My annual rant about draft value.

[Malazan]

??? how so?

 

That is beside the point. The Bills reached at that pick, everyone said so on draft day, and it came back to bite us. You could substitute Maybin in there as well.

 

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft09/insider/columns/story?columnist=mcshay_todd&id=4101407&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnfl%2fdraft09%2finsider%2fcolumns%2fstory%3fcolumnist%3dmcshay_todd%26id%3d4101407

 

McShay:

2. Buffalo Bills: DE/OLB Aaron Maybin (No. 11 overall) Maybin is the best pure pass-rusher in this year's draft.

[loserlovers]

a reach is a real concept, lets say you choose a guy with a first rounder that could have been had in the 7th, you just wasted a pick that could have been traded for multiple picks in say the 7th 6th 5th 4rth etc. Any team would gladly trade their late picks for a first, so why "reach" to fill "need"?

 

the entire concept of drafting for need is considered a losing strategy, if a team always went bpa no matter what, they would have an awesome team in 3 years or so, also if they followed the "value" chart and traded back for better value picks, then went bpa all the way, theyd be set in 3 years for sure. all hole could be filled by FA and there wouldnt be many period.

the only reason teams dont go BPA is because they want to win now, or a coach is afraid of getting fired, or both.

 

horrible post Promo, i thought you were smarter than that. your take is fully emotional, "we got the player we wanted so screw em!" it reminds of when a girl goes to buy a car and defends her decision by saying "i like the red one" isnt that special? Did she think long term? how about future FA and injuries that might occur? say you draft need and the guy gets hurt, now what? its best to have multiple players with talent and use a FA if someone is hurt or missing at a position.

[Orton's Arm]

Donte might have been the dumbest pick in the history of this franchise. The 2006 draft was loaded, absolutely stacked with talent, and a ton of it was at positions of huge need for the Bills.

The Bills are only just starting to get over this debacle. Drafts such as 2006 are franchise killers.

 

Donte wasn't a value pick, nor was he good enough to fill a need. And, he held out to boot. That draft was just a mess.

I remember that draft! I wanted the Bills to either stay put and take Cutler, or trade down and take Mangold! It turns out they could have drafted both players! (Cutler with the Whitner pick, Mangold with the McCargo pick.) Mangold has become perhaps the best center in the league, while Cutler was traded away for two first round picks, plus change. (Slightly better than the fourth and sixth rounder we got for Marshawn, or the zilch we got for Whitner!)

 

Marv said that once you start listening to the fans, you'll soon be in the stands with them. Implying that a coach or GM has to be smarter than the fans to keep his job. In this case, Marv's strategy was far, far worse than what reasonably knowledgeable and intelligent fans would have done in his place.

 

I agree that the 2006 draft was exactly the kind of draft which will set your franchise back years. You could also say the same thing about the 2007 draft; in which the Bills squandered the 12th overall pick on yet another RB! For that matter, you could make the same comment about the 2008 draft (McKelvin).

[3rdand12]

Value, its a tough word in this application because you dont really know until your investment has time to play out.

And reaching is something only the gm knows. Using Troup as the example mentioned, and was well explained here.

we all agree that the 3 up top guys are solid. then we drop off a couple, and then we hit tier 3 and they get interchangeable and you start to consider needs becuase the guy is not an instant upgrade at the position. So we are building a team and invest in the future and can fill weaknesses instead of impact players.

I think we are in a tough position because we have had many needs and also had to build up the foundation for the future.

Also a great point is that we do not let these 3,4,5 rounders get time to develop. we have needed to plug them in and expect a difference to hang some hope upon. Lets let Nix's first wave of draft picks sort themselves this year and let last seasons and better draft picks come up into their own. if we keep picking team leaders and skilled hard workers and then please discount combine and wonderlic and pro days i think we can get there for the long haul. This draft is tough enough and i bet we are dissapointed with our #10 to some degree and will describe as reach or lacking in value or something to exclaim why it was not THE pick we should have made.

we already splashed with Dareus and M.Williams, lets just get some more solid picks in our mid rounds and bulk up our depth. I have to trust in Nix to find some gems in there and then i have to wait for them to become the players i wish for. such as G wilson K williams S Johnson and that guy Fred. Throw away the mocks and just let Chix and company do their thing. sorry to drop off the deep end PTR!

[loserlovers]

you do not need to wait to see a picks value, thats not the point, lets say youre a GM and know a guy like SJ13 is good and a starter but wont go until the 7th, do you draft him in the first because "you just know"? If you really knew he was so great, you could trade your first for an extra second and third and fourth and 5th and then grab him in say round 5, just to be sure he doesnt get away.

 

the picks have value regardless of where the guys are in 5 years, its about increasing overall picks and getting the guys you want with the lowest picks you have before theyre taken. Isnt it awesome when you dont trade up and a stud "falls" to you. its because other idiot teams drafted too much for need and left him sitting there. Does theyre passing mean "they knew something" or just that they went need? saying there is no value or such thing as reaching is like saying money has no value since its just paper, and its also why things go up in price because of a perceived "demand" when their value really didnt change.

 

Its real.

[sllib olaffub]

Not to mention, who knows how good or bad players would have turned out on other teams, in other systems, with or without injuries. Also, there's situations where a player might be very good and drafted or not because a team has too much depth, or, in the case of Spiller, considered good value but a questionable pick due to the Bills already having good RB's.

Something I really appreciate about Nix - he doesn't care about what other people are going to say when it comes to the draft. He's got his players rated, and he trusts what he sees and knows - and I think he's a most astute judge of talent. We're going to get value with each of our picks - that is for sure.

[uncle flap]

a reach is a real concept, lets say you choose a guy with a first rounder that could have been had in the 7th, you just wasted a pick that could have been traded for multiple picks in say the 7th 6th 5th 4rth etc. Any team would gladly trade their late picks for a first, so why "reach" to fill "need"?

 

the entire concept of drafting for need is considered a losing strategy, if a team always went bpa no matter what, they would have an awesome team in 3 years or so, also if they followed the "value" chart and traded back for better value picks, then went bpa all the way, theyd be set in 3 years for sure. all hole could be filled by FA and there wouldnt be many period.

the only reason teams dont go BPA is because they want to win now, or a coach is afraid of getting fired, or both.

 

horrible post Promo, i thought you were smarter than that. your take is fully emotional, "we got the player we wanted so screw em!" it reminds of when a girl goes to buy a car and defends her decision by saying "i like the red one" isnt that special? Did she think long term? how about future FA and injuries that might occur? say you draft need and the guy gets hurt, now what? its best to have multiple players with talent and use a FA if someone is hurt or missing at a position.

 

I really don't mean to keep defending PTR, but you and many others are missing the point.

 

First, you talk about a "real" concept, then use the most improbable scenario imaginable as an example.

 

No one said that the words reach or value or steal don't mean anything. We all know what they mean. The point is: What does it really matter if a player is considered a reach or not? Let's go back to Troup as an example. If he was selected to the Pro Bowl, would it matter that he was considered a "reach" on draft day? The answer is no.

 

Now obviously Troup hasn't panned out, but that's not because he was a reach. Like I said before, anyone can easily argue it was a bad pick. If Gronkowski or whoever else they should've drafted there actually turned out to be garbage, would it matter that we got "value" for the pick?

 

And now let's go back to the main point - which doesn't have to do with best player available vs drafting for need. It is that the draftniks are defining the "reaches" and "value picks." Someone already said that Pierre-Paul was considered a "reach." Oops, I guess the giants really messed that one up, huh?

 

It's easy to decide who should've been picked where in retrospect. The fact is there are busts in every round, as well as surprise gems. Let's not get all hung up on where McShay or Kiper ranks somebody - remember, they aren't the ones making the picks.

Edited April 4, 2012 by uncle flap

[Orton's Arm]

I really don't mean to keep defending PTR, but you and many others are missing the point.

 

First, you talk about a "real" concept, then use the most improbable scenario imaginable as an example.

 

No one said that the words reach or value or steal don't mean anything. We all know what they mean. The point is: What does it really matter if a player is considered a reach or not? Let's go back to Troup as an example. If he was selected to the Pro Bowl, would it matter that he was considered a "reach" on draft day? The answer is no.

 

Now obviously Troup hasn't panned out, but that's not because he was a reach. Like I said before, anyone can easily argue it was a bad pick. If Gronkowski or whoever else they should've drafted there actually turned out to be garbage, would it matter that we got "value" for the pick?

 

And now let's go back to the main point - which doesn't have to do with best player available vs drafting for need. It is that the draftniks are defining the "reaches" and "value picks." Someone already said that Pierre-Paul was considered a "reach." Oops, I guess the giants really messed that one up, huh?

 

It's easy to decide who should've been picked where in retrospect. The fact is there are busts in every round, as well as surprise gems. Let's not get all hung up on where McShay or Kiper ranks somebody - remember, they aren't the ones making the picks.

I think that words like "reach" and "value" have meaning beyond just Kiper and McShay's opinions. If--for example--30 teams had a player rated as a third round talent, and if he gets taken in the first round, I'd call that pick a reach. Odds are he hadn't done enough to justify his draft position.

 

I'll grant that we don't know what NFL teams' draft boards say. But we can look at the next-best thing, which is draft analysts whom we've learned to trust based on their track records. As an example, Vic Carucci said he didn't have Donte Whitner rated as a first round talent. But he also said that Whitner would be more valuable in a Cover 2 scheme than in most other schemes. He was careful not to criticize the Whitner pick, either because he believed there was a chance Whitner would somehow justify his eighth overall draft position, or because he didn't want to alienate his contacts at One Bills Drive.

 

Another example of a reach was Trung Canidate, a running back the Rams drafted in the first round. I remember that name because a sports reporter wrote, "Canidate is a Candidate for Criticism." The reporter was right. Marshall Faulk was nearing the end of his career, the Rams wanted a replacement, and they convinced themselves Canidate was that guy. He wasn't. Had the Rams not taken him, he might have lasted until the third round.

 

The argument can be made that there are times when a player highly rated by NFL analysts isn't highly thought of by NFL GMs, or vice versa. But I think it's safe to say that most NFL teams didn't have Canidate rated as a first round pick. I also think many or most NFL teams likely agreed with Carucci's (correct) belief that Whitner was not a first round talent. Obviously I can't know where Canidate or Whitner were on NFL teams' draft boards. To call these players reaches involves an element of educated speculation, or else reliance on the better/more credible draft analysts.

 

"Reaching" for a player is synonymous with "taking a player at a much higher position in the draft than the consensus would indicate." There are two reasons a team might do this: 1) need, and 2) the belief that its own talent evaluation yields better results than the consensus. The second implies a high degree of institutional confidence. There are teams whose talent evaluation methods are good enough to justify that confidence. Over the last fifteen years, the Bills have not been among those teams. The Bills' reaches over the last decade--and there have been many--have generally been the product of shortsightedness, focus on instant gratification, wishful thinking, blinkered focus on immediately filling needs at one or two positions, and unjustifiable overconfidence in player evaluation.

[kota]

Always take best player available then you won't have these terms follow you.

[Andrew in CA]

Always take best player available then you won't have these terms follow you.

Agreed--all you'll have is a team of good players.

[RuntheDamnBall]

John the Helmet has it right. I think Buddy has it togeather and knows what to do on draft day. You can never have enough linemen. Who said that? What killed us LY. Injury to linemaen and no depth. Wouldn't kill me if we drafted the best linemen on the board at 10. Weather he starts or not. He is going to sometime.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I think that words like "reach" and "value" have meaning beyond just Kiper and McShay's opinions. If--for example--30 teams had a player rated as a third round talent, and if he gets taken in the first round, I'd call that pick a reach. Odds are he hadn't done enough to justify his draft position.

 

I'll grant that we don't know what NFL teams' draft boards say. But we can look at the next-best thing, which is draft analysts whom we've learned to trust based on their track records. As an example, Vic Carucci said he didn't have Donte Whitner rated as a first round talent. But he also said that Whitner would be more valuable in a Cover 2 scheme than in most other schemes. He was careful not to criticize the Whitner pick, either because he believed there was a chance Whitner would somehow justify his eighth overall draft position, or because he didn't want to alienate his contacts at One Bills Drive.

 

Another example of a reach was Trung Canidate, a running back the Rams drafted in the first round. I remember that name because a sports reporter wrote, "Canidate is a Candidate for Criticism." The reporter was right. Marshall Faulk was nearing the end of his career, the Rams wanted a replacement, and they convinced themselves Canidate was that guy. He wasn't. Had the Rams not taken him, he might have lasted until the third round.

 

The argument can be made that there are times when a player highly rated by NFL analysts isn't highly thought of by NFL GMs, or vice versa. But I think it's safe to say that most NFL teams didn't have Canidate rated as a first round pick. I also think many or most NFL teams likely agreed with Carucci's (correct) belief that Whitner was not a first round talent. Obviously I can't know where Canidate or Whitner were on NFL teams' draft boards. To call these players reaches involves an element of educated speculation, or else reliance on the better/more credible draft analysts.

 

"Reaching" for a player is synonymous with "taking a player at a much higher position in the draft than the consensus would indicate." There are two reasons a team might do this: 1) need, and 2) the belief that its own talent evaluation yields better results than the consensus. The second implies a high degree of institutional confidence. There are teams whose talent evaluation methods are good enough to justify that confidence. Over the last fifteen years, the Bills have not been among those teams. The Bills' reaches over the last decade--and there have been many--have generally been the product of shortsightedness, focus on instant gratification, wishful thinking, blinkered focus on immediately filling needs at one or two positions, and unjustifiable overconfidence in player evaluation.

 

Good post with some great points.

 

I think there is some confusion caused by using the word "reach" and "value" to describe two different scenarios. The first is the scenario you describe - a team takes a player who most seem to see as a 3rd or 4th round pick, early in the 2nd round. This is likely the result of need combined with "unjustifiable overconfidence in player evaluation."

 

But there are obviously reasonable and understandable differences in player evaluation. We have a guy evaluated as a #10 pick, the draft pundits think he should go 15-20. Is that a reach? The word is being used to describe this scenario, yet it really is a different scenario from the "reach" where someone is drafted rounds head of where the pundits put him. This is the meaning of the word "reach" when it's used to describe something like the Giants picking Pierre-Paul - he's a Round 1 player, they just thought later in the round.

 

Draft pundits are proclaiming loud and long that the poor Bills have no reasonable draft choices available at #10. The draft cupboard will be bare. Everyone they might pick is a reach. I think that's hooey. There will be good players available at #10, players that are graded consistently as Round 1 players, just later in the round. I think this might be Promo's point (then again, it might not be).

 

Yeah, I'm pretty sure everyone on this board would be VERY willing to patiently wait (approximately) three years (SJ), two years (KW), four years (FJ), and five years (GW) for any kind of serious production from our draft picks.

 

Actually, that's been one of the Bills problems the last few years. Outside of the 1st round, it's typical for players at many positions to need 2-4 years to develop and the lower they're drafted, typically the more development time they need. Good teams with a good cast of starters are able to wait. Bad teams throw the player into the frying pan right away and complain if he doesn't sizzle.

 

http://insider.espn....%26id%3d4101407

 

McShay:

Quote

 

2. Buffalo Bills: DE/OLB Aaron Maybin (No. 11 overall) Maybin is the best pure pass-rusher in this year's draft.

 

And that actually may have been true as written - witness Maybin's production with the Jets when used as a pure pass-rusher.

The problem is the Bills needed an all-around DE/OLB and also a higher quality line to enable a pure pass rusher. We lacked the latter and Maybin was an epic fail as the former. Doesn't mean McShay was wrong - he may have been exactly correct.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Hopeful

[Bill from NYC]

"Reaching" for a player is synonymous with "taking a player at a much higher position in the draft than the consensus would indicate." There are two reasons a team might do this: 1) need, and 2) the belief that its own talent evaluation yields better results than the consensus. The second implies a high degree of institutional confidence. There are teams whose talent evaluation methods are good enough to justify that confidence. Over the last fifteen years, the Bills have not been among those teams. The Bills' reaches over the last decade--and there have been many--have generally been the product of shortsightedness, focus on instant gratification, wishful thinking, blinkered focus on immediately filling needs at one or two positions, and unjustifiable overconfidence in player evaluation.

 

Thanks for another interesting, well thought post.

 

"Reach" really does vary from team to team. For example, before the Bills switched to the 4/3 and signed Mario and Anderson, I was all over Courtney Upshaw. A couple of weeks ago, I heard Wanny (on Sirius) say that in his defense, Upshaw is a defensive end. Now, after the big ufa signings, and considering the fact that CU would be playing a new position, I would consider him a reach.....for the Bills. That said, if Pittsburgh wanted to trade up and take him early, I would fully understand this, whereas he seems to be ideal for their system, and a very good player. Same applies to the Ravens imo. Ray Lewis is old. I could easily see them trading down for Hightower, who imo will be a great ILB. If they moved to 15 and took him, I don't see this as reaching at all.

 

A "steal" is a steal for any team. Whoever drafts Terrell Davis, Tom Brady or Bryce Paup in round 6 is getting a true "steal." If you already had a superstar on your team at one of their respective positions, it would still be a HUGE benefit to your club, if for no other reason, the trade value that you mentioned.

 

Once again, the Bills are in a good position to really help the team in April. Nix did well in 2011 imo. Let's hope he keeps it going!

[Orton's Arm]

Thanks for another interesting, well thought post.

 

"Reach" really does vary from team to team. For example, before the Bills switched to the 4/3 and signed Mario and Anderson, I was all over Courtney Upshaw. A couple of weeks ago, I heard Wanny (on Sirius) say that in his defense, Upshaw is a defensive end. Now, after the big ufa signings, and considering the fact that CU would be playing a new position, I would consider him a reach.....for the Bills. That said, if Pittsburgh wanted to trade up and take him early, I would fully understand this, whereas he seems to be ideal for their system, and a very good player. Same applies to the Ravens imo. Ray Lewis is old. I could easily see them trading down for Hightower, who imo will be a great ILB. If they moved to 15 and took him, I don't see this as reaching at all.

 

A "steal" is a steal for any team. Whoever drafts Terrell Davis, Tom Brady or Bryce Paup in round 6 is getting a true "steal." If you already had a superstar on your team at one of their respective positions, it would still be a HUGE benefit to your club, if for no other reason, the trade value that you mentioned.

 

Once again, the Bills are in a good position to really help the team in April. Nix did well in 2011 imo. Let's hope he keeps it going!

Thanks for the compliments!

 

To address your point about Upshaw: if you take a guy at 10th overall, and if he becomes a highly effective pass rusher for your defense, then it's a good pick. If you're implying that Upshaw's effectiveness as a pass rusher will be impacted by his team's defensive scheme, I'd agree with that. As an example: Bryce Paup was a solid OLB for the Packers--a team which at the time had been running a 4-3 defense. But when he became a pass rushing OLB for the Bills (3-4 defense), he went from "solid" to "frighteningly devastating." Then he got injured.

 

I agree with what you wrote about draft day steals. Over the last decade, the Bills have been decent at finding draft day steals in later rounds. That has partially offset the absolute mess they've generally made of their first, second, and third round picks. As you hinted at, Nix seems he could turn that pattern around. I'd love for the Bills to trade up and take Kalil!

[Orton's Arm]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure everyone on this board would be VERY willing to patiently wait (approximately) three years (SJ), two years (KW), four years (FJ), and five years (GW) for any kind of serious production from our draft picks.

Some of the waiting you've described is because the players in question did, in fact, need time to develop. But some was the result of poor player evaluation.

 

As an example, take Fred Jackson. During his first few years in the league, he was given zero playing time during the regular season. The coaching staff saw him do very well in preseason, so why not give him a chance to prove himself in the regular season? But they didn't. Then Marshawn Lynch went down with an injury. You'd think that would be the time to put Fred Jackson in, to see if his preseason accomplishments were the sign of something more. But no. Instead the coaches gave all the carries to Anthony Thomas. Eventually Fred Jackson started getting regular season playing time; and looked good from the very first snap. Just because Fred Jackson was kept on the bench for four years by a boneheaded coaching staff doesn't mean he "needed" all four of those years to become a better player than Anthony Thomas or Marshawn Lynch.

 

Just as Fred Jackson was kept on the bench by one of Marv's first round busts, George Wilson was kept on the bench by another. When Wilson took the field, it became clear he was better than Whitner at pass coverage.

[PDaDdy]

Today's Buffalo News has an article about Todd McShay's opinion of the Bills pick at #10 lacking options with value. Every year we descend into the value/reach debate as if it means anything once OTAs begin.

 

Reach and value are invented commodities used to add drama to draft day. It is something debated endlessly but means nothing once the draft is done. If you pick a player and he fills a need no one cares if he was a reach or a value pick.

 

Have at it.

 

PTR

 

On the surface you are correct. Value has to do with projections and potential. A good player is a good player no matter where they are drafted. Now tell that to fans. Whitner was just fine at safety but he was given hell because we drafted him at #9 and he was considered a reach. We have many needs and many picks. Sometimes you have to take the best value at a particular pick instead of "reaching" for need.

 

We have a big need at LT but it's generally believed that the LT options we will have at #10 aren't worth being picked that high. We might be able to get the same production with a second round pick. A WR like Floyd would be a much better value because he plays at a position of need and is accepted to be "worth" the pick.

 

Also from a GM/fantasy football perspective it's about getting value. Could any team have drafted Tom Brady? ABSOLUTELY! Any team would have been fools to do so in the first round because you could have drafted him in the 5th. Even if you somehow KNEW he was going to be a star you have to realize where he is ranked and that nobody is even going to look at a guy like that in the first few rounds. You get some other players then get your "sleeper" in the 5th.

 

It's about eventual NFL production AND draft projection value. If you can get the same performance at a particular position in the first or in in the second round. You get the better value in the second. If you can buy a TV at Walmart or at your local appliance store and get the exact same product(production), you get the TV from the place with the best value(lowest draft pick).

Edited April 4, 2012 by PDaDdy

[PromoTheRobot]

a reach is a real concept, lets say you choose a guy with a first rounder that could have been had in the 7th, you just wasted a pick that could have been traded for multiple picks in say the 7th 6th 5th 4rth etc. Any team would gladly trade their late picks for a first, so why "reach" to fill "need"?

 

the entire concept of drafting for need is considered a losing strategy, if a team always went bpa no matter what, they would have an awesome team in 3 years or so, also if they followed the "value" chart and traded back for better value picks, then went bpa all the way, theyd be set in 3 years for sure. all hole could be filled by FA and there wouldnt be many period.

the only reason teams dont go BPA is because they want to win now, or a coach is afraid of getting fired, or both.

 

horrible post Promo, i thought you were smarter than that. your take is fully emotional, "we got the player we wanted so screw em!" it reminds of when a girl goes to buy a car and defends her decision by saying "i like the red one" isnt that special? Did she think long term? how about future FA and injuries that might occur? say you draft need and the guy gets hurt, now what? its best to have multiple players with talent and use a FA if someone is hurt or missing at a position.

Then you didn't understand my rant. I'm going off on draft gurus who assign value based on their own meaningless boards. Like Jeremy posted, McShay felt Maybin was a can't-miss talent. You don't know what you have until they actually play. Then you can decide who was value and who wasn't.

 

PTR

[Orton's Arm]

On the surface you are correct. Value has to do with projections and potential. A good player is a good player no matter where they are drafted. Now tell that to fans. Whitner was just fine at safety but he was given hell because we drafted him at #9 and he was considered a reach. We have many needs and many picks. Sometimes you have to take the best value at a particular pick instead of "reaching" for need.

 

We have a big need at LT but it's generally believed that the LT options we will have at #10 aren't worth being picked that high. We might be able to get the same production with a second round pick. A WR like Floyd would be a much better value because he plays at a position of need and is accepted to be "worth" the pick.

 

Also from a GM/fantasy football perspective it's about getting value. Could any team have drafted Tom Brady? ABSOLUTELY! Any team would have been fools to do so in the first round because you could have drafted him in the 5th. Even if you somehow KNEW he was going to be a star you have to realize where he is ranked and that nobody is even going to look at a guy like that in the first few rounds. You get some other players then get your "sleeper" in the 5th.

 

It's about eventual NFL production AND draft projection value. If you can get the same performance at a particular position in the first or in in the second round. You get the better value in the second. If you can buy a TV at Walmart or at your local appliance store and get the exact same product(production), you get the TV from the place with the best value(lowest draft pick).

Taking Donte Whitner 8th overall is like paying $200,000 for a Honda Civic. Maybe the Civic is "just fine" for getting you to and from work. But it's foolish to pay $200,000 for it!

 

Edit: the analogy breaks down a little, because Whitner was very, very far from "just fine" at pass coverage. Which is something the Bills needed their SS to be able to do.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Edwards' Arm

[Dragonborn10]

There is value in drafting the right player at the right time. Don't deny it just because your team is horrible at it and teams like the Patriots excel at determining value. One need look no further than Buffalo and Marv Levy's incomeptenece. That pick had value that was lost. Denver was willing to give something of value to take Cutler and Levy blew it. Then Levy gave away value by trading up for Poz and McCargo.

The draft is all about odds. The best GM's are little better than the worst. It is luck and increasing your ods by having more picks. That is what value is all about.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Dadonkadonk

[PDaDdy]

Taking Donte Whitner 8th overall is like paying $200,000 for a Honda Civic. Maybe the Civic is "just fine" for getting you to and from work. But it's foolish to pay $200,000 for it!

 

Edit: the analogy breaks down a little, because Whitner was very, very far from "just fine" at pass coverage. Which is something the Bills needed their SS to be able to do.

 

He was a strong safety, not a free safety not a corner back for a reason. This is exactly my point. If Whitner was picked in the second round he might still be here and have fan support not hate. Did he live up to the 8th over all pick? NO! It's not his fault Jauron drafted him there.

 

Soooo...the nfl performance vs where drafted issue is important. The original poster addressed getting an eventual good NFL player at a pick higher than expected. Whitner was good enough to get a nice contract and play on a great defense on a team that was a fumble away from playing in the superbowl.

 

Whitner was just fine but he was hated from day one because of where he was drafted. Reaching for need can't be ignored if the guy turns out to be a starting caliber player but doesn't live up to the pick. For one the fan base will immediately hate the guy forever. My point proven.

 

We have guys that are just fine and they cost a lot less money and were picked much lower. I'm certainly not broken up over him leaving but I'm not going to dog the guy.

Edited April 4, 2012 by PDaDdy