DC Tom Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deep2evans Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Direhard Fan Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterpan Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Best Player Available Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle flap Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 (edited) ??? 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloRebound Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deep2evans Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 +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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted March 31, 2012 Author Share Posted March 31, 2012 (edited) ??? 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSBill Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 A top of the draft pick can be a waste: Maybin, Whitmer, McKelvin . . . get value, get a player that can contribute right away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndirish1978 Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turftoe Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts