1billsfan Posted June 4, 2009 Author Posted June 4, 2009 Having a positional need and matching it with a player worthy of being picked at that spot in the draft are two different things. Reaching on guys because you have a need gets you Eric Flowers... ...or Donte Whitner.
Bill from NYC Posted June 4, 2009 Posted June 4, 2009 Having a positional need and matching it with a player worthy of being picked at that spot in the draft are two different things. Reaching on guys because you have a need gets you Eric Flowers... This is quite true. The Bills (Levy/Jauron) passed on Cutler, Ngata, Bunkley, Davin Joseph, Mangold and Kiwanuka in the first round alone to take Whitner. They also turned down lucrative offers to trade down. They simply had to draft Whitner. Then, they dedicated early picks in rounds 3 and 4 to take Youboty and Ko Simpson. It was so dumb that message board posters had a far better handle on team needs than Levy/Jauron, and that really isn't good, ya know? After this disaster, they have never really stopped making the secondary their major concern until perhaps this draft, and even at that they continued to bring in these guys in sheer numbers, including a very expensive nickel back. This team needs a different mentality.
C.Biscuit97 Posted June 4, 2009 Posted June 4, 2009 This is quite true. The Bills (Levy/Jauron) passed on Cutler, Ngata, Bunkley, Davin Joseph, Mangold and Kiwanuka in the first round alone to take Whitner. They also turned down lucrative offers to trade down. They simply had to draft Whitner. Then, they dedicated early picks in rounds 3 and 4 to take Youboty and Ko Simpson. It was so dumb that message board posters had a far better handle on team needs than Levy/Jauron, and that really isn't good, ya know? After this disaster, they have never really stopped making the secondary their major concern until perhaps this draft, and even at that they continued to bring in these guys in sheer numbers, including a very expensive nickel back. This team needs a different mentality. You do realize this was 3 years ago and it is now 2009 right? Let's move on man and get excited about this season. But for the record, if Whitner makes the pro bowl & McCargo becomes a solid rotational guy, can we stop whining about this for a fourth straight offseason?
thebandit27 Posted June 4, 2009 Posted June 4, 2009 Are you saying that teams do not factor their own positional needs into their draft strategy? Because, the above seems to read that way and that would be clearly incorrect. Let's take Bill Polian and the Colts again. You don't see the Colts drafting 1st round QBs and the reason is obvious -- they have Peyton Manning. When James signs with the Cardinals, they didn't simply count on the backup Rhodes to step up as the starter, they went out and drafted Addai. Again, when they were concerned about Jeff Saturday's status, they went and drafted 3 Cs in the hopes of finding one that could be his replacement. No, but I am saying that positional needs are far less important to the high-end organizations than the quality of player. A few examples from the '09 draft: - New England's most pressing needs (at least according to the consensus) coming in were at CB, LB, and on the offensive line. Their first two picks came at S (where they already have Brandon Meriweather and James Sanders) and DL (where they have R. Seymour, T. Warren, V. Wilfork, M. Wright, J. Green, etc.) - Indianapolis' most pressing needs (again, according to the consensus that I saw) were at LB and WR, but they went out and drafted Donald Brown. Why? Because Bill Polian felt that Brown was the best RB in the class, and was thrilled to see him on the board that late. - Pittsburgh returned all 3 starters on their DL (Kirschke/Hampton/Smith), along with their top 3 backups (Keisel/Hoke/Eason), and had needs at OT, C, and CB. Yet they drafted Ziggy Hood, a 5-technique DT. - Why does a team like Baltimore trade up for Michael Oher when they already have Jared Gaither, Willie Anderson, and recent 3rd round draft picks like Oneill Cousins, Marshall Yanda, and Ben Grubbs (who played OT in college)? Especially when they have needs at CB, LB, and WR? Because they feel Oher could be special, so they don't want to pass that up. I could go on, but I think the point is that the most successful teams concentrate on getting the best player that they can regardless of position. Ask Bill Belichick if he'd rather draft for a positional need or get a solid player...I think most of us already know what his answer would be.
thebandit27 Posted June 4, 2009 Posted June 4, 2009 I'm not complaining, just giving a clear and concise observation about the main reason why our team has been pushed around on the offensive and defensive lines for the better part of 10 years. You seem confused and lost in your own argument. The Bills have drafted too many DBs high in the draft and not enough interior lineman high in the draft. This is an indisputable fact and the pathetic play of our lines has been the irrefutable evidence. So how about a team like San Diego then, that drafts DBs in the top rounds every year and ignores their line, spending only a 2nd and 3rd round pick on o-line starters in the last 6 years? Seems like their doing okay for themselves. But then again, they have great players like Tominson, Rivers, Merriman, Cromartie, etc., each of whom was drafted in the first round. Seems like it's more important to draft great players than any one position...I think I read that somewhere...
Bill from NYC Posted June 4, 2009 Posted June 4, 2009 - Pittsburgh returned all 3 starters on their DL (Kirschke/Hampton/Smith), along with their top 3 backups (Keisel/Hoke/Eason), and had needs at OT, C, and CB. Yet they drafted Ziggy Hood, a 5-technique DT.- Why does a team like Baltimore trade up for Michael Oher when they already have Jared Gaither, Willie Anderson, and recent 3rd round draft picks like Oneill Cousins, Marshall Yanda, and Ben Grubbs (who played OT in college)? Especially when they have needs at CB, LB, and WR? Because they feel Oher could be special, so they don't want to pass that up. There is no reason at all to be surprised by the Pitt. selection. This is how they always build their teams. They focus on solid, physical play. As far as Baltimore, you forgot something. You are right that good teams can opt more for bpa than positional needs. Do you think that the Levy/Jauron Bills have been, or currently are good?
Sisyphean Bills Posted June 4, 2009 Posted June 4, 2009 No, but I am saying that positional needs are far less important to the high-end organizations than the quality of player. What does "high-end organization" have to do with the current Bills? We're talking about a team that hasn't been to the playoffs in 9 years, here. Their drafting strategy might need to be a little different than a team that has been competing for championships most of that time and already has the pieces, depth, and systems to sustain the success that they've already proven they can have.
Ramius Posted June 4, 2009 Posted June 4, 2009 There is no reason at all to be surprised by the Pitt. selection. This is how they always build their teams. They focus on solid, physical play. As far as Baltimore, you forgot something. You are right that good teams can opt more for bpa than positional needs. Do you think that the Levy/Jauron Bills have been, or currently are good? Well, since 2002, in rounds 1-3, pittsburgh has spent 13 (1 QB, 1 RB, 5 WR, and 6 DBs) picks on skill positions while spending 5 picks on the OL/DL (3-3rd round tackles, and 1sts on a OG and DT). This year, ziggy hood was their first 1st rounder on the DL since they took casey hampton in 2001. So pittsburgh builds their teams by spending twice as many early round picks on skill positions as the line? The biggest difference between us and them is not what positions are drafted how often, but that pittsburgh hits on their early OL draft picks just about all the time. Again, it comes to picking talent, not picking position X or Y.
zazie Posted June 4, 2009 Posted June 4, 2009 Well, since 2002, in rounds 1-3, pittsburgh has spent 13 (1 QB, 1 RB, 5 WR, and 6 DBs) picks on skill positions while spending 5 picks on the OL/DL (3-3rd round tackles, and 1sts on a OG and DT). This year, ziggy hood was their first 1st rounder on the DL since they took casey hampton in 2001. So pittsburgh builds their teams by spending twice as many early round picks on skill positions as the line? The biggest difference between us and them is not what positions are drafted how often, but that pittsburgh hits on their early OL draft picks just about all the time. Again, it comes to picking talent, not picking position X or Y. And Pitt hits on the coaches every time too, no missteps. Noll, Cowher, Tomlin in the last however many decades. Vs. Mularkey, Greggy, and DJ for the bills, in this decade alone.
thebandit27 Posted June 4, 2009 Posted June 4, 2009 There is no reason at all to be surprised by the Pitt. selection. This is how they always build their teams. They focus on solid, physical play. As far as Baltimore, you forgot something. You are right that good teams can opt more for bpa than positional needs. Do you think that the Levy/Jauron Bills have been, or currently are good? Unless I'm missing something Bill, that's not really the discussion. The discussion (originally) was that Buffalo isn't good because they draft too many DBs. Then it became that Buffalo isn't good because they don't draft linemen. Not it seems to be simply that Buffalo isn't good, which we're all aware of. The point that I continue to make is that it doesn't matter what positions teams spend their draft picks on, but rather it's the quality of player that matters most. So far, nobody seems to disagree with that.
thebandit27 Posted June 4, 2009 Posted June 4, 2009 What does "high-end organization" have to do with the current Bills? We're talking about a team that hasn't been to the playoffs in 9 years, here. Their drafting strategy might need to be a little different than a team that has been competing for championships most of that time and already has the pieces, depth, and systems to sustain the success that they've already proven they can have. Who said it has anything to do with the Bills? My point is that the best organizations draft great players, regardless of position, and they don't worry about how many players they've previously drafted at those positions. Regarding Buffalo, they could stand to do the same thing. Pick the best player, to hell with where he plays. The best teams remain the best teams because their rosters are littered with draft picks at every position. I'm not saying that Buffalo has done a great job drafting, but I am saying that their major flaw has NOT been taking too many players at one position; but rather that the majority of players they've selected since 2001 haven't been very good.
Bill from NYC Posted June 4, 2009 Posted June 4, 2009 The point that I continue to make is that it doesn't matter what positions teams spend their draft picks on, but rather it's the quality of player that matters most. In 06 Buffalo was weak at virtually every position. There was a lack of stars and very poor lines. Starting the rebuilding process with the secondary is a stupid thing to do, especially when you play in Buffalo. In that sense it does matter what you do with the #8, especially when there were many trade down offers, and quality linemen to be had on both sides. One more point.....Losman was a young qb who needed all the help he could get. It was foolish to hang him out to dry and focus on the secondary.
The Big Cat Posted June 4, 2009 Posted June 4, 2009 In 06 Buffalo was weak at virtually every position. Your opinion, unquantifiable. There was a lack of stars and very poor lines. Your opinion, unquantifiable. Starting the rebuilding process with the secondary is a stupid thing to do, especially when you play in Buffalo. Your opinion, unquantifiable. In that sense it does matter what you do with the #8, especially when there were many trade down offers, and quality linemen to be had on both sides. Your opinion, unquantifiable. One more point.....Losman was a young qb who needed all the help he could get. It was foolish to hang him out to dry and focus on the secondary. Your opinion, unquantifiable. I respect your opinions on these matters, just as I would hope you'd respect mine (which happen to be similar, but different). But let's not tout any of the above as an absolute. That's just silly.
Bill from NYC Posted June 4, 2009 Posted June 4, 2009 Well, since 2002, in rounds 1-3, pittsburgh has spent 13 (1 QB, 1 RB, 5 WR, and 6 DBs) picks on skill positions while spending 5 picks on the OL/DL (3-3rd round tackles, and 1sts on a OG and DT). This year, ziggy hood was their first 1st rounder on the DL since they took casey hampton in 2001. So pittsburgh builds their teams by spending twice as many early round picks on skill positions as the line? The biggest difference between us and them is not what positions are drafted how often, but that pittsburgh hits on their early OL draft picks just about all the time. Again, it comes to picking talent, not picking position X or Y. What about Woodley in 07? Or Alonzo Jackson in 03? Why don't you count DEs? Besides, Pitt plays a 3/4 and only lines up with 1 DT. I make the case that Pitt wouldn't go after secondary help until the more important positions were secure, in terms of using their best resources.
thebandit27 Posted June 4, 2009 Posted June 4, 2009 In 06 Buffalo was weak at virtually every position. There was a lack of stars and very poor lines. Starting the rebuilding process with the secondary is a stupid thing to do, especially when you play in Buffalo. In that sense it does matter what you do with the #8, especially when there were many trade down offers, and quality linemen to be had on both sides. One more point.....Losman was a young qb who needed all the help he could get. It was foolish to hang him out to dry and focus on the secondary. First , please present the details of these "many trade down offers" that you are closely familiar with, since I've never heard a peep about them. Second, an elite safety like Ed Reed or Troy Polamalu can do wonders for a defense. Look what Bob Sanders did for the (a the time) hapless Colts' defense. The Bills thought they were getting a dynamo in Whitner, they were (so far) wrong. That doesn't make drafting a DB the wrong way to go about rebuilding. I never, ever said that it doesn't matter who you pick, I simply said that position is less important than ability; and I stand by that statement. Finally, how can you say that Buffalo "hung Losman out to dry"? The team obviously felt like they had enough ability at WR after spending 1st/2nd/3rd round picks on Evans, Parrish, and Everett, and acquiring Royal and Price in free agency. Were they right? No, but it's not as though they didn't attempt to address the position. They also spent $75M on offensive linemen to protect Losman...again, they got it wrong, but they hardly "hung him out to dry".
Ramius Posted June 4, 2009 Posted June 4, 2009 What about Woodley in 07? Or Alonzo Jackson in 03? Why don't you count DEs? Besides, Pitt plays a 3/4 and only lines up with 1 DT. I make the case that Pitt wouldn't go after secondary help until the more important positions were secure, in terms of using their best resources. Woodley and Jackson were all college DEs that were going to be converted and are converted to rush OLBs. Thats why i didn't include them. Pittsburgh didnt draft them to play DE, they drafted them to play OLB.
1billsfan Posted June 5, 2009 Author Posted June 5, 2009 Well, since 2002, in rounds 1-3, pittsburgh has spent 13 (1 QB, 1 RB, 5 WR, and 6 DBs) picks on skill positions while spending 5 picks on the OL/DL (3-3rd round tackles, and 1sts on a OG and DT). This year, ziggy hood was their first 1st rounder on the DL since they took casey hampton in 2001. So pittsburgh builds their teams by spending twice as many early round picks on skill positions as the line? The biggest difference between us and them is not what positions are drafted how often, but that pittsburgh hits on their early OL draft picks just about all the time. Again, it comes to picking talent, not picking position X or Y. PITTSBURGH'S LINE HAD ALREADY BEEN FREAKING BUILT AFTER TAKING KENDAL SIMMONS. THAT'S WHY AFTER 2002 THEY WERE AFFORDED THE LUXURY OF PICKING UP PLAYERS THAT DON'T LINE UP WITH THEIR HAND ON THE GROUND!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BillsVet Posted June 5, 2009 Posted June 5, 2009 I'd like for someone to explain how DJ isn't at fault for the sorry state of affairs this team is in. His on-field effort is truly lacking any innovation, and when he held sway over Levy in building the team, he ultimately guided Marv down a dark path. UFA 06 was putrid. UFA 07 was poor. Draft day 06 resulted in some average players, and the book is yet to be written on Lynch, Posluszny, and Edwards. Otherwise, DJ's act takes about 4-5 years for mediocre front offices to see it's the same game with the same results. Look at the top 12 teams in the draft this season. Nearly all of them made a significant change in the front office and/or at the HC job. Only OAK and CIN (who's owners are de facto GM's) along with SEA and GB didn't make some shift at the HC or GM position. The latter two teams went to the playoffs in 07. Hooray for continuity.
The Big Cat Posted June 5, 2009 Posted June 5, 2009 I'd like for someone to explain how DJ isn't at fault for the sorry state of affairs this team is in. Simple. Relative to every other team in the league (or at least the ones better than us) we have absolutely no veteran talent, and relative to every other "new regime," Jauron has overseen a complete overhaul at EVERY position except K, P, WR and DE.
Recommended Posts