BringBackOrton Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 i could re-word it for guys with concussion history too and say that yea you take a few but you need a sturdy base around them.... ignore karlos off the field and say for the sake of discussion its just the concussion question marks, maybe you ID that you arent going to pair him with another back that has the injury issues and could leave you very short on talent very fast crippling the run game ((again, using it as a not real example just to make a bar napkin math kind of argument)) you dont push the chips ALL IN on the strategy, you diversify try to maximize potential while also reducing the catastrophic risks. Okay, I hear ya. But I still disagree. Let's take the Bills as a real-life example. We aren't going anywhere without a QB if we don't take some risks. If we want to field the most talented team possible, we need to take the most risks possible. We aren't beating Brady by taking inferior RB's or LB's who are "safer." We are only making it to the promised land with pure star power and talent and yes, a little luck. If some guy with concussion concerns goes down, it's a blow. And yes, if our backup is also an injury risk (I'm just piggy backing off your bar napkin), yes we could be in extreme danger. But if our backup is the difference between 1 or 2 TD's a game compared to a "safer" RB, I'm all for it. Go big or go home.
Fadingpain Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 (edited) Like with anything, it's not necessarily about the risk. It's just about taking the right ones. I'd shy away from guys like Burfict because there was a sustained level of ill-discipline that plagued him on and off the field. However, don't let yourself be swayed out of selecting someone like Dak Prescott. Really good kid, ticked a lot of boxes, ended up with a stupid DUI. I think it's pretty clear, especially looking at Bandit's list, that the Bills are willing to give out chances. A team shouldn't preclude itself from taking risks like those, it's a talent accumulation business after all. Just have to know when to cut your losses when it doesn't pan out (like they did with Karlos). With the medical side of things, I think every team is different. Denver (or a team that plays in the AFC West) likely steers clear of anyone with known sickle cell traits due to altitude. As a rule, I'd never chase a skill player up the board with an ACL injury in their history. The 49ers have tried something in recent years, taking chances on those ACL victims and, for the most part, it's not worked out. The result of "wasting" those picks has undoubtedly helped them dismantle their depth in the past couple of years. It's a really interesting discussion but I think you have to have either a trade down approach to accumulate picks or a roster that can sustain a few whiffs. Not sure it's a great strategy if you're looking to build almost from scratch with a depleted roster. I agree there are "at risk" players and then there are "really at risk" players. The key is knowing which is which and then taking a chance on the right one. The "good kid" who knows he made a mistake and seems contrite is probably not nearly the risk as the career thug. Edited November 1, 2016 by Fadingpain
NoSaint Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 I agree there are "at risk" players and then there are "really at risk" players. The key is knowing which is which and then taking a chance on the right one. The "good kid" who knows he made a mistake and seems contrite is probably not nearly the risk as the career thug. theres also the ones that are actively trying to make changes (or at least self aware enough to put on the show) vs burfict testing positive, and then being completely out of shape during the draft process even after knowing he was a huge risk for teams.
Coach Tuesday Posted November 1, 2016 Author Posted November 1, 2016 Again - it's not just about taking risks - it's about looking for value advantages because of the risk. One strategy would be to take "blue chippers" in rounds 1-3, and then using all (or nearly all) of your 4-7 round picks to find high upside players who have fallen for whatever reason.
K-9 Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 I agree there are "at risk" players and then there are "really at risk" players. The key is knowing which is which and then taking a chance on the right one. The "good kid" who knows he made a mistake and seems contrite is probably not nearly the risk as the career thug. This describes Watkins to a tee. When the Bills did their background check on this incident, they were surprised at the glowing reports Sammy received from the Clemson University police. Sammy owned up to it immediately, didn't run from it, and made it a point to work harder to overcome the stigma. Not bad for a 19 year old. His work ethic as a football player, rare for a college player, was already well established. The character he showed in responding to the adversity of his arrest at the time was a plus as well.
NoSaint Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 (edited) Again - it's not just about taking risks - it's about looking for value advantages because of the risk. One strategy would be to take "blue chippers" in rounds 1-3, and then using all (or nearly all) of your 4-7 round picks to find high upside players who have fallen for whatever reason.even beyond injury and character -- Cardale is a prime example of a day 3 swing for the fences pick that is high reward if it hits, but minimized risk because its a low pick. whaley has loved bringing in huge physical talents for cheap. even beyond bandits list you could add da'rick who didnt pan out (but opening a can of worms i still think is a good risk even in hindsight) and sometimes you get hughes. sometimes you get richie incognito, sometimes you get stuck with a chris williams (for two high talent low cost guys that went different ways at the same position). Edited November 1, 2016 by NoSaint
Fadingpain Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 even beyond injury and character -- Cardale is a prime example of a day 3 swing for the fences pick that is high reward if it hits, but minimized risk because its a low pick. Absolutely! I'd like to see them take a swing or 2 for the fence every damned year in a similar fashion until we hit on the Cardale who turns into the franchise guy.
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 Again - it's not just about taking risks - it's about looking for value advantages because of the risk. One strategy would be to take "blue chippers" in rounds 1-3, and then using all (or nearly all) of your 4-7 round picks to find high upside players who have fallen for whatever reason. In my view, we have taken a lot more huge risks in the 1st round than necessary throughout the years (some injury, some character, and some just "reach" sorts of risks). To me, the 1st round is where you try to get the least bust-worthy and least risky guy. I don't know if the Bills' brass thinks that by taking risks in the 1st round, there is a chance for HOF potential, as opposed to a solid 8-year starter potential, and that's why they do it. But it has led to way too many busts for us.
NoSaint Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 In my view, we have taken a lot more huge risks in the 1st round than necessary throughout the years (some injury, some character, and some just "reach" sorts of risks). To me, the 1st round is where you try to get the least bust-worthy and least risky guy. I don't know if the Bills' brass thinks that by taking risks in the 1st round, there is a chance for HOF potential, as opposed to a solid 8-year starter potential, and that's why they do it. But it has led to way too many busts for us. i think that a lot of people are of the conclusion that you dont get a lot of shots at ELITE talent outside of the top round picks. and to do it with a cheap contract helps offset the risk compared to signing a suh in free agency. finding a steady vet starter isnt incredibly hard.
keepthefaith Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 The patriots tend to sign players who will follow the coaches instructions to a "T" and won't cause trouble off the field. Those that don't toe the line are gone.
bbb Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 a kind of hedged investment meant to capture slight differences in price; when there is a difference in the price of something on two different markets the arbitrageur simultaneously buys at the lower price and sells at the higher price. This is what arbitrage is. It's not buying something undervalued on the same market. No, that's not it. Yes, it is.
NoSaint Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 The other way teams do similar stockpiling of extra talent is by scheming away from what's high demand in the league. If 30 teams play a 34 suddenly OLB is super pricy but a pure 43 gets cheap (as another extreme example to make a point). Seattle did it at a few spots pretty well
Dorkington Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 Didn't we finish like 4-12 when we went after 'character' guys?
Coach Tuesday Posted November 1, 2016 Author Posted November 1, 2016 This is what arbitrage is. It's not buying something undervalued on the same market. Yes, it is. What he's describing is a form of risk arbitrage, but that's not what I'm referring to in terms of arbitrage.
Blokestradamus Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 Again - it's not just about taking risks - it's about looking for value advantages because of the risk. One strategy would be to take "blue chippers" in rounds 1-3, and then using all (or nearly all) of your 4-7 round picks to find high upside players who have fallen for whatever reason. This is a strategy I'm very comfortable with. Once you get past the top 3 rounds, swing for the fences. The chances of hitting on a quality starter goes down significantly from that point so why not take a shot on a flawed individual and hope that you can help turn him around or get him through his rehab, reaping the benefits of patience with injury. Low risk in terms of draft capital, low expectation and low guaranteed money. Connor Cook was the 100th pick in 2016, $619,890 in guarantees, chump change if you have to cut ties for whatever reason. Seems like a sound strategy.
May Day 10 Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 I think they certainly do this. To a point, i think it is a good strategy. With Incognito, IMO that whole thing was inflated B.S. anyway. I dont think it is a good move to 'count on' those players and invest a lot in them in the way of valuable picks or committed bonus/cap dollars. Low risk/high reward type of dealies.
Best Player Available Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 Didn't we finish like 4-12 when we went after 'character' guys? not during the polian years
bbb Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 What he's describing is a form of risk arbitrage, but that's not what I'm referring to in terms of arbitrage. I've never seen a definition of it other than it taking advantage of a price difference of the same thing on two different markets.
Dorkington Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 not during the polian years ...I remember plenty of players being 'trouble', even without the internet blowing every little thing up
Recommended Posts