SoFFacet
-
Posts
304 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SoFFacet
-
-
I assumed that to be your logical conclusion.
Can you give examples in the modern NFL of what you consider to be a drafting "mistake" and one that had a poor outcome but was not a "mistake" and contrast them?
Mistake - CJ Spiller. A high 1st-round pick used on a highly fungible position that also happened to be a team strength. Even if Spiller had gone on to have a good career, this selection made no sense.
Fine decision w/ poor outcome - Sammy Watkins (the pick, in isolation from the trade). Numerous other receivers from the same class have thus far had better careers. Watkins was nearly universally regarded as the best WR prospect in years, let alone that class. Evans and Beckham have both done better than expected, Watkins has been beset by injury. Unfortunate for us, but unknowable at the time.
-
Basically, as long as you don't make a ridiculous gaffe like Maybin, you can't make a mistake drafting, eh?
No? What makes you say that?
-
By your definition it's impossible for any team to ever make a mistake of any kind.
Mistakes are made when decisions can't be justified given the information available at the time a decision was made.
-
I don't think you know the definition of hindsight. Plenty of posters wanted the Bills to draft a qb at 10. I hope Peterman works out but it's silly to expect that much from him. I hope the Chiefs have an awful year. I hope that we are able to get a stud qb next year.
But if these things don't work out and Watson/ Mahomes become good qbs, it's a bad trade.
Does anyone know if Trubisky, Mahomes, Watson, Kizer, or any of the QBs drafted this year will be franchise level? No. When will anyone know? At some point after the draft has taken place.hind·sight. noun. understanding of a situation or event only after it has happened or developed -
The answer would be that it would be awesome and every Bills fan would be happy. The counter is what if Mahomes turns out to stud and Peterman plays like a 5th rounder. That would be a killer.
No, it would mean that both KC and Buffalo got what they paid for.
It may or may not bother you. But if McDermott traded away a franchise QB and does not acquire one himself by next year he will find himself more hated than Rex when he gets fired.
Only by captain hindsight internet warriors with no conception of the probabilistic nature of the universe.
If we, with a top 10 pick, passed on a franchise qb, then it's a terrible move unless you land one next year.
See above.
Hindsight is wishing we had taken Tom Brady when he fell to the 6th round. The Chiefs valuing Mahomes enough to move up to get him and us deciding the picks were worth more than him isn't hindsight if he's great, it's the Chiefs doing a better job in evaluation than us.
You're inventing a distinction where there is none. It is hindsight. KC was willing to take the (frankly low) chance that Mahomes will turn out to be special. There are dozens of scouting/trading/drafting articles that have been written, documenting the plague of evaluation overconfidence that spans the entire NFL. There is an extremely large chance that the trade works out in Buffalo's favor. If it doesn't, that will suck, but that will be the result of information not available at the time the decision was made. Hindsight by definition. -
Because he was not particularly impressive in limited snaps last year. Compared to MG who at the end of 2015 had already impressed in spot duty behind McCoy and Karlos. I hope we might have something in JW but I don't expect it at this stage.
I haven't seen anything from JW since he got to Buffalo...He might have been still recovering from injury, I don't know, but I haven't seen anything that says he can produce like MG did in a back-up role...I do hope this RB from UB they picked up in UDFA sticks with the team tho...I've only seen his highlight video, but it looked pretty good
Rookie season, 3rd stringer, limited snaps. It's not like this guy forgot how to play. Gillislee did nothing his rookie year. JW has a fine chance to do a good job this year.
-
I have no idea where this idea came from, that you need to bottom out to properly rebuild and compete in the NFL. This isn't hockey. New England, Pittsburgh, Green Bay, Seattle, KC, Denver, Baltimore... none of these model franchises are good because they bottomed out for a lottery pick. They are good because of good coaching, sustained solid drafting, harmony and longevity in the FO, etc. The only team in the entire league I can think of that is actually a benefitting from a tanked year is Indy.
-
Found this article that was published yesterday...it provides an optimistic perspective (supported by data) regarding the Bills' moves in this year's draft. While acknowledging that trading up is almost never a good idea, the data suggests the Bills' "losses" in their two trades up into the 2nd round were negligible, and more than offset by a significant gain in their trade down.
I've seen some people dispute the value of the 2018 1st. The practical rule in actual trades is to discount them by a round, but people disagree on whether the discount should apply to the counting of total draft capital. There are a lot of different trade charts floating around, as well.
If you do discount the value, then according to the chart in the article, the worst case scenario is that Buffalo comes out of the 1st trade at -29. If you don't, then as the article says, the worst case is +75. More likely, KC finishes with something like the 24th pick. With the discount, that is -11. Without, it's +128. Breakeven for the discount is KC with the 20th pick.
-
This fixation that certain people have against drafting CBs is pretty bizarre. Teams replace free agent departures with draft picks all the time. Teams draft DBs in early rounds all the time. New England is actually one of the foremost practitioners of both. CB was an undeniable need that we addressed with a draftee of at least appropriate value relative to pick number. Right after executing a trade that accumulated a significant amount of additional draft capital.
It's possible to complain about the complete process of "replacing Gilmore with White," but this is actually a complaint about the way Buffalo handled free agency, not the draft. So then it would need to be established that Gilmore could and should have been retained. Since that was nearly impossible, it would become clear that what needs actually be impugned is the Bills' handling of the salary cap in the years leading up to the expiration of Gilmore's contract.
-
Injuries are mostly random.
-
Kelly was by far the better prospect... I really think they wanted to grab Chad as UDFA... But it's OK... If Nate has the other QB's looking over their shoulders, -he's fulfilling his purpose...
Elway did McDermott a huge favor.
-
Thanks, great read. So only 4 of 27 recently stayed.
So Sammy has an 86% chance to no longer be a Buffalo Bill based on recent data.
Yes and no. You are correct that what other teams do doesn't force a decision to the Bills specifically. But the data illustrates that very few players who don't get the 5th year option remain with their original team.
Ultimately, it depends on the real reason the Bills are doing this. If this is caution over an injury that they are not certain of, that does not bode well.
If this is just bravado and Sean McDermott "making a statement" then perhaps this is much concern over nothing.
It's a totally inappropriate use of "data" that only serves to demonstrate that statistics can be manipulated to support anything and that TBN has total contempt for the critical analysis skills of their readership.
The 27 events in question are not identical random events, which renders invalid the entire supposition that together they form a probabilistic distribution from which to draw statistically supported conclusions. This flaw can sometimes be overcome by a sample size large enough to average out individualized situations. Perhaps n=10k would suffice. n=27 is not "data."
In any case, the article makes no attempt to distinguish between players that clubs readily let go on a rational basis, and players that clubs genuinely wanted to keep but could not. Obviously, a distinction that Bills fans ought to care about.
-
Do you see how betting against SW might make him tell the Bills to take a hike? Especially when he won't get a chance to play here with a better QB than TT before his contract is up?
If he has a good 2017, would he have been worth the option?
He will never sign that FT here now.
They're not "betting against him," they are delaying the decision to commit to him, on the extremely rational basis that he has not been good/healthy enough to justify that type commitment, yet. I suspect that SW is a mature enough person to understand that.
If he has a good 2017, then yes he would have been worth the option. But the decision took that into account. By passing up the option, they forgo the best case scenario (5th year option, good 2017) to eliminate the possibility of several bad scenarios (5th year option, bad 2017 or season lost due to injury). Blindly chasing after the best case scenario on the basis of what was invested in acquiring him in the first place = sunk cost fallacy.
This decision is irrelevant to him signing a franchise tag.
-
I ask again, What?
A steal in the 5th/6th is Antonio Brown.
Not a difficult concept. "Steal" can be judged based on process-based or results-based criteria. For instance, OJ Howard at 19 is already a steal from a process-oriented perspective, as Tampa managed to select him significantly after all boards and ratings suggested. A steal, based on the information that was available at the time of the draft. Some other player might be judged to be a steal from a results-oriented perspective, once his career is significantly underway. Howard himself may eventually be judged to be more or less of a steal than currently thought. But none of that information was available at the time that the decisions were made. So steals of that nature are typically more luck-based, and therefore don't make much sense to focus on if an organization's goal is to sustain a record of excellent drafting.
-
IM sorry what?
So if the guy never plays a down in his entire football career and is out of the league in 2-3 years this is a steal?
That doesn't make sense. How can it be a steal if he never plays a down in the NFL?
Process-oriented vs results-oriented analysis.
-
Someone easily could have chosen Peterman in the 2nd round and none of the analysts would have blinked. This is a steal regardless of how his career turns out.
I believe Astro was manually picking him for us in the 3rd round of the latest draftek simulations. Can't see how anyone is upset about this guy in the 5th. Tbh the one thing that puzzles me is that we picked him with our 2nd 5th rounder. Hard to believe that they valued/feared losing Milano more than Peterman.
-
I knew this thread would pass the 1st round thread!
QB hysteria out of control. For a healthy organization and un-traumatized fanbase, this would not be a significant pick. He's a developmental QB. If he pans out, great. If not, whatever. Any 5th rounder is a long-shot to make a difference.
-
We just drafted two undersized LB's. Kind of strange? Are they going to convert to safety or does McD want to play small.
Bills (From Patriots through Broncos)
Milano, Matt LB 6'0" 223 Boston College 5.3Bills
Vallejo, Tanner LB 6'1" 228 Boise St. 5.1Ideal physical specimens were picked several rounds ago.
-
Has there ever been a more polarizing 5th round pick?
Is it polarizing at all? Low risk, medium reward, relatively expected... how can anyone feel strongly one way or the other?
-
First bad pick of the draft. This guy will never be more than a TJ Yates...and we already got one of those. Wasted pick, especially when we could've gotten a DB, WR, or DL
Yates is 29. Peterman could definitely become a Smith / Dalton / Cousins type.
-
PFF Loved all three
SPARQ rating are on all three
The Analytics sites like all three of our picks
Quite a relief to see!
-
I think a lot of this actually serves the OP's argument. When you look at each move in and of itself, almost every move is a good one:
- Draft Winfield - good player
- Draft Clements - good player
- Let Winfield walk - (this one was a mistake - matching or beating his Vikings contract wouldn't have broken the bank and he remained really good for Minny)
- Let Clements walk - the right call; he wasn't worth that contract
- Draft McKelvin - seemed like a good idea at the time, but while he wasn't a total bust, you'd want better out of that high a pick
- Re-sign McKelvin - didn't have much outside interest and signed for pretty low money for a starting CB
- Cut McKelvin - his performance tailed off, starting to lose his athleticism, and maybe didn't buy in to the new scheme
- Draft Gilmore - good player (debatable how good)
- Let Gilmore walk - probably not worth that contract (I think he won't be, but time will tell)
- Draft White - seems like a good player from what I've read
But for all of that, we've stayed a middling to bad team for the entire time. Even though most of those individual moves were good decisions, they didn't lead to overall success. And that's what concerns me.
I get the logic of "CBs are expensive, so it makes some sense to draft good ones high, get good play on a cheap rookie deal, then let them walk and replace with another high pick." But I think that approach would work much better for an established playoff team with most of its foundational players in place. For a team like ours that's been perpetually rebuilding, I would much prefer we use our high picks to try to get (and keep!) those foundational players. Even the Maybin pick, as bad as it was, at least had potential - if Maybin had been a good player, we likely would've re-signed him to a big bucks deal, and we'd have had a stud pass rusher DE for 10 years or so.
Not every high pick will pan out. Some will be total busts like Maybin, some will be absolute studs like Jim Kelly or Bruce Smith, but most will fall into 2 broad categories: Okay-but-disappointing players like McKelvin or Whitner, or pretty-good-but-not-stars like Eric Wood or Gilmore. I think it's important when looking at overall team building to value some positions more than others in the high rounds. Because if you're not going to be willing to pay a "pretty good" CB when his contract is up, but will pay a "pretty good" LT, the LT is worth more in the long run.
I do agree that it's not entirely fair to judge this front office on the actions of previous front offices, but I also think there's legit cause for concern here.
Do you even realize how many other types of issues all go into "overall success"? This pattern of reasoning could be used to impugn literally any decision made during the drought, whereas in reality some but not all of those decisions were responsible for the lack of success.
It says here that the general strategy of prioritizing DBs in the draft is one of the few things the team has done right.
- Draft Winfield - good player
-
FS Baker FS Sanders-Williams DL McDowell OT Robinson LB Cunningham WR Godwin WR Jones OG Lamp SS Melifonwu QB Kizer
-
It will prove that this was a GIGANTIC failure of a move. In a draft where CB was one of the deepest positions, the Bills had a chance to land the BEST of the bunch. Then, at 27, the Bills also decided that picking the 6th or 7th best CB was better than fixing the right side of the line for good.
The Bills organization has failed to make the right decisions for so long that it is tough to put any faith that they will turn that extra first rounder into the franchise QB that has been lacking for so many years. If they pull it off next year, this will be the best move ever. Until that actually happens and they get their guy, I have a hard time believing that this trade down will pay off.
What I don't understand is that by making that move last night, it clearly states that this is a rebuilding year (as if we didn't already know that). If that truly is the case, why the hell is Kyle Williams (and to a lesser extent Shady) still here. Why not make THIS year the one where they go all in to fix the problem? As it stands right now, Browns Jets and and Bills will all be looking to get their guy in 2018. If the Bills miss out by overachieving to that 7-9 record again, they will most assuredly look like they messed up yet another draft in a long line of them.
If a draft is "deep" at a particular position, that means that getting the best one is actually less important than usual, and getting one of the next few is actually a better idea than usual. There are also no guarantees pertaining to exactly how good White is in comparison to his draft peers. Every team has different boards, with different systems, different criteria, different grades. Most independent services had White between 15-30 overall. All of those are just projections. White could end up as the best or the worst CB in this class. But he seems to be a good value at a well-known position of need according to the information available at the time the decision was made.
The proposed alternative, "Fixing the right side of the line for good," is an arbitrary fixation. There is no guarantee that Ramcyzk, Robinson, or any other OT would actually "fix it for good." Nor has it been established that doing so would be more important than addressing the need in the secondary. There is also no guarantee that Mahomes, Watson, or any other QB will turn out to be a franchise QB. If there were, they would all have been taken in the top-5 picks. Regardless of whatever careers they turn out to have, there is no guarantee that they would have had an equivalent career in Buffalo. All that happened yesterday was that teams that could afford (KC, Houston, by the virtue of their already strong rosters) to take chances on those QBs, did.
Trading down doesn't make any sort of statement about this year, all it means is that they thought this was an incredibly good value (and it was). People need to stop trying to hard to construct narratives. When we traded up for Watkins, people couldn't shut up about how that stated we were "all in" or in "win now mode." Which of course was bull ****.
What if Peterman is better than Mahomes??
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Saying that you would have preferred Mahomes right now is not hindsight, it's just illogical considering the alternative that we chose and the likelihood that Mahomes becomes something. People coming back some number of years from now in the event that Mahomes actually becomes something and saying, "see?" is an attempt to argue with the benefit of hindsight.
You can apply the same Peterman logic to Mahomes, btw. How does such a great special franchise QB slip to 10? If he were so likely to be so great, would he not have gone 1st overall? Are the 9 other teams that passed on him just stupid?