Orton's Arm Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) Your whole logic is fool.... start with yout first comment 1. Aaron Rogers....need I say more? 2. RB who carry a heavy work load and are not as physically conditioned ... steph jackson is a prime example of a well conditioned RB .... and Rb last even long as a one two punch 3.get off the RB thing he is a game changing athlete on offense ...go watch the tapes...he will move the chains that helps the offense and the defense 4. You still have a 2nd, a 3rd and two 4ths ...and young talent from last year at those positions 5. Already been discussed ..... False... He just ran a 4.43 .... clocked an unofficial 4.39.... and well noted he runs just as fast in pads.... 1. Aaron Rodgers is a quarterback. Quarterback is one of (many) positions the Bills have traditionally neglected, in order to squander picks on the running back position. I take your point that a player can sometimes outperform the expectations associated with his draft position. But if the Bills are looking for players like that, let it be at any position other than running back! 2. I'll grant that RBs can sometimes have longer than usual careers. But it's worth noting that Edgerrin James was drafted a few years after Peyton Manning. But do you know who the Colt's starting RB was the last time they won the Super Bowl? Hint: it wasn't Edgerrin James. His useful career had ended, and he'd moved onto another team, before Manning hoisted that Lombardi Trophy. The point here being that even a guy who has a long career by RB standards won't necessarily have a long career by any kind of absolute standard. 3. I hear "game changing athlete" and "helps move the chains" every time the Bills decide to squander a first round pick on yet another RB. Yet somehow those RBs keep getting traded away for fourth round picks, or (if we're lucky) third round picks. Meanwhile, Jay Cutler was traded away for two first round picks. The Bills' RBs over the years haven't been great, but they've been reasonably good. While Jay Cutler may be better at QB than McGahee, Lynch, or Henry were at RB, most of the reason for that disparity in trade value is because a RB is a lot less valuable than a QB. And because RBs' careers are shorter, so a few years of mileage on a RB matters a lot more than a few years of mileage on a QB. 4. The fact that the Bills wouldn't be squandering their whole draft on a RB is no excuse to avoid seeking a real long-term answer at LT or CB or some other critical position with their first round pick. If the teams that pick 4 - 9 in the draft decide not to pick this guy, it likely means they've made a strategic decision that a RB just isn't valuable enough to justify a top-10 pick. They're 100% right. That logic applies even more strongly to the Bills, because Fred Jackson eliminates any short term need at RB, and Spiller greatly lessens the long term need for one. Edited March 30, 2012 by Edwards' Arm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 If he is there in round 3 I am all for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 How many super bowls has Adrian Peterson won for the Vikings ... exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EldaBillsFan Posted March 30, 2012 Author Share Posted March 30, 2012 1. Aaron Rodgers is a quarterback. Quarterback is one of (many) positions the Bills have traditionally neglected, in order to squander picks on the running back position. I take your point that a player can sometimes outperform the expectations associated with his draft position. But if the Bills are looking for players like that, let it be at any position other than running back! A. I was adressing the point that just because a player is passed on does not diminish his talent or value as a player...whether QB,RB, or WR, TE ect.... 2. I'll grant that RBs can sometimes have longer than usual careers. But it's worth noting that Edgerrin James was drafted a few years after Peyton Manning. But do you know who the Colt's starting RB was the last time they won the Super Bowl? Hint: it wasn't Edgerrin James. His useful career had ended, and he'd moved onto another team, before Manning hoisted that Lombardi Trophy. The point here being that even a guy who has a long career by RB standards won't necessarily have a long career by any kind of absolute standard. B. We don't have Peyton manning as a QB, we don't have tom Brady, we don't have Eli and don't have Ben ...we have Fitz and the less he has to do the better ...Trent makes it easier for everyone 3. I hear "game changing athlete" and "helps move the chains" every time the Bills decide to squander a first round pick on yet another RB. Yet somehow those RBs keep getting traded away for fourth round picks, or (if we're lucky) third round picks. Meanwhile, Jay Cutler was traded away for two first round picks. The Bills' RBs over the years haven't been great, but they've been reasonably good. While Jay Cutler may be better at QB than McGahee, Lynch, or Henry were at RB, most of the reason for that disparity in trade value is because a RB is a lot less valuable than a QB. And because RBs' careers are shorter, so a few years of mileage on a RB matters a lot more than a few years of mileage on a QB. C. I understand all of that, and in not trying to convince you, I'm saying open your mind to potentially having most dominating back field in the NFL for the next 4-5 years!!!.... 4. The fact that the Bills wouldn't be squandering their whole draft on a RB is no excuse to avoid seeking a real long-term answer at LT or CB or some other critical position with their first round pick. D. Don't know if you watch basketball the Pistons in 2004 drafted Darko Milicic because they needed a center or big, with the 2nd pick ... left on the board was Carmelo Anthony and Dwayne Wade.... they choose Need over talent ...... sometimes its worth the risk to go talent over need especially if the players that fill a need don't blow your mind..... If the teams that pick 4 - 9 in the draft decide not to pick this guy, it likely means they've made a strategic decision that a RB just isn't valuable enough to justify a top-10 pick. They're 100% right. That logic applies even more strongly to the Bills, because Fred Jackson eliminates any short term need at RB, and Spiller greatly lessens the long term need for one. E. It does not take away Richarsons game changing talent and ability no matter where he goes in the draft. If the Bills did draft him, and after you boo'd cried whined and moaned....he still comes to buffalo as a game changer. Btw: he might be better than AP because he is a threat out of the backfield I'm not trying to change anyone mind about Richardson. But its funny how so many people don't believe we can win with a QB like Fitz because of his arm, but don't want add a guy that could make our running game and backfield GREAT! For the next 4-6 years, and I sayd 4-6 years because of contracts and FA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I'm not trying to change anyone mind about Richardson. But its funny how so many people don't believe we can win with a QB like Fitz because of his arm, but don't want add a guy that could make our running game and backfield GREAT! For the next 4-6 years, and I sayd 4-6 years because of contracts and FA... RBs do NOT equate to more wins in the modern NFL. That's just a fact in the modern NFL. Richardson may be an all world talent, but even if he's a HUGE upgrade to Spiller and Jackson (and that's debatable) it will NOT amount to a significant jump in the win total. If it did, then you'd see Adrian Peterson with multiple rings already. But instead he has none. And in fact the Vikings had to lure Brett Favre out of retirement to give them enough ammunition to make a run to the NFC title game. Every other NFL team knows this, which is why RBs are no longer prized in the top portion of the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinky finger Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Incredible depth? Our only grinder RB is going to be 31 years old and needs an extension that will most likely pay him more so on past work than what he will provide in the future. As I said in another thread today... I'd like to dispute this premise.....but can't. Is he the ideal pick? probably not......but I won't be pissed if we select him. The value of this draft seems to extend well into this draft. I'm not pining for this to happen, but understand if they deem him too valuabe to pass on. It's the same argument about DeCastro. Getting the best difference maker at a position not in need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinky finger Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 In fact, since it's based on such in-game intelligence, one could argue that he'll only get better with age!! Like fine wine......or Barry Bonds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) RBs do NOT equate to more wins in the modern NFL. That's just a fact in the modern NFL. Richardson may be an all world talent, but even if he's a HUGE upgrade to Spiller and Jackson (and that's debatable) it will NOT amount to a significant jump in the win total. If it did, then you'd see Adrian Peterson with multiple rings already. But instead he has none. And in fact the Vikings had to lure Brett Favre out of retirement to give them enough ammunition to make a run to the NFC title game. Every other NFL team knows this, which is why RBs are no longer prized in the top portion of the draft. Good post! Just to add to what you've written: The New York Times did a regression analysis on the NFL. [begin statistics speak] In statistics speak, their dependent variable was a given team's number of wins, and the independent variables were (offense) yards per pass attempt, yards per rushing attempt, interception percentage, and the defensive analogues of those stats. The independent variables explained 80% of the observed variation in the dependent variable (R^2 of 0.8). Yards per pass attempt was three times as important as yards per rush attempt, and interception percentage was of equal importance to yards per rush attempt. It was concluded that pass offense was four times as important as rushing offense, and pass defense four times as important as rushing defense. (That is, a one standard deviation improvement in passing offense would result in four times as much improvement in your expected number of wins as would a one standard deviation improvement in your rushing offense.) [end statistics speak] The argument against a running back comes down to several factors: Passing offense is four times as important as rushing offense Unless your running back's name is Barry Sanders, the quality of your rushing offense will have more to do with your blocking than with your RB. RBs have short careers. The first few years of Trent's short career would be useless--or nearly so--because he does not represent a significant upgrade over Spiller or Jackson. Barring injury, Spiller and Jackson can handle all the touches for the next few years. Earlier, I mentioned that, of the Bills' first picks of the draft, fully half had been used on RBs or DBs. With RBs, it was because RBs tend to have short careers, and because the Bills' front office was in a perpetual search for an upgrade at the RB position while ignoring other, far more important positions. With DBs, it was generally to fill self-created needs. The fact that the Bills let their DBs with the best combination of youth + proven accomplishment go first-contract-and-out has a lot to do with those self-created needs. In large part as a result of the above paragraph, the Bills have traditionally failed to use their first round picks to build a core of very good players. TD did not inherit much of a core of good, young players from Butler. Marv didn't inherit much of a core from TD. Bradon certainly didn't inherit much of a core from Marv! In order to get off that ridiculous hamster wheel, the Bills need to do two things: 1. Use first round picks only players expected to be here a long time. This means no more first round RBs (careers are too short) and no more first-contract-and-out DBs! 2. Focus their top-15 picks on positions of critical importance. This means no interior offensive linemen, no 4-3 linebackers, and especially no RBs! Had they been doing those two things over the last decade, this team would be a lot further along than it is now! While nothing can be done to change the past, that's no excuse for future lapses in discipline. Reaching for players--as they did with Whitner, McCargo, and Lynch--represents another example of short-term thinking, and another lapse in discipline. That kind of lapse must also be avoided. Short-term, quick fix thinking was responsible for creating the Bills' ineptitude over the last decade, and long term, disciplined thought and action can eliminate that ineptitude. Edited March 30, 2012 by Edwards' Arm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanC883 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 The guy is the next Adrian Peterson as far as future is projected. Absolutely awesome! You should never pass on his kind of talent no matter where it is in the draft. However there is a few things 1. I've never been a fan of taking RBs too early in the draft. (I do think he would be worth it though) 2. We have a bottleneck at RB going into this season so it's a bad idea. 3. Point for the pick would be that I don't think Fred has more than 3 years in him and Richardson and CJ would be absolutely dominant for years to come. And just like CBs and LBs, you can never have too many good RBs. I 100% agree. IF Trent is available at 10, he would clearly be the BPA. But this is what I would do. Draft Trent, sign FJ for 3 more years, trade Choice for a draft pick, prob 4th rounder. If you can't trade him, then you have a TON of talent at RB. This is good as we will be able to pound the ball on the ground, open the passing game, wear defenses out. Then, when the other teams offense comes on the field, they will have to face our well rested defensive line. I'd like to dispute this premise.....but can't. Is he the ideal pick? probably not......but I won't be pissed if we select him. The value of this draft seems to extend well into this draft. I'm not pining for this to happen, but understand if they deem him too valuabe to pass on. It's the same argument about DeCastro. Getting the best difference maker at a position not in need. Yeah. I agree with you. I won't be pissed really unless they "reach" for a player. And I don't see that happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinky finger Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 How many super bowls has Adrian Peterson won for the Vikings ... exactly. Yep. Dan Marino sucked, too. Come on, make your case as it is valid, but this example is flimsy and downright wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKidd Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Don't care what no body say on this board about having Fred or that we have Spiller... Saw the guy play in college....and he looked amazing in workouts.... Now you may blast me.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can he bulk up and play left tackle????? **The light at the end of the tunnel for this team is when Ralph sees the light, and goes towards it** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loserlovers Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Half of you say we have too much talent at RB already...the other half say our Backfield is too crowded???? Its called depth. Richardson is better than both, I would take at 10 in a heartbeat, we took marshawn at 9 who was the second best RB that year with off field problems We are an injury away from being very thin at RB...RB's get injured. Richardson looks Calvin Johnson good, a onece in a decade talent. We could always trade spiller for a fourth! (jk but maybe a second or a Tackle) In 2-3 years will we really be strong at the RB with Fred ex being 33? Rule number 1,Draft BPA not for need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dat Dude Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 The backfield is too crowded already, we have several other needs as well as depth elsewhere, RB's shouldn't be taken that high, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Half of you say we have too much talent at RB already...the other half say our Backfield is too crowded???? Its called depth. Richardson is better than both, I would take at 10 in a heartbeat, we took marshawn at 9 who was the second best RB that year with off field problems We are an injury away from being very thin at RB...RB's get injured. Richardson looks Calvin Johnson good, a onece in a decade talent. We could always trade spiller for a fourth! (jk but maybe a second or a Tackle) In 2-3 years will we really be strong at the RB with Fred ex being 33? Rule number 1,Draft BPA not for need. "Half of you say we have too much talent at RB already...the other half say our Backfield is too crowded???? Its called depth." Rather than use the 10th overall pick on depth at RB, why not use it on a punter? I think the latter idea is at least as good as the former. " I would take at 10 in a heartbeat, we took marshawn at 9 . . ." Yeah, and look how that worked out. We traded him for a fourth round pick after a few years of reasonably solid play. You call that a success story? "We are an injury away from being very thin at RB...RB's get injured." We are actually two injuries away, considering that we have both Jackson and Spiller. As opposed to zero injuries away from being very thin at LT, zero injuries away from being thin at #1 CB, etc. "Richardson looks Calvin Johnson good, a onece in a decade talent." If he's truly once in a decade talent, he'll be off the board before 10th overall. Unless he has some hidden quality that the first nine teams to draft just can't see. The Bills have made that kind of gamble numerous times before, and have been burned every time. "We could always trade spiller for a fourth! (jk but maybe a second or a Tackle)" And a few years from now the Bills will be trading away Trent Richardson for a second, once the next shiny RB comes along! "In 2-3 years will we really be strong at the RB with Fred ex being 33?" The reason it's necessary to have two first round talents at RB is . . . ? "Rule number 1,Draft BPA not for need." When taken to an extreme, BPA could result in drafting a punter at 10th overall. When taken to an even more absurd extreme, BPA could result in taking a running back 10th overall, despite the fact that the Bills have more talent and depth at RB than any other position, despite the fact that RBs' careers are short, and despite the fact that the RB position is probably the most overrated in football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bizell Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) Not that this would ever happen but im not that impressed with Trent Richardson at all. If he was Chris Johnson or Adrian Peterson I still doubt that he would get drafted on this team at this time. Heck I think Mark Ingram was actually a better NFL prospect than this guy and he didnt exactly set the league on fire last year. Richardson is my pick to drop like a rock on draft day. I actually think that his drop on draft day will actually end up costing the Bills Floyd based on the mocks that Ive been seeing. I think we shock the world and Gailey chops it up with his GT connections and we take Stephen Hill haha what. richardson actually outplayed ingram on ingram's last year at bama. anyways, i wouldn't be against picking trent richardson... if we hadn't just drafted cj spiller and didn't have fred jackson, one of the most dynamic running backs in the nfl on our team. Edited March 30, 2012 by bizell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Best Player Available Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 The idea is even worse then your grammer! Before becoming the GRAMMAR police, you could use some brushing up on 3rd grade spelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Yep. Dan Marino sucked, too. Come on, make your case as it is valid, but this example is flimsy and downright wrong. How is it flimsy and wrong? If the theory is that RBs are as important today as they once were, then why hasn't AP's presence in Minny made them a perennial contender? Truth is, it hasn't. Minny wasn't considered a true contender until they got a retread, washed up QB to take over the reigns. Favre added 5 wins to their season. That's HUGE. Take AP off that team, they win the same amount of games -- maybe one less. The league has changed. You do not build your team around RBs anymore. In fact, name a top 5 RB in the league that has won a ring in the past few years ... you can't. In fact, no team that has led the league in rushing has won a super bowl in OVER A DECADE. 2011 Individual Rushing Leaders MJD Ray Rice Michael Turner McCoy Foster (3 out of 5 made the playoffs, 0 made the Super Bowl) 2010 Foster Charles Turner C.Johnson MJD (2 out of the 5 made the playoffs, neither of those won a playoff game) 2009 C.Johnson S. Jackson Jones MJD AP (2 out of 5 made the playoffs, neither made the Super Bowl) 2008 AP Turner Williams Portis Jones (1 out of 5 made the playoffs. No one made the Super Bowl) And it doesn't improve if you look at team rushing numbers: 2011 Team Rushing Leaders SF Baltimore Miami Houston Chicago (3 out of 5 made the playoffs. None made the Super Bowl) 2010 Steelers Chicago Jets Chargers Ravens (4 out of 5 made the playoffs. Steelers made the Super Bowl and lost) 2009 GB Minny Steelers Dallas Ravens (4 out of 5 made the playoffs. None made the Super Bowl) 2008 Minny Steelers Ravens Eagles Chicago (1 out of 5 made the playoffs. No one made the Super Bowl) So, you do the math. If having the best rushing attack in the league hasn't led ANY TEAM to a Championship in over a decade, why would you advocate using another first round pick on a RB when the BEST CASE SCENARIO still doesn't get you any closer to a championship? Anyone who thinks a RB is worth a first round pick hasn't been paying attention to the changes in the NFL over the past decade. Times have changed. How you build your team has changed. And, if you think this isn't true just look at how many first round RBs have been picked over the past decade ... 2011: 1 (#28) 2010: 3 (#9, #12, #30) 2009: 3 (#12, #27, #31) 2008: 5 (#4, #13, #22, #23, #24) 2007: 2 (#7, #12) 2006: 4 (#2, #21, #27, #30) 2005: 3 (#2, #4, #5) 2004: 3 (#24, #26, #30) 2003: 2 (#23, #27) 2002: 2 (#16, #18) -28 first round picks have been spent on RBs the past in 10 years. That accounts for 8% of first round picks used on RBs. In comparison, in the previous ten drafts 10% of first round picks were spent on RBs (31 of 310 picks). -Of those 28 first round RBs, only Reggie Bush, Joseph Addai and *Rashard Mendenhall have rings. (*Mendhall was on IR for the Super Bowl run.) -22 different teams used those 28 first round picks on round RBs. Only the Saints, Colts, Lions, Panthers and Bills used more than one first round pick on a RB. The Bills were the only team to use THREE first round picks on Running Backs (Willis, Lynch, Spiller). *NO (2), SD, DET (2), DEN, IND (2), ARZ, OK, CAR (2), DAL, PIT, TEN, MIN, NE, MIA, CHI, TB, ST, CIN, KC, CLE, ATL BUF (3) -11 of those 28 RBs picked were selected #15 or higher. The highest pick being Reggie Bush and Ronnie Brown, both selected at #2 overall in '05 and '06. -2 of those 11 backs were picked by the Buffalo Bills (Spiller and Lynch). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EldaBillsFan Posted March 30, 2012 Author Share Posted March 30, 2012 Before becoming the GRAMMAR police, you could use some brushing up on 3rd grade spelling. I saw that but decided to let it go because it was so petty but thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny33 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) Then you haven't seen him play....he has number 1 pick value No running back is worth the first overall pick. Edited March 30, 2012 by ny33 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Look, we already have Chan Gailey talking about how there is only one football and Spiller and Jackson will have to share. Now, I understand that a talent like this is tempting, and personally I doubt that he will make it to pick #10. But even if he does, I wouldn't take him. IMHO, the one position where the Bills are blissfully over-talented is Running Back, and the two we have are diametrically opposed. Jackson is a grinder who can add a few yards after contact to most carries while Spiller can occasionally break a big one as well and had the speed and practice to break wide in a double RB set and act as a receiever. Now, if we had no big gaps to fill I would say "Hell yes!" But the truth of the matter is that our defense was one of the worst in the league, our LT is looking to leave, our CB's are old or getting outclassed and our WR corps though scrappy are thin. THESE problems weigh more heavily on my mind than the thought of missing out on a great RB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts