Nix's drafting strategy

[Orton's Arm]

I've seen post-Polian GMs make a number of strategic errors over the years, particularly on draft day. I'll start by listing the errors of previous GMs, and then I'll look at whether Nix avoided the errors of the list.

 

Errors

• Too many early picks on DBs. The underlying cause of this error was that the Bills' best DBs were allowed to go first-contract-and-out. That policy artificially created needs at DB positions--needs which were then filled with early picks. There were also times when the Bills reached for a DB early in the draft, with Whitner being the most obvious example.
  
• Too many RBs. Every 3.5 years the Bills would use a first or second round pick on a RB, while giving up on the previous early pick from 3.5 years ago.
  
• Too few QBs and OTs. Over the past 40 years, the Bills have used 50% of their first picks of the draft on RBs and DBs. None have been used on QBs, and only 5% on OTs.
  
• Too strong an emphasis on "quick fix" players. Part of the reason for the excess of RBs and DBs, and the absence of OTs and QBs, is that players in the later category typically can't contribute as quickly. Marv's drafts are an excellent example of a "win now" mentality. He once said that if you're building for the future, you're building for someone else's future.
  
• Taking players early in the draft based on a single good year, or a good year plus a good combine. Maybin is a good example of this.
  
• Taking players based on achievements against lesser competition. Maybin is a good example of this flaw also.

 

In his three years as GM, Nix has used a first and a second round pick on a CB. Given the first point I made, it may seem as though I'm about to criticize him for this. I'm not. It's perfectly acceptable to use an early pick on a DB to fill a legitimate need, which is what Nix has done. He has not created any artificial needs by failing to re-sign any DB worth keeping. If he starts letting good DBs go first-contract-and-out, then and only then do you criticize him.

 

On a similar vein, I won't necessarily criticize Nix for the Spiller pick. If Spiller can be a very effective runner, and if he can be Thurman-like in passing situations, he's worth the pick used on him. He's shown flashes of this in his brief playing time last season. For this pick to be justified, the Bills have to hold onto him for a total of eight or ten years. He cannot be the next Antowain Smith/Travis Henry/Willis McGahee/Marshawn Lynch!

 

Too few QBs. The Bills have a need for a franchise QB. But it's not as though Nix has passed up a widely recognized franchise QB prospect to take a player at some other position instead.

 

Too few OTs. TD once expressed the view that a good OL was more the result of good coaching than player talent. That was around the time he hired McNally to be the OL coach, while letting Jonas Jennings leave in free agency. The Bills' OL of 2005 was one of the worst in team history. After Marv Levy tried and failed to fix the line with overpriced, overhyped free agents, the Bills have been quietly building the line back into what it should be. Nix has continued that process with guys like Hairston and Pears at RT, and now Glenn at LT. If Glenn works out, and if some of the other OLs just drafted reach their potential, the OL will have both good starters and good depth.

 

Too strong an emphasis on "quick fix" players. I don't sense this is a problem with Nix, though I could be wrong.

 

Taking players in the draft based on a single good year, a good year plus a good combine, or on performances against inferior competition. Nix has avoided all these errors, and seems to take a more disciplined approach to the draft.

 

Leading up to the draft, I wrote that Wannstedt is the kind of guy who will take a big, hard-hitting SS, or SS/LB tweener in the fourth or fifth round, ask him to add a few pounds, and turn him into a linebacker. Apparently Wannstedt is the kind of guy who will take a LB in the fourth and the fifth round! Between them, Nix and Wannstedt seem to have gotten much better football players than one would expect from fourth or fifth round picks! What they did there also speaks to Nix's discipline. He filled the need at linebacker while conserving his earlier, more valuable picks for use on players at more important, premium positions.

 

As of right now, Nix seems like a far better GM and a longer-term, more strategic thinker than the Bills have had since Polian.

[Dawgg]

As of right now, Nix seems like a far better GM and a longer-term, more strategic thinker than the Bills have had since Polian.

John Butler was a pretty good GM in his own right.

 

Nix has the best job in the world. Following the footsteps of Russ Brandon and Marv Levy, there's nowhere to go but up!

[Coach Tuesday]

I agree with your conclusion about Nix, and much of your analysis, with a caveat:

 

It could just as easily be argued that the downfall of the GMs before him (post-Polian) was that they failed in their effort to find a franchise quarterback. Nix has yet to make the draft pick that will define his tenure - the franchise QB of the future.

 

Eventually Nix will make that pick (or, I suppose, trade for one), and it will define him when he does. But he's gone through three drafts and has not selected a potential successor QB (Levi Brown does not count). So in my mind, the jury is still out.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Coach Tuesday

[eball]

Pretty ironic that three short years ago, some of the same fans now praising Nix as a "strategic thinker" were bemoaning the hiring of a "dumbass country hick" nobody else wanted. (disclaimer: I'm not referring to Edwards' Arm)

 

I love the NFL.

[Lurker]

Pretty ironic that three short years ago, some of the same fans now praising Nix as a "strategic thinker" were bemoaning the hiring of a "dumbass country hick" nobody else wanted. (disclaimer: I'm not referring to Edwards' Arm)

 

I love the NFL.

Like cornerbacks, most fans have short memories...

[cage]

I agree with your conclusion about Nix, and much of your analysis, with a caveat:

 

It could just as easily be argued that the downfall of the GMs before him (post-Polian) was that they failed in their effort to find a franchise quarterback. Nix has yet to make the draft pick that will define his tenure - the franchise QB of the future.

 

Eventually Nix will make that pick (or, I suppose, trade for one), and it will define him when he does. But he's gone through three drafts and has not selected a potential successor QB (Levi Brown does not count). So in my mind, the jury is still out.

 

I think the jury is still out. The longstanding hallmark of a long-term successful run is the stability of a franchise QB. He's put all his eggs in the Fitz basket. So far we've been able to say that the team around him hasn't been good enough. With the attention to D this past offseason and Jackson/Spiller on the verge of becoming a dynamic duo we'll find out if this is a good call on Nix's part.

 

I would submit that his legacy will rest on this strategic decision. If Fitz plays well all year and the team follows suit then he'll be Executive of the Year. If Fitz fails and shows he's no better than a competent back-up, then the rest of the improvements will be irrelevant and Nix will hang with him as patience will run out with developing a rookie QB from the next draft.

 

I don't think he would be able to pick a round 1/2 QB next year and tell everyone that he'll need 3 years for him to develop.

Edited May 1, 2012 by cage

[Orton's Arm]

Thanks for the good, level-headed responses.

 

I agree with Coach Tuesday and Cage that a franchise QB is critical. I also feel Fitz needs to play at a higher level than we've seen for him to be that franchise QB. I think he's capable of being an average NFL starter. Together with the talent Nix seems to have assembled, that should be good enough to get the Bills into the playoffs, and perhaps even into the divisional round. At some point during the postseason the Bills will likely get eliminated by a team with a franchise QB. But if the Bills start making it to the playoffs, Nix's job should be safe for the next few years.

 

I agree that Butler was a better GM than TD or Marv. But Butler made his share of mistakes too. Butler's first round picks consisted of the following:

1992: John Fina, LT

1993: Thomas Smith, CB

1994: Jeff Burris, CB

1995: Ruben Brown, G

1996: Eric Moulds, WR

1997: Antowain Smith, RB

1998: traded for Rob Johnson, QB

1999: Antoine Winfield, CB

2000: Erik Flowers, DE

 

John Fina was in the bottom third of starting LTs. That fact didn't stop Butler from giving him a lavish extension in 2000. In 2001, TD released Fina. After his release, Fina signed a short-term deal with some other team for near the league minimum. That was part of a larger pattern: Butler was not disciplined about the salary cap.

 

Looking at the above list, only two success stories jump out at me: Eric Moulds and Ruben Brown. As for Brown: when you use a first round pick on an OG, you expect him to be a very good player. Antowain Smith was a wasted draft pick, because you shouldn't use a first round pick on a RB unless a) he runs like Jim Brown, or b) he'll be a much better receiver than your average RB. Nothing about Smith indicated he was either of these things. Antoine Winfield would have been a great success story had he not gone first-contract-and-out. Granted, TD was the one to blame for not re-signing him. On the other hand, Butler had allowed previous first round DBs (Smith and Burris) to leave in free agency, which indicates at least the possibility that he would have similarly allowed Winfield to leave. Without a better feel for whether he would have been retained, I'll hold the Winfield question in abeyance.

 

Butler failed to solve the Bills' problems at QB or on the offensive line. (Flutie was never going to be more than an aging stopgap.) The defensive line was another story: Ted Washington and Pat Williams were big additions, both figuratively and literally. Marcellus Wiley had a few good years for the Bills. TD let him go first-contract-and-out in an effort to clean up the salary cap mess Butler had created. Wiley did little after leaving the Bills. In a nutshell, Butler acquired two good NTs/DTs, but no long-term answers at DE. Not a great legacy for someone who'd spent seven years as the official GM, and one year prior to that as the de facto GM. (I've read that the Fina pick was Butler's call, even though Polian was still officially GM at the time.) On the other hand, some of Butler's acquisitions at LB--Paup and Cowart--would have been long-term answers had it not been for career-altering injuries.

 

Butler found relatively few success stories outside the first round; and most of his first round picks were disappointing. He achieved temporary successes through free agent signings like Flutie, as well as through draft picks and free agent signings who contributed at a high level for a few years before flaming out. Finally, he greatly benefited from the talent he inherited from Polian. However, that talent slowly slipped away due to player aging, and Butler did not replace it at anywhere near the pace at which it was being lost. TD inherited an aging roster of below-average talent, which also happened to be in serious salary cap trouble. Even with a legacy like that, Butler was a significantly better GM than either TD or Marv.

[cage]

 

I agree that Butler was a better GM than TD or Marv. But Butler made his share of mistakes too. Butler's first round picks consisted of the following:

1992: John Fina, LT

1993: Thomas Smith, CB

1994: Jeff Burris, CB

1995: Ruben Brown, G

1996: Eric Moulds, WR

1997: Antowain Smith, RB

1998: traded for Rob Johnson, QB

1999: Antoine Winfield, CB

2000: Erik Flowers, DE

 

 

I think we should rethink the definition of draft success. We also can't penalize Butler for subsequent front offices not resigning a player. The average NFL player has about a 4 year career and when you look back at the retrospective redrafts that are published every year at draft time of what "should" have been picked 4-5 years ago based on how the players actually performed, there's nearly a 50% bust rate in the first round. That rate gets high, of course, is subsequent rounds. Anytime you bag an 8-10 year starter in the league, then you HIT on that draft pick and the selection was a good one, given the information they have at the time.

 

The highlighted players should all be counted as successful draft picks.

-- Fina had a 10 year career as a starting LT

-- Burris was a starting CB, electrifying punt returner and was signed away by Colts to a rich contract

-- Ruben Brown and Eric Moulds you've already declared a success

-- Antowain Smith, did have 2 1K years and had a productive 10 year career at RB, he's a bit iffy

-- Antoine Winfield has long been a top notch CB in the league

 

So I think we have to give him credit for hitting 5.5 out of 9 (A. Smith I counted as a 1/2)

[Wagon Circler]

I think the jury is still out. The longstanding hallmark of a long-term successful run is the stability of a franchise QB. He's put all his eggs in the Fitz basket. So far we've been able to say that the team around him hasn't been good enough. With the attention to D this past offseason and Jackson/Spiller on the verge of becoming a dynamic duo we'll find out if this is a good call on Nix's part.

 

I would submit that his legacy will rest on this strategic decision. If Fitz plays well all year and the team follows suit then he'll be Executive of the Year. If Fitz fails and shows he's no better than a competent back-up, then the rest of the improvements will be irrelevant and Nix will hang with him as patience will run out with developing a rookie QB from the next draft.

 

I don't think he would be able to pick a round 1/2 QB next year and tell everyone that he'll need 3 years for him to develop.

Good analysis.

Nix himself said that he would like to take a QB every year until you find the franchise guy.

Yet he has not taken one at all.

Therefore his legacy (and the teams fortunes) rest with how good Fitz will be this year.

[John Cocktosten]

Pretty ironic that three short years ago, some of the same fans now praising Nix as a "strategic thinker" were bemoaning the hiring of a "dumbass country hick" nobody else wanted. (disclaimer: I'm not referring to Edwards' Arm)

 

I love the NFL.

 

While I like the what he did in the draft, the fact is under his regime the Bills are 10-22. So before you start anointing him the messiah, let's get into the playoffs.

 

Some fans never learn their lesson.

[eball]

While I like the what he did in the draft, the fact is under his regime the Bills are 10-22. So before you start anointing him the messiah, let's get into the playoffs.

 

Some fans never learn their lesson.

Where did you get that from my post?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I've seen post-Polian GMs make a number of strategic errors over the years, particularly on draft day. I'll start by listing the errors of previous GMs, and then I'll look at whether Nix avoided the errors of the list.

 

Errors

• Too many early picks on DBs. The underlying cause of this error was that the Bills' best DBs were allowed to go first-contract-and-out. That policy artificially created needs at DB positions--needs which were then filled with early picks. There were also times when the Bills reached for a DB early in the draft, with Whitner being the most obvious example.
• Too many RBs. Every 3.5 years the Bills would use a first or second round pick on a RB, while giving up on the previous early pick from 3.5 years ago.
• Too few QBs and OTs. Over the past 40 years, the Bills have used 50% of their first picks of the draft on RBs and DBs. None have been used on QBs, and only 5% on OTs.
• Too strong an emphasis on "quick fix" players. Part of the reason for the excess of RBs and DBs, and the absence of OTs and QBs, is that players in the later category typically can't contribute as quickly. Marv's drafts are an excellent example of a "win now" mentality. He once said that if you're building for the future, you're building for someone else's future.
• Taking players early in the draft based on a single good year, or a good year plus a good combine. Maybin is a good example of this.
• Taking players based on achievements against lesser competition. Maybin is a good example of this flaw also.

As of right now, Nix seems like a far better GM and a longer-term, more strategic thinker than the Bills have had since Polian.

 

Great analysis, Edward's Arm. I think your 6th point is key

[OldTimer1960]

I think the jury is still out. The longstanding hallmark of a long-term successful run is the stability of a franchise QB. He's put all his eggs in the Fitz basket. So far we've been able to say that the team around him hasn't been good enough. With the attention to D this past offseason and Jackson/Spiller on the verge of becoming a dynamic duo we'll find out if this is a good call on Nix's part.

 

I would submit that his legacy will rest on this strategic decision. If Fitz plays well all year and the team follows suit then he'll be Executive of the Year. If Fitz fails and shows he's no better than a competent back-up, then the rest of the improvements will be irrelevant and Nix will hang with him as patience will run out with developing a rookie QB from the next draft.

 

I don't think he would be able to pick a round 1/2 QB next year and tell everyone that he'll need 3 years for him to develop.

 

I respectfully think that your view is too short-term focused. Sure, he could have traded a boatload of picks to move up and take a potential "franchise" QB, but he felt it was better to build the overall talent on the roster, especially the defense, up first. If he had traded, say, 2 #1s and a #2 pick to move up to grab a highly rated then the Bills would still have a UB-level defense and wouldn't be any more competitive (if they were as competitive as I think they'll be).

 

I am all-in on fixing the D first. I would rather watch my team be in most games because the defense can hold good teams to low scores than the alternative. It is AWFUL watching a defense that has no hope at all of stopping any opponent. That is what we were watching 2 years ago with some improvement last year.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

While I like the what he did in the draft, the fact is under his regime the Bills are 10-22. So before you start anointing him the messiah, let's get into the playoffs.

 

Some fans never learn their lesson.

 

*scratchin' my ol country haid here* saying someone is a better strategic thinker than their (poor performing) predecessors equates with "anointing him the messiah" in your mind?

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Nix himself said that he would like to take a QB every year until you find the franchise guy.

Yet he has not taken one at all.

Therefore his legacy (and the teams fortunes) rest with how good Fitz will be this year.

Unless Buddy suddenly gets fired or steps down, he's still writing his legacy so I would quibble with your last sentence.

 

 

I like your first point and I would add that before his first draft in 2010, Nix said you had to draft a cornerback or two every year because of the way the league is. And yet, he didn't draft a cornerback that year.

