PDA

View Full Version : Something That Irks Me About Draftniks......


Captain Canuck
12-19-2010, 06:25 PM
Since this is a draft community, I thought I'd get some feedback on how others feel about this. One thing that really irks me is when draftniks go on about how teams winning meaningless games at the end of the season take them out of contention for a certain player. I've seen this stated numerous times regarding Andrew Luck to the Buffalo Bills. These players are in the NFL to win, and by coming out of the season on a winning streak at the end of the season will do wonders to boost the teams confidence going into the next season. Much more than a draft pick who may or may not bust. It seems like draftniks get enamoured with certain players, and are angry when certain teams pass on them or play themselves out of getting that particular player.

Thoughts?.......

bored of education
12-19-2010, 06:28 PM
I see people say Buffalo played themsevles out of the Andrew Luck sweepstakes, but that doesn't mena they should have tanked the games to get back in the sweepstakes. I think people often say it tongue in cheek rather than meanign the team should tank and lose.

Babylon
12-19-2010, 06:38 PM
Since this is a draft community, I thought I'd get some feedback on how others feel about this. One thing that really irks me is when draftniks go on about how teams winning meaningless games at the end of the season take them out of contention for a certain player. I've seen this stated numerous times regarding Andrew Luck to the Buffalo Bills. These players are in the NFL to win, and by coming out of the season on a winning streak at the end of the season will do wonders to boost the teams confidence going into the next season. Much more than a draft pick who may or may not bust. It seems like draftniks get enamoured with certain players, and are angry when certain teams pass on them or play themselves out of getting that particular player.

Thoughts?.......

We're all closet GMs wouldnt you say? Players and coaches play to win the game (thanks Herm) so that is all that matters. What i wonder sometimes is what the general managers of these teams think. I find it hard to believe somebody in the Carolina or Buffalo front office is obsessing over a win when they can grab a franchise QB.

Crickett
12-19-2010, 06:38 PM
These players are in the NFL to win, and by coming out of the season on a winning streak at the end of the season will do wonders to boost the teams confidence going into the next season. Much more than a draft pick who may or may not bust.

Based on what are you making this argument? Not the players are in the NFL to win part, everything that comes after it.
On what basis are you claiming ANY of that?

Would a three game winning streak to finish last year have given the Sam Bradford-less Rams a 10-6 record this year?

SchizophrenicBatman
12-19-2010, 06:40 PM
The 2009 Carolina Panthers went 3-0 after being eliminated from the playoffs

Really helped them going into this season

BeerBaron
12-19-2010, 07:04 PM
I'll admit that I'm guilty of saying a certain team has played their way out of getting a particular player, but I never mean it to sound as though that team should have tanked. It's simply stating a perceived fact...like the Bills now have too many wins to have a chance to draft Andrew Luck with their original pick (they could trade up.)

It's just how it is...

6270410908
12-19-2010, 10:20 PM
Bills don't even need Andrew Luck. They can clearly win by building around Fitzpatrick for the time being. By not just tanking Fitzpatrick has shown a lot of growth, and has staked his claim to the job. Bills have much bigger needs than QB now and they should address them.

BeerBaron
12-19-2010, 10:24 PM
Bills don't even need Andrew Luck. They can clearly win by building around Fitzpatrick for the time being. By not just tanking Fitzpatrick has shown a lot of growth, and has staked his claim to the job. Bills have much bigger needs than QB now and they should address them.

Eh, Fitz is scrappy and can make enough plays to keep you in a game, but I don't think he's a franchise QB.

Give defensive coordinators around the league a years worth of film on him to watch, and he'll start looking bad again.

If they have a shot at Luck, they should absolutely take him. Now, if they're picking 3-5 and miss out.....maybe you can justify going another position over "settling" for the next best guy. But if one of Mallett, Locker or Newton starts to fall a bit, maybe they should trade back up into the end of the first round and grab him.

To put the fate of the franchise in Ryan Fitzpatrick with no other option would be a mistake in my opinion.

6270410908
12-19-2010, 10:33 PM
There should already be enough film on Fitz...he's been in the league for 6 seasons and has played quite a bit in St Louis, Cincy and Buffalo. Fitz is what he is...he's scrappy and a smart player but during the course of this season he has clearly developed in his efficiency and decision-making. And he's doing it with Steve Johnson and a cast of nobodies...with an UDFA rookie starting now. You can't really argue that Fitz is worth keeping...as far as an insurance policy...Ponder, Devlin, Stanzi etc...take one in the event he does crash and burn but at this point, and Chan Gailey has pretty much confirmed this already, Buffalo is questioning if QB is their biggest need now. Its not. They need a defense and a LT.

SchizophrenicBatman
12-19-2010, 10:56 PM
Fitzpatrick is a competent NFL QB, but is he really a guy you can win a Super Bowl with (in a non-Trent Dilfer scenario)?

What he's really done is put the Bills in a position to be able to take a high-risk player like Cam Newton or Jake Locker and allow them time to develop and give them a fail safe in case he busts

Captain Canuck
12-19-2010, 11:07 PM
Fitzpatrick is a competent NFL QB, but is he really a guy you can win a Super Bowl with (in a non-Trent Dilfer scenario)?

What he's really done is put the Bills in a position to be able to take a high-risk player like Cam Newton or Jake Locker and allow them time to develop and give them a fail safe in case he busts

I agree that they need to draft someone to develop behind him, and I think Newton could be a decent option if they choose to go that direction, but what exactly has Locker done to warrant being a top 10 pick?

Caulibflower
12-19-2010, 11:12 PM
I think the point is, and it's one I've made before, keeping Fitzpatrick for another year, instead of "settling" for a guy, might be a better long-term option. I mean, if there's not a guy on the board (hypothetically) who the Bills' front office is sold on, they're going to make themselves more competitive by drafting an impact defensive player, for example, over a QB who might not be an improvement. I really don't think it's a good idea for losing franchises to just draft quarterbacks in the first round as a first option for returning to relevancy. Build the offensive line, strengthen the secondary. If you see "your guy" in a draft, by all means make a move, do whatever it takes to get him. But you absolutely cannot just go into a draft thinking "WE MUST DRAFT A QUARTERBACK." Especially when you've already got one who isn't half bad. And, of course, this isn't to crown Fitz as a "franchise quarterback." I just think it's a better idea to be patient and build a solid roster than to reach for a guy because he plays the glamor position.

Caulibflower
12-19-2010, 11:15 PM
and the fact is... Trent Dilfer did win a Super Bowl. Or rather, the Ravens won with Trent Dilfer. The value of having a "star player" at the position can be, and sometimes is, overrated.

jsa230
12-19-2010, 11:26 PM
back in 05 the packers were 3-11 going into the last game. They beat the seahawks and lost a few positions in the draft. Gb would have probably still drafted Aj hawk third overall instead of fifth, at the time I didnt know this and remember having this exact argument with another Packer fan. I would rather see my team win because in alot of these situations, your team gets the same player. Granted, the bills sit. is alot different than that of the packers 5 years ago and they likely won't get a chance to draft luck, playing themselves out of the top 5. They will still be in a position to get a high impact rookie and save themselves millions in not having the first overall pick. I want to see my team win, i would never want to see my/any team tank to have a chance to draft ONE player.

NotRickJames
12-19-2010, 11:39 PM
Tanking is silly. Detroit has picked top five every year - it's done nothing for them.

You play to win the game - Herm said it best. If you're not playing to win, you're not playing.

6270410908
12-19-2010, 11:51 PM
How do we know what Ryan Fitzpatrick is capable or incapable of with a more competent cast around him? He's proven he can put up more than enough points to win games, while the defemse has proven they cannot keep points off the board on their end.

Dagagad
12-19-2010, 11:55 PM
NFL teams will never tank anyway for two reasons.

1 Alot of the players on the roster are cuttable/playing for new contracts. They are very motivated to play hard every game. Coaches are the same.

2 With the current contracts being given out to top picks, you are better not picking too high.

Scott Wright
12-20-2010, 12:04 AM
and the fact is... Trent Dilfer did win a Super Bowl. Or rather, the Ravens won with Trent Dilfer. The value of having a "star player" at the position can be, and sometimes is, overrated.

Dilfer won a Super Bowl, with one of the greatest defenses of all-time. In other words if you don't have a stud quarterback you need a historically great defense that comes along once every twenty-five years or so. Good luck with that plan.

Scott Wright
12-20-2010, 12:07 AM
I think most probably know how I feel about this topic. I would never, ever condone outright tanking. With that said, if I were a team that is out of contention I would be playing every young player on the team and winning games late in the year would be far from my top priority.

It's short-sighted.

Hurricanes25
12-20-2010, 12:10 AM
Dilfer won a Super Bowl, with one of the greatest defenses of all-time. In other words if you don't have a stud quarterback you need a historically great defense that comes along once every twenty-five years or so. Good luck with that plan.

Exactly. Look at this list of Super Bowl winning QB's...With a few exceptions, they are all great QB's...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_Bowl_winning_quarterbacks

NotRickJames
12-20-2010, 02:45 AM
I think most probably know how I feel about this topic. I would never, ever condone outright tanking. With that said, if I were a team that is out of contention I would be playing every young player on the team and winning games late in the year would be far from my top priority.

It's short-sighted.

This is pretty much exactly my line of thought. If a season's over, give some of the younger guys a chance - even if they don't give you a better chance to win.

fenikz
12-20-2010, 03:02 AM
Im never mad when my team wins, but being out of contention losses dont seem to matter as much

6270410908
12-20-2010, 03:04 AM
You never know what your team is going to do anyway. Everyone assumed Houston was taking games to draft Reggie Bush...yea, that worked out.

jrdrylie
12-20-2010, 09:27 AM
Dilfer won a Super Bowl, with one of the greatest defenses of all-time. In other words if you don't have a stud quarterback you need a historically great defense that comes along once every twenty-five years or so. Good luck with that plan.

The Bears got to a Super Bowl with Rex "Screw it I'm Going Deep" Grossman playing QB with a great defense and solid running game. The next season, after trading Thomas Jones and having an underacheiving defense, they miss the playoffs. The truth is, teams can win with a bad QB only when that QB is backed by an outstanding defense and running game.

Halsey
12-20-2010, 10:08 AM
There are still people grasping the Ravens Super Bowl win from 11 years ago? The NFL has become even more pass oriented since then. If you want to be stuck in the past, fine, but NFL teams need a franchise QB to consistently compete in today's NFL.

Dagagad
12-20-2010, 11:44 AM
You need an above average-good QB to win a super bowl but he doesn't have to be a number 1 pick. Tanking in anyway just sends a terrible message to your team and promotes a culture of losing. Win as many as you can and do a good job at talent evaluation and you will improve. Consistently picking in the top ten? Change the guys who are doing the talent evaluation.

edit: to be even more clear..there are 52 guys on an active roster and a significant amount of those guys will return next year. They are all playing for bonuses, contracts, etc. Benching viable starters for youth and you have completely lost a locker room and respect for the coach/franchise. Not a good situation for your franchise signal caller to come into. Football is just not basketball. You cannot tank.

Scott Wright
12-20-2010, 11:48 AM
Just to be clear, I've never said any team should "tank".

However, playing young players that might give a team a better chance to win in the future at the expense of some worthless short-term gains is what is best for most franchises.

jrdrylie
12-20-2010, 11:53 AM
You need an above average-good QB to win a super bowl but he doesn't have to be a number 1 pick. Tanking in anyway just sends a terrible message to your team and promotes a culture of losing. Win as many as you can and do a good job at talent evaluation and you will improve. Consistently picking in the top ten? Change the guys who are doing the talent evaluation.

edit: to be even more clear..there are 52 guys on an active roster and a significant amount of those guys will return next year. They are all playing for bonuses, contracts, etc. Benching viable starters for youth and you have completely lost a locker room and respect for the coach/franchise. Not a good situation for your franchise signal caller to come into.

Teams shouldn't be tanking it, but they need to play young guys to see what they have in them. Why don't the Bills give Spiller more touches? Why did the Cowboys start Jon Kitna, who has no future, instead of seeing if Stephen McGee has any ability to play in this league? Carolina picked up a scrub in Brian St. Pierre instead of seeing what Tony Pike has to offer. Denver waited too long to put Tebow in. They shouldn't purposely lsoe games like they do in the NBA, but if the season is already lost, why not start your future a little earlier than expected?

Dagagad
12-20-2010, 12:07 PM
Teams shouldn't be tanking it, but they need to play young guys to see what they have in them. Why don't the Bills give Spiller more touches? Why did the Cowboys start Jon Kitna, who has no future, instead of seeing if Stephen McGee has any ability to play in this league? Carolina picked up a scrub in Brian St. Pierre instead of seeing what Tony Pike has to offer. Denver waited too long to put Tebow in. They shouldn't purposely lsoe games like they do in the NBA, but if the season is already lost, why not start your future a little earlier than expected?

I'm not sure why in each of those individual cases but often it is coaches playing for their jobs. Garret is obviously coaching to get the job and Romo is going to be the guy there anyway. In Spiller's cases they might be committed to him getting a certain number of touches...depending on how they evaluated his susceptibility to injuries. I disagree with Tebow. Orton is a viable NFL QB. Unless you think Tebow will start over Orton next year, there is no reason to start him.

In the perfect situation with a coach who has the support of the gm and can take losses I would be ok with starting youth. But only if I really think he has a real chance of beating out the vet over time. If they are close in training sure..but if not..it sends a bad message to the team. Success is about creating a culture of success as much as anything. Letting guys play who obviously aren't getting it done in training is bad mojo.

Anyway I don't think this is a massive issue. Youth gets ample playing time in the NFL due to injuries anyway.

jrdrylie
12-20-2010, 12:33 PM
I'm not sure why in each of those individual cases but often it is coaches playing for their jobs. Garret is obviously coaching to get the job and Romo is going to be the guy there anyway. In Spiller's cases they might be committed to him getting a certain number of touches...depending on how they evaluated his susceptibility to injuries. I disagree with Tebow. Orton is a viable NFL QB. Unless you think Tebow will start over Orton next year, there is no reason to start him.

In the perfect situation with a coach who has the support of the gm and can take losses I would be ok with starting youth. But only if I really think he has a real chance of beating out the vet over time. If they are close in training sure..but if not..it sends a bad message to the team. Success is about creating a culture of success as much as anything. Letting guys play who obviously aren't getting it done in training is bad mojo.

Anyway I don't think this is a massive issue. Youth gets ample playing time in the NFL due to injuries anyway.

I see what you are saying about Spiller. He is a smaller guy and they probably don't want to risk an injury. But Kitna was starting even when Phillips was still the coach. And I just can't see Jon Kitna (the only 0-16 QB ever) giving any team the best chance to win. And I actually think starting Tebow could have saved McDaniels. Orton is a product of McDaniels' system. He puts up a ton of meaningless statistics but he'll never win a Super Bowl or even come close. If Tebow played well, McDaniels could use it for evidence that maybe he isn't a complete idiot. Tebow fails, he gets fired which was going to happen anyway. There was no downside to starting Tebow after they were eliminated.

TheFinisher
12-20-2010, 03:09 PM
I see what you are saying about Spiller. He is a smaller guy and they probably don't want to risk an injury. But Kitna was starting even when Phillips was still the coach. And I just can't see Jon Kitna (the only 0-16 QB ever) giving any team the best chance to win. And I actually think starting Tebow could have saved McDaniels. Orton is a product of McDaniels' system. He puts up a ton of meaningless statistics but he'll never win a Super Bowl or even come close. If Tebow played well, McDaniels could use it for evidence that maybe he isn't a complete idiot. Tebow fails, he gets fired which was going to happen anyway. There was no downside to starting Tebow after they were eliminated.

Yea but we were 1-4 when Kitna came in and Wade was still here, odds were against us but there was still slight hope we could turn it around and sneak into a wildcard spot. And Kitna has actually been playing very well for us, we're not asking him to do too much but he's been one of the few bright spots of the season. McGee is not ready to play in the NFL, I don't see him back with us next year anyway.

Vox Populi
12-20-2010, 08:47 PM
Give defensive coordinators around the league a years worth of film on him to watch, and he'll start looking bad again.

I think I've seen you use this argument against sticking with Flitzpatrick at least on one other occasion. Fitzpatrick has 35 career starts. Just sayin...

At this point, if Newton or Luck are off the board I'd rather stick with Fitzpatrick. They should just go BPA at literally any position that isn't a DB, RB or QB if the two I mentioned are off the board. Ideally someone in the front 7 or on the offensive line.

BeerBaron
12-20-2010, 08:51 PM
I think I've seen you use this argument against sticking with Flitzpatrick at least on one other occasion. Fitzpatrick has 35 career starts. Just sayin...

At this point, if Newton or Luck are off the board I'd rather stick with Fitzpatrick. They should just go BPA at literally any position that isn't a DB, RB or QB if the two I mentioned are off the board. Ideally someone in the front 7 or on the offensive line.

But this would be the first time it would be for the same team and system two straight years.

I truly think they need to bring in another option. Fitz playing well has likely made it so that they don't need to reach for a QB they aren't in love with in the top 10, but like I said earlier in the thread, if a guy like Locker or Mallett were to fall a bit, maybe they should still consider a slight trade up for him. Or at least draft a guy in maybe the 3rd round like a Ponder, Stanzi...someone like that, to develop a bit.

Vox Populi
12-20-2010, 09:38 PM
I just think the people that are saying, "Fitzpatrick isn't going to take you to a super bowl" are forgetting that the Bills are probably the least talented football team in the league. How many of the teams that drafted a QB were complete trash and in the Super Bowl within 3 years? The Steelers and the Giants, both teams that actually, you know, had talented players on their roster already. The Falcons might actually have turned their entire franchise around in three years, thats the only real example I can think of in the past 15 years and it hasn't even happened yet either.

I am perfectly fine with having a competent QB in Fitzpatrick for awhile if it means we can actually build a talented roster on defense or an explosive offense, something that a rookie can actually step into and hope to have some semblance of success. The AFC East isn't the NFC West where a culture change with a coach and a new QB can get you into the playoffs with a 7-9 record.

Yes, I would take Luck if he was there. I would consider Newton for sure. More than anything I just want the Bills to take a player that actually has talent and contributes to the team and can make an impact.

Erik Flowers. Might be as terrible as Maybin
Nate Clements. Awesome, gone.
Mike Williams. Worse than BMW?
Willis McGahee. Good, but hates Buffalo.
Lee Evans. Needs a QB that can throw 60 yard bombs to be a real threat.
J.P. Losman. Only knew how to throw bombs to Evans. UFL Superstar...
Donte Whitner. Basically a linebacker...
John McCargo. Terrible.
Marshawn Lynch. Loved him but hes a thug.
Leodis McKelvin. So inconsistent and hurts us more than he helps. ******* fumbles and some terrible games.
Aaron Maybin. Terrible.
C.J. Spiller. Hopefully he turns out decently to justify this pick when we had Lynch and Jackson.

Seriously, quality drafting. We have a bunch of solid players right now that were drafted somewhat recently all over the place, but most of them are backups or guys you'd use in a rotation with other solid players. I just want a player that we can actually call top 5 or 10 at a position. I actually think anyone who's watched the Bills a lot this year would call Kyle Williams a top 5 DT this year, but that's not my point and I've been kind of getting away from it.

This team is ******* terrible. No QB is taking us to a Super Bowl any time soon at all. No QB is taking us to the playoffs unless the Pats and Jets get destroyed by injuries or the Bills somehow move to the NFC West.

I know people say, "You take a QB if theres one available" but seriously, in the past decade, that has resulted in a Super Bowl for 3 teams (Giants, Colts, Steelers) and for teams that lost the Super Bowl, 3 teams (Bears with Grossman, Titans and the Eagles). Yeah, franchise quarterbacks carry teams, but only 8 times (between 6 teams) since 2000 has a QB taken in the first round by the team that drafted them even played in the Super Bowl. I'm not arguing for the Dilfer approach, but seriously, the first round isn't where you get your QB all the time. Yeah, the three or four teams you might consider the "dynasties" of the decade drafted their QB's (Eagles, Colts, Pats & Steelers), but there are still guys like Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Rich Gannon, Kerry Collins, Matt Hasselbeck, Kurt Warner, Jake Delhomme, Drew Brees taking teams to the Super Bowl recently. Then of course you've got a scrub like Grossman managing to help a team get there, and then theres the Tom Brady case where a 6th rounder turns into a franchise QB.

I'd much rather build a team with talent and have Fitzpatrick be the Bills Jake Delhomme for the next 3-4 years, but actually replace him before he turns to garbage.

Halsey
12-20-2010, 10:54 PM
The best Bills' teams of the past 25 years: The early 90's teams

The starting QB of those teams: Jim Kelly

How Jim Kelly was acquired by the Bills: 1983 First Round pick (joined the Bills in 1986 post-USFL)

Scott Wright
12-21-2010, 08:10 AM
Ah, I remember the Falcons fans who wanted to build in the trenches and take Glenn Dorsey over Matt Ryan... Even Andrew Luck might not turn some of these bad teams around instantly, but getting a franchise signal caller in the fold gives them the best chance to win long-term.

Poz51
12-21-2010, 11:45 AM
It's short-sighted.

Bills don't even need Andrew Luck. They can clearly win by building around Fitzpatrick for the time being.

a franchise signal caller in the fold gives them the best chance to win long-term.

In the last ten years, the Bills have drafted 2 QB's (instead of trading up for Roethlesberger or Rivers, they trade up for Losman...) and 3 OL in the first three rounds of the draft, how has that worked out for them? I am one of the draftniks who go on about "teams winning meaningless games at the end of the season take them out of contention for a certain player". Not always, but I like Luck that much, and think he clearly the best QB prospect to possibly come out at this point that I can remember. I also remember the 2001 Bills, won 2 out of the last 5 games, and Bills fans were estatic, "we're building momentum!" Yeah... Picked up Bledsoe in the off-season, went 8-8 in 02' and still have not made the play-offs since... This franchise has consistantly been short-sighted since Bill Polian left, and failed trying to win for the "time being", ignoring the most important positions in a passing league, that is QB driven, and protecting the QB should be the second priority to having a franchise QB. Can it be done otherwise, of coarse. But trying to fill out a "talented" roster has failed for over a decade, and as I read in this thread, the last time the Bills were relevant it was with J. Kelly who they drafted in the first round. Winning meaningless games this year against the Lions (this is not a knock on any of these teams), Bengals, Dolphins, and Browns does next to nothing in the long term.

Scott Wright
12-21-2010, 11:58 AM
One more note on the quarterback debate:

Apparently all but two of the 12 current playoff teams have quarterbacks that were chosen in the first round of their respective drafts. A pretty telling statistic and not a coincidence.

essential
12-21-2010, 12:12 PM
This is a good topic. As a player and coach, I’d assume you’d want to win every game no matter what. In theory the front office should be that way too … but they have to be looking ahead as well.

My opinion is that if you are not going to make the playoffs, as a fan, I hope for competitive losses. I want watchable games that end in losses. Those losses DO make a difference for two reasons.

1) You have a better crop of players available to you, even if it’s only by a pick of two. I’m a Bills fan and I’ll give two examples. Several years ago we took Marshawn Lynch in the first, and Patrick Willis went one pick ahead of us to SF. Had we just lost one, maybe two more games, we would have taken Willis over Lynch. MLB was arguably our biggest need (and we traded up for Poz in the 2nd). However, that one pick … and that one win that could have been a loss, made a difference. Also, in 2004 when we took Losman, before the draft it was rumored that our front office was enamored with Roth. Post-draft I read a report somewhere, I can’t find it now, that said we did in fact try to trade up for Roth with the Texans, but the Texans didn’t want to trade down because they did not think Donta Robinson would make it to our pick if they didn’t take him at 9. Another loss or two might have put us in position to draft Roth. We weren’t making the playoffs anyway, and that extra loss or two, intentional or not, would make the franchise better long term if we had Roth.

2) I don’t believe the FO of any team. In 2004 we wanted Roth, but after we took Losman they went to the podium and proclaimed the got the guy they wanted. I don’t think you can believe they actually got the guy they wanted, unless no other player at that position has been taken, especially QB (in the first anyway). If we were picking #1 overall and took Luck, I’d believe they wanted Luck. However, if we are picking #6 and Luck and Newton are gone, if we take Mallett how am I supposed to believe that’s the guy they always wanted? I don’t.

I respect that players need to play for their jobs, but long-term, as a fan who will be with a team, long after most of the players have moved on, I’d take the losses with the hope they help the team long term. We have played our way out of Luck and possibly Newton (maybe even Mallett). With Carolina, Cincinnati, and Arizona head of us, we could be settling in the top 6 for the 4th best player at that position. I’d rather have a meaningless regular season loss.

Dagagad
12-21-2010, 01:15 PM
1) You have a better crop of players available to you, even if itís only by a pick of two. Iím a Bills fan and Iíll give two examples. Several years ago we took Marshawn Lynch in the first, and Patrick Willis went one pick ahead of us to SF. Had we just lost one, maybe two more games, we would have taken Willis over Lynch. MLB was arguably our biggest need (and we traded up for Poz in the 2nd). However, that one pick Ö and that one win that could have been a loss, made a difference.

Yea, but the bills also could have picked for example Revis or Bowe at that spot. The problem was picking a RB that high in the first place, not missing the LB. Picking Spiller last year is another example.

Good talent evaluation is all important. I'd wager that the type of front office that is ok with losing a few extra games to get a higher pick aren't that good at judging talent.

Vox Populi
12-21-2010, 05:01 PM
dilfer - 6th overall pick
collins - 5th overall pick
brees - 32nd overall pick

just, you know, fyi.

My point was more that they weren't playing for the teams that drafted them.

Regarding Jim Kelly, I love the guy for what he helped bring to Buffalo, but that team also had Bruce Smith, Thurman Thomas, Andre Reed and a lot of other players that you know, actually had talent. 3 hall of famers and a 4 time finalist. Not to forget a defense that wasn't garbage to compliment the dynamic offense. 5th, 6th, 14th & 19th in scoring defense for each of their 4 years they went to the super bowl.The defense was also responsible for a lot of turnovers. They actually had talent on both sides of the ball, its not that easy to assemble the top QB-RB-WR trio in the league, a quality defense and to take it even further, a really solid special teams unit with Steve Tasker. A QB wasn't the only thing that brought Buffalo back to relevance, especially considering the QB that helped take them there said, "lol **** that empty cold ass stadium, I'm gonna go break some USFL records for awhile 'til they can't pay me."

Sorry for not wanting to draft Mallett or Locker and being skeptical of Newton's chances in Buffalo, I'd just rather grab someone with some talent then gamble on one of those three guys when theres a decent guy in Fitzpatrick already in town who can at least keep the Bills competitive while they assemble at least a respectable roster without investing top 5-7ish money in a QB that will just be getting trashed on such a terrible team.

BeerBaron
12-21-2010, 05:56 PM
... investing top 5-7ish money in a QB that will just be getting trashed on such a terrible team.

This exact same argument was made by (some of the) Falcons fans here three years ago, (some of the) Lions fans here two years ago, and (some of the) Rams fans here last year.

(Few) fans of perennially bad teams, which I think everyone would say is what the Bills are, typically want their team to take a QB, and they almost always make the same argument you did.

(The things in parentheses were added because there were a few fans of each team who wisely supported the move...but there were many more who would have rather had Glenn Dorsey, Jason Smith or Ndamakung Suh respectively each year.)

They say that their o-line sucks and will get the kid killed, they say that they don't have enough weapons on offense for him to get the ball to, and they say they have so many holes on defense that they could fill instead...

Now, the one thing you do have going for you over any of those teams is that yes, Ryan Fitzpatrick has been better this year than any QB any of those teams had the year before they found themselves. No one will argue that point. But my main point all the long has been that to throw everything behind him would be absolutely foolish, because plenty of QBs have had fluke seasons before, and many more will to come. Maybe you don't have to invest that top 10 pick at the position, but if one of the top guys falls to where you could trade up slightly or even outright take him with your 2nd rounder, I think you should. Failing that, I think they should invest in a Stanzi or Ponder type of QB in the 3rd/4th round. To move forward with Fitzpatrick and Brian Brohm would be franchise suicide, even if you finally buck your trend of failed high draft picks. If Fitzpatrick fails, you're basically setting yourself back a good 2-3 seasons while you develop someone else and squander any current talent you might have.

The Bills still need a long term answer at QB. To absolutely bank on Ryan Fitzpatrick would be a poor choice.

CC.SD
12-21-2010, 06:07 PM
One more note on the quarterback debate:

Apparently all but two of the 12 current playoff teams have quarterbacks that were chosen in the first round of their respective drafts. A pretty telling statistic and not a coincidence.

Interesting stat, very telling, but you might say the teams that are built strong enough to make the playoffs have a GM hitting on a whole lot of picks in the first round, not just the QB.

LizardState
12-21-2010, 06:37 PM
dilfer - 6th overall pick
collins - 5th overall pick
brees - 32nd overall pick

just, you know, fyi.

Splitting hairs: Brees was the 1st pick in the 2nd rd btw, the 33rd overall pick.

Tony Romo & Curt Warner were UDFAs from small schools, & Warner came through the NFL Europe. Some players earn greatness the hard way while others are born to it (if your name is Manning).

BeerBaron
12-21-2010, 06:39 PM
Splitting hairs: Brees was the 1st pick in the 2nd rd btw, the 33rd overall pick.

Tony Romo & Curt Warner were UDFAs from small schools, & Warner came through the NFL Europe. Some players earn greatness the hard way while others are born to it (if your name is Manning).

Actually, the Texans hadn't entered the league yet and there were only 31 teams..so the first pick of the 2nd round was indeed the 32nd pick.

Vox Populi
12-21-2010, 08:07 PM
stuff you said

Let me rephrase then, investing in a QB now is a complete waste because the QB won't be able to accomplish anything with the scrubs we have now for another half decade. It was 6/7 years after the Bills drafted Kelly that they even became a quality team (basically when we drafted Thurman Thomas).

Why couldn't the Bills do what the Bears did, build a solid team and then bring in a franchise QB of their own like Jay Cuter. Bring in a Drew Brees like the Saints did. Bring in a Mike Vick like the Eagles. Or have Fitzpatrick be the Bills version of a Matt Hasselbeck, Jake Delhomme or a Matt Cassell and build a talented team that can at least get into the playoffs without an all-pro QB.

I understand that most teams find their success at QB through the first round and your odds of finding a good one are way higher in the first round, but seriously, look at the QB's that have played in the Super Bowl since '00.

Kurt Warner(x3), Trent Dilfer, Kerry Collins, Brad Johnson, Rich Gannon, Jake Delhomme, Matt Hasselbeck and Drew Brees. None of these guys played in the SB for the team that drafted them.

Peyton Manning(x2), Ben Roethlisberger(x2), Steve McNair, Rex Grossman, Donovan McNabb and Eli Manning. All of these guys were 1st rounders for the team that drafted them.

Tom Brady(x4) is the obvious lolwtfbbq case here and isn't one I want the Bills to consider with a late round project QB.

I know why people argue that the Bills should take a QB no matter what. I'm just saying that if you exclude Tom Brady, 10 QB's in the SB were on teams that didn't draft them (some being 1st rounders of course), and 8 were 1st rounders on the team that drafted them. This is why I think its so illogical to blindly follow the statement that you can only win with a franchise QB and the only way to get one is by taking a QB high in round one. It isn't the only way, it only actually represents 8 out of the 22 QB's to play in the Super Bowl since '00 were first rounders with the team that drafted them.

With all of this in mind, understand that there isn't only one way for the Bills to turn around their misfortunes and that if Luck is off the board, and depending on who else is available and the staff's opinion of Cam Newton, continuing with Fitzpatrick as the starter for at least one more year won't be a colossal failure of the current scouting department as long as they are actually adding talent to the current roster. The only QB I'd take for the Bills other than Newton or Luck would be Locker in the early second round.

The road less traveled isn't necessarily the wrong one. And tbh, based on the last 22 SB QB's, it isn't even the less traveled one.

Halsey
12-21-2010, 09:57 PM
honestly, unintentional correction after a miscorrection, but curt warner was a rb for the seattle seahawks and was the 3rd overall pick in the first round. kurt warner was a qb and was undrafted out of the arena league and nfl europe.

So that's who the Warner bros. are. I always wondered that.

Poz51
12-22-2010, 07:35 AM
1) You have a better crop of players available to you, even if itís only by a pick of two. Several years ago we took Marshawn Lynch in the first, and Patrick Willis went one pick ahead of us to SF. MLB was arguably our biggest need (and we traded up for Poz in the 2nd). However, that one pick Ö and that one win that could have been a loss, made a difference. Also, in 2004 when we took Losman, before the draft it was rumored that our front office was enamored with Roth. Post-draft I read a report somewhere, I canít find it now, that said we did in fact try to trade up for Roth with the Texans, but the Texans didnít want to trade down because they did not think Donta Robinson would make it to our pick if they didnít take him at 9. Another loss or two might have put us in position to draft Roth. We werenít making the playoffs anyway, and that extra loss or two, intentional or not, would make the franchise better long term if we had Roth.

