Lv-Bills Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 I would love to take over a team and try this method for about 5 years to see if would pan out. Spend all available cap room each year on the offensive side of the football. Spend every draft pick each year on the defensive side of the football. Spending your money on proven offensive lineman, or proven skill players who you know can perform at the NFL level wouldn't be much of a risk. You could also pick up your backups on the market too. THere are plenty of Gandy's to go around. Drafting a ton of defensive players each year should give you ample and youngish talent each year to keep the cupboard stocked. You would have to re-up your best players on defense from time to time, but by bringing in so many young new players, you should be able to keep reloading alot too. I mean, a good bit of them would have to pan out eventually. So, this year, you come in for the Bills. After I lock up who we want, I spend all my available cap money or budgeted money on the offense. Lineman, WR's, TE's and maybe a QB. I draft ALL defensive players. Maybe 3 DL, 3 Secondary and a LB. And continue this trend for about 5 years. I think it would work. You are buying known commodities, and drafting quanitity to find quality. It should relatively balance out your cap also. By having so many young defensive players each season (barring the one's you wish to sign long term, aka studs) you should be realatively inexpensive on that side of the ball while being a little more cap heavy on the offensive side. I don't know, I just think it would be interesting to try. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 i think that might get you above average. young D players will have more immediate impact than young o players. vets on O can come in (QBs, WRs, and the OL) and just ship it in. the issue is you'd never get a big time impact player on O deveolped (you just pay for what you get) and you'd lose corners and pass rushers on D (assuming you drafted them). corners and pass rushers are rare, and you need young guys on O to come along and really turn into something special. i like the bias of spending FA on O and drafting D, but not in that extreme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lv-Bills Posted March 12, 2006 Author Share Posted March 12, 2006 i think that might get you above average. young D players will have more immediate impact than young o players. vets on O can come in (QBs, WRs, and the OL) and just ship it in. the issue is you'd never get a big time impact player on O deveolped (you just pay for what you get) and you'd lose corners and pass rushers on D (assuming you drafted them). corners and pass rushers are rare, and you need young guys on O to come along and really turn into something special. i like the bias of spending FA on O and drafting D, but not in that extreme 625461[/snapback] Noted. And it wouldn't be extreme to that extent. When we did get a new DE or CB who could play, I'd sign him long term. However, all money would always still go to offense. So, whatever is locked up after you sign everyone (O and D) it always goes to offense. Draft always to defense. I don't know, I think it would be interesting to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 If I was in a four year rebuilding project, I'd draft offense the first two years, and defense the second two. Or something like that. If you try building your offensive line through free agency, you'll run into three problems: - The best offensive linemen, such as Orlando Pace, will never see free agency. - Free agents have many options open to them, so you'll often find yourself going with plan B or plan C. - Sometimes proven players can get old in a hurry. Chris Villarrial is a good example. He'd proven himself in Chicago, demonstrating all the good qualities you look for in an OL: toughness, mean streak, work ethic, intelligence. But after just two good years of play, he had an injury-plagued year this past year. Now his position is a question mark. You really want continuity on your OL, but it's really hard to get this when your free agent signings don't last very long (such as Villarrial). At the same time, continuity between a QB and his WRs is important to develop too. I remember that as Kelly, Reed, etc. got older, their skill sets declined. But they were still dangerous due to the chemistry and continuity they'd developed over the years. You really do want a guy with you his whole career, especially on offense. Draft picks like Andre Reed and Eric Moulds have had much bigger impacts than free agent signings like Quinn Early. In fact, I can't think of very many free agent signings at all that have significantly helped the Bills' offense ever. James Lofton comes to mind, but not many others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Let's look at the best Bills' offensive free agents ever: OL Chris Villarrial Mike Gandy Trey Teague Bennie Anderson QB Doug Flutie Kelly Holcomb WR James Lofton Quinn Early TE Um . . . I guess that Royal guy HB nobody FB Sam Gash (the first time) An offense built around free agency would look . . . a lot like the Bills' offense right now. Of the five starting OL, four were obtained through free agency. The same could be said about Holcomb, who was one of the best available FA QBs the year he was signed. There'd be a downgrade at WR, because the QB would be throwing to guys like Andre Davis instead of Evans and Moulds. There'd be a downgrade at RB, with McGahee being replaced by . . . some random guy. I don't exactly see an offense like this striking fear into the hearts of defensive coordinators around the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts