Byrd to be tagged as last resort (update- tagged see separate thread)

[The Voice of Truth]

Safeties come at cheaper prices than OG. I would prefer the Bills give Byrd the money he wants (maybe 8 mil a year) and then be able to threaten Levitre with the franchise tag (as he might be starting negotiations at nearly 9 mil/year). Guys really want to get locked up long term and hate being tagged. It is a significant tool for franchise's to use in negotiations. Lock Byrd up before other teams get a shot at Levitre. Then you can threaten him with the franchise tag more because he knows it can no longer be used on Byrd. Then Levitre may be forced to come down to the 7 million dollar a year range as you risk injury with a franchise tag deal and then you never get your long term contract/money.

 

Bills win if they get both guys for 15 million per year IMO.

 

There was a good post on here on what the top guys are making at these positions. You can bet Byrd and Levitre will be seeking similar money.

 

I want Leodis as well. What do you guys think he is worth per year? 3 mill maybe?

Edited February 23, 2013 by The Voice of Truth

[Dibs]

Anyone who hasn't yet clicked on Dibs' link should immediately do so. It's a great, content-rich OP.

 

But you've lumped all offensive linemen together. This means that if an OG drafted in the second or third would be more likely to succeed than a second or third round C or OT, that difference wouldn't show up in your analysis.

 

Thanks EA.....but I actually did break them into positions. Have another look. You will see bracketed numbers under each section. These show (C, OG, OT) actual drafting numbers and then (C%, OG%, OT%), which shows their percent success rates.

 

 

I agree with your point that using a second or third round pick, at any position, is very far from a guarantee of filling a hole. If a team like the Bills uses a second or third round pick on a non-premium position, like OG, and if said player doesn't work out, then in a few years they can use another second or third round pick on the same position. It's not a great solution. But it's better than using a premium pick (8th overall) on a non-premium need (OG). Especially for a team which has other needs at premium positions (QB, pass rusher, CB, WR, etc.).

 

I have thought about this a lot recently.....mainly due to seeing(when doing these studies) a lot of starter calibre LB & OL young players change teams after their rookie contracts expire....and then maintain being solid players for their new teams. As I didn't go into each teams full financial and roster situations for each example, I have to make some educated guesses as to why this occurs frequently. I imagine it mainly comes down to cap management and future cap management.

 

Teams that have a lot of money already invested at the OL position(for example) might be unwilling to invest even more money at that position.

Teams that have other players heading into FA that they foresee they will need to pay top dollar to keep will need to let players go in year 1 in order to be able to sign the more prized player in year 2 etc.

 

 

In regards to the Bills....I can see that we would be very unwilling to pay more money for the DL. Our DL is already taking up a very large percent of our cap space. The OL however is costing us a relatively small amount of our cap. The logic would follow that if we don't chose to spend some good veteran priced money on our OL now(when we can clearly afford it).....when do we decide to spend some money there? Or will the philosophy be that the OL is so unimportant that the barest minimum of money should be allocated to it each year?

 

I believe that we will be legitimately trying to sign Levitre. We have Wood hitting FA next year & I would expect him to be re-signed as well. This would bring the overall OL cost up to a reasonable amount. A few years after that.....assuming Glenn shows himself to be worth keeping....we will have to make the tougher decision of over-paying our OL....or cutting(re-structuring) Levite/Wood. The situation at the moment is a no-brainer IMO. Spend some money on the OL(Levitre)....maintain OL consistency.....save at least an initial draft pick(likely a few over the next few years)....and build the team rather than trying to re-build the team.

[K-9]

That would make him the greatest guard to come out of college since David DeCastro!

 

DeCastro can't carry Warmack's jock. The difference is that noticeable. He'll be a perennial All Pro.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[K-9]

I disagree. This team has too many needs at premium positions to use the 8th overall pick on a non-premium one. Especially when the hole we're talking about filling would be self-inflicted (by letting Levitre walk).

 

The term "premium position" has no relevance to anyone currently employed in personnel departments around the league. Just a made up term by talking heads needing to fill air time. The idea is to stock your team with as many premium "players" as possible. You have a chance to take a blue chip talent, you take him. And if the Bills think that guy is Warmack because he grades out so much higher than anyone else on the board, that's just fine. You don't last long if you take a player rated 6.0 at a "need" position vs. one rated 8.0 at another.

 

As for Levitre, it's simply not a case of the Bills "letting" him do anything. It's up to him to accept their offer or not.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Dibs]

The term "premium position" has no relevance to anyone currently employed in personnel departments around the league. Just a made up term by talking heads needing to fill air time. The idea is to stock your team with as many premium "players" as possible. You have a chance to take a blue chip talent, you take him. And if the Bills think that guy is Warmack because he grades out so much higher than anyone else on the board, that's just fine. You don't last long if you take a player rated 6.0 at a "need" position vs. one rated 8.0 at another.

 

As for Levitre, it's simply not a case of the Bills "letting" him do anything. It's up to him to accept their offer or not.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

I think you are polarizing the concepts here. "Premium position" is definitely a factor on draft day.....and with roster building.

 

Though you are likely correct....for most situations one wouldn't chose a 6.0 graded player over an 8.0 graded one(aside from perhaps QB), one would most likely chose a 7.0 graded DE over a 7.5 graded OG. Would one chose a 6.5 graded K over a 6.0 graded anything?

 

OG traditionally is a position that is under-valued in the 1st round. I have noticed that this has been changing in recent years....but they are still being selected lower than most other positions. Personally I would be selecting them higher than they are graded, simply based upon the great success rate of turning 1st round drafted OGs into solid+ starters in the NFL.....but that's just me.

[K-9]

I think you are polarizing the concepts here. "Premium position" is definitely a factor on draft day.....and with roster building.

 

Though you are likely correct....for most situations one wouldn't chose a 6.0 graded player over an 8.0 graded one(aside from perhaps QB), one would most likely chose a 7.0 graded DE over a 7.5 graded OG. Would one chose a 6.5 graded K over a 6.0 graded anything?

 

OG traditionally is a position that is under-valued in the 1st round. I have noticed that this has been changing in recent years....but they are still being selected lower than most other positions. Personally I would be selecting them higher than they are graded, simply based upon the great success rate of turning 1st round drafted OGs into solid+ starters in the NFL.....but that's just me.

 

Guards are a dime a dozen. QBs are a dime a dozen. The term "premium" applies to the player, regardless of position. It's just not used by personnel people in terms of differentiating positions. That's not to confuse that QBs aren't more "important" than guards. Any fool knows that. But a player like Chance Warmack, like John Hannah, is just so much better playing his position than nearly everybody else in the draft, that his talent for the position just can't be ignored. And I can certainly see a team, whether it's the Bills or not, appreciating his talent for what it is. Great football players are always at a "premium."

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Dibs]

Guards are a dime a dozen. QBs are a dime a dozen. The term "premium" applies to the player, regardless of position. It's just not used by personnel people in terms of differentiating positions. That's not to confuse that QBs aren't more "important" than guards. Any fool knows that. But a player like Chance Warmack, like John Hannah, is just so much better playing his position than nearly everybody else in the draft, that his talent for the position just can't be ignored. And I can certainly see a team, whether it's the Bills or not, appreciating his talent for what it is. Great football players are always at a "premium."

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

I understand what you are saying.....and agree with it(except for the QB aspect).

 

You however were using this concept to blanket proclaim that "premium positions" have no relevance etc......which is clearly not true.

 

In this situation I'd think saying that Warmack is such a rare talent that he surpasses any "premium position" considerations.......rather than saying that the aspect of "premium positions" has no relevance to anyone currently employed in personnel departments around the league.

[K-9]

I understand what you are saying.....and agree with it(except for the QB aspect).

 

You however were using this concept to blanket proclaim that "premium positions" have no relevance etc......which is clearly not true

In this situation I'd think saying that Warmack is such a rare talent that he surpasses any "premium position" considerations.......rather than saying that the aspect of "premium positions" has no relevance to anyone currently employed in personnel departments around the league.

 

Today's "premium" position is yesterday's "skill" position. Today's "high value" position is yesterday's "impact" position. Positions are simply not "graded" by personnel people as "premium" when it comes to their evaluations. The term doesn't have relevance to personnel people in that sense, although it certainly does to the talking heads and draftniks who have to fill time. Everyone knows that QBs and DEs/Pass Rushers are the most important positions to fill with "premium" players. But "premium" players, rare though they may be, are desired at every position on the field.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited February 23, 2013 by K-9

[QCity]

DeCastro can't carry Warmack's jock. The difference is that noticeable. He'll be a perennial All Pro.

 

 

Pshhh. Just an All Pro?? Decastro was a lock for the Hall of Fame! (Seriously, posters were saying that last year and arguing we should take him in the first round)

 

I see this discussion every year. Warmack will not be taken in the top 10. The proof is in history - GMs (not the talking heads or draftniks) simply do not put a premium on guards, that's why there hasn't been one selected higher than 17th in the last 10 years. It's more efficient to grab a tackle in the 2nd or 3rd round and slide him over to guard if you need one badly.

 

Don't take my word for it though, tag this post and we'll review it after the draft!

[Dibs]

I see this discussion every year. Warmack will not be taken in the top 10. The proof is in history - GMs (not the talking heads or draftniks) simply do not put a premium on guards, that's why there hasn't been one selected higher than 17th in the last 10 years. It's more efficient to grab a tackle in the 2nd or 3rd round and slide him over to guard if you need one badly.

 

Don't take my word for it though, tag this post and we'll review it after the draft!

 

Actually....it is possible that the premium placed upon OGs his increased(if ever so slightly) in the last 5 years.

2011 #15

2010 #17

2008 #15

 

That is the biggest run on high picked OGs in about 25 years.....which is exactly your point.

 

There actually seems there was a higher premium on OGs prior to the mid 1980's though.....and they were apparently hot commodities in the 1960's & 1970's.....

Here are all the #17 or higher OGs list....back to 1960:

 

2011 #15

2010 #17

2008 #15

2001 #17

1997 #10

1995 #14

1989 #17

 

1986 #9

1983 #9

1982 #8

1980 #11

1977 #14

1976 #14 & #15

1975 #3 & #13

1974 #3

1973 #4

1972 #8

1970 #14

1969 #17

1967 #9, #12 & #17

1966 #2 & #5

1964 #2

1963 #10

1960 #7

Edited February 23, 2013 by Dibs

[K-9]

Pshhh. Just an All Pro?? Decastro was a lock for the Hall of Fame! (Seriously, posters were saying that last year and arguing we should take him in the first round)

 

I see this discussion every year. Warmack will not be taken in the top 10. The proof is in history - GMs (not the talking heads or draftniks) simply do not put a premium on guards, that's why there hasn't been one selected higher than 17th in the last 10 years. It's more efficient to grab a tackle in the 2nd or 3rd round and slide him over to guard if you need one badly.

 

Don't take my word for it though, tag this post and we'll review it after the draft!

 

I don't care where he's selected. He's the best G prospect to come out in a long time. And while you may see this discussion every year, you haven't seen it from me. I thought DeCastro was a decent player but not worthy of the hype he was getting. I've liked Warmack since his sophomore year and the talking heads are just catching up to his value. He may be the best player, regardless of position, in the entire draft this year. NOBODY said that about DeCastro that I can recall.

 

I don't disagree with your assessment on how GMs fill the G position. We've been sliding Ts to Gs for 40 years now. But GREAT players are always at a premium, regardless. Warmack is a great player in every respect.

 

Let's tag your post and review it after Warmack's 10th consecutive All Pro nomination.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Orton's Arm]

 

Thanks EA.....but I actually did break them into positions. Have another look. You will see bracketed numbers under each section. These show (C, OG, OT) actual drafting numbers and then (C%, OG%, OT%), which shows their percent success rates.

 

 

 

 

I have thought about this a lot recently.....mainly due to seeing(when doing these studies) a lot of starter calibre LB & OL young players change teams after their rookie contracts expire....and then maintain being solid players for their new teams. As I didn't go into each teams full financial and roster situations for each example, I have to make some educated guesses as to why this occurs frequently. I imagine it mainly comes down to cap management and future cap management.

 

Teams that have a lot of money already invested at the OL position(for example) might be unwilling to invest even more money at that position.

Teams that have other players heading into FA that they foresee they will need to pay top dollar to keep will need to let players go in year 1 in order to be able to sign the more prized player in year 2 etc.

 

 

In regards to the Bills....I can see that we would be very unwilling to pay more money for the DL. Our DL is already taking up a very large percent of our cap space. The OL however is costing us a relatively small amount of our cap. The logic would follow that if we don't chose to spend some good veteran priced money on our OL now(when we can clearly afford it).....when do we decide to spend some money there? Or will the philosophy be that the OL is so unimportant that the barest minimum of money should be allocated to it each year?

 

I believe that we will be legitimately trying to sign Levitre. We have Wood hitting FA next year & I would expect him to be re-signed as well. This would bring the overall OL cost up to a reasonable amount. A few years after that.....assuming Glenn shows himself to be worth keeping....we will have to make the tougher decision of over-paying our OL....or cutting(re-structuring) Levite/Wood. The situation at the moment is a no-brainer IMO. Spend some money on the OL(Levitre)....maintain OL consistency.....save at least an initial draft pick(likely a few over the next few years)....and build the team rather than trying to re-build the team.

 

Good post.

 

I'd argue that a good LT--as Glenn has the potential to be--is far, far more valuable than a good OG. While I like the idea of locking Levitre up now, I don't want that to come at the expense of getting a deal with Glenn done a few years from now.

 

As for whether it would make sense to add Warmack to the Bills' war machine: I think what you have to do there is to compare the best available player at a premium position of need (QB, pass rusher, CB, WR) to Warmack. If any of the available premium position players are even close to Warmack, you go with one of them. But if Warmack absolutely destroys all of them in the player evaluation process, then maybe he becomes a consideration. Because if Warmack absolutely destroys the other guys available when the Bills pick, then that probably means none of those others were that exciting anyway.

 

But the Bills could also use a 3-4 NT. An elite NT can produce even when using two blockers; thereby freeing other defenders. A good NT is more valuable than an equally good OG.

 

As to the other parts of your post: the idea of not over or underspending on any one part of your team makes sense. But plans like that should be flexible, based on opportunities. For example: the Bills are currently spending a large sum on Kelsay's contract. That does not necessarily mean that the Bills can rely on Kelsay to provide the DL with a consistently high level of play. The fact that the Bills are overspending on Kelsay shouldn't cause them to overlook opportunities to add talent to the defensive line, either via the draft or free aency.

 

If anything, the first step in your roster evaluation process should not necessarily include salary cap considerations. Instead, a GM should look at the roster he has, and compare that to the roster he wants to have. He should then take advantage of available opportunities to transition from the former to the latter. If a particular player's salary gets in the way of said transition--if he's being paid more than what he's worth--he should be given a pay cut, or released outright.

[QCity]

Last day to tag players is Monday March 4th. Expect to get a text soon that says "The Buffalo Bills have applied the franchise tag designation to FS Jarius Byrd. Reply HELP for help, STOP to cancel-Msg&data rates may apply"

 

Even under the tag I still think they will be able to get a long term deal done, but it will be necessary for insurance & leverage.

[ganesh]

Teams do it every year, they hide a weaker linemen at the guard position, the pats have been doing it for years, with stephen neal or donald thomas. I think it more important to have a solid center, and tackles. When also gonna have wood, and spiller coming up shortly as free agents so you have to consider that as well. I'm all for paying andy 5-6 a year, but they cant go 7 to 9.

 

The guys from nfl network (maylock) said last night the best player in the draft was guard from Alabama, the other guys at table all seemed to agree. So maybe he's your guys at 8 or you move back. I will rather take a soild linemen at 8, then reach for a Qb.

 

We need continuity on this line. Levitre has been the most reliable player on this line for the past 4 years. I just don't understand why we would let him go, when we have other critical holes to fill at WR, TE and LB position.

[QCity]

Last day to tag players is Monday March 4th. Expect to get a text soon that says "The Buffalo Bills have applied the franchise tag designation to FS Jarius Byrd. Reply HELP for help, STOP to cancel-Msg&data rates may apply"

 

Even under the tag I still think they will be able to get a long term deal done, but it will be necessary for insurance & leverage.

 

DING