A Few Thoughts About The "Best Player Available".....

[Bill from NYC]

I was watching ESPN when Kiper came on talking about the draft and assessing Flucker. He said that he was the best run blocking OT he has seen in the past 25 years. He felt that he was going to be taken in the middle of the first round.

 

John, thanks for this info. I assure you that I did not know about this.

 

Football and the NFL is a learning process for people like us who, in all honesty, have to much invested in it. That said, I will tell you what I see in Fluker.....

I watched Mike Williams at RT. He was a 350-400 pound monster in college. He did mega reps with 225 at the combines. Did he set a record? My point is that he was so big and so strong that he would actually absorb defenders in college. In the NFL, he was playing against pros who were fast. It didn't work.

Fluker plays football. He has good feet and he will improve in the NFL (imo).

 

We're exchanging opinions here and to posture as if your opinion is clearly better than someone else's is a questionable approach.

 

For one thing the OP is one of the very good posters here. He's right much more than he's wrong.

 

For another thing, while I don't agree with a Fluker/Bray sequence to start the draft, many would say that your idea of Jarvis Jones at #8 is just as if not more ridiculous.

 

Just a few thoughts collected while reading your post…

 

Thanks Bro. However I must admit, his response DID make me laugh.

 

Also, do remember (as you stated) that we are all floating possibilities here. I would like Fluker IF the Bills traded down, AND they could still get a qb who they liked in round 2 . That said, if they like a qb enough to take him at #8, you won't hear any complaints from me (unless the qb is Nassib).

[JohnC]

John, thanks for this info. I assure you that I did not know about this.

 

Football and the NFL is a learning process for people like us who, in all honesty, have to much invested in it. That said, I will tell you what I see in Fluker.....

I watched Mike Williams at RT. He was a 350-400 pound monster in college. He did mega reps with 225 at the combines. Did he set a record? My point is that he was so big and so strong that he would actually absorb defenders in college. In the NFL, he was playing against pros who were fast. It didn't work.

Fluker plays football. He has good feet and he will improve in the NFL (imo).

 

I have a slightly different take on Mike Williams. He was speciman who could physically overwhelm college kids but had little desire to compete against men in the pro game. He simply didn't have the work ethic and passion for the game to compete against almost comparable athletes who were passionate about the game and put in the time to prepare.

 

There were a few occasions in the beginning of his career when I saw him cave in his side of the line. But that sample of dominance was very small. His attitude towards the game was starkly manifested when he came into camp grossly fat. You can't force people to work hard. You can't force people to have a passion for what they do. You can't force people to have pride in what they do, especially when they don't like what they do.

 

I understand why Tom Donahoe drafted Mike Williams ahead of McKinnie. He could have been a more physical and rugged player than the more athletic LT from Miami. The problem that this franchise soon learned about MW is that having a big arse doesn't mean you have a strong heart. The problem was with the person, not the ability of the player.

Edited April 7, 2013 by JohnC

[Beerball]

I have a slightly different take on Mike Williams. He was speciman who could physically overwhelm college kids but had little desire to compete against men in the pro game. He simply didn't have the work ethic and passion for the game to compete against almost comparable athletes who were passionate about the game and put in the time to prepare.

Still can't believe he signed with Tampa after he left Buffalo.

[JohnC]

n

 

 

 

<a name="cke_range_marker">Still can't believe he signed with Tampa after he left Buffalo.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Williams_(offensive_lineman)#Professional_career

 

 

 

You are understandably mixing up the two Mike Williams. The Mike Williams you are mixing up going to Tampa was a highly drafted receiver who bounced around the league.

 

The team that the offensive lineman signed with after his Buffalo fiasco was with Jacksonville. After being out of the game for a couple of years his weight ballooned up to 410 lbs. He worked hard to lose 70 lbs and made the Redskin roster, playing a couple of years for them. He was forced to end his very unfulfilled career when it was discovered that he had blood cluts.

 

Mike Williams is not a bad guy. He simply wasn't committed to a brutal sport that he had little interest in.

Edited April 7, 2013 by JohnC

[Beerball]

 

http://en.wikipedia....fensive_lineman)

 

You are understandably mixing up the two Mike Williams. The Mike Williams you are mixing up going to Tampa was a highly drafted receiver who bounced around the league.

 

The team that the offensive lineman signed with after his Buffalo fiasco was with Jacksonville. After being out of the game for a couple of years his weight ballooned up to 410 lbs. He worked hard to lose 70 lbs and made the Redskin roster, playing a couple of years for them. He was forced to end his very unfulfilled career when it was discovered that he had blood cluts.

 

Mike Williams is not a bad guy. He simply wasn't committed to a brutal sport that he had little interest in.

I'm sure that I have it correct.

[JohnC]

I'm sure that I have it correct.

 

For some reason the wikepedia link can't be copied in its entirety. I will double check the source. But it is not a big deal.Google Mike Williams offensive lineman and see if you can come up with something different. I often make mistakes.

[thewildrabbit]

For some reason the wikepedia link can't be copied in its entirety. I will double check the source. But it is not a big deal.Google Mike Williams offensive lineman and see if you can come up with something different. I often make mistakes.

http://www.pro-footb.../W/WillMi22.htm

 

The Bills drafted him for LT and moved him to RT when they saw he had no work ethic, and wasn't motivated. It certainly sucks to draft a player that high only to find that they are not an all out "football" guy. AKA JaMarcus Russell. What bothers me more is it seems the Bills have been positively gun shy about drafting OT's in the first round since Williams.

 

 

"Washington Redskins OG Mike D. Williams is working as the team's starting right guard, reports Jason Reid, of The Washington Post. Williams said, "It took some time for me to get it, but it's just that simple. I know what it takes now. ... I really didn't workout before in the offseason. I was one of those guys. But I know what it takes now. I know what it takes to be at this level and to be the best player you can. Now, I spend all my day in the weight room. Why? Because I know what this job requires. It took me some time, but I get it."

 

http://www.kffl.com/...wo-placed-on-ir

 

I can only think that like J Russell, when he started running out of money he thought "oh damn" I'd better get back in the NFL. This is part of the so called "intangibles" that scouts talk about so much. Some guys would play pro football for nothing because they love the sport. Those are the "football" players you need to find. Some call them gym rats, I prefer the term "warrior".

Edited April 7, 2013 by FeartheLosing

[Beerball]

For some reason the wikepedia link can't be copied in its entirety. I will double check the source. But it is not a big deal.Google Mike Williams offensive lineman and see if you can come up with something different. I often make mistakes.

The Bills drafted him for LT and moved him to RT when they saw he had no work ethic, and wasn't motivated. It certainly sucks to draft a player that high only to find that they are not an all out "football" guy. AKA JaMarcus Russell. What bothers me more is it seems the Bills have been positively gun shy about drafting OT's since Williams.

Sorry folks, the Mike Williams/Tampa thing was board joke many years ago, I'm just messing around. Can't find a link in the archives...

[thewildrabbit]

I tried to concentrate solely on Fluker but my eyes kept shifting to Warmack while I watched. What a player.

 

Seriously though, Fluker will make some team happy for a long time.

 

GO BILLS!!!

I agree. But with so many teams looking for a LT I'd say there is no way Fluker lasts past pick 15.

 

Chiefs #1, Cards #7, Chargers #11, Dolphins #12 , Buc's #13, Panthers #14, Saints #15. All these teams need an OT / OG.

 

I would truly hate it if the Bills take another DB while the Dolphins end up with Warmack or Fluker.

 

 

Like I've stated in other posts I highly doubt Buddy Nix will trade back. That said, I can only hope that Marrone has some say in this draft and recognizes that there is some great talent to be had for the O line this year. Draft one of the 3 top OT's or Warmack. Plus, If Marrone / Hackett are as good as their peers state they are, I think those two could develop Tyler Bray into a top NFL QB.

Edited April 7, 2013 by FeartheLosing

[RuntheDamnBall]

I agree. But with so many teams looking for a LT I'd say there is no way Fluker lasts past pick 15.

 

Chiefs #1, Cards #7, Chargers #11, Dolphins #12 , Buc's #13, Panthers #14, Saints #15. All these teams need an OT / OG.

 

I would truly hate it if the Bills take another DB while the Dolphins end up with Warmack or Fluker.

 

 

Like I've stated in other posts I highly doubt Buddy Nix will trade back. That said, I can only hope that Marrone has some say in this draft and recognizes that there is some great talent to be had for the O line this year. Draft one of the 3 top OT's or Warmack. Plus, If Marrone / Hackett are as good as their peers state they are, I think those two could develop Tyler Bray into a top NFL QB.

Can anyone explain to me why the Bills would let go of Levitre because "good guards are easy to come by," then blow a top ten pick on a guard?

[Orton's Arm]

My worst meltdown was the 2006 draft. Taking Whitner sent me over the edge.The A. Williams selection was the most angry I have been since then.

Now, I expect idiocy. Sad but true.

 

 

 

Fluker is stronger, in better condition, and a MUCH harder worker. The kid can take over a game. Spiller, your favorite lol, would have literal truck sized holes on the right side. John, please watch tape if any exists and you tell me.

 

> Taking Whitner sent me over the edge.The A. Williams selection was the most angry I have been since then.

 

This surprises me. I would have thought you'd have been angrier about the Leodis McKelvin pick (11th overall) than Aaron Williams ( early 2nd round).

 

> Fluker is stronger, in better condition, and a MUCH harder worker. The kid can take over a game.

 

I trust your abiility to evaluate OL. However, I think it would be worse than useless to take Bray in the 2nd round. Bray will never become The Guy, and there's a chance that if the Bills took him, they would spend the next several years not using high draft picks on QBs.

 

Of the QBs in this year's draft class, I feel the most comfortable with Barkley, and the second-most comfortable with Nassib.

[uticaclub]

 

 

Right. I'm also saying that even Warmack isn't necessarily a home-run; "safe" prospects are often busts, or don't become stars. Richardson had an average year last year, and RB is the most overrated position in the league (a first-round starting RB hasn't been to the Super Bowl in years).

 

Frank.Gore?

[Dibs]

......(a first-round starting RB hasn't been to the Super Bowl in years).

 

You said this in another thread(which I responded to)......but since it is so very incorrect, I thought I'd re-post here....

 

1st round RBs who played in Super Bowls since 2000:

(Red = Main RB for winning SB team)

(Red bold = Drafted by, and main RB for winning SB team)

(Purple = Main RB for losing SB team)

(Purple Bold = Drafted by, and main RB for losing SB team)

 

2010: Rashard Mendenhall (Steelers)

2009: Reggie Bush (Saints)

2009: Joeseph Addai (Colts)

2009: Donald Brown (Colts)

2008: Edgerrin James (Cardinals)

2007: Laurence Maroney (Patriots)

2006: Joeseph Addai (Colts)

2006: Thomas Jones (Bears)

2006: Cedric Benson (Bears)

2005: Jerome Bettis (Steelers)

2005: Shaun Alexander (Seashawks)

2003: Antowain Smith (Patriots)

2002: Tyrone Wheatley (Raiders)

2001: Antowain Smith (Patriots)

2001: Marshall Faulk (Rams)

2001: Trung Canidate (Rams)

2000: Jamal Lewis (Ravens)

2000: Ron Dayne (Giants)

[ny33]

You said this in another thread(which I responded to)......but since it is so very incorrect, I thought I'd re-post here....

 

1st round RBs who played in Super Bowls since 2000:

(Red = Main RB for winning SB team)

(Red bold = Drafted by, and main RB for winning SB team)

(Purple = Main RB for losing SB team)

(Purple Bold = Drafted by, and main RB for losing SB team)

 

2010: Rashard Mendenhall (Steelers)

2009: Reggie Bush (Saints)

2009: Joeseph Addai (Colts)

2009: Donald Brown (Colts)

2008: Edgerrin James (Cardinals)

2007: Laurence Maroney (Patriots)

2006: Joeseph Addai (Colts)

2006: Thomas Jones (Bears)

2006: Cedric Benson (Bears)

2005: Jerome Bettis (Steelers)

2005: Shaun Alexander (Seashawks)

2003: Antowain Smith (Patriots)

2002: Tyrone Wheatley (Raiders)

2001: Antowain Smith (Patriots)

2001: Marshall Faulk (Rams)

2001: Trung Canidate (Rams)

2000: Jamal Lewis (Ravens)

2000: Ron Dayne (Giants)

 

Yep. I will correct that statement by saying that the top RBs, year-to-year, rarely feature on Super Bowl teams. Adrian Peterson, Spiller, Foster (who's wildly overrated), Forte, Richardson, etc. aren't winning Super Bowls.

 

Frank.Gore?

 

Gore was a third-rounder. You don't need a first-round, or elite, RB to win a Super Bowl. QBs and pass-rushers are far more integral.

[Dibs]

Yep. I will correct that statement by saying that the top RBs, year-to-year, rarely feature on Super Bowl teams. Adrian Peterson, Spiller, Foster (who's wildly overrated), Forte, Richardson, etc. aren't winning Super Bowls.

 

 

 

Gore was a third-rounder. You don't need a first-round, or elite, RB to win a Super Bowl. QBs and pass-rushers are far more integral.

 

I've done a fair bit of research into this sort of thing(though nowhere near as much as I'd like to do)......and the only real integral ingredient to winning a SB in the modern era is having an elite QB. It can be done without one, but it is much harder.

 

 

You mention "...first-round, or elite...". These are quite different things.

 

A great deal of the good NFL players have been selected in the 1st round. As I showed above, half of the starting RBs in the past 13 SBs were 1st round selections. All this really means is that you have a better chance to make(win) the SB with a solid RB.....most of which are selected in the 1st round.

 

An elite RB.....I agree with you.....they are not integral to winning(or getting to) the SB.

Mind you, there is no need to specifically highlight this fact IMO, as every elite player of every position(apart form QB) does not greatly increase ones chances of winning the SB.

 

Furthering that concept.....there would be a potentially decent analytics argument to be made regarding the amount of money it costs to have an elite player on your team, compared to having 2-3 very good players. Perhaps the only position actually worth the money is the QB position.

[ny33]

I've done a fair bit of research into this sort of thing(though nowhere near as much as I'd like to do)......and the only real integral ingredient to winning a SB in the modern era is having an elite QB. It can be done without one, but it is much harder.

 

 

You mention "...first-round, or elite...". These are quite different things.

 

A great deal of the good NFL players have been selected in the 1st round. As I showed above, half of the starting RBs in the past 13 SBs were 1st round selections. All this really means is that you have a better chance to make(win) the SB with a solid RB.....most of which are selected in the 1st round.

 

An elite RB.....I agree with you.....they are not integral to winning(or getting to) the SB.

Mind you, there is no need to specifically highlight this fact IMO, as every elite player of every position(apart form QB) does not greatly increase ones chances of winning the SB.

 

Furthering that concept.....there would be a potentially decent analytics argument to be made regarding the amount of money it costs to have an elite player on your team, compared to having 2-3 very good players. Perhaps the only position actually worth the money is the QB position.

 

Yeah, I disagree with people who say that paying a QB like Manning or Rodgers 20% of your cap isn't worth it.

[pimp 2]

I am NOT an advocate of this type of draft philosophy. Some positions (obviously QB) mean much more than others.

If the Bills think that there is a qb in this draft who can develop into a top 10 qb, they should grab him at #8.. Kolb hopefully will provide a window of time to do this.

 

The above said, DJ Fluker, imho, will be the best RT since Erik Williams. Yes, I said this. I have never, ever seen a RT coming out of college who looks as good as this kid. People on Sirius say he can play LT but ino that would be dumb. The kid is a monster RT. I like Warmack a ton at guard, but Fluker is just an insane RT.

 

Btw, I think more of Pears than the average Bills Fan. He can play, and is especially good (when healthy) on running plays. I know that RT isn't a position of need on the Bills. I get it. But a draft in rounds 1 and 2 of Fluker/Bray would work for me.

