Just when I think the Bills finally got smart...

[HappyDays]

I have zero problem giving away 5ths to move into 2nd, but they need to be smart about who they are drafting there.

 

You should read this article: http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round

It's an interesting article but I'm not so sure on its criteria. It doesn't distinguish between great starters and below average starters, it just includes a player as a success if "the player started at least half of their career." So if Dawkins starts for 50% of his career and never really plays that well that would be a success story according to this article.

[dlonce]

The way I see it, the Bills have just as many picks in this year"s draft right now as they did coming in, they got three players who should immediately contribute, and they have an extra 1st rounder next year. What are you bitching about?

Amen.

 

This is a good draft on paper and next year we have some ammo in round one.

[KRT88]

Excellent article, thanks. Can't argue with numbers and logic like that.

You know it's not just about starters. You need special teams guys, you need depth players. You have holes everywhere. No TE depth, little RB depth, thin at LB, need more DB's, I guess we are set at WR with no depth to speak of! However you don't need draft picks to get those.

[JMF2006]

BTW you see a guy you want go get him.

 

Lets give the new coach a chance and these new players as well.

 

3 years down the road is when we find out if it panned out.

[Chuck Schick]

I'm right there with you Wayne. The draft is a crapshoot but every year the Bills waltz in like they know better than everyone else. What is the success rate of OL taken in the 3rd round, 33%? I can't imagine it's much higher. But I'm sure the Bills would tell you they are 75% sure in Dawkins. No matter how sure they think they are they don't really know. Dawkins could tear his ACL in training camp and there goes that idea. We needed to use all our picks this year IMO. I love the trade down but not as much because we lost the 3rd rounder anyways, to take a WR who had a great senior bowl but whose college production was possibly inflated by the system he played in. I mean I don't know maybe he turns into a great player but without the benefit of hindsight yet the moves look poor to me.

You're skeptical about the success rate of a 3rd round OL....So the Bills trade back up to the 2nd round and only sacrifice some mid round picks to get a better prospect....but if he tears his ACL...

[HappyDays]

I generally agree with the principle you espouse, but there's another principle that's critical, too. That's "stay true to your board."

 

I haven't heard anyone say it this year, but they said it last year with Ragland. They saw this talent they had ranked up in the first round and he was still sitting there early in the second. They thought he was a huge bargain based on their board. They also thought they weren't the only ones who knew that, so they traded up. I'm guessing the same thing happened twice yesterday.

 

They really wanted receiver and oline help and they saw guys who looked like bargains on their board.

 

They stayed true to the board.

 

Fifth round picks are useful, but they usually don't give you guys much better than the undrafted free agents who make your team. And they rarely start in the first, or even the second season.

 

Bills got three guys who all have a good chance of starting. It's always a good draft when you do that.

 

Still, I agree. It's a crapshoot, and more picks is usually better. But I'm happy this morning.

I agree staying true to the board is the best strategy but trading up isn't staying true to the board. I've always said a smart GM should recognize he really isn't that smart. Surefire picks flame out all the time, especially when it's just one GM who thinks it's a surefire pick. The more picks, the better chances of finding a contributing player. Like Wayne said we lost a pick and converted our 3rd into a 5th. That was the 3rd we got for trading down. So we traded down 17 spots for a 1st rounder next year and an O-lineman that no one is sure if he'll be a tackle or guard. I don't think that's very good value at all. And now Dawkins has to be better than just a 50% starter, he has to be pretty darn good. Ragland is a great example because his injury was unpredictable and made the Bills look foolish when they could have had Dak with the pick they traded away for him. I thought they had learned from that mistake.

You're skeptical about the success rate of a 3rd round OL....So the Bills trade back up to the 2nd round and only sacrifice some mid round picks to get a better prospect....but if he tears his ACL...

My bad I meant to say 2nd round, specially the late 2nd round. If the players work out it won't matter, that's the truth of it. But without hindsight I'd rather we take more players instead of thinking we know how successful a player will be:

[Wayne Arnold]

I generally agree with the principle you espouse, but there's another principle that's critical, too. That's "stay true to your board."

 

I haven't heard anyone say it this year, but they said it last year with Ragland. They saw this talent they had ranked up in the first round and he was still sitting there early in the second. They thought he was a huge bargain based on their board. They also thought they weren't the only ones who knew that, so they traded up. I'm guessing the same thing happened twice yesterday.

 

They really wanted receiver and oline help and they saw guys who looked like bargains on their board.

 

They stayed true to the board.

 

Fifth round picks are useful, but they usually don't give you guys much better than the undrafted free agents who make your team. And they rarely start in the first, or even the second season.

 

Bills got three guys who all have a good chance of starting. It's always a good draft when you do that.

 

Still, I agree. It's a crapshoot, and more picks is usually better. But I'm happy this morning.

 

But they don't have to give away draft picks to "stay true to their board." Those things are not mutually exclusive.

 

It's just ego. They think their board is superior than everyone else's. And their guy is coveted by everyone so they panic and trade up when they probably could have gotten those players if they had stayed put. And if the player is taken - so what? When it's time to pick, choose the next best player.

 

They get it in their heads that their guy is a sure-fire lock to be an instant contributor and a franchise player for years to come. Tunnel vision.

 

They keep repeating the same mistakes year after year after year. TJ Graham, Sammy Watkins, Reggie Ragland, etc. It's mind-boggling.

[MooseTooth]

....merge them all into a "NEGATIVE NELLIES UNITE" thread for group therapy and commiseration.....gonna be a long weekend......................

Haha. Damn right

[Wayne Arnold]

One example is New England. He drafts for volume and it doesn't work. BB not a very good drafter,so what makes anyone think the Bills will do much better?

 

Just won a fifth Super Bowl title and is about to go 19-0. Yeah, doesn't have a clue. lol

[Shaw66]

I have zero problem giving away 5ths to move into 2nd, but they need to be smart about who they are drafting there.

 

You should read this article: http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round

 

Contrary to what people think, you are not going to get 7 starters from a draft. You are hopefully going to end up with 3. I would rather stock my odds with higher % of success than have more picks with low success rates. Give me a pick with 70% success rate than a lot of 15% success rate picks.

This article is very interesting. It does two things for me:

 

First, it demonstrates the wisdom of trading 4th and 5th round picks to move into the second. You have a much better chance of finding starters generally by getting up into the second.

 

Second, it demonstrates that it is indeed a crapshoot. You really don't get a ton of starters out of the draft.

 

And third, what's wrong with the article is that he doesn't put a premium on first round picks. It isn't enough to get a starter with a first round pick; that's relatively easy. What matters is getting a premium player.

[YoloinOhio]

 

Actually McDermott started out as a scout. I'd rather he be making draft choices than Whaley. We already know Whaley sucks. At least McDermott is an unknown.

i forgot he started as a scout. Interesting point.

[transient]

They gave up two draft picks and reduced a third to a fifth. That's what I'm "bitching" about. Is this a difficult concept? Did some of you posters have that lobotomy performed as well?

They started with a first, second, third, and three low rounds picks before not matching MG. They'll potentially leave with a first, 2 seconds, 3 fifths and a first next year. WTF are you bitching about.

[klos63]

they get all Billsy on Day 2.

 

I was so proud and excited that the Bills traded down from 10 to add more draft picks - including a first-rounder in 2018. The smart teams know that the NFL Draft is a crapshoot of massive proportion - and the only solution is to accumulate as many picks as possible to increase odds that the players you draft are good. Then let them battle it out in training camp.

 

But no. They trade up and give up picks NOT ONCE...BUT TWICE.

 

No one wastes draft picks like the Buffalo Bills.

 

They simply cannot help themselves. They get tunnel vision on one player and are so damn paranoid that others value their guy like they do (ego) that they shoot themselves in the foot by giving away valuable picks. It's absurd how perennially dumb our organization is.

 

It's as if each person who is hired by the Bills gets a lobotomy on their first day as employees. It's the most realistic explanation I can come up with.

The draft is not a 'crap shoot', these players are scouted, studied, interviewed, tested... for years in some cases. Just because they all don't pan out doesn't mean it's a 'crap shoot'.

[Simon]

And third, what's wrong with the article is that he doesn't put a premium on first round picks. It isn't enough to get a starter with a first round pick; that's relatively easy. What matters is getting a premium player.

 

The only problem with that is that you then introduce a subjective factor into what is an objective article.

Although maybe he could have used ProBowl nominations or selections as a semi-objective criterion?

[Shaw66]

 

But they don't have to give away draft picks to "stay true to their board." Those things are not mutually exclusive.

 

It's just ego. They think their board is superior than everyone else's. And their guy is coveted by everyone so they panic and trade up when they probably could have gotten those players if they had stayed put. And if the player is taken - so what? When it's time to pick, choose the next best player.

 

They get it in their heads that their guy is a sure-fire lock to be an instant contributor and a franchise player for years to come. Tunnel vision.

 

They keep repeating the same mistakes year after year after year. TJ Graham, Sammy Watkins, Reggie Ragland, etc. It's mind-boggling.

I know. What you say is true. If you have the 50th pick, there always will be a guy on your board who you think should have gone at 30. There's always an attractive guy. So I agree with the philosophy.

 

However, I think this where need comes in. Despite "our #2 receiver is already on the roster," I think they really wanted a receiver. They saw a guy who they really didn't think would last to their second round pick.

 

And when you put it together with the probability of getting quality starters with fifth-round picks, it doesn't strike me as stupid to move up like they did.

 

I think that unless you're moving up for a QB, trading up in FIRST round is a mistake. As much as I love Sammy and really wanted him to be a Bill, I think that move was a mistake in terms of draft strategy.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

The draft is not a 'crap shoot', these players are scouted, studied, interviewed, tested... for years in some cases. Just because they all don't pan out doesn't mean it's a 'crap shoot'.

...it is in the sense that you cannot measure what is in a guy's head and heart....invent the "Head 'n Heart" meter to find out what makes 'em tick and you'll be a billionaire.....look at the ones on the eve of the draft, looking at potentially millions, getting in trouble.....

[klos63]

...it is in the sense that you cannot measure what is in a guy's head and heart....invent the "Head 'n Heart" meter to find out what makes 'em tick and you'll be a billionaire.....look at the ones on the eve of the draft, looking at potentially millions, getting in trouble.....

you think the scouts/gm's don't know who the trouble makers are? It's just that for some it's a bigger factor than for others.

[Stank_Nasty]

i have no clue how anyone can have huge issues with this years draft... got what appear to be starters at all 3 spots of need. used picks in the mid to late rounds to move up and get guys they had obviously evaluated and the new coach regime liked....

 

this is my first couple days here on this board and from what i'm seeing the same people that b*tched and moaned on BBMB day in and day out are holding serve here...... so that's fun.

 

the premium some are placing on the mid to late round picks feels to me like its just another reason for them to complain some more. i bet some don't really even value them that much. but its makes for convenient ammo to use to find a way to be ticked off about something.

 

solid draft. no real reaches. filling holes. added a first rounder next year...... maybe find a steal in the later rounds who knows..... what the hell is all the fuss about. geez.

[Shaw66]

I agree staying true to the board is the best strategy but trading up isn't staying true to the board. I've always said a smart GM should recognize he really isn't that smart. Surefire picks flame out all the time, especially when it's just one GM who thinks it's a surefire pick. The more picks, the better chances of finding a contributing player. Like Wayne said we lost a pick and converted our 3rd into a 5th. That was the 3rd we got for trading down. So we traded down 17 spots for a 1st rounder next year and an O-lineman that no one is sure if he'll be a tackle or guard. I don't think that's very good value at all. And now Dawkins has to be better than just a 50% starter, he has to be pretty darn good. Ragland is a great example because his injury was unpredictable and made the Bills look foolish when they could have had Dak with the pick they traded away for him. I thought they had learned from that mistake.

 

My bad I meant to say 2nd round, specially the late 2nd round. If the players work out it won't matter, that's the truth of it. But without hindsight I'd rather we take more players instead of thinking we know how successful a player will be:

I don't think it's so clear cut. First, you can't use Dak as an example. There's always an outlier. It doesn't make sense to say the Bills were sitting pretty with four 5th round picks, because they got Kyle Williams in the fifth round.

 

That article from KC is telling. You simply have a much better chance getting a starter by picking in the second round. That's where pretty high-probability talent is. So there's real value in trading up 15 or 20 picks in that range of the draft.

 

When you trade a fifth round pick, you're giving up a guy with maybe a 20% chance of starting. Those odds aren't terribly worse than you have with your undrafted free agents. Plus, if really want another guy from the fifth round, you can pick him up when he gets added to someone else's practice squad.

 

Bottom line: not all picks are the same.

[Wayne Arnold]

The draft is not a 'crap shoot', these players are scouted, studied, interviewed, tested... for years in some cases. Just because they all don't pan out doesn't mean it's a 'crap shoot'.

 

Dak Prescott

 

Yep, crap shoot.

 

I stand by my statement.