Is Cyrus Kouandjio Still a Bust?

[C.Biscuit97]

 

Did I just read a really long post that equates PFF's ranking of the Bills' 2014 OL as some type of justification for the statement that the Bills' 2015 OL wasn't good?

 

They lead the NFL in YPC (with or without QB rushing stats) and were in the top-10 in QB hits allowed, despite blocking for a QB that held the ball longer than any other starting QB in the NFL.

 

http://www.scout.com/nfl/bills/story/1671762-tyrod-taylor-had-most-time-to-pass-in-nfl

 

I don't mean to beat a dead horse here; there's simply no support for the idea that the OL wasn't good, let alone that they were bad.

 

 

True, Orton wasn't that bad. I think his final 4 games left a really bad taste in a lot of people's mouths, one that was punctuated by his wimp-out slide on 3rd-and-2 against Oakland.

 

While I was happy with the pursuit of both Bulaga and Boling in the last 2 offseasons, as we've seen repeatedly throughout the league, the OL is a bit-part in comparison to certain skill positions nowadays.

Not that it matters at this point but he was bad minus games against Rex. He threw 7 tds, 0 tds against The Jets and 11 tds, 0 ints against everyone else. Even his "comeback" wins against DEt and Min where because the offense was horrible most of the game and the defense kept us in there. We beat Aaron Rodgers without scoring a td! Add to that, he was a coward. Total waste of a year.

[Kirby Jackson]

Not that it matters at this point but he was bad minus games against Rex. He threw 7 tds, 0 tds against The Jets and 11 tds, 0 ints against everyone else. Even his "comeback" wins against DEt and Min where because the offense was horrible most of the game and the defense kept us in there. We beat Aaron Rodgers without scoring a td! Add to that, he was a coward. Total waste of a year.

I love that you like Orton like I do Hogan.

[C.Biscuit97]

I love that you like Orton like I do Hogan.

I can't stand him. He was sliding to avoid contact the whole season. Him and Marrone deserve each other.

 

And if it wasn't for an absolutely stud catch by Hogan, Orton loses another game.

[Socal-805]

2nd round pick that can't get on the field.... Still a bust.

[NoSaint]

2nd round pick that can't get on the field.... Still a bust.

but when about half dont start anyway... if he is a reliable swing tackle this year, its not as epic a situation as some may lead you to believe.

[Socal-805]

but when about half dont start anyway... if he is a reliable swing tackle this year, its not as epic a situation as some may lead you to believe.

 

 

way off....

 

http://datascopeanalytics.com/blog/the-chance-of-a-bust-in-the-nfl-draft/

[stony]

 

 

way off....

 

http://datascopeanalytics.com/blog/the-chance-of-a-bust-in-the-nfl-draft/

 

By the end of the 2nd round, the chance of finding a starter is ~50%. CK was picked a third of the way into the round. It's not that big of a stretch. Certainly not way off.

Edited August 25, 2016 by stony

[thebandit27]

 

 

way off....

 

http://datascopeanalytics.com/blog/the-chance-of-a-bust-in-the-nfl-draft/

 

From that link, using the 2nd method, the No. 44 pick (where Kouandjio was selected) has almost exactly a 50% chance of busting.

[Nihilarian]

I disagree with your assessment of Orton and EJ. There would have been no noticeable difference in wins. The only legit wins Orton had were against our head cosch's Jets team. He was average to below average in every other start.

You do realize that in 2014 the Bills suddenly went pass happy after the second game calling more passes every game over what they did in 2013 in running the ball more. EJ fell on his face when forced to carry the game with his arm.

 

(2013 522 pass attempts vs 546 rushing attempts)

 

(2014 579 pass attempts vs 402 rushing attempts)

 

Then take into consideration that usually in every game that EJ was forced to throw more than the team ran the ball the team usually lost, regardless of the games situations.

 

(2013 Games in which EJ played)

NE 21-23 L (34 rushes-27 passes)

Carolina 24-23 W (33 rushes-39 passes)****

NY Jets 27-20 L (25 rushes-42 passes)

Baltimore 23-20 W (55 rushes-22 passes)

Cleveland 37-24 L (31 rushes-40 passes)

Pittsburgh 23-10 L (22 rushes-39 passes)

NY Jets 37-14 W (38 rushes-28 passes)

Atlanta 34-31 L (31 rushes-32 passes)

Tampa 27-6 L (22 rushes-33 passes)

Jacksonville 20-27 W (44 rushes- 24 passes)

Miami 19-0 W (51 rushes-25 passes)

NE 34-20 L (35 rushes-29 passes)

 

Now, looking back on that season I think we can see that there is a direct correlation in that when the team ran more than they threw it they usually (but not always) won. Conversely, when the team passed more than they threw it they usually lost. (only one win against Carolina)

 

2014,

Chicago 20-23 W (33 rushes-22 Passes)

Miami 29-10 W (33 rushes-26 passes)

San Diego 22-10 L (22 rushes-40 passes)

Houston 23-17 L (23 rushes-43 passes)

 

Kyle Orton came in for week 5 and the Bills were still going pass happy by calling more pass plays every game and usually to the tune of only 20 runs vs 40 passes. Trust me, EJ would have gotten destroyed behind that craptastic 2014

O-line.

 

Now if you look at the 2015 stats, 465 passing attempts vs 509 attempts rushing and when you look game by game you would see that whenever the team was able to establish and maintain a strong run game they usually won. So the same thing happened with both EJ and Tyrod Taylor last season. With young QB's it makes sense to help them out with a strong run game.

 

Don't let the hate get ya. I still contend that with a better line in 2014 the Bills not only make the playoffs but they win some playoff games.

 

 

Edited August 25, 2016 by Nihilarian

[FireChan]

You do realize that in 2014 the Bills suddenly went pass happy after the second game calling more passes every game over what they did in 2013 in running the ball more. EJ fell on his face when forced to carry the game with his arm.

 

(2013 522 pass attempts vs 546 rushing attempts)

 

(2014 579 pass attempts vs 402 rushing attempts)

 

Then take into consideration that usually in every game that EJ was forced to throw more than the team ran the ball the team lost, regardless of the games situations.

 

(2013 Games in which EJ played)

NE 21-23 L (34 rushes-27 passes)

Carolina 24-23 W (33 rushes-39 passes)****

NY Jets 27-20 L (25 rushes-42 passes)

Baltimore 23-20 W (55 rushes-22 passes)

Cleveland 37-24 L (31 rushes-40 passes)

Pittsburgh 23-10 L (22 rushes-39 passes)

NY Jets 37-14 W (38 rushes-28 passes)

Atlanta 34-31 L (31 rushes-32 passes)

Tampa 27-6 L (22 rushes-33 passes)

Jacksonville 20-27 W (44 rushes- 24 passes)

Miami 19-0 W (51 rushes-25 passes)

NE 34-20 L (35 rushes-29 passes)

 

Now, looking back on that season I think we can see that there is a direct correlation in that when the team ran more than they threw it they usually (but not always) won. Conversely, when the team passed more than they threw it they usually lost. (only one win against Carolina)

 

2014,

Chicago 20-23 W (33 rushes-22 Passes)

Miami 29-10 W (33 rushes-26 passes)

San Diego 22-10 L (22 rushes-40 passes)

Houston 23-17 L (23 rushes-43 passes)

 

Kyle Orton came in for week 5 and the Bills were still going pass happy by calling more pass plays every game and usually to the tune of only 20 runs vs 40 passes. Trust me, EJ would have gotten destroyed behind that craptastic 2014

O-line.

 

Now if you look at the 2015 stats, 465 passing attempts vs 509 attempts rushing and when you look game by game you would see that whenever the team was able to establish and maintain a strong run game they usually won. So the same thing happened with both EJ and Tyrod Taylor last season. With young QB's it makes sense to help them out with a strong run game.

 

Don't let the hate get ya. I still contend that with a better line in 2014 the Bills not only make the playoffs but they win some playoff games.

I think you're stretching with causation here.

[Kirby Jackson]

That exchange between Nihilarian and FC reminded me of a scene from one of my favorite movies:

 

https://youtu.be/gXGXZiX0pCA

[3rdand12]

That exchange between Nihilarian and FC reminded me of a scene from one of my favorite movies:

 

https://youtu.be/gXGXZiX0pCA

well now i have something else upon my list !

 

The movie, i mean.

[FireChan]

That exchange between Nihilarian and FC reminded me of a scene from one of my favorite movies:

 

https://youtu.be/gXGXZiX0pCA

Excellent.

[NoSaint]

 

From that link, using the 2nd method, the No. 44 pick (where Kouandjio was selected) has almost exactly a 50% chance of busting.

Yup- and the second method was starting a full season as a benchmark. After just two seasons would be early to close his book on that metric.

 

I'm not arguing the dudes upper half but that if he is a solid 3rd OT for us he would move from bottom quarter up towards the middle.

 

You figure 32 guys, about 16 would start a full season. A chunk of those that clear the bar are starting on need over skill. If he ends up say 18-20th is he a bust or just slightly below average? He's not there but hopefully trending.

[Thurman#1]

 

I agree with most of this but for me the "stockpiling picks" argument goes to the crapshoot as well. If you believe in your talent evaluation skills then why not take someone you think can be elite rather than move back stockpile and take 3 guys you think can be good / very good. The teams that win Superbowls always have a collection of "elite" players.

 

I don't believe "never trade up if it's not for a Quarterback" is necessarily a hard and fast rule. If you are trading up for an elite playmaker at a difference making position then for me a trade up can be justified. If Carson Wentz flames out and Sammy Watkins ends up a perennial pro-bowler and 1,000 yard receiver do you still say trading up for Wentz was the justifiable move because he was a QB? For me it always comes down to the same key - evaluating talent. Sammy Watkins is an elite talent and the Bills traded up and took him. It's not a move you can make every year but it is a move that every now and again you make because you really believe in the talent you are pursuing. If your talent evaluation was right (and all the signs say it was) then it is justified.

 

The idea that Atlanta can't say the Jones deal was justified because they haven't won a Superbowl is nonsensical to me.

 

 

 

It's not a hard and fast rule because some teams ignore it. But the smart ones don't.

 

And it's backed up by research, research which all says the same thing ... that GMs overestimate their abilities and that's what causes the tradeups.

 

The Thaler and Massey study is the first one people mention, and for good reason. It's very very clear that the way to maximize your chances of getting the best value is to NOT trade up, especially if you're giving away high picks to do so. They don't say that every trade of that type is a failure, but a very very large majority of those trades turn out to be failures.

 

https://www.chicagobooth.edu/alumni/downloads/thaler_losers_curse.pdf

 

But there are others.

 

"Sports research engine PointAfter identified 74 first-round trades over the past 12 years that involved both teams exchanging draft picks as the centerpiece of a deal. This method eliminates a few trades (for example, the Vikings trading Randy Moss for Napoleon Harris, a first-round pick and a seventh-round pick prior to the 2005 draft aren’t accounted for), but it keeps the premise simple: should a team gamble on one prestigious prospect, or several less-heralded rookies?

"I tallied the career starts of the 287 draft-picks-turned-players that changed hands in those deals, and the results give an overwhelming advantage towards the teams who elected to trade down. Those 74 trades yielded a net loss of 2,348 starts for the teams who gave up picks to move up in the first round—an average of 31.7 starts lost per trade, or about two seasons worth of a starting-caliber NFL player. From that standpoint, only seven teams have benefited from trading up since the 2003 draft, while the other 19 clubs who chose to do so saw a net loss in players’ starts.

"The teams who traded down often mined greater value from their less prestigious first-round pick alone. This supports the notion that the teams who trade up haven’t identified as many players with NFL potential and feel that they must reach to get quality players, while the teams who trade down did a better job of identifying sleepers they could snag while extracting more picks from other, more desperate teams."

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/04/30/nfl-draft-round-1-trades

"Research by TheBigLead’s Jason Lisk (then writing for Pro-Football-Reference) shows that teams with top-five picks in the draft correctly identify the player who goes on to have the best career only 10.3 percent of the time, a success rate that only gets worse as things progress deeper into the draft.¹¹ So a team that believes it could somehow beat the market if only it controlled its own fate can end up doing more harm than good if it trades away lower picks to move up in the draft. This is especially the case if a team uses Johnson’s unrealistically optimistic chart as justification for such behavior."

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/no-team-can-beat-the-draft/

 

 

 

There will be a few exceptions, in other words, but basically guys who trade up are pursuing a strategy that loses in most cases.

 

Oh, and again, the signs don't say that Whaley correctly valued Sammy. To say that would mean that he was better than Beckham, Kelvin Benjamin and Brandin Cooks by the order of a 2014 first round pick and a 2014 fourth round pick. It does not look like that was true by any means. What it looks like so far is that he was overconfident and overvalued Sammy and undervalued those other receivers. Which is exactly what Massey and Thaler say will happen in most tradeups of this kind.

 

 

And I like Sammy. Just think we paid too much.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Thurman#1

[YattaOkasan]

I'd have to read the links but your quotes have some holes to me. The first quote only talks about starts. That is not the only metric to gauge value and may not even be close to the best. Might be that those early picks are hit or miss, but the hit is big enough that its worth the risk. The second quote talks about the best player in the draft. Again I don't think thats a great metric. Do you need to get the best player in the top 5 (how do they even evaluate, guess I should read) or just one of the top 5 in that draft?

 

The value assessments on Sammy that you make can not be made in a vacuum. There is no way of know if any of those guys would put up Sammy's numbers if here. If they couldn't put up half his numbers then would Sammy be worth it? I find balance to be important and while more often then not getting draft picks is a good idea, there are plenty of reasons to move up (I think Sammy was a good one).

[GunnerBill]

It comes down to more than just "value" though. This is my point. Teams that win in the NFL have star players. You have to find ways to accumulate star players. Kelvin Benjamin is a good player as is Brandin Cooks but trading for Sammy was about getting a star with elite talent. Saying that the trade doesn't make sense because you end up with worse value is only half the picture.

 

I will read the research though and thanks for the links.

[Kirby Jackson]

It comes down to more than just "value" though. This is my point. Teams that win in the NFL have star players. You have to find ways to accumulate star players. Kelvin Benjamin is a good player as is Brandin Cooks but trading for Sammy was about getting a star with elite talent. Saying that the trade doesn't make sense because you end up with worse value is only half the picture.

 

I will read the research though and thanks for the links.

Well said Gunner!! Stars effect so many things beyond just their stats. How much better can the running game and Clay be because of Sammy's presence? Woods will only have to ever beat one man? Do they commit both safeties deep when Sammy and Goodwin are on opposite sides of the field? Those are things that stars make happen that good players don't. They effect the entire game not just plays that they are involved in.

 

Edit: The best example to me is Revis in his prime. Basically, he took away your number 1. Teams had to plan accordingly.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Kirby Jackson

[Nihilarian]

There will be a few exceptions, in other words, but basically guys who trade up are pursuing a strategy that loses in most cases.

 

Oh, and again, the signs don't say that Whaley correctly valued Sammy. To say that would mean that he was better than Beckham, Kelvin Benjamin and Brandin Cooks by the order of a 2014 first round pick and a 2014 fourth round pick. It does not look like that was true by any means. What it looks like so far is that he was overconfident and overvalued Sammy and undervalued those other receivers. Which is exactly what Massey and Thaler say will happen in most tradeups of this kind.

 

 

And I like Sammy. Just think we paid too much.

I agree.

 

When you think of what kind of grade the Buffalo Bills put on players in the draft and 9.0 being the highest. You would have to think that Sammy Watkins was a 8.0 or a 9.0 to be worth two firsts and a fourth.

 

THE PLAYER GRADING SCALE

Most teams use a grading scale from 1.0-to-9.0 to evaluate players (some teams only go up to 8.0). The only 9.0 grade that Ron Wolf has ever given, Lillibridge told me, was for Bo Jackson. A 9.0 is a generational talent, and that's so rare that it's not even worth mentioning. So, in practice, an 8.0 scale is used. Greg Gabriel breaks it down thusly:

8.0 grade: Special player, will impact a game and dominate at his position

7.0 grade: A potential pro bowler, a player you win because of

6.5 grade: A solid rank and file starter you could win with

6.0 grade: A solid backup who could start, but limited

5.5 grade: A role player but not a starter. A specialist

5.0 grade: A talented player, but not draftable. Developmental

"If you’re a 7.0 and above, you expect that person to be a starter in year one and then eventually, a Pro Bowl player, "Lillibridge said. "That’s what you’re looking at when you’re looking at the first two rounds."

 

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/3/6/5473554/2014-nfl-draft-scouting-process-big-board

 

 

The reality is that so far five wide receivers from that 2014 draft class put up better numbers in 2015 with Watkins being the 22nd best WR in terms of yardage. Beckham #5, Robinson #6, Evans #11, Landry 13th, Cooks #14, Watkins #22.

Then Sammy was fourth best in 2014 and ranked as the 24th best WR. Beckham #10, Evans #19, Benjamin #21, Watkins 24th.

 

Here is another take on that 2014 draft class. http://rotoviz.com/2014/01/2014-nfl-draft-sammy-watkins-mike-evans-and-the-early-wide-receiver-rankings/

 

When you look at the offensive players drafted over the last few years I come away thinking this teams scouting dept isn't nearly as good in evaluating offensive talent as they are on the defensive side. The mere fact that the Bills were ready to draft TE Eric Ebron at #9 also says this.

2013 EJ Manuel, Robert Woods, Goodwin, Dustin Hopkins, Chris Gragg. 2014 Sammy Watkins, Cyrus Kounandjio, Cyril Richardson, Seantrel HO'Learyn. 2015 John Miller, Karlos Williams, Nick O'leary, Dezmin Lewis. 2016 too soon to judge.

 

What really bugs me is that right after that 2014 draft I read that the team was saying that they still needed that big, tall elite red zone threat. If this was the case then why not trade up for Mike Evans or trade back for Kelvin Benjamin?

 

 

Anyway, nobody here is denying Sammy's talent. It's just that so far it looks like the Bills overvalued his talent and there are others from the same draft class with equal or better talent. So far it does look like the Bills paid too much.

[thebandit27]

I agree.

 

When you think of what kind of grade the Buffalo Bills put on players in the draft and 9.0 being the highest. You would have to think that Sammy Watkins was a 8.0 or a 9.0 to be worth two firsts and a fourth.

 

THE PLAYER GRADING SCALE

Most teams use a grading scale from 1.0-to-9.0 to evaluate players (some teams only go up to 8.0). The only 9.0 grade that Ron Wolf has ever given, Lillibridge told me, was for Bo Jackson. A 9.0 is a generational talent, and that's so rare that it's not even worth mentioning. So, in practice, an 8.0 scale is used. Greg Gabriel breaks it down thusly:

8.0 grade: Special player, will impact a game and dominate at his position

7.0 grade: A potential pro bowler, a player you win because of

6.5 grade: A solid rank and file starter you could win with

6.0 grade: A solid backup who could start, but limited

5.5 grade: A role player but not a starter. A specialist

5.0 grade: A talented player, but not draftable. Developmental

"If you’re a 7.0 and above, you expect that person to be a starter in year one and then eventually, a Pro Bowl player, "Lillibridge said. "That’s what you’re looking at when you’re looking at the first two rounds."

 

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/3/6/5473554/2014-nfl-draft-scouting-process-big-board

 

 

The reality is that so far five wide receivers from that 2014 draft class put up better numbers in 2015 with Watkins being the 22nd best WR in terms of yardage. Beckham #5, Robinson #6, Evans #11, Landry 13th, Cooks #14, Watkins #22.

Then Sammy was fourth best in 2014 and ranked as the 24th best WR. Beckham #10, Evans #19, Benjamin #21, Watkins 24th.

 

Here is another take on that 2014 draft class. http://rotoviz.com/2014/01/2014-nfl-draft-sammy-watkins-mike-evans-and-the-early-wide-receiver-rankings/

 

When you look at the offensive players drafted over the last few years I come away thinking this teams scouting dept isn't nearly as good in evaluating offensive talent as they are on the defensive side. The mere fact that the Bills were ready to draft TE Eric Ebron at #9 also says this.

2013 EJ Manuel, Robert Woods, Goodwin, Dustin Hopkins, Chris Gragg. 2014 Sammy Watkins, Cyrus Kounandjio, Cyril Richardson, Seantrel HO'Learyn. 2015 John Miller, Karlos Williams, Nick O'leary, Dezmin Lewis. 2016 too soon to judge.

 

What really bugs me is that right after that 2014 draft I read that the team was saying that they still needed that big, tall elite red zone threat. If this was the case then why not trade up for Mike Evans or trade back for Kelvin Benjamin?

 

 

Anyway, nobody here is denying Sammy's talent. It's just that so far it looks like the Bills overvalued his talent and there are others from the same draft class with equal or better talent. So far it does look like the Bills paid too much.

 

Sammy is easily the best of the 2014 draft on a per-target basis, and it's by a significant margin.

 

I realize that below is primarily a fantasy football site, but it gives outstanding context to how guys perform relative to opportunity:

 

http://www.playerprofiler.com/nfl/sammy-watkins/

http://www.playerprofiler.com/nfl/mike-evans/

http://www.playerprofiler.com/nfl/odell-beckham/

http://www.playerprofiler.com/nfl/brandin-cooks/

http://www.playerprofiler.com/nfl/kelvin-benjamin/

http://www.playerprofiler.com/nfl/jordan-matthews/

http://www.playerprofiler.com/nfl/allen-robinson/

http://www.playerprofiler.com/nfl/jarvis-landry/

http://www.playerprofiler.com/nfl/martavis-bryant/