maryland-bills-fan

Yes, it is important not to have a weak link for the other team to exploit. An "10" all-pro CB on one side and a weak "6" slow rookie at the other CB is NOT as good as both being "8". Hopefully we have used FA veterans to avoid that and are drafting the entire draft on eventual "high ceilings" and disregarding where the "floor" is. We have the FA veterans to plug the hole if the draft pick stays at a "low floor" performance.

I think that sometimes, because of astrology or group-think among the "experts" that we depend upon, there is a glut of projected superstars at a position. This year it is defensive line and, to a lesser extend, offensive tackle. If it IS true this year at DL, then we can draft at #9 and maybe get a "superstar" or move down to say, #15, and still get a D-lineman who would be a top 10 pick in most other years. We could take advantage of the surplus D-line & OT by taking one or by getting some other position, where a good player was pushed down lower in the draft. Somehow I wonder if this year's tea leaves reading is real or just the writers doing clickbait.

Glad to see you have figured out how to save money.

What if the choice was between a "7.7" tackle and a "7.6" guard? BPA? or improve the team? I agree. The first couple of rounds you go for high ceiling/high floor guy. It cost you a lot of draft points, but it is cheap on dollars- contract and length of rookie contract help you here. The lower rounds go for high ceiling/ whatever-floor guys. Just not nut cases or lazy players. Hope to get lucky. We are after impact players in the draft. They cost too much as FA's or in trades.

Actually, I spent a couple of years in Anne Arbor, so Shirley don't call me a buckeye.

Everybody knows that the end who they split out from the line of scimmage is called the "split end". Would Woodie Hays lie?

Another concept that many people seem to be ignoring is the increase or decrease in overall "scores" of UNITS depending upon how good the individuals are. (a.k.a. "teamwork"). For illustration, look at the left side of the offensive line. OT OG C. IF they score as "7" "7" "7" the raw sum might be "21" but when the play together, the actual sum might be greater as "24" IF they score as "7" "5" 7" the raw sum might be "19" but when the play together, the actual sum might be less, maybe "17". The "7"'s are made worse by having to cover by the missed assignments of the "5" and his getting blown up by a DT.

I think people are overthinking this and are getting so addicted to a concept that they are not using their common sense.. So we plan on having seven "9" safeties and three "4 "cornerbacks? Which is better? CASE A: three 8.8 offensive tackles and offensive guards of 7.0 and 4.0? or CASE B: two 8.8 offensive tackles and offensive guard of 7.0 and 8.8? Gee, might the opponent's defense pass rush over that 4.0 guard? NAW. The surplus 8.8 offensive tackle on the bench will scare that off. How in the world can people agree that football is a TEAM sport and then say that it is better to have a start sitting on the bench (you might need him someday!!) than improving the team on the field? You only have so many players on the team, FA's available and so many high draft picks. Shouldn't you want to wind up with the best overall "score" SUM of players on the field? Have people forgotten that in many cases an offense or defense is no better than the weakest link that can be exploited by the other team?

Edmunds was a teenaged when drafted in the first round (last time for that was 2007 I think). He is a very high ceiling/medium floor and NOT going to reach is full potential in the first year or even the second year. Suck it up people, we have to wait and see if the risk in getting him is going to pay off. I'm hoping for a DT LB OT for our first three picks this year.

Well,,,,, if you have 4 defensive tackles that are graded 8.2, what good do the two do you that are sitting on the bench? Might it be better to get rid of that 5.1 offensive guard who is making your 8.2 OT look like a jerk because he is always trying to block two guys? Try on some reality. Does the new player make your TEAM better? If you have crap offensive tackles, does it make sense to draft another 8.7 #1 type wide receiver? Two guys open down field waving for the ball to a QB who is flat on his back, doesn't put points on the board.

WOW. I hear what you are saying. I just have trouble believing that they ignore the {ceiling versus floor} issue.

I don't do this for a living. I wonder if a DT from a college team that had a great offense, would look real attractive. If his team is up 24-0 in the first quarter, might it be "pin your ears back and go for the QB time". Stat's look good. Is there a lot of film from him on games where that didn't happen?

".............Shyamalan came out of almost nowhere to become one of the year's greatest sensations .............." https://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/m_night_shyamalan/ But then axe murders and sex perverts are great sensations as well..................

I always get worried about taking a DL from a college team that has two guys picked in the first round. Are they two A+ players? Maybe they are both solid "B" players (& projected to be better than average NFL players), who overwhelmed the offensive lines in college, where they were playing against lines that were C+, C-, C, B+, B- across the front 5. Two B+ players going up against an interior O-line that has C- C B+ ? Gotta look real real good. How would they look if there were all "B" players against them and no weak links ? Remember when the Bills draft both Cousina and Nelson at LB? How did that work out?

Better to use the lower round to move up the 2nd round pick into the first

I think that at #9, the Bills are in a position where the "can't miss--high ceiling---HoF" odds go down a couple of notches. I would trade down no lower than the mid 20's from #9 AND also use the 3rd and 4th round extra picks to trade up from #41 to the mid 20's as well. Pick up a less famous DT with upside and one of the top 2 or 3 linebackers.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-01-11-sp-260-story.html

Yes, I think "runs" on players do happen, especially in the lower rounds. Look at the 2018 draft to the 5th round. 174 players taken. 20 (11%) of them were taken with the same position drafted in two successive picks. (A lot more if you go within 3 picks). The statistics would show that is not a random event (~ 10 positions listed). I think it shows people are "drafting for need" in the sense that they have similar grades for people at many positions AND also need somebody at "X". The guy drafted just before them was an "X" and the next "X" has a good grade BUT the next highest guy at "X" is a real step down. Pull the trigger on your needs. 2018 DT 12 & 15 center 20 & 21 CB 55 & 56, WR 60 & 61 DE 66 & 67 WR 132 & 133 DT 139 & 140 CB 151 & 152 TE 156 & 157 PUNTER 156 & 157 (!!!) "

As for myself, I don't think you should do this unless either you already have an aging franchise QB and are trying to get his replacement lined up (& what goes along with that franchise QB is that you are not usually drafting in the top 15) OR the backup guy you have is bad and you don't like the second-hand veterans that are available. The Bills seem to be "behind door number Two" right now.

I really don't completely agree for the following reasons. First of all, I don't think that anybody totally describes a player by a single score and sticks to it absolutely. Is one guy a 86.43 and another guy an 86.75? If it were that easy, than all teams would have essentially the same chart and there would be no surprises. With all the unknowns about a player and where and how he played, there are probably explicit or implicit ranges for each player. Risk assessments always give fuzzier results. There must also be several other measures- I've suggested a (ceiling/floor) rating which contains a strong sense of development potential in it. Look at our last year 1st round picks and see what the average rating of those players was. Allen was anywhere from a top 3 pick to a 3rd round pick. "Need" is also there. If you had a top 20 pick in 2 successive years- would you take an offensive center two years in a row? I don't think so. If you are drafting so high that you can get a sure-fire #1 WR two years in a row, might some other "position of need" (OT) be more important to be able to utilize the first #1 WR you drafted?

Could you please specify how many threads are allowed here? 5 to 10 should do it.

I read most of that and didn't see any discussion of this idea. Maybe we could get along her at 2BD with only 3 or 4 threads, each 2,000 posts long?

I think there is a difference between who will be the best player in your next season's opening game and who will be the best player the second half of the season and for the following years. You are not including the expected improvement and development of the draftee in your thinking. I think teams make choices in choosing between an instant starter who is max'ed out and a player who might start at a lower level and then far exceed the first type.

Maybe. I know that I have been realizing this concept over the past week or so and using a concept a bit. I'm just stating it here explicitly. It's also possible somebody else wrote the same thing and I didn't see it, or I saw something like this and don't remember where the seed idea came from. There isn't a lot of new stuff under the sun.

I agree. I think that if it is a "need" you pay to get a FA to fill the hole and may not be happy. If it is a "need", you don't want a poor performance at that position hurt the rest of the team, because other teams will exploit it. A known veteran stops the bleeding, while most rookies (unless they are a sure generational talent) come with a risk-especially the first year. If you have raised children, you probably understand the difference between a "need" and a "want".