Nix Doesnt believe it trading down

[San Jose Bills Fan]

In reality, more teams are trying to trade down than trade up. The rookie salary structure is so out of line that there is better value with a lower pick than there is with a very cap expensive early pick.

 

There are many contentious issues in the CBA negotiations. The rookie salary structure is one area where both sides' interest coincide.

The bolded is true.

 

But as happens in collective bargaining, few things are ever publicly agreed upon.

 

For the record, the NFLPA is stating that they are against a revised rookie salary structure which would lower the cost of signing high number one picks.

 

Even if they are secretly in favor of such a revised rookie cap, saying that they are against it gives them the opportunity to "give in" on the issue in exchange for something else.

 

Ahhh, the silly ritual dance of collective bargaining.

Edited March 1, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan

[Billy in 4C]

the Bills wouldn't be interested in trading the third pick unless the player they covet is gone once the Bills are on the clock. Nix noted he doesn't believe in moving down. That indicates the Bills will not shop the pick.

 

I noticed this in another article about Newton and the Bills interest in him.

http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/26454/is-buffalo-blowing-smoke-on-cam-newton

 

I cant believe a guy who wants to build through the draft and is a confident drafter wouldnt want to add more picks by trading down.

 

You guys aren't paying attention. Last year Nix said that he does not know how to trade down, so he does not do it. It's not his unwillingness to move, it is his lack of understanding of the process that deters him from making a decision outside of his expertise.

 

I'm not sure what is worse - I would suggest that it is the latter and not the former.

[djrocks]

So far, Nix has turned a 7-9 team into a 4 -12 team, with holes all over the place.

 

Nix is on the clock, as this is his 2nd draft.

yea your right he is responsible for the failed picks of dick juron and Marv,give me a break, just unreal!

[Bob in STL]

the Bills wouldn't be interested in trading the third pick unless the player they covet is gone once the Bills are on the clock. Nix noted he doesn't believe in moving down. That indicates the Bills will not shop the pick.

 

I noticed this in another article about Newton and the Bills interest in him.

http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/26454/is-buffalo-blowing-smoke-on-cam-newton

 

I cant believe a guy who wants to build through the draft and is a confident drafter wouldnt want to add more picks by trading down.

 

Some of that talk is Buddy being Buddy.

 

The part of Nix's statement that is most puzzling is why would a guy that is at least 8 starters away from a contender in the AFCE (upgrades are needed to RT, TE, QB, C, DE, DT, OLB, ILB and now S) not want more picks? The player they covet at #3 is going to fill exactly 1 hole. In the case of Spiller last year they did not even accomplish that.

 

Jimmy johnson built the Cowboys by trading for more picks. The pats* are always acquiring extra picks. Not saying Buddy should trade the #3 pick, just saying his tendancy to make blanket statements makes him sound a bit silly. Then again, he told us from the very beginning that he has never been the smartest guy in the room.

[Alphadawg7]

the Bills wouldn't be interested in trading the third pick unless the player they covet is gone once the Bills are on the clock. Nix noted he doesn't believe in moving down. That indicates the Bills will not shop the pick.

 

I noticed this in another article about Newton and the Bills interest in him.

http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/26454/is-buffalo-blowing-smoke-on-cam-newton

 

I cant believe a guy who wants to build through the draft and is a confident drafter wouldnt want to add more picks by trading down.

 

Here is he reality of the situation...

 

1. You rarely see trade downs from this high of a spot because of the ridiculous cost for a team to trade up to #3.

 

2. If there is guy worth trading so much to get, then the team that EARNED the #3 spot almost certainly needs a player of that caliber, so why would you pass on such an Elite player on a team void of Elite talent?

 

3. No GM ever believs they will be picking this high again for a long time. Picking in the top 10, especially the top 5 is what they view as a rare chance to get an exceptional prospect.

 

So, trading down from #3 makes little sense from a logical stand point. Unless someone just blows us away with trade value and we can trade back to a spot (like within a few picks of where we are at) where a player we covet can most likely still be had, then it makes sense. Outside of that, trading down from #3 or the top 5 in general doesn't make a whole lot of sense the majority of the time, so his philosphy doesnt surprise me at all and is probably the same one shared by the majority of the FO's in the NFL.

 

Some of that talk is Buddy being Buddy.

 

The part of Nix's statement that is most puzzling is why would a guy that is at least 8 starters away from a contender in the AFCE (upgrades are needed to RT, TE, QB, C, DE, DT, OLB, ILB and now S) not want more picks? The player they covet at #3 is going to fill exactly 1 hole. In the case of Spiller last year they did not even accomplish that.

 

Jimmy johnson built the Cowboys by trading for more picks. The pats* are always acquiring extra picks. Not saying Buddy should trade the #3 pick, just saying his tendancy to make blanket statements makes him sound a bit silly. Then again, he told us from the very beginning that he has never been the smartest guy in the room.

 

Jimmy Johnson built the Cowboys by trading Herschel Walker for a bounty of picks...not by trading down and picking up an extra mid round pick and a lower first round pick.

 

NE builds their team trading away LATE first round picks and their late 2nd round picks, not trading away top 10 picks.

 

Picking at #3 represents a chance to draft an ELITE prospect...trading down from the 23rd pick in the draft to get extra seconds is not even close to trading away from an Elite prospect in the top 5 to take a chance on some 2nd round prospects...

Edited March 1, 2011 by Alphadawg7

[KOKBILLS]

Thank you. I don't get the crippling fear of losing out on the guy you've targeted. You can't tell me Spiller was the only player in last year's draft worthy of a first-round selection. Marv said similar things after drafting Whitner (he admitted they had an offer on the table, but they thought the team was trading up to get Whitner, so they said no). Now, I get it if it's one just spectacular talent that you can't believe is there. In that case, go ahead and sprint up to the podium, like Washington did when they drafted Orakpo. But if you're going to do that, you'd better be right. Washington looks smart for sprinting to draft Orakpo. Buffalo looks dumb for sprinting to draft Spiller (not to mention Troup and Carrington).

 

And if it's just the top guy on your board, it doesn't hurt to take 5 minutes and see if the phone rings, or even make a couple of calls yourself.

 

Well in the case of Whitner had they held tight to Draft Ngata THEN I'd say Marv would have had a point...

[Kurt Warner]

I think many of you are missing the point of this thread...It's not about whether or not The Bills will have a viable trade down option...It's about the fact that, apparently, our GM has gone on record saying he does not believe in trading down...I think that's pretty significant because if that is in fact his philosophy, I for one STRONGLY disagree with it...If he's just throwing out smoke screens it's still a strange thing to say...Not believing in trading down tells me the guy does not trust his Scouting Staff much...It's a dumb statement if you ask me...And no one did btw...

 

I agree 100% and hope he's just smoke screening. When you see how successful the Pats have been at trading down and obtaining additional picks how can you say you won't consider it? Especially this year when there are no consensus early picks. If someone wants Newton bad and you don't, TRADE DOWN. Don't rush and take someone who will be there at 10 anyway. This draft is so important to Nix because he did miss on the first one. I know people will say give Spiller a chance and we will, however, there were many better options and I am pretty convinced he won't be a rb worthy of #9 overall.

[CosmicBills]

I agree 100% and hope he's just smoke screening. When you see how successful the Pats have been at trading down and obtaining additional picks how can you say you won't consider it? Especially this year when there are no consensus early picks. If someone wants Newton bad and you don't, TRADE DOWN. Don't rush and take someone who will be there at 10 anyway. This draft is so important to Nix because he did miss on the first one. I know people will say give Spiller a chance and we will, however, there were many better options and I am pretty convinced he won't be a rb worthy of #9 overall.

Because Nix is a relic. A dinosaur. The game has changed. The way teams are built has changed. The Pats get it. The Bills don't.

[Kelly the Dog]

Because Nix is a relic. A dinosaur. The game has changed. The way teams are built has changed. The Pats get it. The Bills don't.

I'm so sick of hearing how the Pats get it. They trade down and trade down and trade away, and then they never really cash in. Last year was the first year they have had a decent draft in 5 years. The pats are good because of Brady, their ridiculous coaching, and signing FAs. Their drafts are pretty average at best, especially considering what they go into the draft with.

 

http://www.fftoday.com/nfl/drafttracker.php?o=by_team&TeamID=9003

[Thoner7]

There's not a "fair to good" chance Spiller would have been on the board later on. He was a consensus top 10 pick, and SD took Matthews at #12.

 

Exactly, we could have taken Spiller after the Chargers took Mathews. Do you really think the Chargers were going to take Spiller to replace LT? Especially when they have Sproles already? Face it, a lot of teams shy away from players who cant play every down, and Spiller is one of those players. Do you really think a team that drafts like the Chargers do was going to take a gummick "water bug" RB?

 

 

I respect your opinion and feel it's a decent argument to make, especially with the recent success of late round or undrafted RBs such as Arian Foster or Ryan Grant. However, I feel your argument that the devaluation of the RB position by "elite" teams is greatly exaggerated as recent Super Bowl teams such as New Orleans (Bush), Indianapolis (D Brown & J Addai) and most recently Pittsburgh (Mendenhall) have all taken RBs with their top picks.

 

Also, as seen earlier in the thread, it was less of a proclamation and more of a sentence taken out of context.

 

So you have 1 half-bust who is a back up (bush) 2 former 1st round picks who have never been that great (D Brown and Addai) and did almost nothing to help them win the SB, and one guy (mendenhall) who plays for the Steelers who routinely use 3 RBs and have for years.

 

So yea, RBs are not that important. The last team a real run-heavy 1 RB team won the SB was what, the Broncos in '98? They had a HOF QB too.

[CodeMonkey]

There's not a "fair to good" chance Spiller would have been on the board later on. He was a consensus top 10 pick, and SD took Matthews at #12.

 

 

Exactly, we could have taken Spiller after the Chargers took Mathews. Do you really think the Chargers were going to take Spiller to replace LT? Especially when they have Sproles already? Face it, a lot of teams shy away from players who cant play every down, and Spiller is one of those players. Do you really think a team that drafts like the Chargers do was going to take a gummick "water bug" RB?

I agree with Thoner here. There was a decent chance Spiller would have still been on the board and they could have gotten more much needed help. And as far as I am concerned, having Spiller off the board at that point would have been a plus for the Bills but that's another discussion . All this assumes of course that someone would have made Nix a good offer for the #9 pick. But my gripe is Nix was so closed minded he didn't even give it a chance.

[Scraps]

With all due respect, Some returning defensive players from '09 had a significant fall-off in performance in 2010.

 

Yeah and the switch from a 4-3 to something none of these players were suited for had nothing to do with that fall-off.

[JohnC]

The bolded is true.

 

But as happens in collective bargaining, few things are ever publicly agreed upon.

 

For the record, the NFLPA is stating that they are against a revised rookie salary structure which would lower the cost of signing high number one picks.

 

Even if they are secretly in favor of such a revised rookie cap, saying that they are against it gives them the opportunity to "give in" on the issue in exchange for something else.

 

Ahhh, the silly ritual dance of collective bargaining.

 

It could be worse. If negotiations were held in Wisconsin the governor would enter the room with a steamroller and try to crush the party sitting on the other side of the table.

 

The below link indicates that the owners lost one of their bargaining chips of money in reserve with their unfair practice of using TV revenue during a lockout. Ultimately, dueling attorneys will only get you a stalemate. The parties need to get out of the courtroom and back at the negotiating tabel.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81e8ec2b/article/judge-rules-nfl-violated-agreement-with-union-in-tv-deals?module=HP_headlines

[Scraps]

Why is switching to a 3-4 arrogant? We got a new staff, and they decided they didn't like the old system and wanted to run a new system. It takes a bit to get all the pieces in place. It's not as if we had a good defense before and Nix/Gailey tore that all apart.

GB switched from a 4-3 to a 3-4 and was horrific on defense in 2009. Their only saving grace was a top notch offense.

 

Why switch at all? Lack of ability on the part of the coaching staff? Why not fit the scheme to the talent you have on hand?

[Kurt Warner]

I'm so sick of hearing how the Pats get it. They trade down and trade down and trade away, and then they never really cash in. Last year was the first year they have had a decent draft in 5 years. The pats are good because of Brady, their ridiculous coaching, and signing FAs. Their drafts are pretty average at best, especially considering what they go into the draft with.

 

http://www.fftoday.com/nfl/drafttracker.php?o=by_team&TeamID=9003

 

That's a great link. By the way - I don't mean the Pats are perfect and hit on everything but they do pretty well considering where they have been drafting the past ten years. They are good at stockpiling picks so they have more chances to hit, especially the past two years. I just use them for an example. Plus, how often in our own history have we traded up to draft a controversial pick and someone else gets the advantage? JP Losman, for example, who was never accurate enough in college and was his problem in the nfl. Whay don't we do it to someone else for a change? I think the Cowboys made out pretty well on the Losman deal.

[Scraps]

There's not a "fair to good" chance Spiller would have been on the board later on. He was a consensus top 10 pick, and SD took Matthews at #12.

 

And Spiller was sooooo helpful in 2010. Well err no, he didn't show much of anything. But we didn't need help anywhere else on this team. Surrrrre. Riiiiiiight.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Scraps

[billsfan89]

Don't believe anything you hear about a GM in accordance to the draft. Its all a smokescreen don't believe anything you hear.

[BillsVet]

tg, my man! I've got to give you credit for sticking to your philosophical guns but RBs have not been devalued. Here is the order of importance (value) of position in the NFL and it has been for a long time.

 

1.) QB

2.) DE that can bring pressure by himself

3.) LT

4.) RB

5.) WR

 

7 years ago Washington traded Champ Bailey for Clinton Portis. Who's gotten the better of that deal? Portis has been ineffective and was cut this week; Bailey was re-signed because he's still a very good CB. RB remains the easiest position to acclimate to in the NFL (unless you're the 9th overall pick) and found in abundance. Only the Bills spend multiple first round picks on them.

 

Because #1 I want to, #2 they wasted resources, #3 they wasted time in the middle of the season to morph again.

 

I haven't mentioned the fact that they ignored areas of need in the 2010 draft because of the switch either. O-line anybody? Spiller? yeah, they're doing fine.

 

If the plan is hybrid shouldn't that have been the plan from day 1? Why switch? Because they figured out that they had screwed up. (a wasted season)

 

Talk all you want about playoffs and how 'ass' the team is/was. They weren't put into the best position to win games. End of story.

 

I realize that you'll never see things the same way as I so I'll now step aside and hope that they don't screw up this offseason.

 

A freaking men.

 

This franchise has no vision, on or off the field, for where it wants to be in 3-5 years. Seems every year is the next one year plan.

[K-9]

7 years ago Washington traded Champ Bailey for Clinton Portis. Who's gotten the better of that deal? Portis has been ineffective and was cut this week; Bailey was re-signed because he's still a very good CB. RB remains the easiest position to acclimate to in the NFL (unless you're the 9th overall pick) and found in abundance. Only the Bills spend multiple first round picks on them. ...

 

RB has ALWAYS been the easiest position to acclimate to in the NFL. So what. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with my post. And your Bailey/Portis reference has even less to do with it than that. But thanks anyway.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Bob in STL]

Here is he reality of the situation...

 

1. You rarely see trade downs from this high of a spot because of the ridiculous cost for a team to trade up to #3.

 

2. If there is guy worth trading so much to get, then the team that EARNED the #3 spot almost certainly needs a player of that caliber, so why would you pass on such an Elite player on a team void of Elite talent?

 

3. No GM ever believs they will be picking this high again for a long time. Picking in the top 10, especially the top 5 is what they view as a rare chance to get an exceptional prospect.

 

So, trading down from #3 makes little sense from a logical stand point. Unless someone just blows us away with trade value and we can trade back to a spot (like within a few picks of where we are at) where a player we covet can most likely still be had, then it makes sense. Outside of that, trading down from #3 or the top 5 in general doesn't make a whole lot of sense the majority of the time, so his philosphy doesnt surprise me at all and is probably the same one shared by the majority of the FO's in the NFL.

 

 

 

Jimmy Johnson built the Cowboys by trading Herschel Walker for a bounty of picks...not by trading down and picking up an extra mid round pick and a lower first round pick.

 

NE builds their team trading away LATE first round picks and their late 2nd round picks, not trading away top 10 picks.

 

Picking at #3 represents a chance to draft an ELITE prospect...trading down from the 23rd pick in the draft to get extra seconds is not even close to trading away from an Elite prospect in the top 5 to take a chance on some 2nd round prospects...

 

 

The Walker deal is not what I was talking aboiut. Johnson traded down often.

 

The Pats* acquire picks from any position and in way possible. They understand the odds and their draft board evaluation has put Buffalo's to shame for over ten years and counting.

 

For Nix to say he "does not believe in trading down" is just a little bit strange but typical of Buddy.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Bob in STL

[Acantha]

For Nix to say he "does not believe in trading down" is just a little bit strange but typical of Buddy.

Except Nix never said that, unless there's a link you can provide.

[Scraps]

RB has ALWAYS been the easiest position to acclimate to in the NFL. So what. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with my post. And your Bailey/Portis reference has even less to do with it than that. But thanks anyway.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

You are making his point.

[K-9]

You are making his point.

 

And what point is that exactly? That RB is the easiest position to acclimate to? Always has been. I'd be making his point if my original post had ANYTHING to do with that assertion. It didn't. BV's response to my post was completely non-related to the point I was making.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Bob in STL]

Except Nix never said that, unless there's a link you can provide.

 

 

Read the link that the OP provided. Here is some text from it:

 

 

On the first point, Nix seemed to shoot down that possibility when saying the Bills wouldn't be interested in trading the third pick unless the player they covet is gone once the Bills are on the clock. Nix noted he doesn't believe in moving down. That indicates the Bills will not shop the pick.

[Acantha]

Read the link that the OP provided. Here is some text from it:

 

 

On the first point, Nix seemed to shoot down that possibility when saying the Bills wouldn't be interested in trading the third pick unless the player they covet is gone once the Bills are on the clock. Nix noted he doesn't believe in moving down. That indicates the Bills will not shop the pick.

Check the link that's referenced in that article, or my post in this thread. He doesn't actually say that.

[San-O]

With all due respect, Some returning defensive players from '09 had a significant fall-off in performance in 2010.

 

 

Very true. Nix needs to turn this team into a decent 8-8 team, solid all around IMO. I think saying you don't believe in trading down shows some inflexibility and perhaps a lack of being reality about how far off this team is.

[San-O]

I personally think that Buddy is simply saying that they want a premiere player, one of the best prospects in the college class, and that additional picks aren't worth losing a guy they think is a franchise player. But I understand those fans that are bristling a bit by the way he's saying it.

 

Well put. I believe thim team needs about 8 - 10 starters, and trading down would be a great way to get started.

[BillsVet]

And what point is that exactly? That RB is the easiest position to acclimate to? Always has been. I'd be making his point if my original post had ANYTHING to do with that assertion. It didn't. BV's response to my post was completely non-related to the point I was making.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

I presume, based on the quoted post below, that your point is that RB is more important than every position on the field but QB, DE, and LT, correct?

 

tg, my man! I've got to give you credit for sticking to your philosophical guns but RBs have not been devalued. Here is the order of importance (value) of position in the NFL and it has been for a long time.

 

1.) QB

2.) DE that can bring pressure by himself

3.) LT

4.) RB

5.) WR

 

It's no coincidence that 2-5 are directly related to number 1.

 

How is a RB's rushing production directly related to the QB, other than taking a hand-off?

 

But it's not a linear process nor does it imply that you skip over blue chip talent at other positions just to satisfy one of the top 5. Nor do you pass up blue chip talent to pick a player at a higher valued position who isn't as good a player. If there's a Cornelius Bennett available, you take him.

 

Huh? Teams can draft BPA all they want, but it's a luxury afforded to only the best clubs. Buffalo isn't one of those franchises. We can debate draft strategy all we want, but unless Spiller can block for himself and make people miss 3 yards deep in the backfield, I don't see the point of picking a RB without a solid OL. The Bills have done this now with 3 RBs in 8 drafts and it still hasn't worked out. Spiller was set up to fail, and he did just that in his rookie season. Theoretically, what you're saying is you take BPA no matter what. So AJ Green ought to be the pick at 3 because the experts have him as the most can't miss prospect? It makes no sense given Buffalo's better than average WR corps.

 

There isn't a position on the field that can't be drafted in the later rounds. There will be Pro Bowl players taken in the later rounds every year. But those rated as late round talents simply can't be compared to 1st round talents during the scouting/drafting process. The perceived talent gap is huge at this juncture.

 

Sure, every position can be drafted in later rounds. But what's the chance that player goes on to be Pro Bowl caliber? At RB, I'll venture to say it's a lot higher than say, DT/NT, CB, or LB. And let's not marginalize my argument by saying that chances are better of finding top players in early rounds. If a team has limited picks (unless you're NE), I'm using the high picks on harder to find positions. Replacement value being what it is, I'll take less production from a RB if I can use my top picks on a DE, OT, or perhaps a DT.

 

The Bills thought Spiller was one of those rare blue chip RBs, had him rated higher than anyone else on their board and they took him. Maybe they were wrong, maybe they weren't. But nobody can dispute that Spiller was the highest rated player on their board at the time. We can disagree with their rating system all we want but I won't fault them for sticking to their philosophy.

 

A team as thin as the Bills needs football players. Regardless of position. Regardless of "value" of the position.

GO BILLS!!!

 

A team as thin as Buffalo needs to begin rebuilding with the proper pieces. As it stands, they have no more than 1 starting caliber NFL OT, no legit OLB to rush the passer, a transition QB, no all around TE, and may be hurting at CB. It wasn't much different than last year, and they picked a RB. Buffalo's been sticking to their philosophy of picking WR's, DB's, and RB's for years now and clearly it doesn't work without the horses up front.

 

This isn't a Spiller argument. It's a team building concept which has been re-hashed time and time again. If RB's were so valuable, teams would be taking them high every year and yet 6 of the top 10 rushers in 2010 were not first rounders.

[Guest three3]

this is depressing news but why is anyone surprised? considering all that we have learned about nix's mistakes up to this point it's just another "smh" moment

[thewildrabbit]

The team he took over was 6-10 the previous year with one win against the Colts backups, and were there not holes all over the place on that team?

 

 

I don't think he said it quite as blatantly, but was something more along the lines of needing talented players and therefore as many high picks as possible to obtain these players. Then again it is strange that in the Marshawn trade they took 2 lower picks from Seattle rather than 1 higher from the Saints if this is his philosophy.

When Nix took over he stated that the Bills were "not that far away", then after 5 games that tune changed to "Its going to take some time" Its what happens when you hire a bunch of assistant NFL coaches and a bunch of assistant college coaches to coach your players and then try and implement new schemes.

 

Both Nix and Gailey are in over their heads, Nix isn't cut out to be a GM and that was made clear with all the buffoon moves he made last year, Gailey is trying to run the entire offense, set up the offense and game plan, call plays, coach up the QB"s, and teach his coaches all at the same time. 6-10 this year seems realistic

 

 

Who knows what foolish moves they will make in this years draft...

[Bob in STL]

Check the link that's referenced in that article, or my post in this thread. He doesn't actually say that.

 

There are lots of links referenced in the article and your post doesn't clarify anything. I guess you are saying I should believe your interpretation instead of what Tim Graham actually wrote?

 

I am not too concerned about this issue anyway. If the guy they "covet" at #3 is there then they are taking him (I assume that person is Newton). Otherwise the have two other choices: (1) take the next best player on their board; or (2) trade down.

 

We shall see.

[Acantha]

There are lots of links referenced in the article and your post doesn't clarify anything. I guess you are saying I should believe your interpretation instead of what Tim Graham actually wrote?

 

I am not too concerned about this issue anyway. If the guy they "covet" at #3 is there then they are taking him (I assume that person is Newton). Otherwise the have two other choices: (1) take the next best player on their board; or (2) trade down.

 

We shall see.

You should believe the quotes that Nix actually gave and not the writers interpretation. And the link is very clearly given in the paragraph you referenced. Sorry that's so confusing.

[K Gun Special]

That is exactly the point. They should be considering all offers. The way they sprinted to the podium last year indicates a complete closed mindedness and/or inability to adapt to a dynamic situation. I would certainly hope that Nix being in his second draft as GM will be a bit smarter about it this year. And even if his phone does not ring with a good deal and they use the #3 pick that they at least give other GMs the opportunity to make Nix an offer he can't refuse.

 

Brian Burke in an interview on last years NHL trade deadline day summed it up well.

Luke Schenn is about as untouchable as any player in the league. But if someone offers me 10 first round picks he is on a plane.

 

You always, ALWAYS listen to a deal. It costs you nothing and may end up being a big win for you.

 

YEa thats a great quote by Burke..... but means nothing in your analysis. 10 first round picks? yea thats likely to happen.

 

And does everyone really think that trade offers only happen once the Bills are on the clock???? How do you know Nix wasnt fielding offers up until his pick, didnt like them, and said CJ is and has been our guy so were taking him.

 

I think its asinine we are criticizing the team for making a pick too quickly. Just like the false belief that combine performances will change a player's draft slot exponentially.

[Beerball]

Read the link that the OP provided. Here is some text from it:

 

 

On the first point, Nix seemed to shoot down that possibility when saying the Bills wouldn't be interested in trading the third pick unless the player they covet is gone once the Bills are on the clock. Nix noted he doesn't believe in moving down. That indicates the Bills will not shop the pick.

See if this link helps any:

This is probably linked somewhere in this thread, but I think it gives a better idea of what Buddy's words were and Grahams interpretation of them.

 

Graham's interpretation:

Nix conceded he's prone to hold onto the pick and won't shop it before the draft.

Buddy's words:

"I wouldn't ever say we wouldn't do that," Nix said. "But I never have been one to do a lot of that. I don't like giving up a player, especially if you're sold on one." "If the guys that you think merit a 3 are gone, then I think you have to look at moving back," Nix said. "We need as many picks as we can get." "If there's a guy that you were dead set on getting," Nix said, "you better take him and not move down, thinking you can get him at No. 7 because you might not, and then you don't have the player. If there's a guy we think we're dead set on, we're going to take him."

 

Graham's interpretation:

Plus, a rookie salary cap is expected for the next CBA. That would make the top few premium selections more economical and limit the kinds of losses incurred when the Oakland Raiders drafted quarterback JaMarcus Russell first overall in 2007 or the New York Jets took pass-rusher Vernon Gholston sixth in 2008.

 

Those factors lead Nix and other NFL executives to believe there will be more draft-pick trades this year.

Buddy's words:

"That certainly will cause more movement," Nix said.

More Graham interpretation regarding round 2 picks:

Nix also pointed out the added value of early second-round picks because the draft is broken into three days now. The first round takes place April 28. The second and third rounds are April 29. That gives several hours in between the end of the first round and the start of the second to trade with a team desperate for a player still on the board.

 

My interpretation:

If there is a player that the Bills value when the 3rd pick comes up they will choose that player rather than try to move back a couple spots hoping he's still there. To Nix it isn't worth the risk of losing that player. If they have a couple players bunched together and no clear consensus they will listen to offers. (that tells me there was consensus last year on Spiller)

 

The Bills are more likely to listen to offers for our second pick.

[Ramius]

Why switch at all? Lack of ability on the part of the coaching staff? Why not fit the scheme to the talent you have on hand?

 

What talent? the Bills had minimal talent on hand. Their long term vision was to switch to the 3-4, because thats how he wants to run his team, so they went about it. You'd have a point if our 2009 D was great, but it was garbage.

 

Greggo was arrogant for dismantling a good defense in 2001. Chan was not for changing a crap defense after 2009.

 

I agree with Thoner here. There was a decent chance Spiller would have still been on the board and they could have gotten more much needed help. And as far as I am concerned, having Spiller off the board at that point would have been a plus for the Bills but that's another discussion . All this assumes of course that someone would have made Nix a good offer for the #9 pick. But my gripe is Nix was so closed minded he didn't even give it a chance.

 

Not sure where you guys are getting this hindsight from. Just because Spiller didn't have a great 2010 doesn't mean that no one wanted to draft him in the 2010 draft except for Buffalo. He was one of the top prospects (easily top 10) going into the draft, and a lot of experts had him as one of the top 5 players overall. He would have gone somewhere close to #9 regardless of who was picking.

 

And we don't know who SD would have drafted at #12. Since they took Matthews, there's a good chance they would have taken Spiller if he was on the board. For all we know, SD was afraid of losing out on both, and thats why they traded up.

[Beerball]

What talent? the Bills had minimal talent on hand. Their long term vision was to switch to the 3-4, because thats how he wants to run his team, so they went about it. You'd have a point if our 2009 D was great, but it was garbage.

 

Greggo was arrogant for dismantling a good defense in 2001. Chan was not for changing a crap defense after 2009.

In 2000 (season before greggo took over) the Bills defense ranked was #18, in 2009 the Bills defense was ranked #16.

 

2000 team gave up 350 points, 4426 yards, 966 plays, 4.6 yards/play.

 

2009 team gave up 325 points, 5449 yards, 1086 plays, 5.0 yards/play.

 

So, worse ranking in 2000, more points allowed but less yards given up. I don't think that the .4 yards/play difference is meaningful. What the 2000 defense had was stout guys who could stop the run...and he did dismantle that...but looking at the overall numbers I don't know if you would call it a 'good defense'. Still, Williams was stupid for dismantling it and forcing a scheme on the players. IMO the same should be said of Gailey.

 

source

[Ramius]

In 2000 (season before greggo took over) the Bills defense ranked was #18, in 2009 the Bills defense was ranked #16.

 

2000 team gave up 350 points, 4426 yards, 966 plays, 4.6 yards/play.

 

2009 team gave up 325 points, 5449 yards, 1086 plays, 5.0 yards/play.

 

So, worse ranking in 2000, more points allowed but less yards given up. I don't think that the .4 yards/play difference is meaningful. What the 2000 defense had was stout guys who could stop the run...and he did dismantle that...but looking at the overall numbers I don't know if you would call it a 'good defense'. Still, Williams was stupid for dismantling it and forcing a scheme on the players. IMO the same should be said of Gailey.

 

source

 

Fair point on the numbers. I was more referring to how greggo ditched guys like Big Ted. the 2009 defense had basically no talent worth a damn save Kyle Williams.

 

Gailey decided to take a crappy defense, and change the scheme to one that he thought was better, the 3-4. In 2009, there were a ton of screams to ditch the tampon-2 and run the 3-4. Most people were happy that we were switching. In the offseason, Gailey and Nix acquired 4 players specifically for the 3-4, in Edwards, Davis, Troup, and Carrington.

 

I fail to see how this was arrogant or stupid. should coaches never change their scheme? Not even on a team in the middle of a total re-build? If you are going to change scheme, there's no better time to do it than when buffalo did, when you are at rock bottom.

[Beerball]

I fail to see how this was arrogant or stupid. should coaches never change their scheme? Not even on a team in the middle of a total re-build? If you are going to change scheme, there's no better time to do it than when buffalo did, when you are at rock bottom.

Bill Parcels took a good 1 1/2 (they did not play the 3-4 his first season) seasons to convert the Cowboys from a 4-3 to a 3-4. There isn't a bigger proponent of the 3-4 than him. If I remember correctly he inherited a team that won 5 games the previous season. He knew he didn't have the personnel to make the switch right from the start.

[Ramius]

Bill Parcels took a good 1 1/2 (they did not play the 3-4 his first season) seasons to convert the Cowboys from a 4-3 to a 3-4. There isn't a bigger proponent of the 3-4 than him. If I remember correctly he inherited a team that won 5 games the previous season. He knew he didn't have the personnel to make the switch right from the start.

 

And the cowboys did nothing under bill Parcells.

 

Buffalo wasn't going anywhere in 2010. That was the right time to make the switch, and they'll continue it this year. They even phased it in with the 4-3 once they realized that the players weren't ready to run the 3-4 full time.

[Fan in Chicago]

Fair point on the numbers. I was more referring to how greggo ditched guys like Big Ted. the 2009 defense had basically no talent worth a damn save Kyle Williams.

 

Gailey decided to take a crappy defense, and change the scheme to one that he thought was better, the 3-4. In 2009, there were a ton of screams to ditch the tampon-2 and run the 3-4. Most people were happy that we were switching. In the offseason, Gailey and Nix acquired 4 players specifically for the 3-4, in Edwards, Davis, Troup, and Carrington.I fail to see how this was arrogant or stupid. should coaches never change their scheme? Not even on a team in the middle of a total re-build? If you are going to change scheme, there's no better time to do it than when buffalo did, when you are at rock bottom.

 

Leads me to a thought that I had. There has been much discussion about how picking Spiller at #9 was wrong (and I am one of the criticizers). But the FO deserves a lot of credit for anticipating our weak points on D and using several picks in round # 2 onwards to address those deficiencies. Troup, Carrington, Moats, Batten all are front line picks which we so desperately needed. They were rookies last year and saw limited action till later in the season (except Batten ofcourse) but we should really see them making an impact on the D this season. My point is that with regard to the D, the FO were proactive and we need to give them credit.