"First Round Picks are Over-rated": Discuss

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I wondered if this was tongue-in-cheek, but it appears to be serious:

 

 

Discuss.

 

First we see that delightful shadowy figure, the anonymous NFL executive 🧛‍♀️

 

It's quite correct that there's a substantial whiff rate on first round draft choices.  On the other hand, there's an even more substantial whiff rate on second and third day draft choices.

 

I can see strategically trading a first round pick from time to time, as the Bills did with Stefon Diggs.  We wanted an established, "no question this guy can play" WR to ensure all the pieces were in place to help the Bills answer the question "is Josh Allen Our Guy, or No?" 

 

But now we're swapping players and multiple first round picks and it's rapidly approaching a sort of Tulip Mania

 

Yes, there's to some degree less risk trading a 1st for an established player with a track record.  You know the guy can play.  But there's a down-side too; you don't know if he'll adapt and play as well in your system, and of course you miss out on the benefit of the draft and rookie contract system, which is hopefully getting a good player at a bargain price for 4 years.

 

 

[Warcodered]

Well the Rams did apparently miss on their last 1st round pick.

[costrovs]

For the right guy, in the right system at the right price. Then sure.

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

I wondered if this was tongue-in-cheek, but it appears to be serious:

 

 

Discuss.

 

First we see that delightful shadowy figure, the anonymous NFL executive 🧛‍♀️

 

It's quite correct that there's a substantial whiff rate on first round draft choices.  On the other hand, there's an even more substantial whiff rate on second and third day draft choices.

 

I can see strategically trading a first round pick from time to time, as the Bills did with Stefon Diggs.  We wanted an established, "no question this guy can play" WR to ensure all the pieces were in place to help the Bills answer the question "is Josh Allen Our Guy, or No?" 

 

But now we're swapping players and multiple first round picks and it's rapidly approaching a sort of Tulip Mania

 

Yes, there's to some degree less risk trading a 1st for an established player with a track record.  You know the guy can play.  But there's a down-side too; you don't know if he'll adapt and play as well in your system, and of course you miss out on the benefit of the draft and rookie contract system, which is hopefully getting a good player at a bargain price for 4 years.

 

 

 

 

The Rams just traded their 1st round draft pick QB who helped them win 3 playoff games and make it to a SB in 3 years for a broken down former 1st round QB on his last legs who was 0-3 in playoff games over 10 years....and some dude is going is going to pontificate on the wisdom of how the Rams handle 1st round picks?  

 

That's rich.  "NFL executive"?  Is it Jimmy Haslam?

 

 

[CincyBillsFan]

I think there is merit in this position.  Tua was the 5th player taken in the 1st round last year and now he is at the epicenter of a possible trade for Watson.

 

Darnold was the 3rd pick and Rosen was the 10th pick in 2018 and one is a bust and the other is on the brink of being a bust.

 

Goff was the 1st pick in the draft not that long ago and now he got swapped for Stafford.

 

I could fill this page with more examples of this. 

[Big Turk]

They are also destroying their cap by paying top dollar instead of paying for players on rookie contracts. It's why their cap situation is a disaster and doesn't look like it will be improving anytime soon.

[hmsmystic]

I thought originally the idea was posted by Matt Millen, former Lions GM.  And the absurdity of the idea made sense.  1st round picks are critical in the salary cap era-sure if you have Tom Brady you can whiff, you can get lucky, but otherwise no gimme those picks

[1st Ammendment NoMas]

Truth is that no one should miss on a first round pick, but they often do. Maybe even 50% of the time. That's insane. I think some of it is overvaluing QB's and teams being desperate for their franchise guy. This is the most often miss.  

 

If a scouting department can't find one of the 32 best players in college and develop them, then you have a serious problem. Don't draft for need. Draft for value and find great players regardless of position. This is the key to success. You can always trade value for value. But reaching to fill a need with the 5th, 6th, 7th, or even lower ranked player at a position in the first round is a recipe for disaster.  22 positions (no K/P) and 32 teams. If you aren't finding the #1 or #2  or even #3 guy at a position who is a sure thing, then you need to reevaluate the way you are building your team 

Edited February 3, 2021 by BillsRdue

[Big Turk]

4 minutes ago, BillsRdue said:

Truth is that no one should miss on a first round pick, but they often do. Maybe even 50% of the time. That's insane. I think some of it is overvaluing QB's and teams being desperate for their franchise guy. This is the most often miss.  

 

If a scouting department can't find one of the 32 best players in college and develop them, then you have a serious problem. Don't draft for need. Draft for value and find great players regardless of position. This is the key to success. You can always trade value for value. But reaching to fill a need with the 5th, 6th, 7th, or even lower ranked player at a position in the first round is a recipe for disaster.  22 positions (no K/P) and 32 teams. If you aren't finding the #1 or #2  or even #3 guy at a position who is a sure thing, then you need to reevaluate the way you are building your team 

 

Also teams may try to draft a position of need rather than best player. Maybe they have a big drop off between the next DE and the one after him and want to make sure they get him instead of taking the highest player on their board.

 

Or perhaps teams just value the wrong traits.

[artmalibu]

The answer to this is different for different teams....

 

A team in rebuilding mode draft capital is king, a team that is a player away does not need prospects they need their missing link.  

[Success]

I made this argument when we traded for Sammy.

 

I was in a bit of homer mode, of course.  I downplayed them too much.  But I think many fans overplay the value too much.

 

They really are hit & miss.  Of course, you'd rather have a higher pick - but so many turn out to be average or even busts.  That's just how the draft goes.  I really like Oliver & Edmunds, but right now, we could probably find guys in the mid-rounds that could replace either (note the "right now").  Don't even get me started on some of the Maybins and Dareus' of yesteryear.

 

[CountDorkula]

31 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

I wondered if this was tongue-in-cheek, but it appears to be serious:

 

 

Discuss.

 

First we see that delightful shadowy figure, the anonymous NFL executive 🧛‍♀️

 

It's quite correct that there's a substantial whiff rate on first round draft choices.  On the other hand, there's an even more substantial whiff rate on second and third day draft choices.

 

I can see strategically trading a first round pick from time to time, as the Bills did with Stefon Diggs.  We wanted an established, "no question this guy can play" WR to ensure all the pieces were in place to help the Bills answer the question "is Josh Allen Our Guy, or No?" 

 

But now we're swapping players and multiple first round picks and it's rapidly approaching a sort of Tulip Mania

 

Yes, there's to some degree less risk trading a 1st for an established player with a track record.  You know the guy can play.  But there's a down-side too; you don't know if he'll adapt and play as well in your system, and of course you miss out on the benefit of the draft and rookie contract system, which is hopefully getting a good player at a bargain price for 4 years.

 

 

 

1st round picks are severely overrated, especially by fans.

 

Remember how many people were pissed around here the Bills gave up a 1st for Diggs.

 

Id trade a first round pick for a proven talent 100 times out of 99.

13 minutes ago, BillsRdue said:

Truth is that no one should miss on a first round pick, but they often do. Maybe even 50% of the time. That's insane. I think some of it is overvaluing QB's and teams being desperate for their franchise guy. This is the most often miss.  

 

If a scouting department can't find one of the 32 best players in college and develop them, then you have a serious problem. Don't draft for need. Draft for value and find great players regardless of position. This is the key to success. You can always trade value for value. But reaching to fill a need with the 5th, 6th, 7th, or even lower ranked player at a position in the first round is a recipe for disaster.  22 positions (no K/P) and 32 teams. If you aren't finding the #1 or #2  or even #3 guy at a position who is a sure thing, then you need to reevaluate the way you are building your team 

 

There are sooo many "Cant miss" prospects that miss.

 

Unless you need a QB having a first round pick is meaningless to me at least.

[GoBills808]

Imo the benefits of cost controlled premium talent outweigh the risk of missing+potential trade value 

 

I also believe the calculus is closer to the Rams’ approach than it is to conventional NFL wisdom

[DrDawkinstein]

1st round picks are overrated as far as the level of talent and "answer to their problems" some folks believe they can get there.

 

IMO, the big value of 1st round picks is the decent talent on a slotted rookie contract, and the 5th year option.

 

I dont mind trading late 1sts for a proven vet, as long as they aren't also on a ridiculous contract.

[BillsCuse]

Take a quick look at the 1st round picks the last 15 years or so, its pretty crazy how many players don't work out.  Some are complete busts, some are just average and some are just meh.   There's obviously some studs, but much less than one would think.

[BuffaloRebound]

If you have your franchise QB, I agree that 1st round picks are over-valued. And picks after the 1st round are where you find the best cost controlled contracts if you hit on the pick.  

[LABILLBACKER]

1 hour ago, Warcodered said:

Well the Rams did apparently miss on their last 1st round pick.

The Rams spent 6 picks to get Goff and 3 to get rid off him.

[FireChans]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

I wondered if this was tongue-in-cheek, but it appears to be serious:

 

 

Discuss.

 

First we see that delightful shadowy figure, the anonymous NFL executive 🧛‍♀️

 

It's quite correct that there's a substantial whiff rate on first round draft choices.  On the other hand, there's an even more substantial whiff rate on second and third day draft choices.

 

I can see strategically trading a first round pick from time to time, as the Bills did with Stefon Diggs.  We wanted an established, "no question this guy can play" WR to ensure all the pieces were in place to help the Bills answer the question "is Josh Allen Our Guy, or No?" 

 

But now we're swapping players and multiple first round picks and it's rapidly approaching a sort of Tulip Mania

 

Yes, there's to some degree less risk trading a 1st for an established player with a track record.  You know the guy can play.  But there's a down-side too; you don't know if he'll adapt and play as well in your system, and of course you miss out on the benefit of the draft and rookie contract system, which is hopefully getting a good player at a bargain price for 4 years.

 

 

Bad premise. You don't know this about a rookie you've scouted either.

 

The bolded is literally exactly what the Pro Personnel department does.

[Rc2catch]

It’s tricky. A first round pick is fantastic for teams with high salary caps. Cost controlled cheaper years are fantastic. 
If you can trade that first for someone proven I think it’s a win win. I would trade my first every year for a proven player who is already signed up to a multi year contract if I’m a winning team. The only way I keep a first is if I’m picking top 5 or I’m a losing team needing to sign a lot of free agents 

[John from Riverside]

For the most part I disagree......I think you have a better chance getting a starter in the 1st then in other rounds

 

also

 

Keep in mind that it is on a longer cost controlled contract which is also important