"First Round Picks are Over-rated": Discuss

[Aussie Joe]

16 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

 

The better question is if the Bills adapted the Rams strategy this offseason and won a Super Bowl next year but had to blow it up 3 years from now with minimal draft picks would it be worth it? I think the answer is clearly yes. 

 

I'm sure you are aware that the Rams current strategy is a gamble and probably more likely to fail then succeed ( only one team gets to win it all every year and you are compressing your chances of success into a smaller window then doing things the "conventional" way) ...

 

Now, if the Bills copied this approach  and it didn't succeed, would you accept that outcome?  I know that you arent normally one to bring up previous other occasions when some Management decisions have not gone to plan....

 

 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Aussie Joe

[JGMcD2]

19 minutes ago, FireChans said:

I don't understand how watching the landscape of the NFL this isn't more obvious. This is what true contenders do.

 

What the Pats have done, no team will ever do. I feel confident in saying that. If your goal is to compete for Super Bowls for 20 years straight, you will miss your chance by looking to the future.

But wouldn’t your probably of winning a Super Bowl increasingly the more often you’re in the playoffs? The playoffs are ultimately a crapshoot. 

I feel like it’s more of a risk going all in on 1-2 seasons and falling short and setting yourself back 4-5 years than it is constantly being competitive and going on a run 1/10 of those seasons? 

I’m not advocating to avoid taking a big swing here and there either... I’m just trying to look at the two trains of thought. 

Edited February 3, 2021 by JGMcD2

[FireChans]

1 minute ago, JGMcD2 said:

But wouldn’t your probably of winning a Super Bowl increasingly the more often you’re in the playoffs? The playoffs are ultimately a crapshoot. 

I feel like it’s more of a risk going all in on 1-2 seasons and falling short and setting yourself back 4-5 years than it is constantly being competitive and going on a run 1/10 of those seasons? 

 

I mean, yes and no.

 

You can't use strict math like that. Every team had a "chance" to win the Superbowl, but do you think the Chiefs had the same odds to win as the Washington Football team?  The answer is clearly no.

 

The best teams that make the postseason have the best chance to win.  You want to be a part of the "best teams."

[Dr.Mantis_Toboggan]

If I can deal a late 1st for a proven talent, in his prime on a favorable contract (Diggs), then I’d do it 10x out of 10... Matt Stafford however is none of those, that was a ridiculous trade by the Rams who remind me of some noob playing franchise mode in Madden. 

 

The late 1st is basically the same talent level as the 2nd round in most drafts except at a way higher contract (on the plus side if you hit, you get that 5th year option). If I’m Beane, and I can’t deal that pick for a proven edge rusher or LB, or another “impact player”, then I atleast try to trade down into the top of the 2nd and pick up an extra 3rd and 4th/5th in the process.

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, ScottLaw said:

Saints have been in cap hell for years it seems.

 

The better question is if the Bills adapted the Rams strategy this offseason and won a Super Bowl next year but had to blow it up 3 years from now with minimal draft picks would it be worth it? I think the answer is clearly yes. 

 

 

I agree with you that my answer would be yes.

 

But how about a related question? How about if the Bills adapted the Rams strategy this offseason and LOST a Super Bowl next year but had to blow it up 3 years from now. Would that be worth it?

 

Or if they adapted the Rams strategy and came much close to the Chiefs next year in the AFC championship, losing by one on a last-minute field goal, almost getting over the top but had to blow it up after that? Would that be worth it?

 

 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

 

1 hour ago, FireChans said:

Haha 90% of these names are old as dirt. And they aren't all even good examples.

 

Rosen was a proven vet?

Case Keenum signing a front-loaded prove it deal after a miracle year was a big gamble?

 

Deion retired and was off the books in one season.

 

Like what are we even talking about here?  Maybe redo your list a bit.

I believe it is the logical conclusion of the "what if they aren't a star in your system" argument that you could make for every player acquisition ever.

 

Acquiring a ProBowl level player for a later first is safer in terms of playing ability than acquiring a late first round rookie. Point blank. Period.

 

 

 

As usual, you're wrong in many small and large ways. Sanders was not "off the books in one season." They were still paying $5.2 of dead money two years after he left. And the cap at that time was $71.1M, so Deion was taking up about 8% of their cap two years after he left. And for that financial farrago, he got them all the way up to an 8-8 record. Great FA pickup there.

 

You say, "Case Keenum signing a front-loaded deal after a miracle year was a big gamble?" Yeah, um, the answer to that would be "Yeah. Duh." Guaranteeing $25M of his deal at signing while signing Keenum, and keeping him for only one year after he shepherded them to a 6-10 record, was indeed a big risk and a horrible deal.

 

You say, "Josh Rosen was a proven vet?" And yet I didn't say he was a proven vet. I put him in a list of "examples of free agents and trades that also didn't work out or busted" ... and he absolutely belongs there. Rosen was acquired in a trade. Miami gave up a 2nd round pick. How's that deal look in hindsight? I mean, maybe you would do that one over in a second, Chans, but most, um ... wouldn't.

 

They're great examples whether you like to admit it or not.

 

And while you may (or may not) be right that in terms of playing ability you might be better off, playing ability is only part of the equation. You're also generally dealing with much higher salaries or throwing in trade value. So if your Pro Bowl level player (Jairus Byrd, for instance, or the Bills giving sure-fire high-production TE Charles Clay a massive contract so Tyrod could (not) throw to him or giving the massive deal to Mario Williams) even if the guy is good he can be a crappy deal due to how much you're paying or what you traded to get him.

 

And yes, the "what if he's not a star in your system" argument is an excellent argument and is part of the risk you take with FAs. Along with aging worries, overpays, giving away too much on the trade problems, lose interest after the big payday problems, etc.

 

 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Thurman#1

[FireChans]

1 minute ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

 

As usual, you're wrong in many small and large ways. Sanders was not "off the books in one season." They were still paying $5.2 of dead money two years after he left. And the cap at that time was $71.1M, so Deion was taking up about 8% of their cap two years after he left. And for that financial farrago, he got them all the way up to an 8-8 record. Great FA pickup there.

 

You say, "Case Keenum signing a front-loaded deal after a miracle year was a big gamble?" Yeah, um, the answer to that would be "Yeah. Duh." Guaranteeing $25M of his deal at signing while signing Keenum, and keeping him for only one year after he shepherded them to a 6-10 record, was indeed a big risk and a horrible deal.

 

You say, "Josh Rosen was a proven vet?" And yet I didn't say he was a proven vet. I put him in a list of "examples of free agents and trades that also didn't work out or busted" ... and he absolutely belongs there. Rosen was acquired in a trade. Miami gave up a 2nd round pick. How's that deal look in hindsight? I mean, maybe you would do that one over in a second, Chans, but most, um ... wouldn't.

 

They're great examples whether you like to admit it or not.

 

And while you may (or may not) be right that in terms of playing ability you might be better off, playing ability is only part of the equation. You're also generally dealing with much higher salaries or throwing in trade value. So if your Pro Bowl level player (Jairus Byrd, for instance, or the Bills giving sure-fire high-production TE Charles Clay a massive contract so Tyrod could (not) throw to him or giving the massive deal to Mario Williams) even if the guy is good he can be a crappy deal due to how much you're paying or what you traded to get him.

 

And yes, the "what if he's not a star in your system" argument is an excellent argument and is part of the risk you take with FAs. Along with aging worries, overpays, giving away too much on the trade problems, lose interest after the big payday problems

 

 

They are great examples that what? That no player is a guarantee?

 

You got me.  Enlightening stuff.

[Thurman#1]

I see.

 

So you agree that I'm right.

 

And yet you just spent about four paragraphs telling me I was wrong about the same thing.

 

You're a real talent here, dude, an asset to the board.

 

 

Correct, no players is a guarantee. Getting free agents and trades also carry many risks, as many as drafting guys, and yet they tend to cost more.

[FireChans]

25 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

I see.

 

So you agree that I'm right.

 

And yet you just spent about four paragraphs telling me I was wrong about the same thing.

 

You're a real talent here, dude, an asset to the board.

 

 

Correct, no players is a guarantee. Getting free agents and trades also carry many risks, as many as drafting guys, and yet they tend to cost more.

Incorrect.

 

I could spend my time listing out every bum drafted but that would be wasting time.

 

You’re all over the place. Mario Williams was an All-Pro in Buffalo and our best player for multiple years. How was he a bad acquisition? Because we didn’t win a Super Bowl?

 

What is your lens for judging good or bad acquisitions?

 

No one has ever said that there’s zero risk in acquiring an FA or trading for a player. That’s a Wizard of Oz level strawman. Everyone has heard of Albert Haynesworth. You aren’t proving anything.

Edited February 3, 2021 by FireChans

[bouds]

I do think first round picks may be overrated, but having more draft picks is certainly not overrated.

 

The more selections you can make the better.  If you can move back, or out of the first round, and collect more picks in doing so all the better.

 

Do feel that sometimes fans value 1st round selection more than the known vet, however that doesn't mean it's fine for a front office to just light draft capital on fire or give it away.  Trading up or giving away multiple draft picks can be harmful, you need as many as you can get, no perfect answer here.

[BADOLBILZ]

4 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

I wondered if this was tongue-in-cheek, but it appears to be serious:

 

 

Discuss.

 

First we see that delightful shadowy figure, the anonymous NFL executive 🧛‍♀️

 

It's quite correct that there's a substantial whiff rate on first round draft choices.  On the other hand, there's an even more substantial whiff rate on second and third day draft choices.

 

I can see strategically trading a first round pick from time to time, as the Bills did with Stefon Diggs.  We wanted an established, "no question this guy can play" WR to ensure all the pieces were in place to help the Bills answer the question "is Josh Allen Our Guy, or No?" 

 

But now we're swapping players and multiple first round picks and it's rapidly approaching a sort of Tulip Mania

 

Yes, there's to some degree less risk trading a 1st for an established player with a track record.  You know the guy can play.  But there's a down-side too; you don't know if he'll adapt and play as well in your system, and of course you miss out on the benefit of the draft and rookie contract system, which is hopefully getting a good player at a bargain price for 4 years.

 

 

 

 

Been saying this for years.

 

First round picks are a 50/50 proposition.........that's about how many end up playing well enough for the drafting to pick up their 5th year option.

 

That's a solid percentage........but it's presumed by fans that they pan out at a much, MUCH higher rate.

 

More like if you use that pick it will automatically pan out............so, of course, use it at a position of need!   

 

The value in first round picks is simply a better chance at the top ranked players at elite money positions.

 

The only time a first round pick isn't overrated is when it's used on a QB.

 

[FireChans]

7 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Been saying this for years.

 

First round picks are a 50/50 proposition.........that's about how many end up playing well enough for the drafting to pick up their 5th year option.

 

That's a solid percentage........but it's presumed by fans that they pan out at a much, MUCH higher rate.

 

More like if you use that pick it will automatically pan out............so, of course, use it at a position of need!   

 

The value in first round picks is simply a better chance at the top ranked players at elite money positions.

 

The only time a first round pick isn't overrated is when it's used on a QB.

 

Tre, Edmunds, Allen, Oliver.

 

Only 2 of those players are pretty much guaranteed to be Bills 4 years from now and even that could change.

 

A team like the Jets have only 3 of their first round picks on their roster and honestly who knows about any of them being Jets in 4 years.

 

The Rams saw the insanity of pick valuation and flew in the face of it. 

[US Egg]

23 minutes ago, bouds said:

I do think first round picks may be overrated, but having more draft picks is certainly not overrated.

 

The more selections you can make the better.  If you can move back, or out of the first round, and collect more picks in doing so all the better.

 

Do feel that sometimes fans value 1st round selection more than the known vet, however that doesn't mean it's fine for a front office to just light draft capital on fire or give it away.  Trading up or giving away multiple draft picks can be harmful, you need as many as you can get, no perfect answer here.

Interesting read with Beane on Diggs trade, as are the comments, which relate to your point a bit.

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/01/27/brandon-beane-stefon-diggs-trade-was-a-win-win-for-us-and-minnesota/#comments

[The Frankish Reich]

2 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

Saints have been in cap hell for years it seems.

 

The better question is if the Bills adapted the Rams strategy this offseason and won a Super Bowl next year but had to blow it up 3 years from now with minimal draft picks would it be worth it? I think the answer is clearly yes. 

This is the interesting question. And my perspective on it has changed.

I used to share your opinion. Winning a Super Bowl is everything! It's why you play the game. I'd gladly trade a half dozen years of being a cellar dweller for one Super Bowl win, or maybe even one Super Bowl appearance.

But I've changed my mind. Noncompetitive teams are just boring teams to follow. I got used to essentially abandoning the Bills in November. Just based on where I live the Broncos became my "Bills are out of it again, let's follow a possible playoff team" mode. That was especially true when the Broncos always were competitive in the 2000s under Shanahan even though they never made a Super Bowl. Brian Griese, Jake Plummer, Jay Cutler, whatever - they would hang around, sometimes make the playoffs, sometimes get eliminated in Week 17, but never go 5-11. It's entertaining to watch a season unfold when your team is in it, or at least has some hope of being in it. 

So I realized that from an entertainment perspective I'm getting more value out of watching good teams play competitive football year after year. I hope that's where the Bills will be for an extended run. Imagine we have the chance to trade our 2021 - 2023 first round picks for Travis Kelce, and that most experts think that gives us a much improved chance to win the Super Bowl in the next two years, but a strong likelihood of having to tear it down and start from scratch in 2023. I don't like that scenario. That's consigning Bills fans to several years of drudgery in exchange for an additional week or two of football in the next two years.

So I guess I'm saying the answer is complicated. It's not clearly yes.

[Big Blitz]

If I recall they discussed this at length on Hard Knocks.   

 

If my first, which is always going to be in the high teens to 20s, I'm trading for Ramsey all day.  

 

If the Bills 30th this year and first next year somehow got us say Nick Bosa....I'm freaking doing that.

 

Teams unsure of how good they'll be hold on to firsts.  

 

I'm ready to deal em to get certainty and help right now.  

[billsfan89]

First round picks are highly important because in a sport as volatile as football you can't "lottery protect" your first round pick. Having your own first round pick allows the bottom to fall out on the season and it not to be a total loss. So even if you have a very good team the injury bug can hit any team at any season and deliver you 13-15 losses. And not having your first round pick to rebuild is tough. I think in certain terms trading a future first can be decent but it is a huge gamble that is unlikely to be worth it.

[JMF2006]

5 hours ago, LABILLBACKER said:

The Rams spent 6 picks to get Goff and 3 to get rid off him.

 

Thats definitely making a case for trading them to get a proven player versus drafting  

 

 

[Thurman#1]

2 hours ago, FireChans said:

Incorrect.

 

I could spend my time listing out every bum drafted but that would be wasting time.

 

You’re all over the place. Mario Williams was an All-Pro in Buffalo and our best player for multiple years. How was he a bad acquisition? Because we didn’t win a Super Bowl?

 

What is your lens for judging good or bad acquisitions?

 

No one has ever said that there’s zero risk in acquiring an FA or trading for a player. That’s a Wizard of Oz level strawman. Everyone has heard of Albert Haynesworth. You aren’t proving anything.

 

 

Yes, you are indeed incorrect. Thanks for the warning right up top.

 

And if anyone is all over the place, it's you. In your first post, you tried to show why my examples weren't good, but I pointed out where you were wrong. Then in your next post you said that I was right (you were right about that) but that my point was obvious. And yet your next post was back to arguing the point that a moment ago you felt was too obvious to make.

 

You're right that no one has said there's no risk in FA or trades. But the title of this thread is that first round picks are overrated, and it implies that that is true compared to FAs and trades. That is wrong. You among others here have tried to whitewash the salaries out of how you decide whether an FA is a good pickup. Which is nuts. As is whitewashing out the value of what you give up when you make a trade. They both absolutely factor into a decision on whether an acquistion is a good one.

 

Mario Williams was a mistake. He was overpaid. He was a very good player but he was not as good as his salary made him out to be. For years I tried defending that signing but ultimately there was no good defense. But they brought him in because they thought we were close and he would make a difference. And no not because we didn't win a Super Bowl. In case you didn't notice, we didn't even make the playoffs. Mario was brought in after a 6-10 season and raised the level of the team, so that out record soared up to ... oh, 6-10 again, for his first two years here.

 

You don't pay a hundred million dollar contract, making a guy the highest-paid defensive player in league history at that time ... not for performances like that. Two out of four years here he made the Pro Bowl.

 

Mario was a very good player who was still overpaid.

 

My lens for judging good and bad is what I've been saying in the last few posts. It's what anyone should look at.

 

Is his performance, good and bad, worth what you spent to bring him in? How much money you spend or picks or players you trade away is absolutely part of the equation as to whether it was a good acquisition.

 

And yeah, you could go on an write up hundreds of bad draft picks. And I could go on and write up hundreds of bad FA and trade acquisitions. Which is my point. People want to pretend FAs are safer and better. When looked at correctly - factoring in the money and what was traded away - that is very questionable.

 

Picks are cheap, and rookies are more teachable in terms of developing towards your system and what you want from them. That's why over the years few teams have flourished without valuing picks and bringing in most (not all, but most) of their core through the draft. Giving those picks away will hurt the Rams more than the unnamed executive thinks. And I say that as a guy who thinks Stafford will be a good acquisition for them, that in a good situation he will shine far more than he did in Detroit. Losing those picks, especially while in a bad cap position, will impact their ability to put him in a good situation.

[Thurman#1]

2 hours ago, FireChans said:

Tre, Edmunds, Allen, Oliver.

 

Only 2 of those players are pretty much guaranteed to be Bills 4 years from now and even that could change.

 

A team like the Jets have only 3 of their first round picks on their roster and honestly who knows about any of them being Jets in 4 years.

 

The Rams saw the insanity of pick valuation and flew in the face of it. 

 

 

You're right, nothing's guaranteed. Injuries happen. Regimes change and they like different things in players because of their different schemes. Guys get older, guys regress, they get better. So nothing's certain.

 

But unless things do change drastically, unless there's regression, injury or a regime change, three of those guys are near-certainties to be here and the fourth is pretty likely as well. That assumes McDermott is still coach. Now, if you're coach at that point, I would definitely change my mind on their futures. But I'm betting you're not and I think it's pretty likely McDermott still is, and that he's still the same guy, whether or not you disagree with his thought processes.

[QCity]

The Rams' best player is a 1st round pick. Our best player is a 1st round pick. Go down the list of teams and see how many this holds true for.

 

What people really mean is "1st round picks that don't pan out are overrated"

 

Hindsight makes everyone a genius.

[atlbillsfan1975]

The Rams are trying to have a few high paid superstars on each side of the ball and then fill in with average, at best, talent everywhere else. The problem occurs when one of those superstars gets injured, like Danold did in the playoffs.
I am not against doing what Beane did last year for Diggs. I wouldn’t be opposed to doing it this year. If you find a player of need, position needs and upgrade, on a contract that makes sense financially, then do it. Deion Jones is a good example for the Bills to use their first on. 

[machine gun kelly]

It depends on who’s doing the picking.  The Rams act like they have a short window to win it all, amd didn’t have the confidence in Goff (I don’t either).  A lot of people don’t like Stafford, but he’s played on bad teams for a decade.  The Rams may be decent next year.  
 

They have the #1 defense in the league.  The cool part for us is we beat them and the Steelers, 49ers, Ravens, Colts, and Chargers.  Think about that our explosive offense beat six of the top 10 defenses.  Just a positive note on a number of negative threads since the KC game.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

It's not just the Rams.   

 

The draft has always been a crapshoot.  

 

Yes, there are always gems found in the 1st round, but how much dirt do you have to dig through to find one? 

[mannc]

Dumping multiple first round picks for 1 guy is a bad strategy and it almost never works out for teams that do it.  I believe the Rams may be headed for a Texans-level franchise meltdown in 2022 when they wake up and realize they mortgaged the future for a barely above average QB on his last legs...

 

Trading one first rounder for a star player, like Indy and Buffalo did last year, is much more defensible, although both SF and Minn hit big on the picks they got in those trades.  

[Hapless Bills Fan]

7 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

Been saying this for years.

First round picks are a 50/50 proposition.........that's about how many end up playing well enough for the drafting to pick up their 5th year option.

That's a solid percentage........but it's presumed by fans that they pan out at a much, MUCH higher rate.

More like if you use that pick it will automatically pan out............so, of course, use it at a position of need!   

 

The value in first round picks is simply a better chance at the top ranked players at elite money positions.

The only time a first round pick isn't overrated is when it's used on a QB.

 

Agree of course that first round picks are at best a 50/50 proposition, and that's 50/50 you get a guy who can play NFL football, not you get a star of stars.

 

Couple months back, though, weren't you arguing the contrary position to whit that the Bills were stupid to trade their first round pick(+) for Diggs in a deep WR class where they could have snagged a talented WR like Jefferson who could contribute as much but on a cheap rookie contract for years?

[dbfla10]

This is very true, often the 1st round is where owners are involved the most and steer an organization to pick a player that'll move the needle with fans. A team thats been struggling will pack the "splash" pick to help market the team for the following year. Not always the BPA

[JGMcD2]

10 hours ago, FireChans said:

I mean, yes and no.

 

You can't use strict math like that. Every team had a "chance" to win the Superbowl, but do you think the Chiefs had the same odds to win as the Washington Football team?  The answer is clearly no.

 

The best teams that make the postseason have the best chance to win.  You want to be a part of the "best teams."

Right, and we can make a legitimate argument we were the 2nd best team in the playoff this year. It just so happens we ran into the first best team and there’s a clear gap between the two. 
 

Is mortgaging the future to have a better chance of beating the best team the right decision? What happens if you don’t? You get excited about the fact you tried and then diddle around for 4-5 years trying to get back to the dance and start all over? 

Edited February 3, 2021 by JGMcD2

[FireChans]

14 minutes ago, JGMcD2 said:

Right, and we can make a legitimate argument we were the 2nd best team in the playoff this year. It just so happens we ran into the first best team and there’s a clear gap between the two. 
 

Is mortgaging the future to have a better chance of beating the best team the right decision? What happens if you don’t? You get excited about the fact you tried and then diddle around for 4-5 years trying to get back to the dance and start all over? 

Yes.

 

I mean, what else can you do? In the salary cap era, we won’t keep our team together long anyway.

[dave mcbride]

11 hours ago, FireChans said:

I think the answer is that the Rams don't care.

 

You are ABSOLUTELY correct that they are gambling on this team in the next 2 years. But they don't care.

 

McVay lost confidence in Goff's ability to get that team where they wanted to be. I think we all agree that on paper, Stafford is an upgrade. 

 

So they rolled the dice on the dude. They think Stafford, in McVay's system, with that roster currently, is one of the best teams in football and better than the 2020 team. We all agree they could be right.

 

The risk of being a poser contender was already there with Goff at the helm. Their SB odds have gotten better. Their division winning odds have gotten better.

 

At a certain point, you have to double down. You have to say, "we have to risk a few painful years in the future to win the big one." The Chiefs have done that and the pain will come. The Eagles did that and they won, they re going through it now. The Falcons did that, lost in the SB but the pain arrived. Hell, the Pats most recently did that.

 

I would LOVE for the Bills to go all in and put their chips on the table. That's how you give yourself the best chance to win. Your goal shouldn't be winning 10+ games every year but not being good enough. I'll take a few 9 win or 8 win seasons to win the big one. Everyone would.

I'd take 5 straight 2-14 seasons if it meant the Bills winning the SB. 

[BuffaloRebound]

4 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

If you don’t then oh ***** well. You tried. That’s all you can do.

 

I don’t think the Bills are at that point yet, but if they lose in the divisional round or championship game again next season while getting completely overmatched in the process, I think you’ll see them change their approach and be more aggressive in mortgaging their future. 

And mortgaging their future means what in the NFL...1 or 2 years?  We broke a 17 year playoff drought in the 1st year of a rebuild and in a year many people accused us of tanking.  Dolphins are another example of a quick rebuild.  And unlike the Bills in 2017 and Dolphins in 2019, we already have our franchise QB

[y2zipper]

There's a lot that goes these discussions. I think the value of a first round pick is that it's a hedge against the parity engine that is the NFL and the more towards the future we look, the more it is true. Like if you have a year like San Francisco where a lot of unlikely things happen and you miss the postseason, you get access to more of those premium picks.

 

My general take is that it's a sure sign that your front office is bad if management can't hit 50 percent on first rounders. Getting a contributor every 2 years isn't hard for competent teams. The success rate in the first is 50-53 percent by most measures and goes down as the draft goes on. Teams are not going to get all pros all the time, but you can get a five year starter at reduced cost a little more than half the time.

 

It's the only access to cost controlled premium talent and the chances of picking a success go down as the draft goes on. Even the Patriots have gotten contributors with 2 of their last 3. The argument I would make is that they just haven't used enough of them.

 

Excluding QB, we have seen teams successfully trade 1 immediate first round pick for a premium talent. Kansas City did it for Clark, Buffalo did for Diggs, Indianapolis did it for Buckner, etc... Making a well timed move when you can reasonably predict a season works sometimes.

 

Where it gets dicey is when we start talking more than one. We've seen Kahlil Mack, Jamal Adams, and Marcus Peters go for more than one first rounder the past few years and it's hard to argue that any of these deals worked. Trading multiple firsts to acquire franchise quarterback is more acceptable. 

 

With the Rams specifically, my issue with this trade is that I just don't subscribe to their view of where their team is. When the Rams played in the Super Bowl in 2018, they had the healthiest and best offensive line in the league, a downfield vertical threatened Cooks in addition to their other good receivers, and they had a dynamic running back in Gurley. Over the past two seasons we've seen the interior of the line decline, and we haven't seen the same downfield passing production because Robert woods and Cooper kupp aren't vertical threats and because they haven't grabbed a running back that can make up Gurleys production. Goff's play has gone up and down as the surrounding talent has gone up and down and while I think Stafford is a little better, he is the type of quarterback that's going to take what's closer to a low level playoff team and turn it into a Super Bowl team.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JGMcD2]

41 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Yes.

 

I mean, what else can you do? In the salary cap era, we won’t keep our team together long anyway.

So you won’t complain if they take a shot, fall short and go back to being 7-9 to 9-7 for a few years? 

39 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

If you don’t then oh ***** well. You tried. That’s all you can do.

 

I don’t think the Bills are at that point yet, but if they lose in the divisional round or championship game again next season while getting completely overmatched in the process, I think you’ll see them change their approach and be more aggressive in mortgaging their future. 

I mean I don’t necessarily agree with that stance in line 1. I guess I’m more conservative in nature and would rather have a chance each season and make a run than try and manufacture a chance and still have no guarantee. 
 

I would agree with you that this year isn’t the time to do that though, if they’re going to do it at all it would be best served to wait and see how next year plays out because then you start that clock on the window absolutely closing. 

[dave mcbride]

11 minutes ago, y2zipper said:

There's a lot that goes these discussions. I think the value of a first round pick is that it's a hedge against the parity engine that is the NFL and the more towards the future we look, the more it is true. Like if you have a year like San Francisco where a lot of unlikely things happen and you miss the postseason, you get access to more of those premium picks.

 

My general take is that it's a sure sign that your front office is bad if management can't hit 50 percent on first rounders. Getting a contributor every 2 years isn't hard for competent teams. The success rate in the first is 50-53 percent by most measures and goes down as the draft goes on. Teams are not going to get all pros all the time, but you can get a five year starter at reduced cost a little more than half the time.

 

It's the only access to cost controlled premium talent and the chances of picking a success go down as the draft goes on. Even the Patriots have gotten contributors with 2 of their last 3. The argument I would make is that they just haven't used enough of them.

 

Excluding QB, we have seen teams successfully trade 1 immediate first round pick for a premium talent. Kansas City did it for Clark, Buffalo did for Diggs, Indianapolis did it for Buckner, etc... Making a well timed move when you can reasonably predict a season works sometimes.

 

Where it gets dicey is when we start talking more than one. We've seen Kahlil Mack, Jamal Adams, and Marcus Peters go for more than one first rounder the past few years and it's hard to argue that any of these deals worked. Trading multiple firsts to acquire franchise quarterback is more acceptable. 

 

With the Rams specifically, my issue with this trade is that I just don't subscribe to their view of where their team is. When the Rams played in the Super Bowl in 2018, they had the healthiest and best offensive line in the league, a downfield vertical threatened Cooks in addition to their other good receivers, and they had a dynamic running back in Gurley. Over the past two seasons we've seen the interior of the line decline, and we haven't seen the same downfield passing production because Robert woods and Cooper kupp aren't vertical threats and because they haven't grabbed a running back that can make up Gurleys production. Goff's play has gone up and down as the surrounding talent has gone up and down and while I think Stafford is a little better, he is the type of quarterback that's going to take what's closer to a low level playoff team and turn it into a Super Bowl team.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Mack deal absolutely worked. He's been great, and in one of those seasons the Bears were one of the 3-4 best teams in the league--in no small part because of his play.

[mannc]

8 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

The Mack deal absolutely worked. He's been great, and in one of those seasons the Bears were one of the 3-4 best teams in the league--in no small part because of his play.

They never got far in the playoffs, and now they are in limbo, with no QB.  I don’t think that trade worked, although it’s not Mack’s fault.  So far it hasn’t really panned out for the Raiders either.

[BADOLBILZ]

9 hours ago, FireChans said:

Tre, Edmunds, Allen, Oliver.

 

Only 2 of those players are pretty much guaranteed to be Bills 4 years from now and even that could change.

 

A team like the Jets have only 3 of their first round picks on their roster and honestly who knows about any of them being Jets in 4 years.

 

The Rams saw the insanity of pick valuation and flew in the face of it. 

 

 

My favorite example is that the 2017 Bills had ZERO drought-era first round picks on the field in their playoff game against the Jags.    Tre White was their most recent and only own first rounder on the field that day.   Shaq was the only other one on the roster and he was JAG at that point.

 

That's why I can believe these people who think the Texans should trade Watson for 3 first round picks............in reality that's a pathetic offer for a top 5 QB.    

 

 

[dave mcbride]

35 minutes ago, mannc said:

They never got far in the playoffs, and now they are in limbo, with no QB.  I don’t think that trade worked, although it’s not Mack’s fault.  So far it hasn’t really panned out for the Raiders either.

Well, there is the matter of that missed kick vs. Philly. They should have won that game. 

[BADOLBILZ]

2 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Agree of course that first round picks are at best a 50/50 proposition, and that's 50/50 you get a guy who can play NFL football, not you get a star of stars.

 

Couple months back, though, weren't you arguing the contrary position to whit that the Bills were stupid to trade their first round pick(+) for Diggs in a deep WR class where they could have snagged a talented WR like Jefferson who could contribute as much but on a cheap rookie contract for years?

 

No.

 

The tenor of the thread was how Beane fleeced the Vikings.    He did not.  

 

I supported the trade and understood why he had to make it...........they had failed miserably at getting a WR1..........most recently passing on DK Metcalf in favor of Cody Ford.    

 

Beane wasn't dealing from a position of strength.......even though Diggs had worn out his welcome with Vikings management the Bills were in the more desperate situation.    

 

That has been Beane's MO.........make initial mistakes.........then have to pay above expectation to fix them.   That's why he's in a bad cap situation.   

[mannc]

13 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Well, there is the matter of that missed kick vs. Philly. They should have won that game. 

As I’ve said over and over, kicker is one of the most undervalued positions in the sport.

[Don Otreply]

Like all things “NFL” the hype is, well, shall we say, way over blown, and that includes first round picks,  the league/owners prefer it that way, and frankly so do the fans. 
 

 I’m not sayin there is a lack of importants in first round picks, because we all know how important they can be, (Josh Allen), but the rate at which players taken in the first round don’t “live up to expectations” by teams and let alone the fans is quite high. So trading that pick for a Diggs type player on occasion is in the realm of a smart move. 
 

Imo, with some exceptions, the first round is the round to go strict BPA regardless of position, every other round is a BPA at a position of need pick, or you never have a well rounded team.  Look at our short comings vs KC, need need need, need need... all team have and must fill there needs or they are screwed. 

 

Go Bills!!!

[PrimeTime101]

hmm our last 10+ draft picks

2008 McKelvin DB

2009 Aaron Maybin DE

2010 C.J. Spiller RB

2011 Marcell Darius DT

2012 Stephon Gilmore DB

2013 EJ. Manuel QB

2014 Sammy Watkins WR

2016 Shaq Lawson DE

2017 Tre'Davious White DB

2018 Josh Allen QB  Tremaine Edmunds LB

2019 Ed Oliver DT

 

3 complete Busts. QB drafting early is ALWAYS a crap shoot so lets call it 2 Busts for the sake of understanding that fact. Watkins was a horrible choice but serviceable. For people saying its a 50% bust rate in round 1 well that depends on how good your team is in drafting. from 2016 on I have 0 regrets and trust that we can continue to get good players

 

Lawson had a solid season with Miami

White is a Pro Bowler

Allen is a Pro Bowler

Edmunds is Solid.. not great but solid

Ed Oliver the book is not closed on him yet. he needs better talent around him to write that book.

 

Seems to me this group has done a fine job drafting.. Continue on