Disturbing Bills Trend: Ignoring 1st round OL picks

[The Big Cat]

Explain to me why we're making comparisons across six different FO regimes then lumping them all together as "Bills trends...?"

[Kelly the Dog]

In the past 10 years, the Ravens used 7 of their picks in the 1st three rounds on OL, plus a number of 4th and 5th round picks;

The Steelers used 6 plus a number of 4th (with mixed results);

The Patriots 6, and that was after using their prior two no. 1 picks on OL in the late 90's;

The Saints 5, and also hit on some 4th and 5th round picks (most notably Jahri Evans and Carl Nix);

 

Each of these teams has had a better oline for the last decade than Buffalo, most with pretty established lines, and yet they STILL outpace the Bills for picks in rounds 1-3, (and most, in rounds 4-5 also);

 

Buffalo used a whopping three picks in those rounds over that time period.

 

Indy and Green Bay haven't used high picks as much, until recently, but Indy has been among the leader leaders in sacks surrendered for the past decade. Despite passing more, they normally surrender sacks in the teens, not the 40's. If Indy can get away with using lower round picks, god bless 'em. The point is...they have succeeded...we haven't.

 

Bill Polian watched his Oline drop compared to previous years (despite still giving up less than 20 sacks). He didn't sit on his hands, brag up the ebay offensive linemen he found, or whine about not having enough picks. He spent his first two picks on the OL.

 

In fact, several teams did, after watching their quality suffer. Green Bay has for 2 years, so have the Steelers.

 

Only Buffalo uses the "we'll get some next year" approach.

I was responding to the OP's thread about first round picks.

 

You make some good points, but the Bills also signed a FA to a 50 mil contract, and another to a 25 mil contract. And I am not saying that the Bills drafted a bunch of players high. They haven't. The point is, spending #1 picks on OL doesn't ensure success, and the Bills have not ignored OL in round one anymore than anyone else.

 

Ultimately, it doesn't matter whatsoever where you find good NFL players and especially OL. Good and great ones come from draft picks (high, mid and low), UDFA, the waiver wire and free agency. It doesn't mater where you get them, it's who you select or sign. The Bills have done terrible at that.

[Mark Long Beach]

I was responding to the OP's thread about first round picks.

 

You make some good points, but the Bills also signed a FA to a 50 mil contract, and another to a 25 mil contract. And I am not saying that the Bills drafted a bunch of players high. They haven't. The point is, spending #1 picks on OL doesn't ensure success, and the Bills have not ignored OL in round one anymore than anyone else.

 

Ultimately, it doesn't matter whatsoever where you find good NFL players and especially OL. Good and great ones come from draft picks (high, mid and low), UDFA, the waiver wire and free agency. It doesn't mater where you get them, it's who you select or sign. The Bills have done terrible at that.

 

Yep, it doesn't matter where they came from, just as long as they can play.

 

Drafting a lot of players at a single position doesn't mean it's a good thing. In fact it can mean just the opposite in that guys keep getting drafted but can't play that position. So they're wasting draft picks trying to make up for earlier mistakes. The simplest example is Detroit drafting a WR three years running with their first round pick.

 

Lots of picks (or free agency signings) at a single area does not mean strength at that area.

[Pirate Angel]

I think Chix have been following the game plan that the originally envisioned and I don't have problems with it. We had so many problems with our team and they chose to fix the Defense first. While I'm sure they considered fixing the O, they felt it was more important to solidify our Defense considering that we ran a horribly undersized Tampa 2, 4-3. So while they focused on Defense, they spent a fewer later round draft picks on Oline (guys like Wang), picked up a few castoffs from other teams (Ubrik), and worked with developing the current on-team talent (Bell). These guys may not be the greatest, but they could end up being solid back-ups so that next year when we hit O line hard in the Draft, we will have already developed solid depth.

good post...If we addressed the online then there would be constant bitching on here on how we dint address the defense.

 

Yep, it doesn't matter where they came from, just as long as they can play.

 

Drafting a lot of players at a single position doesn't mean it's a good thing. In fact it can mean just the opposite in that guys keep getting drafted but can't play that position. So they're wasting draft picks trying to make up for earlier mistakes. The simplest example is Detroit drafting a WR three years running with their first round pick.

 

Lots of picks (or free agency signings) at a single area does not mean strength at that area.

yup... weird how our defensive backfield is still subpar

[Rico]

Too bad Robert Hicks never panned out, he could've been wrapping up a nice long successful career as a Bill right now.

[ganesh]

Successful 1st round NFL draft strategy.

 

Cross all WR's, RB's, TE's, & Safeties off your 1st round board.

 

Draft the BEST overall player from there. Pick the player that is best suited to be an NFL starter right away. Whether it be OL, DL, LB, QB, or whatever.

 

For example, going into a draft and saying "we are weakest at DE so we got to pick a DE in the 1st round" narrows down the likely hood that your going to pick a sure fire NFL starter. Instead of picking from all sorts of positions and getting the sure thing you narrow your pick down to 3 or 4 DE's. Some DE shows up and has amazing answers to all of your questions and lights up the combine. You classify him as a raw talent and draft him. Your left with Aaron Maybin.

 

So, I don't care if the BIlls don't draft an OL for the next 10 years as long as they are drafting the best overall player available. The rest will fall into place.

 

Mr. Jauron...Your approach really comes to mind....with your McCargo pick.....Something on the lines of Best DT available @ that point in the draft...even though he was the 3rd best player on that line that included Mario Williams and Manny Lawson....and we know how that Panned out..

 

You cannot reach for players unless they are a sure thing and there is no sure thing in NFL. Don't pick 1 year wonders from college...They usually cannot cut it. Don't pick players who have bloated their stats against weak opposition. Pick a player based on what his contribution is going to be.

 

In the past 10 years, the Ravens used 7 of their picks in the 1st three rounds on OL, plus a number of 4th and 5th round picks;

The Steelers used 6 plus a number of 4th (with mixed results);

The Patriots 6, and that was after using their prior two no. 1 picks on OL in the late 90's;

The Saints 5, and also hit on some 4th and 5th round picks (most notably Jahri Evans and Carl Nix);

 

Each of these teams has had a better oline for the last decade than Buffalo, most with pretty established lines, and yet they STILL outpace the Bills for picks in rounds 1-3, (and most, in rounds 4-5 also);

 

Buffalo used a whopping three picks in those rounds over that time period.

 

Indy and Green Bay haven't used high picks as much, until recently, but Indy has been among the leader leaders in sacks surrendered for the past decade. Despite passing more, they normally surrender sacks in the teens, not the 40's. If Indy can get away with using lower round picks, god bless 'em. The point is...they have succeeded...we haven't.

 

Bill Polian watched his Oline drop compared to previous years (despite still giving up less than 20 sacks). He didn't sit on his hands, brag up the ebay offensive linemen he found, or whine about not having enough picks. He spent his first two picks on the OL.

 

In fact, several teams did, after watching their quality suffer. Green Bay has for 2 years, so have the Steelers.

 

Only Buffalo uses the "we'll get some next year" approach.

 

There is a HIDDEN Answer to your question. What you need to ask of these successful teams is: How many OL coaches have they had in the past 11 years...For most of them, the answer would be a couple and that would be mainly because the OL coach got promoted and they were able to successfully promote from within and keep the CONTINUITY. We had one OL coach for a 5 year window, but unfortunately we had three different Head Coaches during that time, whereby the philosophies were changed each time. Successful teams have continuity in their front office, continuity in coaching staff, continuity in their draft philosophy etcc....The Bills just have not had that...and that is a big reason for their failure.

[EasternOHBillsFan]

Lots of picks (or free agency signings) at a single area does not mean strength at that area.

 

Who were the quarterbacks when then did that 3 years in a row? Who was the GM when they had a substandard QB and drafted those WRs??

 

If you have players like Fitzpatrick, Jackson/Spiller, and the young WRers we have, you can AFFORD to draft those OLmen. Detroit didn't have that kind of offensive potential!!