Bills cuts

[buffaloboyinATL]

14 hours ago, Coach Tuesday said:

Gotcha - sounds like you should’ve posed your question to him via a DM, instead of on a public message board since it has NOTHING to do with the topic being discussed in this thread, or the price of Gouda in Amsterdam.

https://welcometogouda.com/cheese/gouda-kaasmarkt
 

[Scott7975]

Just now, ScottLaw said:

How’d that work out? Specifically the 1st on CEH?… waste of a 1st round pick.

Yet they still did and many teams still do.  Again, I dont like the use of resources either.  Im just saying that the Bills arent the only ones to do so.  Even Andy Reid believes RBs are important... and they are.  Just not as important as they use to be.

[4merper4mer]

12 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

It’s a message board dude… it’s an opinion(that’s been backed up by evidence from certain teams)  that you don’t need to spend the resources they’ve spent at the position to win… especially the Bills who have an elite QB… I mean look at the Chiefs SB season as an example. They had a washed Lesean McCoy and Damien Williams as their premier backs.

Current team was the request.  There are 31 other teams.  You picked one team from 3 years ago who subsequently spent a first on an RB.  So you say you have evidence from other teams yet you can’t cite a single one?  Where’s the evidence?  An opinion is fine but if you say it’s backed up by evidence then discuss the evidence.

Edited September 4, 2022 by 4merper4mer

[GunnerBill]

On 9/3/2022 at 2:25 AM, hondo in seattle said:

 

It's a valid question but, for me, a little too granular.

 

We can hyperanalyze Beane's hit and misses but the fundamental truth is that he's built the best roster since Polian was here.  

 

All GMs make mistakes - player evaluation is not an exact science.  But Beane's overall body of work has been strong.

 

See I think it is the opposite of granular Hondo. I think excruciating detail around who the Bills could have drafted instead of say Cody Ford or Zay Jones is granular. Because, as you rightly say, player evaluation is not an exact science and every GM has misses as well as hits. I think an analysis of the positional priority the Bills put on various elements of the team now that we have six drafts of this regime, five with this GM, is a really interesting exercise from which we can draw some broader conclusions. I think my point on three day two picks on running backs and none in five years on receivers isn't even about hits and misses. We could have drafted three pro bowl running backs with those three picks and I'd still be questioning whether strategically it is the right way to approach roster building in the NFL in 2022, when you have an elite QB. For example, we know they made a great pick with Gabe Davis, I loved Shakir as a 5th round pick and early returns are encouraging there too. They may have hit it out of the park twice with day three receivers, and yet I would still question whether always waiting to day three to pick wide receivers is the right strategic approach. 

 

It isn't so much about hits v misses to me. It is a more academic debate about the strategy of team building in the modern NFL. This front office has a record that stands up to scrutiny, there is no doubt. But I think there remain questions about strategy that are interesting to explore. Similarly, our opponents on Thursday have a "don't place a high value on day 1 and 2 picks" strategy and they are standing proud with a Lombardi to prove them right. I'm still not sure strategically I think that is the optimum approach either. 

[stevewin]

Every year we come to the beach for labor day weekend, which for many years lined up with final cuts.  The one cut that I'm still always reminded of is Henry Jones - it was truly shocking at the time.  I can remember like yesterday sitting on the balcony of our hotel room with my computer and seeing the news

[Doc]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

See I think it is the opposite of granular Hondo. I think excruciating detail around who the Bills could have drafted instead of say Cody Ford or Zay Jones is granular. Because, as you rightly say, player evaluation is not an exact science and every GM has misses as well as hits. I think an analysis of the positional priority the Bills put on various elements of the team now that we have six drafts of this regime, five with this GM, is a really interesting exercise from which we can draw some broader conclusions. I think my point on three day two picks on running backs and none in five years on receivers isn't even about hits and misses. We could have drafted three pro bowl running backs with those three picks and I'd still be questioning whether strategically it is the right way to approach roster building in the NFL in 2022, when you have an elite QB. For example, we know they made a great pick with Gabe Davis, I loved Shakir as a 5th round pick and early returns are encouraging there too. They may have hit it out of the park twice with day three receivers, and yet I would still question whether always waiting to day three to pick wide receivers is the right strategic approach. 

 

It isn't so much about hits v misses to me. It is a more academic debate about the strategy of team building in the modern NFL. This front office has a record that stands up to scrutiny, there is no doubt. But I think there remain questions about strategy that are interesting to explore. Similarly, our opponents on Thursday have a "don't place a high value on day 1 and 2 picks" strategy and they are standing proud with a Lombardi to prove them right. I'm still not sure strategically I think that is the optimum approach either. 

 

They've tried to address WR through the draft, FA and trades.  Zay, even though not drafted by Beane, was a day 2 pick in 2017, and they still had Watkins who they drafted very high (and then traded-away).  They traded-away a 2018 3rd rounder for Kelvin Benjamin.  They signed Brown and Beasley in 2019 and they did well.  And they traded a 1st rounder for Diggs in 2020 and drafted Davis in the 4th (not a day 1 or 2 pick but a good one nonetheless). 

[Coach Tuesday]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

See I think it is the opposite of granular Hondo. I think excruciating detail around who the Bills could have drafted instead of say Cody Ford or Zay Jones is granular. Because, as you rightly say, player evaluation is not an exact science and every GM has misses as well as hits. I think an analysis of the positional priority the Bills put on various elements of the team now that we have six drafts of this regime, five with this GM, is a really interesting exercise from which we can draw some broader conclusions. I think my point on three day two picks on running backs and none in five years on receivers isn't even about hits and misses. We could have drafted three pro bowl running backs with those three picks and I'd still be questioning whether strategically it is the right way to approach roster building in the NFL in 2022, when you have an elite QB. For example, we know they made a great pick with Gabe Davis, I loved Shakir as a 5th round pick and early returns are encouraging there too. They may have hit it out of the park twice with day three receivers, and yet I would still question whether always waiting to day three to pick wide receivers is the right strategic approach. 

 

It isn't so much about hits v misses to me. It is a more academic debate about the strategy of team building in the modern NFL. This front office has a record that stands up to scrutiny, there is no doubt. But I think there remain questions about strategy that are interesting to explore. Similarly, our opponents on Thursday have a "don't place a high value on day 1 and 2 picks" strategy and they are standing proud with a Lombardi to prove them right. I'm still not sure strategically I think that is the optimum approach either. 

This.

 

It’s the equivalent of hitting on 18 against a five and pulling a 3 in blackjack and declaring that it’s a perfectly fine strategy.  False.  You have to extrapolate out the act over a period of time - generally speaking, using high picks on low-value positions for which you won’t want to pay a second contract is not a good long-term team-building strategy.  The only responses I’m hearing are (i) other teams do it (so what?), (ii) Beane knows better than you (the lamest message board response imaginable), and (iii) but Motor has been a nice player (again, fans will be mad if they pay him and letting him walk is a low ROI, too).

Edited September 4, 2022 by Coach Tuesday

[Sierra Foothills]

3 hours ago, stevewin said:

Every year we come to the beach for labor day weekend, which for many years lined up with final cuts.  The one cut that I'm still always reminded of is Henry Jones - it was truly shocking at the time.  I can remember like yesterday sitting on the balcony of our hotel room with my computer and seeing the news

 

 

[BADOLBILZ]

1 hour ago, Coach Tuesday said:

This.

 

It’s the equivalent of hitting on 18 against a five and pulling a 3 in blackjack and declaring that it’s a perfectly fine strategy.  False.  You have to extrapolate out the act over a period of time - generally speaking, using high picks on low-value positions for which you won’t want to pay a second contract is not a good long-term team-building strategy.  The only responses I’m hearing are (i) other teams do it (so what?), (ii) Beane knows better than you (the lamest message board response imaginable), and (iii) but Motor has been a nice player (again, fans will be mad if they pay him and letting him walk is a low ROI, too).

 

 

Yours and @GunnerBill takes sum this up perfectly.   It's about whether the strategy is likely to produce the result.

 

I'd add that a lot of the folks who complain about scrutinizing Beane's approach would quickly say that Green Bay has wasted Aaron Rodgers career......only winning 1 SB and none after he got paid.

 

And GB have used a very similar approach with regard to drafting defensive players in round 1 and making WR a low priority on draft day.    

 

From GB management perspective they will surely say that they have done what it takes to be a top 3 seed most years and bad luck/timing has cost them.   From my perspective they forget that it's a matchup league and that in the playoffs,  when defensive intensity raises,  having difference makers at receiver matters.  You wonder what it would have looked like in some of those GB playoff runs if Rodgers had a WR corps like the ones that Cinci and LA Rams had in the SB last season.   

[DCbillsfan]

So, is Singletary gone after this season, regardless of how good a year he may have?  To me, extending Oliver would be first priority, but then you have Poyer, Edmunds, Knox along with a possible Davis extension. They can't re-sign all these guys.  Drafting a RB in the 3rd rd with little likelihood of re-signing him appears to contradict Beane's mantra of draft, develop, and re-sign your guys.  I mean it doesn't look likely that Moss gets re-signed either when his deal runs out.  Like others pointed out, too much value being expended at RB position.  The water is a little muddy in the RB room.