AND, they could probably trade down and do this.

 

Most GM's believe in this philosophy ( btw, so do I) but the dilemma occurs when in your grading of players your position of need is not in this grouping. So the problem exist, do you reach for a player(regardless of the grading) just because you're deficient? I say NO!!! If the player in a position of need is not ID's as a potential NFL, NBA or NHL talent don't grade higher than your scouts & evaluators. Just because you have a need at that position does not quantify this reasoning, IMO.

 

Here's my thoughts about this approach:

 

1- Group 1- players grade as NFL starters regardless of position. If this group has a player or position of need and the player grades higher than our returning starter. If this player is available when our pick come then that's the selection. (these are potential game-changer or difference makers)

 

2- Group 1- players are graded as NFL starters regardless of position. A player or position of need is not rated as a NFL starter. Then you select the player with the highest grade. Only problem that could factor here is that you have the depth in this position that you have ID as the potential pick...you could look to trade or see if another team is interested but its a good problem to have. (these are potential game-changers or difference makers)

 

3- Group 2- players ID as potential starters but need development. If this is the case with all things being equal a position of need should be a determining factor in the selection.

 

4- Group 3- players ID as good depth or special team qualities and so on...

 

After doing your due diligence and rating of players. Create your board and trust in the scouts or evaluators because first of all you want to draft players ID as NFL talents regardless of position. If a position of need falls in this grouping then all the better for your organization...free agency is where you go for position of need and the draft is for gaining NFL talents.

[Lurker]

Can anyone explain to me why the Bills would let go of Levitre because "good guards are easy to come by," then blow a top ten pick on a guard?

 

Just to play Devils Advocate, a four-year contract for an OG picked at #8 would likely be a lot less than the $46.8 million ($27 million guaranteed) Levitre got. For example, Matt Kalil (picked at #4 last year) got $19.8 million (fully guaranteed) for four years. Ryan Tannehill (#8 last year) got a four-year $12.6 million deal.

 

So if you think Warmack or Cooper are upgrades to Levitre, a case could be made that $12-$13 million is good value for the four years you have the position locked down.

 

Not saying that its right--OG is just not big enough an impact position to spend a top-10 pick on, IMO--but the new CBA makes it something that can't be dismissed

[ny33]

Most GM's believe in this philosophy ( btw, so do I) but the dilemma occurs when in your grading of players your position of need is not in this grouping. So the problem exist, do you reach for a player(regardless of the grading) just because you're deficient? I say NO!!! If the player in a position of need is not ID's as a potential NFL, NBA or NHL talent don't grade higher than your scouts & evaluators. Just because you have a need at that position does not quantify this reasoning, IMO.

 

Here's my thoughts about this approach:

 

1- Group 1- players grade as NFL starters regardless of position. If this group has a player or position of need and the player grades higher than our returning starter. If this player is available when our pick come then that's the selection. (these are potential game-changer or difference makers)

 

2- Group 1- players are graded as NFL starters regardless of position. A player or position of need is not rated as a NFL starter. Then you select the player with the highest grade. Only problem that could factor here is that you have the depth in this position that you have ID as the potential pick...you could look to trade or see if another team is interested but its a good problem to have. (these are potential game-changers or difference makers)

 

3- Group 2- players ID as potential starters but need development. If this is the case with all things being equal a position of need should be a determining factor in the selection.

 

4- Group 3- players ID as good depth or special team qualities and so on...

 

After doing your due diligence and rating of players. Create your board and trust in the scouts or evaluators because first of all you want to draft players ID as NFL talents regardless of position. If a position of need falls in this grouping then all the better for your organization...free agency is where you go for position of need and the draft is for gaining NFL talents.

 

"Positions of need" are very, very different in the NBA, NHL, and NFL. Players play offense and defense in basketball and hockey; in football, they not only play one side, but have specific roles (i.e., designated offensive linemen can't catch the ball).

 

In the NBA, even if you have, say, Dwight Howard, you would still draft Anthony Davis with the #1 pick. In the NFL, if you have Aaron Rodgers, you don't draft Luck/RG3; you trade down. You don't trade down from #1 in the NBA draft.

