Astrobot Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 I don't know about you, but my Grandma used to have a rotary phone. It worked and was simple and straightforward. Think of it as an offensive line. I have a smart phone with over one million contacts listed and sorted. Think of that as a cornerback. From time to time we all might wish for the nostalgic dial phone, but we all know that the smart phone will allow you to do more things, more quickly. Only if you know the number for 911. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geno Smith's Arm Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 You know Sissy Bills, I think you are right. I'm not gonna start anymore posts. It's too much for me. I would rather intentionally misinterpret others' posts and act like a prick. Here's to ya Sissy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in STL Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I agree about RB and TE to a degree but you must get CB and WR early in today's NFL. In days of yore OL was important; QB was and is still important but it is a speed league now and CB/WR are paramount. You have to draft them and keep them. The Bills have drafted them, but not kept them. Frittering away picks on positions like OL is laughable considering the patchwork rag tag band of misfits that won the AFC championship. Pittsburgh started the year with a very good OL but they were devastated by injuried. Experience, a winning culture, a top notch QB, and a world class defense enabled them to overcome the problems on the OL and make it to the Super Bowl. Green Bay invested their #1 pick on OL and they were able to shore up a big weakness. Drafting OL in the first round is a not a bad way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 This is probably the dumbest draft article I have ever seen. >>>>> Get talent at CB, RB, TE, and WR early or you’ll be waiting for them to develop into contributors.<<<<< If this philosophy was true, the Bills would have won every Superbowl for the last 15 or more years. the patriots do that................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 the patriots do that................. Yes they did....... http://www.drafthistory.com/teams/patriots.html But as you can see, between 1999 and 2005, they drafted monster after monster on the lines, as well as Tom Brady. It's great to draft defensive backs after the more important, harder to get positions are filled with good players. It's not great to build a football team around Whitner, Lynch, McKelvin, Spiller.......or Peterson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Yes they did....... http://www.drafthistory.com/teams/patriots.html But as you can see, between 1999 and 2005, they drafted monster after monster on the lines, as well as Tom Brady. It's great to draft defensive backs after the more important, harder to get positions are filled with good players. It's not great to build a football team around Whitner, Lynch, McKelvin, Spiller.......or Peterson. in 98 they took a RB 1st round and 2000 in the 2nd round. in 02 they took a WR in the 2nd. They didnt just draft all line then add skill after that. In fact, over half of their 1st and 2nd rounds were WR, DB or RB in the time frame of 98-02. They, like many successful teams, take the best player available. THey have also continued to take DBs in recent years. Btw the bills have spent a good chunk of their 1st and 2nds on line in the past few years. This line of reasoning of draft only this or only that is silly and just leads to ill advised msg board banter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 This line of reasoning of draft only this or only that is silly and just leads to ill advised msg board banter. I agree with this, but the Bills need to become a strong football team. This is a given. They are small, weak, and they lose football games. Hardly a coincidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 And, the fact that Bulaga, who the Bills could have traded way down and drafted, was instrumental to the Packers success this season is to be dismissed as irrelevant. The Bills blocking is just fine. They need to focus yet more on cornerbacks and receivers. This is the key to success, and I thank you for enlightening me and changing my mind! Our drafting philosophies are fairly close----build from the line out. However, it doesn't matter what the Bills approach has been because their real problem is missing on the pick, no matter the position, and then having to go back to readdress the bad pick. Mike Williams was an OT. Bomb. Maybin was a hybrid DE/LB. Bomb. Whitner was a safety. Bomb from a value standpoint. McKelvin is a CB. Too mercurial of a player to consider a success. Hardy as a receiver was lost in space and invisible on the field. Parrish is a tinker bell fragile receiver taken in the second round when a qualilty O-lineman could have been available. Losman in shorts was a stud. In real games his brain didn't function etc. etc. Even with a questionable drafting philosophy you can still be competitive, up to a point, if you get a reasonable return on the players you draft. Tom Modrak has been our top college scout for a decade. Our inscruatable owner says he is doing a good job. How do you deal with irrationality when it originates from the boss? The Bills have not had a functional TE since Metz. That is a generation ago. The Pats get two qualitiy TEs in last year's draft. The Bills have not had a legitimate franchise qb since Kelly. Again, that is a generation ago. How does that happen? Where I have some issue with you is with your assumption that the Bills could have traded down and then drafted Bulaga. Most teams are trying to trade down instead of up from a draft and cost value reasons. So it is not that easy to do. But from a rebuilding standpoint if the Bills took Bulaga instead of Spiller they might have been better off, even acknowledging that Spiller was a more highly rated player. Make no mistake with my position on Spiller. I believe that he is going to be a good player. But from a rebuilding standpoint his selection was very questionable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I agree with this, but the Bills need to become a strong football team. This is a given. They are small, weak, and they lose football games. Hardly a coincidence. They arent really small outside of the LB core. They drafted poorly, and people are focusing on the position more than the talent.... as in we need to draft a LB or a OL and so forth. What the Bills need are better players. There really is not a position on this team that does not need a significant upgrade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Only if you know the number for 911. I have 911 in my contacts list in my smartphone. I only have to hit 5 or 6 buttons and I am on the line with emergency services. Let's see Grandma's rotary do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimace Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 First of all, thank you for posting the article. Whether people agree with the content or not, it has sparked a good debate. The part I find intriguing, as with any statistics, is the information it presents and the dependencies of the data. The data shows various positions, and the average draft ranking of the perceived top 2 starters, on all the teams in the NFL in the middle of the season. The conclusion simply highlights the trends in the data, not what they mean or what contributes to those trends. The implied correlation of the results is that obtaining a player of average starting caliber at a given position will, on average, require drafting them at or above the primary distribution of picks for that position. Things to consider: Grouping of the OL into one category. This was mentioned previously. LT is prioritized more than C. Number of players used at each position. There is one K, P, LS on a roster, but many WRs and CBs. This also relates to the OL grouping problem. Number of injured players at each position. Given that the data is for the middle of the season, it would be interesting to see what the data would look like at the start or end of the season. This represents the average NFL team. If you want a 'starting' caliber player on an average team, this could be a guideline as to where you need to draft in order to obtain that player. Taking a subset of the data for the top 10 teams in the league would allow for enough of a sample size to minimize anomalies while still showing the draft location of starting players on a team that has skilled players and is built to win. The number of players drafted for a position in each round, and the percentage of those players that meet the 2-deep criteria. This doesn't change the data is it is represented, but it would be a good complement to this analysis. It would indicate the chance of success on choosing a player at a given position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts