Lurker Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 ------------------------------------------------------------- Of the teams in our division Buffalo has the WORST drafting record the past decade. Heavily weighted by the TD/Levy era. That and $1.25 will buy you a cup of coffee today... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Our whole scouting department should be fired. That's pretty much already happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Have you looked around at the AFC east lately? There is not one great edge rusher on any teams (except Buffalo hopefully). You don't need a great OT in an offensive scheme that is built off of the 3 step drop game. Slants, speed cuts, screens are our bread and butter because those are Fitz's strengths. He is not a 5 step QB. He can't throw the deep ball to save his life so he doesn't need 5 seconds in the pocket. It's unbelievable that some people cant understand this. A valid point. Normally there are four key positions GMs tend to focus on with early first round picks: QB, RDE, LT, and CB. I'd love nothing more than for the Bills to take a franchise QB with their first round pick. Unfortunately, I don't think there will be any franchise QBs available at the Bills' pick. With the Mario Williams signing the Bills no longer need a RDE. That means it's a choice between LT and CB. Hmmm . . . I wonder which of the two Bill from NYC would prefer? One potential argument in favor of taking a LT is that Fitz won't necessarily be the Bills' QB for the next five years. If the plan is to draft a QB in 2013, taking a LT in this draft could make a lot of sense. But even with Fitz at QB, taking a LT might still make some sense. Defenses have been taking away the short stuff and daring the Bills to beat them deep. If defenses commit fully to that strategy--which they have--you almost have to burn them deep here and there. Even if your QB has horrible deep ball accuracy (which Fitz does). A good LT would open up the deep ball by giving Fitz more time to throw. An argument could also be made in favor of a CB. This assumes that the Bills plan to keep that CB here his whole career, instead of letting him go first-contract-and-out. If first-contract-and-out is the plan, then no credible argument could be made in favor of a CB! The pass rush and pass coverage are supposed to work together. The pass rush should force the QB to get rid of the ball quickly. The pass coverage should force the QB to hold onto the ball a long time. Together, those two units can and should prevent opposing QBs from having any good options. With the addition of Mario Williams, the Bills' pass rush looks like it can hold up its end of that bargain. If the Bills were to add a shutdown CB, their secondary would be a lot closer to being able to hold up its end! I'll also make an argument in favor of a WR. If you get a Larry Fitzgerald, he can make plays despite being double-covered. A guy like that would make the Bills' offense a lot harder to stop almost no matter what offensive style they employed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Nix drafted Spiller when RB was not a perceived need of the team. Nix will draft the highest ranked player on their board, regardless of position. But as a GM who is both astute and aware of the public criticism of his ways, I would not be surprised if Nix has re-visited his stated position on trading down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainiac72 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 It is enticing to think of grabbing Ingram in round 1. With the addition of Williams and Ingram, their pass rush would be very much improved. I think that your earlier point about Fitz being a 3 step drop QB and therefore there is no need to invest in a quality LT is a little off. With the poor LT play the Bills have had with Bell out, they don't even have the threat of being able to throw mid to deep. Without that threat, safeties and LBs don't have to respect the deep play and can creep closer to the line, thus congesting the areas that those short passes go to, as well as making it more difficult to run the ball. I am not necessarily saying that drafting Ingram over a LT would be a bad move- quite the contrary. I am saying that finding a talented LT would open up the offense, even with a QB that doesn't have the greatest deep arm in the league. yes, i think the offense is based on our limitations. i don't think we draft to feed into that. with a better O-line (or healthier at LT) we can open it up more.. maybe not have the issues we had after Bell went down since we could adjust rather than be limited. and who knows who our QB will even BE in a couple years? let's not forget that while draft picks may help as a rookie, they usually aren't that impactful (i.e., better than average) until years 2 or 3. things could change by then, including the offense we run. bottom line, i don't want to go into this season with Hairston miscast as our starting LT again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefenseWinzChampionshipz Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Nix drafted Spiller when RB was not a perceived need of the team. Nix will draft the highest ranked player on their board, regardless of position. But as a GM who is both astute and aware of the public criticism of his ways, I would not be surprised if Nix has re-visited his stated position on trading down. Buddy's 1st draft was the poorest I've seen in the last decade to be honest. To draft Spiller and list him at 3rd RB behind Marshawn and Freddy was very questionable. Last year however was one of the if not the best draft in the last decade. It got us 6 contributors on the team and 4 starters in Dareus, Sheppard, Aaron Williams and potentially Chris Hairston. Also Justin Rogers (as a kick returner). Look for Da'Norris Searcy to have a contributing year also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 yes, i think the offense is based on our limitations. i don't think we draft to feed into that. with a better O-line (or healthier at LT) we can open it up more.. maybe not have the issues we had after Bell went down since we could adjust rather than be limited. and who knows who our QB will even BE in a couple years? let's not forget that while draft picks may help as a rookie, they usually aren't that impactful (i.e., better than average) until years 2 or 3. things could change by then, including the offense we run. bottom line, i don't want to go into this season with Hairston miscast as our starting LT again. I mean no insult But, Hairston had no training camp ota's etc and was considered rawish. He came in and made a decent effort. I project him as a swing tackle. and most consider him a RT. But dont count him out. Buddy would not let Bell walk without feeling we had a starter already i bet. he knew for sure that we were not going to go after one in FA. and even if we draft one in the first round he may not be a starter unless you are that Kalil kid. So i dont think Buddy has any worrys that Hairston can start. WE might! But it's trust in Chan and buddy time. I think we draft a LT later, one we think will take some development. that is thier style y'know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I mean no insult But, Hairston had no training camp ota's etc and was considered rawish. He came in and made a decent effort. I project him as a swing tackle. and most consider him a RT. But dont count him out. Buddy would not let Bell walk without feeling we had a starter already i bet. he knew for sure that we were not going to go after one in FA. and even if we draft one in the first round he may not be a starter unless you are that Kalil kid. So i dont think Buddy has any worrys that Hairston can start. WE might! But it's trust in Chan and buddy time. I think we draft a LT later, one we think will take some development. that is thier style y'know While I assume that Nix considers everything when making a decision about whether or not to keep a guy or let him go, I really think it had much less to do about Hairston being ready and much more to do about we cannot devote all this money to a guy (Bell) we cannot count on to be healthy. The same reason they cannot count on Roscoe now, or the way it was years ago with Jonas Jennings. You want the guy but if he can't play for sure, you can't pay for sure. They set a price they thought was reasonable and Bell and his agents (rightfully) decided to test the FA waters, thinking another team might bite for the risk. I'm sure he thought about Hairston, but Chan has also flat out said Hairston is not ready. Not offering Bell a contract was really all about Bell and his injury, and not about Hairston, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 So then how would he solve this? hope that one falls to us in the draft, reach for one, or hope Bell comes back and accepts our offer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 So then how would he solve this? hope that one falls to us in the draft, reach for one, or hope Bell comes back and accepts our offer? Not sure I want Bell given his shenanigans and injuries. Therefore, I say Reach. I know...it's a shock. ...if the trade down offers aren't worth it, or, if they put you in a position where the LT we want may not be there. Absent that risk, we reach, and give the media the finger while we do it. The fact is that, for once, we aren't operating under the assumption that our top 5 picks MUST start. So, we don't have to worry as much about value/pick. In years past we HAD to take the best value pick on the board, regardless of need, because 80% of the roster was a F'ing need. Short of Antoine Winfield and a very few others, most CBs don't last 11 years. As Bill in NYC says, guys like Matt Light do. So...reaching for a CB is not necessarily the same as reaching for OL. It's not a reach if you are fairly sure you are getting another Matt Light. You can't be 100% sure, but if it's over 70%, I think you reach. Why? Nobody is gonna remember McShay/Kiper calling it a reach....11 friggin years from now. And, this is coming from the guy who has historically been for BPA no matter what, and is historically against trading down/up. This year is different. Mario Williams/Re-signing Steve Johnson/Mike Andrews forces this to be a different year. Above all, I am for reason. Reaching seems to be the most reasonable thing to do if all our other options are exhausted. I do NOT want to trade up for Kalil, because for all we know the guy we take with #2 could be Matt Light as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Nix drafted Spiller when RB was not a perceived need of the team. Nix will draft the highest ranked player on their board, regardless of position. But as a GM who is both astute and aware of the public criticism of his ways, I would not be surprised if Nix has re-visited his stated position on trading down. Listening to the fans ... wasn't there some Marv Levy quote about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Not sure I want Bell given his shenanigans and injuries. Therefore, I say Reach. I know...it's a shock. ...if the trade down offers aren't worth it, or, if they put you in a position where the LT we want may not be there. Absent that risk, we reach, and give the media the finger while we do it. The fact is that, for once, we aren't operating under the assumption that our top 5 picks MUST start. So, we don't have to worry as much about value/pick. In years past we HAD to take the best value pick on the board, regardless of need, because 80% of the roster was a F'ing need. Short of Antoine Winfield and a very few others, most CBs don't last 11 years. As Bill in NYC says, guys like Matt Light do. So...reaching for a CB is not necessarily the same as reaching for OL. It's not a reach if you are fairly sure you are getting another Matt Light. You can't be 100% sure, but if it's over 70%, I think you reach. Why? Nobody is gonna remember McShay/Kiper calling it a reach....11 friggin years from now. And, this is coming from the guy who has historically been for BPA no matter what, and is historically against trading down/up. This year is different. Mario Williams/Re-signing Steve Johnson/Mike Andrews forces this to be a different year. Above all, I am for reason. Reaching seems to be the most reasonable thing to do if all our other options are exhausted. I do NOT want to trade up for Kalil, because for all we know the guy we take with #2 could be Matt Light as well. All else being equal, I strongly prefer taking a player expected to have a longer career over one associated with a shorter career. If you're correct about good OTs lasting longer than all but a few good CBs, it would bias me in favor of an OT. But I also tend to be biased in favor of quality over quantity. If you need numbers, there's free agency, there are the lower rounds of the draft, there are undrafted free agents like Kellen Heard, etc. Lots of ways to add numbers. But a difference-maker is very hard to find. I see three categories of difference-makers. Category 1: a player who can be productive while using up two opposing players. Bruce Smith could get sacks even while being double-teamed. Larry Fitzgerald can catch passes even while being double-covered. Category 2: a player who, by himself, can keep a category 1 difference-maker from getting out of hand. Tony Boselli could block Bruce Smith one-on-one. Deion Sanders could cover Jerry Rice one-on-one. Category 3: a player who plays a position which doesn't lend itself to category 1 or category 2, but who has a substantial impact on football games. Kurt Warner, Joe Montana, and Barry Sanders were category 3 difference-makers. I don't follow college ball, but based on draft projections Kalil looks like he'll be a category 2 difference-maker at OT. I'd rather have one difference-maker than two or even three non-difference makers. I'd be willing to trade the Bills' second round pick, or even second + third round pick away to move up and get him. Especially if the best alternative to doing that is to stay put and grab an OT not worthy of going tenth overall. If the Bills did take the second-best OT at tenth overall, they would probably be well-served to take a CB in the second, and a LB in the third. I realize that fills some holes on defense; and that filling those holes is important. Under my scenario, the Bills wouldn't have a second or third round pick, and so would have to wait until the fourth to take a LB. They'd probably have to wait until next year to do anything significant about CB. That's a source of pain. But the long-term benefit of having a difference-maker at LT would be more than adequate compensation for that pain. Whether the above-described trade-up scenario for Kalil is possible depends on a number of factors outside the Bills' control. The Bills should think in terms of things they can control, which in this case means the maximum price they'd be willing to pay to move up to take Kalil. If the opportunity to do a deal like that presents itself, great. If not, they adjust accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpberr Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 I think the draft gets very interesting if Bell is resigned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Just to add to my earlier post, I'd like to discuss the longevity of difference-makers. How many starters do we have from Marv's era as GM? I'm aware of only one: Kyle Williams. I'm aware of no current starters from the TD era; but two or three years ago we had Lee Evans, Terrance McGee, Aaron Schobel, and Chris Kelsay as starters. Of the five above-mentioned long-lasting players, four were difference-makers or close to difference-makers. The lesser players Marv and TD drafted didn't last long at all, and soon needed to be replaced. Finding a difference-maker at a position typically means you won't have to worry about it again for a very long time. The more positions you can do that with, the less dependent you'll be on obtaining large numbers of new players on an annual basis. On the other hand, if you bring in a player to add to your numbers, odds are you'll see a need to replace him in a few years with another numbers player. It's a hamster wheel, and difference makers are an escape from that hamster wheel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haven Moses Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 I think we draft DiCastro and move Andy to LT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPS Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 This scenario is precisely why I brought up Levitre in this thread... Levitre/DeCastro/Wood.... That's a nice little trio... If DeCastro is THAT good, how could you not consider. I heard the guys on NFL network say he is not as good as Hutch was. Very interesting draft year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 I think the draft gets very interesting if Bell is resigned. Agreed, but the draft is becoming pretty darn interesting because we have not signed him! I really am beginning to loathe picking at ten this year. last year looks easy in Hindsight... Getting someone to trade up to us and getting some value would be best case to me. Lets keep in mind we are going to have to bring a qb up soon. maybe now is the best time to sell off # 10. Maybe we should just stack players this year with educated guesses as to ones who might rise to long term starters and potential all pros? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Posted March 22, 2012 Author Share Posted March 22, 2012 Buddy Nix may eliminate LOT Martin as his first round pick after his showing today ...... OT Jonathan Martin did 20 reps @ 225 on the bench, ran a 5.33 forty-time, and had a 4.76 short-shuttle time, It shows he is soft... out of shape for this important day... 20 reps is nothing... a 5.33 is slow as hell for a 1st round draft pick... Buddy can do better than picking him at #10..... oh boy can he ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Buddy Nix may eliminate LOT Martin as his first round pick after his showing today ...... OT Jonathan Martin did 20 reps @ 225 on the bench, ran a 5.33 forty-time, and had a 4.76 short-shuttle time, It shows he is soft... out of shape for this important day... 20 reps is nothing... a 5.33 is slow as hell for a 1st round draft pick... Buddy can do better than picking him at #10..... oh boy can he ... Ugh...Get Bell's agent on the phone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrobot Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Left tackle is the 2nd most important position next to QB... Right now, OLT Bell has been offered a contract that the Bills can live with... It may or may not be what Bell wants... Unfortunately for him he is injuried too often to make starter money. Bills need a quality Left Tackle that is not only good but durable... That is why I believe they will draft one with their 10th pick even if Bell re-signs... I looked at the top Left tackles.. Matt Kail will be gone before the Bills select... Riley Reiff is tough as hell but has short arms and is better suited for guard Jonathan Martin has all the qualification for a starting LT but some say he is soft. Warning sign for lack of heart Mike Adams is there for a starting LT position... Has all the qualifications... but will be picked at the lower end of the 1st round... The LT I like who I think Buddy would pick at #10 has 6'5' height...346 lbs...10 inch hands, 35" plus arms,84 5/8 wing span, dominate work ethic, powerful and mobile with good balance..He can play OLT or guard... comes from a good southern school where Buddy likes to pick them... His name is Cordy Glenn... Watch him go up in the charts. I like the pick of left tackle here because in rounds 2 thru 4 there are quality WRs, CBs and OLBs to choose from. Fixing the O-line should be a top priority this year and getting any one of those LTs whom Buddy likes hopefully will be the right move... But Buddy has to really like him at #10... Here is a great evaulation of the Big Uglies. DraftTek's LongBall writes this every year, and it is always spot-on. Enjoy. http://www.drafttek.com/2012-NFL-Draft-Left-Offensive-Tackle-Review.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts