Coach Tuesday Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 I keep hearing around here that the Bills have finally chosen to go in the right direction this offseason of "Building Through the Draft." versus signing expensive free agents and veterans, and that as a result we need to be patient because the results will pan out next year or the following year. I'm calling B.S. on this notion. The concept of "Building Through the Draft" is a SALARY CAP approach to running a team. It is financial, not systemic. It is based on the notion that all teams have the same amount of money to spend each year, and so the most efficient use of that money is to draft quality young players and lock them up via rookie deals, essentially guaranteeing you cheap, productive labor and freeing up more of your resources to add additional pieces to the puzzle. However, there is no salary cap any longer, and it may never return. There certainly was no cap this offseason, so if ever there were an opportunity to "catch up," i.e., spend some more money than you normally would in free agency in an effort to right the ship, this was the offseason to do it. The Bills didn't take that approach. Perhaps they didn't like what was out there - yes, that's a possiblity. I don't concur with that thinking, because again, I think it's basically a financial concept. There were players out there. The Bills may not have liked the "value" they were getting in return for what it would have cost to acquire them - but again, this was the year to spend more. The notion of value changes drastically when you remove a salary cap. Now, I recognize that all teams need to use an "internal" cap in order to remain financially viable. But here again I take issue with the notion that "Building Through the Draft" is the only prudent approach. Do we know what Ralph's finances look like? What his lease payments are? His debt payments? His PROFITS? We don't. And without that information, we have no idea if Ralph is pocketing plenty of money each year that coudl be used to invest in better players, coaches, and facilities. And free agent players, not just forced, cheap labor from the college ranks. Just presenting the counter-point here, would like to get some discussion going. Why does everyone naturally assume that "Building Through the Draft" makes sense any longer?
PromoTheRobot Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 Whatever. You can't make players play for you if they don't want to. The NFL frowns on signing players at gunpoint or taking families hostage. And the kind of players you can just buy with crazy money are not winners (See: A. Haynesworth) When you are at rock bottom you have to start somewhere, and the draft is where you start. PTR
Benjamin Barker Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 Every single team in the NFL "builds through the draft" each year. They all get new draft picks every year. Every single team in the NFL "builds through free agency" each year. They all sign new free agents every year. The Bills are just bad at drafting, and unable to sign any high profile free agents. Why would a top player want to play in Buffalo for God's sake?
Green Lightning Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 How would you characterize the Redskin's team building strategy the past decade? You build with the draft. Other than the Yankees, who buys teams that succeed?
Captain Caveman Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 So you want them to go out and resign Derrick Dockery for $50 million?
Mickey Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 Every single team in the NFL "builds through the draft" each year. They all get new draft picks every year. Every single team in the NFL "builds through free agency" each year. They all sign new free agents every year. The Bills are just bad at drafting, and unable to sign any high profile free agents. Why would a top player want to play in Buffalo for God's sake? Maybe not top guys but Buffalo has been a very generous place if you are an overpriced mediocrity. We are pretty good at attracting those guys. I would rather pay a guy who can play 20% more than he is worth than to a pay a guy who can't play half as much. In the end, you have to have personnel people with a knack for finding talent and a little luck. We have had neither for a long, long time.
ganesh Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 Whatever. You can't make players play for you if they don't want to. The NFL frowns on signing players at gunpoint or taking families hostage. And the kind of players you can just buy with crazy money are not winners (See: A. Haynesworth) When you are at rock bottom you have to start somewhere, and the draft is where you start. PTR 100%... The teams can dictate what they want in the draft...Not so with FA..Players can pick the teams they want. Everyone was clamoring for McNabb, but McNabb had no interest in the Bills.
