26CornerBlitz Posted April 29, 2017 Posted April 29, 2017 @SportsCenter A record number of defensive backs went off the board this year.
SoFFacet Posted April 29, 2017 Posted April 29, 2017 I think a lot of this actually serves the OP's argument. When you look at each move in and of itself, almost every move is a good one: Draft Winfield - good player Draft Clements - good player Let Winfield walk - (this one was a mistake - matching or beating his Vikings contract wouldn't have broken the bank and he remained really good for Minny) Let Clements walk - the right call; he wasn't worth that contract Draft McKelvin - seemed like a good idea at the time, but while he wasn't a total bust, you'd want better out of that high a pick Re-sign McKelvin - didn't have much outside interest and signed for pretty low money for a starting CB Cut McKelvin - his performance tailed off, starting to lose his athleticism, and maybe didn't buy in to the new scheme Draft Gilmore - good player (debatable how good) Let Gilmore walk - probably not worth that contract (I think he won't be, but time will tell) Draft White - seems like a good player from what I've read But for all of that, we've stayed a middling to bad team for the entire time. Even though most of those individual moves were good decisions, they didn't lead to overall success. And that's what concerns me. I get the logic of "CBs are expensive, so it makes some sense to draft good ones high, get good play on a cheap rookie deal, then let them walk and replace with another high pick." But I think that approach would work much better for an established playoff team with most of its foundational players in place. For a team like ours that's been perpetually rebuilding, I would much prefer we use our high picks to try to get (and keep!) those foundational players. Even the Maybin pick, as bad as it was, at least had potential - if Maybin had been a good player, we likely would've re-signed him to a big bucks deal, and we'd have had a stud pass rusher DE for 10 years or so. Not every high pick will pan out. Some will be total busts like Maybin, some will be absolute studs like Jim Kelly or Bruce Smith, but most will fall into 2 broad categories: Okay-but-disappointing players like McKelvin or Whitner, or pretty-good-but-not-stars like Eric Wood or Gilmore. I think it's important when looking at overall team building to value some positions more than others in the high rounds. Because if you're not going to be willing to pay a "pretty good" CB when his contract is up, but will pay a "pretty good" LT, the LT is worth more in the long run. I do agree that it's not entirely fair to judge this front office on the actions of previous front offices, but I also think there's legit cause for concern here. Do you even realize how many other types of issues all go into "overall success"? This pattern of reasoning could be used to impugn literally any decision made during the drought, whereas in reality some but not all of those decisions were responsible for the lack of success. It says here that the general strategy of prioritizing DBs in the draft is one of the few things the team has done right.
John from Riverside Posted April 29, 2017 Posted April 29, 2017 Over this 17 year drought, it seems two important things are missing: Building a good solid foundation on both sides of the ball (Offense- A solid O-line and a good QB; Defense: a good front seven); and building the team to win the division. Do the Bills currently have a solid foundation on offense? No. So far, Taylor has proven to be an above average backup, but below average starter. The O-line does a great job at run blocking, but the right side of the line is weak at pass protection. On defense, do they have a solid foundation in place? No. While KW, Dareus and Hughes are three very good players, Lawson and Ragland are unknown. Alexander was good in Rex's scheme, but how will he do in a 4/3? Alexander and Humber are both special teams players, which is a plus, but overall, the LB corps could use an upgrade. Are the current Bills built to win the division? No. We've seen over the years playing against Brady, it doesn't matter how good our secondary is, if the Bills are unable to get constant pressure on Brady and he has time in the pocket, eventually someone gets open for Brady to make a play, especially in a zone defense. The Broncos showed in the AFC Championship game two years ago the blueprint on how to beat Brady and that's constant pressure on him. Brady has always had a good O-line in front of him and that is something the Bills need, along with an elite caliber QB. So back to the topic, it would make more sense for the Bills to use high round draft picks foundational type players first, until they have those key players in place. So your upset that the bills cant do what the rest of the league cant do either......but are upset at the bills for it Got it
Green Lightning Posted April 29, 2017 Posted April 29, 2017 Letting Gilmore walk and drafting White stings, like many said it would. White will be as good as SG for a fraction of the cost for years. SG just wasn't worth the $ to the Bills at this time. Too many other holes to fill. No sting, just life in the NFL.
Jerry Jabber Posted April 29, 2017 Author Posted April 29, 2017 So your upset that the bills cant do what the rest of the league cant do either......but are upset at the bills for it Got it Oh, you got me there... No, I just see the Bills making the same dumb decisions while we see numerous teams go from missing the playoffs, rebuild the right way, then make the playoffs. Guess you're used to the misery after 17 years.
Cash Posted April 29, 2017 Posted April 29, 2017 Out of all the guys you mentioned not being re-signed, how many were actually mistakes? Not many - most of them were the right call at the time, and especially in hindsight. But that's kind of the point - if we've made all these good decisions, why has it been 17 years since we've made the playoffs? Why aren't these good decisions leading to greater team success? I think part of the reason is unrelated stuff - coaching/GM turnover, for example. But I also think that part of it is poor team-building strategy. It's possible to make a good pick (Gilmore), then make a good decision to let him walk (also Gilmore), and wind up having done very little to help your team in the big picture. I wonder if you're almost better off swinging for the fences with a boom-or-bust player, like Maybin or almost any QB. If they bust, does it really matter if you go 8-8 or 6-10? Again, that's for a rebuilding team like ours - if you're already a contender and looking to get over the hump, I think it makes a lot more sense to go for high-floor guys that you know will be cheap, solid starters while you contend. I'm kind of getting off track. I think my main point is that it's theoretically okay to draft any position high (except K or P), but in general, teams should prioritize certain positions high - QB, OL, DL, pass-rushing OLB, etc. To a lesser extent, stud WR, "defensive QB" middle linebacker, and maybe center-field safety with the way the league is going. If you're going to take a TE, RB, CB, or "other" linebacker, he'd better have a chance to be a great - not just good - player. I loved the trade down. To me, anyone we drafted at 10 would likely be another Gilmore type - good player, not a superstar, doesn't really move the needle, not worth big bucks in 5 years. If I was a GM, I would try to trade down in the first round every time unless I thought that a foundational/superstar type player was available. Maybe the Bills thought that was the case with Gilmore and were just wrong; no one's ever going to be right all the time. But I feel better about how they handled the #10 pick in 2016 than in 2011. (Having said that, I kind of hate the 2 trade-ups in the 2nd round, although I do like both of those players. Hopefully they both pan out!)
BringBackOrton Posted April 29, 2017 Posted April 29, 2017 White will be as good as SG for a fraction of the cost for years. SG just wasn't worth the $ to the Bills at this time. Too many other holes to fill. No sting, just life in the NFL. I guarantee that Gilmore is the better CB of the two for the next 3 years.
Green Lightning Posted April 29, 2017 Posted April 29, 2017 Not $10 million better. I guarantee you we will be a better team putting that kind of money into other positions.
DriveFor1Outta5 Posted April 29, 2017 Posted April 29, 2017 It's really not just the corner position. This franchise has seemed adverse to re signing our own players for quite some time. Look at the Watkins debate people are having.
DrDawkinstein Posted April 29, 2017 Posted April 29, 2017 It's really not just the corner position. This franchise has seemed adverse to re signing our own players for quite some time. Look at the Watkins debate people are having. Aaron Williams, Eric Wood, Cordy Glenn, Nickell Robey, Marcel Dareus, Jerry Hughes, Leodis McKelvin, Kyle Williams (multiple times). We'll re-sign Watkins. The 5th year option is about the same amount as the Franchise Tag, as I understand it. So why limit the team before we know for sure? Smart move to make sure the foot is healed before committing. We still have ways of holding onto him, for the same cost.
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted April 29, 2017 Posted April 29, 2017 Using a high pick on a CB is generally smart because good free agent CBs are ridiculously expensive (see Gilmore). Safeties? Not so much. This is my view too. I would never re-sign a FA CB. Use the draft to replace him. That's how the eagles operated for years with their really good DBs.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted April 29, 2017 Posted April 29, 2017 IMO, the Bills wasted too many first round draft picks on CB’s over the years as they are very rarely resigned (Winfield, Clements, Gilmore). If a first round CB does well in his rookie contract, his next one is usually too high for the Bills to keep him, so the way I look at it, it’s a wasted pick as that CB will be only on the team for five years, vice taking a player that has more of an opportunity to stay on the team longer than his rookie deal. First round picks should be used on players that are impact players as well as being on your team for 8-10 years (or more), so it would make more sense to draft a CB in the lower rounds. Constantly replacing DB's every four to five years is a terrible move. I highly doubt T. White will be resigned after his rookie deal ends, so the Bills will have to go through this again in four to five years. When will they ever learn? Don't have a problem with CB in the first just not White.
Figster Posted April 29, 2017 Posted April 29, 2017 Not $10 million better. I guarantee you we will be a better team putting that kind of money into other positions. Probably not even better for what McDermott needs from the position. White is at the top of the list in a very good draft class at at the CB position. A leader of men, an excellent tackler. White is hand picked by McDermott to fit his system...
MPT Posted April 29, 2017 Posted April 29, 2017 But if we step back and look at it as a whole, we spent the #10 pick in the draft and got 5 years of good-not-great CB play, and now have nothing to show for it - not even a comp pick. Well it can't be both "5 years of good-not-great CB play" AND "nothing to show for it" eh? Contradiction in terms.
Elite Poster Posted April 29, 2017 Posted April 29, 2017 Drafting any position at any slot is a good pick, if they end up being good.
DriveFor1Outta5 Posted April 29, 2017 Posted April 29, 2017 Don't have a problem with CB in the first just not White. You must have read the other post. No one wants a White CB.
klos63 Posted April 29, 2017 Posted April 29, 2017 I thought using a first rounder on Gilmore was potentially a waste as he most likely would leave for big money, which in fact he did. You can get good DB's in the lower rounds (3-7), why waste a first on a guy that's most likely going to be around for a short time? Guys like Wood and Dareus have been around for a while now and they were first round picks. I'd rather see first round picks used on positions such as QB, DE, OT, LB, WR (just as long as he's not a small speed guy like Parrish, Price etc...). DB's are overvalued in the NFL. If we were ever super bowl contenders in the last 20 years, we probably would have signed some of those DB's to their 2nd contract. Made no sense at the time because of how the team was set up.
Sweats Posted April 29, 2017 Posted April 29, 2017 It was a deep CB draft..........we could have picked one up in any round. I almost feel like our 1st round pick was a waste.
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted April 29, 2017 Posted April 29, 2017 IMO. No pick is a waste of he starts day 1 and is a good player.
Boatdrinks Posted April 30, 2017 Posted April 30, 2017 It's really not just the corner position. This franchise has seemed adverse to re signing our own players for quite some time. Look at the Watkins debate people are having. The Bills have not been averse to re-signing their own. Wood, Dareus, Glenn come to mind. Hughes was re-signed although he was traded for and not drafted by the Bills. The only reason the Bills are hesitant with SW is the injury. That's it. Otherwise, you pick up the option. The team has a value scale and seems to stick to it. FA's get overpaid, and often the cost exceeds the value of the player. Some positions are more valued than others. You can't keep every drafted player, you would run out of cap room very quickly. That's how the system is designed, to benefit the players. They sued for unfettered free agency and were going to win. The cap was a concession to get the court battle over with. One must keep in mind that the learning curve is shorter for certain positions as well. So those positions would be easier to replace with a rookie and get a more immediate impact. CB seems to be a position the team doesn't want to pay a big second contract to. Short of a Peterson or Revis in his prime, I'd tend to agree with that strategy. I do think they could have gotten a good CB in the second round and went elsewhere with pick 27 though.
Recommended Posts