good news we still can draft Andrew Luck

[Easy Money]

With Buddy in charge I am very pessimistic on the future of the bills. We are keeping an incompetent def coordinator and likely losing Whitner and Poz. Our defense will again be in the bottom of the league. We will keep Kelsay and Kyle Williams, but play them out of there natural positions. I expect another mediocre draft and no impact free agent signings. The good news is we may be picking high enough to get Luck and hopefully Buddy will get fired and a competent GM will be brought in.

 

 

 

 

Why in the world would you want to keep Poz ??? He isn't a starting LB on any team in the NFL.

[The Senator]

or we could start Brohm all 16 games and go winless....lol

Ah yes...the ' Losing our Way to Greatness ' plan...I actually expect it to gain lots of traction over the off-season.

 

(Just think how great the Bills could be if they'd just lose the next 160 games - the top draft postion for the next 10 years and all those #1 picks...oh baby... )

[T master]

Tell me one good move (other than hiring gailey) that nix has made

 

Got rid of Marshawn , brought in Nelson & Jones , kept Roscoe , brought in Dwan Edwards ,drafted Easley & Spiller , was quick to put people on IR rather than wait around to see IF they would be ready by mid season & have to play catch up .. DO YOU NEED ANY MORE ???

 

like one other post said go be a Pats fan !!!!

[DDD]

With Buddy in charge I am very pessimistic on the future of the bills. We are keeping an incompetent def coordinator and likely losing Whitner and Poz. Our defense will again be in the bottom of the league. We will keep Kelsay and Kyle Williams, but play them out of there natural positions. I expect another mediocre draft and no impact free agent signings. The good news is we may be picking high enough to get Luck and hopefully Buddy will get fired and a competent GM will be brought in.

 

The above is sad but all unfortunately true.

[clearwater cadet]

I like to make my self believe

[CosmicBills]

No, you'll take knee jerk reactions.

Okay, then explain to me, personnel wise, what moves Nix has made in his first 12 months (roughly) on the job that makes you feel he's anything but an inside hire?

 

Was it Green? Maybe it was the new Kelsay contract. Or maybe it was the bumbling of the Trent Edwards fiasco. Or perhaps it was the sheer failure to properly shop Marshawn before trading him? Was it the stellar drafting of Spiller at 9? Or maybe the total and complete failure to address the TE position. Or maybe it was the signing of an over the hill Davis. Or the drafting of Troup who looks more lost on the field more often than not. Maybe it was the fact that this team had more undrafted free agents make the team than any other in the NFL.

 

Oh, I got it. It was the four win season. That must be it.

 

You may call that a knee jerk reaction, I call that a solid foundation of evidence that he is in over his head in this job.

 

I should note that I don't agree with the OP's stance that this team is doomed regardless of who it picks in the first round. But I do agree that Buddy Nix's first year on the job was a clusterf*&k of epic proportions.

Edited January 11, 2011 by tgreg99

[freester]

Okay, then explain to me, personnel wise, what moves Nix has made in his first 12 months (roughly) on the job that makes you feel he's anything but an inside hire?

 

Was it Green? Maybe it was the new Kelsay contract. Or maybe it was the bumbling of the Trent Edwards fiasco. Or perhaps it was the sheer failure to properly shop Marshawn before trading him? Was it the stellar drafting of Spiller at 9? Or maybe the total and complete failure to address the TE position. Or maybe it was the signing of an over the hill Davis. Or the drafting of Troup who looks more lost on the field more often than not. Maybe it was the fact that this team had more undrafted free agents make the team than any other in the NFL.

 

Oh, I got it. It was the four win season. That must be it.

 

You may call that a knee jerk reaction, I call that a solid foundation of evidence that he is in over his head in this job.

 

I should note that I don't agree with the OP's stance that this team is doomed regardless of who it picks in the first round. But I do agree that Buddy Nix's first year on the job was a clusterf*&k of epic proportions.

I couldn't state it any better. The truth hurts. Unfortunately many posters are in denial and cling to naive optimism. We hired a DC with no experience and it showed.

[Dorkington]

I dunno, he has a bit of a point.

 

Poor first draft.

 

Bad decisions on the coaching front.

 

No real FA movement, other than signing someone who isn't healthy enough to play.

 

On any other team, we'd be laughing at their follies. But since Nix is a new member of the Bills, we blindly support him.

 

I mean, personally I think its a bit quick, I'd like to give the new guys 3 years to see some changes, but its not starting out well.

[Ozymandius]

Depends on Fitz. If he regresses or gets injured next season, Bills could very well be in position to get Luck.

 

Fitz will be in a very merit-based situation. If he plays well, the Bills have no shot to draft his replacement. But if not...

[Acantha]

Okay, then explain to me, personnel wise, what moves Nix has made in his first 12 months (roughly) on the job that makes you feel he's anything but an inside hire?

 

Was it Green? Maybe it was the new Kelsay contract. Or maybe it was the bumbling of the Trent Edwards fiasco. Or perhaps it was the sheer failure to properly shop Marshawn before trading him? Was it the stellar drafting of Spiller at 9? Or maybe the total and complete failure to address the TE position. Or maybe it was the signing of an over the hill Davis. Or the drafting of Troup who looks more lost on the field more often than not. Maybe it was the fact that this team had more undrafted free agents make the team than any other in the NFL.

 

Oh, I got it. It was the four win season. That must be it.

 

You may call that a knee jerk reaction, I call that a solid foundation of evidence that he is in over his head in this job.

 

I should note that I don't agree with the OP's stance that this team is doomed regardless of who it picks in the first round. But I do agree that Buddy Nix's first year on the job was a clusterf*&k of epic proportions.

I think your specifically trying to find the negative about every situation, and of course that paints a bad light. I see things differently, so I'm not going crazy.

 

Green: Bad pickup, but so what? Every team picks a dud every now and then. Does it make me think he's a great GM? No, but it doesn't make me think he's a bad one either. He's made other personel moves that I think were very good, so I believe he's capable of finding talent, but like everyone else, he's not 100%. The only way I think it's a negative is if they didn't pick up another RT in FA or the draft because they thought Green was the permanant answer. There's nothing to say that's the case, so...

 

Kelsay: I think there were positives and negatives to it, but probably more negative. Not a great move if the plan was to stay in the 3-4. In the 4-3, I think it's fine. He didn't make so much more that it's hindering the signing of other players. With the plan to stay in the 3-4, it was a bad move.

 

Trent: I think that move had more to do with Gailey, so I'm not sure why it keeps coming up, but I think it was handled perfectly. Hey, just my opinion. You have a coach that is known to get the most out of QB's, a QB that has shown flashes (breif) of talent and who plays very well in camp and pre-season. Why not give it a shot? That shot didn't last too long...it was just right. While you keep bringing this up as a huge negative, I think it was handled very well....by Gailey.

 

Spiller: Don't see a problem with the pick. But then again I don't have the pop tart mentalilty that so many seem to have about draft picks. Spiller isn't a bust...yet.

 

Ditto for Troupe. If you want to throw this out there in 2 years, go for it. I'll be willing to judge them then.

 

TE: The whole damn team needed/needs to be replaced and you're bringing up one position that wasn't addressed in his first year? Really?

 

Look, I'm not trying to say that Nix is the second coming, and given the Bills history and the challange of finding and excellent GM (most teams would want a better GM), chances are he'll fail. But he hasn't done so yet. And I'm sorry, but IMO anyone who makes sweeping decisions about a GM after one year on the job just doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

[CosmicBills]

I think your specifically trying to find the negative about every situation, and of course that paints a bad light. I see things differently, so I'm not going crazy.

 

Green: Bad pickup, but so what? Every team picks a dud every now and then. Does it make me think he's a great GM? No, but it doesn't make me think he's a bad one either. He's made other personel moves that I think were very good, so I believe he's capable of finding talent, but like everyone else, he's not 100%. The only way I think it's a negative is if they didn't pick up another RT in FA or the draft because they thought Green was the permanant answer. There's nothing to say that's the case, so...

 

Kelsay: I think there were positives and negatives to it, but probably more negative. Not a great move if the plan was to stay in the 3-4. In the 4-3, I think it's fine. He didn't make so much more that it's hindering the signing of other players. With the plan to stay in the 3-4, it was a bad move.

 

Trent: I think that move had more to do with Gailey, so I'm not sure why it keeps coming up, but I think it was handled perfectly. Hey, just my opinion. You have a coach that is known to get the most out of QB's, a QB that has shown flashes (breif) of talent and who plays very well in camp and pre-season. Why not give it a shot? That shot didn't last too long...it was just right. While you keep bringing this up as a huge negative, I think it was handled very well....by Gailey.

 

Spiller: Don't see a problem with the pick. But then again I don't have the pop tart mentalilty that so many seem to have about draft picks. Spiller isn't a bust...yet.

 

Ditto for Troupe. If you want to throw this out there in 2 years, go for it. I'll be willing to judge them then.

 

TE: The whole damn team needed/needs to be replaced and you're bringing up one position that wasn't addressed in his first year? Really?

 

Look, I'm not trying to say that Nix is the second coming, and given the Bills history and the challange of finding and excellent GM (most teams would want a better GM), chances are he'll fail. But he hasn't done so yet. And I'm sorry, but IMO anyone who makes sweeping decisions about a GM after one year on the job just doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

The Spiller pick isn't about him being a bust. It's about the philosophy behind the pick. You don't take a RB in round one. And you certainly don't take a RB in round one when you have 2 1,000 yard rushers already on the roster.

 

And despite all your defenses, you haven't pointed to one personnel move that was good ... give me specifics. Give me a player besides Edwards who you feel was an impact player in 2010 that Nix signed.

[K-9]

The Spiller pick isn't about him being a bust. It's about the philosophy behind the pick. You don't take a RB in round one. And you certainly don't take a RB in round one when you have 2 1,000 yard rushers already on the roster.

 

And despite all your defenses, you haven't pointed to one personnel move that was good ... give me specifics. Give me a player besides Edwards who you feel was an impact player in 2010 that Nix signed.

 

Who says you don't take an RB at #1?

 

Look at all the HOF RBs and tell me when they were drafted.

 

If you think a guy has that kind of talent, you take him. You may indeed be proved wrong but that's a different story, isn't it?

 

Yes. 1,000 yard RBs are a dime a dozen and can be found late in the draft or as FAs. But ELITE RBs are seldom found after the first round. Period.

 

The Bills thought and still think that Spiller is that one of a kind player. His college career suggested it and his player ranking before the draft certainly did as well. He may be a bust or he may become a perennial All Pro. Only time will tell.

 

Now is not that time.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[CosmicBills]

Who says you don't take an RB at #1?

 

Look at all the HOF RBs and tell me when they were drafted.

 

If you think a guy has that kind of talent, you take him. You may indeed be proved wrong but that's a different story, isn't it?

 

Yes. 1,000 yard RBs are a dime a dozen and can be found late in the draft or as FAs. But ELITE RBs are seldom found after the first round. Period.

 

The Bills thought and still think that Spiller is that one of a kind player. His college career suggested it and his player ranking before the draft certainly did as well. He may be a bust or he may become a perennial All Pro. Only time will tell.

 

Now is not that time.

 

GO BILLS!!!

This line of thinking sums up exactly the problem with Nix.

 

That is the old school method. What you fail to realize is the game has changed. The very rules of the game itself have changed. Gone are the days where an elite RB could carry a team with a good defense to a title. Gone are the days of teams putting the full rushing load on one RB.

 

You're living in the past.

Edited January 11, 2011 by tgreg99

[Acantha]

The Spiller pick isn't about him being a bust. It's about the philosophy behind the pick. You don't take a RB in round one. And you certainly don't take a RB in round one when you have 2 1,000 yard rushers already on the roster.

 

And despite all your defenses, you haven't pointed to one personnel move that was good ... give me specifics. Give me a player besides Edwards who you feel was an impact player in 2010 that Nix signed.

I disagree about draft philosophy, it's too general. If Adrian Peterson was there with our pick last season, (with the same level of DL and OL talent) you take him.

 

I think there's more to that than just who he brought in. Nix was dealing with a **** storm of a team and the worst free agency list in a decade. Before and during FA, there wasn't single player that I thought we HAD to get, or even should have given the full court press to. That being the case, I can't fault him for not bringing in impact players. Not to one of the worst teams in the league in what is at least perceived to be one of the worst cities in to play in. In a year with so few players the only way to bring people in to that situation is to WAY overpay. And following the Donahoe path to NFL greatness just doens't seem like a promising choice.

 

I agreed with most of the decisions he made about who stayed and who went (and I'm especially interested in this years decisions in that regard). Again, I agree that Kelsay wasn't a great move given the switch to the 3-4, but I also don't make judgements off of one move. I refuse to judge his draft yet, especially since he's known to be an excellent judge of college talent. Spiller, Troupe, and Carrington have time as far as I'm concerned,and if they turn out to be good picks, they're going to be excellent for the core of the team.

[CosmicBills]

I disagree about draft philosophy, it's too general. If Adrian Peterson was there with our pick last season, (with the same level of DL and OL talent) you take him.

Peterson is a great example. How many Super Bowls have the Vikings won with him? How many playoff games?

 

Peterson took the Vikings (who had a great O-Line) and made them respectable. But it wasn't until Favre got there that they became a Super Bowl contender.

 

It's the best possible example of how much the league has changed in the past ten years. It's NOT a running back league anymore. They have the shortest career span, they're costly, and their importance on the field have been diminished thanks to the rule changes that are designed to up scoring and passing numbers.

 

Holding on to the belief that the way teams used to win in the 70s, 80s, 90s or even 2001, is failure to see the big picture. And THAT is why the Spiller pick was so alarming from our 70 year old GM. It shows he is out of touch with how the game is won today. And his moves subsequent to that have only added more logs to that fire.

[C.Biscuit97]

This line of thinking sums up exactly the problem with Nix.

That is the old school method. What you fail to realize is the game has changed. The very rules of the game itself have changed. Gone are the days where an elite RB could carry a team with a good defense to a title. Gone are the days of teams putting the full rushing load on one RB.

 

You're living in the past.

 

Every remaining playoff team had a 1st round rb on their roster except the Pats (who drafted Maroney in the 1st several years ago), the Pack (who have a terrible rushing attack), & the Falcons (who gave a ton of $ to Turner).

[K-9]

This line of thinking sums up exactly the problem with Nix.

 

That is the old school method. What you fail to realize is the game has changed. The very rules of the game itself have changed. Gone are the days where an elite RB could carry a team with a good defense to a title. Gone are the days of teams putting the full rushing load on one RB.

 

You're living in the past.

 

I'm well aware of the rules changes to open up the passing game, thanks. Have been since the 70s when they moved in the hash marks to open up the field. Was there when they outlawed bump-and-run coverage and implemented the 5-yard chuck rule. No need to mention how the rules have changed to coddle the QBs.

 

That's all well and good but the rule changes did NOTHING to diminish the importance of being able to run the ball. Especially in cold, windy weather. They did nothing to change the idea that a balanced offense is preferable. Or that teams still need to stop the run as well.

 

All the liberalized passing rules did was make it easier for teams to pass. That's vastly different than rendering the running game and elite RB talent obsolete.

 

Hey, if I have a Manning or Brady I'm gonna let them manage the game and fire at will. But there aren't a lot of others I would allow to do that. So I'll thank you in advance to not point to them as the new status quo. They aren't. They're special.

 

You make it sound like teams would DELIBERATELY pass on Brown, Simpson, Campbell, Dickerson, Sanders, Smith, Tomlinson, Peterson, etc. simply because their once-in-a-generation-skills aren't needed in today's game. Or that placing a premium on stopping other teams from running the ball is now somehow not required.

 

In the absence of a Manning or Brady when a defense can make your offense one-dimensional they can dictate. Teams that dictate usually win.

 

The running game is either important or it's not. If you think it is then common sense says when you can get a once in a lifetime talent to run the ball, then you do.

 

If the running game is NOT important as you suggest, then why is it so important to a team's success to be able to STOP it?

 

I may be living in the past. But the past is prologue, especially in pro football, where balance is STILL preferable. Always will be that way whether you appreciate that or not.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited January 11, 2011 by K-9

[CosmicBills]

I'm well aware of the rules changes to open up the passing game, thanks. Have been since the 70s when they moved in the hash marks to open up the field. Was there when they outlawed bump-and-run coverage and implemented the 5-yard chuck rule. No need to mention how the rules have changed to coddle the QBs.

 

That's all well and good but the rule changes did NOTHING to diminish the importance of being able to run the ball. Especially in cold, windy weather. They did nothing to change the idea that a balanced offense is preferable. Or that teams still need to stop the run as well.

 

All the liberalized passing rules did was make it easier for teams to pass. That's vastly different than rendering the running game and elite RB talent obsolete.

 

Hey, if I have a Manning or Brady I'm gonna let them manage the game and fire at will. But there aren't a lot of others I would allow to do that. So I'll thank you in advance to not point to them as the new status quo. They aren't. They're special.

 

You make it sound like teams would DELIBERATELY pass on Brown, Simpson, Campbell, Dickerson, Sanders, Smith, Tomlinson, Peterson, etc. simply because their once-in-a-generation-skills aren't needed in today's game. Or that placing a premium on stopping other teams from running the ball is now somehow not required.

 

In the absence of a Manning or Brady when a defense can make your offense one-dimensional they can dictate. Teams that dictate usually win.