 

Also the Bills were interested in OT's Russell Okung and Trent Williams that year (he said there were 2 tackles he liked in the first round) but both were gone by the time the Bills drafted. Nix had stated a desire to draft a tackle but he would not reach for one to fill a need (the Bryan Bulagas of the world).

 

If you analyze the Bills drafts under Nix and who was available when we picked, the only successful offensive tackles they've let pass them were guys who've done better than was expected of them and/or who are not better players than Spiller or Dareus.

 

The last thing I want to do is re-kindle the never-ending BPA vs Need Debate (it's like a bad rash that never really goes away) so suffice to say that some GMs give much greater weight to BPA (over need) than other GMs. It's not black and white… it's a shade of grey and Nix's grey is pretty black.

 

 

[artmalibu]

.

 

 

[*]Too few QBs and OTs. Over the past 40 years, the Bills have used 50% of their first picks of the draft on RBs and DBs. None have been used on QBs, and only 5% on OTs.

 

 

Not true

 

I can think of one Qb the bills drafted in round one.

And another that they traded a 1st round pick to get.

Edited May 2, 2012 by artmalibu

[K-9]

While I like the what he did in the draft, the fact is under his regime the Bills are 10-22. So before you start anointing him the messiah, let's get into the playoffs.

Some fans never learn their lesson.

 

Just what lesson is that, exactly?

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

 

Errors

[*]Too many early picks on DBs. The underlying cause of this error was that the Bills' best DBs were allowed to go first-contract-and-out. That policy artificially created needs at DB positions--needs which were then filled with early picks. There were also times when the Bills reached for a DB early in the draft, with Whitner being the most obvious example.

 

 

Great post.

 

I would only disagree you with your first error--drafting DB's early. I believe that one of the best and safest draft picks is a 1st round cornerback. And because corners can start immediately and FA corners are so overpriced, it makes sense to let your free agents walk and draft replacements. The Eagles did something similar for years, using their 1st and 2nd round picks frequently on DB's, and it seemed to work for them.

[3rdand12]

Unless Buddy suddenly gets fired or steps down, he's still writing his legacy so I would quibble with your last sentence.

 

 

I like your first point and I would add that before his first draft in 2010, Nix said you had to draft a cornerback or two every year because of the way the league is. And yet, he didn't draft a cornerback that year.

 

Also the Bills were interested in OT's Russell Okung and Trent Williams that year (he said there were 2 tackles he liked in the first round) but both were gone by the time the Bills drafted. Nix had stated a desire to draft a tackle but he would not reach for one to fill a need (the Bryan Bulagas of the world).

 

If you analyze the Bills drafts under Nix and who was available when we picked, the only successful offensive tackles they've let pass them were guys who've done better than was expected of them and/or who are not better players than Spiller or Dareus.

 

The last thing I want to do is re-kindle the never-ending BPA vs Need Debate (it's like a bad rash that never really goes away) so suffice to say that some GMs give much greater weight to BPA (over need) than other GMs. It's not black and white… it's a shade of grey and Nix's grey is pretty black.

I dare dip a toe into this water as a newb. But Buddy said at a press interview they have not been able to draft as they did This year because of so many needs to fill previously. This was in response that the boys were able to draft by position as they had hoped. 2 Cbs 2 Ots 2 Lbs and Wr plus luxury pick or two (kicker). This sounded to me like they drafted as they wished to becuase almost all the holes are filled. and now it's about improving at position with depth. Good place to be finally. i mean if that is true. But looks like we will have a thicker roster by position this year to me. Created from a good bit of competition this time around.

[K-9]

Great post.

 

I would only disagree you with your first error--drafting DB's early. I believe that one of the best and safest draft picks is a 1st round cornerback. And because corners can start immediately and FA corners are so overpriced, it makes sense to let your free agents walk and draft replacements. The Eagles did something similar for years, using their 1st and 2nd round picks frequently on DB's, and it seemed to work for them.

 

Good point. It's also worth noting the Bills didn't let anyone go. Not Burris. Not Winfield. Not Clements etc, etc. They chose to go and take better offers. In some cases, ludicrous offers.

 

When McKelvin is either cut or signs elsewhere in FAgency, it'll be the same story. But I doubt anyone would call that creating an artificial hole.

 

GO BILLS!!!