"First Round Picks are Over-rated": Discuss

[hjnick]

1 hour ago, y2zipper said:

There's a lot that goes these discussions. I think the value of a first round pick is that it's a hedge against the parity engine that is the NFL and the more towards the future we look, the more it is true. Like if you have a year like San Francisco where a lot of unlikely things happen and you miss the postseason, you get access to more of those premium picks.

 

My general take is that it's a sure sign that your front office is bad if management can't hit 50 percent on first rounders. Getting a contributor every 2 years isn't hard for competent teams. The success rate in the first is 50-53 percent by most measures and goes down as the draft goes on. Teams are not going to get all pros all the time, but you can get a five year starter at reduced cost a little more than half the time.

 

It's the only access to cost controlled premium talent and the chances of picking a success go down as the draft goes on. Even the Patriots have gotten contributors with 2 of their last 3. The argument I would make is that they just haven't used enough of them.

 

Excluding QB, we have seen teams successfully trade 1 immediate first round pick for a premium talent. Kansas City did it for Clark, Buffalo did for Diggs, Indianapolis did it for Buckner, etc... Making a well timed move when you can reasonably predict a season works sometimes.

 

Where it gets dicey is when we start talking more than one. We've seen Kahlil Mack, Jamal Adams, and Marcus Peters go for more than one first rounder the past few years and it's hard to argue that any of these deals worked. Trading multiple firsts to acquire franchise quarterback is more acceptable. 

 

With the Rams specifically, my issue with this trade is that I just don't subscribe to their view of where their team is. When the Rams played in the Super Bowl in 2018, they had the healthiest and best offensive line in the league, a downfield vertical threatened Cooks in addition to their other good receivers, and they had a dynamic running back in Gurley. Over the past two seasons we've seen the interior of the line decline, and we haven't seen the same downfield passing production because Robert woods and Cooper kupp aren't vertical threats and because they haven't grabbed a running back that can make up Gurleys production. Goff's play has gone up and down as the surrounding talent has gone up and down and while I think Stafford is a little better, he is the type of quarterback that's going to take what's closer to a low level playoff team and turn it into a Super Bowl team.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with alot of what you said.

 

Whenever these types of discussions come up I always wonder how much the Bills and other teams spend on scouting / player evaluation.  Is it just a handful of guys/gals in a smoky room looking at tapes all day long?  Do they have hundreds of ppl doing constant evaluation of college and current players, so they would be ready at a moments notice to give information/advice.  Is it just the GM's gut instinct on the picks???  The amount of money spent on evaluation and coming up with a good process to evaluate players would go a long way to consistently picking good solid players in the draft.  Which teams are good evaluators of talent??? I'm sure there are a handful of teams that are good at picking players... that's why they are good ALL the time. A constant influx of good talent.

 

How a drafted player pans out and/or trading for a 'proven' veteran has ALOT of variables for if it is going to be successful or not.  Look at the Diggs trade.  Do you honestly believe that if Diggs was traded to the Jets last year that they would have drastically improved?  I highly doubt that... then the trade would have been a bust.  Diggs and Allen worked hard and made some great chemistry together, which hopefully goes for many years.

 

If the draft really is just a crap shoot and 1st rounders are just a 50/50 proposition, they you should be trading down in almost every draft and stockpiling picks so you have more bullets to fire and 'hopefully' you can hit on some.  More shots = more chances for success.  Does that remind you of another franchise that we all hate that resides in our division???

 

I think to get a 'good' organization, you need the owner, GM, and coach in 'lock step' with many of the philosophies and how about building and maintaining a football team.  If your GM wants a high octane offense and outscore opponents to win and the coach wants to be a defense first / ball control offense, that probably is not a good fit and will fail.  You need a great plan to win at football because not every position will be filled with all pros.  Some positions will be more valuable than others to the GM and coach.

 

Kinda obvious, but the first and most critical factor is how good your QB is.  If you have a Mahomes or Rodgers, they can mask alot of personnel problems with their superior play.  While 'good' QB's need a good team to succeed and very rarely can a team win with a bad/not good QB unless it is stacked with talent everywhere else.

 

As for the Rams and that trade, I'd give them a D for that trade and an A++ for the Lions.  To give up 2 first's and give up Goff is truly mindboggling for Matt Stafford.  I think I heard somewhere between the contracts of Donald, Stafford, Ramsey, Whitworth, and the dead money of Goff and Gurley, that will be over 50% of their cap next year.  This is a huge gamble.  The Rams defense will not be as good next year because they will not be able to sign their defensive free agents, so they will have to try and lean on the offense next year behind a pretty pedestrian OLIne (agree they had one of the best lines when they went to the Super Bowl and that is why their offense was successful).

 

I'll end here because this is getting really long.  If you made it this far, thanks for reading.

[JGMcD2]

50 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

And as we know McD is conservative in nature as well. But being overmatched year in and year out in the playoffs is the same result as going 7-9 to 9-7. There is only one winner..... don’t really understand why fans would hate a move to get the Bills to level the playing field against a team like the Chiefs who are clearly more talented, while mortgaging their future a bit. 

I mean I wouldn’t say that’s the case at all.
The difference between missing the playoffs and making the playoffs is that when you make the playoffs you have a chance at winning it all. 

 

So it comes down to would you rather have one really good chance that’s not guaranteed or have numerous middling chances over time that also aren’t guaranteed. 
 

I don’t know the actual answer or what the data would say, but my gut says more chances means better shot. You throw out a dud with your “loaded team” in the divisional round and it’s all for nothing or that key player you trade for gets hurt Week 1 and then what? 
 

The reason I’m not for throwing it all in to match the Chiefs is because we’re on different timelines. It took them 8 years to get to this point they’re at now with the talent they have. I’m not trying to cheat the timeline for a 1 really good chance that still might not even cut it. 

[NewEra]

49 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

My favorite example is that the 2017 Bills had ZERO drought-era first round picks on the field in their playoff game against the Jags.    Tre White was their most recent and only own first rounder on the field that day.   Shaq was the only other one on the roster and he was JAG at that point.

 

That's why I can believe these people who think the Texans should trade Watson for 3 first round picks............in reality that's a pathetic offer for a top 5 QB.    

 

 

No doubt.  I’d start at 3 firsts and 3 2nds and work my way towards more.....and still probably wouldn’t get equal value for a player of Watsons worth to a team.

[JGMcD2]

36 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

No.

 

The tenor of the thread was how Beane fleeced the Vikings.    He did not.  

 

I supported the trade and understood why he had to make it...........they had failed miserably at getting a WR1..........most recently passing on DK Metcalf in favor of Cody Ford.    

 

Beane wasn't dealing from a position of strength.......even though Diggs had worn out his welcome with Vikings management the Bills were in the more desperate situation.    

 

That has been Beane's MO.........make initial mistakes.........then have to pay above expectation to fix them.   That's why he's in a bad cap situation.   

We’ve had this argument too many times, so I’m going to take a different approach. 
 

What GM or organization do it better than Beane/Buffalo when it comes to not making mistakes? 
 

or

 

Which playoff organization has a better cap situation? It can’t just be pure cap space because they all have guys that are set to be FA.  I would say Indianapolis is a logical place to start, but they don’t have a QB, so idk if the overall situation is “better.” 

Edited February 3, 2021 by JGMcD2

[hjnick]

5 minutes ago, NewEra said:

No doubt.  I’d start at 3 firsts and 3 2nds and work my way towards more.....and still probably wouldn’t get equal value for a player of Watsons worth to a team.

Yikes!  That is alot for 1 player.

 

I guess it would really depend on the 'first first round pick' you get.  Like in this year's class, if that first could get you any of the top 3 QBs in this draft, I think that would be good.  OR if you have projected another Lawrence type QB in next years draft class and since Houston doesn't have Watson anymore, they could tank and get the 1st pick in the draft to get their QB.

 

With value for QBs like this, teams should start drafting extra QBs all the time and just trade them away for the extra capital.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

35 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

No.

 

The tenor of the thread was how Beane fleeced the Vikings.    He did not.  

 

I supported the trade and understood why he had to make it...........they had failed miserably at getting a WR1..........most recently passing on DK Metcalf in favor of Cody Ford.    

 

Beane wasn't dealing from a position of strength.......even though Diggs had worn out his welcome with Vikings management the Bills were in the more desperate situation.    

 

That has been Beane's MO.........make initial mistakes.........then have to pay above expectation to fix them.   That's why he's in a bad cap situation.   

 

Hmmm.  Well, that's not what I recollect of the POV expressed, but I lack a sufficient degree of interest to research my recollections so let it stand.

 

I do agree that Beane didn't fleece the Vikings, it's an example of a trade that worked well for both sides.

[dave mcbride]

25 minutes ago, PrimeTime101 said:

hmm our last 10+ draft picks

2008 McKelvin DB

2009 Aaron Maybin DE

2010 C.J. Spiller RB

2011 Marcell Darius DT

2012 Stephon Gilmore DB

2013 EJ. Manuel QB

2014 Sammy Watkins WR

2016 Shaq Lawson DE

2017 Tre'Davious White DB

2018 Josh Allen QB  Tremaine Edmunds LB

2019 Ed Oliver DT

 

3 complete Busts. QB drafting early is ALWAYS a crap shoot so lets call it 2 Busts for the sake of understanding that fact. Watkins was a horrible choice but serviceable. For people saying its a 50% bust rate in round 1 well that depends on how good your team is in drafting. from 2016 on I have 0 regrets and trust that we can continue to get good players

 

Lawson had a solid season with Miami

White is a Pro Bowler

Allen is a Pro Bowler

Edmunds is Solid.. not great but solid

Ed Oliver the book is not closed on him yet. he needs better talent around him to write that book.

 

Seems to me this group has done a fine job drafting.. Continue on

Who are your three complete busts? Maybin, Manuel, and ... McKelvin? Leodis certainly wasn't worth the pick, but he lasted for a while and started for while. He was a good returner too. I wouldn't call him a complete bust, I guess. 

 

Spiller had one genuinely elite season, and Dareus was terrific while playing under his first contract (2011-14). Gilmore won a defensive MVP (not for us, of course), and Watkins remains a pretty good player (who we overpaid for). 

1 hour ago, y2zipper said:

There's a lot that goes these discussions. I think the value of a first round pick is that it's a hedge against the parity engine that is the NFL and the more towards the future we look, the more it is true. Like if you have a year like San Francisco where a lot of unlikely things happen and you miss the postseason, you get access to more of those premium picks.

 

My general take is that it's a sure sign that your front office is bad if management can't hit 50 percent on first rounders. Getting a contributor every 2 years isn't hard for competent teams. The success rate in the first is 50-53 percent by most measures and goes down as the draft goes on. Teams are not going to get all pros all the time, but you can get a five year starter at reduced cost a little more than half the time.

 

It's the only access to cost controlled premium talent and the chances of picking a success go down as the draft goes on. Even the Patriots have gotten contributors with 2 of their last 3. The argument I would make is that they just haven't used enough of them.

 

Excluding QB, we have seen teams successfully trade 1 immediate first round pick for a premium talent. Kansas City did it for Clark, Buffalo did for Diggs, Indianapolis did it for Buckner, etc... Making a well timed move when you can reasonably predict a season works sometimes.

 

Where it gets dicey is when we start talking more than one. We've seen Kahlil Mack, Jamal Adams, and Marcus Peters go for more than one first rounder the past few years and it's hard to argue that any of these deals worked. Trading multiple firsts to acquire franchise quarterback is more acceptable. 

 

With the Rams specifically, my issue with this trade is that I just don't subscribe to their view of where their team is. When the Rams played in the Super Bowl in 2018, they had the healthiest and best offensive line in the league, a downfield vertical threatened Cooks in addition to their other good receivers, and they had a dynamic running back in Gurley. Over the past two seasons we've seen the interior of the line decline, and we haven't seen the same downfield passing production because Robert woods and Cooper kupp aren't vertical threats and because they haven't grabbed a running back that can make up Gurleys production. Goff's play has gone up and down as the surrounding talent has gone up and down and while I think Stafford is a little better, he is the type of quarterback that's going to take what's closer to a low level playoff team and turn it into a Super Bowl team.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What you don't mention is that their defense has greatly improved. It was the best in the NFL this season.

[JGMcD2]

5 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I do agree that Beane didn't fleece the Vikings, it's an example of a trade that worked well for both sides.

If I correctly recall my negotiations classes in law school... you never really want to fleece someone or “pull their pants down” so to speak because it’s bad long term for your reputation in future negotiations. 
 

Idk maybe I’m dumb? 

Edited February 3, 2021 by JGMcD2

[NewEra]

55 minutes ago, hjnick said:

Yikes!  That is alot for 1 player.

 

I guess it would really depend on the 'first first round pick' you get.  Like in this year's class, if that first could get you any of the top 3 QBs in this draft, I think that would be good.  OR if you have projected another Lawrence type QB in next years draft class and since Houston doesn't have Watson anymore, they could tank and get the 1st pick in the draft to get their QB.

 

With value for QBs like this, teams should start drafting extra QBs all the time and just trade them away for the extra capital.

It is a lot for one player.  A super star qB that will be your starter for the next 10+ years.  
 

The Rams trade 2 firsts, 1 2nd, 2 3rds to select QB that didn’t even have a 1st round grade according to many.  A guy that had accomplished nothing in the NFL.  Meanwhile Watson has proven to be a top 5 QB and a class act that any team would love to have in their community.  
 

would you trade Josh Allen for 3 1sts and 3 2nds?  I surely wouldn’t. The chiefs wouldn’t trade Mahomes for 6 1sts and 6 2nds. 

[ngbills]

All draft picks are a gamble. But if gambling dont you always prefer better odds? That is essentially what the rounds represent. There have been plenty of discussion that show what % of each round end up being starters, making rosters, being pro bowlers, etc. The odds for a 1st rounder in all of this areas is significantly higher. I recall being a pro bowler is something like 40-50% for a 1st rounder, dropping to under 20% for a 2nd rounder, under 10% for a 3rd rounder and under 3% for a 4th. 

[FireChans]

3 hours ago, JGMcD2 said:

So you won’t complain if they take a shot, fall short and go back to being 7-9 to 9-7 for a few years? 

I mean I don’t necessarily agree with that stance in line 1. I guess I’m more conservative in nature and would rather have a chance each season and make a run than try and manufacture a chance and still have no guarantee. 
 

I would agree with you that this year isn’t the time to do that though, if they’re going to do it at all it would be best served to wait and see how next year plays out because then you start that clock on the window absolutely closing. 

I mean I’ll complain if they make bad moves. 
 

If they make good moves and fall short, so be it.

[hjnick]

24 minutes ago, NewEra said:

It is a lot for one player.  A super star qB that will be your starter for the next 10+ years.  
 

The Rams trade 2 firsts, 1 2nd, 2 3rds to select QB that didn’t even have a 1st round grade according to many.  A guy that had accomplished nothing in the NFL.  Meanwhile Watson has proven to be a top 5 QB and a class act that any team would love to have in their community.  
 

would you trade Josh Allen for 3 1sts and 3 2nds?  I surely wouldn’t. The chiefs wouldn’t trade Mahomes for 6 1sts and 6 2nds. 

I think we need to stop letting the Rams set the market for worth.   They obviously do not care about draft picks at all.

 

While I agree that I wouldn't trade Josh Allen and the Chiefs wouldn't trade Mahomes with whatever you threw at them, when the QB is actually on the market and he doesn't want to be where he is... I think the cost drops dramatically no matter how talented we think he is.  I guess I'm the only one that thinks teams are giving up WAY too much for Watson and drastically mortgaging their future.  Hell, take 3 #1 picks and trade up to get Lawrence...

 

I think it would be interesting to see how a team would do with no 1st and 2nd round picks for SIX years.  I bet they wouldn't win as much as they think they would, even with Mahomes.  Look at the talent that is surrounding Mahomes.  If you replaced Kelce and Hill with an average TE and WR, do they win as many games? How many less games do they win?

[Lagoon Blues]

This is a really good discussion and one of the best thought provoking ones I have seen on here in a while.  Page 5 and it hasn't even turned into a pissing match yet.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Lagoon Blues

[NewEra]

27 minutes ago, hjnick said:

I think we need to stop letting the Rams set the market for worth.   They obviously do not care about draft picks at all.

 

While I agree that I wouldn't trade Josh Allen and the Chiefs wouldn't trade Mahomes with whatever you threw at them, when the QB is actually on the market and he doesn't want to be where he is... I think the cost drops dramatically no matter how talented we think he is.  I guess I'm the only one that thinks teams are giving up WAY too much for Watson and drastically mortgaging their future.  Hell, take 3 #1 picks and trade up to get Lawrence...

 

I think it would be interesting to see how a team would do with no 1st and 2nd round picks for SIX years.  I bet they wouldn't win as much as they think they would, even with Mahomes.  Look at the talent that is surrounding Mahomes.  If you replaced Kelce and Hill with an average TE and WR, do they win as many games? How many less games do they win?

the Rams were an example of a trade for a rookie QB.

 

when was the last time a QB like Deshaun Watson was available for a trade?  I’ll save you time.  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articles/amp/the_biggest_quarterback_trades_in_nfl_history/s1__28469687
 

the answer is never.  Not even close.  Why? Because no team will trade a QB as good as Deshaun Watson.  
 

I used an example of trading Josh Allen.  What amount of picks would you trade Josh Allen for?  I don’t think I’d trade him for 5 1sts and 5 2nds.  He is the reason we have a chance to win the Super Bowl.  Why would you trade that?  Just so you can use all of those picks to try and acquire a QB as good as Josh Allen and hope that you can get a few other players that pan out.  Not worth the risk imo.  It took us over 20 years to find a franchise QB.  It took Houston the entire history of their franchise to find one.

 

No team has set the market for trading an elite top 5 QB.  It hasn’t been done 

 

the jags wouldn’t take 3 1st rd picks for Lawrence imo

Edited February 3, 2021 by NewEra

[JGMcD2]

38 minutes ago, FireChans said:

I mean I’ll complain if they make bad moves. 
 

If they make good moves and fall short, so be it.

Well wouldn’t it be a bad move if it doesn’t accomplish the goal of winning the Super Bowl? 
 

If the entire reason for making a splashy move is to win a Super Bowl and they fall short while making that move, doesn’t it make that move a bad move? 

[FireChans]

2 minutes ago, JGMcD2 said:

Well wouldn’t it be a bad move if it doesn’t accomplish the goal of winning the Super Bowl? 
 

If the entire reason for making a splashy move is to win a Super Bowl and they fall short while making that move, doesn’t it make that move a bad move? 

No.

 

That’s a really silly way to look at things.

[JGMcD2]

10 minutes ago, FireChans said:

No.

 

That’s a really silly way to look at things.

Well then how do you determine it’s a good move ? 
 

If you’re mortgaging the future and are going to end up missing the playoffs for a few years and don’t win the Super Bowl, what makes it a good move? 

[FireChans]

7 minutes ago, JGMcD2 said:

Well then how do you determine it’s a good move ? 
 

If you’re mortgaging the future and are going to end up missing the playoffs for a few years and don’t win the Super Bowl, what makes it a good move? 

A. Are you good enough to make a run?

B. Are you actually acquiring an upgrade?

 

[Ethan in Cleveland]

Everything is relative. In general first round picks are more likely to succeed but not by much over later rounds.  It's still a lottery though. Therefore if you trade a first rounder that may or may not work out for a known quantity that can be a good move.  The other benefit of the first round is the 5th year option.

[Nextmanup]

The entire analysis hinges on what player you are talking about.

 

First rounders include some of the biggest misses in league history, as well as some of the best HOFers! 

 

It's why a blanket statement like "first rounders are overrated" is idiotic.