Rubes Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 ...and I'm sure folks here will help me to understand better: People talk about Justice being a hot prospect at LT, maybe not quite as good as Ferguson, but excellent nonetheless. But just not at the #8 position. People talk about Bunkley being at least as good, if not better, than Ngata. But Ngata's okay at the #8 position, but Bunkley isn't. Why? I understand that we could probably get these players if we moved down a few spots in the draft, but that requires (a) another team that is willing to trade spots with us, and (b) nobody else picking the player before he gets to us at the lower spot. What if nobody else wants to trade up with us? If the guy grades well and fills a big hole, what's so bad about taking him a few spots higher than he might otherwise go?
Dan Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 Exactly what I've said in the past. Everyone says trade dow nand take these guys. But not at #8! But, what if no one wants to trade with us?? Then we can't pick these guys because its too high in the draft? I almost want Marv to pick Justice or Bunkley at #8, just to watch some of these guys bust a blood vessel.
ch19079 Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 because when they rank players, they are not only comparing those players to other players at their positons. Ferguson may be slightly better than justice. but you have to think about all the other 1st round prospects. so they are not going to say ferguson is a #2 overall pick and justice is a #3. thre are RBs, TEs, QBs, DBs, LBs, DEs, that are all fighting for that spot. if we take a player listed as a #15 overall pick with our #8 pick, they look at it like you passed on 7 better players, even if Justice was the next best OT.
Dan Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 because when they rank players, they are not only comparing those players to other players at their positons. Ferguson may be slightly better than justice. but you have to think about all the other 1st round prospects. so they are not going to say ferguson is a #2 overall pick and justice is a #3. thre are RBs, TEs, QBs, DBs, LBs, DEs, that are all fighting for that spot. if we take a player listed as a #15 overall pick with our #8 pick, they look at it like you passed on 7 better players, even if Justice was the next best OT. 658872[/snapback] But if those 7 supposedly better players are not needed by your team, why take them? We have 9 WRs right now, should we draft a WR just because he grades out at a certain position?
BUFFALOTONE Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 because when they rank players, they are not only comparing those players to other players at their positons. Ferguson may be slightly better than justice. but you have to think about all the other 1st round prospects. so they are not going to say ferguson is a #2 overall pick and justice is a #3. thre are RBs, TEs, QBs, DBs, LBs, DEs, that are all fighting for that spot. if we take a player listed as a #15 overall pick with our #8 pick, they look at it like you passed on 7 better players, even if Justice was the next best OT. 658872[/snapback] [/quo Well put
2003Contenders Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 Your point is well taken, and it relates to draft philosophy. The Patriots have been doing this for years. They pinpoint particular players that they feel will fit their system and draft them accordingly without worrying too much about how that player's "value" is perceived by other teams. Other teams use the Jimmy Johnson value system -- and refuse to deviate from it, regardless of the position. If the highest rated player is at a non-need position, that is where a trade-down comes in. Then, of course, there are other teams that draft purely for position of need -- and are willing to overlook better value at another position. Ususally the teams that have weaker scouting departments fall into this trap. We are in a nice spot this year simply because -- as much of an oxymoron as it seems -- we have S-O-O-O many needs. Thus, there will definitely be a good player sitting there for us at #8 that will fill a position of need. From that perspective, if we have, say, 3-4 guys all ranked pretty closely, then it makes good sense for us to trade down, since we will still have a shot at getting one of them. Say, for example, that Ngata, Bunkley, Huff, Justice, and Davis are all still on the board. We could use any one of them -- and potentially wind up with a good player that fills a need. Now, let's say that a team that runs a 3-4 alignment has a real need for a DT, well, Ngata is likley more valueable to them than he would be to us. Thus, we could afford to trade down 3-4 spots and still be assured of drafting one of the players I've mentioned -- and at the same time pick up an extra draft pick or two. If one of the QBs slips, that makes our situation even better. Now, assuming that we can't find a decent trading partner, then we will need to suck it up and go with the original strategy that I outlined above. That is to say that, even though, say, Winston Justice may be ranked #12 in terms of his overall value, if the Bills feel that he is the best option to help our OL with the #8 pick, then they should go for it -- and not worry about someone like Mel Kiper suggesting that we "reached" for him.
FightClub Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 ...and I'm sure folks here will help me to understand better: People talk about Justice being a hot prospect at LT, maybe not quite as good as Ferguson, but excellent nonetheless. But just not at the #8 position. People talk about Bunkley being at least as good, if not better, than Ngata. But Ngata's okay at the #8 position, but Bunkley isn't. Why? I understand that we could probably get these players if we moved down a few spots in the draft, but that requires (a) another team that is willing to trade spots with us, and (b) nobody else picking the player before he gets to us at the lower spot. What if nobody else wants to trade up with us? If the guy grades well and fills a big hole, what's so bad about taking him a few spots higher than he might otherwise go? 658869[/snapback] Well I am one of those people in my mock draft who suggests picking Huff, partially because he is "worth" the #8. I think if comes down to how much you value a guy like Huff (or V. Davis, or whomever) and still feel that it is a hole on our team. We all agree the lines are holes but I happen to think a difference-making safety is important too (ala Ed Reed in Balt. for example). As another example I don't particularly think TE is a huge hole because I believe Everett should be given a chance and Royal will be out there a lot for blocking as almost another tackle. So when others suggest that V. Davis should be taken, I tend to not agree. All that said, I believe in Marv's evaluation and if he picks Bunkley, Ngata or Justice, I will still be happy that we filled a hole I just will also be watching Huff's career because I think we will have missed out on something special.
ans4e64 Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 i agree with you, but i think the first round is a little different. the difference in money from the 15th pick to the 8th pick is significant. if you feel that bunkley is the player for you thats great, but he might not be worth top 10 money and a signing bonus of $12-15 million. that is where trading down comes in. in other rounds its not so much of a big deal, but i think in the top 10 its different.
Rubes Posted April 11, 2006 Author Posted April 11, 2006 All that said, I believe in Marv's evaluation and if he picks Bunkley, Ngata or Justice, I will still be happy that we filled a hole I just will also be watching Huff's career because I think we will have missed out on something special. 658887[/snapback] So if we pick Huff (and I wouldn't be upset at that move, I would just prefer a lineman), will you be watching Bunkley's career, or Justice's? If they turn out to be All-Pros, will you think we missed out on them? The point being, you're going to miss out on somebody, no matter what.
CosmicBills Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 i agree with you, but i think the first round is a little different. the difference in money from the 15th pick to the 8th pick is significant. if you feel that bunkley is the player for you thats great, but he might not be worth top 10 money and a signing bonus of $12-15 million. that is where trading down comes in. in other rounds its not so much of a big deal, but i think in the top 10 its different. 658894[/snapback] Absolutley. It has nothing to do with how other teams perceive the Bills, it's all about the money. First round contracts are largely established based on where they were selected in the draft. Taking a guy 10 spots too soon could cost the team millions when, just by trading back a few slots and getting the same player, you could have saved all that money.
stuckincincy Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 Then, of course, there are other teams that draft purely for position of need -- and are willing to overlook better value at another position. Ususally the teams that have weaker scouting departments fall into this trap. 658886[/snapback] Your "better value" may fly the coop in a few years. If your foundation is cracked or your roof leaks, that takes priority before a spiffy new deck or snazzy windows. I don't see where scouting comes into it. One could argue that the Bills took the "best player available" the last few years. Results were disappointing...
Rubes Posted April 11, 2006 Author Posted April 11, 2006 i agree with you, but i think the first round is a little different. the difference in money from the 15th pick to the 8th pick is significant. if you feel that bunkley is the player for you thats great, but he might not be worth top 10 money and a signing bonus of $12-15 million. that is where trading down comes in. in other rounds its not so much of a big deal, but i think in the top 10 its different. 658894[/snapback] I get the concept of trading down, but you only trade down if: (a) you think the guy's value is less than where you are currently sitting, (b) you can find someone to trade down with, and © the spot you're trading down for is not so far down that you'll still get a shot at the guy. That's a lot that needs to come together, particularly when you consider that not a lot of teams want to trade up to begin with, and you're probably further limiting who you can trade down with by the number of spots you're willing to drop.
Rubes Posted April 11, 2006 Author Posted April 11, 2006 First round contracts are largely established based on where they were selected in the draft. Taking a guy 10 spots too soon could cost the team millions when, just by trading back a few slots and getting the same player, you could have saved all that money. 658898[/snapback] "Just by trading back a few slots." It's that easy, isn't it? Sure.
Mark VI Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 If the guy grades well and fills a big hole, what's so bad about taking him a few spots higher than he might otherwise go? 658869[/snapback] Nothing. In the case of Justice, he's is a natural RT who protected the blindside of a lefty QB. We've been down that road before with poor results. I want a natural LT like Whitworth of LSU or McNeil of Auburn, if we decide they are worthy. BTW - both of these guys have a higher rating than Justice with Ourlads scouting. This is why I hope the phone rings, offering the Bills an opportunity to trade down and perhaps pick up an extra 2nd. Depth is evident at LT,OG,DT,S etc. ...positions we need.
Fixxxer Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 Maybe because before the Indy Combine Bunkley and Justice were viewed as fine players with raw talent and potential. Once the guys mentioned above bench pressed the scouts and their mothers a gazzilions times or their VJ is just amazing or they ran a smoking 40 time are now viewed with new eyes and the posiblity of them being taken ahead of where they were ranked is now a lot higher than before. Guys like Ngata, Fergusson, Leinart were highly regarded since last years draft and are (scouts' take) more ready made NFL players than other guys in their position. Or maybe I don't know what I'm talking about (a strong possibility)
Dan Gross Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 "Just by trading back a few slots." It's that easy, isn't it? Sure. 658904[/snapback] Piece of cake. Everyone should trade down. That way no one has to pay top 10 money. You do know that the only players guaranteed to succeed with the Bills are either: a.) those taken before #8 and b.) those whose "draft value" projects ahead of the player we picked? (In other words, if we pick the 15th ranked player at #8, then picks 8-14 are "can't misses"). Exception to b.) would be if we took the "best available" player. Then the list of "can't miss" players in the b.) case would be all the players in one of our "need" areas that were picked later in the first round.
ans4e64 Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 I get the concept of trading down, but you only trade down if: (a) you think the guy's value is less than where you are currently sitting, (b) you can find someone to trade down with, and © the spot you're trading down for is not so far down that you'll still get a shot at the guy. That's a lot that needs to come together, particularly when you consider that not a lot of teams want to trade up to begin with, and you're probably further limiting who you can trade down with by the number of spots you're willing to drop. 658903[/snapback] trading down can be easier than you think just by lowering your asking price, if a team really didnt want to sit at that spot, you could only ask to switch picks and maybe a 4th, it doesnt seem like its fair to the team trading down, but if it saves millions and they need the cap space than great.
CosmicBills Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 "Just by trading back a few slots." It's that easy, isn't it? Sure. 658904[/snapback] Never said it was easy...just saying why people question "reaching" to take players ahead of their projected spots.
Matt in KC Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 If the goal is just to save money, you don't even need to trade down, just let the clock run out and wait until the right number of teams jump in. Boy, think about how much that would screw up Detroit and Arizona to rush through their 1st round picks!
apuszczalowski Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 If there is no trading partner and the guy you want is there, you take him at that spot but you do everything you can to trade down and get them later, cause (as it was said before) Reaching in the first round is going to cost you money. Thats why round #1 should be used for Best Player Available for your team, cause it is going to cost the most to sign these players. There are always a couple players that are close together in skill level when you draft that are best player available so usually you have a choice as to who suits your team best. At #8 Buffalo could have Huff, Davis, Ngata, Cutler/Young, etc. all could then be classified as Best Player Available. Now Cutler/Young are QB's and not exactly what the team desperately needs this year cause we already have 3 fighting for the starting job (if JP and Nall flop this year, next year is the year to draft another high ranked QB) Huff would be an upgrade to our defence so he is a possibility. Davis is an upgrade to our offence because Royal is a blocker that will help the oline, and Everett is unproven and injury prone (I heard he is now injured again?) so Davis is another good choice (Fox sports mock draft 7.0 hav us taking Davis, with Huff going to the raiders) Ngata is one of the better DT in the draft so he is also a good choice for Best Player Available (I'm just not sold on him being a fit for our system and weither he is hands down the best DT in the draft) so he would also be suited for the 8th pick. Bunkley and Justice are definitly good players and possible targets for the Bills, but in the 8th spot they are a reach cause are they really worth top 10 money? Picking in the top 10 is great cause you get some spectacular players (and usually since you are in the top ten, you have many holes so there are alot of different options for your pick) but you have to also be able to afford to drop alot of money on a rookie player cause they will be demanding a huge contract. Would we have been so hard on Mike Williams if he was drafted in the second round and not such a huge cap hit? Also the entire draft is a crap shoot meaning you are rolling the dice picking unproven players to your team and signing them to big money contracts before seeing what they can really do, so ultimately your taking a gamble. Teams at the end of the first round are sitting in a better spot cause they can get a good player, and the contracts are usually smaller. So if Bunkley or Justice are Marvs picks, and no other team is willing to trade up to pick someone they really want, you take them, but its an even greater risk cause you are going to pay them alot of money for someone who might not be worth that much (basically you are overpaying for a rookie just to fill a need) I believe in the theory of 1st round is for best Player available, the rest of the draft is for filling holes.
Recommended Posts