I was doing a little thinking with the Seattle / Lynch trade talk getting a little more steam, at least in the media.

The Bills want at least a 3rd for Lynch.  Seattle doesn't have a 3rd next year, and a 2 is too much and a 4 is too little.  But if the Bills throw in a pick you could get it so it works.

Going to the Draft Value Chart, if the value for Lynch is a 3rd and the Bills include their 3rd round pick you're looking at a total value of mid-to-high 400s (assume Lynch for the 10th pick of the 3rd and the Bills picking 10th you get to 440 points).  The 8th pick in the 2nd is 500 points and drops to 420 for the 16th pick so they're similar (although somewhat dependent on how you're expecting each team to do).

So if that were to happen the Bills would be getting the equivalent of a 3rd rounder for Lynch.  From Seattle's side, they get a player that they like by just moving down a round in the draft.  They'll still have the same number of picks in next year's draft and have a player they like.

From there, the Bills would have 2 second round picks and could flip one of them to Baltimore for Jared Gaither.  Essentially they'd be giving up a 3rd rounder and a player that doesn't want to be around (and currently 3rd stringer) for a starting LT.

I think the biggest stumbling block to something like this happening is probably the Seahawks valuing Lynch as a mid-to-high 3rd round pick, but I think getting them back to having the same number of picks would get them to be more receptive to it.

I think there's too much emphasis on what's happening with the team in 2010. Regardless of what happened in the draft the Bills were going to be a mediocre team at best in 2010. And they still might be mediocre this year.

This team needs to be built with an eye to 2012. There's lots of positions that needed to be filled sooner or later: QB, LT, RT, WR, RB, NT, DE, OLB, ILB and probably more. You can't do that all in one draft.

While it's probably not a popular thing to do, what I think people should be looking at is how this team will look in the 2012 season because that's the realistic point where the Bills could be serious playoff contenders.

Filling holes with players at need positions that you don't believe in isn't going to help in the long run. It would have been great if Clausen was viewed as a franchise QB. But the Bills didn't think so, and almost every other NFL team thought the same way. Same thing with all the other QBs in the draft that they had a shot at. Same thing with LT - they obviously didn't think Bulaga or Davis was worth it.

Jason Campbell likely would have been an upgrade at QB for the Bills. But do you think that he has a chance to be a Super Bowl winning QB? I don't think so. And I don't think anyone else does as either. If they did they could have given up more than a 4th rounder for him. So why waste a draft pick on Campbell when you could use the pick to potentially get a player that could contribute to the next Super Bowl team? If he was a free agent and you're using him as a stop gap, that's fine, but you shouldn't give up resources (draft picks) to get players that aren't part of the long term solution.

Was Spiller a need pick? Jackson and Lynch are a fine pair of RBs. But you know what? They don’t make big plays. And big plays are the best way to put points on the board. If you’re looking at 2010 is Spiller the right move? Probably not. But if you’re looking at 2012 and beyond is he the right move? I think there’s a good chance of it. Big-time playmakers are tough to find. Players that can score TDs are not a luxury; they are a necessity.

While Troup and Carrington will be part-time players this season, what will they be in 2012? At that point they should be the anchors of a really good DL. I keep reading how Williams isn't a NT and the Bills need a real big run stuffer in there. Stroud is near the end of his career and likely won't be effective in 2012 if he isn’t retired (or cut). Those are two significant spots that will need to be filled at some point with an eye on 2012. So while it isn’t the biggest need in 2010 the Bills aren’t playing for 2010 – they’re playing for 2012 and beyond. DL is probably one of the tougher positions to grow into an effective player – you don’t see too many rookies dominating that right from the start. It takes time both mentally and physically. And if it wasn't done now you're looking at a good team in 2011 looking to fill their DL with rookies who likely won't be effective right away. So is it the best move to win games in 2010? No, probably not, but is it the best move for 2012 and beyond? Time will tell, but I think there’s good logic behind it.

Beyond the first three rounds you’re pretty much looking for players with traits that you think could turn into effective players. The odds of these players being effective starters is low, but they all appear to have traits that could make them successful which is what you’re looking for.

Last time I checked they’re going to have another draft in 2011 (even if there’s no football). And as far as I know they’ll have one every year thereafter. There will be good players in those drafts. The Bills need a lot more players that what they can get in 1 draft, and even 2 drafts if you’re really realistic. Keep your eye on 2012 when looking at the team. If there’s still huge questions marks at that point then yes, it’s probably time to hit the panic button. But it’s not that time now. If you think it is, I think you’re being short sighted. It might hurt to watch in the short term. But you know what? It's hurt in the short term for about 15 years now. It’s about time to get it right.

With so many prominent needs right now the hardest thing that Nix could probably do this draft is keep his eye on the long term picture. But ultimately, looking at 2012 and beyond is the right approach. That Nix didn’t take a QB, LT, or OLB ought to really tell you how he felt about those players. It would have been easy to stray slightly from the board to take a player that filled bigger short-term 2010 needs but if that was to the detriment of 2012+ then it’s a move that I wouldn’t have endorsed. Nix set up his board and drafted accordingly. I applaud him for looking at the big long term picture when it would have been a lot easier, and probably produce better short term results, to draft primarily based on the biggest holes today.

The release of Walker based on his apparent regression got me thinking if that's something you would expect out of tackles.

It's obviously tough to measure how well tackles play objectively, but by looking at the ages of the starting tackles in the NFL you can perhaps get a feel for when players start to regress.

So what I did was to take the depth charts at ESPN.com and list each of the starting LTs and RTs and their ages (not sure if this is 100% accurate, but it was the easiest way to put this together quickly).

Here's a list of the tackles and ages, by team:

Team    LT    Age
Ariz    Gandy    30
Atl    Baker    24
Balt    Gaither    23
Buff    D Bell    25
Car    Gross    29
Chic    Pace    33
Cin    Whitworth    27
Cle    Thomas    24
Dal    Adams    34
Den    Clady    23
Det    Backus    31
GB    Clifton    33
Hou    Brown    24
Ind    Johnson    25
Jac    Monroe    22
KC    Albert    24
Mia    Long    24
Min    Mckinnie    29
NE    Light    31
NO    Brown    28
NYG     Diehl    28
NYJ    Ferguson    25
Oak    Henderson    24
Phi    Peters    27
Pit    Starks    27
SD    McNeill    25
Sea    Locklear    28
SF    Staley    25
StL    Barron    26
TB    Penn    26
Ten    Roos    26
Was    Samuels    32
Ave        26.9

Team    RT    Age
Ariz    Brown    25
Atl    Clabo    27
Balt    Oher    23
Buff    Butler    25
Car    Otah    23
Chic    Williams    24
Cin    Collins    23
Cle    St Clair    32
Dal    Columbo    30
Den    Harris    24
Det    Cherilus    25
GB    Barbre    25
Hou    Winston    25
Ind    Diem    30
Jac    Britton    21
KC    Ndukwe    27
Mia    Carey    28
Min    Loadholt    23
NE    Kaczur    30
NO    Stinchcomb    30
NYG     McKenzie    30
NYJ    Woody    31
Oak    Green    33
Phi    Andrews    28
Pit    Colon    26
SD    Clary    25
Sea    Willis    27
SF    Synder    27
StL    Goldberg    29
TB    Trueblood    26
Ten    Stewart    27
Was    Heyer    25
Ave        26.7

The average age for LTs and RTs is almost identical, so I'm not sure there's much difference, although there seems to be a few more younger LTs, which makes some sense as LT is more of an athletic position and RT is more of a size/strength position.

Taking each of the 64 ages it distributes like this:

21    1
22    1
23    6
24    8
25    12
26    5
27    8
28    5
29    3
30    6 (5 are RTs)
31    3
32    2
33    3
34    1

This seems to indicate that the most players are 25 with the major range being from 23-28.  This is definitely lower than I would have guessed.

Walker just recently turned 30, so it's not a lock by any means that he would regress as there's still many 30 year old tackles and older (15 of 64).  However, of the 6 OTs that are 30, 5 of them are RTs so that might be an indication that more athletic players are remaining at LT when they're 30+.   Walker is also an unusually large man, so it's also possible that he would be likely to regress quicker than a normal OT because of that.

I don't think this is definitely conclusive one way or the other, but I don't think that Walker's regression should have come as as much of a shock that it did.

It looks like Brackman is falling in the draft.  The question becomes do you want to go for the high risk /high reward player at #16 or #21?

Continue reading this post »

There's a bunch of HS pitchers in the 10-20 range.  The Jays pick at 16 and 21 and I'd like to separate the group of pitchers in that range.  So, who's at the top and why?

Continue reading this post »

The Jays select at #16, 21, 38, 45, 56, 86, 89 in the first two rounds.

For now, let's focus on the picks in the first round.

In the prospect lists that I've seen there's a lot of HS pitchers in the 12-25 range.  Unless someone really drops (Parker, Aumont, Harvey) I'm not sure there's any one I'd be interested in.

Among college pitchers there isn't anyone I'd take at 16.  Perhaps Weathers or Cecil at 21.

Beau Mills is the hitter I really like if he's there.  I'm not crazy about Laporta despite the numbers.  I also like a bunch of the HS hitters if they drop - Moustakas, Heyward, Dominguez, and maybe Burgess. If it sounds like Canham can stick at catcher I'd consider him as well.

Ok, barring any major changes with a prospect (like an injury) we're set for the first round pick.

Now we have to focus on Rounds 3-5.  The picks are 86, 116, and 146.

Continue reading this post »

For the first three rounds of the draft the Blue Jays have two picks.  The first is number 6 overall, and the second pick will be in the third round, somewhere between 86-88, overall.

Continue reading this post »