DB in the 1st....good or bad?

[Dibs]

For years I have seen the opinion around here that using one's best draft stock on the DB positions is not only a bad way to build a successful team but also a way to hinder the chances of general team improvement. I have always been neutral to this concept(neither for, nor against it)......but as I have always felt that there might be some element of truth to it I decided to do a bit of a study on recent drafting to see if any patterns occurred.

 

 

I decided to look at the last 13 drafts(since 2000) of good and bad teams in relation to their DB drafting.

 

Bad Teams I determined by teams that had 3 or fewer play-off appearances(11 teams).

Bills(0), Browns(1), Lions(1), Cardinals(2), Texans(2), Jaguars(2), Chiefs(2), Panthers(3), Dolphins(3), Raiders(3), Redskins(3)

 

For the good teams, I decided to have two groups....one based upon consistent play-off appearances(8 or more) called Top 6.....and the other comprised of the last 8 Super Bowl contenders(called SB Teams).

 

Top 6: Colts(11), Patriots(10), Eagles(9), Packers(9), Ravens(9), Steelers(8)

SB Teams: Ravens, 49ers, Giants, Patriots, Packers, Steelers, Saints, Colts

 

 

I then broke their drafting into 3 different categories:

 

Top 10 picks

Bad Teams: 11 in 63(17.5%)

Top 6: 0 in 11(0%)

SB Teams: 0 in 19(0%)

 

Top 15 picks

Bad Teams: 12 in 82(14.6%)

Top 6: 0 in 21(0%)

SB Teams: 1 in 33(3%)

 

Top 23 picks

Bad Teams: 20 in 115(17.4%)

Top 6: 1 in 41(2.4%)

SB Teams: 5 in 58(8.6%)

 

 

I was quite surprised to see such a massive disparity between the good and bad teams......and that the good teams only once have selected a DB in the top 15 over the past 13 years......

 

People can read into these figures what they like. I personally am now convinced that it is a bad move to spend your best draft stock on DBs.

 

 

For those interested....red = DB

Bills(0): 3, 4, 8 , 9, 10, 11, 1 1, 12, 13, 21, 22, 23

Browns(1): 1, 3, 3, 3, 6, 7, 16, 21, 21, 21, 22, 22

Lions(1): 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 17, 18, 20, 20, 23

Cardinals(2): 2, 3, 5, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18

Texans(2): 1, 1, 3, 10, 10, 11, 15, 16, 20

Jaguars(2): 5, 7, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, 10, 13, 21, 21

Chiefs(2): 3, 5, 5, 6, 11, 15, 15, 20, 21, 23

Panthers(3): 1, 2, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 19, 23

Dolphins(3): 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 19

Raiders(3): 1, 2, 4, 7, 7, 8, 17, 17, 23, 23

Redskins(3): 2, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13, 15, 16

 

49ers(4): 1, 6, 7, 7, 10, 11, 11, 16, 17, 22

Saints(5): 2, 6, 7, 13, 13, 14, 18, 23

Giants(7): 1, 11, 14, 15, 19, 20, 22

Steelers(8): 8, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 23

Ravens(9): 5, 10, 10, 12, 18, 19, 22, 23

Packers(9): 5, 9, 10, 14, 16, 20, 23

Eagles(9): 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 23

Patriots(10): 6, 10, 13, 17, 21, 21, 21, 21

Colts(11): 1, 11, 22

[boyst]

Those same good teams have not picked in the top end of the draft often enough to give this full merit.

[RyanC883]

wow, you put a lot of work into that analysis. Thanks. It is interesting.

[Dibs]

Those same good teams have not picked in the top end of the draft often enough to give this full merit.

 

I listed the numbers, the percentages and the actual picks. There is certainly enough data to form a distinct pattern here.

 

The Top 6 Teams had 41 picks inside the top 23......and only selected 1 DB.

The Bottom Teams had 63 picks inside the top 10.....and selected 11 DBs.

[KeisterHollow]

Yeah, unfortunately it doesn't account for what those good teams would have done had they the opportunity to draft a CB in the top ten, since they weren't there.

 

There's no totally objective way to break down the numbers, since the better teams are always picking AFTER the top prospects are off the board.

 

Still, there could be some trends that would be uncovered if, perhaps, one were to break down the good, bad, and SB teams as was done, and account for the percentages given to each position in the first round, or first two rounds. I probably would reflect that the good teams draft certain positions more frequently in the higher rounds than the bad teams. Even there, though, QB would probably be a skewed stat, since the best QB's are almost always gone in the first few picks - something only bad teams generally have. Still, thanks for the time spent!

[Prickly Pete]

Yeah, but are they bad because their defensive backfield is weak?

[C.Biscuit97]

Interesting stuff but it may be a little flawed. The league has changed quite a bit in the last 13 years. Probably in the last 3 years or so, there is more passing than ever. Qbs get 4,000 yards regularly when that used to be record seeking. Now while some posters think any draft pick spent on a DB is a bad one, it is simply not the case. The Ravens had a 1st round safety (Reed) and corner (Smith). The 49ers have 3 former 1st rounders in their defensive backfield (Whitner, Nmandi, and Carlos Rogers).

 

Trust me, I understand why the rules are the way they are but it is a league that is slanted towards the offenses. The days of Ronnie Lott are gone. But it is what it is, and you need good defensive backs to run with receivers if you want to have a chance. The days of smashmouth football are done.

[Dibs]

Yeah, unfortunately it doesn't account for what those good teams would have done had they the opportunity to draft a CB in the top ten, since they weren't there.

 

There's no totally objective way to break down the numbers, since the better teams are always picking AFTER the top prospects are off the board.

 

Still, there could be some trends that would be uncovered if, perhaps, one were to break down the good, bad, and SB teams as was done, and account for the percentages given to each position in the first round, or first two rounds. I probably would reflect that the good teams draft certain positions more frequently in the higher rounds than the bad teams. Even there, though, QB would probably be a skewed stat, since the best QB's are almost always gone in the first few picks - something only bad teams generally have. Still, thanks for the time spent!

 

You are the second poster to try to use the argument that the top teams don't draft high very often etc.....when there is clearly enough data to suggest a strong difference between the Top & Bottom Teams.

 

When the top teams did get top draft picks(11 inside the top 10....21 inside the top 15)......they NEVER draft DBs.....0%

They had 41 picks inside the top 23.....and only drafted 1 DB......2.4%.

The Bad Teams drafted DBs at a rate of 17.5% inside the top 10.

 

Interesting stuff but it may be a little flawed. The league has changed quite a bit in the last 13 years. Probably in the last 3 years or so, there is more passing than ever. Qbs get 4,000 yards regularly when that used to be record seeking. Now while some posters think any draft pick spent on a DB is a bad one, it is simply not the case. The Ravens had a 1st round safety (Reed) and corner (Smith). The 49ers have 3 former 1st rounders in their defensive backfield (Whitner, Nmandi, and Carlos Rogers).

 

Trust me, I understand why the rules are the way they are but it is a league that is slanted towards the offenses. The days of Ronnie Lott are gone. But it is what it is, and you need good defensive backs to run with receivers if you want to have a chance. The days of smashmouth football are done.

 

I don't disagree......the argument is however "Does one use their best draft stock on DBs?"

 

The 49ers certainly haven't......5 top 10 picks(7 top 11)......no DBs selected.

The combined Top 6 teams haven't.....11 top 10 picks(21 top 15)......no DBs selected.

 

You might be right about the last 3 years etc......but it might also be irrelevant. I will be watching this concept keenly over the next bunch of years to see if the pattern changes.

[C.Biscuit97]

Here's a draft link for defensive backs: http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?position=CB&type=position

 

Of last year's playoff teams, 1st round defensive backs:

Minnesota - 2 (Winfield, Smith)

Bengals - 4 (Clements, Pacman, Kilpatrick, Hall)

Pats - 1 (McCourty)

Texans - 1 (Joseph)

Redskins 1 (hall)

Falcons - 1 (Robinson)

Plus, the Ravens and 49ers I listed above. Also, some of the teams invested 1st on guys that didn't work for whatever reason: Meriweather, Sean Taylor. Also, the Giants have used several 1sts on DBs high.

[Dibs]

Here's a draft link for defensive backs: http://www.nfl.com/d...B&type=position

 

Of last year's playoff teams, 1st round defensive backs:

Minnesota - 2 (Winfield, Smith)

Bengals - 4 (Clements, Pacman, Kilpatrick, Hall)

Pats - 1 (McCourty)

Texans - 1 (Joseph)

Redskins 1 (hall)

Falcons - 1 (Robinson)

Plus, the Ravens and 49ers I listed above. Also, some of the teams invested 1st on guys that didn't work for whatever reason: Meriweather, Sean Taylor. Also, the Giants have used several 1sts on DBs high.

 

Again....the argument is "best draft stock". (I know my thread title is a little misleading in that respect.)

You have no argument from me that a large number of the better DBs in the league were drafted in the 1st round(as with most positions)......the point is that it seems that when successful teams get high draft picks(top 10/15).....and even reasonable draft picks(top 23).....they consistently chose to draft positions other than DB.

 

And further to the point, a lot of those DBs you list were the very same high draft picks that the Bottom Teams drafted. This can argue to the point that spending high draft stock on DBs is regularly wasted(compared perhaps to a lot of other positions).

Edited April 15, 2013 by Dibs

[C.Biscuit97]

Again....the argument is "best draft stock". (I know my thread title is a little misleading in that respect.)

You have no argument from me that a large number of the better DBs in the league were drafted in the 1st round(as with most positions)......the point is that it seems that when successful teams get high draft picks(top 10/15).....and even reasonable draft picks(top 23).....they consistently chose to draft positions other than DB.

 

I definitely think the league is changing though. Teams are going to devote more resources to the pass happy offenses. Receivers, defensive backs, and tight ends are going to go in record numbers higher in drafts than they ever did before. Safetys mever went high in drafts and now we see them go in the top 10. It's just a much different league than it was 10 years ago.

[cosmo]

So good teams don't draft DBs in the 1st, they just sign those guys later. Sucks for us though as those players tend to only want to sign with the "good" teams.

[Kelly the Dog]

Maybe good teams don't draft DBs high because they already have good DBs playing which is what makes them good. Maybe bad teams draft DBs high because they know that good DBs make bad teams good teams. Maybe good teams don't draft DBs high because all the good DBs drafted have already been drafted by bad teams. Maybe bad teams are bad because they draft bad DBs at the top of the draft and the good teams are good because they draft good DBs after the bad drafting bad teams draft the bad DBs which should have been drafted later in the draft.

[Prickly Pete]

Maybe good teams don't draft DBs high because they already have good DBs playing which is what makes them good. Maybe bad teams draft DBs high because they know that good DBs make bad teams good teams. Maybe good teams don't draft DBs high because all the good DBs drafted have already been drafted by bad teams. Maybe bad teams are bad because they draft bad DBs at the top of the draft and the good teams are good because they draft good DBs after the bad drafting bad teams draft the bad DBs which should have been drafted later in the draft.

 

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ What I wanted to say

[NewEra]

 

 

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ What I wanted to say

 

Me too. Maybe the bad teams have crappy QBs.

[reddogblitz]

Shouldn't the Cardinals be in the SB AND bad team category since they went to the SB on 2009?. Somehow I'm thinking this is why you chose only the last 4 years instead of 5?. Would change things.

 

Shouldn't they all be compared over the same amount of time?

 

Good work on the stats. It is interesting.

Edited April 15, 2013 by reddogblitz

[Webster Guy]

That's some interesting data for sure.

 

I think the Bills are going to take Patterson at 8 thinking that even though he's raw, in his second season when we are ready to make a run, he'll be ready. If we go into this season relying on Stevie and late round WR talent it's gonna be a long year for CJ and our QB.

[Matt in KC]

I like the attempt to analyze. Thanks!

 

Why did you stop at pick 23? I just pulled more data for the discussion, below. It looks like there are an additional 10 picks for the good teams and 5 for the bad teams in the first round.

 

2012

29 - Vikings - Harrison Smith (S)

 

2011

27 - Ravens - Jimmy Smith (CB)

**First 2 picks of the 2nd round the Pats and Bills took CBs

 

2010

27 - New England - Devin McCourtney (CB)

32 - Saints - Patrick Robinson (CB)

 

2009

25 - Dolphins - Vontae Davis (CB)

 

2008

25 - Cowboys - Michael Jenkins (CB)

 

2007

24 - New England - Brandon Meriweather (S)

 

2006

24 - Bengals - Joseph (CB)

31 - Seahawks - Jennings (CB)

 

2005

29 - Colts - Marlin Jackson (CB)

 

2004

25 - Green Bay - Carroll (CB)

28 - Panthers - Gamble (CB)

 

2003

28 - Tenessee - Woolfolk (CB)

30 - Chargers - Davis (CB)

31 - Raiders - Asomugha (CB extraordinaire)

 

2002

24 - Ravens - Ed Reed (FS extraordinaire)

26 - Eagles - Lito Sheppard (CB)

27 - 49ers - Rumph (CB)

 

2001

24 - Broncos - Middlebrooks (CB)

26 - Dolphins - Fletcher (CB)

28 - Raiders - Gibson (SS)

 

2000

24 - 49ers - Plummer (CB)

[benderbender]

If we draft a DB in the 1st round (assuming no extra pick from trading down), it is a clear indication that the higher ups have given Marrone at least 3 more years to rebuild and this season is expected to be a tank for Johnny Football year.

[boyst]

Looking at this in full view on my laptop I can understand it. That, and I have a beer in me.

[CookieG]

Good defenses rarely draft DB's high (note, I did not say never...and I used a double negative). They get them in rounds 3-7 or off the UFDA list.

 

Ozzie has used a 1st or 2nd on a DB exactly twice in 10 years. He got a HOF'er in one..and was absolutely desperate when he took the other;

 

The Steelers have done it 3 times in 12 years, none in the past 7 or 8 years;

 

More recently...

 

The Niners once in the last 7 years or so;

 

Seattle once since 2007.

 

It is pretty clear how they pick...an occasional WR when warranted, a RB when needed once in a while...a QB if the guy is good...

 

But on all of those teams..by far the biggest emphasis has been the trenches...D7 and OL. This is the way Ozzie and the Steelers always drafted, and what Seattle and San Fran have recently caught onto.

 

On the other hand..the chronically bad defenses...

 

Buffalo...5 in the past 7 years.

Oakland 7 since 2001...

NO 5 in the past 8 years

New England 6 since 2007....and their defense has pretty much sucked recently. Probably why they broke with recent tradition and drafted Jones and Hightower in the 1st last year. That helped a little.

 

It isn't a coincidence. The good defenses have different priorities.

[Kelly the Dog]

Good defenses rarely draft DB's high (note, I did not say never...and I used a double negative). They get them in rounds 3-7 or off the UFDA list.

 

Ozzie has used a 1st or 2nd on a DB exactly twice in 10 years. He got a HOF'er in one..and was absolutely desperate when he took the other;

 

That is pretty misleading if you ask me. Most of those last 10 years he had two #1 picks back there in Reed and McAllister. He also picked Jimmy Smith as you alluded to.

 

Teams get players all kinds of ways. Denver has a good defense and they didnt draft any recently but they have Champ Bailey the 7th overall and Dawkins who was a #2. And if they didnt have Bailey they would be drafting a CB very high.

[uncle flap]

I've mentioned this before and while I wouldn't say I agree with this strategy, I think there could be a validity to "consistently" drafting DBs high as a deliberate practice.

 

I'm not saying that the Bills have been employing "analytics" all along, but re-signing #1 corners/ above avg DBs is pretty expensive.

 

So, if as an organization you decide you'd rather spend a larger proportion of your payroll in other areas, you can replace those DBs through the draft, rather than pay the "mega" contracts that better DBs command (see WInfield and Clements, for example).

 

Again, I don't propose this as a Bills apologist, because sound strategy or not, we haven't seen results in quite some time. I'm just saying there may be a method to what seems like madness.

[Boatdrinks]

A DB in the first round is a bad strategy in today's NFL. Not only can you not contact a receiver after a pitiful 5 yards, but any decent effort to separate him from the ball will draw a flag as well. They just are not allowed to be difference makers anymore. There are maybe 4 or 5 guys in the whole league that actually earn the status of "shutdown corner" and none of them has won the superbowl in recent years. It is more important now to rush the passer and have athletic LB's that can cover. This allows you to disguise your coverages, at least making the QB play after the snap and possibly hold the ball longer. Teams realize the advantage a WR has is now so great, you are better to concede that and prevent the throw from going there in the first place. Even if a CB can run step for step, you now see the intentional underthrow or a QB just "puts it out there" for his guy to make a play or draw a flag. The other reason why it is a bad philosophy is simple supply and demand. There are way more 5'10 190 lb guys on the planet that can run than say, 6'5" 325lb athletic guys. It is simply a more rare physical speciman. Therefore you 1st pick should always be a big man or a QB, with the occasional exception for a freakishly athletic wideout. Why? Because the WR has the advantage from the rules vs the athletic DB.

[JPS]

Like any position, sometimes good. Sometimes bad.

 

I've looked for patterns of the successful teams. The only thing I've learned is they do a better job with EVERY pick, every free agent and every trade. The 1st round is just part of it.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

To add to what JPS said (and I'm just repeating what's been said here many times), I don't think it has to do with what position you draft so much as what individual you draft.

[Prickly Pete]

To add to what JPS said (and I'm just repeating what's been said here many times), I don't think it has to do with what position you draft so much as what individual you draft.

 

This is how I feel too. The teams that keep drafting Db's, probably still need Db's. When the bills whiffed on McKelvin, they obviously still had a hole at that position.

[peteski]

It doesn't matter what position you pick. The only thing that matters is if that player turns into a Pro Bowler.

[KeisterHollow]

Although I do think there are trends worth being aware of (i.e. - the importance of having an analytics dept.), I have to say, after considering the subject for some time: I think the most important piece of any franchise is the coaching. You simply must have good coaches - they make everyone around them better. Secondly, you have to have a good GM/Front office. That GM will supply the coaches with the right talent, which isn't always necessarily the concensus "best" talent, but the best FITTING talents, and the combination of the two - coaching and front office - over time, will lead to success/stability.

 

I just think that if a specific D-Coordinator, if he were a genius, and if he depended heavily on CB's, were on a given team, it might justify drafting CB's early. Certainly they cost at about the top of the FA chain. Our problem in the past was that we never had a good combination of coaching, front office, QB play. Sometimes we had a good Defensive minded coach, but our offense lacked a good coordinator, or a good QB.

 

My point here is this: if the coaching is top rate, and the GM is good at getting what the coordinators need, then it will vary radically from team to team which players they covet most. The important thing is that the coaching is top notch. If it is, they'll assemble the right players to play their schemes, and success follows. Our failures over the last 2 decades have not been because we drafted CB's high. It has been because we've had terrible coaching, front office personnel, and QB play.

 

I have to say, QB is the absolute most important position, regardless of coach/GM. Because we haven't had a good QB since Kelly - and Bledsoe, temporarily, and in a way Flutie - the fact that we drafted CB's seems a lot worse than it would've probably seemed had we had a good QB. But, then again, had we had a good QB we probably wouldn't have been in a position to draft those guys! Thats really our big fault - not getting the QB. And, of course, not going all in and all out on getting the best coaches. COACHING is the MOST IMPORTANT part of any franchise - and, until now, I just think we've failed miserably there. I have hope, however, that this group will turn it around for us!

