Why do we need a WR in the draft?

[FireChans]

4 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

It really depends on who's there come pick 54. If it's a Hamler, Reagor, Aiyuk, or Higgins type you pull the trigger for value. They can contribute year 1 and potentially save us money or let us dangle a vet for value next year.

More importantly, they will allow us to not have to reach for a WR in the first two rounds next season and possibly even 2022 if we DO need one. 

 

That’s why BPA is the best strategy and Beane deserves a ton of credit for building a well-developed roster where we have that luxury.

 

[FireChans]

15 minutes ago, dneveu said:

 

 

I don't disagree.  But you're using your first and 2nd round picks on WRs.  They brought McKenzie back after the Diggs trade, so I think they're planning on a later round developmental guy imo.  

I wouldn’t complain one bit if one of Duke, McK or Foster get cut in favor of a 2nd round WR who outperfoms them. 

 

Sure we will have used a first and second on WR. So what? If we draft an OT, then we used a second two years in a row at that position. If we draft an RB, then we have spent a 2nd and 3rd in that timespan. An LB? 1st and 2nd. 

 

The draft is about building the best roster over the long game. The strategy is not, “we drafted a LB high last year so we can’t do that this year.” That’s need based drafting. That’s how you take inferior players and don’t accumulate winning talent.

[Capco]

1 hour ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

Well, I would say that a high draft pick who is off the roster and almost out of the league in 2 years would be a bust.  I had the opinion that WR was the most risky position- I've seen that said a lot and didn't challenge it.  I was wrong.  There are a couple of articles that look by position and round to see who has made starter for half their career, and on the basis of those, I'll take back my view that WR is the most risky.  Looking at https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round 

 

"I did not distinguish superstars from regular starters. The determination of a starter comes from whether the player started at least half of their career."

 

There is a very high bust rate for RBs. The first round gives you a 58% chance of finding a starter followed by 25% in the second, 16% in the third, 11% in the fourth, 9% in the fifth, 6% in the sixth and 0% in the 7th.

 

• The first round success rate is 58% and the second round is almost as good at 49%.
• The third round has the second highest number of receivers drafted with 52 but only a 25% success rate.

A couple of other articles give about the same results.  Not=starters are QB, RB, WR DL and the other.s

 

 

This analysis somewhat neglects the fact that the modern NFL sees more running back by committee than true workhorse type backs from years past.  You can only have 1 starter but you might have 2-3 regular contributors that have similar levels of production.  

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

20 minutes ago, FireChans said:

I wouldn’t complain one bit if one of Duke, McK or Foster get cut in favor of a 2nd round WR who outperfoms them. 

 

Sure we will have used a first and second on WR. So what? If we draft an OT, then we used a second two years in a row at that position. If we draft an RB, then we have spent a 2nd and 3rd in that timespan. An LB? 1st and 2nd. 

 

The draft is about building the best roster over the long game. The strategy is not, “we drafted a LB high last year so we can’t do that this year.” That’s need based drafting. That’s how you take inferior players and don’t accumulate winning talent.

 

Foster would likely be the cut.  Now do you activate this guy over McK?  Considering McK is a gadget player and has made plays for the team, i don't think so - not for a 4th WR. 

 

I'm not against it, but what's to say theyre the BPA?

10 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

This analysis somewhat neglects the fact that the modern NFL sees more running back by committee than true workhorse type backs from years past.  You can only have 1 starter but you might have 2-3 regular contributors that have similar levels of production.  

 

Right - like whos the starting running back for the 49ers right now?

[Mr. WEO]

3 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Yeah but you don't think upgrading at WR will help at all.

 

 

I've praised the Diggs move in several threads.

 

Nice try

3 hours ago, dneveu said:

 

Mckenzie played about 40% of snaps, and Duke/Foster about 20 each with roberts at about 10.  Now Diggs basically takes all of those snaps.  Even a 2nd round rookie is looking at like 10-15% of game snaps... IF he can push Mckenzie out of gadget snaps.  I assume Foster will be the cut - he was alright on special teams... but Between taiwan, neal, wallace/Gaines/rookie, and other depth safeties... its not like he's matthew slater. 

 

Correct - its also silly to assume a rookie pushes out veterans on a depth chart.  It's also a bit of a luxury to draft a player who if all goes to plan, might get like 100 snaps.

 

Not necessarily.  Happens in the league every year.

Edited April 7, 2020 by Mr. WEO

[FireChans]

31 minutes ago, dneveu said:

 

Foster would likely be the cut.  Now do you activate this guy over McK?  Considering McK is a gadget player and has made plays for the team, i don't think so - not for a 4th WR. 

 

I'm not against it, but what's to say theyre the BPA?

 

Right - like whos the starting running back for the 49ers right now?

Seeing as everyone has called this the deepest WR draft possibly ever, I’d say it’s also more likely BPA is WR than any other draft possibly ever. Now there’s 21 other positions so it’s obviously no guarantee. If BPA is a DB, go get him, I don’t really care.

[Augie]

2 hours ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

Well, I would say that a high draft pick who is off the roster and almost out of the league in 2 years would be a bust.  I had the opinion that WR was the most risky position- I've seen that said a lot and didn't challenge it.  I was wrong.  There are a couple of articles that look by position and round to see who has made starter for half their career, and on the basis of those, I'll take back my view that WR is the most risky.  Looking at https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round 

 

"I did not distinguish superstars from regular starters. The determination of a starter comes from whether the player started at least half of their career."

 

There is a very high bust rate for RBs. The first round gives you a 58% chance of finding a starter followed by 25% in the second, 16% in the third, 11% in the fourth, 9% in the fifth, 6% in the sixth and 0% in the 7th.

 

• The first round success rate is 58% and the second round is almost as good at 49%.
• The third round has the second highest number of receivers drafted with 52 but only a 25% success rate.

A couple of other articles give about the same results.  Not=starters are QB, RB, WR DL and the other.s

 

 

All of this makes the Diggs trade look even better!   

 

We know the draft is a crapshoot, at some positions more than others. Still, you need to fill those positions so you need to take your shots in the draft at some point. You need cheap young players to fill out a roster, especially if you have a big QB contract on the books. 

[Doc]

4 hours ago, FireChans said:

It has nothing to do with “being in trouble.” It has everything to do with “we shouldn’t draft BPA because everyone will definitely be healthy all year and there’s no reason to have a quality player in the wings.” 

 

The crux of the whole discussion is that you will have early 2nd round grade players in the middle 2nd and third rounds at WR in this draft. That’s a value you simply cannot pass with the 22nd pick in the second round. If there’s a LB or RB that Beane ranks higher at our pick, then that’s the guy I want. But if the BPA is a WR, you don’t reach for a DE or OT or whatever.

 

Yeah but if BPA (which is subjective since there's no master list) is at a position the Bills don't need, they can and probably will trade down to take a guy at more of a need position.  And a player can still turn out better than the theoretical "BPA" that should otherwise have been picked.  Hence the reason those "draft redo" things come out every year.

 

3 hours ago, dneveu said:

Foster would likely be the cut.  Now do you activate this guy over McK?  Considering McK is a gadget player and has made plays for the team, i don't think so - not for a 4th WR. 

 

I'm not against it, but what's to say theyre the BPA?

 

Right - like whos the starting running back for the 49ers right now?

 

Foster is a gunner and has more value than a gadget player like McK.

 

3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

I've praised the Diggs move in several threads.

 

Nice try

 

You have?  Where?  I must have missed it.

 

What I do know is that you've said that he wouldn't make a difference on offense for the Bills.

[FireChans]

37 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Yeah but if BPA (which is subjective since there's no master list) is at a position the Bills don't need, they can and probably will trade down to take a guy at more of a need position.  And a player can still turn out better than the theoretical "BPA" that should otherwise have been picked.  Hence the reason those "draft redo" things come out every year.

 

 

Foster is a gunner and has more value than a gadget player like McK.

 

 

You have?  Where?  I must have missed it.

 

What I do know is that you've said that he wouldn't make a difference on offense for the Bills.

This is where we start getting silly Doc. Regardless of the subjectivity of player evaluations, our scouting department has spent 2-3 years evaluating some of these players and crafting their grades. And then they make their board. At the final hour, they don’t throw their hands up and call the draft a crap shoot and then take whoever. If the Bills pass on a 2nd round grade player to take a 3rd round grade player at a position of need, they are morons. 

 

BPA means stick to your board, which is for all intents and purposes, a master list.

Edited April 8, 2020 by FireChans

[Doc]

14 minutes ago, FireChans said:

This is where we start getting silly Doc. Regardless of the subjectivity of player evaluations, our scouting department has spent 2-3 years evaluating some of these players and crafting their grades. And then they make their board. At the final hour, they don’t throw their hands up and call the draft a crap shoot and then take whoever. If the Bills pass on a 2nd round grade player to take a 3rd round grade player at a position of need, they are morons. 

 

BPA means stick to your board, which is for all intents and purposes, a master list.

 

No, "we" are not getting silly, FC.  I never said the bolded part.  I said you don't know their board, rankings and objectives for this draft.  Neither do I. 

 

What you are saying is that WR is BPA at 54.  So what if the Bills don't draft one?  What then?  Are they morons?

[FireChans]

8 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

No, "we" are not getting silly, FC.  I never said the bolded part.  I said you don't know their board, rankings and objectives for this draft.  Neither do I. 

 

What you are saying is that WR is BPA at 54.  So what if the Bills don't draft one?  What then?  Are they morons?

I’m not saying the WR will for sure be BPA at 54. In fact, I very clearly said otherwise. How could I know who is available at 54 when the draft hasn’t even happened yet?

 

6 hours ago, FireChans said:

I wouldn’t complain one bit if one of Duke, McK or Foster get cut in favor of a 2nd round WR who outperfoms them. 

 

Sure we will have used a first and second on WR. So what? If we draft an OT, then we used a second two years in a row at that position. If we draft an RB, then we have spent a 2nd and 3rd in that timespan. An LB? 1st and 2nd. 

 

The draft is about building the best roster over the long game. The strategy is not, “we drafted a LB high last year so we can’t do that this year.” That’s need based drafting. That’s how you take inferior players and don’t accumulate winning talent.

 

5 hours ago, FireChans said:

Seeing as everyone has called this the deepest WR draft possibly ever, I’d say it’s also more likely BPA is WR than any other draft possibly ever. Now there’s 21 other positions so it’s obviously no guarantee. If BPA is a DB, go get him, I don’t really care.

I just want BPA. I don’t care if we just traded for a WR, if it’s a WR, you take him. I don’t care if it’s a RB, DB, OT, anything. You take the BPA. It’s that simple.

Edited April 8, 2020 by FireChans

[Doc]

4 minutes ago, FireChans said:

I’m not saying the WR will for sure be BPA at 54. In fact, I very clearly said otherwise. How could I know who is available at 54 when the draft hasn’t even happened yet?

 

I just want BPA. I don’t care if we just traded for a WR, if it’s a WR, you take him. I don’t care if it’s a RB, DB, OT, anything. You take the BPA. It’s that simple.

 

Fair enough.  But the implication is that in a draft that is supposedly this deep at WR, it would be BPA at 54 because some good ones will get pushed down. 

[FireChans]

24 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Fair enough.  But the implication is that in a draft that is supposedly this deep at WR, it would be BPA at 54 because some good ones will get pushed down. 

Exactly. That’s a good thing. I want players who are borderline late 1st early 2nd round grades at 54. That’s tremendous value. That may not happen, but in a deep WR class like this it easily could. It’s less likely to happen to a position like OT, or LB, IMO.

Edited April 8, 2020 by FireChans

[Doc]

6 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Exactly. That’s a good thing. I want players who are borderline late 1st early 2nd round grades at 54. That’s tremendous value. That may not happen, but in a deep WR class like this it easily could. It’s less likely to happen to a position like OT, or LB, IMO.

 

What's more likely to happen is there's a run on WR's at the beginning of the 2nd round.  I've seen it before with other positions.  Which hopefully will push those other positions down.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

11 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Yeah but if BPA (which is subjective since there's no master list) is at a position the Bills don't need, they can and probably will trade down to take a guy at more of a need position.  And a player can still turn out better than the theoretical "BPA" that should otherwise have been picked.  Hence the reason those "draft redo" things come out every year.

 

 

Foster is a gunner and has more value than a gadget player like McK.

 

 

You have?  Where?  I must have missed it.

 

What I do know is that you've said that he wouldn't make a difference on offense for the Bills.

 

Foster played fewer ST snaps (37.92%) than perry, neal, j johnson, k johnson, and coleman.  He was not a primary gunner. 

 

Mckenzie played almost half of the offensive snaps in 2019.  Foster also caught 3 of 18 targets in 2019... he has long odds of making the team imo. 

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

8 hours ago, Doc said:

 

What's more likely to happen is there's a run on WR's at the beginning of the 2nd round.  I've seen it before with other positions.  Which hopefully will push those other positions down.

 

Figure 4 or 5 go in the first - which might be low.  You still have Bengals again, Colts, Lions, Giants, Panthers, Jags, Colts again, Broncos, Jets, Steelers, Cowboys, and Eagles again before buffalo picks.  

 

So if the 5 in rd 1 go say to - raiders, 49ers, Vikings, Saints, and i dunno Seahawks.  All of those teams with needs above may be targeting WRs.  So at least a few of the 2nd and 3rd tier guys may come off the board.  

[Doc]

1 hour ago, dneveu said:

Foster played fewer ST snaps (37.92%) than perry, neal, j johnson, k johnson, and coleman.  He was not a primary gunner. 

 

Mckenzie played almost half of the offensive snaps in 2019.  Foster also caught 3 of 18 targets in 2019... he has long odds of making the team imo. 

 

Where do you find STs snaps?

 

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

Where do you find STs snaps?

 

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/buf/2019-snap-counts.htm

[Mr. WEO]

12 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Yeah but if BPA (which is subjective since there's no master list) is at a position the Bills don't need, they can and probably will trade down to take a guy at more of a need position.  And a player can still turn out better than the theoretical "BPA" that should otherwise have been picked.  Hence the reason those "draft redo" things come out every year.

 

 

Foster is a gunner and has more value than a gadget player like McK.

 

 

You have?  Where?  I must have missed it.

 

What I do know is that you've said that he wouldn't make a difference on offense for the Bills.

 

 

Sure you missed it.  

 

Also, I said having Diggs (or another "stud WR") wouldn't have guaranteed the Bills beat the Texans that day.  

[Doc]

1 minute ago, dneveu said:

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/buf/2019-snap-counts.htm

 

Looking at those ST snaps counts, none of the guys above Foster are gunners except Kevin Johnson, who is gone, and so are 4 other guys who will need to be replaced.  And while McK played quite a bit on offense, it's not like his production was anything special, there was little to choose from, and I believe Foster was having lingering health issues.  I still think if it came down to the 2, Foster would get the nod because of STs.  But it will be worth watching.