My annual rant about draft value.

[PromoTheRobot]

Today's Buffalo News has an article about Todd McShay's opinion of the Bills pick at #10 lacking options with value. Every year we descend into the value/reach debate as if it means anything once OTAs begin.

 

Reach and value are invented commodities used to add drama to draft day. It is something debated endlessly but means nothing once the draft is done. If you pick a player and he fills a need no one cares if he was a reach or a value pick.

 

Have at it.

 

PTR

[jjmac]

Today's Buffalo News has an article about Todd McShay's opinion of the Bills pick at #10 lacking options with value. Every year we descend into the value/reach debate as if it means anything once OTAs begin.

 

Reach and value are invented commodities used to add drama to draft day. It is something debated endlessly but means nothing once the draft is done. If you pick a player and he fills a need no one cares if he was a reach or a value pick.

 

Have at it.

 

PTR

 

I think I agree. Somebody in this draft class is the 10th-best player, and, in theory, he will fill a need for us.

[todd]

I wonder if McShay says that about the 10th spot because it is harder to grade players in that area. Realistically, there are probably 4 to 6 players every year that are the top of the draft class. After that, it gets muddy and more difficult to rank.

 

Personally, I couldn't tell the difference between a #10 and a #15. For me it only becomes apparent 3 years after the draft.

 

Today's Buffalo News has an article about Todd McShay's opinion of the Bills pick at #10 lacking options with value. Every year we descend into the value/reach debate as if it means anything once OTAs begin.

 

Reach and value are invented commodities used to add drama to draft day. It is something debated endlessly but means nothing once the draft is done. If you pick a player and he fills a need no one cares if he was a reach or a value pick.

 

Have at it.

 

PTR

[Bill from NYC]

Today's Buffalo News has an article about Todd McShay's opinion of the Bills pick at #10 lacking options with value. Every year we descend into the value/reach debate as if it means anything once OTAs begin.

 

Reach and value are invented commodities used to add drama to draft day. It is something debated endlessly but means nothing once the draft is done. If you pick a player and he fills a need no one cares if he was a reach or a value pick.

 

Have at it.

 

PTR

 

I couldn't agree more Promo.

I see the term "draft value" often used by fans as an alibi of sorts to justify a dumb selection by a GM. Forget about Brady.....Bryce Paup was also a 6th round pick. He was the NFL Defensive Player of the Year. Would he have been a "reach" in the first round? No, because he played up to it. In essence, Paup was a "steal" in that draft.

I'm with you on "value," but there are lots players who I would label a "steal."

[DanInSouthBuffalo]

I wonder if McShay says that about the 10th spot because it is harder to grade players in that area. Realistically, there are probably 4 to 6 players every year that are the top of the draft class. After that, it gets muddy and more difficult to rank.

 

Personally, I couldn't tell the difference between a #10 and a #15. For me it only becomes apparent 3 years after the draft.

 

I think that's exactly it. There's usually 4 to 6 slam-dunk blue chip players in every draft you would be crazy not to pick. After that is the temptation to reach for need vs. best player/value on the draft board.

I have a feeling the Bills will have a lot of DE's staring them in the face where they now already filled via free-agency.

[Nanker]

"Top 10 selections should either score touchdowns or sack quarterbacks, unless they're a rare talent, e.g., LOT, CB," Various Pigskin Pundits.

To me what it boils down to is the degree of probability of success at the NFL level. People like to think in nice round numbers like, "top 10".

But like Todd said - there are typically only 4-6 "can't miss" (forget about Leaf, Russell et al for the moment) prospects each year - but it's still a crap shoot every year (see Leaf, Russell et al).

One thing I'm very happy about this year is that The Bills have far fewer holes to fill than anytime in recent memory.

 

The other thing that fans don't much concern themselves with is the extensive rankings of ALL draft eligible players that each team does in preparation for the Draft.

They're all rated at their position and then those rankings are sorted as a collective group so the team has a clear view of who's available on their list in direct order of the value that their scouting team has them ranked.

So when the team's on deck for their next draft selection, they refer to their board - see who's the highest ranked player left - and they know what to do. If two or three players are numerically ranked equally by the team, then it becomes an issue of need or perhaps the flexibility that a particular player might offer in terms of their diverse skills, e.g., proven ability to handle several positions Special Teams, KR, PR, CB/NB/S. Melvin Ingram, Cordy Glenn and DeCastro are examples from this year's crop of Draftees.

 

Go Bills!

[KOKBILLS]

Today's Buffalo News has an article about Todd McShay's opinion of the Bills pick at #10 lacking options with value. Every year we descend into the value/reach debate as if it means anything once OTAs begin.

 

Reach and value are invented commodities used to add drama to draft day. It is something debated endlessly but means nothing once the draft is done. If you pick a player and he fills a need no one cares if he was a reach or a value pick.

 

Have at it.

 

PTR

 

Agreed actually...

 

All you have to do is listen to a couple Scouts back-to-back to realize reach and value are in the eyes of the beholder...A couple days ago I heard Mayock and Lombardi say Stephon Gilmore's value was between 10-20 in the 1st Round, and that he was clearly the 2nd best CB in the Draft...Yesterday Charlie Casserly says he does not value Gilmore that high, that he's definitely not a Top 10 talent, and that Kirkpatrick is the better CB prospect of the two...So...Come Draft day, if The Bills take Gilmore at #10, Mayock and Lombardi will say great Pick...Casserly will say reach...And then we'll all see the truth when he gets on the field...

[peterpan]

What do you guys say about the Troup pick then?

 

I think you guys are only looking at half the situation, ie you are assuming the player picked turns out to be good, but what if he turns out to be bad?

 

Troupe was a huge reach to fill a need on draft day, Kiper had him as a 4th rounder I think, and I bet we would have been able to draft him in the 3rd round, 4th round, or maybe even 5th round. Troup has been a player much much worse than the other players drafted around him at other posititons, like B Spikes, Gronkowski, L Houston, etc etc etc. Even Cam Thomas who was drafted 2 rounds later at the same position has out performed Troup. SO what was thought to be a reach pick on draft day ended up being very true. We lost out on better players at different positions, which ironcially now we have needs at those positions.

 

The difference in those players abilties and Troup's ability are very very real and not just 'invented commodities used to add drama to draft day'

Edited March 31, 2012 by peterpan

[26TrapDraw]

Today's Buffalo News has an article about Todd McShay's opinion of the Bills pick at #10 lacking options with value. Every year we descend into the value/reach debate as if it means anything once OTAs begin.

 

Reach and value are invented commodities used to add drama to draft day. It is something debated endlessly but means nothing once the draft is done. If you pick a player and he fills a need no one cares if he was a reach or a value pick.

 

Have at it.

 

PTR

I don't care if we pick a long snapper at 10 as long as whoever we pick comes in and STARTS and plays at a high level...my only concern

Edited March 31, 2012 by LVBillsBackr

[NoSaint]

Ideally you will be able to get your top guy 1 spot before anyone else would take them. Anything short of that is technically leaving something on the board. How big that is (ie how much it takes to move up, or what someone would offer you to trade back), and how confident you are that you will be able to gauge where that guy otherwise goes is all hazy but that's the skill out of maximizing value. There is worth in that, but it can't be your #1 as the goal is to get your guys - but to get them AND something, or to get them at lower cost is good. BPA is the other half of value - not reaching for need. Which I 100% agree with. Take the talent you trust - with injuries, contracts, etc.... You always need good players, even at strong positions.

[Malazan]

What do you guys say about the Troup pick then?

 

I think you guys are only looking at half the situation, ie you are assuming the player picked turns out to be good, but what if he turns out to be bad?

 

Troupe was a huge reach to fill a need on draft day, Kiper had him as a 4th rounder I think, and I bet we would have been able to draft him in the 3rd round, 4th round, or maybe even 5th round. Troup has been a player much much worse than the other players drafted around him at other posititons, like B Spikes, Gronkowski, L Houston, etc etc etc. Even Cam Thomas who was drafted 2 rounds later at the same position has out performed Troup. SO what was thought to be a reach pick on draft day ended up being very true. We lost out on better players at different positions, which ironcially now we have needs at those positions.

 

The difference in those players abilties and Troup's ability are very very real and not just 'invented commodities used to add drama to draft day'

 

This is a typical 20/20 hindsight fallacy.

[PromoTheRobot]

What do you guys say about the Troup pick then?

 

I think you guys are only looking at half the situation, ie you are assuming the player picked turns out to be good, but what if he turns out to be bad?

 

Troupe was a huge reach to fill a need on draft day, Kiper had him as a 4th rounder I think, and I bet we would have been able to draft him in the 3rd round, 4th round, or maybe even 5th round. Troup has been a player much much worse than the other players drafted around him at other posititons, like B Spikes, Gronkowski, L Houston, etc etc etc. Even Cam Thomas who was drafted 2 rounds later at the same position has out performed Troup. SO what was thought to be a reach pick on draft day ended up being very true. We lost out on better players at different positions, which ironcially now we have needs at those positions.

 

The difference in those players abilties and Troup's ability are very very real and not just 'invented commodities used to add drama to draft day'

If Kiper really knew who was worth drafting where he'd be an NFL GM. For every Troup he gets right, I can point to 3 Clausens, Leinerts, etc he totally whiffs on. Random chance will make you right once in a while.

 

PTR

[mEAz]

"Top 10 selections should either score touchdowns or sack quarterbacks, unless they're a rare talent, e.g., LOT, CB," Various Pigskin Pundits.

To me what it boils down to is the degree of probability of success at the NFL level. People like to think in nice round numbers like, "top 10".

But like Todd said - there are typically only 4-6 "can't miss" (forget about Leaf, Russell et al for the moment) prospects each year - but it's still a crap shoot every year (see Leaf, Russell et al).

One thing I'm very happy about this year is that The Bills have far fewer holes to fill than anytime in recent memory.

 

The other thing that fans don't much concern themselves with is the extensive rankings of ALL draft eligible players that each team does in preparation for the Draft.

They're all rated at their position and then those rankings are sorted as a collective group so the team has a clear view of who's available on their list in direct order of the value that their scouting team has them ranked.

So when the team's on deck for their next draft selection, they refer to their board - see who's the highest ranked player left - and they know what to do. If two or three players are numerically ranked equally by the team, then it becomes an issue of need or perhaps the flexibility that a particular player might offer in terms of their diverse skills, e.g., proven ability to handle several positions Special Teams, KR, PR, CB/NB/S. Melvin Ingram, Cordy Glenn and DeCastro are examples from this year's crop of Draftees.

 

Go Bills!

This is why when the so called experts cry out that a team reached for a player on draft day, we should all ignore them. We are not privy to each teams boards and because player evaluations are so subjective, who is to say one team (or one analyst) is right. It's only after a few years, in hindsight like PTR stated, that we can actually evaluate reach and value.

[....lybob]

I think Todd McShay is pretty much right on which is why I've been wishing for a Richardson or Tannehill trade back scenario- It's not that there are six good players then the whole thing falls off a cliff but I really do see tiers of players

 

Tier 1 Luck, RG3, Kali

Tier 2 Claiborne, Blackmon, Richardson

Tier 3 about 26-28 guys

 

I think in this draft there is not a lot of consensus in the ratings within some positions- for example at DEs you have Coples, Ingram, Perry, Mercillus, Branch I've seen these guys in about every order possible. Similar with DTs Poe, Brockers, Cox, Still,- CBs Gilmore

Kirkpatrick, Jenkins.

 

As for me, Barring any freak drop of a player like Claiborne or a great trade back deal- I'd be looking at Brockers (reminds me of Marcus Stroud), or Gilmore

[JPS]

Today's Buffalo News has an article about Todd McShay's opinion of the Bills pick at #10 lacking options with value. Every year we descend into the value/reach debate as if it means anything once OTAs begin.

 

Reach and value are invented commodities used to add drama to draft day. It is something debated endlessly but means nothing once the draft is done. If you pick a player and he fills a need no one cares if he was a reach or a value pick.

