The “Draft Capital” is over rated

[billsfan89]

People were expecting the Bills to land a pick in the 7-15 range and the Chiefs pick to be 20-28. So while the Chiefs pick turned out to be a bit better than anticipated the Bills own pick was a lot lower than expected. The Rams second rounder was also expected to be a higher pick as was the Bills second rounder. After the Sammy and Darby trades people were thinking the Bills could have 4 picks in the top 45 of the draft including a pick in or close to the top 10. 

 

But their capital is a bit lower than expected in a good way (Playoff drought ended) but looking at what was expected vs. what the team got is certainly a lower than expected outcome. 

Edited February 10, 2018 by billsfan89

[ghostwriter]

We may not get the 'best' QB, but can we get a good enough QB to win lots of games with if we use all those extra picks to build a team around him? That's the question IMO.

[Formerly Allan in MD]

On 2/8/2018 at 8:24 PM, The Jokeman said:

A guy named Brady was a short throw specialist too but he improved over the years. Peyton and Brees don't have the biggest arms either. The Bills need a QB who can flip the field or sustain drives and produce bigger than Tyrod when we're down late. I'll agree Goff isn't as good as Wentz but to me he's miles ahead of Tyrod and why brought them us a QB that Rosen compares to. As to me Goff seems to understand the chess game that makes successful QBs. Something Tyrod doesn't.

Montana didn't have a big arm either.

[corta765]

On 2/9/2018 at 1:02 PM, OldTimer1960 said:

That is absolutely my point.  For example, the Bills' 3rd round pick is 96 overall (or close to that), that isn't as valuable as pick 67 which is also in the same round.

I didn't say that the picks are not valuable, only that there seems to be a prevailing perceptions that they are so flush with valuable picks that they can accomplish anything that they want in the draft.  My only point was that they don't have the buying power that it seems some people think. 

For comparison, Cleveland has crazy draft capital with picks 1, 4, 33, 35, 64.

 

 

 

Oh then I 100% agree with that. A lot of people I have heard clamor we should move to the Top 5 and I'm like the cost would potentially be for that both 1sts 2nds and probably next years 1st and another lower round pick or two. Otherwise with this years capital you might get up to where the 49ers are.

[Zerovoltz]

On 2/8/2018 at 7:01 PM, Alphadawg7 said:

 

HOF players are drafted in all rounds and even signed as UDFA.  This notion great prospects aren't available at 21 and 22 or in the 2nd round is nuts.  Teams COVET those picks.  So unless you think the brightest minds in all of football now and history are all wrong in the fact that great players are found regularly with those picks, then this post is misguided. 

 

Look at the general consensus on the 4 best QB's in the NFL today...none taken earlier than 24th pick and only 1 in the first round.  Rogers, Brees (2nd round), Wilson (3rd round), Brady (6th round).  So, sorry but your post is waaaaay off.

 

Ummm....sure HOF players come from all rounds or undrafted...but just like QB's....your percentages of hitting a hall of famer or franchise QB go way up the higher the draft selection.

http://www.profootballhof.com/heroes-of-the-game/hall-of-famers-by-draft-round/

 

[Alphadawg7]

2 hours ago, Zerovotlz said:

 

Ummm....sure HOF players come from all rounds or undrafted...but just like QB's....your percentages of hitting a hall of famer or franchise QB go way up the higher the draft selection.

http://www.profootballhof.com/heroes-of-the-game/hall-of-famers-by-draft-round/

 

 

Once again...this is not a debate about whether or not a top pick has a BETTER chance to land a HOF player than a #21 pick.  The entire point of the thread by the original poster is that having a lot of Draft Capital is "over rated", which is just not an accurate statement.  The draft is NOT about landing a HOF player...its about building a team.  And the Teams are built on the success of finding not just HOF potential players, but pro bowlers, good/quality starters, quality depth, good role players, and quality ST players.  And most importantly, affordable players that allow the team to sign and retain their own FA's to bigger contracts and even potentially sign newly available ones on the market too.

 

Under no circumstance is having a surplus of draft capital "over rated" unless you think every single GM, Owner, Coach, Scout, etc in NFL history is categorically wrong about draft assets.  There is a reason GM's covet draft assets beyond just the top 10 picks in the draft every single year.  

 

No one is ever going to say a #21 pick is worth as much as a top 10 pick.  But you will also never have a single GM or professional on any level within the NFL say that having draft assets is no big deal or a over rated asset.  

 

I mean even IF we trade up to land a coveted QB or player at another position (I wouldn't be surprised to see a modest trade up for Roquan to be honest or someone like that), that was made possible by having the draft assets in the first place to afford to be able to do so.  

 

So sticking to the narrative of the thread, which is the suggestion draft assets are over rated, I categorically disagree and side with the GM's of the NFL that realize the draft is not about one player or finding some future HOF guy, its about building a team and value in these drafts are found up and down it.  

[OldTimer1960]

16 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Once again...this is not a debate about whether or not a top pick has a BETTER chance to land a HOF player than a #21 pick.  The entire point of the thread by the original poster is that having a lot of Draft Capital is "over rated", which is just not an accurate statement.  The draft is NOT about landing a HOF player...its about building a team.  And the Teams are built on the success of finding not just HOF potential players, but pro bowlers, good/quality starters, quality depth, good role players, and quality ST players.  And most importantly, affordable players that allow the team to sign and retain their own FA's to bigger contracts and even potentially sign newly available ones on the market too.

 

Under no circumstance is having a surplus of draft capital "over rated" unless you think every single GM, Owner, Coach, Scout, etc in NFL history is categorically wrong about draft assets.  There is a reason GM's covet draft assets beyond just the top 10 picks in the draft every single year.  

 

No one is ever going to say a #21 pick is worth as much as a top 10 pick.  But you will also never have a single GM or professional on any level within the NFL say that having draft assets is no big deal or a over rated asset.  

 

I mean even IF we trade up to land a coveted QB or player at another position (I wouldn't be surprised to see a modest trade up for Roquan to be honest or someone like that), that was made possible by having the draft assets in the first place to afford to be able to do so.  

 

So sticking to the narrative of the thread, which is the suggestion draft assets are over rated, I categorically disagree and side with the GM's of the NFL that realize the draft is not about one player or finding some future HOF guy, its about building a team and value in these drafts are found up and down it.  

 

No, this is maybe the 3rd time in this thread that I have tried to tell you that is not my point at all. 

 

Once again, I am saying that having extra draft picks is good, but the extra draft picks the Bills have are not as valuable in terms of trade up value as many seem to think.  For clarity, I reiterate - I am happy that the Bills have extra picks, those extra picks give them some extra buying power that other teams don't have. 

 

The only thing that I disagree with you in your post that I quoted is that you assigned to me a position that is not my position at all.

 

Scenario - either Denver or Jets want the 3rd QB remaining in the draft, as do the Bills.  Denver's 1st and 2nd round picks this year are more valuable in a trade up than the Bills' two first round picks.  If Denver was willing to trade their 1st, 2nd and 3rd round pick, the Bills would have to trade both 1sts and both 2nds to have a competitive offer.

 

I fully grasp your point, extra draft picks are valuable.  For the record, I have always understood that.

Edited February 12, 2018 by OldTimer1960

[Alphadawg7]

16 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said:

 

No, this is maybe the 3rd time in this thread that I have tried to tell you that is not my point at all. 

 

Once again, I am saying that having extra draft picks is good, but the extra draft picks the Bills have are not as valuable in terms of trade up value as many seem to think.  For clarity, I reiterate - I am happy that the Bills have extra picks, those extra picks give them some extra buying power that other teams don't have. 

 

The only thing that I disagree with you in your post that I quoted is that you assigned to me a position that is not my position at all.

 

Scenario - either Denver or Jets want the 3rd QB remaining in the draft, as do the Bills.  Denver's 1st and 2nd round picks this year are more valuable in a trade up than the Bills' two first round picks.  If Denver was willing to trade their 1st, 2nd and 3rd round pick, the Bills would have to trade both 1sts and both 2nds to have a competitive offer.

 

I fully grasp your point, extra draft picks are valuable.  For the record, I have always understood that.

 

Fair enough, then maybe I am misunderstanding the intention of the thread more so on the title of the thread than your comments because the title of the thread is what comes to mind more now than remembering any further specific comments, given this thread is an older one.  To that, I apologize for mischaracterizing your comments.  

 

I do disagree still to a degree on the value you are assigning to our picks because its missing a part of the factor for THIS specific draft.  I capitalize "this" to emphasize, not yell.  This is actually a pretty deep draft and an overall talented draft again this year.  Its one of the deepest in QB prospects in a long time, its very deep at RB, and has a lot of depth and talent in key defensive positions too, such as DT for instance.  Not to mention, its not the best WR draft in recent years, but overall its a pretty good WR draft overall still.

 

So I think the picks you are referencing have more value that I think you are giving them credit for based on those reasons.  The one thing pertaining to the Bills that I think is a bit of a negative for this draft is that OL is not one of the areas that are particularly deep and its an area that is one of our weakest on the team, especially in pass protection and after the loss of Wood compounding it more.  Factor in there is no certainty that Glenn or even Incognito will remain with the team it could shift more.  I will add that I am not advocating to get rid of either of them, just speculation that Glenn could be available for trade and speculation that they may want to rework Incognito's deal.  Although losing Wood might reduce the odds of either of those guys going anywhere.  

 

Personally, I don't expect the Bills to make a big trade up with the holes we have and the depth of QB combined between FA and the draft giving a lot of options to the Bills.  But I wouldnt be surprised to see them make a modest trade up to land a slipping QB or a coveted LB/DT to help shore the D up.  I think we are in a good position to either make moves if we want or stand pat and add more prospects to start filling the holes on the first playoff roster we have had in 17 years.

 

All good man!

Edited February 12, 2018 by Alphadawg7

[RochesterRob]

28 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Once again...this is not a debate about whether or not a top pick has a BETTER chance to land a HOF player than a #21 pick.  The entire point of the thread by the original poster is that having a lot of Draft Capital is "over rated", which is just not an accurate statement.  The draft is NOT about landing a HOF player...its about building a team.  And the Teams are built on the success of finding not just HOF potential players, but pro bowlers, good/quality starters, quality depth, good role players, and quality ST players.  And most importantly, affordable players that allow the team to sign and retain their own FA's to bigger contracts and even potentially sign newly available ones on the market too.

 

Under no circumstance is having a surplus of draft capital "over rated" unless you think every single GM, Owner, Coach, Scout, etc in NFL history is categorically wrong about draft assets.  There is a reason GM's covet draft assets beyond just the top 10 picks in the draft every single year.  

 

No one is ever going to say a #21 pick is worth as much as a top 10 pick.  But you will also never have a single GM or professional on any level within the NFL say that having draft assets is no big deal or a over rated asset.  

 

I mean even IF we trade up to land a coveted QB or player at another position (I wouldn't be surprised to see a modest trade up for Roquan to be honest or someone like that), that was made possible by having the draft assets in the first place to afford to be able to do so.  

 

So sticking to the narrative of the thread, which is the suggestion draft assets are over rated, I categorically disagree and side with the GM's of the NFL that realize the draft is not about one player or finding some future HOF guy, its about building a team and value in these drafts are found up and down it.  

  From pick 20 downward I would be happy with guys who would be top 10 at their position and 10 year careers to boot.  Once addressed the position is set for a number of drafts and will not command a ridiculous contract when the time comes.  Of course there are exceptions but for 15 plus of your starting 22 that would be just fine.

[OldTimer1960]

4 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Fair enough, then maybe I am misunderstanding the intention of the thread more so on the title of the thread than your comments because the title of the thread is what comes to mind more now than remembering any further specific comments, given this thread is an older one.  To that, I apologize for mischaracterizing your comments.  

 

I do disagree still to a degree on the value you are assigning to our picks because its missing a part of the factor for THIS specific draft.  I capitalize "this" to emphasize, not yell.  This is actually a pretty deep draft and an overall talented draft again this year.  Its one of the deepest in QB prospects in a long time, its very deep at RB, and has a lot of depth and talent in key defensive positions too, such as DT for instance.  Not to mention, its not the best WR draft in recent years, but overall its a pretty good WR draft overall still.

 

So I think the picks you are referencing have more value that I think you are giving them credit for based on those reasons.  The one thing pertaining to the Bills that I think is a bit of a negative for this draft is that OL is not one of the areas that are particularly deep and its an area that is one of our weakest on the team, especially in pass protection and after the loss of Wood compounding it more.  Factor in there is no certainty that Glenn or even Incognito will remain with the team it could shift more.  I will add that I am not advocating to get rid of either of them, just speculation that Glenn could be available for trade and speculation that they may want to rework Incognito's deal.  Although losing Wood might reduce the odds of either of those guys going anywhere.  

 

Personally, I don't expect the Bills to make a big trade up with the holes we have and the depth of QB combined between FA and the draft giving a lot of options to the Bills.  But I wouldnt be surprised to see them make a modest trade up to land a slipping QB or a coveted LB/DT to help shore the D up.  I think we are in a good position to either make moves if we want or stand pat and add more prospects to start filling the holes on the first playoff roster we have had in 17 years.

 

All good man!

I think we are in general agreement.  I think the Bills' buying power to move way to the top of the draft would take a great deal.  I agree that if they keep the picks that they have, they have a good shot to address some holes with both picks in round 1 and 2.  However, if they do make a big move to the top of the draft, I think that would exhaust most of their high-value draft picks.

 

I also don't think that they'll move up all the way to the top.  I could see them making a modest trade up to try to nab a QB who is probably not named Rosen, Darnold or Mayfield (because they won't trade up far enough to get them). 

 

I would be totally on-board with addressing the Defense with multiple early picks as they had some success last year largely on the strength of cashing a number of turnovers - that is great, but not predictable.

 

I am excited to see what they decide to do.  They DO have some extra spending money (picks).  I hope that they can get a good QB prospect without sacrificing too many of those picks to allow them to also address other needs. 

[buffalobloodfloridahome]

We are a victim of our own success this year. We overachieved and now we are way down the draft boards in comparison to where we were projected at the beginning of the year. Statistically we were mediocre at best and low on the offensive side. It was an anomaly that we made the playoffs and we need to load up on talent to continue to grow. We will need to trade up if we want a QB this is our oppurtunity