WSJ Blurb - Want to win - Don't draft a top tailback

[BuffaloBill]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304713704579091333617740724.html

 

The picture is even a bit more bleak for the Bills when you consider the McGahee pick in the 2003 draft. I do not intend to have this thread be a jump on the pile of CJ Spiller haters. There is enough of that already. Instead, the article simply points out the fact that picking a RB near the top of the draft may not be a wise decision. This is the point I would hope that gets focus.

 

In today's pass happy NFL it does seem that picking a QB, pass rush specialist or CB is probably a better bet.

 

It will be a tough week on the board after the loss yesterday. Even so, what do you think about relative to the point made in the article?

 

 

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

Honestly, you have to be a complete idiot to draft a RB in the first round, let alone high in the first round. It's such a wasted pick.

 

I can get a good RB--indeed, even a great RB-- as an undrafted free agent or off the waiver wire. RB's are a dime a dozen, and have a short shelf life.

 

Remarkably, the Bills have drafted three 1st round RB's and a 2nd round RB in recent memory.

[BuffaloBill]

Honestly, you have to be a complete idiot to draft a RB in the first round, let alone high in the first round. It's such a wasted pick.

 

I can get a good RB--indeed, even a great RB-- as an undrafted free agent or off the waiver wire. RB's are a dime a dozen, and have a short shelf life.

 

Remarkably, the Bills have drafted three 1st round RB's and a 2nd round RB in recent memory.

 

I know we all groaned when they kept picking CB's but in retrospect not a bad strategy. It also seems that the shelf life of top RB's is shorter.

[KD in CA]

Honestly, you have to be a complete idiot to draft a RB in the first round, let alone high in the first round. It's such a wasted pick.

 

I can get a good RB--indeed, even a great RB-- as an undrafted free agent or off the waiver wire. RB's are a dime a dozen, and have a short shelf life.

 

Remarkably, the Bills have drafted three 1st round RB's and a 2nd round RB in recent memory.

 

Oh come on, it's not like you can just put a good OL together and then get any Tom, Dick or Bilal to run for 150 yards!

[Punch]

I agree that drafting RBs high is bad strategy, and for the reasons cited already in this thread--- but the only true correlation in this blurb is that teams with high draft picks tend to have bad records in the near future. What are the records of teams that drafted DTs, QBs etc in the top 15? Bad teams are bad teams.

[RyanC883]

Honestly, you have to be a complete idiot to draft a RB in the first round, let alone high in the first round. It's such a wasted pick.

 

I can get a good RB--indeed, even a great RB-- as an undrafted free agent or off the waiver wire. RB's are a dime a dozen, and have a short shelf life.

 

Remarkably, the Bills have drafted three 1st round RB's and a 2nd round RB in recent memory.

 

I wouldn't go quite that far. But good RB's can be had in later rounds (Eddie Lacy, etc.). There is still a difference between someone like Lynch, Spiller, and A. Peterson and Felix Jones, so they are not a "dime a dozen" or simply interchangeable, but you def. need a good O-line, QB, and pass rush before investing a 1st rounder in a RB.

[Meatloaf Sandwich]

 

 

I wouldn't go quite that far. But good RB's can be had in later rounds (Eddie Lacy, etc.). There is still a difference between someone like Lynch, Spiller, and A. Peterson and Felix Jones, so they are not a "dime a dozen" or simply interchangeable, but you def. need a good O-line, QB, and pass rush before investing a 1st rounder in a RB.

 

Yea in today's draft it is... But everyone knew this which is why the RBs went later this year.

[Orton's Arm]

I agree that drafting RBs high is bad strategy, and for the reasons cited already in this thread--- but the only true correlation in this blurb is that teams with high draft picks tend to have bad records in the near future. What are the records of teams that drafted DTs, QBs etc in the top 15? Bad teams are bad teams.

 

Good post. Thanks for saving me some typing.

 

Due to RBs' short shelf life, it typically makes sense to have most of the other pieces in place before using an early pick on one. Even then, it's worth bearing in mind that unless your RB is named Jim Brown or Barry Sanders, the success of the running game will typically have a lot more to do with the OL than with the RB. Also, your passing game is much more important than your running attack anyway.

 

Over the last 40 years, the Bills have used 25% of their first picks of the draft on RBs. Another 25% were used on DBs. Very few first picks of the draft were used on key positions like QB and OT.

[8-8 Forever?]

http://online.wsj.co...3617740724.html

 

The picture is even a bit more bleak for the Bills when you consider the McGahee pick in the 2003 draft. I do not intend to have this thread be a jump on the pile of CJ Spiller haters. There is enough of that already. Instead, the article simply points out the fact that picking a RB near the top of the draft may not be a wise decision. This is the point I would hope that gets focus.

 

In today's pass happy NFL it does seem that picking a QB, pass rush specialist or CB is probably a better bet.

 

It will be a tough week on the board after the loss yesterday. Even so, what do you think about relative to the point made in the article?

And Spiller will be next to depart as no way the Bills resign him at top money. Jackson was wise to sign for what the Bills were offering or he'd be carpetbagging around the league by now. RB is simply not a key position any more. The threat posed by the QB moreso determines the success of the running game now, not the skill level of the RBs. The rules have made it a passing-first league. 40 running plays a game is a thing of the past.

Edited September 23, 2013 by 8and8Forever

[BuffaloBill]

 

And Spiller will be next to depart as no way the Bills resign him at top money. Jackson was wise to sign for what the Bills were offering or he'd be carpetbagging around the league by now. RB is simply not a key position any more. The threat posed by the QB moreso determines the success of the running game now, not the skill level of the RBs. The rules have made it a passing-first league. 40 running plays a game is a thing of the past.

 

If the Bills do not re-sign Spiller it makes the pick even more questionable. I don't think Spiller gets top dollar elsewhere as he is a gadget player. I don't think Hackett has figured out how to use him. Split him out wide, screens and the occasional run but the notion that he will run till he pukes was shown to be a dud through the first three games.

 

Th point in the OP was less about him personally and more about the fact that RB is no longer a premium role in the league. It makes no sense to use a premium draft pick on the role. The days of pounding a RB into the line for 30 times a game are gone.

[n3wyork13]

Surely this topic has been discussed in another thread

Edited September 23, 2013 by n3wyork13

[mannc]

The article is silly, but its overall point is valid: There is no reason to spend a premium pick on a running back. Spiller is an interesting case study. He is the type of running back who arguably would merit a high draft pick because he has elite speed, good hands and the defense has to account for him on every play. Running backs like him are more valuable in today's game. Imagine how dangerous Spiller would be in Chip Kelly's wide open offense. On the other hand, Spiller is not the type of RB that be your every down back; he just does not seem to be able to get the tough yards and he still has issues in pass protection. Question: Would you trade Spiller today for a No. 1 draft pick in 2014, like Cleveland did with Richardson? I think it's fairly a close call, and it might depend upon which team you trade him to. Personally, I think Spiller is a much more valuable piece than Richardson, but I would still make the trade. He is in his 4th year in the league and has yet to establish himself as a superstar, although he certainly has remarkable skills. As others have pointed out here, it is not at all certain that the Bills would re-sign him anyway.

[peterpan]

MJD, Ray Rice, McCoy, J Charles, Eddie Lacy,these guys were top running backs in college, who happened to fall out of the first part of the 1st round, or into the 2nd, or third, etc etc etc. Then there are studs to servicable starters all over this league who went undrafted. Our own Freddie J comes to mind.

 

Those are the guys you target. You cant take a RB early but you should in the 2nd or 3rd. Sign an undrafted guy or two every year and see if one in 3 years sticks. But then you have to take them when they are available, you cant force your hand in a year that you need a RB.

 

In hindsight we could have kept J. Bell. He did very well for us in pres season and is now producing for the Lions. Also good FA RBs become available quite often. Reggie Bush is on his third team for example.

 

Marcus Lattimore is a guy who I think the Bills should have scooped up as Freddies replacement. Or else in a year or two we will be drafting a 1st round guy to replace him.

[ajzepp]

I know we all groaned when they kept picking CB's but in retrospect not a bad strategy. It also seems that the shelf life of top RB's is shorter.

 

I definitely admit to being one of the groaners, but that's mainly because I don't believe in drafting the DBs before you fill out the front 7.

[BuffaloBill]

 

 

I definitely admit to being one of the groaners, but that's mainly because I don't believe in drafting the DBs before you fill out the front 7.

 

I groaned also but with bunch formations TE's who play more like WR's you need three very solid CB's on your team and the next one or two on the depth chart had better be decent.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

 

 

I wouldn't go quite that far. But good RB's can be had in later rounds (Eddie Lacy, etc.). There is still a difference between someone like Lynch, Spiller, and A. Peterson and Felix Jones, so they are not a "dime a dozen" or simply interchangeable, but you def. need a good O-line, QB, and pass rush before investing a 1st rounder in a RB.

 

Unless you are Mike Shanahan or shanny disciple. He's made stars out out 6th rounders more than once... Then Kubiak goes to Houston and picks up Arian Foster off of the street

[artmalibu]

I dont care the position and long as the 1st round pick is a legitimate starter. I guess I am a fan of the "best player available"

[maddenboy]

I think you only take a RB in the first round if, and only if, you are 1 or 2 players away from the superbowl.

 

If green bay took one this year, people would say "uh oh. Championship." Same for Atlanta, et al.

 

Otherwise you BUILD a team first. And a RB is not part of the foundation of building a championship team. The goal of every day at OBD should be Championship, not just Improvement.

 

I dont care the position and long as the 1st round pick is a legitimate starter. I guess I am a fan of the "best player available"

This. As long as its not a RB.

 

This is how you BUILD a team. Give a good coach some good players and he'll find a way to use them.

 

Unless you are Mike Shanahan or shanny disciple. He's made stars out out 6th rounders more than once... Then Kubiak goes to Houston and picks up Arian Foster off of the street

Shanahan and his disciples only want one thing out of a RB. Production. They dont care about 40 times or bench press or sweet highlight films.

 

The key to the Shanahan running scheme is simple. Tell the RB "on every play, make 0 cuts or 1 cut and then go. Just go. Dont dance, dont look for the juiciest hole, dont try to bounce it outside. Just go where the play is designed to go. NOW. If you dont, we'll have you replaced."

Edited September 23, 2013 by maddenboy