BB Fan 4 LIFE Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Ok ok maybe "owns" is a little over the top... but the guy gave up zero sacks to Ware...as a rookie... Good thing we drafted a Kick returner instead. Coulda woulda shoulda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjprime Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Yeah, just one small thing. Williams was drafted at 4, five spots before the Bills were even on the board. But never let the facts get in the way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Ok ok maybe "owns" is a little over the top... but the guy gave up zero sacks to Ware...as a rookie... Good thing we drafted a Kick returner instead. Coulda woulda shoulda Too bad Williams was gone by the 9th pick. Also, as much I would've loved to see Trent Williams at LT for the Bills, late in the 4th quarter Williams was having a hard time, and allowed the man he was blocking to disrupt more than a few pass plays that enabled the Colts to hold on for the win. Although, Demarcus Ware doesn't play for the Colts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. ChumChums Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Ok ok maybe "owns" is a little over the top... but the guy gave up zero sacks to Ware...as a rookie... Good thing we drafted a Kick returner instead. Coulda woulda shoulda And I think I remember hearing that Nix identified Trent Williams as their only top-talent Tackle in the draft as well - the chance of him actually dropping to us were slim to none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBeane Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 This might be the most misinformed thread I have ever seen on this site. Instant classic haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 And I think I remember hearing that Nix identified Trent Williams as their only top-talent Tackle in the draft as well - the chance of him actually dropping to us were slim to none. That's true, Nix said they wanted either Williams or Okung although I think Williams was their preference. No one was going to help the Bills trade up to 3rd or higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Boy are you about to feel the wrath..... Try actually checking your facts? He was not there for us to draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Who's gonna start the "why didn't we draft Sam Bradford instead of a kick returner" thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Yeah, just one small thing. Williams was drafted at 4, five spots before the Bills were even on the board. But never let the facts get in the way I think you're missing the point the OP is trying to make. That is the Bills should have drafted ANY offensive tackle at number nine. No matter WHO that tackle was, he would have been better than Spiller. Never mind that Spiller was the BPA at nine and it wasn't even close. It's just history repeating itself. The Bills drafted a kick returner out of USC once and he SUCKED his rookie year. Wasn't that good the next few years, either. You'd think the Bills would have learned their lesson: Pick the best OT available, regardless. Based on what Bulaga is doing in Green Bay, it's obvious the Bills should have taken him at that spot. I'm pretty sure he was the highest rated OT available. Damn! Can't believe we passed on a guy like that. It's so easy when you break it down scientifically. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 I think you're missing the point the OP is trying to make. That is the Bills should have drafted ANY offensive tackle at number nine. No matter WHO that tackle was, he would have been better than Spiller. Never mind that Spiller was the BPA at nine and it wasn't even close. It's just history repeating itself. The Bills drafted a kick returner out of USC once and he SUCKED his rookie year. Wasn't that good the next few years, either. You'd think the Bills would have learned their lesson: Pick the best OT available, regardless. Based on what Bulaga is doing in Green Bay, it's obvious the Bills should have taken him at that spot. I'm pretty sure he was the highest rated OT available. Damn! Can't believe we passed on a guy like that. It's so easy when you break it down scientifically. GO BILLS!!! Bulaga was absolutely abused on Sunday...I don't seem him playing LT, he'll wind up at RG or RT. And he was picked into the mid-20's so it's not exactly like he came right off the board after us (Davis came off before him to SF as a matter of fact). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Bulaga was absolutely abused on Sunday...I don't seem him playing LT, he'll wind up at RG or RT. And he was picked into the mid-20's so it's not exactly like he came right off the board after us (Davis came off before him to SF as a matter of fact). I think he was kidding... but boy, did Bulaga suck against the Dolphins: http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/39713779/ns/sports-player_news/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 It's so easy when you break it down scientifically. GO BILLS!!! And look at it in hindsight (not to mention 5-6 games into all of these guys careers). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Bulaga was absolutely abused on Sunday...I don't seem him playing LT, he'll wind up at RG or RT. And he was picked into the mid-20's so it's not exactly like he came right off the board after us (Davis came off before him to SF as a matter of fact). I actually dont get the OP's sarcasm (if that is what it was) but I think K-9 is definately being sarcasting as in "Dont just take a player at your position because you need one" Now if Trent Williams would have been available at 9? We are talking about something entirely different..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Bulaga was absolutely abused on Sunday...I don't seem him playing LT, he'll wind up at RG or RT. And he was picked into the mid-20's so it's not exactly like he came right off the board after us (Davis came off before him to SF as a matter of fact). You have no idea what you're talking about. Bulaga was and IS the best OT available at nine and we should have taken him. His performance in Green Bay has nothing to do with it. He would have been MUCH better in our system. Everyone knows that. Just compare the offensive talent in GB, especially QB, to the Bills and it's obvious. Bulaga can't help that Green Bay took him at 23 when he SHOULD have gone at nine. The best OTs just don't fall that far in the draft. Buffalo will rue the day they passed on Bulaga. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanInUticaTampa Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 I think we would have taken him had he fallen to nine. They did say there were 2 OTs they thought were worth the 9th pick.... I hope they had williams ranked high, because then at least their rankings aren't off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 You have no idea what you're talking about. Bulaga was and IS the best OT available at nine and we should have taken him. His performance in Green Bay has nothing to do with it. He would have been MUCH better in our system. Everyone knows that. Just compare the offensive talent in GB, especially QB, to the Bills and it's obvious. Bulaga can't help that Green Bay took him at 23 when he SHOULD have gone at nine. The best OTs just don't fall that far in the draft. Buffalo will rue the day they passed on Bulaga. GO BILLS!!! I don't know which post is funnier: this or the OP. For completely different reasons, of course! BRAVO K-9! (to be fair, Bulaga could eventually develop into a serviceable LT, but it doesn't appear he's well suited for the left side, and certainly not anytime soon) I think we would have taken him had he fallen to nine. They did say there were 2 OTs they thought were worth the 9th pick.... I hope they had williams ranked high, because then at least their rankings aren't off. Nix from the Buffalo News: That philosophy dictated Nix's decision with the ninth pick in April's draft, when Buffalo took running back C.J. Spiller. "We felt like we needed to upgrade our offensive line," Nix said of the assessment after he was hired. "We started out looking for that. That was our main emphasis going into the draft. But by the time we got through doing our work, there was one or two guys we felt really strongly about coming in and helping us. And neither one of them were there." Offensive tackles Russell Okung and Trent Williams were taken in the first six picks. "So do we take a guy that everybody thinks we ought to take, a tackle, no matter whether he can play or not?" Nix said. "You can't let that bother you." http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/bills-nfl/article185104.ece Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjprime Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 I think you're missing the point the OP is trying to make. That is the Bills should have drafted ANY offensive tackle at number nine. No matter WHO that tackle was, he would have been better than Spiller. Never mind that Spiller was the BPA at nine and it wasn't even close. It's just history repeating itself. The Bills drafted a kick returner out of USC once and he SUCKED his rookie year. Wasn't that good the next few years, either. You'd think the Bills would have learned their lesson: Pick the best OT available, regardless. Based on what Bulaga is doing in Green Bay, it's obvious the Bills should have taken him at that spot. I'm pretty sure he was the highest rated OT available. Damn! Can't believe we passed on a guy like that. It's so easy when you break it down scientifically. GO BILLS!!! Yeah because they did that once and ended up with Mike Williams. There's a reason you rank players, and a reason they didn't go T at 9. Because the 2 guys they felt were worthy of the pick were GONE. So why take the third best T (Davis who's playing RT for San Fran)or 4 best (Bugala who's a back-up). You reach for guys and you end up with the same sorry picks like Maybin and Whitner that have plagued this team. In the top half of the first you should be picking impact players, guys who will come in and play opening day their first year. In all honesty they should of gotten a solid veteran T in FA, and no that doesn't include Cornell Green (still trying to figure out why he's not cut yet even the UDFA are outplaying him) And he mentioned Williams and started the whoa is me crap, which to me implies he thought the Bills should of drafted someone who was gone by the time the Bills picked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Yeah because they did that once and ended up with Mike Williams. There's a reason you rank players, and a reason they didn't go T at 9. Because the 2 guys they felt were worthy of the pick were GONE. So why take the third best T (Davis who's playing RT for San Fran)or 4 best (Bugala who's a back-up). You reach for guys and you end up with the same sorry picks like Maybin and Whitner that have plagued this team. In the top half of the first you should be picking impact players, guys who will come in and play opening day their first year. In all honesty they should of gotten a solid veteran T in FA, and no that doesn't include Cornell Green (still trying to figure out why he's not cut yet even the UDFA are outplaying him) And he mentioned Williams and started the whoa is me crap, which to me implies he thought the Bills should of drafted someone who was gone by the time the Bills picked. I can't believe you have the temerity to use the names Mike Williams and Bryan Bulaga in the same sentence. Were you even paying attention during this past draft? Let me slow it down for you a bit: We could have taken Bryan Bulaga at number nine! Bryan Bulaga! Instead we draft the best player available. C'mon, man. If you're going to start preaching about "reaching" for need players and all that, then there is no use even debating you on the issue. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB Fan 4 LIFE Posted October 19, 2010 Author Share Posted October 19, 2010 I think you're missing the point the OP is trying to make. That is the Bills should have drafted ANY offensive tackle at number nine. No matter WHO that tackle was, he would have been better than Spiller. Never mind that Spiller was the BPA at nine and it wasn't even close. It's just history repeating itself. The Bills drafted a kick returner out of USC once and he SUCKED his rookie year. Wasn't that good the next few years, either. You'd think the Bills would have learned their lesson: Pick the best OT available, regardless. Based on what Bulaga is doing in Green Bay, it's obvious the Bills should have taken him at that spot. I'm pretty sure he was the highest rated OT available. Damn! Can't believe we passed on a guy like that. It's so easy when you break it down scientifically. GO BILLS!!! Thanks. My original post was not fully explained. I'm definitely not saying we should have taken ANY Tackle available, I'm just saying there were a lot of need positions we had to fill and we picked a kick returner. I've never seen a team take a Kick returner with their 1st round pick. Then again, I've never seen a team take a 3 year project pass rushing end with their 1st pick either. My point, however subtle, was that our front office is a bad joke. Now, if we had done something incredibly stupid, like say for instance, holding a THIRD running back on our roster, while letting another promising RB (J.Bell) go, so that we could get the same value and just lose the promising back... why then... I'd have to say the difference between genius and stupidity... is that genius has its limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 Thanks. My original post was not fully explained. I'm definitely not saying we should have taken ANY Tackle available, I'm just saying there were a lot of need positions we had to fill and we picked a kick returner. I've never seen a team take a Kick returner with their 1st round pick. Then again, I've never seen a team take a 3 year project pass rushing end with their 1st pick either. My point, however subtle, was that our front office is a bad joke. Now, if we had done something incredibly stupid, like say for instance, holding a THIRD running back on our roster, while letting another promising RB (J.Bell) go, so that we could get the same value and just lose the promising back... why then... I'd have to say the difference between genius and stupidity... is that genius has its limits. Dude, he's not laughing with you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts