good news we still can draft Andrew Luck

[BADOLBILZ]

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).

 

 

 

There is only one..........ONE.......1000 yard rusher left in the playoffs that was drafted in the first round by that team.

 

Rashard Mendenhall of Pittsburgh

 

The rest of those first round backs were drafted elsewhere.............MEANING THAT TEAM DIDN'T BURN THEIR FIRST ROUND PICK ON THEM

 

I mean......does Marshawn Lynch scoring a TD in the playoffs for Seattle somehow vindicate the Bills use of a first round pick on him???? Your take is idiotic as usual.

Edited January 11, 2011 by BADOLBILZ

[Buffalo Barbarian]

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.

 

We shall see, if he messes up this draft I'll be off board. the Spiller pick was/is terrible and better do it right this time or he will retiring and we will get Luck. Either way it will be good.

[EastRochBillsfan]

And the ' Ignore ' list continues to grow...

 

I wish I could put people on my ignore list.......but then there wouldn't be too much to read around here.

 

 

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.

Well said

[K-9]

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.

 

I appreciate the amount of thought and effort you put into your response. But you way over think it.

 

There is nothing subtle and complex or even that nuanced about football. It just ain't that complicated.

 

While the rest of us simpletons can only hope to grasp the least of what you and this select group of GMs have to say on the matter, we'll just have to content ourselves with the knowledge that there is NOTHING NEW in what you postulate other than the notion that one who goes on to have an HOF career will have NOT justified his selection in the draft NOR the cost of his production. It's been awhile that I've read such dressed up crap and I give you points for the effort but it's pure BS.

 

Suffice to say this: for the 45 years I've been around football, the run has been used to set up the pass and the pass to set up the run. Using the pass to set up the run is NOTHING new. Using the pass as an extension of your running game is NOTHING new. Unless you consider the play action, the draw play,and the screen pass (to name a few) as new innovations.

 

I am also content in the fact that as long as there are those once in a generation RBs like Peterson, et al, that GMs across the league (with apologies to you and that elite few who know better) will continue to gobble them up with high first round picks because play makers i.e. GAME CHANGERS, are rare indeed.

 

I'll just leave you with this thought: if the running game has taken on less significance the last 10 years, then why is it that DCs STILL make that the focal point of their game plans? Why is the emphasis on STOPPING the run still as much a critical goal than ever before?

 

And if it's just as important to STOP the run as it ever was then it is just as important to be able TO RUN as well. And it it's just important to be able to run then the need for that once in a lifetime RB is there as well. That will NEVER change.

 

And that's why the VALUE of the RB, especially the elite RBs, will never diminish.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited January 11, 2011 by K-9

[Acantha]

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.

Wait, do you mean it takes more than a RB to go deep in the playoffs? Gasp!

AP won games for the Vikes, pretty much by himself. Of course they got better when they brought in a better QB...OF COURSE! This isn't rocket surgery! Favre wouldn't have done it by himself either. It takes a good line and playmakers all over the offense to win big, and Nix/Gailey didn't want to pass up on that playmaker at RB. I have no delusions of years gone by and RB's leading the way. I have a very real undertanding that it takes a whole team to win, and a whole team isn't built in one year, especially for a team like the Bills over a crappy FA period.

[C.Biscuit97]

There is only one..........ONE.......1000 yard rusher left in the playoffs that was drafted in the first round by that team.

 

Rashard Mendenhall of Pittsburgh

 

The rest of those first round backs were drafted elsewhere.............MEANING THAT TEAM DIDN'T BURN THEIR FIRST ROUND PICK ON THEM

 

I mean......does Marshawn Lynch scoring a TD in the playoffs for Seattle somehow vindicate the Bills use of a first round pick on him???? Your take is idiotic as usual.

 

I love how tough people post and can't even get their facts straight. Genius, Matt Forte was a 1st rounder & 1,000 yard rusher for the Bears.

 

The Seahwaks were willing to trade 2 picks for guy with 2 strikes because he had 1st round talent.

 

The Ravens traded to make Willis their feature back & paid him a ton of money.

 

Former 1st rounder LDT outperformed 3rd rounder Greene.

 

Turner was nearly moved for a 1st & 3rd before AJ Smith decided to keep him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Turner_(American_football)

 

But can you please give more of your scouting report of how Aaron Rodgers will never be as good as JP Losman? Idiot.

[Trader]

Here's how we get Andrew Luck.

 

We trade down 3 times in the first round. to #7, to #11 and to somehwere in the 20's.

 

We get an extra 2nd round pick each time, plus an extra 4th for the 3rd trade.

 

The we trade the extra 2nd round picks for 1st next year. As a result, we would have 3 first round picks next year. Plus we try to make some other deals and pick up extra picks in the later rounds next year.

 

We then trade out 3 first rounds, some other picks and player for the 1st overall pick

 

see easy, then we draft Luck next year!

Actually you have outlined a strategy similar to New England's that has appeared to work fairly well. How about instead we draft a cornerback, Wide receiver and a running back 1,2,3, then use the middle rounds to take some division 3 players then sign some tight ends in free agency that can't run or block.

 

It appears to me that they are doing just fine in the Andrew Luck race. The Bills might even be the favorites in Vegas to win the Luck lottery.

[CosmicBills]

I appreciate the amount of thought and effort you put into your response. But you way over think it.

 

There is nothing subtle and complex or even that nuanced about football. It just ain't that complicated.

 

While the rest of us simpletons can only hope to grasp the least of what you and this select group of GMs have to say on the matter, we'll just have to content ourselves with the knowledge that there is NOTHING NEW in what you postulate other than the notion that one who goes on to have an HOF career will have NOT justified his selection in the draft NOR the cost of his production. It's been awhile that I've read such dressed up crap and I give you points for the effort but it's pure BS.

 

Suffice to say this: for the 45 years I've been around football, the run has been used to set up the pass and the pass to set up the run. Using the pass to set up the run is NOTHING new. Using the pass as an extension of your running game is NOTHING new. Unless you consider the play action, the draw play,and the screen pass (to name a few) as new innovations.

 

I am also content in the fact that as long as there are those once in a generation RBs like Peterson, et al, that GMs across the league (with apologies to you and that elite few who know better) will continue to gobble them up with high first round picks because play makers i.e. GAME CHANGERS, are rare indeed.

 

I'll just leave you with this thought: if the running game has taken on less significance the last 10 years, then why is it that DCs STILL make that the focal point of their game plans? Why is the emphasis on STOPPING the run still as much a critical goal than ever before?

 

And if it's just as important to STOP the run as it ever was then it is just as important to be able TO RUN as well. And it it's just important to be able to run then the need for that once in a lifetime RB is there as well. That will NEVER change.

 

And that's why the VALUE of the RB, especially the elite RBs, will never diminish.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Despite all that, you're still missing the point. Which makes it even more hilarious. It's about value. Economics. And how to build a championship team. Not a team that goes 8-8, 10-6 or even 12-4 and doesn't win a ring. You may think football isn't nuanced but that just shows how little you understand what it takes to build a championship team in any professional sport -- especially football. Look at the road blocks to your success: you're dealing with not only competing against the best 31 teams in the world, but also with a stifling salary cap, a league designed to promote parity, a draft that rewards failure and punishes success, average careers lasting less than 4 years -- you don't have time or room to approach it as anything but a complex and cerebral enterprise.

 

You say the value of the RB will never diminish. But it already has. Just look at the facts. When is the last time a team won a Super Bowl with an elite RB carrying the bulk of the load and a "game management" type passing game? 2001? 10 years ago. Which correlates with some drastic rule changes regarding DBs ability to cover WRs ... but that's just a coincidence, right? Prior to that you see far more elite backs dominating the list of Super Bowl winning teams. What was once the rule is now the exception. And you're going to stand by your belief that the value of having a super star RB has remained constant?

 

Put it another way. If everyone in the world was given a Porsche at birth worth $50,000, would you ever buy a Porsche for $100,000? How hard would you laugh at the sucker who buys a Porsche for 100k in that world? Now look at the Bills. They've spent 5 high draft picks over the past 10 years on elite RB prospects. Some of whom made Pro Bowls. Some of whom had potential to be super stars. They did this at the expense of upgrading the more important positions on the field in the modern NFL. Meanwhile, the best RBs to play during this playoff-less decade were found in the NFL scrap heaps. The result of these debacles and this failure to understand how to properly build a winning team is the mess that they currently find themselves in. And yes, the rest of the league is laughing at us too. And deservedly so. This team is so far astray and so poorly managed it's borderline criminal.

 

But keep on clinging to your notion that the game isn't complex and ever evolving. Go on thinking that you can win a Super Bowl with one elite back that ties up a large percentage of your limited cap. I'm sure it'll all work out just fine. It is just a game of people running into each other after all. Any idiot can do it.

Edited January 12, 2011 by tgreg99

[K-9]

Despite all that, you're still missing the point. Which makes it even more hilarious. It's about value. Economics. And how to build a championship team. Not a team that goes 8-8, 10-6 or even 12-4 and doesn't win a ring. You may think football isn't nuanced but that just shows how little you understand what it takes to build a championship team in any professional sport -- especially football. Look at the road blocks to your success: your dealing with not only competing against the best 31 teams in the world, but also with a stifling salary cap, a league designed to promote parity, a draft that rewards failure and punishes success, average careers lasting less than 4 years -- you don't have time or room to approach it as anything but a complex and cerebral enterprise.

 

You say the value of the RB will never diminish. But it already has. Just look at the facts. When is the last time a team won a Super Bowl with an elite RB carrying the bulk of the load and a "game management" type passing game? 2001? 10 years ago. Which correlates with some drastic rule changes regarding DBs ability to cover WRs ... but that's just a coincidence, right? Prior to that you see far more elite backs dominating the list of Super Bowl winning teams. What was once the rule is now the exception. And you're going to stand by your belief that the value of having a super star RB has remained constant?

 

Put it another way. If everyone in the world was given a Porsche at birth worth $50,000, would you ever buy a Porsche for $100,000? How hard would you laugh at the sucker who buys a Porsche for 100k in that world? Now look at the Bills. They've spent 5 high draft picks over the past 10 years on elite RB prospects. Some of whom made Pro Bowls. Some of whom had potential to be super stars. They did this at the expense of upgrading the more important positions on the field in the modern NFL. Meanwhile, the best RBs to play during this playoff-less decade were found in the NFL scrap heaps. The result of these debacles and this failure to understand how to properly build a winning team is the mess that they currently find themselves in.

 

But keep on clinging to your notion that the game isn't complex and ever evolving. Go on thinking that you can win a Super Bowl with one elite back that ties up a large percentage of your limited cap. I'm sure it'll all work out just fine. It is just a game of people running into each other after all. Any idiot can do it.

 

Here is the EXACT order of importance of position in the NFL:

 

1.) QB

2.) DE

3.) LT (assuming your QB is right handed)

4.) RB

5.) WR

 

2-5 are DIRECTLY related to number 1. But ALL positions on the field are important. Football relies on team work and unified execution more than any other team sport so understand that EVERY position is vital. You seem to make the mistake of equating the "cap" allotment for a position with a team's perceived "value" of the position. Doesn't work that way.

 

Assembling a team is NOT a linear process.

 

I'm glad you find football such a complex game. Let's see.. there's football, splitting the atom, and rocket surgery (the last was a DELIBERATELY mixed metaphor. I point that out because us simpletons seem to have to explain EVERYTHING to you geniuses). Football can be elegant. But it's a SIMPLE exercise.

 

Before you go off on another of your condescending, contradictory, and convoluted posting rants, you may want to acquaint yourself with the history of the league a bit more. Actually speak to people involved in the game. Particularly coaches. Get their perspective before you accuse them of being oblivious to this new football paradigm you seem to think exists. Oh, and look up the word "cyclical" as you gain an understanding of the game's "evolution."

 

In the meantime PLEASE do all you can to get a job as GM of the Patriots or Jets. It would be great if they were managed by someone who thinks that a player who goes on to have an HOF career would NOT have been worth the cost.

 

That's priceless. Thanks for the laugh.

 

GO BILLS!!!