The Bills do NOT spend more picks on the secondary

[AKC]

Ramius outlined a well-researched topic

 

That requires you believe Ashton Yobouty was as critical a decision for the team as Nate Clements- believe what you want; if you'd actually like to expand your understanding of the subject you should try this link-

 

Well Researched Top Of The Draft Positional Study

[Rockinon]

The only thing getting bigger around here is the size of your ego

What ego? He's obviously an overly uptight teenager and mommy just yelled at him and sent him to his room.

[Flbillsfan#1]

Actually, that was very nice work. I am guessing that the results differed from what you expected. I think that we both know that we could talk about this for hours and draw several conclusions.

 

Btw, TB drafted a first round db this year. As you well know, I was quite fond of their 06 and 07 drafts, especially 06. After 2 drafts like that, why not go for a db at #20?

The Bucs had a real NEED at CB this year. Kelly is gone & Barber only has a couple more years in him. Talib could be as good or even better than McKelvin.

[Rockinon]

BTW Ramius, your research is appreciated and I happen to think that your drawn conclusions were well thought out and fairly accurate. At least as accurate as you can gleen from "statistics" anyway.

[Ramius]

Where does Buffalo rank since 2006? I'd be interested to see that.

 

The Bills have selected 7 DB's out of 26 total picks, or about 1/4 of their selections.

 

2006: Donte Whitner, Ashton Youboty, and Ko Simpson

2007: John Wendling

2008: Leodis McKelvin, Reggie Corner, Kennard Cox

 

DJ also inherited Clements and McGee. The Bills FO cut Milloy and Vincent, while signing William James this past off-season. Bryan Scott was signed off the street free agent list, as was Jeremetrius Butler in 2007.

 

Needless to say, the Bills have performed several acquisitions in only a few offseasons, headlined by 7 DB's taken.

 

I dont have the data from just the last 3 drafts. I also did not include rounds 4-7, because at that point, you cannot realistically expect anything from those players drafted, except that you may hit on the occasional starter. Yes, teams can and will get starters and even stars in those rounds. But you cannot count on that when planning on building your football team. It is, in my opinion, completely reasonable to expect to get a decent NFL player from each one of the 1st 3 rounds of the NFL draft. After all, these players are the top 100 college players in the nation. After that, you cannot plan on anything from the lower round draft picks.

 

I understand that a team needs to find starters and gems in the late rounds, but my point is that you can't take player X from the 5th round and say that you expect him to develop into a solid NFLer.

[Steely Dan]

With your unsupportable "average" requiring we consider the drafting of Ashton Yobouty be of the same impact as drafting Nate Clements.

 

Try again- your hole keeps gettin' bigger!

 

 

 

WRamius has made some argument that requires you accept the 94th pick in the draft having the same impact on any team that the 4th player taken, and it's sheer lunacy. His inability to recognize that teams making an investment in DBs with an 11 pick is going to have more impact on the team making the pick immediately and into the future versus a team making a DB selection at 84 is among the worst analysis made on TSW this year. Perhaps ever.

 

I'm pretty sure you're the biggest hole here. Reread his post I think he's covered all the bases.

 

 

The only thing getting bigger around here is the size of your ego

 

No, I'd say his A-hole is getting even bigger the farther he shoves his head up it.

 

 

Not really when you consider that it hurts the Bills when a player like Youboty doesn't pan out.If he were a 4th round or later pick not so bad but a player taken in the 1st 3 rounds is expected by the organization to become a starter.

 

Yes, Buffalo should draft like every other team does and hit on every single pick they make.

 

 

Come on man you are not serious are you? What you fail to realize, or even mention in passing, is that 1st round picks, even high first rounders, can easily be busts as well. Some are just way overvalued. Some unfortunately get hurt and aren't able to play up to their talents. Sometimes you draft an otherwise great player that gets arrested 8 times in twelve months and get suspended by the league for a year.

What Ramius said if you actually read the post is that 1-3 rounders have reasonable chances to develop into NFL players, as opposed to late round picks who get cut or placed on the practice squad. Ramius outlined a well-researched topic and you respond with an ornery, unsupported, one-sided response. You are the clown buddy.

 

Mr. Unreasonable being reasonable? What's the world coming to?

 

 

What ego? He's obviously an overly uptight teenager and mommy just yelled at him and sent him to his room.

 

I hope he's under 18. If he's not

[DrDawkinstein]

wow ramius, some good hard work went into that. much appreciated, no matter what point it makes.

 

and frankly, re-analyzing your already detailed analysis isnt seeing the bigger picture. which i believe is: dont bother freaking out just because we've picked some DBs. Plenty of teams have. its not a "Bills only" thing and can hardly be pointed at as the only(or main) reason for our past failures.

[OCinBuffalo]

Churchill said: "I'd rather be right than consistent". As Ramius has laid out here, clearly the best teams focus on what's right for the whole team, each year, rather than "being consistent" and always drafting D and O lineman.

 

Oh, and by the way, we have an object lesson in what happens when you "consistently" draft O and D line high: The Houston Texans. Look it up here.. Yeah, fine example of building a "winning tradition" there. How long have they been in the league again? How many winning records, playoff appearances, etc? Their last 5 #1 draft picks have all been consensus "great" lineman(mostly D). Too bad reality = these lineman have a whopping 0 Pro-Bowl appearances, and they have been drafted in the top 10, except when they traded down, each year.

 

If we are to believe that "consistently" drafting O and D lineman high for 5 years automagically = SB, then the Texans should have won at least one by now, or they should easily win one this year. Right, they are going to beat the Colts, Titans and Jags at least 3 times and crush most of their non-division opponents. Too bad they were 1-5 in their division last year, and the 1 came against the Jags' scrubs the last game of the season.

 

Meanwhile, the Colts, who have been treating the Texans as whipping boys for those 5 years, have drafted mostly DBs. But, since supposedly "the game is won by the lines" , and not QBs, WRs, RBs, CBs, and Safeties(or the actual truth, which is games are won by entire teams, not units or individuals-->see Giants SB win), somehow the Colts have eluded the sensibilities of those who supposedly "know something about football". Yet, these "knowledgeable" folks demand that we follow the Texans draft model, and hurl insults at anyone who dares poke holes in their "holy scripture".

 

I'd love to hear how the "Big guy good" draft "thinkers" resolve the Texans drafts against their utter lack of performance on the field, and in the win column.

[Steely Dan]

Churchill said: "I'd rather be right than consistent". As Ramius has laid out here, clearly the best teams focus on what's right for the whole team, each year, rather than "being consistent" and always drafting D and O lineman.

 

Oh, and by the way, we have an object lesson in what happens when you "consistently" draft O and D line high: The Houston Texans. Look it up here.. Yeah, fine example of building a "winning tradition" there. How long have they been in the league again? How many winning records, playoff appearances, etc? Their last 5 #1 draft picks have all been consensus "great" lineman(mostly D). Too bad reality = these lineman have a whopping 0 Pro-Bowl appearances, and they have been drafted in the top 10, except when they traded down, each year.

 

If we are to believe that "consistently" drafting O and D lineman high for 5 years automagically = SB, then the Texans should have won at least one by now, or they should easily win one this year. Right, they are going to beat the Colts, Titans and Jags at least 3 times and crush most of their non-division opponents. Too bad they were 1-5 in their division last year, and the 1 came against the Jags' scrubs the last game of the season.

 

Meanwhile, the Colts, who have been treating the Texans as whipping boys for those 5 years, have drafted mostly DBs. But, since supposedly "the game is won by the lines" , and not QBs, WRs, RBs, CBs, and Safeties(or the actual truth, which is games are won by entire teams, not units or individuals-->see Giants SB win), somehow the Colts have eluded the sensibilities of those who supposedly "know something about football". Yet, these "knowledgeable" folks demand that we follow the Texans draft model, and hurl insults at anyone who dares poke holes in their "holy scripture".

 

I'd love to hear how the "Big guy good" draft "thinkers" resolve the Texans drafts against their utter lack of performance on the field, and in the win column.

 

That whole thing is great not just the highlighted part but that's the best part. I wish I had written that. You basically took something I've felt for a long time and wrote it better than I ever could have. Great Job!!

[BillsWatch]

The Bills seem to use a lot more effort trying to find UDFA CBs than other teams. I think the scouting department thinks themselves better prepared than most teams to find gems in the rough.

[Steely Dan]

The Bills seem to use a lot more effort trying to find UDFA CBs than other teams. I think the scouting department thinks themselves better prepared than most teams to find gems in the rough.

 

They do seem to unearth at least one UDFA gem every year.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

I have an EXCELLENT grasp/understanding of the game of football, and I can tell you one thing to prove your dumb@$$ remark...Terrence McGee who was taken in the 4th round with the #111th pick, is FAR better than someone like Ahmad Carroll who was taken in the 1st round with the #25th pick. So, while you think a 3rd round corner is no way close to being equal to a 1st round corner...I would say that my 4th round corner is WAY MORE valuable than your 1st round corner! Another example of this would be, Buffalo taking Ko Simpson in round #4 with pick #105, and the Dolphins taking Jason Allen with their 16th overall selection. Now, would you say that the 1st round DB is not equal to the 4th round DB???

 

Check the stats buddy...Simpson is outperforming Allen!

 

Your theory makes no sense, and it seems that you have no grasp on the game of football. Do some research, like the person who posted the original thread (and did a WONDERFUL job), and THEN you can insult people and make yourself look like more of an @$$hole!

I'm sorry...but this makes extremely little sense.

 

You can't say that a random 4th round pick is anywhere near the value of a random 1st round pick. Talking about the select cases where a specific 4th rounder outperforms a specific 1st rounder does not change that. On average, 1st round picks outperform 4th round picks, and I'm confident it isn't close. Thats pretty much irrefutable.

 

Hitting your inside straight one hand and missing your open-ended the next doesn't mean you should play inside straights more often. Open-ended straights don't even approach 100%, but they're still far more likely to hit.

 

Your 1st round picks are your open-ended straight draws. Because the likelihood of success is far greater, using a 1st round pick on a given position is very different than using a 4th round pick, because you're burning a far greater resource. I believe thats what AKC's getting at, in the line you bolded.

[AKC]

I'm sorry...but this makes extremely little sense.

 

You can't say that a random 4th round pick is anywhere near the value of a random 1st round pick. Talking about the select cases where a specific 4th rounder outperforms a specific 1st rounder does not change that. On average, 1st round picks outperform 4th round picks, and I'm confident it isn't close. Thats pretty much irrefutable.

 

Hitting your inside straight one hand and missing your open-ended the next doesn't mean you should play inside straights more often. Open-ended straights don't even approach 100%, but they're still far more likely to hit.

 

Your 1st round picks are your open-ended straight draws. Because the likelihood of success is far greater, using a 1st round pick on a given position is very different than using a 4th round pick, because you're burning a far greater resource. I believe thats what AKC's getting at, in the line you bolded.

 

Of course you're absolutely correct. The pick you make first on day one is the most critical to your team-

 

A) It will cost you the most but offers the most likely opportunity for the greatest return.

B) You remove a blue chip player who will otherwise benefit an opponent.

 

Every ensuing pick of the day of course has value, but the more highly rated players taken in prior rounds diminish the overall impact of later picks from a strategic standpoint. Any analysis that requires a 3rd round corner to be considered of an equal impact as a 1st round corner simply fails even the most basic test of football logic.

[Huuuge Bills]

Churchill said: "I'd rather be right than consistent". As Ramius has laid out here, clearly the best teams focus on what's right for the whole team, each year, rather than "being consistent" and always drafting D and O lineman.

 

Oh, and by the way, we have an object lesson in what happens when you "consistently" draft O and D line high: The Houston Texans. Look it up here.. Yeah, fine example of building a "winning tradition" there. How long have they been in the league again? How many winning records, playoff appearances, etc? Their last 5 #1 draft picks have all been consensus "great" lineman(mostly D). Too bad reality = these lineman have a whopping 0 Pro-Bowl appearances, and they have been drafted in the top 10, except when they traded down, each year.

 

If we are to believe that "consistently" drafting O and D lineman high for 5 years automagically = SB, then the Texans should have won at least one by now, or they should easily win one this year. Right, they are going to beat the Colts, Titans and Jags at least 3 times and crush most of their non-division opponents. Too bad they were 1-5 in their division last year, and the 1 came against the Jags' scrubs the last game of the season.

 

Meanwhile, the Colts, who have been treating the Texans as whipping boys for those 5 years, have drafted mostly DBs. But, since supposedly "the game is won by the lines" , and not QBs, WRs, RBs, CBs, and Safeties(or the actual truth, which is games are won by entire teams, not units or individuals-->see Giants SB win), somehow the Colts have eluded the sensibilities of those who supposedly "know something about football". Yet, these "knowledgeable" folks demand that we follow the Texans draft model, and hurl insults at anyone who dares poke holes in their "holy scripture".

 

I'd love to hear how the "Big guy good" draft "thinkers" resolve the Texans drafts against their utter lack of performance on the field, and in the win column.

 

I love how every time someone posts any stats/info like this, it's conveiniently ignored by the chubby chasers.

[Ramius]

I'm sorry...but this makes extremely little sense.

 

You can't say that a random 4th round pick is anywhere near the value of a random 1st round pick. Talking about the select cases where a specific 4th rounder outperforms a specific 1st rounder does not change that. On average, 1st round picks outperform 4th round picks, and I'm confident it isn't close. Thats pretty much irrefutable.

 

Hitting your inside straight one hand and missing your open-ended the next doesn't mean you should play inside straights more often. Open-ended straights don't even approach 100%, but they're still far more likely to hit.

 

Your 1st round picks are your open-ended straight draws. Because the likelihood of success is far greater, using a 1st round pick on a given position is very different than using a 4th round pick, because you're burning a far greater resource. I believe thats what AKC's getting at, in the line you bolded.

 

If you're questioning my methodology, in case i didnt explain well enough it above, here it is: I think its a fair assumption that most teams reasonably expect 1st-3rd round picks to be significant contributors for the team for a while. It could be a star, a starter, or a really solid backup. But i'd venture a guess that most teams expect draftees from rounds 1-3 to be on the team for the long term. In rounds 4-7, there cant be that expectation. So thats why i set the bar where i did. I took a look at DBs that can be reasonably expected to contribute to a team and their success.

 

Nowhere do i say or imply that a 1st round pick is equal in value to a 3rd or 4th round pick. I am however, stating that both 1st and 3rd rounds picks can be expected to contribute.

[Ramius]

Churchill said: "I'd rather be right than consistent". As Ramius has laid out here, clearly the best teams focus on what's right for the whole team, each year, rather than "being consistent" and always drafting D and O lineman.

 

Oh, and by the way, we have an object lesson in what happens when you "consistently" draft O and D line high: The Houston Texans. Look it up here.. Yeah, fine example of building a "winning tradition" there. How long have they been in the league again? How many winning records, playoff appearances, etc? Their last 5 #1 draft picks have all been consensus "great" lineman(mostly D). Too bad reality = these lineman have a whopping 0 Pro-Bowl appearances, and they have been drafted in the top 10, except when they traded down, each year.

 

If we are to believe that "consistently" drafting O and D lineman high for 5 years automagically = SB, then the Texans should have won at least one by now, or they should easily win one this year. Right, they are going to beat the Colts, Titans and Jags at least 3 times and crush most of their non-division opponents. Too bad they were 1-5 in their division last year, and the 1 came against the Jags' scrubs the last game of the season.

 

Meanwhile, the Colts, who have been treating the Texans as whipping boys for those 5 years, have drafted mostly DBs. But, since supposedly "the game is won by the lines" , and not QBs, WRs, RBs, CBs, and Safeties(or the actual truth, which is games are won by entire teams, not units or individuals-->see Giants SB win), somehow the Colts have eluded the sensibilities of those who supposedly "know something about football". Yet, these "knowledgeable" folks demand that we follow the Texans draft model, and hurl insults at anyone who dares poke holes in their "holy scripture".

 

I'd love to hear how the "Big guy good" draft "thinkers" resolve the Texans drafts against their utter lack of performance on the field, and in the win column.

 

You can also add the chiefs and rams to that list as well. Both of those teams have spent lots of high picks along the DL with little success.

[AKC]

If you're questioning my methodology, in case i didnt explain well enough it above, here it is: I think its a fair assumption that most teams reasonably expect 1st-3rd round picks to be significant contributors for the team for a while. It could be a star, a starter, or a really solid backup. But i'd venture a guess that most teams expect draftees from rounds 1-3 to be on the team for the long term. In rounds 4-7, there cant be that expectation.

 

For anyone to accept your "methodology", they'd have to agree that Defensive Back DeCoud Thomas, drafted #98 at the end of the 3rd round, is "reasonably expected to be a significant contributor" to the Atlanta Falcons, whereas Defensive Back Tyvon Branch, drafted #100 at the top of the 4th round, is not expected to become any kind of contributor to the Raiders.

 

Absolute nonsense.

[Ramius]

For anyone to accept your "methodology", they'd have to agree that Defensive Back Decoud Thomas, drafted #98 at teh end of the 3rd round, is "reasonably expected to be a significant contributor to the Washington Redskins, whereas Defensive Back Tyvon Branch, drafted #100 at the top of the 4th round, there is no expectation of his becoming any kind of contributor.

 

Absolute nonsense.

 

For someone who supposedly knows so much about the NFL, i'm shocked that you didnt realize that FS Thomas DeCoud was drafted by the Atlanta Falcons. Nowhere in this draft was any Decoud Thomas drafted by the Redskins.

 

I have to admit something however. I find it highly amusing watching you throw a hissy fit like a 6 year old girl in this thread.

[AKC]

For someone who supposedly knows so much about the NFL, i'm shocked that you didnt realize that FS Thomas DeCoud was drafted by the Atlanta Falcons. Nowhere in this draft was any Decoud Thomas drafted by the Redskins.

 

I have to admit something however. I find it highly amusing watching you throw a hissy fit like a 6 year old girl in this thread.

 

What a load of drivel- two DBs drafted within 3 picks of each other and your "study" makes one as important as the first pick in the draft and the other inconsequential.

[Sketch Soland]

I find it highly amusing watching you throw a hissy fit like a 6 year old girl in this thread.

 

No kidding!

 

What our friend doesn't realize it that it's not about his intelligence or his ability to crunch numbers. It's about being a condescending, arrogant, whiny little B word and how funny it is to watch the act play itself out.