atlbillsfan1975 Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machine gun kelly Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 3, 2021 Author Share Posted February 3, 2021 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbfla10 Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGMcD2 Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChans Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloRebound Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y2zipper Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGMcD2 Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 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. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 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. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 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. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Otreply Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 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!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeTime101 Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts