Now that the draft dust has settled, let me be critical

[X-Era]

I want to be critical of a potential problem with our draft for the moment. I want to be on record as saying that we had a very good draft in my opinion. But there is a problem from an overview:

You can only keep 53. And only dress 47.

I have never been a huge fan of "large" drafts meaning lots of picks. I think for every late round gem, there are a half a dozen that end up cut in 2 years or less from your draft.

Even if these later rounders make it, they are almost always little more than backups or special teamers. Thats fine except that to keep them, you need to cut players already here, that already know our systems, and have usually already played in real NFL games.

Draft them for potential? OK, I agree. But, how much real playing time will they see at their normal positions? For example, is Alvin Bowen going to beat out say Ellison for playing time this year? DiGiorgio? Both of those vets played a ton last year. Do you think Jauron will go with a rookie instead of guys with lots of experience as backups? I dont see that. Heres a few more:

Cox or Youbouty? Corner or Youbouty?
Johnson or Reed?
Fine or Schouman?

Out of Greer, James, McGee, Cox, Corner, Youbouty some one is getting cut most likely. If its Youbouty, Cox now has a real role on the team, is that a good thing? this year?

Whats my point? Well, we might have been able to trade some of these picks for proven players or to move up for guys with better potential. Instead, if we keep all of these guys, we would have to cut guys that have been here, and we lose even more experience on a very young team.

Backups are fine, drafting for potential is fine, but when you draft alot of players in one draft, you are faced with cutting some of your draftees, or cutting backups with experience. You just cant keep them all.

Thoughts?

[jamze132]

I could care less if someone who was on the team last year who knows the system gets beat out by a new guy and cut.

Having too many players who are "good" is one of the few good problems to have. Not that we really have that problem, just saying. We have a ****load of backups.

[SquishDaFish]

Its a good problem to have

[Mitchy moo]

The idea behind having this many draft picks is so you get choices in the people you like and Practice Squad the one's you can.

[DraftBoy]

This was being critical?

[Jan Reimers]

Other than CB, I can't see that we're overly deep anywhere. And if Youboty continues his lack of development, he'll get cut. Cox is probably a PSer at this point and Dustin Fox was an injury pickup who probably won't make the roster.

This would leave us McGee, Greer, McKelvin, James and Corner, which would be a much better corps of CBs than we finished with last year.

At LB, I see DiGiorgio, Ellison, and Bowen as backups, with UDFA Buggs perhaps making the roster.

At TE, I would envision Royal, Fine and Johnson or Anderson. If Schouman can beat out the latter 2, so be it.

We'll keep at least 5 WRs, which will include Evans, Hardy (if he stops playing with guns) Reed, Parrish and perhaps Jonnson. Mayle and Jenkins are also possibilities.

The addition of Oman may make Wright expendable if we keep only 3 RBs, and we have 3 FBs on the current roster - 2 will probably be cut.

I think we'll have some great competition at camp.

[LifetimeBillsFan]

You have to remember that there is a salary cap--not just this year, but every year.

First, second and third round draft picks cost a lot more than fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh rounders do. By a lot.

You are going to sign your top draft picks for 3-6 years. You also want to retain your stars and key role players when they become free agents--which is becoming more and more expensive to do. And, then, you want to have some money left to sign a couple of free agents each year to help fill holes in your team.

Somewhere along the line you have to save money. And, where you do that is with your back-ups and lower round draft picks. But, the problem with lower round draft picks is that they have a lesser chance of making your roster--let alone developing into stars or starters--than a top or mid-round pick. So, you want to bring in a bunch of them and perhaps some UDFAs (although a UDFA might cost more than a 7th rounder to sign) and hope that, out of the bunch that you bring in, you will come away with maybe a low priced starter or key role-player and some cheap back-ups. That way you have more money to spend on your top players and top draft picks.

You don't want a second or third round draft pick being a back-up: not because you don't want to be able to have that level of talent available on your bench, but because you can't afford to pay back-ups that kind of money.

One of the reasons that you don't have the kind of NFL dynasties that you had in previous eras is not just that teams lose stars due to free agency, but that they lose quality back-ups and can't afford to keep and develop the kind of depth that the top clubs used to be able to retain. Every club has rookies and late round draft picks as back-ups and every team crosses its fingers every year that certain key players won't get hurt because they don't really want to have to start one of those players' back-ups. The Bills are by no means the only team in this position. The NY Giants had Manny Wright--the very same Manny Wright that N.Saban reduced to tears and that the Bills cut for being too fat--backing up Barry Cofield at DT last season.

The teams that do well are the ones that are able to find gems in the late rounds. You don't think that Chargers' fans were worried about what might happen if, first Antonio Chatman, then Michael Turner, had to step in and play for L.Tomlinson before they actually ended up having to do so? Look at any roster in the NFL and you will see a ton of late round draft picks backing up the top players on those teams. It's the only way that teams can afford to keep their play-makers and still pay their top draft picks and sign a few free agents these days.

And, the more late round picks, the more chances a GM has of striking gold on one of them. It's a numbers game. It's that simple.

Now, are the Bills in a position where they have to look to bring in a lot of late round guys at this point? Well, maybe.

The philosophy of this coaching staff, which has been supported by the FO, seems to be that they would rather develop players, especially young offensive linemen, who are athletic, but inexperienced, to do things their way rather than going with a more polished player, who they would have to take higher in the draft. Does that work? I don't know. They have had some successes: Butler, F.Jackson, Peters, Greer, DiGiorgio, Ellison, etc. and some spectacular failures: Pennington, Ah You, and before these coaches, Pucillo, etc.

The odds are that this year's crop of draftees will have a harder time making the team--which is a sign that the team is getting better and deeper--than in past years, but there is still room for most of them to find a spot, if only on the PS, if they have the potential to develop into players. The team has brought in fewer UDFAs this year than in previous years and is likely to bring in fewer street free agents as well, especially if the team can avoid being hit by the injury bug this season.

As the coaches like to say, competition makes everyone better. I don't know whether that is true in all situations, but the Bills are starting to get to the point where there should be some healthy competition at a number of back-up spots. They have not yet reached a point where they have enough play-makers throughout the roster where there will be a lot of quality competition for starting jobs just yet--although it will be interesting to see how the battle for the starting jobs at WR, where the Bills don't have much quality or quality depth to compete with Hardy, and CB, where the Bills do have some quality and lots of depth for McKelvin to compete with for a starting spot--but, when they reach that point, it will be all the more important for them to be able to develop quality back-ups out of their late round draft choices.

I don't think that you can worry that much about whether a guy is a 4th or 5th rounder or a 6th or 7th rounder--once you get past a certain point in most drafts it is all pretty much a crapshoot. In some cases the round that a player is drafted in doesn't really indicate the true value or quality of that player at his position because of the depth of the draft class at his position or the scarcity of players at his position (ie if it is a thin draft class at DT, there may be a run on the position early and the guy that you take in the 4th round might only be a 6th or 7th round talent but you have to take him in the 4th if you want a DT in that draft; while, in a deep draft at WR, there may be guys available in the 6th or 7th round one year that would be 3rd or 4th rounders the next).

So, I wouldn't really sweat where the Bills are at right now with the draft class that they just brought in: so long as they get solid contributions this season from the 5 players that they got in the first four rounds of the draft and a couple of depth/ST players from the rest of their picks and UDFAs, they should be able to take the next step forward in the positive evolution of this team. They still have a few more holes to fill, weak-spots to strengthen, but, if Edwards continues to develop and starts to give them quality play at the QB position, the team should be in good shape if it just adds a couple of more play-makers in next year's draft.

[yordad]

Its a good problem to haveThat's right. You keep the best ones. The more you have to choose from, the better.

[justasportsfan]

I think we'll have some great competition at camp.
:up:

[John Doe]

That's right. You keep the best ones. The more you have to choose from, the better.

That's it, in a nutshell.

Something to consider is that established vets may not be particularly good at special teams. In order to make the team, lower round picks have to play well there.

The Bills lost their core special teams players over the off-season - players that ultimately did not have long term potential as future starters. It looks like a smart move to me to bring in guys who can play special teams and have some upside as well.

As LTBF correctly noted, that type of player also comes cheap.

[HHURRICANE]

The Bills need talent not bodies.

I'm not so sure I love our draft but I have to wait before I can completely criticize.

You had to take McKelvin at #11 so that one is a no brainer to me.

The second round is like playing Monday morning QB. I have no idea if Hardy is better than Thomas or Sweed, or that dude that went ahead of everyone. So the Bills get a pass there.

The third is where it gets tricky. We needed a DE and Ellis has some potential but there was some TEs still there as well. I'll still give the Bills a pass.

After this I think the Bills got drunk and couldn't find there head from there butt. Dre Moore was sitting there and you take yet another CB. Seriously?

[yordad]

The Bills need talent not bodies.

I'm not so sure I love our draft but I have to wait before I can completely criticize.

You had to take McKelvin at #11 so that one is a no brainer to me.

The second round is like playing Monday morning QB. I have no idea if Hardy is better than Thomas or Sweed, or that dude that went ahead of everyone. So the Bills get a pass there.

The third is where it gets tricky. We needed a DE and Ellis has some potential but there was some TEs still there as well. I'll still give the Bills a pass.

After this I think the Bills got drunk and couldn't find there head from there butt. Dre Moore was sitting there and you take yet another CB. Seriously?On draft day I thought they were reading their big board upside down. They were pulling all these no names from positions we already had stacked. I was mad. Now, I'm not saying I am no longer mad, and I am definately not saying I don't think we could have done better at TE, but I have decided to play wait-and-see. As far as needing talent goes, the more bodies you have, the easier it is to find.

[LifetimeBillsFan]

I think there are two points that can be questioned:

1.) Should the Bills have tried to trade up into the lower second round to have a shot at M.Bennett (it definitely would have cost too much to trade up high enough to get F.Davis)?

That's a tough question because, while teams were willing to trade down rather cheaply in the first round, starting in the second round, teams began to get a lot from teams looking to trade up. With all of the positions that the Bills were looking to address, would it have cost too much for them to have traded up high enough to take Bennett? I don't know the answer to this, but it did appear that it was going to take more than a 5th, 6th or 7th round pick to make that happen.

So, as much as I really liked Bennett and F.Davis, I have really mixed feelings about them not trading up to get one of them.

2.) Should the Bills have passed on Chris Ellis to take Jermichael Finley in the third round?

This is the key question IMHO because, after the third round, pretty much all of the top TEs--and even some at the bottom of the top 10 rankings at the position--were gone. Martin Rucker, who I will discuss in a bit, and Kellen Davis were the only ones still on the board by the middle of the third round, so even a trade up back into the third round after taking Ellis wouldn't have helped.

Does Ellis, the fast, young, raw pass rusher, help the Bills more than Finley, the athletic TE who wasn't much of a blocker?

That's a good question. And, an argument can be made either way.

But, that would have had to have been the choice. That's where the Bills might have been able to grab an athletic TE without having had to give up the candy store to trade up (did you see what SD gave up to draft Hester?) to get one.

Now, I'm not necessarily buying the Bills' "spin" on Derek Fine: that he was the best all-around TE that they scouted (if that were the case, then I would have to say that their scouts need to get around more!). Still, there may or may not be something in that which factored into what they decided to do with their picks in the fourth round.

Having decided to sit still and wait until the fourth round to go for a TE, by the time the Bills' were on the board with the pick that they used on Reggie Corner, there weren't many choices left available at TE: Martin Rucker, Kellen Davis and Derek Fine were probably the three best remaining.

I don't know what the deal was with Kellen Davis, but it seemed like no team really wanted to touch him. For a guy with his size, hands, blocking ability, etc. that was strange, even for a guy who might be considered lazy--usually some team will take a flyer on a guy like that hoping that they might be able to motivate him. All I can think of is that there must have been something that came out about him that we did not know about that turned basically every team in the NFL off on him. This was a guy projected to go in the 3rd or 4th round who didn't get touched by any team until, I think, the 7th round.

So, I can't blame the Bills for passing on Kellen Davis when every other NFL team was doing the same.

That leaves Martin Rucker as the TE that the Bills could have taken with the 4th round pick that they used on Corner that they missed out on getting because they passed on him with that pick.

Now, I believe that Cleveland traded up to select Rucker because they thought that the Bills would take him with the pick that they used on Fine. Which is kind of interesting because there was some indication that Cleveland might have taken Corner--who they had scouted and reportedly were very interested in--had the Bills not taken him when they did.

I think that the Bills would have taken Rucker had he still been on the board when they ended up taking Fine. But, I think that the reason that they passed on him when they took Corner was two-fold: 1.) they didn't anticipate that Cleveland would jump up and take Rucker and believed that Rucker would fall to them later in the round; and 2.) they looked at the faults in Rucker's game and decided that, if they did lose out on Rucker, they would still be able to get nearly the same value, in a different set of skills, with Fine.

Martin Rucker is a way better receiver and athlete than Fine. But, he didn't play much "in-line" at TE at Missouri and, while he seemed willing to block, he's not much as a blocker (kind of like Teyo Johnson coming out of college) and no one knows how good of a blocker he will become on the NFL level, just that it is going to take him time to learn how to block and adjust to playing "in-line". So, for all of his talent and potential, Rucker is not a finished product by any means and it is going to take time for him to develop into more than a situational player.

Fine, on the other hand, isn't the athlete or deep threat that Rucker is, but he is a much more rounded player and much more ready to be used in a variety of different ways in an offense. Fine has good hands--maybe equal to or even better than Rucker's hands--but he's not as tall as Rucker nor does he have Rucker's speed to get open deep and on the outside. On the other hand, has an ability to get open in close quarters in the short middle, while I don't recall seeing Rucker making a lot of catches or even running a lot of routes in traffic across the short part of the middle of the field. Additionally, Fine is a willing blocker who, while he needs to improve his techniques, did seem to find a way to get the job done. And, Fine played "in-line" as much or more than he played as the "move" TE or H-back. He has more experience playing down and dirty in the trenches than Rucker and has shown that he can be effective, despite needing to improve his techniques some, doing that.

So, while I think that the Bills might have been hoping that Rucker would fall to them at the end of the 4th round, I think when they looked at Fine and Rucker they decided that, while one would give them something more than the other, they could be happy with either one if the passed on taking Rucker in order to select Corner with their first pick in the 4th round.

Now, that's a judgement call that could easily be debated. No doubt about that. But, it is also a judgement call that only time will determine whether they made the right decision there or not.

Having seen both Fine and Rucker, but not Corner play in college, I can understand why they did what they did, even though, personally, I think that Rucker could develop into a real monster in the NFL once he learns how to block and play "in-line". I would have loved it if Rucker had fallen to them. Fine, however, is okay--I can see him doing exactly what Michael Gaines did for the Bills last year, only better--but he's not going to be the deep threat that Rucker has the potential to be. I didn't see Corner, so I don't know if grabbing him was worth losing out on that deep threat possibility this year (that is something that the Bills could rectify in next year's draft though). I hope so.

But, given what I could see as being the relative values that the Bills may have put on Rucker, Fine and Corner, I don't think there is as much of a question about what they did in the 4th round as there is about the two points that I brought up earlier.

I think if you want to question the Bills for not drafting a top receiving TE prospect in this draft, you have to look to what they did in the late second and third rounds far more than what they did in the 4th round. And, to a great extent it comes down to whether they made the right move in going for a DE in Chris Ellis instead of a TE.

And, in all honesty, I don't know if they did. I think we will only know the answer to that once we see Ellis play and how he develops as a NFL player.

[mysticsoto]

That's a good pt, LTBF. I think you are right. I think the Bills likely took Corner 1st gambling that Rucker might be available to them later and then lost that gamble. Considering how important it seems like it was for them to upgrade the CB position and also have good depth, I can understand. And they probably thought that Fine wasn't too far off from being atleast serviceable if they lost that gamble. Had they won that gamble, however, I would have been ecstatic, as I would much, much prefer Rucker over Fine.