 

Have at it.

 

PTR

Never thought about it. Well put. Agreed x 10.

[DC Tom]

Today's Buffalo News has an article about Todd McShay's opinion of the Bills pick at #10 lacking options with value. Every year we descend into the value/reach debate as if it means anything once OTAs begin.

 

Reach and value are invented commodities used to add drama to draft day. It is something debated endlessly but means nothing once the draft is done. If you pick a player and he fills a need no one cares if he was a reach or a value pick.

 

Have at it.

 

PTR

 

Donte Whitner.

[PromoTheRobot]

Donte Whitner.

Stevie Johnson, Kyle Williams, Fred Jackson, George Wilson.

 

PTR

Edited March 31, 2012 by PromoTheRobot

[Lurker]

Stevie Johnson, Kyle Williams, Fred Jackson, George Wilson.

 

PTR

To be honest, nobody ever says "reach" in the 7th round.

 

I agree with your basic premise in rounds 1-4, however...

[White Linen]

If Kiper really knew who was worth drafting where he'd be an NFL GM.

 

 

I'm not sure I agree with this. But I don't think Kiper's job at ESPN equates to what a GM does but more of the head of player personnel or head of scouting. The GM position is way more involved than just draft analysis.

 

But as far as his accuracy and actual ability is concerned, I'd say it has to be on par with individual teams that miss and hit on picks.

[atlbillsfan1975]

Stevie Johnson, Kyle Williams, Fred Jackson, George Wilson.

 

PTR

a 'steal'. for sure.

I think you got to look at the whole body of work. the player's measurables, his attitude his stat's, and where he achieved those stats. I mean Stevie is a classic example of a guy that had on eyear of production, but had it in the SEC. He had a great attitude, but had average speed and decent size. Thats why he was taken late in the draft. He was probably picked right where he should have been. If the Bills kept burying him on the depth chart then we may never had known. But the few oportunites he got in his second year, he started to show his potential.

[DC Tom]

Stevie Johnson, Kyle Williams, Fred Jackson, George Wilson.

 

PTR

 

Let me spell it out for you...

 

"If you pick a player and he fills a need no one cares if he was a reach or a value pick."

 

Donte Whitner filled a need. People called him a reach.

[John from Riverside]

I honestly dont care about words like "reach" or "value"

 

I care if a 1st round pick can actually come in and do his job from day one.....with the exception of a QB which almost ALWAYS needs grooming but seldom gets that chance if they are drafted late.....

 

Troup has had injuries......in his first year I thought he got better every game

Dante Whitner was not a good pick when we took him.....regardless of what he is doing for another team

 

Personally....one of the things I really like nowadays is I feel I have a firm grasp on what KIND of player Nix will draft in the 1st round

 

- Went against top competition

- More then enough size to play the position

- SHOWED HE CAN PLAY THE SPOT....not some guy with "upside" and you hope that in a couple of years he will attain a ceiling where he might actually be good...years of production not just a breakout year or whatever

[deep2evans]

i agree with Promo's general point here.

 

However, if you take a player like Troup in the 2nd, when there's close to a 100% chance you could've gotten him a round later, you're doing your team a disservice.

 

Likewise, if you draft a player at #10, when no one has him in the top 25, that's just dumb. it doesn't matter if he turns out to be an all-pro. trade down THEN draft him.

[Kelly the Dog]

Stevie Johnson, Kyle Williams, Fred Jackson, George Wilson.

 

PTR

Yeah, I'm pretty sure everyone on this board would be VERY willing to patiently wait (approximately) three years (SJ), two years (KW), four years (FJ), and five years (GW) for any kind of serious production from our draft picks.

[Mr. WEO]

I honestly dont care about words like "reach" or "value"

 

I care if a 1st round pick can actually come in and do his job from day one.....with the exception of a QB which almost ALWAYS needs grooming but seldom gets that chance if they are drafted late.....

