So The Bills Should Have Drafted Bulaga Or Clausen At #9 Just To Satisfy The Media ?

[Night Train]

I wanted a LT or QB as much as anyone.. but if none are actually worthy of that pick at #9, then how is that the Bills fault ? Overdraft Saffold ? Select a short popgun arm QB in McCoy, because he's famous ? Every position has 5-10 top line starters to chose from ? Really ? News to me and I follow college players closely. If you just reach for a need, then aren't you doing the same dumb things that wrecked this team before Nix came here ?

Instead, this is what we get from these media types.

Spiller is a luxury pick (really ? ) and the Bills didn't pick a LT or QB.

The names mean nothing to us (since we don't know anything about them unless they are named Tebow). Instead of grading each player we picked individually, (which would require actual knowledge and effort) lets wave a broad brush and predict the Bills won't make the playoffs this year. That way we win every argument.



This is a 2+ year rebuild job and some good players were added this past weekend. The job is hardly complete but perception/draft summaries by the media & by many here is borderline comical.

You honestly believe the media knows any of these guys we picked ?

[dasaybz]

Re: So The Bills Should Have Drafted Bulaga Or Clausen At #9 Just To Satisfy The Media ?

I don't understand how Spiller wasn't in the top 3 picks. Sure, teams pick for needs, but this guy should have been seriously considered up there. He's that good. Why do you think the Bills took about 2 seconds before their pick was in?

[dasaybz]

Re: So The Bills Should Have Drafted Bulaga Or Clausen At #9 Just To Satisfy The Media ?

Here's another thing, many draft "experts" say that we reached on our 2nd rounder, but how about making up for it by getting a steal in Spiller? Just my opinion.

[elltrain22]

Re: So The Bills Should Have Drafted Bulaga Or Clausen At #9 Just To Satisfy The Media ?

- alot of "smart" football guys, that really understand football (Gil Brandt, Pat Kirwan, etc) loved our draft.

- people that don't know crap about football, and just look at mock drafts, naturally will say we screwed up, b/c they only have base their knowledge on stupid mock drafts.

- everyone says Troupe was a reach, but IMO, I really think, left unpicked, some team would've drafted him in the 2nd round.

- how could anyone call Spiller a luxury pick, when our offense sucked last year, the year before that, heck its sucked since Jim Kelly. We needed a playmaker, and we damn sure got one; nuff said. But hey if it wasn't on espn's or Mel Kiper's mock draft, we must have made a blunder.

I love our draft!!!

[hydro]

Re: So The Bills Should Have Drafted Bulaga Or Clausen At #9 Just To Satisfy The Media ?

Well if no one remembers we have been getting pretty good draft grades the past few seasons. Look how that has turned out for us. This time we are going against the grain. Maybe it will play in our favor.

[DesertFox24]

Re: So The Bills Should Have Drafted Bulaga Or Clausen At #9 Just To Satisfy The Media ?

- alot of "smart" football guys, that really understand football (Gil Brandt, Pat Kirwan, etc) loved our draft.

- people that don't know crap about football, and just look at mock drafts, naturally will say we screwed up, b/c they only have base their knowledge on stupid mock drafts.

- everyone says Troupe was a reach, but IMO, I really think, left unpicked, some team would've drafted him in the 2nd round.

- how could anyone call Spiller a luxury pick, when our offense sucked last year, the year before that, heck its sucked since Jim Kelly. We needed a playmaker, and we damn sure got one; nuff said. But hey if it wasn't on espn's or Mel Kiper's mock draft, we must have made a blunder.

I love our draft!!!

Agree....

Funny I was in Jacksonville watching the draft with friends and locals and media (not friends) were ripping Gene Smith (Jax GM) for picking small school guys, lol. This after the guy had probably the best draft in their history last year and got great production from rookies.

They have a writer on their page that does an article called ask vic everyday and he answered a question about small school prospects and that they suck because of it. He replied that he used to work the steelers during the 70s and listed all of their hofs and half of them came from schools you never heard of. Point he was trying to make is the object is to find football players not big name guys that sell seats (Cody).

[ddaryl]

Re: So The Bills Should Have Drafted Bulaga Or Clausen At #9 Just To Satisfy The Media ?

OR if the Bills traded back and were able to fill needs like LT and/or QB the media would have jumped all over the Bills draft IMO

[Mike in Syracuse]

Re: So The Bills Should Have Drafted Bulaga Or Clausen At #9 Just To Satisfy The Media ?

The national media seems to share this view that picking a QB or OT in the 1st round instantly solves your problems at that position. I some cases it may but the numbers don't show it. Clausen or McCoy wasn't going to come in here and "light it up" and Bulaga wasn't going to be an all pro OT. Bulaga is a LOT less talented that Gallery and he couldn't make it work at tackle.

Mike Williams anyone?

[trapezeus]

Re: So The Bills Should Have Drafted Bulaga Or Clausen At #9 Just To Satisfy The Media ?

interesting thread after i read the "scouts hate mcshay" article.

It's funny, right? we are trying please media members who actually are looked down upon within the scouting community.

We need three years to see if we got it right. but i think we'll know in 2 games if spiller can overcome a weak line.

[Saratoga Slim]

Re: So The Bills Should Have Drafted Bulaga Or Clausen At #9 Just To Satisfy The Media ?

- alot of "smart" football guys, that really understand football (Gil Brandt, Pat Kirwan, etc) loved our draft.

That's what I've been noticing. There are a few guys that think we knocked our draft out of the park, and more that think we did a terrible job. There aren't many opinions in between.

I think that chasm comes down to

A) The group that likes our draft understands two things:

1. With the switch to a 3-4 and the need for real playmakers, the Bills had major needs other than LT and QB. As such, Spiller wasn't a "luxury" pick, and

2. Because Nix is approaching this as a 2-3 year rebuilding to fill all of our many needs, he was going to stick to his draft board and take the BPA among 4-5 positions of major need. Thus you didn't see him reach for a LT that he didn't like (Charles Brown) when there was a NT that he did like available.

Whereas

B) The group that thinks we totally tanked the draft:

1) Has a more limited understanding of the Bills needs in the context of the direction that Nix/Gailey are taking the team, and is therefore totally focused on the QB and LT positions. They think that those two positions should have been addressed immediately with the BPA at those positions. Thus, for instance, they would apparently have had us take Clausen instead of Troup even if our internal draft grade on Clausen said that he doesn't bring anything to the table that we don't already have with Edwards or Brohm. Instead, we took Troup, because NT is also a position of major need, and Troup did offer a major upgrade over what we had.

You can't disagree with those commentators that say we needed a QB and didn't get one, but you can very surely argue that the Bills were wise to refrain from spending their 2nd round pick on a guy they didn't think would significantly improve the QB position, when they had a guy available that they thought would constitute a major upgrade at another position critical to the system that they are installing.

2) Also, the people that hated our draft generally are media people and therefore focus on measurables and perceived talent. They have access to some film, other people's mock drafts and profiles, and that about it - they haven't had the opportunity that scouts do to learn about the guys' character and football acumen through interview and investigation. This leads to a working knowledge that tends to skew toward big-school, big-name prospects that are easiest to learn about. Thus I don't think a lot of commentators that didn't like our draft gave us enough credit for the value we got in guys like Carrington & Moats - simply because they didn't know enough about them (while guys like Kirwin note that Carrington was among the best players on the field at the Senior Bowl).

[EDS]

Re: So The Bills Should Have Drafted Bulaga Or Clausen At #9 Just To Satisfy The Media ?

I don't understand how Spiller wasn't in the top 3 picks. Sure, teams pick for needs, but this guy should have been seriously considered up there. He's that good. Why do you think the Bills took about 2 seconds before their pick was in?

The reason is that running backs just are not drafted that highly anymore unless they are truly special, because so many teams have been successful finding productive backs later in the draft.

[jamze132]

Re: So The Bills Should Have Drafted Bulaga Or Clausen At #9 Just To Satisfy The Media ?

I could give a **** about the majority of these so called "draft graders" since most have no clue about the Bills and their needs other than cruising the depth chart on buffalobills.com.

I have said this numerous times over the past week; just because you have a need doesn't mean it can be filled in the draft. There was one decent QB IMO and he was drafted #1. You don't go spending top 10 picks on the 2nd or 3rd best prospect when a bonafide homerun hitter is sitting there. I absolutely loved the Spiller pick.

[TigerJ]

Re: So The Bills Should Have Drafted Bulaga Or Clausen At #9 Just To Satisfy The Media ?

Seeing that Clausen dropped to fairly late in the second round, he clearly would have been seen as a reach by the rest of the NFL, if not the media at #9 overall. Bulaga is an interesting case. He is clearly the most NFL ready of all the top tackles in the draft, but he probably has the lowest ceiling, and some just don't think he has the requisite athleticism to handle the LT spot in the NFL, and would thus have to play RT. Since Buffalo's offensive line need was clearly centered on left tackle, Bulaga may not have been a great pick for them. The other available tackles at #9 were not clear solutions either. Davis has serious maturity issues and Campbell is much more of an athlete than a proven tackle. Plus, he has injury issues. I would be curious to know what Buffalo would have done had Okung or Trent Williams had dropped, but that's not going to happen. I'm satisfied that they made a good pick at #9.

[Night Train]

Re: So The Bills Should Have Drafted Bulaga Or Clausen At #9 Just To Satisfy The Media ?

That's what I've been noticing. There are a few guys that think we knocked our draft out of the park, and more that think we did a terrible job. There aren't many opinions in between.

I think that chasm comes down to

A) The group that likes our draft understands two things:

1. With the switch to a 3-4 and the need for real playmakers, the Bills had major needs other than LT and QB. As such, Spiller wasn't a "luxury" pick, and

2. Because Nix is approaching this as a 2-3 year rebuilding to fill all of our many needs, he was going to stick to his draft board and take the BPA among 4-5 positions of major need. Thus you didn't see him reach for a LT that he didn't like (Charles Brown) when there was a NT that he did like available.

Whereas

B) The group that thinks we totally tanked the draft:

1) Has a more limited understanding of the Bills needs in the context of the direction that Nix/Gailey are taking the team, and is therefore totally focused on the QB and LT positions. They think that those two positions should have been addressed immediately with the BPA at those positions. Thus, for instance, they would apparently have had us take Clausen instead of Troup even if our internal draft grade on Clausen said that he doesn't bring anything to the table that we don't already have with Edwards or Brohm. Instead, we took Troup, because NT is also a position of major need, and Troup did offer a major upgrade over what we had.

You can't disagree with those commentators that say we needed a QB and didn't get one, but you can very surely argue that the Bills were wise to refrain from spending their 2nd round pick on a guy they didn't think would significantly improve the QB position, when they had a guy available that they thought would constitute a major upgrade at another position critical to the system that they are installing.

2) Also, the people that hated our draft generally are media people and therefore focus on measurables and perceived talent. They have access to some film, other people's mock drafts and profiles, and that about it - they haven't had the opportunity that scouts do to learn about the guys' character and football acumen through interview and investigation. This leads to a working knowledge that tends to skew toward big-school, big-name prospects that are easiest to learn about. Thus I don't think a lot of commentators that didn't like our draft gave us enough credit for the value we got in guys like Carrington & Moats - simply because they didn't know enough about them (while guys like Kirwin note that he was among the best players on the field at the Senior Bowl).

[Philagape]

Re: So The Bills Should Have Drafted Bulaga Or Clausen At #9 Just To Satisfy The Media ?

I'm liking this draft more and more. Excellent points by Saratoga (most underrated Bills poster!) and jamze