Peter King, let me introduce you to AKC

[Ramius]

Gotcha. And, thanks!

 

I get a ton of Buccs coverage down here, and i'll say that in 2008, the Buccs are probably a slightly better team than the Bills. But over the long haul, the Bills should be much better. It appears we're set up to be good for a while. Tampa is kind of stuck in a transition period. The defense should be alright over the longer haul, as they;ve done a nice job of slowly replacing the old talent with young. Gaines Adams should be good this year, their DTs are still reasonably young, and they've got some good young players in the secondary. Not to mention Barrett Ruud is an up and coming star at MLB.

 

The offense is where they are in trouble. 4/5ths of the OL is good, and their line will be good for a while, provided they spend the $ to keep it together. However, they do not have a LT. Donald Penn played well last season, considering the situation he was put in, but it remains to see just how good he really is. The skill positions are a bit of a mess. They have Garcia, but no real "QB of the future," (perhaps Luke McCown, but he needs a lot of work, and 6th rounder Josh Johnson will take 2-3 years to develop before he's ready for action). Cadillac may never be healthy, Warrick Dunn will provide the offense with a jolt, but he's 33, and in the twilight of a great career. Graham is no spring chicken either. Galloway is 37, and they are hoping Maurice Stovall steps up, or Michael Clayton gets his removed from his backside. Dexter Jackson has really been struggling in camp thus far. The Buccs offense is teetering on that cliff where they can still play really well, but at anytime could topple over.

[Bill from NYC]

I'm simply pointing out the fact that you would rather have selected fewer good players in a draft as long as they were OL. Me, i'd rather draft 5-6 good players in a draft, because it is going to make my team better quicker.

 

As dumb as it sounds, the quickest way to have success is to draft good players, regardless of position. As for the 2006 draft, re-hashing it is an exercise in futility. Within every draft you can nicely pick and choose who the Bills should have selected with the benefit of hindsight.

 

Just a quick question, without the benefit of hindsight. Which tackle will turn out to be the best and whichwill turn out to be a bust in this years draft, between Albert, Williams, Otah, and Cherilus?

 

Bro, hindsight? I was calling for these guys (and Mangold) well before the draft. I think that I even started a thread about Trueblood after he beat the schitt of of a DE in a bowl game, and was tossed. He was a prototype RT. Surely someone around here will remember.

 

As for your question.....Albert. It has been said that he has hall of fame potential at OG. I wouldn't pass on a player like this.

If you want a better answer, please do the board a favor and direct this question to BADOLBILZ.

[Chilly]

How many were DTs? He does have a point imo.

 

Depends on how far you look. If you are counting "Day 1" of the draft, the Bills have drafted 3 since 2001 (when they let Ted Washington go).

 

I don't disagree that the Bills should have devoted more resources specifically to the DT position (I'll leave AKC's argument alone). They would have been well served to take someone like a Tommie Harris, or spend their bucks better on the good free agent DTs over the years.

[Sisyphean Bills]

I get a ton of Buccs coverage down here, and i'll say that in 2008, the Buccs are probably a slightly better team than the Bills. But over the long haul, the Bills should be much better. It appears we're set up to be good for a while. Tampa is kind of stuck in a transition period. The defense should be alright over the longer haul, as they;ve done a nice job of slowly replacing the old talent with young. Gaines Adams should be good this year, their DTs are still reasonably young, and they've got some good young players in the secondary. Not to mention Barrett Ruud is an up and coming star at MLB.

 

The offense is where they are in trouble. 4/5ths of the OL is good, and their line will be good for a while, provided they spend the $ to keep it together. However, they do not have a LT. Donald Penn played well last season, considering the situation he was put in, but it remains to see just how good he really is. The skill positions are a bit of a mess. They have Garcia, but no real "QB of the future," (perhaps Luke McCown, but he needs a lot of work, and 6th rounder Josh Johnson will take 2-3 years to develop before he's ready for action). Cadillac may never be healthy, Warrick Dunn will provide the offense with a jolt, but he's 33, and in the twilight of a great career. Graham is no spring chicken either. Galloway is 37, and they are hoping Maurice Stovall steps up, or Michael Clayton gets his removed from his backside. Dexter Jackson has really been struggling in camp thus far. The Buccs offense is teetering on that cliff where they can still play really well, but at anytime could topple over.

Thanks and interesting take. The Bucs were better in 07 than the Bills, so I think it just comes down to one's crystal ball here. Are the Bills on the rise? Many believe so. They are mentioned as a possible dark horse all too consistently. However, there is clearly no guarantee.

 

As far as the Bucs O, I am a very long time Gruden fan and know that he likes his "savvy vets" on offense and can wring them for their very last drop. He's gifted at that IMO. I no longer live in the area, but from afar I sort of like what I have seen in many regards to the Bucs. They have maintained continuity and, as you say, have been making steady moves to turn over the roster and retain an above average team on the field. That's no easy feat by any means and there has been some stumbling. The Bills are, by contrast, still trying to regain their feet after their liquidation approaches to roster turn over.

[ndirish1978]

The patterns of you spam posters is pretty clearly documented- fear what contradicts your own tiny little whiffs of understanding of football, and misrepresent any person's whose opinions you fear.

 

Now feel free you get back to another few thousand meaningless posts with no original throughts of any kind, and keep on telling us like you are above about how the fact that not a single team in the football agreed with you idiots about taking a WR in round one "doesn't mean the talent at the position wasn't strong".

 

No matter the evidence, no matter the facts, just keep on spam driveling because you and the other spam drivelers actual goal appears to simply be reaching 10,000 meaningless posts before someone eles beats you to it. Good luck in your endeavor.

 

Thank you for advertising the ignore button. Without that reminder I would have forgotten I don't have to sift through a slew of your asinine posts in order to read an interesting thread. Oh and when I put you on ignore, I actually mean it. Unlike you, I don't spend lonely evenings sitting in my parent's basement apartment obsessing over what some other faceless guy said on an internet message board.

[Dibs]

How many were DTs? He does have a point imo.

Only 1 in the first round......but as I showed earlier, we have drafted similar(or used more resources) on DTs in the first 3 rounds over the last 8 drafts as IND, SD, PIT, SEA, DEN, DAL, NYG, GB, CIN, CAR & BALT.....11 of the 15 teams that have had above 50% wins over the last 4 seasons.

When there are so many other ways to acquire players it is really quite futile to try to narrow things down to simply drafting.

 

If there was going to be an area where I believe we really have been well below average on drafting at a certain position it would be OL.....one 1st & a 3rd in the last 8 drafts. But then the same situation applies.....we have a probowl UDFA, two good FAs & a solid promising 5th rounder. At the end of the day we need a good overall team......assuming we achieve that, does it matter which positions were filled by drafting & which were by FA?

[Steely Dan]

Here we go again.

You nitpick on semantics all the time while conveniently changing words to suit.

You said....

 

"Any DT".....not just "any DT taken in the first round"

 

This is all besides your point......your point is clear.....and clearly wrong.

You state 'best teams' and 'higher draft equity'. You have stated this many times and every time I see it I show you that it is wrong(I figure eventually you will man up to your mistake and accept it is wrong....so I persist).

 

Who are the best teams? If your definition of 'best teams' is teams that use higher draft equity on DTs then of course you are right. Most would define 'best teams' as those that consistently perform well.

 

High draft equity? Obviously meaning a higher ratio than the norm of their draft resources spent on DT.

 

Below is a list of every team rated for average wins over the last 4 seasons(aveage wins in brackets first)....red teams have used noticeably high draft equity on DTs(IMO) than the Bills......green is noticeably less. Next to them in brackets is the draft picks(1st 3 rounds) they have spent over the last 8 drafts(not including trades etc) and red numbers are DTs.

 

(13)Patriots(6,10,13,21,21,21,24,32,32,36,36,45,48,62,63,64,78,84,86,86,94,100)

(12.75)Colts(11,24,29,30,30,32,37,42,42,44,58,59,60,62,68,69,74,90,91,92,93,94,95,98)

(11.5)Chargers(1,5,5,12,19,27,28,30,30,32,35,37,39,46,48,50,61,62,65,67,69,71,80,81,96)

(11)Steelers(11,15,16,19,23,25,30,30,38,39,46,53,59,62,62,75,77,83,88,93,94,95)

 

(10.25)Seahawks(9,11,17,23,26,28,28,31,38,40,42,45,53,54,55,60,63,73,82,84,85,85,85,98)

(10)Jaguars(7,8,9,9,13,21,21,28,39,39,40,43,48,52,52,55,60,72,73,79,80,86,87,89,94)

(9.75)Broncos(11,12,17,17,19,20,24,41,42,51,51,51,54,56,56,61,70,76,85,87,96,97,101)

(9.25)Dallas(5,8,11,18,20,22,25,26,37,38,42,43,52,53,53,56,61,63,67,69,75,83,92,93)

(9.25)Eagles(14,15,16,25,26,31,35,36,39,47,49,55,57,58,59,61,63,63,71,77,80,87,89,90,91,95)

(9)Bears(4,8,14,14,14,22,29,31,35,38,39,42,44,47,57,62,68,68,70,72,73,78,90,93,93,94)

 

(8.75)Giants(4,14,20,22,25,31,32,34,43,44,46,51,56,63,74,78,78,81,91,95,96)

(8.75)Packers(5,10,16,20,24,25,29,36,41,47,51,52,56,58,60,63,67,70,71,72,72,75,78,79,87,89,91,92)

(8.5)Bengals(1,4,9,10,17,18,24,26,33,36,41,46,48,49,49,55,56,65,66,67,77,80,83,91,96,97)

(8.25)Panthers(2,8,11,13,14,19,25,27,28,34,44,45,50,54,58,59,62,67,73,74,74,76,79,82,83,88,89,89,94)

(8.25)Ravens(10,12,18,19,22,24,29,31,51,52,53,55,56,62,64,71,74,77,82,86,86,87,92,99)

 

(7.75)Vikings(7,7,7,9,17,18,20,27,38,40,43,44,48,48,49,51,57,64,69,70,71,72,80,88)

(7.5)Redskins(no DTs selected)

(7.5)Buccaneers(no DTs selected)

(7.5)Falcons(1,3,8,8,18,21,27,29,35,37,37,39,41,55,59,68,75,79,80,84,90,90,98)

(7.5)Chiefs(5,6,15,15,20,23,27,35,36,43,47,54,54,61,73,75,76,77,82,82,85,92,93,99)

(7.0)Bills(4,8,11,12,13,21,22,23,26,34,36,41,46,48,55,58,61,70,72,74,76,86,92,94,95,97)

(7.0)Jets(4,4,6,12,14,16,22,29,30,47,47,49,49,53,57,57,76,76,79,85,88,88,97)

(7.0)Saints(2,6,7,13,13,18,23,25,27,37,40,40,43,44,50,60,70,66,81,82,82,86,88)

 

(6.75)Titans(3,6,15,19,24,28,40,41,42,45,45,50,54,57,60,60,68,71,77,80,85,90,92,93,96)

(6.25)Rams(2,12,12,13,15,19,20,24,29,31,33,42,43,46,50,52,64,65,66,68,74,77,81,83,84,84,91,93,95)

(6)Browns(3,3,3,6,13,16,21,22,33,34,34,47,52,53,59,65,67,76,78,84)

(6)Cardinals(2,3,5,8,10,12,16,17,18,33,33,34,41,44,49,50,54,54,64,64,69,70,72,75,81,81,95,98)

 

(5.75)Texans(1,1,3,10,10,16,26,27,33,33,41,50,65,66,66,67,73,73,75,79,83,88,89)

(5.25)Lions(2,2,3,7,9,10,17,18,30,34,35,37,37,40,43,45,50,58,61,61,64,66,68,72,73,74,87,92)

(5)Dolphins(no DTs selected)

(4.5)49ers(1,6,7,11,22,26,27,28,29,31,33,39,46,47,57,58,65,69,75,76,77,80,84,89,94,97)

(3.75)Raiders(no DTs selected)

 

 

IMO having good DTs is very important to having a good team.......but to assume that good teams use a higher percent of their draft equity on DTs is ludicrous. Apart from the facts do not support the theory, teams can draft a lot at DT and keep getting busts(therefore needing to draft more) while other teams may get lucky in the lower rounds or via FA.

 

This is the last time that I spend so much time on this subject. You would be wise to alter your theory to "Good teams generally have good DTs" From there you can put forward an argument that drafting for them would be a wise move. Continually saying what you have been is at best stubborn & misguided......at worst moronic.

 

Dibs, you're arguing with someone who will never concede a point and keeps moving the goalposts. It's great that you go to that length to make your point but you're arguing with a guy who said he wants anyone to prove he said something and then you find it and he ignores the fact he was caught being at a worst a liar and at best a dumbass. Nobody here will ever be able to make him see the idiocy of his ways because he justs denies things no matter what the evidence shows.

 

 

I'd much, much rather have the draft that the Bills had in 2006 than the one the Bucs did. The Bills have produced many more quality players from that draft than the Bucs. That being said, I'd have no problems arguing that the Bills seriously dropped the ball by selecting McCargo (and especially trading up for him).

 

It's also an interesting example of precisely my point: The Bills traded up to get the DT, but it was a sub-par player, pointing to the problem in their player evaluations (rather than the positions that they are drafting).

 

1. Donte Whitner - S

1a. McCargo - DT

3. Ashton Youboty - CB

4. Ko Simpson - S

5a. Kyle Williams - DT

5b. Brad Butler - OL

6. Keith Ellison - LB

7a. Terrance Pennington - OL

7b. Aaron Merz - OL

 

The Bills draft was not a bad one at all. The picks of Whitner and Simpson are great on their own.

 

 

 

I agree on the importance and significance of QB... but Marv's first draft was very questionable given what was available.

 

BTW Biscuit, my boys Dvoracek and Daneal Manning had great games last night... still think McCargo is a better value?

 

I agree, The FO sucks because they can't draft perfectly.

 

 

I'm simply pointing out the fact that you would rather have selected fewer good players in a draft as long as they were OL. Me, i'd rather draft 5-6 good players in a draft, because it is going to make my team better quicker.

 

As dumb as it sounds, the quickest way to have success is to draft good players, regardless of position. As for the 2006 draft, re-hashing it is an exercise in futility. Within every draft you can nicely pick and choose who the Bills should have selected with the benefit of hindsight.

 

Just a quick question, without the benefit of hindsight. Which tackle will turn out to be the best and whichwill turn out to be a bust in this years draft, between Albert, Williams, Otah, and Cherilus?

 

He probably already knows but he doesn't want to share this information for at least four years.

 

The Bills only have less than five players over 30 on their roster. This a young team and expecting these guys to become stars in two years is silly. If they had a good mix of veteran talent and rookies they would be better. The FO is drafting for the long term. This is the year a lot of those draft picks should be taking a step up. The FO has done a good job of developing rookies and adding talent through trades and FA. This is the year to put up or shut up. They have taken two years to build a young team and I think they have been playing it the right way. To expect better results from all they've gone through is ludicrous. Be patient this team will be good for a long time coming.

[OCinBuffalo]

Great thread. Dibs should be commended for that proper statistical analysis. I hope it's now clear to everyone that while DTs are important, there is no causal, and no corollary, relationship between drafting DTs high and wins, and Dibs won't have to do this wonderful work again.(Then again, I really like this stuff, perhaps we can get him to do the dame thing with O line? or OTs? Maybe I will create a new screen name and post a scurrilous statistical model about drafting O lineman and wins and get him to do it again.)

 

Now that we got that out of the way....

 

Has anybody considered the fact that "over the last 8 years" includes Donahoe AND Levy/Brandon? I'd like to see a model that analyzes length of service time, and # of starts of players drafted by each GM, and then adjusted for # of years in office. A sort of "bust meter", if you will.

 

I know I'm going out on a limb here but: How much do you want to bet Levy/Brandon's drafts are better than Donahoe's?

 

Therefore, I think we are playing into Chris Mortenson's attempts to get his buddy Tom out of the doghouse by lumping all the drafts of the last 8 years together.

 

I don't know if anybody has noticed, but this is almost a completely different team than we had in 2004, the last time we had a playoff shot.(minus Crowell, Schobel, Kelsey, Evans, Moorman, Lindell, Losman--> which only serves encourage blind squirrels the world over) This has all happened in a relatively short period of time, but so many more players that have been drafted by Levy/Brandon have panned out and been better, there's not much of an argument left.

 

There is still much to be proven, but somehow I don't see this team losing to Pittsburgh's backups and our QB hitting the other team in the chest to end the game.

[LabattBlue]

Dibs, you're arguing with someone who will never concede a point and keeps moving the goalposts.

[Dibs]

Great thread. Dibs should be commended for that proper statistical analysis. I hope it's now clear to everyone that while DTs are important, there is no causal, and no corollary, relationship between drafting DTs high and wins, and Dibs won't have to do this wonderful work again.(Then again, I really like this stuff, perhaps we can get him to do the dame thing with O line? or OTs?.......

Thanks OC......just because most of the hard work was done with the DTs.....here is a look at the OL. I'm assuming there will be no correlative value but it will be interesting to see(written before I did the numbers).

 

Again.....Below is a list of every team rated for average wins over the last 4 seasons(average wins in brackets first). Next to them in brackets is the draft picks(1st 3 rounds) they have spent over the last 8 drafts(not including trades etc) and red numbers are OL(bolded OT).

 

(13)Patriots(6,10,13,21,21,21,24,32,32,36,36,45,48,62,63,64,78,84,86,86,94,100)

(12.75)Colts(11,24,29,30,30,32,37,42,42,44,58,59,60,62,68,69,74,90,91,92,93,94,95,98)

(11.5)Chargers(1,5,5,12,19,27,28,30,30,32,35,37,39,46,48,50,61,62,65,66,69,71,80,81,96)

(11)Steelers(11,15,16,19,23,25,30,30,38,39,46,53,59,62,62,75,77,83,88,93,94,95)

 

(10.25)Seahawks(9,11,17,23,26,28,28,31,38,40,42,45,53,54,55,60,63,73,82,84,85,85,85,98)

(10)Jaguars(7,8,9,9,13,21,21,28,39,39,40,43,48,52,52,55,60,72,73,79,80,86,87,89,94)

(9.75)Broncos(11,12,17,17,19,20,24,41,42,51,51,51,54,56,56,61,70,76,85,87,96,97,101)

(9.25)Dallas(5,8,11,18,20,22,25,26,37,38,42,43,52,53,53,56,61,63,67,69,75,83,92,93)

(9.25)Eagles(14,15,16,25,26,31,35,36,39,47,49,55,57,58,59,61,63,63,71,77,80,87,89,90,91,95)

(9)Bears(4,8,14,14,14,22,29,31,35,38,39,42,44,47,57,62,68,68,70,72,73,78,90,93,93,94)

 

(8.75)Giants(4,14,20,22,25,31,32,34,43,44,46,51,56,63,74,78,78,81,91,95,96)

(8.75)Packers(5,10,16,20,24,25,29,36,41,47,51,52,56,58,60,63,67,70,71,72,72,75,78,79,87,89,91,92)

(8.5)Bengals(1,4,9,10,17,18,24,26,33,36,41,46,48,49,49,55,56,65,66,67,77,80,83,91,96,97)

(8.25)Panthers(2,8,11,13,14,19,25,27,28,34,44,45,50,54,58,59,62,67,73,74,74,76,79,82,83,88,89,89,94)

(8.25)Ravens(10,12,18,19,22,24,29,31,51,52,53,55,56,62,64,71,74,77,82,86,86,87,92,99)

 

(7.75)Vikings(7,7,7,9,17,18,20,27,38,40,43,44,48,48,49,51,57,64,69,70,71,72,80,88)

(7.5)Redskins(5,6,9,15,25,32,34,35,44,45,48,51,56,79,81,81,87,96)

(7.5)Buccaneers(4,5,14,15,20,23,35,36,58,59,64,64,68,71,79,83,84,86,90,91,97)

(7.5)Falcons(1,3,8,8,18,21,27,29,35,37,37,39,41,55,59,68,75,79,80,84,90,90,98)

(7.5)Chiefs(5,6,15,15,20,23,27,35,36,43,47,54,54,61,73,75,76,77,82,82,85,92,93,99)

(7.0)Bills(4,8,11,12,13,21,22,23,26,34,36,41,46,48,55,58,61,70,72,74,76,86,92,94,95,97)

(7.0)Jets(4,4,6,12,14,16,22,29,30,47,47,49,49,53,57,57,76,76,79,85,88,88,97)

(7.0)Saints(2,6,7,13,13,18,23,25,27,37,40,40,43,44,50,60,70,66,81,82,82,86,88)

 

(6.75)Titans(3,6,15,19,24,28,40,41,42,45,45,50,54,57,60,60,68,71,77,80,85,90,92,93,96)

(6.25)Rams(2,12,12,13,15,19,20,24,29,31,33,42,43,46,50,52,64,65,66,68,74,77,81,83,84,84,91,93,95)

(6)Browns(3,3,3,6,13,16,21,22,33,34,34,47,52,53,59,65,67,76,78,84)

(6)Cardinals(2,3,5,8,10,12,16,17,18,33,33,34,41,44,49,50,54,54,64,64,69,70,72,75,81,81,95,98)

 

(5.75)Texans(1,1,3,10,10,16,26,27,33,33,41,50,65,66,66,67,73,73,75,79,83,88,89)

(5.25)Lions(2,2,3,7,9,10,17,18,30,34,35,37,37,40,43,45,50,58,61,61,64,66,68,72,73,74,87,92)

(5)Dolphins(1,2,9,16,19,26,32,40,46,49,52,57,60,66,70,71,78,82,85,87,88,90)

(4.5)49ers(1,6,7,11,22,26,27,28,29,31,33,39,46,47,57,58,65,69,75,76,77,80,84,89,94,97)

(3.75)Raiders(1,2,4,7,17,23,23,28,31,32,38,38,38,45,53,55,59,63,65,67,69,69,78,83,89,91,96,99)

 

I found this very difficult to assess the draft equity spent compared to the Bills since the #4 pick is very high. I think however that this look at OL drafting shows(like the DT drafting) that no true correlation can be found between how 'good' teams draft and specific positions drafted.

 

It is obvious to me that successful teams are generally a result of drafting good players(regardless of position) rather than simply drafting for certain positions.

[Steely Dan]

Thanks OC......just because most of the hard work was done with the DTs.....here is a look at the OL. I'm assuming there will be no correlative value but it will be interesting to see(written before I did the numbers).

 

Again.....Below is a list of every team rated for average wins over the last 4 seasons(average wins in brackets first). Next to them in brackets is the draft picks(1st 3 rounds) they have spent over the last 8 drafts(not including trades etc) and red numbers are OL(bolded OT).

 

(13)Patriots(6,10,13,21,21,21,24,32,32,36,36,45,48,62,63,64,78,84,86,86,94,100)

(12.75)Colts(11,24,29,30,30,32,37,42,42,44,58,59,60,62,68,69,74,90,91,92,93,94,95,98)

(11.5)Chargers(1,5,5,12,19,27,28,30,30,32,35,37,39,46,48,50,61,62,65,66,69,71,80,81,96)

(11)Steelers(11,15,16,19,23,25,30,30,38,39,46,53,59,62,62,75,77,83,88,93,94,95)

 

(10.25)Seahawks(9,11,17,23,26,28,28,31,38,40,42,45,53,54,55,60,63,73,82,84,85,85,85,98)

(10)Jaguars(7,8,9,9,13,21,21,28,39,39,40,43,48,52,52,55,60,72,73,79,80,86,87,89,94)

(9.75)Broncos(11,12,17,17,19,20,24,41,42,51,51,51,54,56,56,61,70,76,85,87,96,97,101)

(9.25)Dallas(5,8,11,18,20,22,25,26,37,38,42,43,52,53,53,56,61,63,67,69,75,83,92,93)

(9.25)Eagles(14,15,16,25,26,31,35,36,39,47,49,55,57,58,59,61,63,63,71,77,80,87,89,90,91,95)

(9)Bears(4,8,14,14,14,22,29,31,35,38,39,42,44,47,57,62,68,68,70,72,73,78,90,93,93,94)

 

(8.75)Giants(4,14,20,22,25,31,32,34,43,44,46,51,56,63,74,78,78,81,91,95,96)

(8.75)Packers(5,10,16,20,24,25,29,36,41,47,51,52,56,58,60,63,67,70,71,72,72,75,78,79,87,89,91,92)

(8.5)Bengals(1,4,9,10,17,18,24,26,33,36,41,46,48,49,49,55,56,65,66,67,77,80,83,91,96,97)

(8.25)Panthers(2,8,11,13,14,19,25,27,28,34,44,45,50,54,58,59,62,67,73,74,74,76,79,82,83,88,89,89,94)

(8.25)Ravens(10,12,18,19,22,24,29,31,51,52,53,55,56,62,64,71,74,77,82,86,86,87,92,99)

 

(7.75)Vikings(7,7,7,9,17,18,20,27,38,40,43,44,48,48,49,51,57,64,69,70,71,72,80,88)

(7.5)Redskins(5,6,9,15,25,32,34,35,44,45,48,51,56,79,81,81,87,96)

(7.5)Buccaneers(4,5,14,15,20,23,35,36,58,59,64,64,68,71,79,83,84,86,90,91,97)

(7.5)Falcons(1,3,8,8,18,21,27,29,35,37,37,39,41,55,59,68,75,79,80,84,90,90,98)

(7.5)Chiefs(5,6,15,15,20,23,27,35,36,43,47,54,54,61,73,75,76,77,82,82,85,92,93,99)

(7.0)Bills(4,8,11,12,13,21,22,23,26,34,36,41,46,48,55,58,61,70,72,74,76,86,92,94,95,97)

(7.0)Jets(4,4,6,12,14,16,22,29,30,47,47,49,49,53,57,57,76,76,79,85,88,88,97)

(7.0)Saints(2,6,7,13,13,18,23,25,27,37,40,40,43,44,50,60,70,66,81,82,82,86,88)

 

(6.75)Titans(3,6,15,19,24,28,40,41,42,45,45,50,54,57,60,60,68,71,77,80,85,90,92,93,96)

(6.25)Rams(2,12,12,13,15,19,20,24,29,31,33,42,43,46,50,52,64,65,66,68,74,77,81,83,84,84,91,93,95)

(6)Browns(3,3,3,6,13,16,21,22,33,34,34,47,52,53,59,65,67,76,78,84)

(6)Cardinals(2,3,5,8,10,12,16,17,18,33,33,34,41,44,49,50,54,54,64,64,69,70,72,75,81,81,95,98)

 

(5.75)Texans(1,1,3,10,10,16,26,27,33,33,41,50,65,66,66,67,73,73,75,79,83,88,89)

(5.25)Lions(2,2,3,7,9,10,17,18,30,34,35,37,37,40,43,45,50,58,61,61,64,66,68,72,73,74,87,92)

(5)Dolphins(1,2,9,16,19,26,32,40,46,49,52,57,60,66,70,71,78,82,85,87,88,90)

(4.5)49ers(1,6,7,11,22,26,27,28,29,31,33,39,46,47,57,58,65,69,75,76,77,80,84,89,94,97)

(3.75)Raiders(1,2,4,7,17,23,23,28,31,32,38,38,38,45,53,55,59,63,65,67,69,69,78,83,89,91,96,99)

 

I found this very difficult to assess the draft equity spent compared to the Bills since the #4 pick is very high. I think however that this look at OL drafting shows(like the DT drafting) that no true correlation can be found between how 'good' teams draft and specific positions drafted.

 

It is obvious to me that successful teams are generally a result of drafting good players(regardless of position) rather than simply drafting for certain positions.

 

I have read some NFL scouts saying that good to great O-Lineman can be found later in the draft. They've also said that very early selections have a high bust rate.

[GG]

I found this very difficult to assess the draft equity spent compared to the Bills since the #4 pick is very high. I think however that this look at [fill in the blank] drafting shows that no true correlation can be found between how 'good' teams draft and specific positions drafted.

 

It is obvious to me that successful teams are generally a result of drafting good players(regardless of position) rather than simply drafting for certain positions.

 

You don't say...

[Dibs]

I have read some NFL scouts saying that good to great O-Lineman can be found later in the draft. They've also said that very early selections have a high bust rate.

Actually, I have found this to be the opposite. Sure, there are always good players at any position found later in the draft but....

1st round OGs in recent times(15years) have the highest success rate out of any position......also, truly great LTs are only usually found very high in the 1st round(top 8)(Peters might become the exception to the rule). There were quite a high number of busts in recent times with top LT draftees(since 2002) but this simply placed the bust ratio into the same realms as other positions drafted.

 

Every 1st round OG...2006-1991(no true busts.....several stars)

Davin Joseph

Logan Mankins

Vernon Carey

Kendall Simmons

Steve Hutchinson

Alan Faneca

Chris Naeole

Ross Verba

Pete Kendall

Jeff Hartings

Jermane Mayberry

Ruben Brown

Lester Holmes

 

Every OT drafted inside the Top 8...1993-2007(draft position first in brackets)......(probowl appearances in brackets after)

(8)Willie Roaf(11)

(2)Tony Boselli(5)

(4)Jonathan Ogden(11)

(1)Orlando Pace(7)

(6)Walter Jones(8)

(7)Kyle Turley(1)

(3)Chris Samuels(5)

(2)Leonard Davis(1)

(4)Mike Williams

(7)Bryant McKinnie

(8)Jordan Gross

(2)Robert Gallery

(4)D'Brickashaw Ferguson

(3)Joe Thomas(1)

(5)Levi Brown

[Dawgg]

I agree, The FO sucks because they can't draft perfectly.

 

They flat out s**t the bed on that trade... and it was as obvious then as it is now that it was a bad move.

[Steely Dan]

Actually, I have found this to be the opposite. Sure, there are always good players at any position found later in the draft but....

1st round OGs in recent times(15years) have the highest success rate out of any position......also, truly great LTs are only usually found very high in the 1st round(top 8)(Peters might become the exception to the rule). There were quite a high number of busts in recent times with top LT draftees(since 2002) but this simply placed the bust ratio into the same realms as other positions drafted.

 

Every 1st round OG...2006-1991(no true busts.....several stars)

Davin Joseph

Logan Mankins

Vernon Carey

Kendall Simmons

Steve Hutchinson

Alan Faneca

Chris Naeole

Ross Verba

Pete Kendall

Jeff Hartings

Jermane Mayberry

Ruben Brown

Lester Holmes

 

Every OT drafted inside the Top 8...1993-2007(draft position first in brackets)......(probowl appearances in brackets after)

(8)Willie Roaf(11)

(2)Tony Boselli(5)

(4)Jonathan Ogden(11)

(1)Orlando Pace(7)

(6)Walter Jones(8)

(7)Kyle Turley(1)

(3)Chris Samuels(5)

(2)Leonard Davis(1)

(4)Mike Williams

(7)Bryant McKinnie

(8)Jordan Gross

(2)Robert Gallery

(4)D'Brickashaw Ferguson

(3)Joe Thomas(1)

(5)Levi Brown

 

I probably should have added an IIRC to that because maybe I don't recall correctly.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Thanks OC......just because most of the hard work was done with the DTs.....here is a look at the OL. I'm assuming there will be no correlative value but it will be interesting to see(written before I did the numbers).

 

Again.....Below is a list of every team rated for average wins over the last 4 seasons(average wins in brackets first). Next to them in brackets is the draft picks(1st 3 rounds) they have spent over the last 8 drafts(not including trades etc) and red numbers are OL(bolded OT).

 

(13)Patriots(6,10,13,21,21,21,24,32,32,36,36,45,48,62,63,64,78,84,86,86,94,100)

(12.75)Colts(11,24,29,30,30,32,37,42,42,44,58,59,60,62,68,69,74,90,91,92,93,94,95,98)

(11.5)Chargers(1,5,5,12,19,27,28,30,30,32,35,37,39,46,48,50,61,62,65,66,69,71,80,81,96)

(11)Steelers(11,15,16,19,23,25,30,30,38,39,46,53,59,62,62,75,77,83,88,93,94,95)

 

(10.25)Seahawks(9,11,17,23,26,28,28,31,38,40,42,45,53,54,55,60,63,73,82,84,85,85,85,98)

(10)Jaguars(7,8,9,9,13,21,21,28,39,39,40,43,48,52,52,55,60,72,73,79,80,86,87,89,94)

(9.75)Broncos(11,12,17,17,19,20,24,41,42,51,51,51,54,56,56,61,70,76,85,87,96,97,101)

(9.25)Dallas(5,8,11,18,20,22,25,26,37,38,42,43,52,53,53,56,61,63,67,69,75,83,92,93)

(9.25)Eagles(14,15,16,25,26,31,35,36,39,47,49,55,57,58,59,61,63,63,71,77,80,87,89,90,91,95)

(9)Bears(4,8,14,14,14,22,29,31,35,38,39,42,44,47,57,62,68,68,70,72,73,78,90,93,93,94)

 

(8.75)Giants(4,14,20,22,25,31,32,34,43,44,46,51,56,63,74,78,78,81,91,95,96)

(8.75)Packers(5,10,16,20,24,25,29,36,41,47,51,52,56,58,60,63,67,70,71,72,72,75,78,79,87,89,91,92)

(8.5)Bengals(1,4,9,10,17,18,24,26,33,36,41,46,48,49,49,55,56,65,66,67,77,80,83,91,96,97)

(8.25)Panthers(2,8,11,13,14,19,25,27,28,34,44,45,50,54,58,59,62,67,73,74,74,76,79,82,83,88,89,89,94)

(8.25)Ravens(10,12,18,19,22,24,29,31,51,52,53,55,56,62,64,71,74,77,82,86,86,87,92,99)

 

(7.75)Vikings(7,7,7,9,17,18,20,27,38,40,43,44,48,48,49,51,57,64,69,70,71,72,80,88)

(7.5)Redskins(5,6,9,15,25,32,34,35,44,45,48,51,56,79,81,81,87,96)

(7.5)Buccaneers(4,5,14,15,20,23,35,36,58,59,64,64,68,71,79,83,84,86,90,91,97)

(7.5)Falcons(1,3,8,8,18,21,27,29,35,37,37,39,41,55,59,68,75,79,80,84,90,90,98)

(7.5)Chiefs(5,6,15,15,20,23,27,35,36,43,47,54,54,61,73,75,76,77,82,82,85,92,93,99)

(7.0)Bills(4,8,11,12,13,21,22,23,26,34,36,41,46,48,55,58,61,70,72,74,76,86,92,94,95,97)

(7.0)Jets(4,4,6,12,14,16,22,29,30,47,47,49,49,53,57,57,76,76,79,85,88,88,97)

(7.0)Saints(2,6,7,13,13,18,23,25,27,37,40,40,43,44,50,60,70,66,81,82,82,86,88)

 

(6.75)Titans(3,6,15,19,24,28,40,41,42,45,45,50,54,57,60,60,68,71,77,80,85,90,92,93,96)

(6.25)Rams(2,12,12,13,15,19,20,24,29,31,33,42,43,46,50,52,64,65,66,68,74,77,81,83,84,84,91,93,95)

(6)Browns(3,3,3,6,13,16,21,22,33,34,34,47,52,53,59,65,67,76,78,84)

(6)Cardinals(2,3,5,8,10,12,16,17,18,33,33,34,41,44,49,50,54,54,64,64,69,70,72,75,81,81,95,98)

 

(5.75)Texans(1,1,3,10,10,16,26,27,33,33,41,50,65,66,66,67,73,73,75,79,83,88,89)

(5.25)Lions(2,2,3,7,9,10,17,18,30,34,35,37,37,40,43,45,50,58,61,61,64,66,68,72,73,74,87,92)

(5)Dolphins(1,2,9,16,19,26,32,40,46,49,52,57,60,66,70,71,78,82,85,87,88,90)

(4.5)49ers(1,6,7,11,22,26,27,28,29,31,33,39,46,47,57,58,65,69,75,76,77,80,84,89,94,97)

(3.75)Raiders(1,2,4,7,17,23,23,28,31,32,38,38,38,45,53,55,59,63,65,67,69,69,78,83,89,91,96,99)

 

I found this very difficult to assess the draft equity spent compared to the Bills since the #4 pick is very high. I think however that this look at OL drafting shows(like the DT drafting) that no true correlation can be found between how 'good' teams draft and specific positions drafted.

 

It is obvious to me that successful teams are generally a result of drafting good players(regardless of position) rather than simply drafting for certain positions.

One interesting thing in that table is there are only 2 teams with fewer OL picks than the Bills. The Bills did use a #4 on the OL, but we all know that was a major bust pick. It's not consistent with your presentation, but if one did ignore that pick, then the Bills would be dead last in addressing their OL with 1 pick at 95.

[Big Turk]

I seem to forget...what round was Jason Peters drafted in?

[Steely Dan]

I seem to forget...what round was Jason Peters drafted in?

 

UFA TE converted to OL.