stinky finger Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 that is why the Bills will trade up to #10 to get Willis if they thinnk SF will take him. I'd say CJ is the only player worth moving up for. It would be too costly and you'd have to get to #1 to possibly even do this anyway. We're not about that. We're not moving up to get Willis, either. No way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 What a great question. I'd love to see a study that analyzes the historic results of the top 50. Has anyone out there come across a study that analyzes the success ratio of the top 25, top 50, 100, etc. draft picks. Just a quick and dirty run through on www.nfl.com/draft looking back to 1982 and here's what I came up with regarding "stars". Not just successful because who the heck can remember if all these guys were long term starters and if they were good starters. Certainly there's plenty of good starters in the top 50 of each year, but I believe the first fella asked about stars. So, I used my highly subject filter... have I heard about them and did they make some significant contribution (that I know of) to their team or teams. For example, in 1984, I know Gregg Bell was a good player but a star?? So, guys like that weren't counted. Boomer however I did count from 84. So you get the idea - completely subjective BS, but something to do to keep me from working. 1982 - 2 1983 - 12 (one hell of a draft all around) 1984 - 4 1985 - 7 1986 - 5 1987 - 6 1988 - 9 (still hard to believe Turman went at #40) 1989 - 8 1990 - 4 1991 - 7 (Favre goes at #33) 1992 - 6 1993 - 5 1994 - 7 1995 - 6 1996 - 9 1997 - 7 1998 - 5 1999 - 10 2000 - 5 2001 - 10 2002 - 5 2003 - 4 2004 - 5 2005 - 0 (still too early to tell in my mind) 2006 - 2 (still too early, but I counted Reggie Bush and Vince Young, just because they seem destined for stardom) So if we take the top 50 from 1982-2004; we have 1,150 players and 148 "stars" or 12.9% of the picks (If I did all the math correctly). So what can we deduce from my lack of doing work and BS statistics... the great "star" picks are few and far between and its amazing how many early rounders that are talked up to be the next great thing, really aren't. Obviously, there are alot of great starters in there, but not many super stars. Makes you appreciate the few we've had and the difficulty in finding the next ones. Given that judging talent seems so difficult and its not always the top few picks that are the best players in a draft, I'd conclude that quantity is the way to go with the draft. I'm not suggesting trade out of the first round (it certainly seems more "star" players a drafted in the first round), but I would be against giving up picks just to move up a few spots to get a player that has a 10-15% chance of being the next Thurman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fewell733 Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I think Marv wants to plan for a championship team versus a solid team even if it means we have some gaps next year. That means trading picks for moving up and getting top rookies for 5 years versus depth with ok guys. Especially since we wont pay for impact free agents. We have extra 3s the next 2 years that can be used to move up inthe drafts. Lets say we do this to get 6 picks on the top 50 over 2 years and got impact players at rb,wr,te,lb,cb and dline. Plus resign LE and Jp. Would that be better than havig 2-4 extra picks? Lets shoot for a 12 win caliber team vs the saver/quicker 10 win team. Of course many think we are on the way down,not up. I'm not sure I fully follow your reasoning fully. I think what Marv is clearly trying to do is lay the foundations of a team that can be consistently competitive (competitive in the sense of being in playoff contention). Free Agents are a very small part of that mission (see Indy). Personally I like taking additional players because I think really good players are still available in the 3rd round, and sacrificing a few of those for one guy is risky when you're building a team. But I trust Marv's judgment and if the risk is worth it to him, its worth it to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Ginn isn't the best WR on his own college team. He runs fast. No one will be trading up for Ginn. Did you use the force to come up with that analysis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I think Marv wants to plan for a championship team versus a solid team even if it means we have some gaps next year. That means trading picks for moving up and getting top rookies for 5 years versus depth with ok guys. I can't agree. I believe Marv's temprament is more about building a solid franchise that has the ability to compete year in and year out. What you describe sounds more like TD's "swing for the fences" mentality...which leads to a lot of strikeouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts