Teams do draft elsewhere than QB....

[Hapless Bills Fan]

This is my entry for "TBD post themes I'm a bit aged on seeing": writing from the viewpoint that any team who doesn't intend to draft a QB is a partner to trade back.

 

We need a QB, so we have the natural tendency to view the draft from a QB-centric lens, and to believe that everyone who doesn't need a QB might take one high "just because" or else will be happy to trade out of their top-5 pick.  But let's take a deep breath and insert some facts into the discussion, 'kay?

 

Since 2011 (when the CBA was implemented and signing a top-5 rookie QB would no longer cost a King's Ransom and kill the cap if they bust), teams have become more willing to take a shot at a QB high.  But....

 

....19 out of the 28 top 5 picks since 2011 have been used on positions OTHER than QB. 

 

Here's how it breaks down:

8 picks on defense:

  DE 5

  DT 1

  LB 2

20 picks on offense:

  QB 9

  OT 5

  WR 3

  RB 3

 

So you see, despite the common conviction that if a team doesn't want to draft a QB with their top 5 pick they will automagically become a willing partner to swap out of that pick resulting in 6 QB drafted with the top 4 picks this year, it actually doesn't happen that way IRL.  2/3 of the time teams hold onto their picks and draft someone they believe will be a franchise-changer for them at another position, most commonly DE or OT but also RB - and it has to be pointed out that in the last 2 years, Fournette and Elliot have been franchise-changers for their team. 

 

I was going to tuck this into another thread, but I think it's worth seeing on its own.  Bottom line: just because a team does not wish to draft a QB in the top 5, does NOT mean they will want to trade it.  They might, or depending upon their viewpoint of the other top players in the draft and their team's needs, they may choose to stand pat and pull the trigger at another position.

[Acantha]

 

Of course that's true, that's why people say "potential" trade partner.  The main reason people say this is that because most of the time, the QB talent plunges outside of the top 5 - 10, but most other positions tend to drop a little more steadily.  Yes, there's still talent at the top of the draft that clearly outshines the others at the position (Chubb, Barkley, etc...), but even at those positions, the draw to trade down, get a boat load of additional picks, and still get a starter (or in the case with the Bills this year, two) later in the first round is harder to pass up.

 

QB is unarguably the most important position on the team.  If a team is need of a QB and doesn't take a possible franchise guy with their high pick, they're blowing it.  The other positions just don't hold the same weight.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

46 minutes ago, Acantha said:

 

Of course that's true, that's why people say "potential" trade partner.  The main reason people say this is that because most of the time, the QB talent plunges outside of the top 5 - 10, but most other positions tend to drop a little more steadily.  Yes, there's still talent at the top of the draft that clearly outshines the others at the position (Chubb, Barkley, etc...), but even at those positions, the draw to trade down, get a boat load of additional picks, and still get a starter (or in the case with the Bills this year, two) later in the first round is harder to pass up.

 

QB is unarguably the most important position on the team.  If a team is need of a QB and doesn't take a possible franchise guy with their high pick, they're blowing it.  The other positions just don't hold the same weight.

 

The point is, historically, most teams do not in fact succumb to that "draw" that is "harder to pass up".  But posts here abound positing that they will automagically succumb.

The second point is, professionals who do this for a living clearly don't agree with you because they pass on QB all the time, presumably because they aren't enamored of the choices.

 

The ancillary question is: how do you define "in need of a QB"?  Did Jax "blow" it by taking Fournette instead of Mahomes or Watson when they had Bortles on the roster?  They had a QB...you may question whether he's really "all that" but he's still there.  Did Dallas blow it by taking Zeke Elliot when they had a much-injured Romo as QB and could have drafted, oh, say, Paxton Lynch?  They seem to think they found a QB later on in that same draft.

[mabden]

2 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

....19 out of the 28 top 5 picks since 2011 have been used on positions OTHER than QB. 

 

 

 

 

Not saying your wrong, but I would tend to believe that teams have not been drafting QB's that high in the draft is because the talent level of the QB's (other than 1 or 2 per year) does not warrant it.  This year seems to be the exception with at least 6 QB's worthy of 1st round selection and the stars lining up with 4 QB needy teams picking in the top 5 (not counting Cleveland's 2 picks.)  

 

There are variables with NYG staying with Eli and TBD free agency that can/will effect everyone's position and willingness to keep/trade their picks.

[BuffaloBillyG]

3 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

This is my entry for "TBD post themes I'm a bit aged on seeing": writing from the viewpoint that any team who doesn't intend to draft a QB is a partner to trade back.

 

We need a QB, so we have the natural tendency to view the draft from a QB-centric lens, and to believe that everyone who doesn't need a QB might take one high "just because" or else will be happy to trade out of their top-5 pick.  But let's take a deep breath and insert some facts into the discussion, 'kay?

 

Since 2011 (when the CBA was implemented and signing a top-5 rookie QB would no longer cost a King's Ransom and kill the cap if they bust), teams have become more willing to take a shot at a QB high.  But....

 

....19 out of the 28 top 5 picks since 2011 have been used on positions OTHER than QB. 

 

Here's how it breaks down:

8 picks on defense:

  DE 5

  DT 1

  LB 2

20 picks on offense:

  QB 9

  OT 5

  WR 3

  RB 3

 

So you see, despite the common conviction that if a team doesn't want to draft a QB with their top 5 pick they will automagically become a willing partner to swap out of that pick resulting in 6 QB drafted with the top 4 picks this year, it actually doesn't happen that way IRL.  2/3 of the time teams hold onto their picks and draft someone they believe will be a franchise-changer for them at another position, most commonly DE or OT but also RB - and it has to be pointed out that in the last 2 years, Fournette and Elliot have been franchise-changers for their team. 

 

I was going to tuck this into another thread, but I think it's worth seeing on its own.  Bottom line: just because a team does not wish to draft a QB in the top 5, does NOT mean they will want to trade it.  They might, or depending upon their viewpoint of the other top players in the draft and their team's needs, they may choose to stand pat and pull the trigger at another position.

It's almost like other teams have free will and put their teams needs above what would help the Bills out. Who knew.

 

It's the funniest thing to read on here. "Just move to 2, Just sign XXX player, Just trade for XXX.". There are 31 other teams and none are standing still. Maybe Gettleman doesn't feel the picks we would give would outweigh the impact of Barkley. Maybe the huge contract we would offer Paul Richardson wouldn't matter because he wants to play near family, or for his boyhood favorite team, or for a contender more. As always it takes 2 sides to make a deal.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

30 minutes ago, mabden said:

Not saying your wrong, but I would tend to believe that teams have not been drafting QB's that high in the draft is because the talent level of the QB's (other than 1 or 2 per year) does not warrant it.  This year seems to be the exception with at least 6 QB's worthy of 1st round selection and the stars lining up with 4 QB needy teams picking in the top 5 (not counting Cleveland's 2 picks.)  

 

There are variables with NYG staying with Eli and TBD free agency that can/will effect everyone's position and willingness to keep/trade their picks.

 

I am uncertain about the real difference in talent level of the players. 

 

For example, 2011 was touted as a great year for a QB.  Top prospects pre draft were listed as:

1) Blaine Gabbert

2) Cam Newton

3) Ryan Mallet

4) Jake Locker

5) Andy Dalton

6) Colin Kaapernick

7) Christian Ponder

 

Teams saw it a bit different Newton, Locker, Gabbert and Ponder were drafted in the 1st round, first 12 picks.  Dalton and Kaepernick in the 2nd, Mallet in the 3rd.

Overall, the talent level might now be seen as Newton-Dalton-Kaepernick-Locker (or vice versa) with Mallet, Gabbert, and Ponder washing out.

 

I think there is more talk about QB because there are more teams needing QB this year, but 2011 serves as a cautionary tale for teams drafting a QB high because of their need rather than the QB talent.

 

Rosen is a polished QB with injury history as his watchout assuming his want-to persuades people.  Mayfield looks really good if his want-to matches his mouth.  Darnold maybe-the throwing motion bothers me.  Other than that, I think it's the usual bunch of over-hyping guys with holes in their game or serious development needs who may or may not prove out (1 in 3 or 4 of them will, and a dark horse from later rounds may exceed them).

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, KelsaysLunchbox said:

It's almost like other teams have free will and put their teams needs above what would help the Bills out. Who knew.

 

It's the funniest thing to read on here. "Just move to 2, Just sign XXX player, Just trade for XXX.". There are 31 other teams and none are standing still. Maybe Gettleman doesn't feel the picks we would give would outweigh the impact of Barkley. Maybe the huge contract we would offer Paul Richardson wouldn't matter because he wants to play near family, or for his boyhood favorite team, or for a contender more. As always it takes 2 sides to make a deal.

 

LOL exactly!

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

So....the answer is what, exactly? Not to try? To just accept remaining at 21/22?

 

 

[Acantha]

4 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

The point is, historically, most teams do not in fact succumb to that "draw" that is "harder to pass up".  But posts here abound positing that they will automagically succumb.

The second point is, professionals who do this for a living clearly don't agree with you because they pass on QB all the time, presumably because they aren't enamored of the choices.

 

The ancillary question is: how do you define "in need of a QB"?  Did Jax "blow" it by taking Fournette instead of Mahomes or Watson when they had Bortles on the roster?  They had a QB...you may question whether he's really "all that" but he's still there.  Did Dallas blow it by taking Zeke Elliot when they had a much-injured Romo as QB and could have drafted, oh, say, Paxton Lynch?  They seem to think they found a QB later on in that same draft.

I think you're hitting the wrong point here.  My definition of "need" and "talent" is meaningless.  The only thing that matters is what they think.  If they believe they have a need at QB AND there is a prospect that they believe can be a franchise guy, and they pass on that guy just to get more picks later in the draft, that's blowing it.

 

Meanwhile, having a need at WR, and passing on your top rated WR to get a bunch of picks and still get your 3rd or 4th rated WR is much more acceptable.  Trading down is more logical for every position other than QB. 

[BillsFanForever19]

I really want to see a trade up just to see Hapless Bills Fan's head explode. This is at least the third post i've seen you make voting down on the idea.

Edited March 8, 2018 by BillsFanForever19

[Acantha]

2 hours ago, KelsaysLunchbox said:

It's almost like other teams have free will and put their teams needs above what would help the Bills out. Who knew.

 

It's the funniest thing to read on here. "Just move to 2, Just sign XXX player, Just trade for XXX.". There are 31 other teams and none are standing still. Maybe Gettleman doesn't feel the picks we would give would outweigh the impact of Barkley. Maybe the huge contract we would offer Paul Richardson wouldn't matter because he wants to play near family, or for his boyhood favorite team, or for a contender more. As always it takes 2 sides to make a deal.

I won't speak for everyone here who says that stuff, but for me, there's always a price if you're willing to pay it.  Gettleman may think two first aren't enough to compensate for losing Barkley, but what about 3? What about 4?

 

I'm not saying the Bills should give up 4 first round draft picks, but I am saying that I'm sick and tired of treating draft picks like they are the be all end all of building a team.  We've had plenty of draft picks for the last 20 years; where has it gotten us?  Just give up what it takes to get your guy (if there is that guy in this draft).

[BuffaloBillyG]

12 minutes ago, Acantha said:

I won't speak for everyone here who says that stuff, but for me, there's always a price if you're willing to pay it.  Gettleman may think two first aren't enough to compensate for losing Barkley, but what about 3? What about 4?

 

I'm not saying the Bills should give up 4 first round draft picks, but I am saying that I'm sick and tired of treating draft picks like they are the be all end all of building a team.  We've had plenty of draft picks for the last 20 years; where has it gotten us?  Just give up what it takes to get your guy (if there is that guy in this draft).

And what happens if we offer 4, or 5 or 317 firsts and Gettleman says, yea, no thanks. There is a price for everything but at some point the price becomes counter productive. Lets say we want Rosen at 2. Cool. Gettleman says I want both 1s this year. Both 2s this year. Next 2 years 1s, Cordy Glenn, and next year's 2. You walk away. If that means you don't get Rosen, so be it. You may be able to let the draft play out and get a Mayfield at 10 much cheaper. You pass on the absurd and take chances where you can. 

[Acantha]

Just now, KelsaysLunchbox said:

And what happens if we offer 4, or 5 or 317 firsts and Gettleman says, yea, no thanks. There is a price for everything but at some point the price becomes counter productive. Lets say we want Rosen at 2. Cool. Gettleman says I want both 1s this year. Both 2s this year. Next 2 years 1s, Cordy Glenn, and next year's 2. You walk away. If that means you don't get Rosen, so be it. You may be able to let the draft play out and get a Mayfield at 10 much cheaper. You pass on the absurd and take chances where you can. 

Yes, you do.  My point is that so many think draft picks are worth more than they are.

 

And let's not get over the top here with hyperbole.  Nobody is saying it's as easy as picking up the phone and it's a done deal.  It's just tiresome to have to explain the details of what you're saying in EVERY post in case someone like you comes along and can't assume the obvious.  What people are saying is that they should do everything in their power to make it happen.  If it CAN'T happen, so be it.  But it shouldn't be because the Bills are unwilling to part with some precious picks that never get us anywhere.

[BuffaloBillyG]

2 minutes ago, Acantha said:

Yes, you do.  My point is that so many think draft picks are worth more than they are.

 

And let's not get over the top here with hyperbole.  Nobody is saying it's as easy as picking up the phone and it's a done deal.  It's just tiresome to have to explain the details of what you're saying in EVERY post in case someone like you comes along and can't assume the obvious.  What people are saying is that they should do everything in their power to make it happen.  If it CAN'T happen, so be it.  But it shouldn't be because the Bills are unwilling to part with some precious picks that never get us anywhere.

Actually that was the whole point of BOTH my posts. Drop the "someone like you" crud especially if you're missing the whole point.

 

Teams will do what they want. If the Giants over price, yea hang up the phone and call the Colts. Indy wants too much? Cool. Browns are next. Find the best deal because those picks contrary to what you say are valuable. It's how you build a team. It's where you find players to fill out your roster on a rookie deal. Helps your cap. Helps you in many ways. But I suppose "people like you can't assume the obvious"

[Acantha]

1 minute ago, KelsaysLunchbox said:

Actually that was the whole point of BOTH my posts. Drop the "someone like you" crud especially if you're missing the whole point.

 

Teams will do what they want. If the Giants over price, yea hang up the phone and call the Colts. Indy wants too much? Cool. Browns are next. Find the best deal because those picks contrary to what you say are valuable. It's how you build a team. It's where you find players to fill out your roster on a rookie deal. Helps your cap. Helps you in many ways. But I suppose "people like you can't assume the obvious"

Oh brother, sorry didn't know you were so easily offended.

 

My point is that people aren't saying what you think they are.  Everyone knows it takes two to tango. It just doesn't need to be spelled out in every post.  When someone says "trade up with Giants", they're saying do everything you can to trade up with the Giants.  Why does that have to be spelled out in order for you to not ridicule those posters for saying such things?

 

I'm also disagreeing with you on the value of picks in relation to the value of QB's.  Get the QB, then worry about the picks and filling out the roster.  Use trades.  Use free agency.  Do whatever you have to do get the !@#$ing QB.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

44 minutes ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

I really want to see a trade up just to see Hapless Bills Fan's head explode. This is at least the third post i've seen you make voting down on the idea.

 

I think your reading comprehension is sadly lacking if that's how you interpret what I've written.

My head is in no danger of exploding whatsoever.

7 minutes ago, Acantha said:

My point is that people aren't saying what you think they are.  Everyone knows it takes two to tango. It just doesn't need to be spelled out in every post.  When someone says "trade up with Giants", they're saying do everything you can to trade up with the Giants.  Why does that have to be spelled out in order for you to not ridicule those posters for saying such things?

 

Now that's a fair question.  I read people saying something like "the Giants aren't going to draft a QB so they will trade down".

To me, that implies that folks think any team that isn't looking for a QB is willing to deal their pick.  And I think that genuinely is what some people here think - maybe not you (though you seem a bit sensitive on the point) but some.

 

If it were something like "the Giants aren't going to draft a QB, so they might be open to trade" it's like 2 more words but far more accurate, acknowledging that staying put and drafting the top non-QB on the board is in fact something teams do more often than not in the first 5 picks.

Edited March 8, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[Acantha]

6 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

Now that's a fair question.  I read people saying something like "the Giants aren't going to draft a QB so they will trade down".

To me, that implies that folks think any team that isn't looking for a QB is willing to deal their pick.  And I think that genuinely is what some people here think - maybe not you (though you seem a bit sensitive on the point) but some.

 

If it were something like "the Giants aren't going to draft a QB, so they might be open to trade" it's like 2 more words but far more accurate, acknowledging that staying put and drafting the top non-QB on the board is in fact something teams do more often than not in the first 5 picks.

But isn't that insanely obvious?  You're trying to find an argument that isn't there, just to make your point.

 

I think they do it more often than not because there's generally 0 - 2 top flight QB's in every draft.  And those QB's have to be better than what's currently on the roster for those top 5 teams. 

[BuffaloBillyG]

9 minutes ago, Acantha said:

Oh brother, sorry didn't know you were so easily offended.

 

My point is that people aren't saying what you think they are.  Everyone knows it takes two to tango. It just doesn't need to be spelled out in every post.  When someone says "trade up with Giants", they're saying do everything you can to trade up with the Giants.  Why does that have to be spelled out in order for you to not ridicule those posters for saying such things?

 

I'm also disagreeing with you on the value of picks in relation to the value of QB's.  Get the QB, then worry about the picks and filling out the roster.  Use trades.  Use free agency.  Do whatever you have to do get the !@#$ing QB.

Not offended at all. 

 

And yes, simply put some people on here DO believe that if the Bills don't make a trade it's due to lack of effort. People that play Madden too much and DO believe trades are a simple click. I've had conversations with them. They are indeed out there.

 

And yes, we do disagree on value of picks. You're entitled to your opinion. I look beyond just the draft as well. When a 4th rounder and change can get you an Alec Ogletree or Robert Quinn these days...my opinion is there is value there. And yes, get the QB. We are 100% in agreement there. If you have to ovepay a tad...so be it. I just don't want to see the Bills get taken on a Herschel Walker trade to do it. I'd love to see the Bills be a team like Philly that has a franchise QB, but can still win without it. The Packers and Colts show you do need more than just that elite QB.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

4 hours ago, Acantha said:

But isn't that insanely obvious?  You're trying to find an argument that isn't there, just to make your point.

 

I don't think so.  But your mileage is welcome to vary.

 

I think there are a lot of people on here who believe that 1) any team not drafting a QB is a willing trade partner 2) if the Bills don't trade up to, say, the top 4 or 5 picks, it's because we aren't trying to do so.  If that's not your perception, good for you, but doesn't mean I'm universally seeing something that's not there.

Edited March 9, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[NoSaint]

9 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

The point is, historically, most teams do not in fact succumb to that "draw" that is "harder to pass up".  But posts here abound positing that they will automagically succumb.

The second point is, professionals who do this for a living clearly don't agree with you because they pass on QB all the time, presumably because they aren't enamored of the choices.

 

The ancillary question is: how do you define "in need of a QB"?  Did Jax "blow" it by taking Fournette instead of Mahomes or Watson when they had Bortles on the roster?  They had a QB...you may question whether he's really "all that" but he's still there.  Did Dallas blow it by taking Zeke Elliot when they had a much-injured Romo as QB and could have drafted, oh, say, Paxton Lynch?  They seem to think they found a QB later on in that same draft.

 

No one thinks it’s automatic. It’s just a hell of a lot easier to talk a team with a qb into trading back when there is a qb on the board compared to getting a qb needy team to pass.