 

The running game is either important or it's not. If you think it is then common sense says when you can get a once in a lifetime talent to run the ball, then you do.

 

If the running game is NOT important as you suggest, then why is it so important to a team's success to be able to STOP it?

 

I may be living in the past. But the past is prologue, especially in pro football, where balance is STILL preferable. Always will be that way whether you appreciate that or not.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Again, you're missing the main point. It's subtle, and complex which is why it goes over a lot of heads. And why the best GMs in the league have learned to master it and the likes of the Bills have not.

 

The point is not that the running game is obsolete. I've never once said that. It's not even that a running game is not important. It's that the value of a RB to a team has lessened due to the financial constraints facing a modern franchise, a RB's inherent short shelf life, and the abundance of talent at the position.

 

It used to be that you run to establish the pass. This was the rule as recently as 2000. It's now more and more that you pass to set up the run. Meaning that teams are no longer reliant upon a workhorse RB to pave the way for the offense. In fact, it's financially irresponsible for owners and coaches to build their teams in such a manner. Why? Because of the cost and cap space.

 

You cannot win with just an elite running game. You have to have a franchise QB and a passing game to match. You will no longer see a "game manager" winning a Super Bowl. Even in the last 10 years that has been the rare exception, not the rule.

 

RBs have the shortest careers of any position by and large in the NFL. The wheels tend to fall off after 30, or even sooner depending on the mileage built up in college and their pro career. The smart teams started moving away from drafting first round RBs this past decade and opting for the cheaper 2 back approach which they discovered was not only just as effective as one stud back, but also more cost efficient. Allowing them to spend the money where it's needed in today's NFL. Namely: QB, LT, DE, and DB. Those are the money positions now. RB is not. What this did is have a ripple effect, meaning that since RBs weren't valued as highly as they once were, there were more talented RBs available through other means OTHER than the first round. Look at MJD. You can argue he's up there with AP in terms of numbers and talent -- and yet they found him in the 2nd round. Jackson was found in the NFL Europe stock pile. With teams valuing RBs less, the best course of action is to follow suit NOT to buck the trend.

 

The only teams who take a first round RB are the ones who are one player away from a Super Bowl. Sometimes not even then. Again, look at Peterson. Peterson is as skilled as any of those backs you mention. He is, undoubtedly, the best RB in the game (sorry Chris Johnson). Yet even he is not capable of leading the Vikings to a Super Bowl. It took a QB to do that. Does that mean Minnesota was wrong to draft him? Maybe not. But look at the mess they're in now. They have no QB, they have a suspect line. Their window is closing. And AP is not getting younger. By the time they reload, he could well be past his prime (and also far more expensive to keep).

 

Again, this isn't a philosophy. This isn't even new. This is how the league is run. The fans who don't see this are the ones who aren't paying attention or who think the game is the same as it was even 5 years ago. It ain't. And when your brand new GM comes in and inherits a team with multiple gaping holes, the last thing he can afford to do is waste a valuable draft pick.

 

I said it at the draft and I'll say it again. No matter HOW good CJ becomes, even if he becomes a Hall of Famer, it was the wrong pick because the cost benefit of it won't match the production.

 

I'll put it to you another way. In the past decade or so, the Bills have spent 5 high draft picks on RBs: Smith, Henry (2nd round), Willis, Lynch and now Spiller. During that same span, how many times have the Bills made the playoffs? It's not a coincidence. This team doesn't seem to realize what the best teams in the league do -- the game has changed.

Edited January 11, 2011 by tgreg99

[xsoldier54]

Purged Cornell Green after signing him in the first place. And purged Edwards after entrusting him with the starting job in OTAs. And Andre Davis was less than spectacular this season.

 

There's nothing on that list that I feel validates Nix whatsoever.

 

His first draft and free agent pool, the only real measuring sticks for a GM, were disasters. Outside of Moats and possibly Easley, the draft failed to produce a single play maker. It also failed to address the serious and multiple needs on this team. He reached for Troup, he reached for Spiller, he overpaid for Green, Davis didn't deliver any semblance of stability in the LB corps. This team had so many holes that a blind man throwing darts at a draft board could have had better success in the off season last year than Nix and company did.

 

Nix was an uninspired and incestious hire. Those who feel otherwise are smitten by down home southern accents and posturing. But me, I'll take results.

Well I think your post is totally incestious. Not only that but your sister is your mother(incestuous).

[CosmicBills]

Well I think your post is totally incestious. Not only that but your sister is your mother(incestuous).