Dibs

I don't understand this sort of comment. Somebody is nice, encouraging & appreciative.......and you try and counteract it with an incorrect negative curmudgeonly assumption. Why would anybody want to do that?

I think that even though many, many people saw the logic in moving AW to safety, it was no lock that the Bills would also see logic and act on it. It is refreshing to see them making sound logical decisions IMO. It seems to me that it is only certain Bills fans who believe that there is a legitimate and generally accepted strategy in attempting to find 2 pro-bowl level CBs using ones best draft picks before addressing other areas of need.

I think it would be safe to assume that the best 6 teams had a much better pass rush over the 13 years than the bottom 11 teams. Assuming that the reason for the good teams not selecting DBs with their high draft stock is as you suggest(a good pass rush compensates for having weaker DBs).....this raises the pertinent question.....and it isn't "How does a team develop in order to generate a good pass rush?" The pertinent question IMO is.... "Does obtaining one good DB(in this instance via using high draft stock) counteract the lack of a good pass rush?"

I responded to Matt in KC about this earlier.... "I stopped at 23 for two reasons. The first is for the effect. Stopping there highlighted the numbers better(damned lies and statistics as they say ). The second reason is less flippant. I stopped there to reduce the number of people who would respond as you have done. I do not in any way disagree that the strong teams draft similar numbers of DBs in the 1st two rounds as the weak teams. It is with what frequency they draft DBs with their better draft picks compared to the weak teams that is the issue." There was also the actual numbers to consider. Had I merely stopped at top 15, there would have only been 21 selections made by the Top 6 Teams.....which would have given decent weight to the argument that top teams don't often draft high so how can we tell etc. Showing that the Top 6 Teams only selected 1 DB in their best 41 picks(to pick 23) clearly shows some sort of pattern. Compared to the Bottom Teams selecting 6 DBs in their best 42 picks(to pick 7).

Agreed.....and maybe those 6 good teams have figured how to coach better production out of their DBs via the D system they use.....or maybe having an elite QB naturally changes a teams perspective of what positions are of more need/value.... ....and maybe....just maybe....using ones best draft resources on DBs is not productive in producing a strong team. I don't know the reasons why the numbers are so skewed.....just that they are. They do(relatively speaking).....but I don't think that there is much logic in saying that having a crappy QB leads to spending a higher percent of one's good draft stock on DBs. I didn't do anything over 5 years, so 4 fits fine.....but you are correct, I chose 4 years for effect(similar to the way one might say "We have won 4 of our last 7", which really means the same as "4 of our last 8+"). I only added SB teams as a bit of extra interest. I am strongly of the belief that teams wins SBs based upon their QB talent(most of the time).....so looking at DB drafting for getting to the SB is a bit irrelevant to the point.....particularly compared to looking at teams who constantly make the playoffs. Np I stopped at 23 for two reasons. The first is for the effect. Stopping there highlighted the numbers better(damned lies and statistics as they say ). The second reason is less flippant. I stopped there to reduce the number of people who would respond as you have done. I do not in any way disagree that the strong teams draft similar numbers of DBs in the 1st two rounds as the weak teams. It is with what frequency they draft DBs with their better draft picks compared to the weak teams that is the issue. You make some very interesting points. Though I haven't done a similar study with LBs, I am pretty sure that a high percent of the good teams draft stock went into LBs.....and a low percent from the weak teams. I'll have a look at this concept. Edit: Which I have now done......some results for LBs: Top 10 picks Bad Teams: 4 in 63(6.3%) Top 6: 2 in 11(18.2%) Top 15 picks Bad Teams: 9 in 82(11%) Top 6: 4 in 21(19.1%) Top 23 picks Bad Teams: 20 in 115(10.4%) Top 6: 4 in 41(9.8%) It appears that the consistently stronger teams prefer to spend their higher draft stock(top 15) on LBs rather than DBs(on average).....when compared to the weak teams that is.

Again....the argument is "best draft stock". (I know my thread title is a little misleading in that respect.) You have no argument from me that a large number of the better DBs in the league were drafted in the 1st round(as with most positions)......the point is that it seems that when successful teams get high draft picks(top 10/15).....and even reasonable draft picks(top 23).....they consistently chose to draft positions other than DB. And further to the point, a lot of those DBs you list were the very same high draft picks that the Bottom Teams drafted. This can argue to the point that spending high draft stock on DBs is regularly wasted(compared perhaps to a lot of other positions).

You are the second poster to try to use the argument that the top teams don't draft high very often etc.....when there is clearly enough data to suggest a strong difference between the Top & Bottom Teams. When the top teams did get top draft picks(11 inside the top 10....21 inside the top 15)......they NEVER draft DBs.....0% They had 41 picks inside the top 23.....and only drafted 1 DB......2.4%. The Bad Teams drafted DBs at a rate of 17.5% inside the top 10. I don't disagree......the argument is however "Does one use their best draft stock on DBs?" The 49ers certainly haven't......5 top 10 picks(7 top 11)......no DBs selected. The combined Top 6 teams haven't.....11 top 10 picks(21 top 15)......no DBs selected. You might be right about the last 3 years etc......but it might also be irrelevant. I will be watching this concept keenly over the next bunch of years to see if the pattern changes.

I listed the numbers, the percentages and the actual picks. There is certainly enough data to form a distinct pattern here. The Top 6 Teams had 41 picks inside the top 23......and only selected 1 DB. The Bottom Teams had 63 picks inside the top 10.....and selected 11 DBs.

I wouldn't word it like that.....but yes. Ignoring the Bill's long/medium term history in picking DBs(as it really isn't relevant today)......we drafted a CB high in the 1st round last year(Gilmore) who showed a good chance that he will become a probowl level player. Selecting one this year when we have so many positional needs would be a huge mistake IMO as having a good QB or ILB is far more important than having a 2nd CB who can cover the #1 WR on opposition teams. Also.....there is this argument.... http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/157364-db-in-the-1stgood-or-bad/

For years I have seen the opinion around here that using one's best draft stock on the DB positions is not only a bad way to build a successful team but also a way to hinder the chances of general team improvement. I have always been neutral to this concept(neither for, nor against it)......but as I have always felt that there might be some element of truth to it I decided to do a bit of a study on recent drafting to see if any patterns occurred. I decided to look at the last 13 drafts(since 2000) of good and bad teams in relation to their DB drafting. Bad Teams I determined by teams that had 3 or fewer play-off appearances(11 teams). Bills(0), Browns(1), Lions(1), Cardinals(2), Texans(2), Jaguars(2), Chiefs(2), Panthers(3), Dolphins(3), Raiders(3), Redskins(3) For the good teams, I decided to have two groups....one based upon consistent play-off appearances(8 or more) called Top 6.....and the other comprised of the last 8 Super Bowl contenders(called SB Teams). Top 6: Colts(11), Patriots(10), Eagles(9), Packers(9), Ravens(9), Steelers(8) SB Teams: Ravens, 49ers, Giants, Patriots, Packers, Steelers, Saints, Colts I then broke their drafting into 3 different categories: Top 10 picks Bad Teams: 11 in 63(17.5%) Top 6: 0 in 11(0%) SB Teams: 0 in 19(0%) Top 15 picks Bad Teams: 12 in 82(14.6%) Top 6: 0 in 21(0%) SB Teams: 1 in 33(3%) Top 23 picks Bad Teams: 20 in 115(17.4%) Top 6: 1 in 41(2.4%) SB Teams: 5 in 58(8.6%) I was quite surprised to see such a massive disparity between the good and bad teams......and that the good teams only once have selected a DB in the top 15 over the past 13 years...... People can read into these figures what they like. I personally am now convinced that it is a bad move to spend your best draft stock on DBs. For those interested....red = DB Bills(0): 3, 4, 8 , 9, 10, 11, 1 1, 12, 13, 21, 22, 23 Browns(1): 1, 3, 3, 3, 6, 7, 16, 21, 21, 21, 22, 22 Lions(1): 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 17, 18, 20, 20, 23 Cardinals(2): 2, 3, 5, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18 Texans(2): 1, 1, 3, 10, 10, 11, 15, 16, 20 Jaguars(2): 5, 7, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, 10, 13, 21, 21 Chiefs(2): 3, 5, 5, 6, 11, 15, 15, 20, 21, 23 Panthers(3): 1, 2, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 19, 23 Dolphins(3): 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 19 Raiders(3): 1, 2, 4, 7, 7, 8, 17, 17, 23, 23 Redskins(3): 2, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13, 15, 16 49ers(4): 1, 6, 7, 7, 10, 11, 11, 16, 17, 22 Saints(5): 2, 6, 7, 13, 13, 14, 18, 23 Giants(7): 1, 11, 14, 15, 19, 20, 22 Steelers(8): 8, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 23 Ravens(9): 5, 10, 10, 12, 18, 19, 22, 23 Packers(9): 5, 9, 10, 14, 16, 20, 23 Eagles(9): 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 23 Patriots(10): 6, 10, 13, 17, 21, 21, 21, 21 Colts(11): 1, 11, 22

Milliner for me.

If we end up taking a QB with our #41 pick I will fly to the US.....find Buddy.....and likely do something that will cause me to be extradited.

He wasn't saying we shouldn't select a QB in the 1st......he was saying that assuming there isn't a viable 1st round QB available we should select SS. "assuming that quarterback may be more of a second-round option with this year's group, safety would rank near the top of positions they have a need for. Factoring out quarterbacks, here is why I'd discredit some of the other positions before I would with safety" If the Bills go QB in the first it will be done because they believe the QB is a viable 1st round option......not merely for PR purposes.

Bell is a Cardinal. (1yr/905k)

A roll. Melbourne, Australia

I would guess Luck. I have doubts about RG3s long term health in the NFL......and I have doubts about the long(or even medium) term progression of Wilson's productivity. On top of that, the Colts QB is Lucky.

I think you'll find that for bad teams there is a history of futility drafting any position in the top 5. How exactly are you figuring this theory?

Why?

LOL....really? You surely were aware of what you were quoting there. "idiotic is quite annoying." Taking something out of context doesn't really work if it is printed 2 posts above above. The actual quote was.... ".....and for you to dogmatically put this opinion across as if it was instead a fact.....and therefore totally discount any different opinion as somehow idiotic is quite annoying." I was saying that it was you who was treating others opinions as "somehow idiotic".

Apart from the concept that he was only a part time player last year.....how do you know Spiller didn't directly improve our record? His 110 APY & TD in the OT game against the Cardinals could easily have been the difference between a win and a loss. His 130 APY could easily have made the difference in the Dolphins win. I would think there would be a great chance that we would of had a worse record if CJ didn't play last season. I don't disagree with that line.....but to suggest that a superb running game won't have an influence on your W/L record is a bit of a sweeping statement.

Pick #23 & #25

The figures I quoted were from a 2012 article on Cowboys FAs. See what you think...http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2012/5/4/2998379/dallas-cowboys-undrafted-free-agents-how-much-will-they-get-paid

I think this totally depends on how my scouting department has graded the QBs.... If there is no legit QB left.....trade with Tampa. If there is one legit QB left.....pick the QB. If there is two legit QBs left....trade with Tampa. If there is three or more legit QBs left....trade with Minnesota.

I'm unsure of what you mean here. A 7th round pick has to be signed before they can participate in practice(somebody please correct me if I'm wrong). They usually get a reasonable signing bonus 65k-70k. An UDFA rookie usually gets 3k-5k(sometimes up to 20k) upon signing....and something like $150/day through mini-camps. They can then be released etc at obviously a much lower cost than cutting a 7th round pick.

I totally agree with your thoughts here. The stating of the situation as the Bills' "have very few picks" and "have only 6 picks" seems to be strangely highlighting that we don't have the standard 7 picks......rather than highlighting that we have a lot of holes to fill. Why not say....the Bills "don't have enough picks to fill all of the holes" or "have too many holes to fill"? Why try to instead emphasize the lack of the 7th round pick(as if it makes a difference)? It seems like it's double dipping......a way to be negative twice with the one statement.