, they crunch NFL data like mad scientists and the guy basically said what I've been saying all along- that aside from a a very few special talents (Peterson, Chris Johnson, Tomlinson, Gale Sayers, OJ, maybe Spiller?) that the difference in production and talent in RB's is remarkably negligible especially relative to other positions on the field. Translation: plug in a competent back who can stay injury free in a healthy offense and they're gonna put up numbers. Marshawn Lynch is not a special back. He is a very good back who runs hard and I have no doubt that if he were the feature back somewhere, he'd put up numbers. But this guy also said that Fred Jackson has been the more productive back (based on whatever number-crunching this guy does) of the two throughout their respective careers. Guys- namely that bozo that currently has the post up about how this is the second worst move in the history of the franchise- IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT ROUND HE WAS DRAFTED IN! That was 2007, this is now, this is what Gailey and Nix were handed. Keeping him on the team because he was a first rounder is called cutting off your nose to spite your face (an old metaphor from my youth). This is what market value brought him, the three-headed monster wasn't working, they did the right thing. Honestly it's almost to the point that if you don't agree with this, I really question your football IQ.

 

 

Just out of curiosity how does their TD production compare based on number of carries? Personally I like the kind of production that puts points on the board. Teams don't compare yardage and yards per carry for win and loss record.

[Chilly]

The guy from profootballgeeks.com or something? Anyway, they crunch NFL data like mad scientists and the guy basically said what I've been saying all along- that aside from a a very few special talents (Peterson, Chris Johnson, Tomlinson, Gale Sayers, OJ, maybe Spiller?) that the difference in production and talent in RB's is remarkably negligible especially relative to other positions on the field. Translation: plug in a competent back who can stay injury free in a healthy offense and they're gonna put up numbers. Marshawn Lynch is not a special back. He is a very good back who runs hard and I have no doubt that if he were the feature back somewhere, he'd put up numbers. But this guy also said that Fred Jackson has been the more productive back (based on whatever number-crunching this guy does) of the two throughout their respective careers. Guys- namely that bozo that currently has the post up about how this is the second worst move in the history of the franchise- IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT ROUND HE WAS DRAFTED IN! That was 2007, this is now, this is what Gailey and Nix were handed. Keeping him on the team because he was a first rounder is called cutting off your nose to spite your face (an old metaphor from my youth). This is what market value brought him, the three-headed monster wasn't working, they did the right thing. Honestly it's almost to the point that if you don't agree with this, I really question your football IQ.

 

So the data shows that it doesn't matter who the hell is the RB? Glad the Bills have spent 3 first round picks on them over the past decade.

[KOKBILLS]

The truth is long term Lynch and Spiller will be much more effective than Jackson and Spiller as Jackson will be done in two years and Lynch will have another 7 years to go.

 

Right cause the truth has to deal with 100% speculation...Unless you can see into the future of coarse...

 

Terrell Davis was pretty much done at 26...Marcus Allen played into his late 30's...A couple Months after his 28th birthday Bo Jackson, the best overall athlete I've ever seen, suffered a career ending injury...Ricky Williams is 33 and physically he looks like he can play another 3-5 years easy...

 

It's all relative...You're statement is not "the truth," it's your opinion...

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Very well said..let me add that if you use the logic we should keep him because of his one time draft value..then you must also think we should have kept Hardy and should keep Maybin.

 

The major differences with Lynch and Maybin at this point are: 1) Lynch is productive and Maybin is not 2) Lynch could be replaced 3)Lynch has trade value. I think Maybin gets a pass because there is very little competition at his position and with the Moats injury it only helps Maybin hang on. Unless Maybin catches on fire he is gone next year.

 

You know it's funny how what is fairly obvious to some is an emotional blind spot for others. You and the OP hit it spot on.

 

In business they call it "sunk cost", or why people SHOULD NEVER make decisions based on what WAS paid for something. Whatever draft pick was spent, it is a sunk cost and is completely irrelevant to a players value in the league today or whether or not to keep him, trade him, etc. Would anyone give a first round pick for Lynch today based on his career thus far, well obviously not, he garnered a 4^th and subsequent years' 5^th or 6th.

 

So while his unknown potential at one point, in a draft with a huge talent drop off in RB talent after the first RB picked (he plays in Minnesota), Lynch was worth a first round pick based on what he could have been, but certainly not what he is. And there are certainly late round picks in the league that would now be considered worth a First. Would a team like Buffalo decline an opportunity to trade a first round pick for tom Brady because he was originally a 6^th rounder? The Texans Foster was an UDFA and was not deemed worthy of any round pick, now I'd image there is a different perception.

 

It can be argued that ML was not a good pick, but where he was picked should have no bearing on any decision moving forward regarding his trade value or value to the team as it doesn't matter.

Edited October 6, 2010 by over 20 years of fanhood

[metzelaars_lives]

So the data shows that it doesn't matter who the hell is the RB? Glad the Bills have spent 3 first round picks on them over the past decade.

 

Relative to other positions, kind of, yes. Again, with a few exceptions. Obviously Adrian Peterson is a different kind of back. The hope is that Spiller will be as well.

 

You know it's funny how what is fairly obvious to some is an emotional blind spot for others. You and the OP hit it spot on.

 

 

 

 

In business they call it "sunk cost", or why people SHOULD NEVER make decisions based on what WAS paid for something. Whatever draft pick was spent, it is a sunk cost and is completely irrelevant to a players value in the league today or whether or not to keep him, trade him, etc. Would anyone give a first round pick for Lynch today based on his career thus far, well obviously not, he garnered a 4^th and subsequent years’ 5^th or 6th.

 

 

 

 

So while his unknown potential at one point, in a draft with a huge talent drop off in RB talent after the first RB picked (he plays in Minnesota), Lynch was worth a first round pick based on what he could have been, but certainly not what he is. And there are certainly late round picks in the league that would now be considered worth a First. Would a team like Buffalo decline an opportunity to trade a first round pick for tom Brady because he was originally a 6^th rounder? The Texans Foster was an UDFA and was not deemed worthy of any round pick, now I’d image there is a different perception.

 

 

 

 

It can be argued that ML was not a good pick, but where he was picked should have no bearing on any decision moving forward regarding his trade value or value to the team as it doesn’t matter.

 

Thank you. Glad some people understand this.

[flopagamo]

You know it's funny how what is fairly obvious to some is an emotional blind spot for others. You and the OP hit it spot on.

 

In business they call it "sunk cost", or why people SHOULD NEVER make decisions based on what WAS paid for something. Whatever draft pick was spent, it is a sunk cost and is completely irrelevant to a players value in the league today or whether or not to keep him, trade him, etc. Would anyone give a first round pick for Lynch today based on his career thus far, well obviously not, he garnered a 4^th and subsequent years’ 5^th or 6th.

 

So while his unknown potential at one point, in a draft with a huge talent drop off in RB talent after the first RB picked (he plays in Minnesota), Lynch was worth a first round pick based on what he could have been, but certainly not what he is. And there are certainly late round picks in the league that would now be considered worth a First. Would a team like Buffalo decline an opportunity to trade a first round pick for tom Brady because he was originally a 6^th rounder? The Texans Foster was an UDFA and was not deemed worthy of any round pick, now I’d image there is a different perception.

 

It can be argued that ML was not a good pick, but where he was picked should have no bearing on any decision moving forward regarding his trade value or value to the team as it doesn’t matter.

Egggzactly. Market value is a fluid thing. Randy Moss was a 1st rounder too.

[Steely Dan]

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I suggest you look at who the Bills have drafted in the fourth round in the past quarter century before concluding that the Bills "got something" for him.

 

I suggest you look at who Nix drafted after the fourth round.

 

If you take a look at general manager Buddy Nix's track record, he is a man who builds through the draft. During his time in San Diego, he excelled in drafting superstar players, not only in the first round, but in the later rounds as well.

 

In the fourth-round and beyond, Nix selected players such as running backs Darren Sproles and Michael Turner, linebacker Shaun Phillips, wide receiver Legedu Naanee, and tackles Shane Olivea and Jeremy Clary

 

 

If we just assume that the team has no ability to draft quality players, then there's really no reason to even bother showing up on game day. You can't run a team on the premise that you're too dumb to run a team.

 

 

 

Fair enough dave, but what was the alternative? They Drafted Spiller and that's what sent this whole thing in motion...Like it or not, that's where they are today...The market for Lynch was the market for Lynch, good or bad...But something had to give and I don't think there was any way the Bills were Trading Fred Jackson because they value him MUCH higher than Lynch overall...So no question chances are the Bills don't get equal value in return for Lynch...But what they do get is more PT for Freddie and CJ, and a less clogged, more content backfield...They get 2 Players who are not just good but great locker room guys and they get rid of a clown...He's not a horrible kid necessarily(unless of coarse your the person he runs over or their family) or a bad teammate, but he's a clown...And this team does not need a clown right now...So call it addition by subtraction, or whatever, but I can't see the harm in this regardless of what they get with that 4th...And who knows...Maybe they get the next Dre Reed for this franchise and it turns into a monster deal...It could happen...Even a blind squirrel catches a nut every now and again...You never, ever know...

 

I think the FO is looking carefully at the players and what they can do and how they fit with team chemistry. IIRC, Lynch was the only player to miss significant time in the offseason. I think they let TE go in order to stop a QB controversy. I think they could have gotten something for him though. This is not what I expected from this team so far but I believe they will get better and I believe they will beat Jacksonville after such an embarrassing showing last week. JMO

[nodnarb]

The guy from profootballgeeks.com or something? Anyway, they crunch NFL data like mad scientists and the guy basically said what I've been saying all along- that aside from a a very few special talents (Peterson, Chris Johnson, Tomlinson, Gale Sayers, OJ, maybe Spiller?) that the difference in production and talent in RB's is remarkably negligible especially relative to other positions on the field. Translation: plug in a competent back who can stay injury free in a healthy offense and they're gonna put up numbers. Marshawn Lynch is not a special back. He is a very good back who runs hard and I have no doubt that if he were the feature back somewhere, he'd put up numbers. But this guy also said that Fred Jackson has been the more productive back (based on whatever number-crunching this guy does) of the two throughout their respective careers. Guys- namely that bozo that currently has the post up about how this is the second worst move in the history of the franchise- IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT ROUND HE WAS DRAFTED IN! That was 2007, this is now, this is what Gailey and Nix were handed. Keeping him on the team because he was a first rounder is called cutting off your nose to spite your face (an old metaphor from my youth). This is what market value brought him, the three-headed monster wasn't working, they did the right thing. Honestly it's almost to the point that if you don't agree with this, I really question your football IQ.

 

Yup. Good post.

[1B4IDie]

The truth is long term Lynch and Spiller will be much more effective than Jackson and Spiller as Jackson will be done in two years and Lynch will have another 7 years to go.

 

Lynch may have been a headache but when you have a headache you take aspirin and relieve the headache you do not remove your head.

 

That is right on.

 

Bad franchises make bad decisions that is why they are bad.

[Bflojohn]

My early bird prediction about THAT 4th round pick.... they won't even use it to select anyone, you win in this league with STAR quality players, and everyone knows this, so essentially, they will move up and use it as ammunition for a higher 2nd or 3rd round pick. They will continue to stockpile the remainder of the season, by moving one or two other NON performers, and accumulate extra picks along the way. The same will be done in the offseason. After January, the whole issue will be fluid, and exciting for Bills fans! Just wait awhile, this WILL TAKE TIME.

[Amstel]

I was thinking if they found a willing partner they could trade both 4s for a mid round 3...... look at the damn Pats.... they know what they're doing they got a 4 for Maroney and had to send back a 6 and got a 3rd for Moss and had to send back a 7......they have two ones two twos and two threes obviously they know what theyre doing......

[KOKBILLS]

Just out of curiosity how does their TD production compare based on number of carries? Personally I like the kind of production that puts points on the board. Teams don't compare yardage and yards per carry for win and loss record.

 

 

Right...And those numbers could not have anything to do with which Player got the ball more in the red Zone and Goal Line during their time in Buffalo could they? No offense but when I read stuff like this I wonder whether or not you're actually watching the Games or just skipping them for the comfort of the stat sheet...Have you noticed Freddie having problems getting into the End Zone when he's been given the Ball in the Red Zone? Have you noticed that Marshawn is some kind of break-away-at-any-time-for-a-TD threat terror? The TD numbers are just that...numbers...If Freddie had been given the same opportunities I suspect (based on what I've seen him do most of the time during his career when he gets the Ball) he puts up the same TD numbers or even better than Lynch...Just like the yards per carry...

[silvermike]

Here's to ignoring sunk costs - the hardest task for most people.

