Dibs

I did something similar in a different thread so I thought I'd expand it for this one....... In the last 10 drafts the top 11 selections are as follows DL - 21 QB - 19 WR - 17 DB - 17 RB - 13 OL - 12 LB - 9 TE - 2 History would seem to contradict your theory.

Ironic user name. Safety has become a far most important position in the modern day NFL than it ever was before. This is not even considering that safeties are the more important position to a Tampa2 D than CB. You rarely draft Safeties that high? Well let's have a look. In the last 6 drafts the top 8 selections are as follows QB - 9 OT - 7 WR - 7 S - 5 CB - 5 RB - 5 DE - 4 DT - 3 TE - 2 LB - 1 Seems to me some need to rethink their views on the role a safety plays in the modern game.

Just on this Bill.....he only cost us more than a #8 if we could have traded down & still picked him up(which is total speculation). Assuming that we could not have gotten him if we traded down then all he cost us was a #8 pick since the trade down would likely have been done in line with the trade value chart......meaning we would have ended up with the same amount of TVC points being the equivalent of the #8 pick.

I generally agree.....generally. Where I differ is that a 5th round pick, though something of value, actually is not worth very much at all. The difference according to the chart & my previous example is getting 40pts instead of 250pts......whereas a 7th rounder would be 13pts. The success rate of 5th rounders is so minimal that in relation to getting your player of choice, a 5th rounder would be close enough to free. Player of choice meaning: the individual team is getting a player that they rate at least a bracket higher than what they are looking at getting, or getting the player of 'need' position in that bracket that they feel they will miss out on. I totally agree that a team should be wary of doing this......in effect they would be giving a 'good deal' to an opposing team. It certainly should never be done within the division(perhaps conference) but if it meant that you end up with a better draft at the expense of some NFC team ending up with a bit more than better draft I don't see the problem.

I think that there are two factors in the draft that should always be considered. 1. Where do I perceive a player should be drafted.......and from what sources did I get this perspective? 2. Where do the Bills rate the players? I personally do not have anywhere near the skills to be able to look at.....say....Harvey & possibly be able to determine if any WR in the draft is of a talent level which is on par with him. Therefore I(like virtually everyone) determines my draft board based on 'expert' media analysis. The problem with this is that they not only differ greatly......they often get things very wrong.(e.g. 2006 draft most had Winston Justice going at around #10.....he dropped to #39). For this draft I see that most have the first WR going 19 or 20.....with Rivers usually at 10-12(with a few at 19,25).....and Harvey typically slotted at 15-17. Who knows what the talent level is between Harvey & the WRs......generally it is considered better, but not by much. How much talent drop-off is there between Rivers & the WRs? There are many factors to consider when an individual team is making the selection.....i.e. lock down CBs would be less important to a T2 team. If the Bills end up choosing a WR & passing on Rivers I would assume that they had the players rated in a similar bracket......with perhaps Rivers at a 65% chance of succeeding & the WR at a 62% chance. I would let the pick over time display whether it was a good pick. In a rational & reasonable world without personal ego there would be no talk of reaching on draft day. The players selected by each team would be the players that the teams figured were the 'best choice' for them. They would be graded upon how those player turned out in the NFL......not by some variable & dubious list based on perceived talent by the individual observer.

It will make us look like fools.......even though it would be foolish not to do it if the situation warranted it. IMO the fact that the media & fans would look at it as a bad move because of the trade value chart is no reason not to do the smart thing. Better to look the fool than be the fool.

The argument being put forward is that if the team trading down was willing to trade down asking a far lesser cost than what has become the norm(trade value chart), there would probably be plenty of teams willing to slide up a few spots to get their preferred player for a lower round pick. I personally don't think that any team(including the Bills) would ever do this.....even though it makes sense to do. The media & fans would have a field day. For instance......in that trade with Bills-Cardinals.....the chart says it is worth a very high 3rd rounder(250 pts). If the Bills accepted a high 5th rounder instead(40 pts).....even though it would be a benefit to the Bills(in the situation I described).....they would be touted as morons & the boards here would go ballistic.

Firstly one cannot count Losman in that list since he is not a solid-good player. McGahee is another player who cannot really count since it seemed apparent that he was not wanting to stay and would have moved on regardless. That list then comes to 9 players.....counting attrition(Clements loss).....it means we needed to stock 15 starters(not counting Parrish as a starter). How many additional starter players per offseason seem reasonable to add? A good year for any team would be 2 per draft & two successful FA acquisitions......or 4 per offseason. In 2 drafts & 3 offseasons the rebuild has added SS, FS, OLB, MLB, DT, DT, OG, OG, OT, QB(?), RB. If we get another quality starter or two from this upcoming draft that will make 4 per offseason.....that would make 3 good offseasons in a row(assuming the young players continue to improve & Stround & Mitchell pan out).

I think the whole 'drafting the best available talent' concept is a little deceptive in that it is probably only relevant rarely. Most of the time it seems to me that 'the best available player' is only marginally rated higher than a slew of other players. In those cases it would be ridiculous to draft the(for example) OT when you have a probowl LT & set at RT when you could take a player of similar caliber in an area of need. A smart selector will acknowledge the concept that even though he has player A rated a little above players B, C, D-K, it is not an exact science & player K may well end up being the best of the bunch. It is only when a player is significantly rated higher than the rest available that the 'drafting the best available talent' concept can really be considered. In those cases.....which are generally rare.....it would IMO be wise to either take the player(regardless of need), or orchestrate a trade down(which should not be too hard in that situation).

As 1gap2gap pointed out, they are talking about top 5/6 type money. The money given to the #11 in the overall scheme of things would not be that much of an encumbrance......what are we talking about? 2-3mil/year difference from the #11 to #22? We just signed a backup DT to a 3.5mil/year deal. I can't see the money being an issue for trade up to #11. ans4e64 makes a good point.....good enough to make me look at things from a different perspective & change my own opinion. His example with the RB is fitting. Arizona for instance might have Mendenhall as their preferred player when the #11 selection comes. Though they may not want to give up much to get their preferred player, they would probably give up something to move up 5 slots. If we on the other hand are determined to take a WR......and we have 2(or 3) that we rate highly(around the same level).....we could be fairly certain that one will still be there at #16. As long as it is not to a direct divisional rival it makes no sense to not trade down......even if it is for a 5th rounder. We'd still get the player we want with the benefits of saving a few $$$ & getting another pick.

But if the Patriots drafted Brady in the 1st, nobody would ever really know if he would have lasted to the 2nd round or not. I agree basically with what DrDankenstein said. A 'reach' is really a player who is selected(significantly?) ahead of where the consensus media has him positioned talent-wise in the draft pool. One has to assume that the team selecting said reach legitimately considers the player their best option. I think one really has to ask the question "Would you prefer that the Bills follow the consensus media boards or stick to their own draft analysis?" Basically, every team that 'reaches' is showing the strength of their convictions.......which should be admired, not admonished. If their ability to select well in the draft is not good(or they get bad luck), they will lose their jobs(eventually.....one hopes).

Hubert Hawkins - Danny Kaye - The Court Jester Jack Sparrow - Johnny Depp - POTC Tyler Durden - Norton/Pitt - Fight Club James Bond - Sean Connery - Goldfinger Spartacus - Kirk Douglas - Spartacus

So was that 3-13 minutes per orgasm?

I guess my point is that considering all of those factors you listed(assuming we fix some of it with Poz, Mitchell, Simpson etc).....plus the potential for some actual push up the middle with Stroud, Johnson & an improved McCargo.....the DEs are probably good enough to see us inside the top 10 in sacks again this year. This is not to say a good young pass rushing DE would not be a valuable addition.....just that it is probably more of a luxury at this point compared to other areas of concern.

I'm an accredited Energy Rater(Australia) so I think perhaps I can give you some advice here..... It sounds like you want to set up the garage and the attic above to be reasonably livable(insulated). This means you have to consider both as a whole. In a normal situation where you wish to maintain just the garage below, the vents you have put in the roof would be a benefit....they create air flow through the roof which helps. In your situation however, the vents are a hindrance and should be blocked up. The most important aspect is air flow. Basically you must seal all of the gaps & cracks between the inside & the outside of the building......including draft excluders on doors & making sure all windows seal up tight. The other vital aspect is insulation. Make sure the walls are insulated. Put insulation to the underside of the roof. This may be very tricky to do with batts but there is a product out here which is basically bubble wrap in between two sheets of foil.....there is bound to be similar products in the US. This is easy to staple up onto the inside of the roof. Picture of product. Getting double glazed windows will help also......though probably not worth the money. If you do all of these things you will achieve a very livable environment within the garage & attic space. BTW........to everyone who wants to have a more livable house......seal up all the gaps & cracks(including around piping under sinks etc).....draft excluders on all utility doors(laundry, bathroom, w.c.).....and generally all over. Also, upgrade your roof insulation to as high as you can get.

.....and we had 40 sacks(8th) in 2006 & 38 sacks(13th) in 2005 with pretty much the same guys. Maybe the sack total is not entirely directly related to DE talent.....maybe there are other factors involved.

I hate to resort to this but..... Either you think everyone else is an idiot or you are one yourself. I gave entire lists for analysis & you pick & chose what you want from it???? How about.... The bottom teams: Rams 2 "combo" players and 4 DL Chiefs 1 "combo" players and 2 DL Jets 2 "combo" players and 2 DL How about the Super Bowl teams? Colts 1 DL and 2 "combo" player Steelers 1 DL and 3 "combo" player Raiders 1 DL and 3 "combo" player 01 Pats 1 DL and 4 "combo" player Ravens 0 DL and 3 "combo" player 00 Giants 1 DL and 3 "combo" player

It's really very simple..... You keep saying..... ....and.... You are wrong. Better teams Giants...2 DL...2 DB/WR Patriots...3 DL...1 DB/WR Colts(13-3)...1 DL...3 DB/WR Cowboys(13-3)...1 DL...2 DB/WR Packers(13-3)...2 DL...2 DB/WR Chargers(11-5)...1 DL...4 DB/WR Jaguars(11-5)...2 DL...3 DB/WR Lesser teams Dolphins(1-15)...0 DL...3 DB/WR Rams(3-13)...4 DL...2 DB/WR Jets(4-12)...2 DL...2 DB/WR Raiders(4-12)...1 DL...5 DB/WR Chiefs(4-12)...2 DL...1 DB/WR Falcons(4-12)...1 DL...3 DB/WR The better teams are drafting DL at the top of the draft at the same rate as the bottom teams!!!! I really don't care about any of the other aspects that you keep bringing up.....I may agree on some.....I may disagree on others. On the point you continually make that the better teams draft more DL than the worse teams(thus them being better) is the ONLY thing I have been addressing.......BECAUSE IT IS TOTALLY WRONG!

26......but I know from experience I could pound the snot out of double that.....um.....did I just type that?

I confess.....I was having a bit of a joke. Highlight the bottom of my original post & you'll see my disclaimer.

sigh I only simplified things to that level since that was your original break down from post #1. Your statement of......"most of the better teams in the league have used early high picks to build a strong DLine."(post #148)....is wrong! To say substantially more draft equity is going into the line positions on Defense at the top of the draft for those better teams than at WR/DB is wrong! It would not even be accurate to simply say more.....let alone substantially more. The better teams are drafting DL at the top of the draft at the same rate as the bottom teams!!!! As I clearly showed......over the last 7 drafts ....only 1 of the top 7 teams from last season invested more in 1st round DLmen than WR/DB.....with 2 ties. ....2 of the bottom 6 teams from last season invested more in 1st round DLmen than WR/DB.....with 2 ties. For the top 7 teams from last season(11+wins & SB), the average DLmen selected in the first round for the preceding 7 drafts was 1.7 per team. For the bottom 6 teams from last season(4 wins or less), the average DLmen selected in the first round for the preceding 7 drafts was 1.7 per team. The better teams are drafting DL at the top of the draft at the same rate as the bottom teams!!!!

There has been a lot of talk around here lately about what position the better teams draft high in the draft in order to get to the Super Bowl. There is a singular position which virtually guarantees superbowl success. That position is Tight End! In the past 10 drafts there have been 13 TEs drafted in the 1st round. Within 6 seasons of being drafted......6 of the teams that drafted them have gone on to the SB(5 of them winning it). All of the last 5 superbowls have been won by teams within 6 seasons of drafting a TE in the first round. 2 of the last 5 superbowls runner-ups have been by teams within 6 seasons of drafting a TE in the first round. What this means mathematically is that if you draft a TE in the first round, you have a 6 in 13 chance(46%) of making the SB within 6 years......and a 5 in 13 chance(38%) of winning the SB within 6 years. No other position drafted in the 1st round in recent times comes close to the success of drafting a TE. This draft we should ignore what the talent analysts say & use the #11 pick to draft the best TE available. Disclaimer: Though the actual numbers are factually correct.....the conclusion I have drawn is ridiculous and is only meant as an example to show that trying to obtain meaningful insight from what successful teams spend their early draft resources on is futile at best, disingenuous at worst.

No.....I'm afraid that he isn't simply saying that at all. There has been so many other additional factors thrown into the base premise that he has actually been saying a lot more than just that.......but let's deal with that actual assumption. Good teams draft D-line until they have a very good unit.......specifically the DTs(which he has stated on many occasions). Meaning.....and AKC stated this just a few posts earlier that "most of the better teams in the league have used early high picks to build a strong DLine."(post #148) To continually make an assertion without backing it up with evidence does not make a good discargument. Here are some raw numbers for the past 8 superbowl teams......and I'll keep it basic to be in line with the first post of this thread.....we'll just use first round DLmen versus first round DBs/WRs for the previous seven drafts prior to the SB appearances. 2007 Giants...2 DL...2 DB/WR Patriots...3 DL...1 DB/WR 2006 Colts...1 DL...2 DB/WR Bears...2 DL...1 DB/WR 2005 Steelers...1 DL...3 DB/WR Seahawks...2 DL...2 DB/WR 2004 Patriots...3 DL...1 DB/WR Eagles...2 DL...2 DB/WR 2003 Patriots...2 DL...2 DB/WR Panthers...2 DL...2 DB/WR 2002 Bucs...3 DL...1 DB/WR Raiders...1 DL...3 DB/WR 2001 Patriots...1 DL...4 DB/WR Rams...4 DL...3 DB/WR 2000 Ravens...0 DL...3 DB/WR Giants...1 DL...3 DB/WR Summary.......of the last 16 SB teams.....in the preceding 1st rounds of the 7 drafts to their SB appearances......5 selected more DLmen than DB/WR.......and 6 selected more DB/WR than DLmen. Of the 8 SB winners......2 selected more DLmen than DB/WR.......and 4 selected more DB/WR than DLmen. Let's look at the good 2007 teams past 7 drafts.... Giants...2 DL...2 DB/WR Patriots...3 DL...1 DB/WR Colts(13-3)...1 DL...3 DB/WR Cowboys(13-3)...1 DL...2 DB/WR Packers(13-3)...2 DL...2 DB/WR Chargers(11-5)...1 DL...4 DB/WR Jaguars(11-5)...2 DL...3 DB/WR Titans(10-6)...1 DL...3 DB/WR Seahawks(10-6)...1 DL...3 DB/WR Browns(10-6)...1 DL...1 DB/WR Let's look at the bad 2007 teams past 7 drafts.... Dolphins(1-15)...0 DL...3 DB/WR Rams(3-13)...4 DL...2 DB/WR Jets(4-12)...2 DL...2 DB/WR Raiders(4-12)...1 DL...5 DB/WR Chiefs(4-12)...2 DL...1 DB/WR Falcons(4-12)...1 DL...3 DB/WR Let's look at the 2007 Bills & Lions past 7 drafts.... Bills(7-9)...1 DL...3 DB/WR Lions(7-9)...0 DL...4 DB/WR What does all this mean? Absolutely nothing! It does show that AKC was talking total bollocks when he claims that "most of the better teams in the league have used early high picks to build a strong DLine."......but it does not really prove anything else. IMO to try to simplify the reasons why teams select who they do in the draft into base rules is ludicrous. There are sooooo many factors involved with each team & in each draft that there cannot be a common thread to it. What if your star player gets injured? You draft to replace. What if you keep drafting at a position & you keep busting out at it? What if you have salary cap issues & need to let certain players go instead of re-signing them? What if you luck onto good players in the later rounds hence giving no need to draft high at that position for years? Etc, etc, etc. I personally believe that a strong DL is essential to having a good team.......I do not accept that there is some sort of secret which has been discovered & utilized by the better teams involving early high picks to build a strong DLine. The evidence for that theory is simply not supported by the facts.

From the surface of things you do may well have a point.....the first post in this thread is really just saying(apart from we are as bad as the Lions in this area) that we have not drafted enough DLmen in the first round......and we should rectify things. Considering however that this thread is like a continuation thread for AKC it is perhaps reasonable to assume that his crusade from previous lost threads is still relevant here. In the previous threads he constantly avowed that 'good' teams drafted DTs high in the draft and that is why they are successful.......which is how I interpret his meaning in the first post.

Great post......people should read this post!!!!(not just skim it).