 

Troup has had injuries......in his first year I thought he got better every game

Dante Whitner was not a good pick when we took him.....regardless of what he is doing for another team

 

Personally....one of the things I really like nowadays is I feel I have a firm grasp on what KIND of player Nix will draft in the 1st round

- Went against top competition

- More then enough size to play the position

- SHOWED HE CAN PLAY THE SPOT....not some guy with "upside" and you hope that in a couple of years he will attain a ceiling where he might actually be good...years of production not just a breakout year or whatever

 

Obviously (and unfortunately), he doesnt have those requirements for the second round (Troup).

 

Last year's pick of Dareus didn't require any special philosophy or gift to pick. And Spiller obviously didn't fit Criteria #3 on your "what KIND of player Nix will draft in the first round." He certainly wasn't drafted to play the spot--starting RB.

[Direhard Fan]

John the Helmet has it right. I think Buddy has it togeather and knows what to do on draft day. You can never have enough linemen. Who said that? What killed us LY. Injury to linemaen and no depth. Wouldn't kill me if we drafted the best linemen on the board at 10. Weather he starts or not. He is going to sometime.

[peterpan]

This is a typical 20/20 hindsight fallacy.

 

??? how so?

If Kiper really knew who was worth drafting where he'd be an NFL GM. For every Troup he gets right, I can point to 3 Clausens, Leinerts, etc he totally whiffs on. Random chance will make you right once in a while.

 

PTR

That is beside the point. The Bills reached at that pick, everyone said so on draft day, and it came back to bite us. You could substitute Maybin in there as well.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Today's Buffalo News has an article about Todd McShay's opinion of the Bills pick at #10 lacking options with value. Every year we descend into the value/reach debate as if it means anything once OTAs begin.

 

Reach and value are invented commodities used to add drama to draft day. It is something debated endlessly but means nothing once the draft is done. If you pick a player and he fills a need no one cares if he was a reach or a value pick.

 

Have at it.

 

PTR

 

I would like someone to hold Todd McShay accountable for the quality of his pre-draft prognostications based on actual performance of draftees for the last 5 years.

Look at both players he hyped up and missed on (*cough* Gabbert *cough*) and players drafted high, who have performed well, but that he missed.

 

Then we can properly assess his opinion that the Bills lack options with value at #10.

[Best Player Available]

I don't care if we pick a long snapper at 10 as long as whoever we pick comes in and STARTS and plays at a high level...my only concern

Problem with that is franchise long snappers rarely make it past the top 5. I guess we could trade up!

[uncle flap]

??? how so?

 

That is beside the point. The Bills reached at that pick, everyone said so on draft day, and it came back to bite us. You could substitute Maybin in there as well.

 

Allow me...

 

The fallacy is that you're defining "value" after the fact.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but PTR's point is that pundits and draft "experts" place a "value" relative to where they believe they might be/should be drafted. But ultimately it doesn't really matter because it is up to the GM and coaches to determine a player's potential and actual value to their particular team. So in the case of Troup, obviously the Bills felt he was "valuable" enough select at that pick and not risk losing him and perhaps another player that was targeted for the next round.

 

Yes, you can argue that so far the Bills might have been mistaken. But we don't (and the Bills couldn't) know that Troup wouldn't be selected 5 picks later, much less the next round. "Everyone said so," but how could they know since the Bills already picked him? I'm not arguing it was a good pick because I don't really think it was, but I'm saying picks are good or bad depending on how the player ultimately performs, not where they were picked. Terms like "value," "steal" and "reach" don't actually mean anything substantial because they are defined by an arbitrary scale that isn't actually used by the teams making the selections. Players are picked by teams using their own respective criteria, which is not the same as the criteria used by Kiper et al.

 

Get it? Apples and oranges here. "Value" in terms of draft position predictions and "value" in terms of actual value to the team are two different things.

Edited March 31, 2012 by uncle flap

[BuffaloRebound]

I think that's exactly it. There's usually 4 to 6 slam-dunk blue chip players in every draft you would be crazy not to pick. After that is the temptation to reach for need vs. best player/value on the draft board.

I have a feeling the Bills will have a lot of DE's staring them in the face where they now already filled via free-agency.

 

+1. It's a copy-cat league and I got no problems copying the Giants' model. Reaching for Floyd or Martin to fill a need burns you more often than not. If trading up for Kalil or Blackmon is exorbitant and you can't find any trade-back partners, Ingram or Brockers isn't a bad consolation.

[deep2evans]

+1. It's a copy-cat league and I got no problems copying the Giants' model. Reaching for Floyd or Martin to fill a need burns you more often than not. If trading up for Kalil or Blackmon is exorbitant and you can't find any trade-back partners, Ingram or Brockers isn't a bad consolation.

 

floyd isn't a reach at 10. his measurables are as good as any WR in recent years with only a few exceptions (megatron).

[PromoTheRobot]

??? how so?

 

That is beside the point. The Bills reached at that pick, everyone said so on draft day, and it came back to bite us. You could substitute Maybin in there as well.

Now you are smoking something. I can cite several mock drafts that had Maybin top-10. He was not considered a reach, in fact (ahem) Mr. McShay was quite bullish on Aaron.

 

Allow me...

 

The fallacy is that you're defining "value" after the fact.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but PTR's point is that pundits and draft "experts" place a "value" relative to where they believe they might be/should be drafted. But ultimately it doesn't really matter because it is up to the GM and coaches to determine a player's potential and actual value to their particular team. So in the case of Troup, obviously the Bills felt he was "valuable" enough select at that pick and not risk losing him and perhaps another player that was targeted for the next round.

 

Yes, you can argue that so far the Bills might have been mistaken. But we don't (and the Bills couldn't) know that Troup wouldn't be selected 5 picks later, much less the next round. "Everyone said so," but how could they know since the Bills already picked him? I'm not arguing it was a good pick because I don't really think it was, but I'm saying picks are good or bad depending on how the player ultimately performs, not where they were picked. Terms like "value," "steal" and "reach" don't actually mean anything substantial because they are defined by an arbitrary scale that isn't actually used by the teams making the selections. Players are picked by teams using their own respective criteria, which is not the same as the criteria used by Kiper et al.

 

Get it? Apples and oranges here. "Value" in terms of draft position predictions and "value" in terms of actual value to the team are two different things.

 

Exactly. Thank you.

 

PTR

Edited March 31, 2012 by PromoTheRobot

[CSBill]

A top of the draft pick can be a waste: Maybin, Whitmer, McKelvin . . . get value, get a player that can contribute right away

[ndirish1978]

Today's Buffalo News has an article about Todd McShay's opinion of the Bills pick at #10 lacking options with value. Every year we descend into the value/reach debate as if it means anything once OTAs begin.

 

Reach and value are invented commodities used to add drama to draft day. It is something debated endlessly but means nothing once the draft is done. If you pick a player and he fills a need no one cares if he was a reach or a value pick.

 

Have at it.

 

PTR

 

Read that article. It was basically a disclaimer for his saying he had no idea who they'd take. Which, ironically, is his job.

[Bill from NYC]

Let me spell it out for you...

 

"If you pick a player and he fills a need no one cares if he was a reach or a value pick."

 

Donte Whitner filled a need. People called him a reach.

 

Donte might have been the dumbest pick in the history of this franchise. The 2006 draft was loaded, absolutely stacked with talent, and a ton of it was at positions of huge need for the Bills.

The Bills are only just starting to get over this debacle. Drafts such as 2006 are franchise killers.

 

Donte wasn't a value pick, nor was he good enough to fill a need. And, he held out to boot. That draft was just a mess.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

What do you guys say about the Troup pick then?

 

I think you guys are only looking at half the situation, ie you are assuming the player picked turns out to be good, but what if he turns out to be bad?

 

Troupe was a huge reach to fill a need on draft day, Kiper had him as a 4th rounder I think, and I bet we would have been able to draft him in the 3rd round, 4th round, or maybe even 5th round. Troup has been a player much much worse than the other players drafted around him at other posititons, like B Spikes, Gronkowski, L Houston, etc etc etc. Even Cam Thomas who was drafted 2 rounds later at the same position has out performed Troup. SO what was thought to be a reach pick on draft day ended up being very true. We lost out on better players at different positions, which ironcially now we have needs at those positions.

 

The difference in those players abilties and Troup's ability are very very real and not just 'invented commodities used to add drama to draft day'

 

Apples and oranges to what I think the point is - there are apples to apples reaches and there are apples-to-kumquat reaches.

 

I think the point that's trying to be made is that there are legitimate 1st round draft prospects with a 1st rounder's chance of being a successful player. At this point, the "drama" of saying he's a "reach at 10, we have him at #15" is a largely artificial construct. Alualua and Pierre-Paul were both called "reaches" at their position in the 1st round, and have been successful at their position in the NFL. They are "apples to apples" reaches, where their position in a given round of the draft is going to vary depending upon who is evaluating the talent and the draft board of the individual team - some late-1st round picks by the "experts" will slide to the 2nd, some 2nd round picks move up to the 1st, etc. but within, say, 10-15 picks of where they were slated.

 

Troup was a dark-horse sleeper from a small school who was evaluated by most to be far lower talent than the 2nd round, way outside that +/- 10-15 picks. His draft by the Bills was an apples-to-kumquats reach IMO, the result of the same crappy talent evaluation and scouting that led the Bills into the bare-cupboard talent drought where they've been languishing for years and resulted in 1) 2011 draft being heavily influenced by Chan's stint as a Senior Bowl coach 2) Modrak's dismissal after the 2011 draft. The whole 2010 draft was like that - small-school WR dark horse, Wang, sleeper linebacker-project DEs that we were hoping could develop into talent above their level in the draft. Now maybe Easley, Moats, and Carrington will still show us something - or maybe not. (Troup, I hate to say it, but a back problem early in a DT's career does not bode well).

 

This year will be the telling year. Chan wasn't coaching the Sr bowl and the Bills need to depend more heavily on their scouts. If this is a good draft, I think we can all feel better about the future direction of the organization.

 

If we go back to the land of drafting crazy dark-horse small-school picks no one has heard of in the hope that they are hidden gems, we're toast.

 

Read that article. It was basically a disclaimer for his saying he had no idea who they'd take. Which, ironically, is his job.

 

No one ever seems to have any idea who the Bills will take because they never seem to draft the position the experts define as their greatest need.

 

This despite the fact that Chix and Nailey seem dedicated to telegraphing their draft choice rather clearly.

Edited March 31, 2012 by Hopeful

[BEAST MODE BABY!]

The "value" versus "need" argument is a two-edged sword (pre-draft). But at the end of the day, a good player is a good player.

 

Adrian Peterson was passed over by the Cardinals for Levi Brown--a need. I remember a lot of us debated Brandon Pettigrew in 2009. 11 was "too high" for a TE, and "we needed" a DE desperately. Well, how many of us would have traded Aaron Maybin for Pettigrew now?

[turftoe]

Wow....If Todd McShay says we are in a bad spot, it must be true.

One prospect name will tell you all you need to know about Todd's ability to rank talent.

 

 

 

Jevan Snead

[Orton's Arm]

Today's Buffalo News has an article about Todd McShay's opinion of the Bills pick at #10 lacking options with value. Every year we descend into the value/reach debate as if it means anything once OTAs begin.

 

Reach and value are invented commodities used to add drama to draft day. It is something debated endlessly but means nothing once the draft is done. If you pick a player and he fills a need no one cares if he was a reach or a value pick.

 

Have at it.

 

PTR

I think words like reach and value have legitimate meaning. Donte Whitner was a reach, because his body of work did not justify eighth overall. (Or anywhere close.) If we're not supposed to use words like "reach" to describe Donte Whitner and John McCargo style picks, what other word would you have us use instead? Or are you trying to argue that, with the knowledge available at the time, Donte Whitner was as legitimate a pick at eighth overall as any other player would have been? And that, more generally, if a player was picked at X position in the draft, then by definition his body of work must justify being picked at or near position X. To me an argument like that seems nonsensical.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Edwards' Arm