[Big Turk]

The guy from profootballgeeks.com or something? Anyway, they crunch NFL data like mad scientists and the guy basically said what I've been saying all along- that aside from a a very few special talents (Peterson, Chris Johnson, Tomlinson, Gale Sayers, OJ, maybe Spiller?) that the difference in production and talent in RB's is remarkably negligible especially relative to other positions on the field. Translation: plug in a competent back who can stay injury free in a healthy offense and they're gonna put up numbers. Marshawn Lynch is not a special back. He is a very good back who runs hard and I have no doubt that if he were the feature back somewhere, he'd put up numbers. But this guy also said that Fred Jackson has been the more productive back (based on whatever number-crunching this guy does) of the two throughout their respective careers. Guys- namely that bozo that currently has the post up about how this is the second worst move in the history of the franchise- IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT ROUND HE WAS DRAFTED IN! That was 2007, this is now, this is what Gailey and Nix were handed. Keeping him on the team because he was a first rounder is called cutting off your nose to spite your face (an old metaphor from my youth). This is what market value brought him, the three-headed monster wasn't working, they did the right thing. Honestly it's almost to the point that if you don't agree with this, I really question your football IQ.

 

You don't need anyone to crunch numbers to know that Jackson is the better RB all you need to do is watch the games.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Right cause the truth has to deal with 100% speculation...Unless you can see into the future of coarse...

 

Terrell Davis was pretty much done at 26...Marcus Allen played into his late 30's...A couple Months after his 28th birthday Bo Jackson, the best overall athlete I've ever seen, suffered a career ending injury...Ricky Williams is 33 and physically he looks like he can play another 3-5 years easy...

 

It's all relative...You're statement is not "the truth," it's your opinion...

 

What about LT, he sure looks washed up at age 31 <----- note: sarcasm

[Georgia Bill]

So the data shows that it doesn't matter who the hell is the RB? Glad the Bills have spent 3 first round picks on them over the past decade.

It's quite possible that's part of our problem. We probably could've got more impact with other positions. To some that's stating the obvious...

Edited October 7, 2010 by Georgia Bill

[Wilson from Gamehendge]

The guy from profootballgeeks.com or something? Anyway, they crunch NFL data like mad scientists and the guy basically said what I've been saying all along- that aside from a a very few special talents (Peterson, Chris Johnson, Tomlinson, Gale Sayers, OJ, maybe Spiller?) that the difference in production and talent in RB's is remarkably negligible especially relative to other positions on the field. Translation: plug in a competent back who can stay injury free in a healthy offense and they're gonna put up numbers. Marshawn Lynch is not a special back. He is a very good back who runs hard and I have no doubt that if he were the feature back somewhere, he'd put up numbers. But this guy also said that Fred Jackson has been the more productive back (based on whatever number-crunching this guy does) of the two throughout their respective careers. Guys- namely that bozo that currently has the post up about how this is the second worst move in the history of the franchise- IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT ROUND HE WAS DRAFTED IN! That was 2007, this is now, this is what Gailey and Nix were handed. Keeping him on the team because he was a first rounder is called cutting off your nose to spite your face (an old metaphor from my youth). This is what market value brought him, the three-headed monster wasn't working, they did the right thing. Honestly it's almost to the point that if you don't agree with this, I really question your football IQ.

So like I keep saying...

 

What happens in a year or 2 (tops) when we need to replace the (then) 32 year old Fred Jackson?

 

Go waste ANOTHER draft pick on a RB? Because that IS what we will have to do...Spiller will not work as an every-down RB.

 

 

You cut a 24 year old to keep a 30 year old? That just makes absolutely ZERO sense!

[Endless Ike]

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I suggest you look at who the Bills have drafted in the fourth round in the past quarter century before concluding that the Bills "got something" for him.

 

we're due!

 

So like I keep saying...

 

What happens in a year or 2 (tops) when we need to replace the (then) 32 year old Fred Jackson?

 

Go waste ANOTHER draft pick on a RB? Because that IS what we will have to do...Spiller will not work as an every-down RB.

 

 

You cut a 24 year old to keep a 30 year old? That just makes absolutely ZERO sense!

 

you get an UDFA or someone's 2nd back who has become a free agent and use him as a second string back. They obviously think spiller can be a featured back, not just share the backfield