N.Y. Orangeman Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 It seems one of the constant debates relating to the draft is whether we draft to need and fill depth or trade up for a quality player who can become a difference maker in a particular facet of the game (i.e., Peterson with the running game). I'd be interested to know your thoughts on where we are as a franchise. Specifically, are we really a LB/RB/CB and depth away from being a real SB contender or do we really need a difference maker (whether that be at the RB spot with Peterson or elsewhere)? Does it matter?
Brandon Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 With the way rosters turn over every few years, I'm beginning to believe that it makes a lot more sense to go for the difference makers rather than to try to plug every hole with a decent player. I'm not sure that a team can eliminate all of the weaknesses on a roster anymore. As soon as a team fills one need, it seems as though FA causes another to appear, so there doesn't seem to be a point in even trying that route these days. I think the best bet is to pick up a couple of excellent players and hope that they can mask some of the weaknesses that a team will inevitably have.
obie_wan Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 With the way rosters turn over every few years, I'm beginning to believe that it makes a lot more sense to go for the difference makers rather than to try to plug every hole with a decent player. I'm not sure that a team can eliminate all of the weaknesses on a roster anymore. As soon as a team fills one need, it seems as though FA causes another to appear, so there doesn't seem to be a point in even trying that route these days. I think the best bet is to pick up a couple of excellent players and hope that they can mask some of the weaknesses that a team will inevitably have. The only consistent way to get playmakers at a reasonable price is to draft them. The best you get in free agency is overpriced mid-ranged guys unless a malcontent like TO hits the market. Generally, you can find role players in free agency, but not playmakers and diffference makers. If they are still valuable, they are not on the market. The Bills need to get a dominant MLB for the defense to operate most efficiently. If they think Willis is the guy and they need to bypass SF to make sure it happens, then they should do it. The loss of a player in the 4th round who is most likely a backup is worth it.
Brandon Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 The only consistent way to get playmakers at a reasonable price is to draft them. The best you get in free agency is overpriced mid-ranged guys unless a malcontent like TO hits the market. Generally, you can find role players in free agency, but not playmakers and diffference makers. If they are still valuable, they are not on the market. The Bills need to get a dominant MLB for the defense to operate most efficiently. If they think Willis is the guy and they need to bypass SF to make sure it happens, then they should do it. The loss of a player in the 4th round who is most likely a backup is worth it. I agree completely on the roles of free agency and the draft. As for Patrick Willis, I think he'll go 8th overall to Detroit after the Lions trade with Atlanta.
Pyrite Gal Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 I think there are simply too many doubts about whether in fact Peterson or Willis will in fact work out to be difference makers that it is not a significantly better strategy for the Bills to trade down and increase competition by getting more 1st day picks. It is not simply just a choice of whether you judge either of these two players to be the real deal, but given that we need at least two stud RBs (A-Train should be an acceptable #2 RB as he was last year, but the potential for even Peterson with his history of injury to be much more than a WM type producer is not a stone cold cinch) and that we will need too replace 2 LBs who started last season (Ellison may be one, but then even if this works Willis would have to be the other unless we traded down and I think it is asking for a lot too work out for us to have two hits at LB here). I agree with folks that FA tends to be a good way of producing role players and that their are few guarantees there, but one should not let the limitations of FA fool a rooter into thinking that the draft is a guarantee of success. Good players tend to get drafted, but also draftees (even 1st rounders) can easily turn out to be big time disappointments. The draft is simply a crapshoot with grave limitations (just as FA is) and the greatest chance of success comes from having two pretty good guys who can compete to see which one is very good rather than generally assuming that a particular player is definitely going to be very good (whether he is acquired via FA or the draft).
obie_wan Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 I think there are simply too many doubts about whether in fact Peterson or Willis will in fact work out to be difference makers that it is not a significantly better strategy for the Bills to trade down and increase competition by getting more 1st day picks. It is not simply just a choice of whether you judge either of these two players to be the real deal, but given that we need at least two stud RBs (A-Train should be an acceptable #2 RB as he was last year, but the potential for even Peterson with his history of injury to be much more than a WM type producer is not a stone cold cinch) and that we will need too replace 2 LBs who started last season (Ellison may be one, but then even if this works Willis would have to be the other unless we traded down and I think it is asking for a lot too work out for us to have two hits at LB here). I agree with folks that FA tends to be a good way of producing role players and that their are few guarantees there, but one should not let the limitations of FA fool a rooter into thinking that the draft is a guarantee of success. Good players tend to get drafted, but also draftees (even 1st rounders) can easily turn out to be big time disappointments. The draft is simply a crapshoot with grave limitations (just as FA is) and the greatest chance of success comes from having two pretty good guys who can compete to see which one is very good rather than generally assuming that a particular player is definitely going to be very good (whether he is acquired via FA or the draft). The hole in your agrument is that although 1st rounders do bust, lower picks also bust but at a much higher rate. Better talent has a better chance of success, especially if they are high character, self-motivated players.
Sen. John Blutarsky Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 You are ALWAYS looking for difference makers but the reality is that you're never sure where they are going to come from. Thurman Thomas- round 2 Andre Reed- round 4 Terrell Davis- round 6 Brett Favre- round 2 Pat Williams- undrafted Karl Mecklenberg- round 12 Tom Brady- round 6 it goes on and on...on draft day all these guys had major flaws. Take all the picks seriously and look for players with the potential to be difference makers. You sign low level FAs for depth, you draft for difference.
Fewell733 Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 well you try and find difference makers early on - though there are no sure things. But it seems like you're really only talking about the first 2 rounds. The last 5 you try and find guys that will contribute and fit what you're trying to do - occassionally some inexperienced athletic freak will be available late and you can risk it or grab them in UDFA (Peters)
Recommended Posts