Drafting & player development

[RuntheDamnBall]

We've talked a lot here about the draft and the Bills' relative inconsistency (and I'm putting that nicely). It seems like the Bills are either not onto some formula that other teams have, and/or they seem to miss obvious picks (though I'll argue here that the benefit of hindsight is pretty substantial). Indulge me in a ramble if you don't mind.

 

For whatever reason, the Bills seem to have a pretty difficult time getting players who can contribute right away as rookies, and a similarly difficult time developing players who need the time to develop. It seems like other teams can find rookies who set the league ablaze. Rarely is this the case with the Bills.

 

We want to point to the front office and place the blame on them for all of this, but there are greater culprits, I think:

 

1) The Bills have been so strategically inconsistent that it's near-impossible for the front office to supply them with players that can fit where they want to go by the time they are ready. By the time they get players who can play onto the team, the team itself has moved on from the coach or system that the player was supposed to fit into. I am not certain that Troup or Carrington or Poz were ever destined to be any great shakes, and certainly each has his own individual detractions, but each of them (Troup with injuries excepted) could have been contributors. We could even use Poz now, after another system change. Instead he drifted from one lousy system into one he didn't fit before moving on. We might be mad at Chan, but we're probably not going anywhere as long as the team is on a merry go-round of game-strategy and philosophy. The next coach, if Chan doesn't survive, is going to have his own ideas. And it will be "here we go again" with the changes. People point to Jim Harbaugh's "instant success," but he is working with players assembled by past regimes, and the team hasn't scrapped systems every time.

 

As for player development, there are some players that are going to bust - with any team. Laugh if you want, but New England has actually not been a model franchise in terms of drafting "hits." They simply acquire enough draft picks to cover for their mistakes - and this is smart. Meanwhile, they always have a good enough core to compete, centered around Tom Brady but also including an always-strong stable of interior linemen and TEs.

 

2) Defensively, the Bills have never been so good at any one thing that a coach has been able to trust that part of the team as a building block. So what happens is we get a George Edwards in, he isn't a good fit, and then we install something relatively new or modified, forced to shed some good players who are less suited for that system (Dwan Edwards being one, Poz another victim - not great but solid).

 

The good news is that the Bills do and should have something approaching that kind of core in Dareus and Kyle Williams - guys who can probably play in any system. Hopefully Mario Williams can lend some consistency and there will be three positions at which the Bills never have to worry. That kind of line can play anywhere. So, what next? I firmly believe the Bills have to be considering a way to pick up a dominant LB - at any of the 3 positions, honestly. I like Barnett, but whichever one of the three can be upgraded with high end talent should be replaced.

 

3) Offensively, I'm finally coming around to the fact that the Bills won't be going anywhere far until they find a top flight QB. We've always wanted this and it's easier said than done, but I think at this point in today's NFL, it's too critical. Fitz may sneak this team into the playoffs, but he probably can't take them all the way unless he plays out of his head and above his abilities. I actually think he's hindering the team's ability to evaluate some of its other players. That said, I think the line is protecting pretty well, and the performance of our RBs says that a very good QB might be all the team needs to be extremely competitive in this division.

 

------

 

Now, the reason I started this thread in the first place is because I thought of TJ Graham, and his place alongside players like Aaron Williams, Aaron Maybin (to some extent), Kelvin Sheppard, and CJ Spiller - basically, first-day picks and how much they are to be trusted in their first year. It seems like Chan is of the mentality that rarely is a rookie ready, and that draft picks should be brought along slowly. It also seems like there are a few players (Dareus, Gilmore) that the team sees as exceptions to that rule - these players will contribute enough to offset the learning curve.

 

But what ends up inevitably happening is that someone gets injured, and then this rookie that already has received the message that he hasn't earned the coach's trust has double the pressure on him.

 

Now, no two players will be on the same development trajectory. I understand that. But I also think that the team has not played its draft chips in quite the right way. Over the past few years, it should have been trying to identify players who could step in and learn on the job at positions of need. In re-building, or playing for the future, as I'd call it, the team has sacrificed in-season performance to take the long-view. That's admirable, but it's also not good for job security in the NFL. If you know you have three years before the seat is going to get extremely hot, you should be finding guys who can get you through those three years. If coach and GM do not think TJ Graham can be ready in week 1 to start, why should you trade up to get him and keep him in a stable of only 4 true WRs? No round 1-3 pick from here on out should be viewed as a player who can't start in year one, and they need to start with a few areas of deficiency.

 

For the Bills, those neglected areas include:

1) receiving TE - Gronkowski was pretty much the answer here. He had his red flags in terms of health, but just about everything else lined up, and he was from Buffalo, too. These guys make QBs look better. Chandler is a pretty good poor man's version, but a rookie TE like this who can step in and just catch whatever is thrown to him is worth his weight in gold.

2) QB prospect - it's a re-set button for the franchise. I would trade most of next year's draft for the best one there.

3) workhorse LB - I do think the Bills would have drafted Kuechly if he were there, but you hardly ever fail with one of the top LBs on the board.

 

The moral of the story: Get stronger at these postions, trust these guys to fail a bit before you succeed, and you're going to build a long-term winner. The lines are ready, last week's stunner for the DL notwithstanding, and if the DBs can be put in the right position to succeed, I think this team can be closer than last week's loss made it seem.

 

Aww hell, I lost my train of thought.

 

Thanks for reading the wall of text, friends.

[BringBackFergy]

Nice review. Do any of you guys happen to recall what young QB's were still on the Board when we drafted Gilmore this past year? The only one I can remember is Russell Wilson and Kirk Cousins. How about when we picked Dareus? Can't remember who was left on the board after Cam Newton was picked. Andy Dalton I guess.

 

 

With respect to our drafting ability...it seems that we typically take the "diamond in the rough" approach to Rounds 2-7. Don't get me wrong, Cordy Glenn was a "no brainer" based on BPA - but alot of times it seems our FO wants to show other owners/GM's that we found the next superstar who is an unconventional selection (or one that Kiper may raise his eyebrows at when selected). TJ Graham might be one of those...Aaron Maybin was and that was in the first round (there goes my theory of the Bills limiting this type of selecting in rounds 2-7). I just think sometimes our FO outhinks themselves instead of looking at the BPA.

[BillsVet]

When RW fired TD and hired Marv, it set in motion a chain of events that have made this organization NFL Siberia. After ML retired, Brandon was inexplicably promoted despite having zero NFL personnel experience. When he realized he couldn't handle the gig, Nix was promoted. This after DJ had been fired and the organization conducted all of 2 interviews (Guy was the other) for the GM job. Guy was fired in late January 2010, so the Bills really had one option all along. Did they interview guys like Eric DeCosta from Baltimore or other personnel directors? No. And I chalk that up to RW being unwilling to commit to someone he didn't know. And so he went with Nix, who despite having the owner's favor, presides over a team 10-23 since his hiring.

 

No one wants to work for this team. It's why the Bills didn't conduct a real search for a GM in late 2009. It's why they ended up with Gailey as a HC after 5 coaches (Leslie Frazier, Jim Harbaugh, Russ Grimm, Brian Schottenheimer, and Ron Rivera) turned this team down. That's not a coincidence.

 

Moral of the story? Repeated bad executive and personnel moves make your reputation such that no one wants to work for you. And when you hire inferior talent evaluators and coaches, you get Buffalo Bills football 2001-present. It doesn't help that the owner is elderly, can't guarantee the team will remain in Buffalo, and hires typically only people he knows as insurance against another TD situation.

[GG]

Lack of consistency in the front office has destroyed this team. You are right, that hiring Levy set the franchise back a decade because it's obvious it was seen as a joke in NFL circles (after all, how many head coaches walk out on a team?). The chain of events since that time continued to destabilize the drafting & development because there was not a consistent blueprint to building a team. Nix/Gailey's biggest mistake was moving to a 3-4 when they had passable 4-3 talent, and no one who could switch to 3-4. After they realized the awful 2010 draft that targeted that defensive alignment, they came to their senses. But it also means that two more years were wasted. They're on the right track now, but it looks like 2013 will be the year, as the LB is the big missing link.

[Ramius]

Fwiw, i thought the Bills didn't want to wait on Frasier after the '09 season. That was when the Vikes advanced to the NFC championship, and for whatever reason, the Bills didn't want to wait until Frasier became available.

 

The talent identification is a problem, specifically relating to retaining/drafting. Far too often, the Bills have created their own holes on the roster, thus forcing themselves into burning picks on replacements. Just a few examples: After 2005, the Bills inexplicably cut a still productive Lawyer Milloy, forcing themselves to take Whitner at #8. They could have kept Milloy, used #8 on something else, and grabbed a safety later on to (attempt to) develop. After '06, the Bills cut a "too old" London Fletcher and pissed away a few picks on the great white hope, Poz. Could have kept Fletcher, and had a free second and 3rd rounder to use elsewhere. In '07/'08, it was the same situation with Greer. The simplest task would have been to re-sign Greer, and then not had to piss away a pick on McKelvin. And this is before we even get into merry-go-round of RBs.

 

For once, i think we've got a decent guy waiting in the wings in Doug Whaley. Here's a guy brought in from the outside, from a model organization. The biggest hurdle he'll face as a future GM will be getting us a coach worth a damn. My confidence in gailey has been steadily waning, and if he cant get this ship righted in a hurry, it's going to be time to fire up the coaching carousel once again.

[3rdand12]

Lack of consistency in the front office has destroyed this team. You are right, that hiring Levy set the franchise back a decade because it's obvious it was seen as a joke in NFL circles (after all, how many head coaches walk out on a team?). The chain of events since that time continued to destabilize the drafting & development because there was not a consistent blueprint to building a team. Nix/Gailey's biggest mistake was moving to a 3-4 when they had passable 4-3 talent, and no one who could switch to 3-4. After they realized the awful 2010 draft that targeted that defensive alignment, they came to their senses. But it also means that two more years were wasted. They're on the right track now, but it looks like 2013 will be the year, as the LB is the big missing link.

So this 3 year thing really should be called bull **** because once you have a winning organisation you keep it. finding it is the the trick. and i will continue to consider that 3 years is not enough for a team to get dialed in for long term. we call for heads to be lopped. me included too soon.

[machine gun kelly]

Ramius, excellent take. Couldn't agree more. I still think we need to stick with gailey this year and see if he can adjust as changing too quickly kills this team.

 

We'll see how they respond this week. I just don't see how fitzy changes 180 degrees in one week. That was atrocious!

[RuntheDamnBall]

Like the rest of y'all I think we've got to be a bit worried about the coaching but I would give Gailey the year and see if any real progress is being made. We need to remember that there may be only so far he can go with Fitz, even if Gailey has his own limitations. That said, I think we've been better finding diamonds in the rough on the budget free agent market than in the draft. I wonder how Whaley will fare in that role, or at least as the man calling the shots in that role. One thing I would hope, as a fan, is to see that Whaley has full autonomy in his picks.

 

Adding to the coach discussion, if Gailey does go, I think we really need to consider a HC who will commit to sticking with the 4-3 - there is enough talent assembled there except for the LBs, and I think most of us can agree they just aren't being used right (yet).

 

Best case scenario is they come out guns blazing and make us look foolish for worrying after last week, but I am not holding my breath. I'd like to see some good results going forward. Root for Fitz and co. but I think what we need is pretty clear.

[Coach Tuesday]

I agree with all of th OP however it's also just bad player evaluation. Do you really think that if Gailey and Nix thought Fitz was not a franchise QB, they would've gone all in on him like they have? Clearly they think he's The Guy. They've bet their jobs on it.

 

Are they right? Does anyone here think they're right?

[RuntheDamnBall]

I think it's a reasonable question to ask, CT, but if you compare the numbers to other middle-tier QBs out there, they're pretty comparable. I think they pretty clearly thought he could be middle-tier, serviceable, solid enough to advance a pretty good team. It looked early last year like that might be the case. It looks pretty different right now. I wouldn't say he's getting "all-in" money even though it seems like quite a lot and it's a better contract than any Bills QB has gotten, though.

 

And I'm not sure what the cap ramifications are if they are to cut Fitz, but generally those contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on. Only the signing bonus and the status of a player on the roster in a given year really matter.

 

Conversely, say that Fitz actually never got hurt, and led the team to a not great but much improved 8-8 record, without re-signing him. Given the random quality of injuries, this could have happened. In what negotiating position would the Bills have been then, with Fitz on the open market? We can't know, but I'm pretty sure he would have received what we gave him on the open market. In that case, you're looking at losing the guy who has led your team to its best results and is in large part responsible for the emergence of Stevie. The Bills blinked on that one and I'm of the mind that they were damned if they did or if they didn't.

[Geno Smith's Arm]

I was looking through the Polian drafts, and they aren't that impressive, but they sure knew how to acquire players. Leonard smith, Steve Tasker, Pete Metz, Cornelius Bennett, James Lofton....Polian made it happen!

Somehow, I can't accept that the players the Bills have chosen were so much less talented than every other team for the last 12 years or something. It's the culture, and as has been mentioned, lack of a consistent identity and playing style.

 

A good QB would have helped immensely of course.

 

I agree with all of th OP however it's also just bad player evaluation. Do you really think that if Gailey and Nix thought Fitz was not a franchise QB, they would've gone all in on him like they have? Clearly they think he's The Guy. They've bet their jobs on it.

 

Are they right? Does anyone here think they're right?

 

I think they felt they had no other option. Trent was not it, and they needed to have success within 3 years (most would say that anyway) if they want to keep their job. If they drafted a QB, they had to have someone that could win right away, but they likely didn't feel there were any available (I think Chan really wanted Cam Newton, but he was out of reach). Then Fitz had that nice stretch at the start of last year, so they hitched up the wagon.

 

What would you have done? Even with hindsight, it's not really clear. Andy Dalton? Trade for Alex Smith? Kevin Kolb?

Edited September 14, 2012 by Matthews' Bag

[Coach Tuesday]

To be clear, when I say "all in" I'm not just referring to his contract - it's the fact that they haven't drafted or acquired anyone to develop behind him. I suppose they may view Tarvaris Jackson as that guy, but I'm not sure - they may view TJ as a capable backup, not a potential starter.

 

What would I have done? I would've drafted or acquired a QB at some point in the last three years who could actually be developed to play the position. Not gonna beat the Russell Wilson (or Kirk Cousins) dead horse (although I loved RW heading into the draft last year). There have been others. They could've drafted Mallet, they could've picked Andy Dalton. Hell, they could've gone "all in" and traded a boatload of picks for RGIII and you know what? I think that as crazy as that would've been, they would at least have fixed their QB problem for the next decade.

 

Nix and Gailey's tenure will be defined by Fitzpatrick. They have no other alternatives and they've chosen it that way for themselves. If he doesn't turn it around, they're careers here are finished, and neither of them is likely to obtain the same heights (head coach, GM) ever again elsewhere.

[Geno Smith's Arm]

To be clear, when I say "all in" I'm not just referring to his contract - it's the fact that they haven't drafted or acquired anyone to develop behind him. I suppose they may view Tarvaris Jackson as that guy, but I'm not sure - they may view TJ as a capable backup, not a potential starter.

 

What would I have done? I would've drafted or acquired a QB at some point in the last three years who could actually be developed to play the position. Not gonna beat the Russell Wilson (or Kirk Cousins) dead horse (although I loved RW heading into the draft last year). There have been others. They could've drafted Mallet, they could've picked Andy Dalton. Hell, they could've gone "all in" and traded a boatload of picks for RGIII and you know what? I think that as crazy as that would've been, they would at least have fixed their QB problem for the next decade.

 

Nix and Gailey's tenure will be defined by Fitzpatrick. They have no other alternatives and they've chosen it that way for themselves. If he doesn't turn it around, they're careers here are finished, and neither of them is likely to obtain the same heights (head coach, GM) ever again elsewhere.

 

I don't think Dalton stood out anymore than Gabbert, Mallett (who had serious personal issues) or anyone else, and I don't think Dalton is even that good anyway.

 

If they were going to draft a QB, it had to be 2010 or 2011, I don't think they believe that they had the option of drafting a guy this year (being year 3), because they have to win this season. I'm not saying it was best for the long term success of the Bills, but I understand why they hitched the wagon to Fitz.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Matthews' Bag