[pimp 2]

"Positions of need" are very, very different in the NBA, NHL, and NFL. Players play offense and defense in basketball and hockey; in football, they not only play one side, but have specific roles (i.e., designated offensive linemen can't catch the ball).

 

In the NBA, even if you have, say, Dwight Howard, you would still draft Anthony Davis with the #1 pick. In the NFL, if you have Aaron Rodgers, you don't draft Luck/RG3; you trade down. You don't trade down from #1 in the NBA draft.

 

You're missing the point. Staying on the topic regardless of sport /BPA , your scouts/evaluators/decision makers rate or grade potential talent for whatever sport entering they're draft year. These players should be rated and ranked according to their abilities to play in the league. From there you ID if they are Group1- 4 or whatever their grading system maybe...I agree with your NBA reference but you actually are proving my point. In the NBA (not trying to stray off topic) draft as you stated a team with the #1 pick would trade the overall pick in a heartbeat if the highest rank player at the time of selection isn't graded in either of the identifiable groups. In that league there are teams that trade 1st rd picks for 2nd's...Now if a game changer or difference maker is available then heck NO but you're actually supporting my stance...btw Anthony Davis is a PF and D. Howard is a center.

Edited April 8, 2013 by pimp 2

[ny33]

You're missing the point. Staying on the topic regardless of sport /BPA , your scouts/evaluators/decision makers rate or grade potential talent for whatever sport entering they're draft year. These players should be rated and ranked according to their abilities to play in the league. From there you ID if they are Group1- 4 or whatever their grading system maybe...I agree with your NBA reference but you actually are proving my point. In the NBA (not trying to stray off topic) draft as you stated a team with the #1 pick would trade the overall pick in a heartbeat if the highest rank player at the time of selection isn't graded in either of the identifiable groups. In that league there are teams that trade 1st rd picks for 2nd's...Now if a game changer or difference maker is available then heck NO but you're actually supporting my stance...btw Anthony Davis is a PF and D. Howard is a center.

 

To go off-topic again, while Davis is a PF and Howard is a center, having both on the floor would create spacing issues (i.e. Howard and Gasol in L.A.). That doesn't mean L.A. would have passed on him if the second-best player on the board (not in practice) was Kidd-Gilchrist.

 

However, if the Patriots were drafting first in 2012, they would trade down instead of picking up Luck/RG3, despite both players being premier talents.

 

I agree with much of what you said, but I don't think you exactly grasped my point of comparison between the drafting "science" in the two leagues.

 

Also, I said that NBA teams *never* trade the first overall pick. The value of, say, the 15, 16, and 17 picks in the NBA Draft is far inferior to the value of the #1 overall pick, whereas, unless a top QB is available, teams wouldn't trade #1 for #15, #16, and #17.

Edited April 9, 2013 by ny33

[NewEra]

Best player available should always be balanced with positional importance, supply & demand and team needs.

 

Last year, most rankings had Matt Kalil, Trent Richardson and David DeCastro listed as the best overall players in the draft. But the Colts and Redskins would have been nuts to pass on Luck or RG3.

 

Most rankings had DeCastro ahead of luck? Lol. No.

[pimp 2]

To go off-topic again, while Davis is a PF and Howard is a center, having both on the floor would create spacing issues (i.e. Howard and Gasol in L.A.). That doesn't mean L.A. would have passed on him if the second-best player on the board (not in practice) was Kidd-Gilchrist.

 

However, if the Patriots were drafting first in 2012, they would trade down instead of picking up Luck/RG3, despite both players being premiere talents.

 

I agree with much of what you said, but I don't think you exactly grasped my point of comparison between the drafting "science" in the two leagues.

 

Also, I said that NBA teams *never* trade the first overall pick. The value of, say, the 15, 16, and 17 picks in the NBA Draft is far inferior to the value of the #1 overall pick, whereas, unless a top QB is available, teams wouldn't trade #1 for #15, #16, and #17.

 

Ok. I understand and see your point.