John from Riverside Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Actually, it's not. While it's easy to say "you can find a RB in the rounds past the 1st round," the hard part is FINDING one. Running backs taken in the 1st round have a much higher rate of success than those taken later. This is tantamount to saying that you don't need to waste a 1st rounder on an OL because you can find them in later rounds, and they take time to develop. I want to see more of Marshawn the receiver this year myself..... To me that is why you take a RB in the first round.....because he has the potential to give you help in different areas Running Blocking Receiving Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted July 16, 2008 Author Share Posted July 16, 2008 I want to see more of Marshawn the receiver this year myself..... To me that is why you take a RB in the first round.....because he has the potential to give you help in different areas Running Blocking Receiving hope so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 It also depends alot on your line, if you've got a great one it can make a decent RB look amazing. Just look at Priest Holmes when he left for KC or Chester Taylor when he filled in for AP last year. Obviously a great O-line helps, although the Ravens, from whom both Holmes and Taylor came, were no slouches in those departments, and those players didn't do nearly as well there (while Jamal Lewis did). Some players get better with age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Actually, it's not. While it's easy to say "you can find a RB in the rounds past the 1st round," the hard part is FINDING one. Running backs taken in the 1st round have a much higher rate of success than those taken later. This is tantamount to saying that you don't need to waste a 1st rounder on an OL because you can find them in later rounds, and they take time to develop. Your logic is flawed, because you're assuming that the only way to get a RB at all is through the draft. That's not true. There are plenty of veteran RBs that become available each season. RB is also the easiest position to scout, to replace, and for someone to come in and play. Put it this way, would you rather pick up a veteran RB (and you'd know what to expect) and/or a mix of lower rounders and draft a franchise LT or pass rusher to anchor your line for 10 years -OR- would you want to pick a RB in the 1st round for (hopefully, he's not a bust) 3-5 years and fill your lines with whatever you can find in FA and lower rounders? Hint: take a glance at New England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Your logic is flawed, because you're assuming that the only way to get a RB at all is through the draft. That's not true. There are plenty of veteran RBs that become available each season. RB is also the easiest position to scout, to replace, and for someone to come in and play. Put it this way, would you rather pick up a veteran RB (and you'd know what to expect) and/or a mix of lower rounders and draft a franchise LT or pass rusher to anchor your line for 10 years -OR- would you want to pick a RB in the 1st round for (hopefully, he's not a bust) 3-5 years and fill your lines with whatever you can find in FA and lower rounders? Hint: take a glance at New England. You mean the Patriots, who drafted a RB in the 1st round a couple years ago? If I could assure myself of hitting with lower round RB's, I'd obviously go that route. The problem is, you can't. Tell me how many non-1st round RB's last year did anything noteworthy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKC Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Tell me how many non-1st round RB's last year did anything noteworthy? Yeah, among the 4 leading rushers in the NFL last season were 3rd round pick Bryan Westbrook and UNDRAFTED Willie Parker. But apparently that's not "noteworthy" if you're insistent on being recognized as the number one source of hot air on TSW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Yeah, among the top 4 RBs in the NFL last season were 3rd round pick Bryan Westbrook and UNDRAFTED Willie Parker. But apparently that's not "noteworthy" if you're insistent on being recognized as the number one source of hot air on TSW. LOL! Well, since you seem to enjoy prodding the bear... Yes Westbrook was 3rd in rushing yards last year and Parker was 4th. But who were 1st and 2nd and what round were they drafted in? And why stop at the top 4 (FYI that's a rhetorical question because I know why)? Why not tell me in what round the RB's from 5th-11th were drafted? So among the top 11 (since you used top-4) RB's last year, 9 were former 1st rounders, 1 was a 3rd rounder, and 1 was an UDFA. So your conclusion that it's a waste to draft a RB in the 1st is...what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKC Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 LOL! Well, since you seem to enjoy prodding the bear... Bears are assumed to have an Intelligence Quotient of about 10-12 points on the human scale. You insult them with your self-flattery. Even a Bear with an I.Q. of 12 would be able to hold his thought pattern better than you have here; you insisted there were no "noteworthy" examples of RBs not drafted in the first round. I proved your statement to be utter nonsense. With your next self-comparison you might do much better by drawing from among the extinct bird species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Now, now boys, play nice. You're both wrong anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKC Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 You're both wrong anyway. You're right, I'm probably underestimating the intelligence of the average Bear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 No offense, but Winfield and Clements wanted WAY too much money. No way Clements was worth 10 years 80 mil. Sorry, but no thanks. That being said, I am getting tired of letting good young players get away, but I think that the FO is starting to change its ways. Take Butler and Williams. A couple of young solid up and coming guys that deserved bigger pay and extensions. The FO gave them both to keep them in Bills unis for the near future. Expect more of the same in the next few months. I think you will see Peters and Evans get resigned and if Lynch has a solid year this season, expect him to get an extension as well. I think this FO is serious about keeping this team together, unlike what I see from the Sabres organization. You want to talk about an organization that lets talent go, try looking downtown. The concern is the the front office is again overpaying for average talent (Butler, Walker, Williams, Dockery) and playing tightwad with the star players, Evans and Peters. Return to the good old days of overpaying Jerry Ostrowski and friends. We will see if they suck it up and pay for the talented players. It would also help if they didn't completely piss those players off before finally making an offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Your right. My right what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKC Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 My right what? Right brain. The one that is dominating whenever one feels they've discovered rational logic in a VOR post. I'm not clear on your opinion regarding the use of high picks at positions where the bust rates are higher and the rewards of the pick might have been as easily or even more easily achieved by drafting the same position later. WR is one of those where the evidence shows a 2nd rounder is just as likely to end up a big-time producer as a 1st. OLine interior, TE, DLine interior and LB all have lesser bust rates than RB, and RB has proven to be one of the easiest positions to fill (and quickly in most offenses) via FA/trade. Getting the superior interior rushing presence that has become the signature of the winning franchises in the league today came in most cases from the use of high draft picks. Buffalo has used far more of it's top draft equity in the RB position than the best teams in the game, to the tune of about twice as much. Is that a symptom of doing things the wrong way or is it just a coincidence? At some point in this "toying with a .500 record" stretch I think it is prudent to begin to ask these kinds of questions about our strategy. Our higher use of top draft equity at WR when it's the #1 bust position in the draft is a good place to start the study, and our near total disregard of the TE positon at the top when IIRC EVERY top team in the league has used a top pick for the position also stands out as something we may very well be doing wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Yap, picking the correct positions, not players, at the appropriate rounds, is what matters in the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Your right, I'm probably underestimating the intelligence of the average Bear. Depends. Would the average bear know to use "you're" and not "your?" And yes, you won the battle (mainly because I forgot to say "rookie" non-1st round RB last year...), but you lost the war with your inane "it's worthless to draft a RB in the first round..." But feel free to celebrate your hollow victory over a comped beer and how it signifies that you're smart AND important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Depends. Would the average bear know to use "you're" and not "your?" And yes, you won the battle (mainly because I forgot to say "rookie" non-1st round RB last year...), but you lost the war with your inane "it's worthless to draft a RB in the first round..." But feel free to celebrate your hollow victory over a comped beer and how it signifies that you're smart AND important. I wasn't aware that this was a battle. I thought it was a message board. Don't mind me. I'm still new to this whole process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Don't mind me. I'm still new to this whole process. Apparently so too is AKC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Yap, picking the correct positions, not players, at the appropriate rounds, is what matters in the draft. Drafting DL and OL early and often is a proven strategy. Unfortunately, Buffalo's front office doesn't think that way. They'd prefer to build from off the ball with DB's, WR's, and RB's. Not surprisingly, the Bills have been dominated at the LOS for almost a decade. An argument against Donahoe was his fascination with drafting the skill positions. With the exception of an OT bust in 2002, he chose too many guys who played off the ball and not enough on the line of scrimmage. Translation: 31-49 record in 5 seasons and his firing. Now along comes the Levy/Jauron era and essentially the same thing is happening, though by new people who are bulletproof from criticism for their previous success. (In the example of DJ, Marv picked him, so he must be good) The current front office has chosen exactly one OL or DL in the first two rounds in three drafts, despite serious issues on both lines. So much so that they've signed two players to large contracts on the OL and traded for a big DT they've lacked for years. Amazingly, the top 3 DE's and our Pro Bowl LT were developed during the Donahoe years. The Levy/Jauron additions at LG, RT, and C in FA haven't lived up to the contracts they received. Homegrown talent usually is better than the FA game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Apparently so too is AKC. Yeah. He's even newer than I am. Imagine that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Yeah. He's even newer than I am. Imagine that. It's easy if you try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts