Do you take a corner in the first?

[whorlnut]

8 minutes ago, newcam2012 said:

One last jab if I may. Coach MCD was so great that his secondary couldn't stop the Chiefs in 13 seconds nor in the overtime. Or was that Fraizer's fault? 

McD literally made zero correct decisions in that 13 seconds. If you can’t see that, then I don’t know what to tell you. 

[newcam2012]

41 minutes ago, whorlnut said:

McD literally made zero correct decisions in that 13 seconds. If you can’t see that, then I don’t know what to tell you. 

I agree. Let's move on. Go Bills. 

[GunnerBill]

50 minutes ago, whorlnut said:

I think that works in their favor though. They might not see it as urgent as other teams might. 
 

Do you agree with the statement that McD and his staff is pretty much the best In the league at developing DB’s?  Heck, take Hyde and poyer as additional examples. Neither were anywhere near what they are today before McD coached them up. 

 

So I actually think Hyde was always a very good player. He was Green Bay's best DB. They just never realised it. His versatility worked against him. I had no doubt he'd be a stud as soon as a team gave him a proper shot. 

 

Yes, I agree McDermott is great at coaching up DBs. I said that above. Especially with Leslie on staff too. I just don't think that factors into decisions on what position to draft. It does factor into the type of corners they are after, but I don't think they pass on corners because they have McDermott.

[whorlnut]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

So I actually think Hyde was always a very good player. He was Green Bay's best DB. They just never realised it. His versatility worked against him. I had no doubt he'd be a stud as soon as a team gave him a proper shot. 

 

Yes, I agree McDermott is great at coaching up DBs. I said that above. Especially with Leslie on staff too. I just don't think that factors into decisions on what position to draft. It does factor into the type of corners they are after, but I don't think they pass on corners because they have McDermott.

My argument is that if there is a tie between two prospects, they might err on the side of the non-DB due to the success rate with McD and DBs in his system. 

[GunnerBill]

Just now, whorlnut said:

My argument is that if there is a tie between two prospects, they might err on the side of the non-DB due to the success rate with McD and DBs in his system. 

 

If there is a tie they break it by positional value on days 2 and 3 and who is more likely to make the 53 (i.e. roster depth on day 3). Beane has talked about that previously. 

[PrimeTime101]

On 4/7/2022 at 3:25 PM, Jay_Fixit said:

No. It’s not.

EVERY year we have this same argument and every year we have to read this is these forums that BPA is BPA no matter the position... NO... ITS NOT! thats not how this works... 

 

Teams go into round 1-3 or 4 rounds and they have a set of needs for those rounds then they have values for players at those needs. So lets say for example

CB, WR, LB, DT is a need.. they value their biggest need first... and then they have values at all those positions. So lets say first round the 4th best CB is available but they have a WR that they slightly value higher... They will pick the CB and do a slight reach.  BPA is best player at NEED. Given this situation and this scenario if the best player is a TE for example, under this scenario they will not grab the TE... they will get the WR or The CB... BPA AT NEED

 

 

[whorlnut]

18 minutes ago, PrimeTime101 said:

EVERY year we have this same argument and every year we have to read this is these forums that BPA is BPA no matter the position... NO... ITS NOT! thats not how this works... 

 

Teams go into round 1-3 or 4 rounds and they have a set of needs for those rounds then they have values for players at those needs. So lets say for example

CB, WR, LB, DT is a need.. they value their biggest need first... and then they have values at all those positions. So lets say first round the 4th best CB is available but they have a WR that they slightly value higher... They will pick the CB and do a slight reach.  BPA is best player at NEED. Given this situation and this scenario if the best player is a TE for example, under this scenario they will not grab the TE... they will get the WR or The CB... BPA AT NEED

 

 

Which team’s war room were you a part of and what year?

[PrimeTime101]

16 minutes ago, whorlnut said:

Which team’s war room were you a part of and what year?

sorry i dont give out personal info

 

 

[AlBUNDY4TDS]

If we can get one with elite physical tools then yes. That is something that this defense is missing.

[whorlnut]

3 minutes ago, PrimeTime101 said:

sorry i dont give out personal info

 

 

That’s what I thought…

[John from Riverside]

1 hour ago, whorlnut said:

I think that works in their favor though. They might not see it as urgent as other teams might. 
 

Do you agree with the statement that McD and his staff is pretty much the best In the league at developing DB’s?  Heck, take Hyde and poyer as additional examples. Neither were anywhere near what they are today before McD coached them up. 

Is it your opinion that DB's that are drafted high dont need to be "coached up"?

[Andrew Son]

Get me Cam Taylor-Britt in the 2nd or 3rd.  That dude is perfect for this D.

[PrimeTime101]

13 minutes ago, whorlnut said:

That’s what I thought…

you really think i am going to give away who I am online? just stop... No NFL team does pure BPA no matter the position...

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by PrimeTime101

[newcam2012]

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

So I actually think Hyde was always a very good player. He was Green Bay's best DB. They just never realised it. His versatility worked against him. I had no doubt he'd be a stud as soon as a team gave him a proper shot. 

 

Yes, I agree McDermott is great at coaching up DBs. I said that above. Especially with Leslie on staff too. I just don't think that factors into decisions on what position to draft. It does factor into the type of corners they are after, but I don't think they pass on corners because they have McDermott.

Well said Gunner. 

[OldTimer1960]

On 4/10/2022 at 10:30 AM, GunnerBill said:

 

No. The opposite. The only corners I'd take over a receiver are Booth or Sauce. Sauce will definitely be gone. I still think Booth will be too. 

I think that Kyler Gordon could be an outside possibility for the Bills.  I don’t understand why some have him as a late 2nd rounder - he looks like a fit to my untrained eye.  If the Bills take WR or OL in round 1, Gordon would be one guy that I could see trading up in round 2 to pick.  Problem is that our draft capital isn’t strong and I’d rather not trade the 3rd to move up in the 2nd, if it could be avoided.

 

I love the upside of Tariq Woolen and Zyon McCollum, but they are risky projections.  I do think Woolen will go by mid 2nd.

[Alphadawg7]

18 hours ago, PrimeTime101 said:

EVERY year we have this same argument and every year we have to read this is these forums that BPA is BPA no matter the position... NO... ITS NOT! thats not how this works... 

 

Teams go into round 1-3 or 4 rounds and they have a set of needs for those rounds then they have values for players at those needs. So lets say for example

CB, WR, LB, DT is a need.. they value their biggest need first... and then they have values at all those positions. So lets say first round the 4th best CB is available but they have a WR that they slightly value higher... They will pick the CB and do a slight reach.  BPA is best player at NEED. Given this situation and this scenario if the best player is a TE for example, under this scenario they will not grab the TE... they will get the WR or The CB... BPA AT NEED

 

 

 

Well said, and pretty close to what goes down in most cases and Beane has even publicly said as much multiple times now.  My only critiques is that its not as cut and dry as that.  They wont "always" for example take the need, in your example the CB over a WR they have slightly higher.  Beane factors in depth of the positions too.  If they feel CB is thinner than WR in the next rounds, then that is when they would take the CB over the slightly higher graded WR more often.  But if they felt WR dropped off after that, they would likely stick with the WR over the CB if they felt they could get a CB later they also like.  

 

18 hours ago, whorlnut said:

Which team’s war room were you a part of and what year?

 

I mean Beane has said that BPA takes into consideration team needs many times now.  He has also said depth of each position comes into play too.  

 

I mean BPA always factors team needs in, that is 100% fact across the NFL.  I mean wouldn't you agree that we 100% are NOT drafting a QB at 25 no matter who is there?   So without question, needs are always to some degree a part of a general managers and teams draft strategy where they eliminate certain positions and prioritize other positions at certain points in the draft.  Does NOT mean they will reach for need, just means their board of BPA includes factors such as draft strategy, needs, depth of draft, priorities, coveted targets, draft assets, potential trade scenarios, etc.  

 

I mean Beane literally just did this last draft.  He went DE and DE again in the 2nd...not many people had Boogie as BPA when we were on the clock, nor did anyone expect that pick after going DE in round 1.  Yet Beane said they entered the draft with the mindset pass rush was the biggest need on the team, and they went out and made that such a priority they took 2 in a row in the first 2 rounds. 

 

So sorry, PrimeTime101 has mostly the right idea here.  And how do we know, because its literally what Beane has both said and done in the past.  

Edited April 11, 2022 by Alphadawg7

[GunnerBill]

2 hours ago, OldTimer1960 said:

I think that Kyler Gordon could be an outside possibility for the Bills.  I don’t understand why some have him as a late 2nd rounder - he looks like a fit to my untrained eye.  If the Bills take WR or OL in round 1, Gordon would be one guy that I could see trading up in round 2 to pick.  Problem is that our draft capital isn’t strong and I’d rather not trade the 3rd to move up in the 2nd, if it could be avoided.

 

I love the upside of Tariq Woolen and Zyon McCollum, but they are risky projections.  I do think Woolen will go by mid 2nd.

 

Agree completely on Gordon. I have him CB4 ahead of McDuffie. If the Bills could get one of the top receivers at #25 and then wanted to trade their 2nd and their 3rd to get up 10 spots in round 2 and take Gordon I'd be fully on board. Let's say Olave and Gordon. That is two guys who have high ceilings and can make impact as rookies. If Gordon goes late 1st or early 2nd however, then I don't see a corner in round 2 making much sense. It is a bit of a vacuum for corners in that round. I think if it falls that way you take BPA at #57 and then come back for one of the developmental corners in round 3 or 4 where there could be a stack of them. 

[GunnerBill]

On the pure BPA vs BPA at a position of need vs BPA at a premium position.... the answer is from the guys that I have spoken to that have been in the league and been in draft rooms, there is no hard and fast rule that all teams use. But broadly it is this:

 

1 - Quarterback is special. If you have one you believe is the guy for at least 2 more seasons then you never take the Quarterback (and generally if there is a QB as BPA you should be able to trade back and that is the smart play). If you don't have a guy you believe is the guy for at least 2 more seasons then you should take a Quarterback even if they are not BPA. If they are within two tiers of players. It is the only position that is worth reaching through tiers for. 

 

2 - Other than that you should NEVER reach down a tier. So if BPA means 1 player in a tier above every other prospect on your board you should select him even if it isn't a need spot. You want an example of that? CeeDee Lamb to the Cowboys. They had just signed Cooper to a big deal, fresh off a career year, and they had Michael Gallup, cheap for two more years, fresh off a 1,000 yard season. But Lamb was in a different tier to the other prospects left on the board, so even though they had two 1,000 yard receivers already you have to take the receiver. 

 

3 - If you have multiple players in a tier, and that generally means within a point or two of one another on your board... so you have three guys at a 7.3 and then one guy at a 7.4... then it is normal for a team to say "okay the 7.4 is a safety and we have two high quality safeties in their prime but one of the 7.3 guys is a corner and we have no high quality corners on the roster, take the corner."

 

4 - positional value matters on days 1 and 2.... generally ties are broken first by reference to positional value even before by reference to need.... and then chance to make the roster matters on day 3. Beane has alluded to this previously as well - on day 3 is your BPA in round 5 is an offensive lineman but you are already 9 deep with guys you feel really good about on the offensive line then maybe you do look at the next guy on your board who is say a defensive tackle where you only have 2 guys as locks to make the roster (the current Bills are arguably the other way round but it is just supposed to be an indicative example). 

 

 

Now you do get teams who break those general principles. The Bills during the drought were often an example of what not to do. 2006 a classic example. They wanted Michael Huff, the safety from Texas. He went a pick ahead of them and so rather than then taking Ernie Sims or Haloti Ngata who were recognised as being in that same tier as Huff they reached down the board for the "second safety" and selected Donte Whitner. Now Whitner ended up having a better career than Huff and than Ernie Sims for that matter so you could argue "the Bills were right" but they still reached down a tier and Whitner didn't play his best football in Buffalo in any event. I feel like the Giants did it last year as well. They were planning for one of the top 3 receivers: Chase, Waddle, Smith to fall to them at #11 but the Eagles traded up ahead of them and took the final one of the three - Smith - at #10. The Giants then did the right thing, they traded back to #20 and let Chicago come up for the Quarterback... but then at #20 they just reached down a tier through players like Newsome and Darrisaw and Farley for the next best receiver on their board which was gadget guy Kadarius Toney. Those are two example of "reaching for need" and it rarely, if ever, pays off in the long run - EXCEPT at Quarterback. 

 

[OldTimer1960]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

On the pure BPA vs BPA at a position of need vs BPA at a premium position.... the answer is from the guys that I have spoken to that have been in the league and been in draft rooms, there is no hard and fast rule that all teams use. But broadly it is this:

 

1 - Quarterback is special. If you have one you believe is the guy for at least 2 more seasons then you never take the Quarterback (and generally if there is a QB as BPA you should be able to trade back and that is the smart play). If you don't have a guy you believe is the guy for at least 2 more seasons then you should take a Quarterback even if they are not BPA. If they are within two tiers of players. It is the only position that is worth reaching through tiers for. 

 

2 - Other than that you should NEVER reach down a tier. So if BPA means 1 player in a tier above every other prospect on your board you should select him even if it isn't a need spot. You want an example of that? CeeDee Lamb to the Cowboys. They had just signed Cooper to a big deal, fresh off a career year, and they had Michael Gallup, cheap for two more years, fresh off a 1,000 yard season. But Lamb was in a different tier to the other prospects left on the board, so even though they had two 1,000 yard receivers already you have to take the receiver. 

 

3 - If you have multiple players in a tier, and that generally means within a point or two of one another on your board... so you have three guys at a 7.3 and then one guy at a 7.4... then it is normal for a team to say "okay the 7.4 is a safety and we have two high quality safeties in their prime but one of the 7.3 guys is a corner and we have no high quality corners on the roster, take the corner."

 

4 - positional value matters on days 1 and 2.... generally ties are broken first by reference to positional value even before by reference to need.... and then chance to make the roster matters on day 3. Beane has alluded to this previously as well - on day 3 is your BPA in round 5 is an offensive lineman but you are already 9 deep with guys you feel really good about on the offensive line then maybe you do look at the next guy on your board who is say a defensive tackle where you only have 2 guys as locks to make the roster (the current Bills are arguably the other way round but it is just supposed to be an indicative example). 

 

 

Now you do get teams who break those general principles. The Bills during the drought were often an example of what not to do. 2006 a classic example. They wanted Michael Huff, the safety from Texas. He went a pick ahead of them and so rather than then taking Ernie Sims or Haloti Ngata who were recognised as being in that same tier as Huff they reached down the board for the "second safety" and selected Donte Whitner. Now Whitner ended up having a better career than Huff and than Ernie Sims for that matter so you could argue "the Bills were right" but they still reached down a tier and Whitner didn't play his best football in Buffalo in any event. I feel like the Giants did it last year as well. They were planning for one of the top 3 receivers: Chase, Waddle, Smith to fall to them at #11 but the Eagles traded up ahead of them and took the final one of the three - Smith - at #10. The Giants then did the right thing, they traded back to #20 and let Chicago come up for the Quarterback... but then at #20 they just reached down a tier through players like Newsome and Darrisaw and Farley for the next best receiver on their board which was gadget guy Kadarius Toney. Those are two example of "reaching for need" and it rarely, if ever, pays off in the long run - EXCEPT at Quarterback. 

 

Really enjoy reading your insights.  I’ve been a draft fanatic since the early 80s consuming as much on the topic as I can find, yet I acknowledge that I am not very qualified to judge prospects “on the tape” - oh I have opinions, but I recognize that doesn’t make me right.

[PrimeTime101]

5 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Well said, and pretty close to what goes down in most cases and Beane has even publicly said as much multiple times now.  My only critiques is that its not as cut and dry as that.  They wont "always" for example take the need, in your example the CB over a WR they have slightly higher.  Beane factors in depth of the positions too.  If they feel CB is thinner than WR in the next rounds, then that is when they would take the CB over the slightly higher graded WR more often.  But if they felt WR dropped off after that, they would likely stick with the WR over the CB if they felt they could get a CB later they also like.  

 

 

I mean Beane has said that BPA takes into consideration team needs many times now.  He has also said depth of each position comes into play too.  

 

I mean BPA always factors team needs in, that is 100% fact across the NFL.  I mean wouldn't you agree that we 100% are NOT drafting a QB at 25 no matter who is there?   So without question, needs are always to some degree a part of a general managers and teams draft strategy where they eliminate certain positions and prioritize other positions at certain points in the draft.  Does NOT mean they will reach for need, just means their board of BPA includes factors such as draft strategy, needs, depth of draft, priorities, coveted targets, draft assets, potential trade scenarios, etc.  

 

I mean Beane literally just did this last draft.  He went DE and DE again in the 2nd...not many people had Boogie as BPA when we were on the clock, nor did anyone expect that pick after going DE in round 1.  Yet Beane said they entered the draft with the mindset pass rush was the biggest need on the team, and they went out and made that such a priority they took 2 in a row in the first 2 rounds. 

 

So sorry, PrimeTime101 has mostly the right idea here.  And how do we know, because its literally what Beane has both said and done in the past.  

Thank You... its just so tiring having to explain this year after year... IF this year at pick 25 or any pick the BPA lets say round 2 is a TE, QB... do these guys really think we go TE or QB in round 2? come on guys...

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

On the pure BPA vs BPA at a position of need vs BPA at a premium position.... the answer is from the guys that I have spoken to that have been in the league and been in draft rooms, there is no hard and fast rule that all teams use. But broadly it is this:

 

1 - Quarterback is special. If you have one you believe is the guy for at least 2 more seasons then you never take the Quarterback (and generally if there is a QB as BPA you should be able to trade back and that is the smart play). If you don't have a guy you believe is the guy for at least 2 more seasons then you should take a Quarterback even if they are not BPA. If they are within two tiers of players. It is the only position that is worth reaching through tiers for. 

 

2 - Other than that you should NEVER reach down a tier. So if BPA means 1 player in a tier above every other prospect on your board you should select him even if it isn't a need spot. You want an example of that? CeeDee Lamb to the Cowboys. They had just signed Cooper to a big deal, fresh off a career year, and they had Michael Gallup, cheap for two more years, fresh off a 1,000 yard season. But Lamb was in a different tier to the other prospects left on the board, so even though they had two 1,000 yard receivers already you have to take the receiver. 

 

3 - If you have multiple players in a tier, and that generally means within a point or two of one another on your board... so you have three guys at a 7.3 and then one guy at a 7.4... then it is normal for a team to say "okay the 7.4 is a safety and we have two high quality safeties in their prime but one of the 7.3 guys is a corner and we have no high quality corners on the roster, take the corner."

 

4 - positional value matters on days 1 and 2.... generally ties are broken first by reference to positional value even before by reference to need.... and then chance to make the roster matters on day 3. Beane has alluded to this previously as well - on day 3 is your BPA in round 5 is an offensive lineman but you are already 9 deep with guys you feel really good about on the offensive line then maybe you do look at the next guy on your board who is say a defensive tackle where you only have 2 guys as locks to make the roster (the current Bills are arguably the other way round but it is just supposed to be an indicative example). 

 

 

Now you do get teams who break those general principles. The Bills during the drought were often an example of what not to do. 2006 a classic example. They wanted Michael Huff, the safety from Texas. He went a pick ahead of them and so rather than then taking Ernie Sims or Haloti Ngata who were recognised as being in that same tier as Huff they reached down the board for the "second safety" and selected Donte Whitner. Now Whitner ended up having a better career than Huff and than Ernie Sims for that matter so you could argue "the Bills were right" but they still reached down a tier and Whitner didn't play his best football in Buffalo in any event. I feel like the Giants did it last year as well. They were planning for one of the top 3 receivers: Chase, Waddle, Smith to fall to them at #11 but the Eagles traded up ahead of them and took the final one of the three - Smith - at #10. The Giants then did the right thing, they traded back to #20 and let Chicago come up for the Quarterback... but then at #20 they just reached down a tier through players like Newsome and Darrisaw and Farley for the next best receiver on their board which was gadget guy Kadarius Toney. Those are two example of "reaching for need" and it rarely, if ever, pays off in the long run - EXCEPT at Quarterback. 

 

SPOT ON explained it better then I did... BPA round 2 happens to be a QB.. we picking a QB? NO... BPA need with the positional value each team gives.. and its very different from team to team how they value the players based on need as well.