Good examples. I love Poz (hence the name, but Willis52 has a nice ring to it too!), but I was praying that Buffalo would trade up for Willis thinking he would not make it out of the top ten, and never make it past the 9ers. Similarly I was a big time supporter of Roethlisberger, especially after his bowl game, where he did what he is doing now, and would have taken him over Eli (people laughed at me then, but I would still take him over Eli today), again praying the Bills would trade up. However one more loss and we get our man.The higher the pick the better talent available, its plain and simple, and the Bills year after year win meaningless games that have gotten the franchise no where. Have resulted in guys that fit a need/value profile being taken JUUUUUUST before they pick, or they simply pass on them, lol (Maybin and that dang vomit taste in my mouth again...) This is not revisionist history, its history, in 08 I would have been fine taking Clady or McKelvin, they went McKelvin it was the right choice at the time. Whats best for the franchise short term, is rarely whats best for the franchise long term and a good GM should know this, which leads me to this...

Yea, but the bills also could have picked for example Revis or Bowe at that spot. The problem was picking a RB that high in the first place, not missing the LB. Picking Spiller last year is another example.

Good talent evaluation is all important. I'd wager that the type of front office that is ok with losing a few extra games to get a higher pick aren't that good at judging talent.

The Bills could have picked Bowe or Revis, true enough, however they were already pretty well set at those positions with Lee Evans, Roscoe Parrish, Josh Reed and Peerless Price at WR, and Terrance McGhee, Jabari Greer, Ashton Youboty, Kiwakee Thomas and Dustin Fox who were all good starters and solid depth guys at the time. Jon DiGorgio was our starting ILB heading into 2007... Need I say more???? Talent evalutation is key, true enough, buy I am not sure how you can make the correlation that a front office wanting a higher pick, is not that good at judging talent??? I would think a front office that understands the "cream rises to the top" would fully understand that if they lose a few meaningless games, they can end up with a Willis and a Roethlisberger (both of whom are still on their teams) instead of a Losman and a Lynch (neither of whom are on the Bills anymore), and have a more talented roster capable of winning meaningful games in the future. Instead of missing the playoffs, year, after year, after year, after year, after year, after year, after year, after year, after year, after year, and after this year, after year... Yes 11 straight years... Is this always the case? No, but this franchise under Ralph will never spend the $,$$$,$$$ to hire a top coach (although I do like the direction Gailey has them heading in), so they must be smart in their approach as a franchise, and that is to land the top talent possible IMO, which is what this franchise continually does not do, or just misses out on. I am just trying to put this into the appropriate context...

Poz51
12-22-2010, 07:45 AM
Regarding Jim Kelly, I love the guy for what he helped bring to Buffalo, but that team also had Bruce Smith, Thurman Thomas, Andre Reed and a lot of other players that you know, actually had talent. 3 hall of famers and a 4 time finalist.

I agree with you for the most part, but have to point out, Kelly was drafted before all those other guys... Although he did officially join the Bills in 86, Bruce Smith, and Andre Reeds second year I believe, although they did have Greg Bell on the roster and would draft Ronnie Harmon and Thurman Thomas in the upcoming couple of years. How many super bowls would they have made with Ferragamo or Mathison leading the charge?? and yes Frank Reich was on the roster...

umphrey
12-22-2010, 07:48 AM
Well when you know your team sucks, it's a lot easier to get excited pondering what Andrew Luck is going to look like in 5 years in your teams jersey. Winning meaningless games gives your team more money and momentum and is good short term and exciting. However most fans at that point want to see their team tank so the guys they hate get fired and they revamp the roster around the best rookie available.

I'll never root against my Packers but when they do get eliminated I don't really care when the other team kicks a field goal to take the lead in the 4th.

Some teams have to win just to keep their team from moving away and the game on TV though. The Packers are different. We've sold out since 1960 and we'll never have a blackout.

Poz51
12-22-2010, 08:08 AM
One more note on the quarterback debate:

Apparently all but two of the 12 current playoff teams have quarterbacks that were chosen in the first round of their respective drafts. A pretty telling statistic and not a coincidence.

Just to piggy back... The top 15 (all above .500 winning percentage) teams in the league right now (nfl.com) and their QB's draft status...

Atlanta - Ryan - 3rd overall
New England - Brady - 199th overall
Baltimore - Flacco - 18th overall
Chicago - Cutler - 11th overall
New Orleans - Brees - 32nd overall (today end of the 1st, good point BB)
New York Jets - Sanchez - 5th overall
Philadelphia - Vick - 1st overall
Pittsburgh - Roethlisberger - 11th overall
Kansas City - Cassel - 230th overall
New York Giants - Eli Manning - 1st overall
Green Bay - Aaron Rogers - 24th overall
Indianapolis - Peyton Manning - 1st overall
Jacksonville - David Garrard - 108th overall
San Diego - Phillip Rivers - 4th overall
Tampa Bay - Josh Freeman - 17th overall

6 drafted in the top 5, 40%, 6 drafted in the first round (outside the top 5, including Brees) which is another 40%, so 80% of the top teams in the league have QB's drafted in the first round. Then you have 3 teams with QB's drafted after the first round, which is 20% of the best teams in the league found their QB after the first round. I am not trying to be a drunk leaning on a lamp post, just trying to enlighten with actual facts.
In summary...
83% of the play-off teams (per one Scott Wright) have a QB drafted in the first round...
80% of teams with a winning record in the league as of today, have a QB drafted in the first round...
A pretty telling statistic and not a coincidence. Indeed...

Scott Wright
12-22-2010, 08:23 AM
I wrote my annual blog / rant on this topic today, check it out:

http://draftcountdown.com/draft-blog/2010/12/just-lose-baby-2/

umphrey
12-22-2010, 08:35 AM
The top picks are also going to get incredibly more valuable with the rookie wage scale that's coming. I'm not sure teams are prepared for just how much more valuable a top 5 pick is going to be.

Poz51
12-22-2010, 08:36 AM
Well when you know your team sucks, it's a lot easier to get excited pondering what Andrew Luck is going to look like in 5 years in your teams jersey. Winning meaningless games gives your team more money and momentum and is good short term and exciting. However most fans at that point want to see their team tank so the guys they hate get fired and they revamp the roster around the best rookie available.

I'll never root against my Packers but when they do get eliminated I don't really care when the other team kicks a field goal to take the lead in the 4th.

Some teams have to win just to keep their team from moving away and the game on TV though. The Packers are different. We've sold out since 1960 and we'll never have a blackout.

When your team sucks, you want them to get better ASAP, instead of trying retreads at QB, and trading up into the first to take a second round long-term project at best, or relying on 3rd round QB's and free agent types to revive your franchise. Yes, I would excited excited about Andrew Luck in a Bills jersey next year, and know that in 5 years we would be better off than we would without him in set jersey. Again, I am glad to get another (I am replacing my previos word with something much nicer) human, who is conserned with "short term" success, and temperary "excitement", and momentum (have your read anything I have said about late season momentum not having any positive affect on this franchise??). This is the short term thinking that has gotten this franchise to this point. Money??? Really, we have one of the cheapest owners in the league, and a fan base that consistantly sells out games, and just had their first black out in 4 years, which is not too shabby considering they have not made the play-offs in going on 11 years or had a winning season in 6 years. If MONEY is an issue, Ralph needs to invest, and put a winning product on the field, and the fans will line up (which they regularly do regardless) to spend money on this team. Instead of selling out games to Toronto and pocketing "money". They will make money by going to the playoffs, not continually missing out. I dont want to see more coaches in Buffalo, or guys I dont like, I want results, and am willing to be patient, as long as I see forward thinking, and progress. Which has not been made drafting where we have like we have or doing what they have in general, this team is not going to bring in key FA's unless they develop the talent base, and the best way to do that is to select from the cream of the crop, not juuust under the cream, yes player develop, I get that, and yes the teams picking at the top do not always improve, but for this team, that is a better option than the crap they have tried, building a "team" then trying to plug in the holes at QB and OL. I am not rooting against the Bills, I am just sick of this holding pattern they are in. They do not have to revamp the roster, just add some key pieces. How is winning 5-7 games a year going to keep this franchise around, than say 10 or so in a couple years? Yes, the Packers are different, congradulations, good for you...

Poz51
12-22-2010, 08:46 AM
I wrote my annual blog / rant on this topic today, check it out:

http://draftcountdown.com/draft-blog/2010/12/just-lose-baby-2/

Spot on as I see it as well. This "Immediate Gradification" aspect of society in general is frustrating to me. I am seeing more and more of it in the football world as well. "a meaningless late season victory really worth dropping from the #2 overall pick in the draft all the way down to #5? (No its not.) What if a Week 17 win takes a team out of position to land the prospect who could potentially turn their franchise around?" is well said, and is with my Bills happened in the past, I just dont see it either, its befudling to me. I see this short term thinking at work all the time, and these guys dont understand how long term goals pay bigger dividens in the future... Nice rant, right on...

papageorgio
12-22-2010, 02:10 PM
It doesnt matter where you draft, it matters who you draft. If draft position meant anything to how good your draft will be the lions would be super bowl contenders right now.

LizardState
12-22-2010, 05:08 PM
honestly, unintentional correction after a miscorrection, but curt warner was a rb for the seattle seahawks and was the 3rd overall pick in the first round. kurt warner was a qb and was undrafted out of the arena league and nfl europe.

I regret the Warner typo.

But remembered correctly about Brees as a non-1st rounder, maybe 32nd pick overall also the 1st pick of the 2nd rd. in his draft. Splitting those hairs again.

right. all those teams with a good record and a first round quarterback? they totally could've gotten those guys in the 7th round.

njx was right though about the talent available in the early 1st rd, they are available no later, as shamefully as Detroit was placed there at the time through Matt Millen almost singlehandedly croaking their team's fortunes largely through drafting allegedly topnotch WRs, 3 in a row I think, how weird is that? Yes who you draft is important but the big names go 1st for a reason. 2 of those Lions WRs made it if you count WR Roy Williams "making it" with Dallas now. Matt Stafford was one of those consequences of bad drafting but I believe he was taken #1 overall after Millen had been canned in midseason the yr before.

Poz51
12-22-2010, 05:09 PM
It doesnt matter where you draft, it matters who you draft. If draft position meant anything to how good your draft will be the lions would be super bowl contenders right now.

Very true as too who you draft, and soon enough the Lions just might be. As pointed out before, a meaningless win has been the difference between getting the guy you want, not being able to trade up and get him, and watching another team win 2 super bowls with him... I can re-live this arguement again, but its getting repetitive at this point, so hears a quick one, drafting Peyton Manning #1 has worked out for Indy for over a decade, imagine the possibilities if San Diego gets the top pick, and builds around him instead of Ryan Leaf... Think domino affect... It doesn't always matter where you draft, but that "it matters who you draft" (Buffalo is a prime example) line is not true always either, with a healthy Stafford the Lions are a different team... Drafting #1 still gives you your choice of who you want, and so on. Both where and who play important roles...

Poz51
12-22-2010, 05:09 PM
The top picks are also going to get incredibly more valuable with the rookie wage scale that's coming. I'm not sure teams are prepared for just how much more valuable a top 5 pick is going to be.

Very true.

Poz51
12-22-2010, 05:13 PM
right. all those teams with a good record and a first round quarterback? they totally could've gotten those guys in the 7th round.

Tom Terrific was lightning in a bottle... Which happens once a generation? Although drastic, I like the example, short and sweet, I need to work on that ;)