You don't draft a guard in the 1st ... or do you?

[BearNorth]

1 hour ago, Turbo44 said:

2 WRs may be excessive, but 2 CB's isn't.  we typically only play 2 LB's, so any that you draft is mostly for ST, We have two top safeties already, have 10 DT/DEs that we probably keep on the team, and a how's a RB getting any PT behind the 3 guys we have (unless it's a 1st round pick). 

Our two top safeties are both going to be 31 when the season starts there are only about 10 safeties in the league older than either of them, and only McCourty and Smith from the Vikings are playing near a similar level.  They will hit the wall, probably best to get someone in here to learn on a rookie deal.

[Turbo44]

4 minutes ago, BearNorth said:

Our two top safeties are both going to be 31 when the season starts there are only about 10 safeties in the league older than either of them, and only McCourty and Smith from the Vikings are playing near a similar level.  They will hit the wall, probably best to get someone in here to learn on a rookie deal.

Fair enough

[GreggTX]

I don't know the field, but you draft the best OL and if your 3rd best OT is still 1 of your top 5, slide him inside. If there is a G there whose talent is on par with other players at that spot, go ahead. I'm wondering if we wouldn't have been better off taking an OT in the 2nd round last year. I like Basham, but he isn't likely to help us any time soon. We say G's don't affect the game much even our weakness there hurt us considerably last year. We say we approach the draft with needs, but when you have to pay several huge salaries, you're going to have them. Right now CB and RG are huge holes and I would add that RT is also. I know Brown filled in admirably and I hope that some day he'll be a starting caliber RT, but he's clearly got a very long way to go to reach that level. We will pay a steep price if we don't address these needs in the top 2 rounds. I'd like to see us trade down and garner 2 top 40 picks to address both positions. This is a bigger than usual draft for Beane. He needs to nail it on days 1 and 2.

[Rocket94]

1 hour ago, Turbo44 said:

Fair enough

It is inevitable...the clock is ticking on Hyde and Poyer.

[HappyDays]

Would you take Quenton Nelson and a Ryan Bates caliber WR/pass rusher/CB? Or Ryan Bates and a Quenton Nelson caliber WR/pass rusher/CB? The 2nd option is a no brainer for me.

 

Elite interior linemen don't change games, they just plug a single spot in a cohesive unit. 1st round picks are for game changing talents. I would take a RB or a safety before IOL in the 1st round. You can find solid IOL in free agency for reasonable deals, or mid-rounds of the draft. Game changing players you either have to draft early or give them record breaking contracts in free agency. I want game changing players on a cost controlled contract for 5 years. Zion Johnson is not and never will be a game changing player even if he's as good as his most optimistic projections.

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by HappyDays

[GoBills808]

8 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

Would you take Quenton Nelson and a Ryan Bates caliber WR/pass rusher/CB? Or Ryan Bates and a Quentin Nelson caliber WR/pass rusher/CB? The 2nd option is a no brainer for me.

 

Elite interior linemen don't change games, they just plug a single spot in a cohesive unit. 1st round picks are for game changing talents. I would take a RB or a safety before IOL in the 1st round. You can find solid IOL in free agency for reasonable deals, or mid-rounds of the draft. Game changing players you either have to draft early or give them record breaking contracts in free agency. I want game changing players on a cost controlled contract for 5 years. Zion Johnson is not and never will be a game changing player even if he's as good as his most optimistic projections.

 

Agree except never RB in the first

[HappyDays]

On 3/28/2022 at 7:36 PM, SoTier said:

The Indianapolis Colts drafted guard Quentin Nelson with the #6 overall pick a few drafts ago.

 

And now what do they do? Are they going to give a guard a $100 million contract? I think that's crazy. The Chiefs gave Joe Thuney an $80 million contract and everyone salivated over how unstoppable their offense would be. One year later they're saying goodbye to the 2nd most important player on their team because they can't meet his contract demands and suddenly their offense looks a lot less potent than it ever has in the Mahomes era. You think Thuney's $22 million cap hit in 2023 has something to do with that? You can find adequate starting guards for $4 to $5 million easily and use the saved cap space to pay actual game changers.

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by HappyDays

[John from Riverside]

If its the best available then I draft him....but I if we went that route I would like to draft a OT that can play OG.

 

I am watching these mock drafts and I see some where all the best WR AND CB's are gone.....what do you do then.....trade down?   Draft Breece Hall?

 

I think in that situation a OL should def be in play

[Thurman#1]

On 3/30/2022 at 1:29 PM, HappyDays said:

Would you take Quenton Nelson and a Ryan Bates caliber WR/pass rusher/CB? Or Ryan Bates and a Quenton Nelson caliber WR/pass rusher/CB? The 2nd option is a no brainer for me.

 

Elite interior linemen don't change games, they just plug a single spot in a cohesive unit. 1st round picks are for game changing talents. I would take a RB or a safety before IOL in the 1st round. You can find solid IOL in free agency for reasonable deals, or mid-rounds of the draft. Game changing players you either have to draft early or give them record breaking contracts in free agency. I want game changing players on a cost controlled contract for 5 years. Zion Johnson is not and never will be a game changing player even if he's as good as his most optimistic projections.

 

 

 

Great interior linemen absolutely change games. Not least by not allowing your QB to be injured or consistently rushed.

 

And plugging a single spot in a unit and moving it from below average to well above average ... that is game-changing.

 

When people say game-changing, they typically mean people who make the play at the ball. And that's the easy to observe guy, said to have "made the play," but that's nonsense. The play is made by eleven guys. It would not have been made if an OL had let a rusher past who put Allen in the hospital.

 

What people mean by game-changing plays is flashy plays, at the point of contact, generally on the ball. Those are cool plays. But anyone who thinks that one guy made any play whatsoever is missing the point. Those should be called something else, maybe splash plays or highlight reel plays.

 

Game-changing plays are by no means limited to splash or highlight reel plays.

 

The biggest game-changers for the Bills were probably Josh Allen, Ryan Bates (when he was plugged in, the increase in offensive efficiency was instantly noticeable, it was consistent and long-lasting. He was the biggest game-changer on the Bills last year, IMO), and whoever replaced him (guys like Dane Jackson did OK, but the defense simply wasn't the same. In a bad way, Jackson was a game-changer, particularly against teams with a number of quality receivers such as the Chiefs.)

 

If we'd had a better CB3, that guy would have been a major game changer even though nobody would really have noticed him.

 

A really good functional line has a massive impact on offensive function. And one guy can absolutely have an OL take a major leap, as we saw with Bates.

 

And when you draft you don't get to choose who's available to you. You don't get to say, "OK, I'll take the Quenton Nelson calibre wide receiver / pass rusher / CB." If you did say that at #25, the answer is likely to be, "He's on the roster of the team that drafted 8th."

 

You take the guy who's as close as you can find to Quenton Nelson calibre (BPA) at a position of need. And this year, IOL is absolutely a position of need.

 

 

[Thurman#1]

On 3/30/2022 at 2:04 PM, HappyDays said:

 

And now what do they do [after giving the big contract to Joe Thuney]? Are they going to give a guard a $100 million contract? I think that's crazy. The Chiefs gave Joe Thuney an $80 million contract and everyone salivated over how unstoppable their offense would be. One year later they're saying goodbye to the 2nd most important player on their team because they can't meet his contract demands and suddenly their offense looks a lot less potent than it ever has in the Mahomes era. You think Thuney's $22 million cap hit in 2023 has something to do with that? You can find adequate starting guards for $4 to $5 million easily and use the saved cap space to pay actual game changers.

 

 

 

I think Thuney's hit has a bit to do with their not having more under the cap next year. Not much, though. Next year he is going to be an $8.1M hit. There isn't the slightest doubt he's worth that.

 

I also think Thuney also has a lot to do with Mahomes' being healthy right now. Mahomes' $35M cap hit had an awful lot more to do with Tyreek Hill not being there than Thuney's $8.1M. It's worth it for Thuney.

 

And that the Chiefs probably just love Tyreek but had a max they wanted to give him, and Tyreek didn't want to give a discount for the hometown team. The reason they aren't bringing back their WR is likely that they didn't want to give him $120M over four years with $72.2M guaranteed. Think he'll have his usual massive impact in Miami with Tua throwing to him as he did last year with Mahomes? I don't. The Chiefs are playing moneyball. It's smart.

 

And so was paying to keep Mahomes healthy and unpestered.

 

And yes, you can find adequate guards for cheap. They won't play as well. You can find adequate guys for cheaper at every position. You will pay a price in efficiency.

 

That's why you take the BPA at a position of need. (IMO in no order: WR, CB, IOL, DLk

 

I'm NOT saying we should draft a guard. I absolutely AM saying that we should strongly consider doing so (and will strongly consider it) if he is the BPA on their board. Keeping Josh Allen unmolested is huge, as is helping keep a real run game going to take some of the pressure off Allen's shoulders.

 

 

Edited March 31, 2022 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

On 3/29/2022 at 9:46 AM, Shaw66 said:

Yeah, I agree with that.  But at 25, or at any place Buffalo could reasonably trade up to, you're not finding a generational guard.    Beyond #5 or in a really good year, #10 or #12, you're just talking about good football players.   So if there's a general talent at guard this season, the Bills aren't getting him.   

 

And what I said still holds.  If you aren't taking a generational talent, taking a really good guard is like taking a really good long-snapper.   Guard just isn't a position that you look to fill with an All-Star.   Might you one day?  Yes, if the stars align.   But you're not looking for guards in the first round.   You just fill in your guard spots as you can.  

 

And, by the way, once in a while you get a guy in the second or third round who turns out to be a great talent and you have him for a long time.  

 

 

A long snapper? In no way. Nobody thinks that, nobody. You know that for an unquestioned fact by comparing salaries for long-snappers to guards and by comparing where long-snappers get picked in the draft and comparing that as well. There's no comparison.

 

A guard protects your QB on every single pass play and your RB on every single run play. It's a crucial piece (they all are) in making your offense work well.

 

At #25, you aren't likely to fill any position with an all-star. Top twelve or so, your odds might be pretty decent. Around #25 you're successful if you get a long-time starter who plays well above-average

 

These are the #25 picks back to 2000:  Travis Etienne, Brandon Aiyuk, Marquise Brown, Hayden Hurst, Jabrill Peppers, Artie Burns, Shaq Thompson, Jason Verrett, Xavier Rhodes, Dont'a Hightower, James Carpenter, Tim Tebow, Vontae Davis, Mike Jenkins, Jon Beason, Santonio Holmes, Jason Campbell, Ahmad Carroll, William Joseph, Charles Grant, Freddie Mitchell, and Chris Hovan.

 

That's the rough spectrum you're probably looking at. There are a few guys there who are/were really able to play. A bunch of good players, and some absolute dogs. If you compare your guard at #25 to an imaginary group of guys playing "like an All-Star," the guard looks terrible. But there aren't a whole lot of all-stars in that group up above. Comparing a guard playing very good ball and protecting Allen and allowing the run game to be better and to take pressure off Allen compared to those guys the comparison is actually pretty reasonable.

 

The value a guy brings is how much better he helps the whole team, the whole system, to play. Guards can help a lot.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

On 3/30/2022 at 12:29 AM, HappyDays said:

Would you take Quenton Nelson and a Ryan Bates caliber WR/pass rusher/CB? Or Ryan Bates and a Quenton Nelson caliber WR/pass rusher/CB? The 2nd option is a no brainer for me.

 

Elite interior linemen don't change games, they just plug a single spot in a cohesive unit. 1st round picks are for game changing talents. I would take a RB or a safety before IOL in the 1st round. You can find solid IOL in free agency for reasonable deals, or mid-rounds of the draft. Game changing players you either have to draft early or give them record breaking contracts in free agency. I want game changing players on a cost controlled contract for 5 years. Zion Johnson is not and never will be a game changing player even if he's as good as his most optimistic projections.

 

 

The only thing is - you have this as an either or.  As though at 25 there is a great guard, but also great WRs, PRs, and CBs.  

 

The way this draft is at 25 you might get a CB who's more likely a 2nd round talent than first.  And the talent at WR might not see the field more htan 30-40% of snaps this year.  I think the value at WR is great, but the impact in 2022 might be limited.  

 

The other thing to consider - people are penciling in the 4th year swing tackle/guard who had 294 snaps in 2021, 82 in 2020, 78 in 2019 - as our starting RG.  Despite him not... playing RG really at all during this time.  While also saying we need to replace dane jackson, who had 193 snaps in 2020, and 484 in 2021.  I agree we could use some speed or whatever and upgrades on the back end etc. but he has played perfectly fine when given snaps.  He's no more of a liability than wallace ever was, and seems to tackle better.  

 

If i had my choice in the first - gimme the top guy on the board.  I assume they'd stay away from pass rusher, but it its a tackle or something it wouldn't shock me at all.  Same with WR - we have good WRs but only 1 is on a rookie deal.  Edmunds is in a walk year - and very expensive.  Someone might want him in a trade.  I'm also content to move down - Try and ger 5 picks across rounds 2-4 - can get CB, RB, WR, IOL, LB in any order and get some people to compete at all of those positions.  

Edited March 31, 2022 by dneveu

[Shaw66]

49 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

A long snapper? In no way. Nobody thinks that, nobody. You know that for an unquestioned fact by comparing salaries for long-snappers to guards and by comparing where long-snappers get picked in the draft and comparing that as well. There's no comparison.

 

A guard protects your QB on every single pass play and your RB on every single run play. It's a crucial piece (they all are) in making your offense work well.

 

At #25, you aren't likely to fill any position with an all-star. Top twelve or so, your odds might be pretty decent. Around #25 you're successful if you get a long-time starter who plays well above-average

 

These are the #25 picks back to 2000:  Travis Etienne, Brandon Aiyuk, Marquise Brown, Hayden Hurst, Jabrill Peppers, Artie Burns, Shaq Thompson, Jason Verrett, Xavier Rhodes, Dont'a Hightower, James Carpenter, Tim Tebow, Vontae Davis, Mike Jenkins, Jon Beason, Santonio Holmes, Jason Campbell, Ahmad Carroll, William Joseph, Charles Grant, Freddie Mitchell, and Chris Hovan.

,

That's the rough spectrum you're probably looking at. There are a few guys there who are/were really able to play. A bunch of good players, and some absolute dogs. If you compare your guard at #25 to an imaginary group of guys playing "like an All-Star," the guard looks terrible. But there aren't a whole lot of all-stars in that group up above. Comparing a guard playing very good ball and protecting Allen and allowing the run game to be better and to take pressure off Allen compared to those guys the comparison is actually pretty reasonable.

 

The value a guy brings is how much better he helps the whole team, the whole system, to play. Guards can help a lot.

Of course guards can help a lot.  

 

The point is that at 25, the best you can hope for is that you're going to a guy who turns out to be really good at his position, like a Tre White.  The difference is that after four years, if you have a Tre White, you're happy to exercise the fifth-year option and pay what it takes to keep him long-term, because his position is so important.  Guard just isn't that important a position.  If you have good tackles and a good center, you can find people to play guard, which is exactly what the Bills have been doing.   Bates, Ford, Boettger, and Saffold isn't a bad plan going into OTAs.  

 

Now, granted, when there's a true stud guard in the draft, it's a different story, but that's a guy who's going in the top 10.  The Bills aren't drafting there.  

 

Some positions are more important than others.   Quarterback, left tackle, edge, corner.   At the other end of the spectrum, you have the long snappers and punters, which are the extreme cases, but among the starting 22, guards and tight ends are at the bottom.  The NFL contract requirements make it unwise to go after a guard in the bottom of the first round.   You can find a guy in the second round who's likely to be nearly as good and doesn't bring with him the contract problem that the guy in the first round does.  For an important position, like offensive tackle, the contract problem is worth it, for a guard, it isn't.  

[SoTier]

24 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Of course guards can help a lot.  

 

The point is that at 25, the best you can hope for is that you're going to a guy who turns out to be really good at his position, like a Tre White.  The difference is that after four years, if you have a Tre White, you're happy to exercise the fifth-year option and pay what it takes to keep him long-term, because his position is so important.  Guard just isn't that important a position.  If you have good tackles and a good center, you can find people to play guard, which is exactly what the Bills have been doing.   Bates, Ford, Boettger, and Saffold isn't a bad plan going into OTAs.  

 

Now, granted, when there's a true stud guard in the draft, it's a different story, but that's a guy who's going in the top 10.  The Bills aren't drafting there.  

 

Some positions are more important than others.   Quarterback, left tackle, edge, corner.   At the other end of the spectrum, you have the long snappers and punters, which are the extreme cases, but among the starting 22, guards and tight ends are at the bottom.  The NFL contract requirements make it unwise to go after a guard in the bottom of the first round.   You can find a guy in the second round who's likely to be nearly as good and doesn't bring with him the contract problem that the guy in the first round does.  For an important position, like offensive tackle, the contract problem is worth it, for a guard, it isn't.  

 

That's simply untrue.  In 20 drafts between 2000 and 2019,  5 guards were taken in the top 10 and 1 was drafted to be an OT.  2 were Pro Bowl and All Pro caliber.  In 20 drafts between 2000 and 2019, 11 guards were taken between #21-#32.  5 were Pro Bowlers and 2 were All Pros.    The bottom of the first round frequently does yield stud guards. 

 

Guards taken in the first round since 2000:

• 2001 - 17 - Steve Hutchinson -  7 PBs, 5 All Pros
• 2002 - 20 - Kendall Simmons
• 2004 - 19 - Vernon Carey - started 107 games for Miami between 2004 and 2011
• 2005 - 32 - Logan Mankins - 7 PBs, 1 All Pro
• 2006 - 23 - Davin Joseph - 2 PBs
• 2007 - 29 - Ben Grubbs - 2 PBs
• 2008 - 15 - Branden Albert - converted to LT, made 2 PBs at LT
• 2010 - 17 - Mike Iupati - 4 PBs, 1 All Pro
• 2011 - 15 - Mike Pouncey - 4 PBs
• 2011 - 23 - Danny Watkins
• 2012 - 24 - Dave DeCastro - 6 PBs, 2 All Pros
• 2012 - 27 - Kevin Zeitler - started 151 games between 2012 and 2021
• 2013 -  7 - Jonathan Cooper
• 2013 - 10 - Chance Warmack
• 2013 - 20 - Kyle Long - 3 PBs
• 2015 -  5  - Brandon Scherff - 5 PBs, 1 All Pro
• 2015  - 9  - Ereck Flowers - converted to OT and then went back to G
• 2015 - 28 - Laken Tomlinson - 1 PB
• 2016 - 28 - Joshua Garnett
• 2016 - 31 - Germain Ifedi
• 2018 -  6 - Quenton Nelson - 4 PBs, 3 All Pros
• 2018 - 23 - Isaiah Wynn, starter in NE
• 2019 - 14 - Chris Lindstrom, starter in ATL

Furthermore, where a particular player was drafted becomes irrelevant after he's played in the NFL for a few years.   If your #25 guard or your #55 guard or your UDFA guard turns out to be a stud, he'll command stud guard money.  If you choose to pay him or not is your choice, but keeping DTs and LBs off your elite QB might be worth something.

 

[NewEra]

On 3/29/2022 at 9:44 AM, BearNorth said:

And the cost to move up a few picks is not usually that high where the Bills are drafting.  Each first round spot you move around pick 25 is basically a 5th round pick.  London is a California guy like JA17.  Also played guard for the Trojans, so suspect he has great quickness.

And the Bills talked to pretty much every first rd wr prospect…..but not London

[Shaw66]

35 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

That's simply untrue.  In 20 drafts between 2000 and 2019,  5 guards were taken in the top 10 and 1 was drafted to be an OT.  2 were Pro Bowl and All Pro caliber.  In 20 drafts between 2000 and 2019, 11 guards were taken between #21-#32.  5 were Pro Bowlers and 2 were All Pros.    The bottom of the first round frequently does yield stud guards. 

 

Guards taken in the first round since 2000:

• 2001 - 17 - Steve Hutchinson -  7 PBs, 5 All Pros
• 2002 - 20 - Kendall Simmons
• 2004 - 19 - Vernon Carey - started 107 games for Miami between 2004 and 2011
• 2005 - 32 - Logan Mankins - 7 PBs, 1 All Pro
• 2006 - 23 - Davin Joseph - 2 PBs
• 2007 - 29 - Ben Grubbs - 2 PBs
• 2008 - 15 - Branden Albert - converted to LT, made 2 PBs at LT
• 2010 - 17 - Mike Iupati - 4 PBs, 1 All Pro
• 2011 - 15 - Mike Pouncey - 4 PBs
• 2011 - 23 - Danny Watkins
• 2012 - 24 - Dave DeCastro - 6 PBs, 2 All Pros
• 2012 - 27 - Kevin Zeitler - started 151 games between 2012 and 2021
• 2013 -  7 - Jonathan Cooper
• 2013 - 10 - Chance Warmack
• 2013 - 20 - Kyle Long - 3 PBs
• 2015 -  5  - Brandon Scherff - 5 PBs, 1 All Pro
• 2015  - 9  - Ereck Flowers - converted to OT and then went back to G
• 2015 - 28 - Laken Tomlinson - 1 PB
• 2016 - 28 - Joshua Garnett
• 2016 - 31 - Germain Ifedi
• 2018 -  6 - Quenton Nelson - 4 PBs, 3 All Pros
• 2018 - 23 - Isaiah Wynn, starter in NE
• 2019 - 14 - Chris Lindstrom, starter in ATL

Furthermore, where a particular player was drafted becomes irrelevant after he's played in the NFL for a few years.   If your #25 guard or your #55 guard or your UDFA guard turns out to be a stud, he'll command stud guard money.  If you choose to pay him or not is your choice, but keeping DTs and LBs off your elite QB might be worth something.

 

That's a great list, and I appreciate your taking the time to put it together.   But you'll have to do more research to disprove my point.  What your list proves is that there are good guards to be had in round one.  I never said there weren't, and I agree there are.   

 

What I said was that teams don't want to spend what they have to spend to keep good guards in their option years and as they hit free agency.   So, there's a greater tendency that you'll lose your first round pick in free agency.   When you draft a corner back who makes the Pro Bowl, you gladly pay the price of the option year, and you extend.  Same with an offensive tackle.   But with a guard, you end up paying the price of a top 5 guard to keep him, and that's more money than most teams want to allocate to a guard as they plan their cap spending.  

 

There are plenty of good guards, sure, and you can draft one if you want.  

 

Look at your list.  20 guards drafted in the first round in 20 years.  That's one a year.   22 starting position on the team, two of them are guards, that would suggest that 10% of the players taken in the first round would be guards.   It's not close to that.  Teams don't draft guards in the first round.   Three or four tackles will go in the first round, never three or four guards. 

[NewEra]

Not anymore we don’t.  

[machine gun kelly]

Thurmon I luv ya bud, but hell no on Guard.  Maybe in the third.  As a Tackle, Spencer Brown was great at right tackle on the third.

 

im still a fan of either CB/WR with the first two picks.  Probably a G in the third, some depth guy and a punter in the 7th.

[RocCityRoller]

Maybe not a OG specifically, but if Tyler Linderbaum (C/OG) falls to 25 do you snag him?

 

Get Allen his version of Kent Hull?

 

Allows Morse to be moved next year when a couple of expensive extensions are due.

[In Summary]

I don't draft a guard in the 1st round, but I don't hesitate to get one in both rounds 3 and 5.

[MrEpsYtown]

4 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

That's simply untrue.  In 20 drafts between 2000 and 2019,  5 guards were taken in the top 10 and 1 was drafted to be an OT.  2 were Pro Bowl and All Pro caliber.  In 20 drafts between 2000 and 2019, 11 guards were taken between #21-#32.  5 were Pro Bowlers and 2 were All Pros.    The bottom of the first round frequently does yield stud guards. 

 

Guards taken in the first round since 2000:

• 2001 - 17 - Steve Hutchinson -  7 PBs, 5 All Pros
• 2002 - 20 - Kendall Simmons
• 2004 - 19 - Vernon Carey - started 107 games for Miami between 2004 and 2011
• 2005 - 32 - Logan Mankins - 7 PBs, 1 All Pro
• 2006 - 23 - Davin Joseph - 2 PBs
• 2007 - 29 - Ben Grubbs - 2 PBs
• 2008 - 15 - Branden Albert - converted to LT, made 2 PBs at LT
• 2010 - 17 - Mike Iupati - 4 PBs, 1 All Pro
• 2011 - 15 - Mike Pouncey - 4 PBs
• 2011 - 23 - Danny Watkins
• 2012 - 24 - Dave DeCastro - 6 PBs, 2 All Pros
• 2012 - 27 - Kevin Zeitler - started 151 games between 2012 and 2021
• 2013 -  7 - Jonathan Cooper
• 2013 - 10 - Chance Warmack
• 2013 - 20 - Kyle Long - 3 PBs
• 2015 -  5  - Brandon Scherff - 5 PBs, 1 All Pro
• 2015  - 9  - Ereck Flowers - converted to OT and then went back to G
• 2015 - 28 - Laken Tomlinson - 1 PB
• 2016 - 28 - Joshua Garnett
• 2016 - 31 - Germain Ifedi
• 2018 -  6 - Quenton Nelson - 4 PBs, 3 All Pros
• 2018 - 23 - Isaiah Wynn, starter in NE
• 2019 - 14 - Chris Lindstrom, starter in ATL

Furthermore, where a particular player was drafted becomes irrelevant after he's played in the NFL for a few years.   If your #25 guard or your #55 guard or your UDFA guard turns out to be a stud, he'll command stud guard money.  If you choose to pay him or not is your choice, but keeping DTs and LBs off your elite QB might be worth something.

 

And my point is that there are two guys on that list whose teams won a Super Bowl, Kendall Simmons with the Steelers and Chance Warmack as a backup with Philly. The impact just isn’t there. A lot of those teams would love to have those picks back.

 

And I am not arguing that a lot of those aren’t all pros, but those picks are better spent elsewhere imo.

Edited March 31, 2022 by MrEpsYtown

[BADOLBILZ]

14 minutes ago, MrEpsYtown said:

And my point is that there are two guys on that list whose teams won a Super Bowl, Kendall Simmons with the Steelers and Chance Warmack as a backup with Philly. The impact just isn’t there. A lot of those teams would love to have those picks back.

 

And I am not arguing that a lot of those aren’t all pros, but those picks are better spent elsewhere imo.

 

 

Your line of thinking is lost on some people...........they don't understand that an all-pro guard has less organizational impact than a simply "good" player at many other positions...........and FAR less impact than an all pro at a key position.

 

Those early picks are your lottery tickets.........some people would rather have a higher chance of winning $5 back than taking greater risk but with a chance to hit the jackpot.  

 

That's a losing proposition in the NFL but there will always be those people who in that moment would have taken low risk stud Quenton Nelson over the ultra high risk Josh Allen if that were the choice...........and those people would also be wondering why new stadium negotiations aren't going so well. 

 

 

[Bill from NYC]

In 2008, my friend @RRich told me that Brandon Albert coming out of UVA would be an all time great guard. I believed him and was 100% sold and was SO hoping that the Bills would draft him. Of course, we did not. Instead we took CB Leotis McKelvin at #11. OT Ryan Clady went next at 12, Albert went at #15. McKelvin took several years to be decent. Albert (who played guard his entire college career) turned out to be a fine LEFT TACKLE in the NFL. 

 

My point? I believe that drafting a first round guard is not a good move in almost every case. But, if a GM  really does believe that there is a Larry Allen type HOF guard out there, drafting him in round 1 would be a wise move, especially on a team (like the 2008 Bills mind you) that has a critical shortage of good blockers.

 

As always, JMO.

Edited April 1, 2022 by Bill from NYC

[Ethan in Cleveland]

On 3/31/2022 at 2:43 PM, MrEpsYtown said:

And my point is that there are two guys on that list whose teams won a Super Bowl, Kendall Simmons with the Steelers and Chance Warmack as a backup with Philly. The impact just isn’t there. A lot of those teams would love to have those picks back.

 

And I am not arguing that a lot of those aren’t all pros, but those picks are better spent elsewhere imo.

Oh c'mon.  You can't use that argument.  Using your logic then taking a 6th round QB often yields multiple SB winners.  

There are so many things that need to happen to win a SB.  Nobody would ever want their pick back if it yielded a ProBowl level player.  Your argument would seem to suggest if they just choose a different position that they would be equally likely to be a ProBowl level player.  The stats suggest otherwise.

[SCBills]

On 3/29/2022 at 5:09 PM, GreggTX said:

I don't know the field, but you draft the best OL and if your 3rd best OT is still 1 of your top 5, slide him inside. If there is a G there whose talent is on par with other players at that spot, go ahead. I'm wondering if we wouldn't have been better off taking an OT in the 2nd round last year. I like Basham, but he isn't likely to help us any time soon. We say G's don't affect the game much even our weakness there hurt us considerably last year. We say we approach the draft with needs, but when you have to pay several huge salaries, you're going to have them. Right now CB and RG are huge holes and I would add that RT is also. I know Brown filled in admirably and I hope that some day he'll be a starting caliber RT, but he's clearly got a very long way to go to reach that level. We will pay a steep price if we don't address these needs in the top 2 rounds. I'd like to see us trade down and garner 2 top 40 picks to address both positions. This is a bigger than usual draft for Beane. He needs to nail it on days 1 and 2.

RG and RT are not huge holes.  
 

Ryan Bates and Spencer Brown are pencilled in as starters there.  Could they be upgraded, sure, but the OL played well down this stretch with those two in the lineup.  
 

We saw what a huge hole looks like in Bills/Chiefs Playoffs 2020… when Chris Jones was devouring Feliciano. 
 

The Bills Offense did whatever it wanted to the Chris Jones led DL in Bills/Chiefs Playoffs 2021. 

[blacklabel]

I don't think they value OG highly enough to take one in the first. Guards in general usually don't go in the first very often unless they're Zach Martin or Quinten Nelson. And I don't think there are any prospects in this year's draft anywhere near that level. 

 

Third round is probably where they try to grab one. They're gonna look for players that can make an early impact in the first two rounds. 

 

I'm also all in with them wheeling and dealing and leaving the draft with something like 4-5 guys taken in the top 125 players as opposed to 7-8 prospects taken across the board. Players picked in rounds 5-7 likely have a tough time making this team. So ya, move around, make some splashes, grab some good players. 

[MrEpsYtown]

14 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

Oh c'mon.  You can't use that argument.  Using your logic then taking a 6th round QB often yields multiple SB winners.  

There are so many things that need to happen to win a SB.  Nobody would ever want their pick back if it yielded a ProBowl level player.  Your argument would seem to suggest if they just choose a different position that they would be equally likely to be a ProBowl level player.  The stats suggest otherwise.

Nah man, my argument is that if they picked a different player at a more dynamic position they have a better chance at a super bowl victory. IMO what yields super bowl victories is dynamic players at high impact positions. 1 QB in the last 20 years is a tiny sample and a complete anomaly. Every first round guard for the last 20 years and only 1 gets a super bowl as a starter? Now that’s a pattern. 

[MrEpsYtown]

Like our teams looks good on paper, but if we don’t add a corner better than Jackson we ain’t winning the super bowl. Maybe we draft a guard and it helps Josh put up more points. But we don’t get a corner, we likely won’t win. 

[SCBills]

5 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Thank you underestimate just how good Allen was in that game…. Despite Williams and Brown having plenty of moments where they were completely blown up… Josh just did was he does and found a way… regardless of the offensive line breakdowns in front of him.

Williams is gone and Brown will be in his 2nd year as a guy who was raw coming into the NFL.  
 

Calling Bates at RG and Brown at RT “huge holes” is not accurate.  
 

We should absolutely draft some OL.. I’m not opposed to taking a Tackle at 25 if someone is there we love, but I’m not stressing out if our starting five coming September is Dawkins-Saffold-Morse-Bates-Brown, with an entire camp/preseason under Kromer. 

[3rdand12]

2 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

In 2008, my friend @RRich told me that Brandon Albert coming out of UVA would be an all time great guard. I believed him and was 100% sold and was SO hoping that the Bills would draft him. Of course, we did not. Instead we took CB Leotis McKelvin at #11. OT Ryan Clady went next at 12, Albert went at #15. McKelvin took several years to be decent. Albert (who played guard his entire college career) turned out to be a fine LEFT TACKLE in the NFL. 

 

My point? I believe that drafting a first round guard is not a good move in almost every case. But, if a GM  really does believe that there is a Larry Allen type HOF guard out there, drafting him in round 1 would be a wise move, especially on a team (like the 2008 Bills mind you) that has a critical shortage of good blockers.

 

As always, JMO.

 May i ?
  I am the one out in the fields apparently. again perhaps 

Top notch guards, and guards who can move to center are Extremely valuable !
 Just underrated , as they are just as key to well oiled O line.
Pro bowl ??
 No glory for the Guardians

Protect Josh.

Draft in the 1st if the player is a solid long term. I would not hate it   

1 hour ago, MrEpsYtown said:

Like our teams looks good on paper, but if we don’t add a corner better than Jackson we ain’t winning the super bowl. Maybe we draft a guard and it helps Josh put up more points. But we don’t get a corner, we likely won’t win. 

both can be had,
to soon to worry 

[Thurman#1]

On 4/1/2022 at 6:43 AM, MrEpsYtown said:

And my point is that there are two guys on that list whose teams won a Super Bowl, Kendall Simmons with the Steelers and Chance Warmack as a backup with Philly. The impact just isn’t there. A lot of those teams would love to have those picks back.

 

And I am not arguing that a lot of those aren’t all pros, but those picks are better spent elsewhere imo.

 

 

Your stat shows the opposite.

 

If out of 13 times it happened in ten years, two teams won Super Bowls, that's really really good. That's far above expectations. Only eight teams have won Super Bowls in that time.

 

But the whole idea of examining that bit of data is ridiculous, most especially because the sample size is too small to have any significance. You can't take one draft choice and pretend that's the reason a team won or didn't win the Super Bowl. In the last ten years, maybe - possibly - ten players drafted made a significant difference in teams winning a Super Bowl. Most of them QBs or pass rushers. Maybe 10 guys. Your idea here is ridiculous.

 

What you want to look at is this ...

 

1)  How many guards drafted in the first were good players? And the answer to that is that an awful lot of them were. Probably because it's an easier position to evaluate for college success in the pros among highly talented guys. 

 

2) How many smart teams have made this move? And again, the answer is that a pretty fair number of the teams that did it were smart. It's a smart move ... depending on the situation, of course. If there's a better more impactful guy there, you ought to grab him instead. If there isn't, it's often smart to pick a guard if he's BPA at a position of need.

 

And guard is a position of need for this team.

 

 

Edited April 2, 2022 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

19 hours ago, MrEpsYtown said:

Nah man, my argument is that if they picked a different player at a more dynamic position they have a better chance at a super bowl victory. IMO what yields super bowl victories is dynamic players at high impact positions. 1 QB in the last 20 years is a tiny sample and a complete anomaly. Every first round guard for the last 20 years and only 1 gets a super bowl as a starter? Now that’s a pattern. 

 

 

Dynamic players at high impact positions don't win Super Bowls. That's one factor, of course. There are many others.

 

It's far more complicated than just this cliche above.

 

A ton of other things are as important or more so, such as having a great QB, such as your franchise QB staying uninjured, having a roster that is consistently solid across the board, having players that fit the system, having a good system, continuity, a good strength and conditioning staff, good play callers, depth, and it goes on and on.

 

If you have terrific skill position guys and a weak center and a decent guard whose backup is poor and that guard gets injured, your season is likely going to have great problems regardless of all those good guys at dynamic positions. Even when only roster is considered, it's far more complicated than just getting guys at the positions you're calling dynamic.

 

Arguably our most impactful player outside of Allen last year was Bates. When he came in the improvement was palpable. Imagine if we'd had someone much better at guard right from the beginning. Which is why IOL is a need for the Bills on nearly every list you see.

 

 

Edited April 2, 2022 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

On 3/29/2022 at 3:54 AM, Gugny said:

 

You asked about drafting a guard in the first round.  My comment had literally everything to do with drafting an OL in the first round and you are calling it irrelevant.  I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

 

Um, no I called it irrelevant because it was irrelevant.

 

Having literally everything to do with drafting an OL in the first round doesn't mean it's therefore relevant. You could say, "The OLs drafted in the first round have all had last names starting in consonants." True or not, that would have been all about drafting OLs in the first, and completely irrelevant.

 

You said, "My wording was lazy.  I just don't think taking the 3rd, 4th or 5th best OL that early is smart. "

 

Irrelevant. Whether your OL is the 1st, 3rd, 4th or 5th best OL has zero importance. All that matters is whether or not he's good enough to be picked as BPA where their pick is.

 

The folks who've already been picked are irrelevant to your decision when it's your pick. Only the unpicked prospects matter.

 

If the Bills have a guard evaluated with a grade of 8.1, and no other player above 8.0 is left on their board, it would be completely irrelevant whether before the draft the Bills had that guard as the best OL or the 5th best. If they'd had five OLs ahead of him, with grades of 8.2 to 8.5, and those five are gone, they're as irrelevant as any of the other players who'd already been taken. Completely so. It only matters who's BPA on the board at a position of need.

 

Edited April 2, 2022 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

19 hours ago, SCBills said:

RG and RT are not huge holes.  
 

Ryan Bates and Spencer Brown are pencilled in as starters there.  Could they be upgraded, sure, but the OL played well down this stretch with those two in the lineup.  
 

We saw what a huge hole looks like in Bills/Chiefs Playoffs 2020… when Chris Jones was devouring Feliciano. 
 

The Bills Offense did whatever it wanted to the Chris Jones led DL in Bills/Chiefs Playoffs 2021. 

 

 

I do hear you, but I totally disagree.

 

Bates is serviceable, as we saw. But as we also saw last year, you can't count on guys playing at the same level the next year. Feliciano had been pretty good in 2020. He regressed quite a bit last year. So did Daryl Williams, who'd been really good at tackle in 2020, but wasn't the next year.

 

If our top five do play without regression, we've got a pretty solid line. How often does that happen, that all five guys play without regression and without missing a game? And how good is our #6? 

 

If one guy goes out, we suddenly see guys moving all around, a lack of continuity and a major drop where the #6 fits in. The way we saw it happen last year.

 

Outside CB2 our lineup looks really good everywhere as long as there is no regression and no injuries. But that's not the way to bet. IMO they have a real need for either a guard/tackle flexible guy or a center/guard flexible guy. Or maybe both.

 

Saffold is on a one-year contract and Morse is aging.

 

IMO at least one of those is a top three need.

Edited April 2, 2022 by Thurman#1

[MrEpsYtown]

1 hour ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Dynamic players at high impact positions don't win Super Bowls. That's one factor, of course. There are many others.

 

It's far more complicated than just this cliche above.

 

A ton of other things are as important or more so, such as having a great QB, such as your franchise QB staying uninjured, having a roster that is consistently solid across the board, having players that fit the system, having a good system, continuity, a good strength and conditioning staff, good play callers, depth, and it goes on and on.

 

If you have terrific skill position guys and a weak center and a decent guard whose backup is poor and that guard gets injured, your season is likely going to have great problems regardless of all those good guys at dynamic positions. Even when only roster is considered, it's far more complicated than just getting guys at the positions you're calling dynamic.

 

Arguably our most impactful player outside of Allen last year was Bates. When he came in the improvement was palpable. Imagine if we'd had someone much better at guard right from the beginning. Which is why IOL is a need for the Bills on nearly every list you see.

 

 

 

But Thurm, it was a list of 20 years of first round guards all of whom except for 2 (1 as a starter and 1 as a backup) who have not won a Super Bowl. It isn't cliche, it's a fact. Look at all the super bowl winner the last 20 years and many of those lines are put together in the mid rounds. 

 

Whether Bates came in or not, I don't think anything in our fate changed last year if say Boettger stays healthy. And btw, Bates and Boettger were both UDFAs. Don't draft these guys in the first round. You can get them everywhere.  Now if we had a corner who wasn't slower than my grandmother whose dead, well then, our fate may have been different. Perhaps if we had higher level talent to fill in for Tre'davious White as well. That changes our fate. A guard does not.   

1 hour ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Your stat shows the opposite.

 

If out of 13 times it happened in ten years, two teams won Super Bowls, that's really really good. That's far above expectations. Only eight teams have won Super Bowls in that time.

 

But the whole idea of examining that bit of data is ridiculous, most especially because the sample size is too small to have any significance. You can't take one draft choice and pretend that's the reason a team won or didn't win the Super Bowl. In the last ten years, maybe - possibly - ten players drafted made a significant difference in teams winning a Super Bowl. Most of them QBs or pass rushers. Maybe 10 guys. Your idea here is ridiculous.

 

What you want to look at is this ...

 

1)  How many guards drafted in the first were good players? And the answer to that is that an awful lot of them were. Probably because it's an easier position to evaluate for college success in the pros among highly talented guys. 

 

2) How many smart teams have made this move? And again, the answer is that a pretty fair number of the teams that did it were smart. It's a smart move ... depending on the situation, of course. If there's a better more impactful guy there, you ought to grab him instead. If there isn't, it's often smart to pick a guard if he's BPA at a position of need.

 

And guard is a position of need for this team.

 

 

 

You want to win a super bowl or draft a solid guard? That's the choice in my mind. Winning is how you measure success. 

[ndirish1978]

On 3/28/2022 at 11:52 AM, Thurman#1 said:

I've seen this several times lately, stated as a certainty.

 

And it's at best questionable.

 

In the old days, when we were drafting around 10th year after year, I used to say that we shouldn't draft a guard there unless we were getting a Hutchinson or a Zack Martin. But drafting 25th, you don't need to be getting a Quentin Nelson.

 

 

IMO there is one major factor you're missing here. That's the first round ability to keep someone on a 5th year option. From a cap perspective you want to use that tool on a premium skill position where you can keep what would be a more expensive player for less and for longer. With prices going through the roof for WRs and CBs, you benefit from that 5th year option, especially for non top-10 picks. Here is an primer from https://frontofficenfl.com/2017/03/27/nfl-rookie-contracts-explained-fifth-year-option/

Quote

 

The option for top-ten picks is set at an amount equal to the salary of the Transition Tender (set in Article 10, Section 4 of the CBA) for the player’s fourth contract year. This salary is calculated, to put it simply, by finding the average of the top ten highest Prior Year Salaries for players at the same position. Positions are defined by where a player spent the most plays during the previous season (Sec. 7, (a), 31), unless you ask Jimmy Graham.

For players selected between 11th and 32nd in the draft, the same calculation is used to compute their salaries. The difference lies in what is averaged; rather than the top ten, the 3rd-25th highest Prior Year Salaries for the player’s position will be used.

 

 

I'd rather use that 5th year option on a CB, DE or WR rather than a G because I think it results in a better deal for the team in regards to money allocated towards a position. 

[Warriorspikes51]

No.  Bates starts at LG. Saffold at RG.  Boettger is solid depth.  
 

a few options. Trade Ford + late pick for another G. Sign Trai Turner/another depth UFA

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, MrEpsYtown said:

 

But Thurm, it was a list of 20 years of first round guards all of whom except for 2 (1 as a starter and 1 as a backup) who have not won a Super Bowl. It isn't cliche, it's a fact. Look at all the super bowl winner the last 20 years and many of those lines are put together in the mid rounds. 

 

Whether Bates came in or not, I don't think anything in our fate changed last year if say Boettger stays healthy. And btw, Bates and Boettger were both UDFAs. Don't draft these guys in the first round. You can get them everywhere.  Now if we had a corner who wasn't slower than my grandmother whose dead, well then, our fate may have been different. Perhaps if we had higher level talent to fill in for Tre'davious White as well. That changes our fate. A guard does not.   

 

 

 

 

Picking one guy, one draft pick, with the possible exception of your QB (only if he's elite) and pretending that has more than a small impact on whether you win a Super Bowl is ridiculous. The question is whether he was a good pick. And if you're wondering whether a tactic is smart, you look at whether smart teams use it. From this list, it's clear they do.

 

Correlating draft picks like Mahomes and Brady to Super Bowl wins makes sense. There are very few people who you can say that about. Was Megatron a bad draft pick because he didn't win a Super Bowl? J.J. Watt? Earl Campbell? Dan Fouts? Tony Gonzalez? Bruce Smith? Jim Kelly? Thurman Thomas? Dan Marino?

 

Super Bowl wins are SIMPLY NOT single guy achievements. About 99.5% of guys who win Super Bowls do so because they were drafted by the right team. It's not the other way around. Pretending it is makes zero sense.

 

You judge a draft pick by how well he played. The large majority of that list were damn good picks. They succeeded at significantly higher rates than most first-rounders.

 

It's been said, intelligently, that win-loss record is not a QB stat. That's correct. It's a team stat. There's a reason why the actual name of that stat is "Team Record in Games Started by this QB (Regular Season)." It's not a QB stat. It's also not a WR stat. Or a CB stat. Or an OG stat. It's a team stat.

 

Much less so is Super Bowl wins an individual stat. Again, a team stat.

 

 

Edited April 2, 2022 by Thurman#1

[CookieG]

On 3/31/2022 at 4:43 PM, MrEpsYtown said:

And my point is that there are two guys on that list whose teams won a Super Bowl, Kendall Simmons with the Steelers and Chance Warmack as a backup with Philly. The impact just isn’t there. A lot of those teams would love to have those picks back.

 

And I am not arguing that a lot of those aren’t all pros, but those picks are better spent elsewhere imo.

I'm sure you realize that the same standard can be applied to other positions as well, especially when the limiting factor is "winning the Superbowl.

 

For example, I went back and looked at the DB's taken in the 1st round since 2012.  There were probably 60 taken. That is both corners and safeties.

 

https://www.drafthistory.com/index.php/positions/db

 

I could only find 2 who won a SB, and neither with the team that drafted them (Ramsey this past year and Gilmore with the Pats.). There might be 1 or 2 more on that long, long list. 

 

But using that logic...db isn't a very impactful position.

 

 

 

[MrEpsYtown]

2 minutes ago, CookieG said:

I'm sure you realize that the same standard can be applied to other positions as well, especially when the limiting factor is "winning the Superbowl.

 

For example, I went back and looked at the DB's taken in the 1st round since 2012.  There were probably 60 taken. That is both corners and safeties.

 

https://www.drafthistory.com/index.php/positions/db

 

I could only find 2 who won a SB, and neither with the team that drafted them (Ramsey this past year and Gilmore with the Pats.). There might be 1 or 2 more on that long, long list. 

 

But using that logic...db isn't a very impactful position.

 

 

 

Yeah my next step in this story was to look at other positions to see which ones led to the most Chips. Thanks for doing that.