[Coach Tuesday]

27 minutes ago, DCbillsfan said:

So, is Singletary gone after this season, regardless of how good a year he may have?  To me, extending Oliver would be first priority, but then you have Poyer, Edmunds, Knox along with a possible Davis extension. They can't re-sign all these guys.  Drafting a RB in the 3rd rd with little likelihood of re-signing him appears to contradict Beane's mantra of draft, develop, and re-sign your guys.  I mean it doesn't look likely that Moss gets re-signed either when his deal runs out.  Like others pointed out, too much value being expended at RB position.  The water is a little muddy in the RB room.

That is precisely the issue.  You use a 3rd on a RB like Motor and then two more Day 2 picks on the same position - now what?  Motor is a good player but you can’t justify paying him (unless he takes a significant hometown discount) with other, more important positions to re-sign and two other young guys waiting in the wings at RB.  Plus he’s not featured in the offense (nor should he be) and he’s a part-time player.  So why use a 3rd just for four years of service at a non-premium position?  Take an EDGE, tackle, WR, CB there and if you hit, you’ve got a cost-controlled every-down premium asset whom you won’t hesitate to re-sign to a second contract.

Edited September 4, 2022 by Coach Tuesday

[GunnerBill]

8 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Yours and @GunnerBill takes sum this up perfectly.   It's about whether the strategy is likely to produce the result.

 

I'd add that a lot of the folks who complain about scrutinizing Beane's approach would quickly say that Green Bay has wasted Aaron Rodgers career......only winning 1 SB and none after he got paid.

 

And GB have used a very similar approach with regard to drafting defensive players in round 1 and making WR a low priority on draft day.    

 

From GB management perspective they will surely say that they have done what it takes to be a top 3 seed most years and bad luck/timing has cost them.   From my perspective they forget that it's a matchup league and that in the playoffs,  when defensive intensity raises,  having difference makers at receiver matters.  You wonder what it would have looked like in some of those GB playoff runs if Rodgers had a WR corps like the ones that Cinci and LA Rams had in the SB last season.   

 

And, critically, when refs let defenses play a bit more. We saw it two years ago when they allowed the Chiefs DBs to mug Diggs all game in the AFCCG. The difference last year was a more mature Gabe Davis who could step up to plate in that spot. You need as many weapons as you can have to pick up the slack in those moments. And you might keep finding them on day 3 of the draft. But I just don't think relying on that is a great strategy.

[Chuck Schick]

17 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

That is precisely the issue.  You use a 3rd on a RB like Motor and then two more Day 2 picks on the same position - now what?  Motor is a good player but you can’t justify paying him (unless he takes a significant hometown discount) with other, more important positions to re-sign and two other young guys waiting in the wings at RB.  Plus he’s not featured in the offense (nor should he be) and he’s a part-time player.  So why use a 3rd just for four years of service at a non-premium position?  Take an EDGE, tackle, WR, CB there and if you hit, you’ve got a cost-controlled every-down premium asset whom you won’t hesitate to re-sign to a second contract.

The bolded is true when you hit a home run on drafting one of those premium position players.  What if the more likely scenario happens and the player is "good"...that second contract gets a lot trickier as other teams with cap space will over pay for "good" CB', DE's, etc.

 

I also think you could spin your argument to taking RBs early...most RBs come out of the gate in peak or close-to-peak performance.  Why not draft one and get great value for 3-5 years?  Let him walk when that second contract comes up, and start back over.  Spend your FA dollars on other premium position needs.

[BADOLBILZ]

19 minutes ago, Chuck Schick said:

The bolded is true when you hit a home run on drafting one of those premium position players.  What if the more likely scenario happens and the player is "good"...that second contract gets a lot trickier as other teams with cap space will over pay for "good" CB', DE's, etc.

 

I also think you could spin your argument to taking RBs early...most RBs come out of the gate in peak or close-to-peak performance.  Why not draft one and get great value for 3-5 years?  Let him walk when that second contract comes up, and start back over.  Spend your FA dollars on other premium position needs.

 

 

 

 

The biggest flaw in this rationale is not understanding that the quality of your RB is not particularly important to your team success.

 

And just as early round RB's can be ready to go..........so can late rounders..........but if you use a small asset like a day 3 pick or UDFA or cheap free agent chip on the player then it doesn't really matter if they are at their peak immediately.

 

You don't get much of a choice of premium positions in free agency.........very good premium position players rarely make it to UFA.

 

Your best chance to have top premium position players..........and retain them at reasonable prices..........is to draft and develop them.    And like most positions your chances of finding them are much better if done early.

[ColoradoBills]

45 minutes ago, Chuck Schick said:

The bolded is true when you hit a home run on drafting one of those premium position players.  What if the more likely scenario happens and the player is "good"...that second contract gets a lot trickier as other teams with cap space will over pay for "good" CB', DE's, etc.

 

I also think you could spin your argument to taking RBs early...most RBs come out of the gate in peak or close-to-peak performance.  Why not draft one and get great value for 3-5 years?  Let him walk when that second contract comes up, and start back over.  Spend your FA dollars on other premium position needs.

 

You make good points to illuminate the other side of this RB debate.  I have shown in other threads that the cliche "you can find good RBs

in any round and even UDFA" is an urban legend.  Finding a good RB taken after both Singletary and Moss in 2019, 2020 respectively would

of been akin to hitting a hard 8 in craps.

 

As to Devin and his future, none of know what will happen yet.  Re-signing him is a possibility and I'll give some reasons.

1.  He still has a lot of tread.  Averaging 200 touches a year is not bad at all.

2.  Last year was a bit of a breakout season and he is becoming a weapon on the offense.  He had 8 TDs last year.

3.  No one knows what kind of contract extension he would be willing to sign.  His $5M "market value" over a 3-4 year extension

     could be worked to get 2-3 years at a little less than that.  After that time, most RB playing starts to fall off.  I'm not 100% convinced

     he is NOT on the team next season.

 

Zack Moss was the 9th RB picked in 2020.  He is the last pick worth anything in that draft.  I'll admit so far this hasn't been a big plus

for Beane but I got to see what the end result will be.  Maybe a trade after this year if Devin stays, maybe a bigger role next season.

 

I have no idea what James Cook's play will mean to the Bills.  I have to wait to see if a 2nd rounder (which I think is high for a RB)

is worth it.

 

As to others who may contest my theory of Day 3 picks not producing decent RBs I will say this.  In 2019 (when Devin was picked) the

Bills had zero RBs.  They had to inject either picks or $'s in FA to bring up the caliber of play.  The 18 (that's right 18) RBs taken in Day 3

had 2 RBs worth their salt.  Tony Pollard and Miles Gaskin.  So, it's not about some theoretical past, it was about drafting a RB in 2019.

 

The conundrum GMs face with RBs is their serviceable timeline is about 6 years or so.  It's in between the rookie contract and a 2nd

contract that many times end up being a mistake.  I will wait to see what Beane does.

 

One last footnote on this long reply:  Bills fans having high hopes for a guy like Blackshear developing into a decent RB is exactly what

some want to have happen all the time.  A cheap UDFA, correct?  His contract could defer some of the cost both in picks and $s.

I do have hope for him.

[Sierra Foothills]

FWIW (probably not too much) Running backs drafted by round from 2017-2021:

 

1st round:  2, 3, 1,  1, 2, (9)

2nd round  2, 4, 1, 5, 1, (13)

3rd round  4, 1, 5, 5, 1, (16)

4th round  7, 5, 4, 4, 4, (24)

5th round  4, 2, 3, 1, 1, (11)

6th round  2, 3, 6, 0, 6, (17)

7th round  5, 3, 7, 3, 4,  (22)

[Don Otreply]

Frankly living in the past, doing the shoulda, coulda, woulda, thing is a waste of time, there is nothing to be done about the “missed” on that guy thing, and then hypothesize endlessly about it what coulda been…, move on, especially being it was someone else’s choice to make and not yours. Sure we all look at it, but to keep track of this stuff for years on end, it’s time for a second hobby when you’re at that point…, 
 

Go Bills!!!

[GoBills808]

On 9/4/2022 at 1:42 AM, GunnerBill said:

 

See I think it is the opposite of granular Hondo. I think excruciating detail around who the Bills could have drafted instead of say Cody Ford or Zay Jones is granular. Because, as you rightly say, player evaluation is not an exact science and every GM has misses as well as hits. I think an analysis of the positional priority the Bills put on various elements of the team now that we have six drafts of this regime, five with this GM, is a really interesting exercise from which we can draw some broader conclusions. I think my point on three day two picks on running backs and none in five years on receivers isn't even about hits and misses. We could have drafted three pro bowl running backs with those three picks and I'd still be questioning whether strategically it is the right way to approach roster building in the NFL in 2022, when you have an elite QB. For example, we know they made a great pick with Gabe Davis, I loved Shakir as a 5th round pick and early returns are encouraging there too. They may have hit it out of the park twice with day three receivers, and yet I would still question whether always waiting to day three to pick wide receivers is the right strategic approach. 

 

It isn't so much about hits v misses to me. It is a more academic debate about the strategy of team building in the modern NFL. This front office has a record that stands up to scrutiny, there is no doubt. But I think there remain questions about strategy that are interesting to explore. Similarly, our opponents on Thursday have a "don't place a high value on day 1 and 2 picks" strategy and they are standing proud with a Lombardi to prove them right. I'm still not sure strategically I think that is the optimum approach either. 

I think you have to take their commitment to drafting the 'right kind' of guy in those early rounds into consideration.