2016 NFL Draft Grades: Shaq Lawson Is Graded at a D+

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

2 minutes ago, bigK14094 said:

Bean/Mcd judged him already...no 5th year option.  Shaq knows he is playing for his next contract.  Unless he has a breakout year, he will get a prove it contract somewhere for one year.  History of performance says that won't go well, and he won't make 10 yrs in the league imho.

 

I think he'll end up signing back here next year tbh.  

[eball]

Everyone knows this was a Rex pick.  As for the grade, I think "incomplete" would be the appropriate mark.  He "bought in" to McD's process last year and seems to be working very hard knowing this is his chance to earn a 2nd contract somewhere.  He has been a very solid run defender.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

1 minute ago, eball said:

Everyone knows this was a Rex pick.  As for the grade, I think "incomplete" would be the appropriate mark.  He "bought in" to McD's process last year and seems to be working very hard knowing this is his chance to earn a 2nd contract somewhere.  He has been a very solid run defender.

 

He's an average player that was paid a premium based on contract, and on the draft capital used to acquire him.  Therefore its a below average selection in my opinion.  

[Freddie's Dead]

Every draftnik thought we made a steal picking Shaq on draft day.  He was supposed to be top 10 and just kept dropping and dropping.  Now we know why.  Serviceable, but not spectacular, he would have been a good 3rd round pickup.  The shoulder issue should have been our first clue.  McGahee-esque.

[Shaw66]

35 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

Yeah, but your point assumes that had they not drafted Shaw, they would have drafted some other better player.  So, who is the other player we would have drafted that would have been a better contributor? 

I don't know, and I won't look to try to make the argument, because it misses the point.

 

EVERY GM has picks, trades and free agent decisions that don't work out.  They don't work out for a lot of different reasons.   So one player, like Shaq, who didn't work like we'd hoped doesn't matter.   It might have been a bad collection of players in the draft (although then the question is why didn't the Bills trade out of the pick?).  It might have been that Shaq hasn't performed.  It might have been coaching.   I don't know, and I don't think it matters all that much.

 

What DOES matter is your batting average over time.  Everyone strikes out sometime.   But in the first round, you're supposed to hit singles, doubles and homers pretty consistently.   Miss on one, okay.   But Maybin, Spiller, Dareus, Watkins, Manuel, Shaq is more than an occasional strikeout.   It's being a perpetual .220 hitter, and you aren't going to win a lot of games with consistent first-round performance like that.  

 

So evaluating the Shaq pick on his own merits doesn't mean a lot, and it doesn't really bother me if he was the best available at that pick or not.  What bothers me is that he was part of a string of first-round picks that didn't work out for the Bills, and that has to be put at the feet of the GM/coach/management.  

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

I don't know, and I won't look to try to make the argument, because it misses the point.

 

EVERY GM has picks, trades and free agent decisions that don't work out.  They don't work out for a lot of different reasons.   So one player, like Shaq, who didn't work like we'd hoped doesn't matter.   It might have been a bad collection of players in the draft (although then the question is why didn't the Bills trade out of the pick?).  It might have been that Shaq hasn't performed.  It might have been coaching.   I don't know, and I don't think it matters all that much.

 

What DOES matter is your batting average over time.  Everyone strikes out sometime.   But in the first round, you're supposed to hit singles, doubles and homers pretty consistently.   Miss on one, okay.   But Maybin, Spiller, Dareus, Watkins, Manuel, Shaq is more than an occasional strikeout.   It's being a perpetual .220 hitter, and you aren't going to win a lot of games with consistent first-round performance like that.  

 

So evaluating the Shaq pick on his own merits doesn't mean a lot, and it doesn't really bother me if he was the best available at that pick or not.  What bothers me is that he was part of a string of first-round picks that didn't work out for the Bills, and that has to be put at the feet of the GM/coach/management.  

 

That post ended up being more persuasive than I thought it would be. That said, it sort of answers a different question, which is how did the Whaley dynasty do overall? the question posed, however, is how did Whaley do in the 2016 first round?  In any event, to your point, I don't think Whaley did as bad as you are portraying, and I don't think he did any worse than any other GM.  The true short coming is he never got his QB and, to a lesser extent, he never got his coach.  But I agree with the general premises of your point, which is you have to have a good average with your picks to be a successful GM. I just think he had a higher average than ".220"

[DCofNC]

I think he was a guy that shouldn't have been taken in the first round, but he's not terrible.  For the position where you took him, probably a fair grade.

 

I wanted Jack that year, couldn't believe he fell and then we got Whaley'd

[chris heff]

12 hours ago, Rc2catch said:

I’m still a big fan of shaq. I don’t think he’s reached his potential or put it all together yet. 

Some players take a little longer and some situations are not good for players development. To use Hughes as an example the colts were a mess defensively and jerry was considered complete trash, comes here and something clicks and he’s arguably our best defensive player for years now. To me anyways, he seems to still be growing and getting better. The draft grade is fair though I can’t dispute he hasn’t lived up to his potential from that draft pick 

What was the name of the guy that made that trade for Hughes?

[Chandler#81]

3 hours ago, skibum said:

I feel like Shaq has always made a positive contribution on the field. Who cares when he was drafted three years ago. Why is this even remotely important? 

You’re kidding, right? 1st Rd picks give the team the 5th year option. DEs chosen in the 1st are Pass Rushers -at least absolutely expected to be. It’s important, Grasshopper.

[Shaw66]

25 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

That post ended up being more persuasive than I thought it would be. That said, it sort of answers a different question, which is how did the Whaley dynasty do overall? the question posed, however, is how did Whaley do in the 2016 first round?  In any event, to your point, I don't think Whaley did as bad as you are portraying, and I don't think he did any worse than any other GM.  The true short coming is he never got his QB and, to a lesser extent, he never got his coach.  But I agree with the general premises of your point, which is you have to have a good average with your picks to be a successful GM. I just think he had a higher average than ".220"

Agreed.  I want giving him a .220.  I was just giving a hypothetical example.  

 

I think the Bill had collective corporate dysfunction.  Whaley wasn't great, but he wasn't a disaster.  Collectively, however, the Bill's had a bad 10 year run.  Mr. Wilson wasn't a good owner to begin with.  Than he turned everything over to Brandon.  Then the Pegs came in and hired Rex.  

 

Finally, it looks like the Pegs got ot right. But it was a bad 10 years or more.

[Protocal69]

13 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said:

Another Whaley gem

No another Rex Ryan Gem

[chris heff]

36 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Agreed.  I want giving him a .220.  I was just giving a hypothetical example.  

 

I think the Bill had collective corporate dysfunction.  Whaley wasn't great, but he wasn't a disaster.  Collectively, however, the Bill's had a bad 10 year run.  Mr. Wilson wasn't a good owner to begin with.  Than he turned everything over to Brandon.  Then the Pegs came in and hired Rex.  

 

Finally, it looks like the Pegs got ot right. But it was a bad 10 years or more.

I was about to post the same thing. It was more like a bad twenty years.

[Say When...]

 

Candidate 1 - 16 games - 2 INT - 3 FumRec - 59 CombTac - 41 SoloTac - 9.5 Sacks

Candidate 2 - 16 games - 0 INT - 0 FumRec - 76 CombTac - 42 SoloTac - 9 Sacks

 

one is graded a D+ the other one certainly isn't; granted one is a single season and the other combined career but one of the candidates didn't post those numbers until their 4th year, for which, Shaq is just entering...

 

I'm not insinuating Shaq is ranking with one of the top DE's,  i am saying that opportunity, system, quality of the players around you all come into perspective; some are ready to crown candidate 1 as elite and others are calling Shaq a D+

[Bangarang]

He is exactly the kind of player I thought he would in the NFL. 

[blacklabel]

I normally like what Lance Zierlein writes but he kinda lost a few points with me based on these grades. He knocked Carson Wentz for missing games due to injury yet he ignored another player missing games due to suspension and focused only on the on-field performance. Kind of a double standard. 

[John from Riverside]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Right.  A guy who plays essentially full time in his scheme is a C. A D is a guy on the team who can't see the field.  

 

Pity is that Shaq could end up with a really nice 10 year career and he will always be remembered as ad D because he wasn't some sackmaster right out of the gate.  

My grade could change if his sack production picks up?

[TigerJ]

His first season was a waste, and his second was only marginally better despite being healthy.  Last season he was better, but not first round good.  He's entering his fourth season having to compete with another player listed as starter because of his ineffectiveness in his second season.  He's not a bust but his productivity over the first three years of his career is no where near justification for his lofty draft status.  That's why he got a poor grade.  Since the Bills declined to pick up his fifth year option, once this season is over he'll be choosing to accept what is likely to be a fairly modest offer from Buffalo or exploring free agency.  If he does the latter, the Bills get nothing for him.

 

I did note that there were a number of first round picks that were rated "F."  So, it could have been worse.

13 hours ago, unbillievable said:

 

I imagine Clelin Ferrell for the Raiders will have a Shaq type start to his career.

 

As far as I know, Ferrell is healthy, which gives him a leg up on Lawson.  He was a higher pick though, so expectations will be even higher.

[njbuff]

He is a solid run defender.

 

if he ever develops a pass rush, it would kill the Clowney talk.

[EasternOHBillsFan]

14 hours ago, Bobby Hooks said:

You made his point for him. If we NEEDED a great receiver so badly we should have taken that in the first. 

 

Or signed, or traded for one. You dont expect a 2nd round receiver to be THE guy. 

 

When both Hall of Famers the Bills drafted at WR were 4th round picks and two of the biggest busts in Bills drafting history were 1st round picks, it kind of runs counter to your argument. 

 

 

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

3 hours ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

This is so stupid.  The question should not be "How did Shaq do as a first rounder." The questions should be "Was Shaq the best player available at a position of need at 19?"  If he is not, the next question should be "how far off were they."  

 

As far as I can tell, there was 1 or 2 DEs that have done better than Shaq after he was drafted.  It wasn't nearly as bad a pick as "D+" or even "C."

 

He's missed time every season with injuries.  Has 10 career sacks in 3 years.  And is a backup in year 4.  

 

Also considering he was paid 10ish mil over 4 years he was overpaid considering his contributions.  I would have preferred Myles Jack or Jaylon Smith in the 1st - higher ceiling players with injuries.  Drafting for need got us a mediocre end, who was a poor scheme fit under that defense - and has a really low ceiling of a run stopping defensive end with mediocre upside as a pass rusher.  

 

We ended up trading up and drafting Ragland in the 2nd for a LB spot that Jack could've filled.  Staying in that pick we probably could have drafted 1st round talent in the 2nd with Jarran Reed.  We also used a 4th in that trade that could've been used for Prescott.  

 

So basically going need caused us to draft a pass rusher in a mediocre class.  Then trading up to get ragland after a run on LBs caused us to lose out on prescott - who i can honestly say we may have looked at in that spot with Taylor on the final year of his deal.