thebandit27 Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 This of course reflects on Ralph Wilson; whose obsession with grinding out a yearly profit trumped paying for an expensive coaching or scouting structure. Because you see the billion dollars he made in franchise appreciation just wasn't enough. So he fires Polian, chases Butler out the door by paying him a miserly salary of $250,000; for an NFL GM!! So he turns to the likes of Marv Levy and Dick Jauron, both of whom came very cheap, and the results are the dysfunctional organization the Bills were for the vast majority of the time he owned the team. And the consequences of his cheapness and incompetence - a billion dollar payday and the most unearned entry of all time into the Hall of Fame. Ralph was a poor manager of the football department. He got into the HOF for his contributions to the game, which included saving multiple franchises and spearheading the Foolish Club of AFL Owners. If you don't think he was a good owner, that's fine. Saying he's undeserving of the HOF is, IMO, severely misguided.
H2o Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 The Washington Post put together a program that gives a draft value to all of the players drafted in the past 20 years. The Bills rank 30th https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/sports/nfl-draft-history/ Fire everyone, burn down OBD, kick Terry in the testes, and give Kim a double purple nurple. It's over.
Tenhigh Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 Where the better drafting teams are getting it done is in the 2nd-3rd rounds. Of Buffalo's drafts from 2006-2014, the only solid starters they've drafted from those rounds have been Posluszny, Byrd, Levitre, and Glenn. Aaron Williams has been nothing special despite being the 34th overall pick in 2011, Woods has been OK and without good QB play, Kiko played one solid NFL season (and is on his 3rd team), leaving Preston Brown who seems like JAG. Hitting on 4 picks out of 18, albeit with different GM's, is part of the reason why the Bills struggle with depth and the cap. Why 2006-2014? Were you cherrypicking so you could include the fact that we didn't have a 2nd in 2006 and gloss over Darby and Miller in 2015?
BillsVet Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 Why 2006-2014? Were you cherrypicking so you could include the fact that we didn't have a 2nd in 2006 and gloss over Darby and Miller in 2015? I chose the first year after Donahoe was fired through 2014, which is the last draft class which should be analyzed. Because as many fans have noted here (in unison actually) we can't evaluate a draft class until they've been in the league for 2 perhaps 3 full seasons. That's a 9 year sample size encompassing 18 2nd or 3rd round draft picks.
John from Riverside Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 I chose the first year after Donahoe was fired through 2014, which is the last draft class which should be analyzed. Because as many fans have noted here (in unison actually) we can't evaluate a draft class until they've been in the league for 2 perhaps 3 full seasons. That's a 9 year sample size encompassing 18 2nd or 3rd round draft picks. cherry picking at its best
BillsVet Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 cherry picking at its best Your unabashed homerism and inability to criticize a franchise winning about 40% of their games for the period I specified is once again noted. I guess this really is the post-factual age. Facts don't matter anymore, but emotions obviously do.
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 (edited) The best way to measure how well a draft went is; after 4 years to see how much money your draft picks sign for. You also need to break down the time frame into periods of GM in charge. Edited April 22, 2016 by The Thurmanator
YattaOkasan Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 cherry picking at its best He explained pretty clearly why he choose that range. It wasn't terrible to me. I do think we were terrible for most if not all of that range, and I do think we have improved substantially since that time. I would be interested in applying this tool to more recent years. I also think it discounts trades. We didn't really get much out of Kiko so the tool might see that as a bad draft choice in the second when really we leveraged his work to McCoy. To me that was a great draft choice because after 2 years we got McCoy from it, but I don't think the tool saw it that way.
K-9 Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 Yay, another thread telling us how much we suck! How refreshing. GO BILLS!!!
John from Riverside Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 He explained pretty clearly why he choose that range. It wasn't terrible to me. I do think we were terrible for most if not all of that range, and I do think we have improved substantially since that time. I would be interested in applying this tool to more recent years. I also think it discounts trades. We didn't really get much out of Kiko so the tool might see that as a bad draft choice in the second when really we leveraged his work to McCoy. To me that was a great draft choice because after 2 years we got McCoy from it, but I don't think the tool saw it that way. Look....we have been bad....a lot....when it comes to our drafting which is displayed in our poor to average record but I really feel that the years under Whaley have produced some players...so the proper term would be not "the bills are bad at drafting" but more "the bills have been bad at drafting in the past" Your unabashed homerism and inability to criticize a franchise winning about 40% of their games for the period I specified is once again noted. I guess this really is the post-factual age. Facts don't matter anymore, but emotions obviously do. And your piss in the punch bowl posts reflects your trollism.....but anyways
YattaOkasan Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 Look....we have been bad....a lot....when it comes to our drafting which is displayed in our poor to average record but I really feel that the years under Whaley have produced some players...so the proper term would be not "the bills are bad at drafting" but more "the bills have been bad at drafting in the past" I get your point and agree, but you called out BillsVet for cherry picking right after he explained his rationale. I almost always disagree with him, but in this case he laid out a pretty reasonable rationale. Also we are much improved at drafting but even some of that would be discounted by trades (Kiko's value was much greater than contributions).
John from Riverside Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 I get your point and agree, but you called out BillsVet for cherry picking right after he explained his rationale. I almost always disagree with him, but in this case he laid out a pretty reasonable rationale. Also we are much improved at drafting but even some of that would be discounted by trades (Kiko's value was much greater than contributions). If you want to give him credit for finally having a halfway reasonable take.....fine....the next question should be how he feels Whaley is doing which will clarify his position (which I already know) Just cannot account for injuries when your drafting.....imo Kiko would still be on this team and have a main role in it had he not gotten injured. Preston brown has like 100 tackles in his rookie year then falls off......interested to see what he does this year. When you are finding guys like Darby in the 2nd round.....and late round monsters like Karlos WIllaims.....your drafting pretty well.
thebandit27 Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 I don't think there is any question the drafting has been a lot better there past several years. They seemed to have missed on Goodwin and CK, but every team misses on early round picks. Even the best teams. Whaley may have gotten lucky with Tyrod because EJ was really his make or break pick and we all know how that's turned out. The only thing I disagree with here is that EJ was the make or break pick for Whaley--at that point they had to take a QB. For me, the biggest QB mistakes Whaley made were (a) relying on Kolb to stay healthy and (b) not spending a mid-round 2014 pick on another QB like Mettenberger or Murray (granted, neither of those guys have been great, but the point remains that it would've been a wise investment).
John from Riverside Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 The only thing I disagree with here is that EJ was the make or break pick for Whaley--at that point they had to take a QB. For me, the biggest QB mistakes Whaley made were (a) relying on Kolb to stay healthy and (b) not spending a mid-round 2014 pick on another QB like Mettenberger or Murray (granted, neither of those guys have been great, but the point remains that it would've been a wise investment). I agree with all of this As far as EJ Manuel goes.....I mean do we really fault Whaley here? - major school - bowl winning qb - all the physical traits you would look for in a franchise qb It just didnt work out.....a lot of different people will have opinions on why it didnt work out.....my own opinion is he simply was asked to do too much too soon.....Kolb was a disaster......they should have been looking for another QB like you said...... Then Tyrod comes along
Mr. WEO Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 The Bills are ahead of Raiders and Browns . Raiders have turned it around now and Browns moneyball parlay could do the same. Zero chance.
Mr. WEO Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 cherry picking at its best I don't think you understand what "cherry picking" means. He clearly explained his reasoning. How do prefer to be walked through it?
ndirish1978 Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 I think there are two things people are reacting to here: 1- the study does appear to choose an arbitrary set of years with little explanation for why that time period was chosen, it seems reasonable for that to invite criticism; and 2- it's natural to have a negative reaction when someone call you or something you care about bad. My 2 cents - it's pretty obvious we didn't draft well for a large chunk of those years. I believe the past 2 years have been a substantial improvement for us, especially in the later rounds, but really only time will tell. The 30 ranking does seem a bit harsh though when you consider the fact that we haven't consistently been picking in the top 3 or 4 every year and usually finish around 7-9/6-10 in that era. Pro Bowl rankings being apart of this metric are a bit worthless, the pro bowl is a joke and is slanted heavily towards larger market teams. I don't think we deserve to be ranked 30th, but even a homer like me admits anything above 25 is probably way too optimistic.
Recommended Posts