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 The Bills have followed the model of the Steelers, Pats, and Ravens, build through the draft and sign key free agents either for backups at low cost or the occasional starter. The difference is these other teams have got the selections right the majority of the time where as the Bills have failed on most of their picks. Three teams that have gone the other route spend as much as fiscally possible are the Redskins, Cowboys and Raiders. One has been a total failure, one middle of the road and one has done well, but not as well as Pats, Steelers or Ravens. You also don't know what will happen next year with repsect to a salary cap. Considering the owners tore up the old aggrement due to spending too much, I'd be very surprised if there isn't another salary cap. How will it be handled? Will teams be given a two year window to get things back under cost since there was no cap this season, or will the free spenders be out of luck? No one knows, and that's why many teams tended to spend rather low this year due to uncertainty. I keep hearing around here that the Bills have finally chosen to go in the right direction this offseason of "Building Through the Draft." versus signing expensive free agents and veterans, and that as a result we need to be patient because the results will pan out next year or the following year. I'm calling B.S. on this notion. The concept of "Building Through the Draft" is a SALARY CAP approach to running a team. It is financial, not systemic. It is based on the notion that all teams have the same amount of money to spend each year, and so the most efficient use of that money is to draft quality young players and lock them up via rookie deals, essentially guaranteeing you cheap, productive labor and freeing up more of your resources to add additional pieces to the puzzle. However, there is no salary cap any longer, and it may never return. There certainly was no cap this offseason, so if ever there were an opportunity to "catch up," i.e., spend some more money than you normally would in free agency in an effort to right the ship, this was the offseason to do it. The Bills didn't take that approach. Perhaps they didn't like what was out there - yes, that's a possiblity. I don't concur with that thinking, because again, I think it's basically a financial concept. There were players out there. The Bills may not have liked the "value" they were getting in return for what it would have cost to acquire them - but again, this was the year to spend more. The notion of value changes drastically when you remove a salary cap. Now, I recognize that all teams need to use an "internal" cap in order to remain financially viable. But here again I take issue with the notion that "Building Through the Draft" is the only prudent approach. Do we know what Ralph's finances look like? What his lease payments are? His debt payments? His PROFITS? We don't. And without that information, we have no idea if Ralph is pocketing plenty of money each year that coudl be used to invest in better players, coaches, and facilities. And free agent players, not just forced, cheap labor from the college ranks. Just presenting the counter-point here, would like to get some discussion going. Why does everyone naturally assume that "Building Through the Draft" makes sense any longer?
Sisyphean Bills Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 http://www.greentreecapital.com/ec-positioning-company.html The company isn't going to be sold on its consumable asset inventory (players); it will be sold on its economics, cash flow.
thebandit27 Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 I keep hearing around here that the Bills have finally chosen to go in the right direction this offseason of "Building Through the Draft." versus signing expensive free agents and veterans, and that as a result we need to be patient because the results will pan out next year or the following year. I'm calling B.S. on this notion. The concept of "Building Through the Draft" is a SALARY CAP approach to running a team. It is financial, not systemic. It is based on the notion that all teams have the same amount of money to spend each year, and so the most efficient use of that money is to draft quality young players and lock them up via rookie deals, essentially guaranteeing you cheap, productive labor and freeing up more of your resources to add additional pieces to the puzzle. However, there is no salary cap any longer, and it may never return. There certainly was no cap this offseason, so if ever there were an opportunity to "catch up," i.e., spend some more money than you normally would in free agency in an effort to right the ship, this was the offseason to do it. The Bills didn't take that approach. Perhaps they didn't like what was out there - yes, that's a possiblity. I don't concur with that thinking, because again, I think it's basically a financial concept. There were players out there. The Bills may not have liked the "value" they were getting in return for what it would have cost to acquire them - but again, this was the year to spend more. The notion of value changes drastically when you remove a salary cap. Now, I recognize that all teams need to use an "internal" cap in order to remain financially viable. But here again I take issue with the notion that "Building Through the Draft" is the only prudent approach. Do we know what Ralph's finances look like? What his lease payments are? His debt payments? His PROFITS? We don't. And without that information, we have no idea if Ralph is pocketing plenty of money each year that coudl be used to invest in better players, coaches, and facilities. And free agent players, not just forced, cheap labor from the college ranks. Just presenting the counter-point here, would like to get some discussion going. Why does everyone naturally assume that "Building Through the Draft" makes sense any longer? I'm calling BS on your BS-calling... Ask yourself two questions: (1) who are the top-notch organizations in today's NFL? and (2) how did they get that way? Answer #1: Indianapolis, New England, San Diego, Pittsburgh, Minnesota, Green Bay, NY Giants Answer #2: By drafting quality players year after year. Not one of those teams was built through free agency. Now, there may be a free agent acquisition here or there (i.e. Randy Moss, Brett Favre), but if you look at those teams, the overwhelming majority of their personnel are draft picks. For example: - Indy's starting OL, QB, RBs, WRs, TEs, DL, LBs...all draft picks - NE's QB, starting OL, RBs, DL, LBs, DBs...all draft picks - SD's QB, starting OL, RBs, WRs, TEs, DL, LBs, DBs...all draft picks - Pit's QB, starting OL, RB, WRs, TEs, DL, LBs, DBs...all draft picks - Min's QB (until Favre comes back), staring OL, RB, WRs (assuming Harvin starts over Berrian opposite Rice), DL (save Jared Allen), LBs...all draft picks I could keep going, but I think I've made my point. Great organizations become great by building through the draft, which is what Buffalo is trying to do. Will they do it well enough to become great? Who knows? I personally have my doubts. Now, if you disagree with that, I'd love to see an example of an organization that has created and sustained long-term NFL success in any way other than drafting well and not blowing money on free agents, I'd love to hear it. Until then, I call BS on your BS-calling...
Coach Tuesday Posted August 17, 2010 Author Posted August 17, 2010 I'm calling BS on your BS-calling... Ask yourself two questions: (1) who are the top-notch organizations in today's NFL? and (2) how did they get that way? Answer #1: Indianapolis, New England, San Diego, Pittsburgh, Minnesota, Green Bay, NY Giants Answer #2: By drafting quality players year after year. Not one of those teams was built through free agency. Now, there may be a free agent acquisition here or there (i.e. Randy Moss, Brett Favre), but if you look at those teams, the overwhelming majority of their personnel are draft picks. For example: - Indy's starting OL, QB, RBs, WRs, TEs, DL, LBs...all draft picks - NE's QB, starting OL, RBs, DL, LBs, DBs...all draft picks - SD's QB, starting OL, RBs, WRs, TEs, DL, LBs, DBs...all draft picks - Pit's QB, starting OL, RB, WRs, TEs, DL, LBs, DBs...all draft picks - Min's QB (until Favre comes back), staring OL, RB, WRs (assuming Harvin starts over Berrian opposite Rice), DL (save Jared Allen), LBs...all draft picks I could keep going, but I think I've made my point. Great organizations become great by building through the draft, which is what Buffalo is trying to do. Will they do it well enough to become great? Who knows? I personally have my doubts. Now, if you disagree with that, I'd love to see an example of an organization that has created and sustained long-term NFL success in any way other than drafting well and not blowing money on free agents, I'd love to hear it. Until then, I call BS on your BS-calling... All of those organizations got where they were during the salary cap era, so you're missing my point entirely. The rules have changed. Maybe permanently, maybe not, but certainly for the forseeable future. If you want points of comparison, you've got to go pre-salary cap. The 49ers and Cowboys dynasties (and the 1990s Bills) all drafted well, but they also willingly shelled out money on excellent free agent acquisitions (Deon, Charles Haley, Bryce Paup, etc.).
Green Lightning Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 All of those organizations got where they were during the salary cap era, so you're missing my point entirely. The rules have changed. Maybe permanently, maybe not, but certainly for the forseeable future. If you want points of comparison, you've got to go pre-salary cap. The 49ers and Cowboys dynasties (and the 1990s Bills) all drafted well, but they also willingly shelled out money on excellent free agent acquisitions (Deon, Charles Haley, Bryce Paup, etc.). Sure did, but only when there were at or near the top. That ain't us. We need to build a core through the draft and add the bling later.
Coach Tuesday Posted August 17, 2010 Author Posted August 17, 2010 Sure did, but only when there were at or near the top. That ain't us. We need to build a core through the draft and add the bling later. And again, I'm asking, Why is that? Wouldn't an equally compelling philosophy this offseason have been, Acquire as many mid-range free agents as possible to fill the numerous holes on this roster, while we don't have a salary cap in place? All I'm doing is throwing out an alternative to the mantra we've been hearing over and over again from OBD and from many of the posters on this Board. I think it's a valid point, at least as a discussion point. Yet some folks' world views are so fragile that they cannot tolerate the mere thought that the Bills are pointing (once again) in the complete wrong direction.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 All of those organizations got where they were during the salary cap era, so you're missing my point entirely. The rules have changed. Maybe permanently, maybe not, but certainly for the forseeable future. If you want points of comparison, you've got to go pre-salary cap. The 49ers and Cowboys dynasties (and the 1990s Bills) all drafted well, but they also willingly shelled out money on excellent free agent acquisitions (Deon, Charles Haley, Bryce Paup, etc.). Disagree strongly. The foreseeable future? What most people foresee is that the new CBA will not be too different than the existing CBA…in other words, there will be a salary cap. In fact the salary cap isn't even the issue. The main issue is the percentage of revenues that the players get. NFL teams are not going to adopt a new spending model based on the labor impasse. They will take a wait and see attitude (as they are doing) and maintain the status quo. Your take is incorrect as the others have pointed out. The best organizations build through the draft and sign free agents as opportunity and fit dictate. Actually, because of the labor impasse and associated issues, this was the slowest free agency period in recent memory. In spite of that, the Bills signed four useful veterans…what I think are very shrewd moves which will help solidify the team. Dwan Edwards, Andra Davis, Cornell Green, and Reggie Torbor should all make good contributions this year. The main problem IMO is that the team has done a poor job of accumulating and keeping talent on the roster and so the cupboard is fairly bare. In the meantime, there is a lot of fan frustration and impatience as the newest regime takes its shot at re-stocking the shelves. edit: The salary cap was instituted in 1994. The effects of the pre-salary cap era have worn away long ago and have no relevance to the state of teams today.
CodeMonkey Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 I actually wonder why there isn't a farm system in the NFL similar to what is in place for baseball and hockey. Football being as susceptible to injury as hockey, you would think it would be nice to be able to call up players already under contract and at least somewhat familiar with the system. That way you could truly build from the draft. I would think that small cities would love to have a minor league football team associated with a NFL team.
Coach Tuesday Posted August 17, 2010 Author Posted August 17, 2010 Disagree strongly. The foreseeable future? What most people foresee is that the new CBA will not be too different than the existing CBA…in other words, there will be a salary cap. In fact the salary cap isn't even the issue. The main issue is the percentage of revenues that the players get. NFL teams are not going to adopt a new spending model based on the labor impasse. They will take a wait and see attitude (as they are doing) and maintain the status quo. Your take is incorrect as the others have pointed out. The best organizations build through the draft and sign free agents as opportunity and fit dictate. Actually, because of the labor impasse and associated issues, this was the slowest free agency period in recent memory. In spite of that, the Bills signed four useful veterans…what I think are very shrewd moves which will help solidify the team. Dwan Edwards, Andra Davis, Cornell Green, and Reggie Torbor should all make good contributions this year. The main problem IMO is that the team has done a poor job of accumulating and keeping talent on the roster and so the cupboard is fairly bare. In the meantime, there is a lot of fan frustration and impatience as the newest regime takes its shot at re-stocking the shelves. edit: The salary cap was instituted in 1994. The effects of the pre-salary cap era have worn away long ago and have no relevance to the state of teams today. And I disagree (respectfully) with your main points. It is FAR from clear what the new CBA will look like. The Union has said many times that once the salary cap goes, it's gone. Granted, the Union is full of crap half of the time, but I would not be so sure that we'll see the salary cap return. And I also disagree that pre-1994 behavior of NFL franchises has "no relevance" to today's market. That was 16 years ago. We're not talking about the 1940s here, and I think that time period is in fact a decent comparison.
birdog1960 Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 And again, I'm asking, Why is that? Wouldn't an equally compelling philosophy this offseason have been, Acquire as many mid-range free agents as possible to fill the numerous holes on this roster, while we don't have a salary cap in place? All I'm doing is throwing out an alternative to the mantra we've been hearing over and over again from OBD and from many of the posters on this Board. I think it's a valid point, at least as a discussion point. Yet some folks' world views are so fragile that they cannot tolerate the mere thought that the Bills are pointing (once again) in the complete wrong direction. i agree with you. btw, cleveland was able to sign some fairly big name FA's (and a coach) with money alone (i don't think they were clamoring to live near lake erie). watching the jets last night and all of their acquisitions contrasted greatly with the bills...we'll see how that translates in the standings but the odds are with the jets. why can't you do both simultaneously? building through the draft and free agency doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.
PDaDdy Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 The concept of "Building Through the Draft" is a SALARY CAP approach to running a team. It is financial, not systemic. It is based on the notion that all teams have the same amount of money to spend each year, and so the most efficient use of that money is to draft quality young players and lock them up via rookie deals, essentially guaranteeing you cheap, productive labor and freeing up more of your resources to add additional pieces to the puzzle. This is 100% the case. Not just for the Bills but for all teams to some extent or another. This partially explains things like our CB and LT situations. The Bills are bound and determined to start undrafted or very late drafted LTs. What other team in the league does that with the second most important position on offense? Other than getting lucky with Peters, how is that working out for us? A few years ago I went back and looked at our first round draft picks. At the time almost 50% of them were from the secondary? (I checked again and currently in the last 20 years we have drafted 8 guys in the secondary out of 18 first round picks.) Many of them have been great players. Why do we keep letting them go and drafting more DBs in the first round instead of other positions of need like QB, LT, LB, etc? It's because the Bills don't want to renew first round draft pick DB contracts an pay market value if the players becomes a valued commodity. This means we keep wasting valuable draft picks year after year trying to restock the same damn positions. Let's take it a step farther which is damning information indeed about the Bills supposed build through the draft strategy. In the last 17 years 3 first round picks have stayed with the Bills longer than 6 years. 6 years being the approximate length of a first round pick rookie contract. That is a 17% retention rate for rookies beyond their rookie contract!!!!! I don't know how that compares to the rest of the NFL but to me that seems LOW. What is really a kick in the junk on this is that the Bills don't take that freed up money to bring in quality free agents. What they do is resign or bring in mediocre low budget talent and then proceed to overpay them more than any other team would. This keeps our roster stocked with over paid average to slightly above average players. A great recipe for mediocrity.
bills in va Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 I'm calling BS on your BS-calling... Ask yourself two questions: (1) who are the top-notch organizations in today's NFL? and (2) how did they get that way? Answer #1: Indianapolis, New England, San Diego, Pittsburgh, Minnesota, Green Bay, NY Giants Answer #2: By drafting quality players year after year. Not one of those teams was built through free agency. Now, there may be a free agent acquisition here or there (i.e. Randy Moss, Brett Favre), but if you look at those teams, the overwhelming majority of their personnel are draft picks. For example: - Indy's starting OL, QB, RBs, WRs, TEs, DL, LBs...all draft picks - NE's QB, starting OL, RBs, DL, LBs, DBs...all draft picks - SD's QB, starting OL, RBs, WRs, TEs, DL, LBs, DBs...all draft picks - Pit's QB, starting OL, RB, WRs, TEs, DL, LBs, DBs...all draft picks - Min's QB (until Favre comes back), staring OL, RB, WRs (assuming Harvin starts over Berrian opposite Rice), DL (save Jared Allen), LBs...all draft picks I could keep going, but I think I've made my point. Great organizations become great by building through the draft, which is what Buffalo is trying to do. Will they do it well enough to become great? Who knows? I personally have my doubts. Now, if you disagree with that, I'd love to see an example of an organization that has created and sustained long-term NFL success in any way other than drafting well and not blowing money on free agents, I'd love to hear it. Until then, I call BS on your BS-calling... Wrong on many counts. Was Pat Williams drafted by the vikings? Did New England draft Addalis Thomas? Did San Diego draft Josh Reed? Did Pittsburg draft Flozell?
San Jose Bills Fan Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 why can't you do both simultaneously? building through the draft and free agency doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. The Jets for instance, have an operating income twice as much as the Bills do. When the Bills give out a big signing bonus, they often have to take out a loan on that money and pay interest on it. Many other teams can simply take cash out of an account. Regardless of salary cap, big money teams have certain advantages over small money teams. Sure Ralph could overspend if he wanted to... This is 100% the case. Not just for the Bills but for all teams to some extent or another. This partially explains things like our CB and LT situations. The Bills are bound and determined to start undrafted or very late drafted LTs. What other team in the league does that with the second most important position on offense? Other than getting lucky with Peters, how is that working out for us? A few years ago I went back and looked at our first round draft picks. At the time almost 50% of them were from the secondary? (I checked again and currently in the last 20 years we have drafted 8 guys in the secondary out of 18 first round picks.) Many of them have been great players. Why do we keep letting them go and drafting more DBs in the first round instead of other positions of need like QB, LT, LB, etc? It's because the Bills don't want to renew first round draft pick DB contracts an pay market value if the players becomes a valued commodity. This means we keep wasting valuable draft picks year after year trying to restock the same damn positions. Let's take it a step farther which is damning information indeed about the Bills supposed build through the draft strategy. In the last 17 years 3 first round picks have stayed with the Bills longer than 6 years. 6 years being the approximate length of a first round pick rookie contract. That is a 17% retention rate for rookies beyond their rookie contract!!!!! I don't know how that compares to the rest of the NFL but to me that seems LOW. Counter point.: This of course takes into account busts which we are apparently pretty good at drafting. IMO more than anything, it boils down to the fact that the Bills have not done a good job of KEEPING the good players that they've had over the years. They've given lucrative extensions to the wrong players, at the same time underpaying their best players causing those players to be unhappy and then leave the team. It's very challenging to find good football players. Once you find them, you ought not to let them go.
Recommended Posts