From the Spilt Milk Dept: As we crab about Lawson,

[stuckincincy]

...and kvetch about Ragland being a two down player, and Washington not being a 350 lb. NT and no OT picks and a RB selection for whatever reason, how do you think their draft would have been had they NOT beat NYJ in the final week?

IIRC, when the dust settled, they lost something like 6 positions - they might have selected 13th throughout the rounds instead of 19th.

:baghead:

[SpikedLemonade]

Oh but I am told those meaningless wins build a winning culture. LOL!

[Goobylal]

They still probably would have taken the same guys.

[cookie G]

It wouldn't have changed at all, except for saying they couldn't believe Shaq fell to 13.

[Mace]

More bitter because we lost another game and still took an injured guy.

Some people though would have loved losing an extra game for it I guess, because it's that much sweeter to poke yourself in one eye before you poke yourself in the other.

[stuckincincy]

It wouldn't have changed at all, except for saying they couldn't believe Shaq fell to 13.

I wonder about if they could have nabbed Ragland at #13. Crystal ball stuff, but had they kept their 4th, Billings was in play for a long time...

Nobody knows if he will pan out, but there sure was a lot of fan talk about getting a "fatbody" for NT what with this or that 3 -4 DT set talk. Dunno.

[Mace]

I wonder about if they could have nabbed Ragland at #13. Crystal ball stuff, but had they kept their 4th, Billings was in play for a long time...

Nobody knows if he will pan out, but there sure was a lot of fan talk about getting a "fatbody" for NT what with this or that 3 -4 DT set talk. Dunno.

They could have done that a few times into round 4. You just would have watched another loss on top of it.

For that matter why wouldn't they have nabbed Ragland at 19, he was still there despite moving down 6 positions.

[cookie G]

I wonder about if they could have nabbed Ragland at #13. Crystal ball stuff, but had they kept their 4th, Billings was in play for a long time...

Nobody knows if he will pan out, but there sure was a lot of fan talk about getting a "fatbody" for NT what with this or that 3 -4 DT set talk. Dunno.

so they would have gotten yet another defensive player for the Buffoon? Will it really matter?

Got news for you..its never enough for him, just ask the Jets.

Just wondering...since everyone is so keen on rebuilding that which didn't need rebuilding...

When you hire a contractor, and they come in and screw up something in the house that wasn't broken...
something you've just spent a bunch of money on....
something that had been working both efficiently and functionally...
and the contractor it because it wasn't what he normally installs...

Do you actually 1) keep this man around AND 2) pay him extra to fix what he himself broke?


You know, most states have consumer protection laws against these kind of fraudulent practices.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

So, let's assume we did lose and fell all the way to the bottom of the 7-9 teams, we'd have picked 14th I think

For comparison sake, Oakland picked in that spot this year. They took (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/tracker/by-round#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:oak)
1.14 Karl Joseph, S
2.44 Jihad Ward, DE
3.12 Shalique Calhoun, DE
4.2 Connor Cook, QB
5.4 DeAndre Washington, RB
6.19 Cory James, OLB
7.13 Vidal Alexander, OG

Would you trade our draft for theirs? Who would you have taken in their place? Put some names down.

[YardRat]

I've got a ****-ton of scenarios in the draft simulator thread...that's who I would have taken, whether we stayed in the same spot or moved up to 13. Lawson and Ragland were both on my first round wish list so really I'm still good with those picks.

[Ginger Vitis]

Watching Fitz come into the Ralph and leading the Jets to a wildcard berth would have been sickening

[Skooby]

Bills haven't had 2 consecutive non-losing seasons since 1999-2000, so spill all over that positive nugget.

[swiper]

Bills haven't had 2 consecutive non-losing seasons since 1999-2000, so spill all over that positive nugget.

Twist that any way you want, but the fact remains that the Bills FIRED the only coach that gave them a winning season out of that stretch. And the new coach, as he did in NY, took the old coaches team and won some games, but less than the old coach in Buffalo.

That's not a positive thing.

[Skooby]

Twist that any way you want, but the fact remains that the Bills FIRED the only coach that gave them a winning season out of that stretch. And the new coach, as he did in NY, took the old coaches team and won some games, but less than the old coach in Buffalo.

That's not a positive thing.
Twist a fact ??

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Twist that any way you want, but the fact remains that the Bills FIRED the only coach that gave them a winning season out of that stretch. And the new coach, as he did in NY, took the old coaches team and won some games, but less than the old coach in Buffalo.

That's not a positive thing.

? No they didn't. We had two coaches bring winning seasons and both quit. You can criticize them for having a situation where coaches would quit, but be accurate.

[swiper]

I clearly wrote "...out of that stretch," referring to that specific 2 year period. I am aware of the history. I was trying to underscore the firing of the better of the two coaches in that specific stretch of two years, hated as he may have been.

I was quite accurate. You misread.

[Goobylal]

Twist that any way you want, but the fact remains that the Bills FIRED the only coach that gave them a winning season out of that stretch. And the new coach, as he did in NY, took the old coaches team and won some games, but less than the old coach in Buffalo.

That's not a positive thing.

The fact remains that the only reason the Bills won one more game in 2014 is because the Cheaters didn't bother to show up for the season ender. In reality, they had the same records.

[stuckincincy]

So, let's assume we did lose and fell all the way to the bottom of the 7-9 teams, we'd have picked 14th I think

For comparison sake, Oakland picked in that spot this year. They took (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/tracker/by-round#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:oak)
1.14 Karl Joseph, S
2.44 Jihad Ward, DE
3.12 Shalique Calhoun, DE
4.2 Connor Cook, QB
5.4 DeAndre Washington, RB
6.19 Cory James, OLB
7.13 Vidal Alexander, OG

Would you trade our draft for theirs? Who would you have taken in their place? Put some names down.

Here's my shot at it:

1. Lawson
2. OT Jason Spriggs, Indiana
3. DT Andrew Billings, Baylor
4. LB Nick Kwiatkoski, W. Virginia
5. CB Anthony Brown, Purdue
6. LB Tyrone Holmes, Montana
7. WR Daniel Braverman WMU

[Mace]

I've got a ****-ton of scenarios in the draft simulator thread...that's who I would have taken, whether we stayed in the same spot or moved up to 13. Lawson and Ragland were both on my first round wish list so really I'm still good with those picks.

You and me both. I'm still mildly annoyed they traded up in 2 but have no gripes with ultimately having Ragland. Pretty sure Lawson and Ragland both outlast Rex Ryan handily in the long run.

[stuckincincy]

You and me both. I'm still mildly annoyed they traded up in 2 but have no gripes with ultimately having Ragland. Pretty sure Lawson and Ragland both outlast Rex Ryan handily in the long run.

We will see about Ragland...so many reports about him being a 2-down player, as well as one who played with a loaded college club...

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Here's my shot at it:

1. Lawson
2. OT Jason Spriggs, Indiana
3. DT Andrew Billings, Baylor
4. LB Nick Kwiatkoski, W. Virginia
5. CB Anthony Brown, Purdue
6. LB Tyrone Holmes, Montana
7. WR Daniel Braverman WMU

Interesting, so even if we had lost at the end of the season you'd still have taken Lawson first?

FWIW, Billings and Brown would have been available at our real picks, without even the hypothetical losses.

[YardRat]

We will see about Ragland...so many reports about him being a 2-down player, as well as one who played with a loaded college club...

True, Ragland played behind one of the best defensive lines in college. Of course, with a different coaching hire, he'd now be playing behind one of the best defensive lines in the NFL instead of trying to fit in with the rest of the cluster****. Dumbass still has great personnel to run a 43, and he's just going to keep going in the wrong direction.

[swiper]

True, Ragland played behind one of the best defensive lines in college. Of course, with a different coaching hire, he'd now be playing behind one of the best defensive lines in the NFL instead of trying to fit in with the rest of the cluster****. Dumbass still has great personnel to run a 43, and he's just going to keep going in the wrong direction.

I don't disagree with you (at all here), but face it. We're all going to have to sit back and endure the next two seasons of middling football before another change will be made.

[stuckincincy]

Interesting, so even if we had lost at the end of the season you'd still have taken Lawson first?

FWIW, Billings and Brown would have been available at our real picks, without even the hypothetical losses.

I think so - he seemed to fit a need for a largish DE. The news about his surgery doesn't irk me, BTW. The FO's hyperbole about starting 3 rookies goes into the "PR stunt" file.

Billings' drop was surprising to many. On draft days, I also followed a PGH fan site (it was hilarious in the good sense. Look it up next draft) - they were salivating about Billings.

In my hypothetical, I responded to what many a poster here wanted - a big-body NT. So I would have grabbed him in the 3rd .

WR Braverman intrigued me - he got invited for "official" visits by 6 clubs. IIRC, clubs have something like 33 of those. Here's a rah-rah:

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/profiles/daniel-braverman?id=2556144

[Bill Cody]

...and kvetch about Ragland being a two down player, and Washington not being a 350 lb. NT and no OT picks and a RB selection for whatever reason, how do you think their draft would have been had they NOT beat NYJ in the final week?

IIRC, when the dust settled, they lost something like 6 positions - they might have selected 13th throughout the rounds instead of 19th.

:baghead:

It's funny you think this is a big deal. You would have taken Lawson anyway at 13. The Bills were going for Ragland anyway in the 2nd and would have tried moving up even if they were picking 43rd. And Billings was on the board when the Bills picked in the 3rd. We can debate who the Bills took but your not making a good case for why picking earlier would have made a big difference.

[stuckincincy]

It's funny you think this is a big deal. You would have taken Lawson anyway at 13. The Bills were going for Ragland anyway in the 2nd and would have tried moving up even if they were picking 43rd. And Billings was on the board when the Bills picked in the 3rd. We can debate who the Bills took but your not making a good case for why picking earlier would have made a big difference.


In the 1st round: Lawson fell further - to 19 - than most any pre-draft prediction guessed. It seems that teams were wary about the shoulder injury rumors. For argument's sake let's say he fell to #13, and another club selected him. BUF would be SOL. If they didn't win that final game , BUF would be in that #13 spot. And get Lawson.

In the 2nd round: DAL took a flyer on LB Jaylon Smith with the #34 pick. There were 2 other LBs picked in the 2nd round...Ragland, and Kamalei Correa. BUF moved up from #49 to #41 at a cost of this year's 4th rnd (117), and a 4th rnd pick in 2017.

BAL traded their #36 to move to #38. Then BAL traded out of the #38 spot, to #42. If they wanted Ragland, they could have gotten him at their original spot. Or, as it turned out, at that #38.

Had BUF been drafting at #43 instead of #49, it's possible that they wouldn't have made the trade with CHI and lose those two picks.

Billings: Again - the folks here, the pundits and the draft gurus targeted BUF for a guy like him. Lawson dropped and BUF bit. Billings dropped and so far, the stink on him appears unfounded. Time will tell.

I think you are missing the general point - that it is better to draft higher in the order. Your options are greater. The trade value of your picks are higher. I listed my hypothetical picks, if the Bills were drafting at #13 instead of #19. I encourage you to re-do the draft yourself in that light. could you improve it.?Give it a go!

And I still don't see the desire for Ragland. When everybody and his brother says things like "two-down run stopper", I'm gone. But again, time will tell.

[Bill Cody]

In the 1st round: Lawson fell further - to 19 - than most any pre-draft prediction guessed. It seems that teams were wary about the shoulder injury rumors. For argument's sake let's say he fell to #13, and another club selected him. BUF would be SOL. If they didn't win that final game , BUF would be in that #13 spot. And get Lawson.

In the 2nd round: DAL took a flyer on LB Jaylon Smith with the #34 pick. There were 2 other LBs picked in the 2nd round...Ragland, and Kamalei Correa. BUF moved up from #49 to #41 at a cost of this year's 4th rnd (117), and a 4th rnd pick in 2017.

BAL traded their #36 to move to #38. Then BAL traded out of the #38 spot, to #42. If they wanted Ragland, they could have gotten him at their original spot. Or, as it turned out, at that #38.

Had BUF been drafting at #43 instead of #49, it's possible that they wouldn't have made the trade with CHI and lose those two picks.

Billings: Again - the folks here, the pundits and the draft gurus targeted BUF for a guy like him. Lawson dropped and BUF bit. Billings dropped and so far, the stink on him appears unfounded. Time will tell.

I think you are missing the general point - that it is better to draft higher in the order. Your options are greater. The trade value of your picks are higher. I listed my hypothetical picks, if the Bills were drafting at #13 instead of #19. I encourage you to re-do the draft yourself in that light. could you improve it.?Give it a go!

And I still don't see the desire for Ragland. When everybody and his brother says things like "two-down run stopper", I'm gone. But again, time will tell.

It's better to pick earlier sure but your case for how much better is weak based on your own mock draft. You can see that right? Guys slip in the draft every year. It's far more important to know what you're doing than where you pick and that's the real point.

[stuckincincy]

It's better to pick earlier sure but your case for how much better is weak based on your own mock draft. You can see that right? Guys slip in the draft every year. It's far more important to know what you're doing than where you pick and that's the real point.

I'm sorry you think my draft is weak, and I've said that you should give it a shot. I don't think there is but a few souls on this site that feels the Bills know what they are doing. You seem fixated on me and my scribblings, rather than on the fact that the BUF FO - for years - has exhibited as much draft acumen as a nemetode.

Cripes...even AZ and CIN eventually crawled out of the ashes of their '90's decade of jokedom.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

I'm sorry you think my draft is weak, and I've said that you should give it a shot. I don't think there is but a few souls on this site that feels the Bills know what they are doing. You seem fixated on me and my scribblings, rather than on the fact that the BUF FO - for years - has exhibited as much draft acumen as a nemetode.

Cripes...even AZ and CIN eventually crawled out of the ashes of their '90's decade of jokedom.

He's not saying your mock draft is weak, he's saying it's weak support for the claim that we should be losing games at the end of the year. I mean, look at your examples of teams that turned it around: Arizona and Cincy. Both of them drafted near the top of the NFL for years and never got anywhere, and at the moment they only have three if their own top 10 picks on their roster: Green in Cincy, Peterson and Fitz in Arizona. Arizona just dealt away Jonathan Cooper because he was a total bust and Cincy just let Andre Smith walk in free agency.

Both teams got their franchise QBs without using a first
Both teams are getting elite play from veterans the rest of the league had given up
Both teams took chances on risky players in the draft that paid off huge

Teams get successful because they draft smarter, not higher.

[Bill Cody]

I'm sorry you think my draft is weak, and I've said that you should give it a shot. I don't think there is but a few souls on this site that feels the Bills know what they are doing. You seem fixated on me and my scribblings, rather than on the fact that the BUF FO - for years - has exhibited as much draft acumen as a nemetode.

Cripes...even AZ and CIN eventually crawled out of the ashes of their '90's decade of jokedom.

lol man did you forget that this is your thread? Lighten up old timer.

(stuckincincy in ernest conversation with himself) "Damn Bills! I've been saying for MONTHS how stupid it was for the Bills to beat the Jets! Stupid Stupid Stupid"!
(answering himself) "How stupid Cincy"?
"I'll tell you just how stupid! If they had lost that game they could have had LAWSON"!
"Seriously"?
"Yup no joke. And Billings too. Totally f'n nuts"

[stuckincincy]

lol man did you forget that this is your thread? Lighten up old timer.

(stuckincincy in ernest conversation with himself) "Damn Bills! I've been saying for MONTHS how stupid it was for the Bills to beat the Jets! Stupid Stupid Stupid"!
(answering himself) "How stupid Cincy"?
"I'll tell you just how stupid! If they had lost that game they could have had LAWSON"!
"Seriously"?
"Yup no joke. And Billings too. Totally f'n nuts"

Re-read the thread title: "From the Spilt Milk Dept:" etc.

Haven't you ever learned the meaning of the term "spilt milk?"

30 posts, members realizing that the thread was about opportunities in the draft, a kicking of the tires, (another old expression). You know - everybody knows - that the Bills' FO has been far from the sharpest stick when the draft rolls around. That makes them fair game for second-guessing.

I read your posts - you normally add to this site, but you don't when you publish snide comments. Bury it and move on. Deal?