[Max997]

I am amazed at the amount of time ppl hv on their hands. Would hv loved to hv read all that but my feelings are that unless there is a guy like Champ Bailey sitting there you don't use a High pick on a DB

 

How has picking DB's high for the last decade worked out for this team? You can hv the best corners in the world but it won't matter if ur front seven sucks. On the other hand a good front seven can make an average secondary look great

Edited April 16, 2013 by Max997

[Dibs]

Maybe good teams don't draft DBs high because they already have good DBs playing which is what makes them good. Maybe bad teams draft DBs high because they know that good DBs make bad teams good teams. Maybe good teams don't draft DBs high because all the good DBs drafted have already been drafted by bad teams. Maybe bad teams are bad because they draft bad DBs at the top of the draft and the good teams are good because they draft good DBs after the bad drafting bad teams draft the bad DBs which should have been drafted later in the draft.

Agreed.....and maybe those 6 good teams have figured how to coach better production out of their DBs via the D system they use.....or maybe having an elite QB naturally changes a teams perspective of what positions are of more need/value....

 

....and maybe....just maybe....using ones best draft resources on DBs is not productive in producing a strong team.

I don't know the reasons why the numbers are so skewed.....just that they are.

 

 

Me too. Maybe the bad teams have crappy QBs.

They do(relatively speaking).....but I don't think that there is much logic in saying that having a crappy QB leads to spending a higher percent of one's good draft stock on DBs.

 

 

Shouldn't the Cardinals be in the SB AND bad team category since they went to the SB on 2009?. Somehow I'm thinking this is why you chose only the last 4 years instead of 5?. Would change things.

 

Shouldn't they all be compared over the same amount of time?

 

Good work on the stats. It is interesting.

I didn't do anything over 5 years, so 4 fits fine.....but you are correct, I chose 4 years for effect(similar to the way one might say "We have won 4 of our last 7", which really means the same as "4 of our last 8+").

 

I only added SB teams as a bit of extra interest. I am strongly of the belief that teams wins SBs based upon their QB talent(most of the time).....so looking at DB drafting for getting to the SB is a bit irrelevant to the point.....particularly compared to looking at teams who constantly make the playoffs.

 

 

I like the attempt to analyze. Thanks!

 

Why did you stop at pick 23? I just pulled more data for the discussion, below. It looks like there are an additional 10 picks for the good teams and 5 for the bad teams in the first round.

.....

Np

 

I stopped at 23 for two reasons.

The first is for the effect. Stopping there highlighted the numbers better(damned lies and statistics as they say ).

 

The second reason is less flippant. I stopped there to reduce the number of people who would respond as you have done. I do not in any way disagree that the strong teams draft similar numbers of DBs in the 1st two rounds as the weak teams. It is with what frequency they draft DBs with their better draft picks compared to the weak teams that is the issue.

 

 

A DB in the first round is a bad strategy in today's NFL. Not only can you not contact a receiver after a pitiful 5 yards, but any decent effort to separate him from the ball will draw a flag as well. They just are not allowed to be difference makers anymore. There are maybe 4 or 5 guys in the whole league that actually earn the status of "shutdown corner" and none of them has won the superbowl in recent years. It is more important now to rush the passer and have athletic LB's that can cover. This allows you to disguise your coverages, at least making the QB play after the snap and possibly hold the ball longer. Teams realize the advantage a WR has is now so great, you are better to concede that and prevent the throw from going there in the first place. Even if a CB can run step for step, you now see the intentional underthrow or a QB just "puts it out there" for his guy to make a play or draw a flag. The other reason why it is a bad philosophy is simple supply and demand. There are way more 5'10 190 lb guys on the planet that can run than say, 6'5" 325lb athletic guys. It is simply a more rare physical speciman. Therefore you 1st pick should always be a big man or a QB, with the occasional exception for a freakishly athletic wideout. Why? Because the WR has the advantage from the rules vs the athletic DB.

You make some very interesting points. Though I haven't done a similar study with LBs, I am pretty sure that a high percent of the good teams draft stock went into LBs.....and a low percent from the weak teams.

I'll have a look at this concept.

 

Edit: Which I have now done......some results for LBs:

 

Top 10 picks

Bad Teams: 4 in 63(6.3%)

Top 6: 2 in 11(18.2%)

 

Top 15 picks

Bad Teams: 9 in 82(11%)

Top 6: 4 in 21(19.1%)

 

Top 23 picks

Bad Teams: 20 in 115(10.4%)

Top 6: 4 in 41(9.8%)

 

It appears that the consistently stronger teams prefer to spend their higher draft stock(top 15) on LBs rather than DBs(on average).....when compared to the weak teams that is.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Dibs

[CookieG]

That is pretty misleading if you ask me. Most of those last 10 years he had two #1 picks back there in Reed and McAllister. He also picked Jimmy Smith as you alluded to.

 

Teams get players all kinds of ways. Denver has a good defense and they didnt draft any recently but they have Champ Bailey the 7th overall and Dawkins who was a #2. And if they didnt have Bailey they would be drafting a CB very high.

 

Nah, it really isn't misleading. Its just that the Bills have had this DB fetish going on for so long now, that people consider it normal and healthy behavior.

 

Guys like Ozzie and Colbert understand something that many don't...that a Reed, a Polamalu or a Revis don't come around every year. And fast guys who can't catch are pretty common. They'd just as soon use their first round picks on guys who can beat people up.

 

Its just a difference in attitude between them and us.

[San-O]

Buffalo has drafted 15 DBs since 2006, that I count, many of them very high and also first rounders.

 

Since 2006, the Bills have drafted two (2) QBs that I count.

[Bill from NYC]

For years I have seen the opinion around here that using one's best draft stock on the DB positions is not only a bad way to build a successful team but also a way to hinder the chances of general team improvement. I have always been neutral to this concept(neither for, nor against it)......but as I have always felt that there might be some element of truth to it

 

I personally am now convinced that it is a bad move to spend your best draft stock on DBs.

 

Hello, and welcome to my world.

 

What I will add is that for every Whitner, A.Williams, Gilmore, etc. the Bills have wasted a draft pick on, it is important to look at the blockers, pass rushers, and of course QBs that they passed on. The list is staggering.

 

The only time it wasn't that bad was when the took Clements, because they traded down and got an extra 2nd round pick. Even at that, they passed on Steve Hutchinson, a future hall of famer, when they desperately needed a guard.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Bill from NYC

[dave mcbride]

 

 

Again....the argument is "best draft stock". (I know my thread title is a little misleading in that respect.)

You have no argument from me that a large number of the better DBs in the league were drafted in the 1st round(as with most positions)......the point is that it seems that when successful teams get high draft picks(top 10/15).....and even reasonable draft picks(top 23).....they consistently chose to draft positions other than DB.

 

And further to the point, a lot of those DBs you list were the very same high draft picks that the Bottom Teams drafted. This can argue to the point that spending high draft stock on DBs is regularly wasted(compared perhaps to a lot of other positions).

 

Might it be that the smart, good teams prioritize good dbs just as much as bad teams, but figure that they might be getting a better player if they get their elite guys mid-career, a la the Packers with Woodson and the Pats with Harrison/Talib? I know Harrison wasn't a first rounder, but he clearly proved to be first round talent a couple of years into his career.

 

Btw, the argument would be more convincing if you carried through round 1. The difference between 23 Nd 28 is very marginal, and moreover 28 is still a first pick - a pick that a team still will obsess over.

Edited April 16, 2013 by dave mcbride

[JohnC]

Hello, and welcome to my world.

 

What I will add is that for every Whitner, A.Williams, Gilmore, etc. the Bills have wasted a draft pick on, it is important to look at the blockers, pass rushers, and of course QBs that they passed on. The list is staggering.

 

The only time it wasn't that bad was when the took Clements, because they traded down and got an extra 2nd round pick. Even at that, they passed on Steve Hutchinson, a future hall of famer, when they desperately needed a guard.

 

There is a bigger and more troubling issue than over-emphasizing particular positions. It is the organization's ability to in general evaluate players. Buddy believes in staying true to his board regardless of position. But without a doubt Nix's board isn't nearly as accurate as Ozzie Newsome's board is in Baltimore, who is also a believer in player rankings. Nix is simply out of his depth when compared to a GM such as Newsome who has a feel and talent for evaluating prospects. Nix has the advantage of drafting ahead of Newsome. Yet Newsome and other astute GMs always out produce this sluggish country GM.

 

Nix passed on Russell Wilson (who he spent a lot of time evaluating) for TJ Graham, a track receiver. He even did what he normally doesn't do, move up the draft to select his "guy". In hindsight it was a ludicrous evaluation. He drafted Aaron Williams instead of Kaepernick. It turns out that Williams is too stiff to be a CB. He is better suited as a safety.

 

Sheppard was a MLB drafted out of LSU. One of the most important traits that a MLB has to possess is football instincts. Sheppard has little apptitude for that position. From a physical standpoint he filts the mold but his physical abilities are neutralized because he is playing a position that requires "instincts". A trait that he lacks.

 

Go back and review Nix's drafts. How many lower round selections have turned out to be contributors? If you can hit on a few of those longshot picks then you are bolstering the roster with value selections. It rarely happens with Nix and his draft staff.

 

One of the most deceiving ways to evaluate your draft selections is how many of those players make the roster and start? The problem with that methodology is that below par picks can make the roster on your already poor roster when the reality is if they were competing with roster spots on a quality team they probably wouldn't even make the team or at least earn meaningful playing time.

 

The truest way to compare players is how do they stack up against one another when they are competing against one another. Nix's record is 16-32. His team during his three year stint rarely beats a team that has a winning record. That is the ultimate judge of talent: i.e. the record.

[Lurker]

Good teams generally have good defensive fronts and/or pass rushing OLBs, which can compensate for having only average DBs.

 

I'd be interested to see the sack numbers put up by your 'good' teams vs. the 'bad' ones...

[dave mcbride]

Good teams generally have good defensive fronts and/or pass rushing OLBs, which can compensate for having only average DBs.

 

I'd be interested to see the sack numbers put up by your 'good' teams vs. the 'bad' ones...

Excellent point. I want to repeat my earlier criticism of cutting it off arbitrarily at #23.

[Dibs]

Excellent point. I want to repeat my earlier criticism of cutting it off arbitrarily at #23.

 

I responded to Matt in KC about this earlier....

 

"I stopped at 23 for two reasons.

The first is for the effect. Stopping there highlighted the numbers better(damned lies and statistics as they say ).

 

The second reason is less flippant. I stopped there to reduce the number of people who would respond as you have done. I do not in any way disagree that the strong teams draft similar numbers of DBs in the 1st two rounds as the weak teams. It is with what frequency they draft DBs with their better draft picks compared to the weak teams that is the issue."

 

 

There was also the actual numbers to consider. Had I merely stopped at top 15, there would have only been 21 selections made by the Top 6 Teams.....which would have given decent weight to the argument that top teams don't often draft high so how can we tell etc.

 

Showing that the Top 6 Teams only selected 1 DB in their best 41 picks(to pick 23) clearly shows some sort of pattern.

Compared to the Bottom Teams selecting 6 DBs in their best 42 picks(to pick 7).

[Dibs]

Good teams generally have good defensive fronts and/or pass rushing OLBs, which can compensate for having only average DBs.

 

I'd be interested to see the sack numbers put up by your 'good' teams vs. the 'bad' ones...

 

I think it would be safe to assume that the best 6 teams had a much better pass rush over the 13 years than the bottom 11 teams.

Assuming that the reason for the good teams not selecting DBs with their high draft stock is as you suggest(a good pass rush compensates for having weaker DBs).....this raises the pertinent question.....and it isn't "How does a team develop in order to generate a good pass rush?"

 

The pertinent question IMO is....

"Does obtaining one good DB(in this instance via using high draft stock) counteract the lack of a good pass rush?"