95 replies to this topic

[C.Biscuit97]

Doc, on 28 March 2012 - 06:45 AM, said:

The character concerns were the thing with Bryant, as they were with Hernandez, causing him to slide.  And as for Spiller, the Bills didn't know what they had in Freddie.  Lastly, JPP was considered a project.  But that's the great thing about hindsight.

Yeah, every is a great drafter 2 years after the draft.  Plus with how Spiller finished the season, people are still harping on the pick?  You can argue the need but SPiller is a damn good football player.

And I know it's a need, but getting the 2nd or 3rd best LT with the #10 overall doesn't excite me in the least.  Especially because after the top guy, every guy has some shortcomings.  I'd rather hope for a Mike Adams to slide or spend 2 later round picks on OTs with the hope that one of them hits.  LTs isn't the position of need it used to be.

[thebandit27]

C.Biscuit97, on 28 March 2012 - 07:55 AM, said:

Yeah, every is a great drafter 2 years after the draft.  Plus with how Spiller finished the season, people are still harping on the pick?  You can argue the need but SPiller is a damn good football player.

Completely agree here.

C.Biscuit97, on 28 March 2012 - 07:55 AM, said:

And I know it's a need, but getting the 2nd or 3rd best LT with the #10 overall doesn't excite me in the least.  Especially because after the top guy, every guy has some shortcomings.  I'd rather hope for a Mike Adams to slide or spend 2 later round picks on OTs with the hope that one of them hits.  LTs isn't the position of need it used to be.

I disagree on two fronts here:

1) To me, it's not about whether or not the OT we draft at #10 would be the 2nd or 3rd best in the draft, but rather about whether or not he's the best player on the board for this team.  I hope this doesn't come out wrong, but honestly, who cares how many OTs are better than the player we draft?  As long as he's a starting-caliber LT for the next 4-5 years, it's a great pick...agreed?

2) I also believe that the draft--especially the first round--isn't about filling needs, but rather about accumulating talent.  Getting the best football player you can get is of the utmost importance in the first round, since he'll be getting paid like one of your best players, while the rest of the picks barely count against the cap.  My draft philosophy is to get the best player for your team (not necessarily the most talented, or the best overall player, but the most talented player that fits your team's philosophy) in round 1, and fill needs in rounds 2-7.

Just my 1 cent.

[C.Biscuit97]

thebandit27, on 28 March 2012 - 08:11 AM, said:

Completely agree here.



I disagree on two fronts here:

1) To me, it's not about whether or not the OT we draft at #10 would be the 2nd or 3rd best in the draft, but rather about whether or not he's the best player on the board for this team.  I hope this doesn't come out wrong, but honestly, who cares how many OTs are better than the player we draft?  As long as he's a starting-caliber LT for the next 4-5 years, it's a great pick...agreed?

2) I also believe that the draft--especially the first round--isn't about filling needs, but rather about accumulating talent.  Getting the best football player you can get is of the utmost importance in the first round, since he'll be getting paid like one of your best players, while the rest of the picks barely count against the cap.  My draft philosophy is to get the best player for your team (not necessarily the most talented, or the best overall player, but the most talented player that fits your team's philosophy) in round 1, and fill needs in rounds 2-7.

Just my 1 cent.

I generally agree but I think your points make my point for me.  I don't want an OT at #10 because I don't think either guy is worth it.  There are questions about both Martin and Reiff being true NFL LTs.  Also, with the way offenses spread the field, LT is the most need position as it was before.  So spending a top 10 pick on a LT would be a bit of a waste IMO.

I think Floyd meets what you are talking about the best.  He fills a big need and is a better NFL prospect than either of the two tackles.  I'll trust Nix and the Bills' draft board.  But my first choice would be Floyd and even though it'd be a big reach, I'd have the Stanford guard over the 2 Ots as well.

[Jack Straw]

I would be thrilled with one or two good tackle prospects, but part of me wonders if Nix is being especially vocal about his plans in order to light a fire under Bell to re-sign.

[JohnC]

C.Biscuit97, on 28 March 2012 - 07:55 AM, said:

Yeah, every is a great drafter 2 years after the draft.  Plus with how Spiller finished the season, people are still harping on the pick?  You can argue the need but SPiller is a damn good football player.

And I know it's a need, but getting the 2nd or 3rd best LT with the #10 overall doesn't excite me in the least.  Especially because after the top guy, every guy has some shortcomings.  I'd rather hope for a Mike Adams to slide or spend 2 later round picks on OTs with the hope that one of them hits.  LTs isn't the position of need it used to be.

If you go back and review last season you will see a split in Fitz's passing productivity between the first half and second half of the season. There was more than one reason for the dropoff, he being injured certainly was a factor. But the main reason for the decline in the passing game was that teams adjusted to the short and quick pass routes that were so effective in the first half of the season. Why did our offense emphasize the short passing game?  There was a major weakness in pass protection at the LT spot. To compensate for that weakness Gailey had to rely on the short passing game.

With a more accomplished LT Gailey can call a greater variety of passing plays. With our left side vulnerabilities he had to limit the type of passing plays that would work.

I'm not sure how our scouting department ranks the LTs. If they are ranked high then Nix probably will take a LT with the first pick. If not, then he probably won't reach and will address another need with a higher rated player. But make no mistake about the situation on our OL, with or without Bell the Bills have a major gap on the left side that still needs to be filled.

Quality OTs, most especially LTs, are very highly valued commodities. When there are quality LTs on the draft board they usually go at the top of the draft. Most prognosticators are predicting that USC's LT, Kahlil, will be the third overall pick in this draft. That suggests the importance of the position, not the lack of its importance.

Edited by JohnC, 28 March 2012 - 08:31 AM.

[thebandit27]

C.Biscuit97, on 28 March 2012 - 08:16 AM, said:

I generally agree but I think your points make my point for me.  I don't want an OT at #10 because I don't think either guy is worth it.  There are questions about both Martin and Reiff being true NFL LTs.  Also, with the way offenses spread the field, LT is the most need position as it was before.  So spending a top 10 pick on a LT would be a bit of a waste IMO.

Sure, if that's the case then I am in total agreement with your approach.

C.Biscuit97, on 28 March 2012 - 08:16 AM, said:

I think Floyd meets what you are talking about the best.  He fills a big need and is a better NFL prospect than either of the two tackles.  I'll trust Nix and the Bills' draft board.  But my first choice would be Floyd and even though it'd be a big reach, I'd have the Stanford guard over the 2 Ots as well.

If Nix is comfortable that (a) Floyd is the best fit for this team, (b) Floyd has grown from and will not repeat his past run-ins with the law, and © he can address the OT need later in the draft, then I have zero problem with Floyd.  I think he'll be a very good WR in the league.

[Doc]

C.Biscuit97, on 28 March 2012 - 07:55 AM, said:

Yeah, every is a great drafter 2 years after the draft.  Plus with how Spiller finished the season, people are still harping on the pick?  You can argue the need but SPiller is a damn good football player.

And I know it's a need, but getting the 2nd or 3rd best LT with the #10 overall doesn't excite me in the least.  Especially because after the top guy, every guy has some shortcomings.  I'd rather hope for a Mike Adams to slide or spend 2 later round picks on OTs with the hope that one of them hits.  LTs isn't the position of need it used to be.

I agree.  I doubt anyone after Kalil will be appreciably better than Hairston at this point.

thebandit27, on 28 March 2012 - 08:11 AM, said:

Completely agree here.



I disagree on two fronts here:

1) To me, it's not about whether or not the OT we draft at #10 would be the 2nd or 3rd best in the draft, but rather about whether or not he's the best player on the board for this team.  I hope this doesn't come out wrong, but honestly, who cares how many OTs are better than the player we draft?  As long as he's a starting-caliber LT for the next 4-5 years, it's a great pick...agreed?

2) I also believe that the draft--especially the first round--isn't about filling needs, but rather about accumulating talent.  Getting the best football player you can get is of the utmost importance in the first round, since he'll be getting paid like one of your best players, while the rest of the picks barely count against the cap.  My draft philosophy is to get the best player for your team (not necessarily the most talented, or the best overall player, but the most talented player that fits your team's philosophy) in round 1, and fill needs in rounds 2-7.

Just my 1 cent.

This isn't a good draft for LT's.  Beyond Kalil, they all have question marks.  The Bills could get the top player several other positions.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

JohnC, on 28 March 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

If you go back and review last season you will see a split in Fitz's passing productivity between the first half and second half of the season. There was more than one reason for the dropoff, he being injured certainly was a factor. But the main reason for the decline in the passing game was that teams adjusted to the short and quick pass routes that were so effective in the first half of the season. Why did our offense emphasize the short passing game?  There was a major weakness in pass protection at the LT spot. To compensate for that weakness Gailey had to rely on the short passing game.

With a more accomplished LT Gailey can call a greater variety of passing plays. With our left side vulnerabilities he had to limit the type of passing plays that would work.

I'm not sure how our scouting department ranks the LTs. If they are ranked high then Nix probably will take a LT with the first pick. If not, then he probably won't reach and will address another need with a higher rated player. But make no mistake about the situation on our OL, with or without Bell the Bills have a major gap on the left side that still needs to be filled.

Quality OTs, most especially LTs, are very highly valued commodities. When there are quality LTs on the draft board they usually go at the top of the draft. Most prognosticators are predicting that USC's LT, Kahlil, will be the third overall pick in this draft. That suggests the importance of the position, not the lack of its importance.

I don't know if you can really separate all the causes for Fitz' dropoff last year.

How do you separate the effects of:

1) Fitz' rib injuries
2) The succession of injuries at wide receiver which began almost right after the trade of Evans and happened on a weekly basis to the point where Brad Smith was starting at WR and Spiller was a nickel WR
3) The slew of injuries at offensive line
4) The loss of Fred Jackson
5) Opponents adjusting to the short, quick passing game

The malaise which hit the Bills O in the last half of last season was a culmination of factors and I don't think it can be attributed to any one thing, IMO.

[Doc]

San Jose Bills Fan, on 28 March 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

I don't know if you can really separate all the causes for Fitz' dropoff last year.

How do you separate the effects of:

1) Fitz' rib injuries
2) The succession of injuries at wide receiver which began almost right after the trade of Evans and happened on a weekly basis to the point where Brad Smith was starting at WR and Spiller was a nickel WR
3) The slew of injuries at offensive line
4) The loss of Fred Jackson
5) Opponents adjusting to the short, quick passing game

The malaise which hit the Bills O in the last half of last season was a culmination of factors and I don't think it can be attributed to any one thing, IMO.

It was a perfect storm of issues that sank the offense.  The biggest were Fitz' injury, the loss of Jones as #2 WR (he wasn't great, but made some clutch plays and was better than any other #2 on the roster), and Bell getting injured and being replaced by a rookie.  I think that the quick-passing game got even quicker when Hairston went in, because he was an inexperienced rookie, although in some instances I think Fitz got skittish and pulled the trigger too quickly.

[Pete]

San Jose Bills Fan, on 28 March 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

I don't know if you can really separate all the causes for Fitz' dropoff last year.

How do you separate the effects of:

1) Fitz' rib injuries
2) The succession of injuries at wide receiver which began almost right after the trade of Evans and happened on a weekly basis to the point where Brad Smith was starting at WR and Spiller was a nickel WR
3) The slew of injuries at offensive line
4) The loss of Fred Jackson
5) Opponents adjusting to the short, quick passing game

The malaise which hit the Bills O in the last half of last season was a culmination of factors and I don't think it can be attributed to any one thing, IMO.

I agree with all your points.  Also I think no true deep threat hurt our offense after oline injuries.  Opposing teams would stack line, Fitz wouldn't have time for a long pass to develop, and we had no burner to step up and toast defenses that stacked line

[sharebear]

Doc, on 28 March 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

It was a perfect storm of issues that sank the offense.  The biggest were Fitz' injury, the loss of Jones as #2 WR (he wasn't great, but made some clutch plays and was better than any other #2 on the roster), and Bell getting injured and being replaced by a rookie.  I think that the quick-passing game got even quicker when Hairston went in, because he was an inexperienced rookie, although in some instances I think Fitz got skittish and pulled the trigger too quickly.

I think our C wood getting injured was alot worse then bell getting injured imo, idk about all this hype with martin and reiff both have glaring holes in there game. Idk how anyone sees them as a starting LT in the nfl let alone the AFC east! Come on mannnnnnn

[Just in Atlanta]

JohnC, on 28 March 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

If you go back and review last season you will see a split in Fitz's passing productivity between the first half and second half of the season. There was more than one reason for the dropoff, he being injured certainly was a factor. But the main reason for the decline in the passing game was that teams adjusted to the short and quick pass routes that were so effective in the first half of the season. Why did our offense emphasize the short passing game?  There was a major weakness in pass protection at the LT spot. To compensate for that weakness Gailey had to rely on the short passing game.

With a more accomplished LT Gailey can call a greater variety of passing plays. With our left side vulnerabilities he had to limit the type of passing plays that would work.

I'm not sure how our scouting department ranks the LTs. If they are ranked high then Nix probably will take a LT with the first pick. If not, then he probably won't reach and will address another need with a higher rated player. But make no mistake about the situation on our OL, with or without Bell the Bills have a major gap on the left side that still needs to be filled.

Quality OTs, most especially LTs, are very highly valued commodities. When there are quality LTs on the draft board they usually go at the top of the draft. Most prognosticators are predicting that USC's LT, Kahlil, will be the third overall pick in this draft. That suggests the importance of the position, not the lack of its importance.

I hated the thought of drafting anybody but the best OT in the first, and since the best one would be taken, I was thinking WR or LB, even though I knew OT was a huge need. But you just changed my mind. It rarely happens, so that's a compliment.  

[JohnC]

San Jose Bills Fan, on 28 March 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

I don't know if you can really separate all the causes for Fitz' dropoff last year.

How do you separate the effects of:

1) Fitz' rib injuries
2) The succession of injuries at wide receiver which began almost right after the trade of Evans and happened on a weekly basis to the point where Brad Smith was starting at WR and Spiller was a nickel WR
3) The slew of injuries at offensive line
4) The loss of Fred Jackson
5) Opponents adjusting to the short, quick passing game

The malaise which hit the Bills O in the last half of last season was a culmination of factors and I don't think it can be attributed to any one thing, IMO.

I never said it was any one factor. In the first line of my post I specifically stated that there was no one reason for Fitz's declining performance. There is no doubt that a combination of all the above listed factors contributed to the dramatic swoon, losing 8 out of 9 games. What was obvious right from the start was that the playcaller, the HC, mostly called quick release pass plays. It was rare (at least ratio wise) that he had Fitz throw downfield. When the defenses started adjusting by jumping the plays the HC did not adjust (for the most part) by calling for long passes. It was obvious to me that his playcalling was very much influenced by the lack of pass protection.

Take a look at the caliber of LTs on last year's roster. None of them were legitimate anchor type LTs. Levitre was tried at that position and he was moved back to his more natural position. Bell was mostly hurt. Harrison was credible for a rookie but helped was usually added to his side. With the probable departure of Bell the Bills have a major hole at the most important position on the OL.

Buddy Nix is not the type of person to hide his cards. He has been very upfront that the Bills need additional OTs added to this year's roster. After watching most of the games last year I agree with his assessment.

[Cash]

Pete, on 28 March 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

I agree with all your points.  Also I think no true deep threat hurt our offense after oline injuries.  Opposing teams would stack line, Fitz wouldn't have time for a long pass to develop, and we had no burner to step up and toast defenses that stacked line

Agreed, but it's not just that we didn't have a "burner," it's that Stevie was our only outside WR ever capable of winning a jump ball.  When the D stacks the line, the WRs on the outside get single coverage.  It's rare that the WR will be so fast and so good at getting off the line that he'll be able to get several steps on the CB (not many Mike Wallaces or Torry Smiths out there), but if your WR can make the catch against single coverage maybe 60% of the time, the D will get burned stacking the line.  Donald Jones makes the catch about 5% of the time.  Brad Smith maybe 10% of the time.  David Nelson is never in that position because he's a slot guy.

So count me in the "WR is still a need" camp, along with Buddy Nix.  And like Nix said after the season, you don't necessarily need a speed guy (although it doesn't hurt) so much as a guy who can win those jump balls.

[3rdand12]

At Left Tackle it's Kalil or i dont care and wish we did not have to pick at ten. Every pick i seen mocked i dont much care for unless it De. hope we sign Bell and find a gem in later rounds. Trade down to move up next year. I dont even care if we sell our first round completely. what we need this year can be found in the second third and 4th. If we get Bell. If we do that we have luxury picks. i might sound out there a bit but i have been thinking on our dilemna of having to pick r rieff or J martin and i cant see them being worth what a #ten picks value should be.

[John from Hemet]

Jack Straw, on 28 March 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:

I would be thrilled with one or two good tackle prospects, but part of me wonders if Nix is being especially vocal about his plans in order to light a fire under Bell to re-sign.

Jack I was thinking about that to