Gabe Northern Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 I did not realize that scouts chose the players instead of the GM. Why do we have a GM again? Blame it on the GM all you want, but the role of the scouting operation is to provide the information used to draft players. I don't know if you don't understand how fundamental evaluations of all draft-eligible players is to the selection process, or if you're just needlessly argumentative. The rot in the scouting operation is the main problem with this team's drafts. Not the identity of the person with "final say" on which name to pull off the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 I can't argue with your findings but I will take a bit of exception to your conclusion. The fact is that not only did Green Bay have a phenomenal draft and put our draft to shame…but they did the same to most of rest of the league. No doubt that the Bills have to draft much better if they are to have any hopes of success. But the draft is a bit of a crapshoot and even teams that traditionally draft well have bad drafts. And even proven expert GMs like Bill Polian and Ozzie Newsome have had bad drafts. Kudos to the Packers indeed. They do exceedingly well in an area where most teams struggle much of the time. Isn't the goal to be the best though? What sort of aspiration is it to say, "Most teams have average drafts by definition, so if we're only a little worse than average we're really not so bad"? I couldn't agree more. I always thought it was weird that the Cincinnati Bengals were always criticized for being cheap and having a very small scouting department. It always seemed counter-intuitive to me that a team like Cincinnati didn't have a large and well-paid scouting department to offset the fact that they don't aggressively pursue free agents and that they often lose players after their first contract expires. Like you suggest, it seems like smaller revenue clubs should invest more heavily in scouting and player development than the big clubs do. With respect to the Bengals, they are a Mickey Mouse organization. Mike Brown thinks that if it worked for his father, it is good enough. Paul Brown ran a very tight ship and wanted to scout his own players, so the Bengals continue to do it the same way, asking their coaching staff to do double duty and do most of the scouting. Obviously, it hasn't worked very well for them, but you're right that some of these teams that annually draft in the top 10 seem to stick with what isn't working. Is that Matt Millen over there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 This doesn't even include Frank Zombo, who was undrafted and started from day 1. He also had arguably the best name for an incoming LB this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 This is where I struggle when "Old Timers" tell us we need 2-3 years to evaluate a draft class and young players need time. I'm sure all of GB's young rookies struggled at times and made mistakes and I'm sure they will all improve - but they also all contributed significantly to a team with playoff hopes (the eventual SB champion). So why exactly is it that GB can score 6 for 7 on quality draft picks who contribute (at least to some extent) their rookie year, while our class struggles to sniff the field? I have as much or more respect for old people than anyone but let's face it, you are right. Another thing old people think is that you have to take OL, OL, OL in the draft every year including this year. In today's NFL drafting OL means absolutely nothing. Look at Pittsburgh. They had a former Bill 3rd stringer as their starting LT. Still people yammer on and on about getting more OL. Please just stop. Today's NFL is all about offensive skill positions and secondary. That is what we need to draft and that is why having Green and Peterson available at 3 is such a great thing. Let's just hope our FO understands as we get into the 2nd third and fourth that taking an OL is a complete waste of a pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 He also had arguably the best name for an incoming LB this year. Zombo of the Chippewas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyHorseAteTheKid Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 According to Draftek Greenbay had the best draft... The Green Bay Packer! Give Ted Thopmson and the Green Bay talent evaluators a ton of credit. Drafting in the 20's in each round, they found 6 players among their 7 draft picks who have contibuted to their Super Bowl appearance. Bryan Bulaga started things off. He holds down the starting RT spot for the Pack. 2nd Rounder DL Mike Neal saw extensive rotation time in 2 games prior to ending the season early on IR. Same story for 3rd rounder Morgan Burnett - a starter in the first 4 games at SS prior to a season ending injury. In the 5th, Green Bay added TE Andrew Quarless - he was thrown into the fire when starter Jermichael Finley went down. The 6th round brought playoff hero RB James Starks . Their final pick, DE CJ Wilson was also placed into service via injury to the mainline. Wilson appeared in 15 games (277 snaps) - great contribution for a 7th rounder. Not just last year, but the last 4 or 5 years the Packers have nailed the Draft! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealityCheck Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Blame it on the GM all you want, but the role of the scouting operation is to provide the information used to draft players. I don't know if you don't understand how fundamental evaluations of all draft-eligible players is to the selection process, or if you're just needlessly argumentative. The rot in the scouting operation is the main problem with this team's drafts. Not the identity of the person with "final say" on which name to pull off the board. All I am saying is that there has never been any public accountability or exposure of how the decision making process is handled internally with this organization. That being said, I find it amusing how some fans who have their own business to attend to are so passionate in their opinions based upon what amounts to poor information at best. I guess the only tangible action that a fan can take when they are fed up with their team is to no longer financially support the team with the purchase of season tickets. But since a lot of these armchair GMs on this board refuse to do that in light of our current economic situation and clear disgust with the team, I find it laughable that their "I am Right and Your a DUMB*** for disagreeing with me" stances on what the team should do with millions of dollars on the line should be taken seriously. To voluntarily p*** money away when you are obviously agonized by the team and complain about it endlessly is called a symptom I think. By the way, your response to my simple question starts off with humorous assumptions about my INTENT with what I was asking instead of what I had actually typed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EldaBillsFan Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 and some Good ole unconventional LUCK! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 According to Draftek Greenbay had the best draft... The Green Bay Packer! Give Ted Thopmson and the Green Bay talent evaluators a ton of credit. Drafting in the 20's in each round, they found 6 players among their 7 draft picks who have contibuted to their Super Bowl appearance. Bryan Bulaga started things off. He holds down the starting RT spot for the Pack. 2nd Rounder DL Mike Neal saw extensive rotation time in 2 games prior to ending the season early on IR. Same story for 3rd rounder Morgan Burnett - a starter in the first 4 games at SS prior to a season ending injury. In the 5th, Green Bay added TE Andrew Quarless - he was thrown into the fire when starter Jermichael Finley went down. The 6th round brought playoff hero RB James Starks . Their final pick, DE CJ Wilson was also placed into service via injury to the mainline. Wilson appeared in 15 games (277 snaps) - great contribution for a 7th rounder. Exceptional drafting, not only last year, but years prior. That team is soooo deep it's scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobcat Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Youth Due to all the injuries, the Packers have been forced to play younger guys who answered the call. General manager Ted Thompson loves the draft and is good at unearthing gems. He will continue to stockpile young talent, but at the same time, the Packers are also willing to admit a mistake. They will not allow a guy to stick around because of draft status. Most importantly, the Packers never seem to draft on need. They draft based on their board, which allows them to stay young and deep. Did they really need a wideout when they took Jordy Nelson at the top of the second round in 2008? Probably not, but Thompson understands talent and value, so he picked Nelson. Equating value is the most critical aspect of the draft, and Thompson is great in that regard. Most teams believe they set their board based on value, but they actually rig their board to have the value meet their needs. In essence, they lie to themselves, which starts to decay the roster. Packers fans do not have to worry about this because Thompson and his staff know value. from nfl.com I think that is how Nix approaches the draft,and im a fan of that.If the bills would of had that approach with former GM's we would not of drafted maybin or lynch...instead it might of looked like Cushing and Revis...who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobcat Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Youth Due to all the injuries, the Packers have been forced to play younger guys who answered the call. General manager Ted Thompson loves the draft and is good at unearthing gems. He will continue to stockpile young talent, but at the same time, the Packers are also willing to admit a mistake. They will not allow a guy to stick around because of draft status. Most importantly, the Packers never seem to draft on need. They draft based on their board, which allows them to stay young and deep. Did they really need a wideout when they took Jordy Nelson at the top of the second round in 2008? Probably not, but Thompson understands talent and value, so he picked Nelson. Equating value is the most critical aspect of the draft, and Thompson is great in that regard. Most teams believe they set their board based on value, but they actually rig their board to have the value meet their needs. In essence, they lie to themselves, which starts to decay the roster. Packers fans do not have to worry about this because Thompson and his staff know value. I love the approach the packers take to the war room,i think that is the way Nix has been going as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Well, the Bills certainly can't do that. Too many folks 'round here have said they MUST take certain positions or they are doomed. Can't go the talent route. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 That can't be right at all. You draft on need alone to win championships... That's why with the upcoming draft the Bills will ignore talent and draft what everyone thinks the defensive player they need to draft is... Regardless if there is better talent on the board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 If you have no major weaknesses than drafting the 'best available' player regardless of position is a good strategy. Some teams are in that position because of years of consistent and successful approaches to the draft and free agency. But the reality is the Bills have major holes in several critical areas that if left unaddressed will result in absolutely no improvement in wins vs. losses in 2011 and beyond. Maybe Peterson or Green are the 'best available' players at #3 when their turn to pick comes. But if you're surrending 200+ yards rushing on the ground in 1/2 of your games does it really make any logical sense to not address that area with an impact player at the top of round 1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markgbe Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) yes lets draft WRs and a QB, and then next year we can allow 10000 rushing yards per game, but thats ok, because we'll score 100 points per game with our "talented" WRs, and shiny new rookie QB. great idea. Edited February 8, 2011 by markgbe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gumby Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Good thing the Bills have so many holes they can draft BPA and still fill a need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangarang Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 yes lets draft WRs and a QB, and then next year we can allow 10000 rushing yards per game, but thats ok, because we'll score 100 points per game with our "talented" WRs, and shiny new rookie QB. great idea. Why do people act like if we take a defensive lineman or a big linebacker early in the draft that it will automatically solve our terrible run defense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherman Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 If you have no major weaknesses than drafting the 'best available' player regardless of position is a good strategy. Some teams are in that position because of years of consistent and successful approaches to the draft and free agency. But the reality is the Bills have major holes in several critical areas that if left unaddressed will result in absolutely no improvement in wins vs. losses in 2011 and beyond. Maybe Peterson or Green are the 'best available' players at #3 when their turn to pick comes. But if you're surrending 200+ yards rushing on the ground in 1/2 of your games does it really make any logical sense to not address that area with an impact player at the top of round 1? In this situation one of the best players at #3 is a CB. If the Bills believe that CB can be a shutdown corner like a Revis, Woodson or Bailey then that could help the run. The fact you can single up on your opponents best wr may mean that you can put 8 men up front. This may be a case when best player can also help fulfill need. In the Super Bowl last Sunday the Steelers running game was spotty until Woodson went down. 3 points before his injury and 22 after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Why do people act like if we take a defensive lineman or a big linebacker early in the draft that it will automatically solve our terrible run defense? or perhaps that part of the Defensive woes stemmed from the offense not staying on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Exceptional drafting, not only last year, but years prior. That team is soooo deep it's scary. Second youngest team in the NFL, right? So much for those "small town" and "umpteen guys on IR" excuses as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts